Public input needed: Pacific Spirit Regional Park Service Yard Online Questionnaire — Deadline July 13

Pacific Spirit Park July 2016, service_yard, 3 sites, Metro Vancouver

Three sites being considered by Metro Vancouver for a new service yard inside Pacific Spirit Regional Park, near UBC

The public is encouraged to provide input to the GVRD (Metro Vancouver) regarding construction of a proposed service yard in the immensely popular Pacific Spirit Regional Park.

 

“Metro Vancouver’s busiest regional park needs a new service yard. The existing service yard no longer meets the needs of the park, and cannot be replaced at the current site.”

Three sites are proposed as options – “Little Australia,” “29th & Imperial,” and “Sedgewick Fill Site.”

An online survey is available.
http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/parks/learn/projects-and-initiatives/pacific-spirit-service-yard-replacement/Pages/Service-Yard-Questionaire.aspx

Deadline: July 13, 2016.
(There will apparently be additional opportunities to provide input to the planning process in the fall/winter 2016, but early input will probably have more influence on the outcomes.)

Civic activist Marilyn Hogan has listed several concerns, which people may wish to consider. See her Facebook post, which we have excerpted in part further below:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1538942366423814/permalink/1632136093771107/

Below are a few excerpts of the official survey, for the record.

Pacific Spirit Park July 2016, proposed_service_yard_final-web

Conceptual design, site to be determined.

 

What is proposed for the service yard?
Within the service yard will be facilities and storage required to service and maintain the park, e.g. secure storage for shovels, loppers, mower, forest fire-fighting equipment, storage sheds for wheelbarrows, lumber, fencing material, signage, yard/outdoor storage for gravel, garbage and recycling bins, vehicles, workshop and facilities for staff, and room for storing native plants for restoration projects.

Service Yard Site Evaluation
Staff are reviewing a number of sites within the park for suitability. Sites are being assessed based on a number of criteria including:

  • Site (certainty of tenure, no conflict with existing infrastructure such as BC Hydro right-of-way)
  • Impact on the people (low impact to park visitor experience, not near residential areas)
  • Impact on the park (ecology, cultural resources and existing park facilities)
  • Practicality (safe access, size of about 4,000 m2, central location, utility servicing, site preparation costs)

****************

Some comments by Marilyn Hogan on her Facebook page.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1538942366423814/permalink/1632136093771107/

Sedgewck Fill site (Option #7) is what Metro is strongly recommending and the chart says that this option meets the criteria for the best location. But it does NOT! This is right near Imperial and 16th Ave. Not only is Imperial the ONLY street in Vancouver that does not have artificial light, but this is right where there is important owl habitat and home to other wildlife in the area. Besides light pollution that the yard would create, the ongoing noise at that location would be disturbing to birds and other wildlife. NO to Sedgewick!

So here are MY two preferences:
1) Put the yard where the park headquarters used to be off 16th and hold Night Quest at Sedgewick or somewhere else in the park. This option is not even on their chart. It involves virtually no destruction of the natural surroundings and nothing that would add artificial light near Imperial and 16th, except for one night a year if they held Night Quest there. Imperial is the ONLY street in Vancouver that has no artificial light. Let’s keep it that way!

OR

2) Leave Night Quest where it is at the old park headquarters, and put the service yard at Little Australia (Option #2). This involves a little more environmental impact than option one — but not as bad as the other alternatives on the chart. With this option, they could leave Night Quest where it is and situate the yard at Option #2, LITTLE AUSTRALIA.
These two options are what I see as the only reasonable alternative choices and ones that involves the least amount of habitat destruction.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Public input needed: Pacific Spirit Regional Park Service Yard Online Questionnaire — Deadline July 13

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s