Tomorrow night, Freedom Mobile is back seeking a Sooke council "concurrence" for a 45-metre cell phone tower (aka "wireless mobile base station") disguised within the branches of a pine tree on a parcel of private, rural-residential land just east and north of the corner of Glinz Lake Road and Sooke Rd. I'm writing this blog item as preparation and so I'll have a reference for future recurrences of this matter as mobile networks follow population growth and expand in viral fashion. 

If approved by Ottawa, this would be the approx. 48th cell phone transmission link in the region's cellular network. Any installation of gear below 15 meters is not subject to public process, so we don't hear often about the growing complexity of the mobile network locally ... and nationwide.  

And when citizens do learn about it, they tend to be concerned (as was the case in June, 2012 when Alcatel-Lucent Canada, now merged into Nokia Networks, attempted to plant a 40-meter wireless communications mono tower directly behind the Lazy Gecko in the town centre . I have a supplementary council agenda here dated June 25, 2012 packed with letters of complaint and a petition signed by 613 locals. No, it didn't go ahead, in part on the grounds of Sooke's commitment to town-centre beautification. At about that same time, incidentally, Telus secured a building permit from the CRD for a much less obtrusive 49-meter tower in Otter Point's Sooke Business Park that extended cell phone and wireless coverage west to Kemp Lake Road.)

In the case of tomorrow's agenda, this will be the second attempt by Freedom, Shaw Communication's mobile service provider, to patch up the local network along the rocky portion of Sooke Road in the vicinity of 17 Mile House. They're doing so for their own competitive edge but, as I understand it, Rogers and Telus customers would benefit as well given that Ottawa insists that all service providers play ball together and can tap into each other's infrastructure.

No question this stretch of #14 is known for its service interruptions. Carolyn and I tested our Virgin Mobile phones yesterday afternoon, and we experienced drop-outs near Connie Road. The connection was cut for a matter of seconds and quickly re-established a few hundred meters down the road. Otherwise reception was fine from Sooke to Langford. (Others will have had different, quite likely much more frustrating experiences than us given that we don't commute and are infrequent cell phone users.) 

In July 2017, council honoured the wishes of part of the Glinz Lake neighbourhood by voting 4 vs 3 to send a "non-concurrence" recommendation to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED, formerly Industry Canada) regarding the Freedom Mobile application.

ISED staff has the final say in all decisions yet they are also mandated to listen closely to citizen input and local government recommendations. When no community approval is forthcoming, the applicant is encouraged to try, try again, and so Freedom is back for an encore bid. (The company was inspired, in part, by another 4 vs 3 vote, this time for concurrence, re: a Sept. 17, 2017 application for a tower in the Otter Point Rd and Laronde area, where only a few residents raised objections. Last September, Freedom also won council thumb's up for a tower on the Butler Bros. industrial lands behind EMCS; that same night council also approved a Rogers tower at Otter Point & Wadams Way to boost town-centre coverage).  
 
The Glinz Lake 'no' vote two summers ago respected area neighbours who voiced concerns. This same posse is back with a new 25-signature petition representing, it states, "every property surrounding the proposed tower site except for two properties (from) which the occupants are on holidays." Writes one resident: "In short, (the tower) is not wanted here ... I find it very hard to believe that this is the only suitable location for your communication facility." (Edit: As Neil Poirier notes below, not everyone in this area is opposed to the tower.) 

As in examples from numerous communities in Canada, the fears are at least threefold:

i) Health concerns about electromagnetic radiation
ii) The tower's impact on real-estate values.
iii) The aesthetics of a steel monolith (aka eyesore)  

The regulators do take seriously the public's concerns about the latter two points ~ house equity and landscape aesthetics. Hence Freedom is returning with the proposal for a "monopine" tower, one disguised as I said at the outset to look like a pine tree so as to blend into the surrounding forest. (This in contrast to the narrow smoke stack Telus tower that rises above the drive-thru lane in the Village Foods plaza ~ a utilitarian model in an era when disguising cell towers has become an industrial artform ... as per the examples here, which will either be cool or kitchy depending on your perspective).

Real-estate values? This US article states that potential buyers are more wary of homes near towers and that list prices will suffer. Ottawa's Report on the National Antenna Policy Review (modified Aug. 2012) discussed real-estate impacts. <clip> "In 2001, the assessed values of sixteen residential properties located in Colwood, British Columbia were reduced by BC Assessment by an average of 7.2% (approx. $9,500 each) due to the aesthetic impacts of a broadcasting antenna tower installation that had been recently upgraded." 

Health Canada does not regard radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) as a threat to human health. Like the American Cancer Foundation, it figures that the "risk perception" by the public is far worse than the dangers.  Other nations adhere more closely than Canada does to the "precautionary principle," which dictates that we humans need to go slow with new technologies given potentially unpredictable, long-term outcomes. 

Links 
Government of Canada
~ Facts About Cell Phone Towers 
~ Licensing procedures ~ Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems 
~ Guide to Assist Land-Use Authorities in Developing Antenna System Siting Protocols 

Health Issues
~ Canadian Cancer Society: "Current evidence doesn't show any short-term or long-term health effects from the signals produced by cellphone towers. Ongoing research is still looking at the relationship between cancer and radio frequency exposure from all sources."  

~ WorkSafe BC 101 on non-ionizing radiation 
~ World Health Organization 
~ Safety of Cell Phones & Cell Phone Towers (Health Canada) 
~ Generation Zapped (screened at Sooke's Awareness Film Night two Decembers ago).
~ Physicians for Safe Technology 
~ C4ST (Canadians For Safe Technology)
~ PDF file of case studies from Electromagnetic Health.org 
~ CBC Marketplace episode (March 2017( ~ "The Secret Inside Your Phone: Cellphone Safety" (detailing health risks to those who use hand-held phones) + related consumer survey 

~ Best Cell Phone Coverage in British Columbia (Nov. 2018) 
<clip> "Populated areas of Vancouver Island have good coverage by Bell, Telus and Rogers. Signal is strong from the Greater Victoria Region travelling along the Trans-Canada to Nanaimo, and continuing north through to Campbell River. Coverage goes inland towards Port Alberni, but aside from that the interior coverage on the island is largely absent by Bell and Telus. Rogers has inconsistent spots of service, but service does exist. On the west coast of the island, signal drops about 30 km west of Victoria along Highway 14, but there's coverage for a stretch along the ports around Tofino and Ucluelet. To the north, Rogers has a slightly larger coverage area around Port Hardy and Port McNeill. Bell and Telus both have better coverage on the mainland side of the straight, especially in Port Neville where Rogers has no service." 

Another long council meeting on Monday evening. We filed out into the frosty night at approx. 11:30. A half-hour earlier I'd publicly confessed to creeping brain fog and lessened ability to engage in a complicated discussion (which at that point related to how we should be proceeding on the matter of council remuneration; as the Economic Development Group's Doug Wittich noted in a fulsome report the EDG prepared independently and submitted earlier in the evening, council and Mayor pay is pretty lousy by any municipal standard ~ for council, approx. $9.77 per hour for a 20-hour week = $10,100 and something per year. Councillor Parkinson would like us to strike a committee or task force to ensure hands-free transparency; Councillor Logins says we should get on with it, use the materials we have -- namely, the EDG's study and a compensation review of Van Isle and Lower Mainland council salaries conducted in Nov. 2017 by the District of Central Saanich -- and make some prompt decisions (as SD #62's board does, for instance, re: its own compensation). I believe we tabled the matter for the next meeting. Fact: I'm not going to get rich any which way from public service, but no question we need to up the pay scale so as to, in future, attract talented individuals of all ages and working circumstances who might, for instance, be more resilient  and less prone to meeting fatigue than me. The least we can do is reinstitute the automatic annual adjustment tied to the Consumer Price Index that was in effect in the last of Mayor Evans' terms and has been frozen since the start of Mayor Milne's term seven years ago).

There is much about the evening that I could address here, of course, but time is tight as I have my first meeting with the Victoria Family Court & Youth Justice Committee to prepare for later today. Instead I'm cutting-and-pasting the comments and the printed-out portion of the research notes I prepared for the latest chapter in the ongoing saga of non-conforming businesses in the Gateway Residential area. I spent hours replaying and transcribing the three-hour Oct. 1 public hearing that led to the OCP amendment and a subsequent set of related decisions. As it turned out, we again voted 5 to 2 in favour of moving forward as we gave third reading to the zoning amendment that will allow said businesses to apply for Temporary Use Permits.

I was intending to read some of the wise comments from Oct. 1 back into the record along with my own pre-prepared thoughts. In the heat of the moment, however, I opted to wing it and rambled rather ineffectively, I feel in hindsight.  Rather than just let these notes go fallow, here they are in full for whoever might be interested. As Derek Lewers pointed out, municipal insurance will cover any potential court costs, so my fears about the loss of big bucks are not entirely warranted. (Though as municipal expert Tracey Lorensen said during the CRD councillor orientation sessions, "the law is a crude way to resolve issues.") And if you're familiar with the myth about the 'sword of Damocles,' you'll realize it wasn't apt in the context I use here or when I referenced it on Monday night. The point I intended to make: Dropping the axe on a particular non-conforming business is unfair given all the inconsistencies and imponderables at play, especially when a process has been identified by the District's lawyers and professional staff that will ideally lead to an as fair-as-it-can-be resolution. 

​
COMMENTS/NOTES for PUBLIC HEARING,  Jan. 14, 2019
 
TOP CONCERN -- Good governance + keep the District out of court on this matter ... to do that we are seeking the fairest, best possible solution ~ one that accepts that we as a District have had, and continue to experience, what the Mayor has described as growing pains ... ones much like those experienced by every community no matter how small or big. Now we're dancing as fast, intelligently and fairly as we can in trying to broker a solution. That's commendable and the right thing to do given the history and complexities. 
 
Yes, Sooke's non-conforming businesses ~ however few or many there are, and no matter where they're located in the District ~ should have been read the riot act long ago .... cease-and-desist notices should have been both issued and enforced. They would have been and will in future if Sooke switches away from a complaint-driven system and allows its bylaw officers to act as required when they spot offences ~ as Councillor Reay said at the Oct. 1st hearing: "I think it is time that the District move into a new phase of being proactive in ensuring there is compliance with zoning rather than reactive. Waiting on complaints will the bane of future councils. This will not stop."
 
The fact is our bylaws haven't been enforced evenly ... or entirely ... or even (who knows) partially.  ... and that perhaps reflects the attitude of the people who lobbied hard for incorporation back in 1999 .... the 1400 or so who voted in favour of our exit from the CRD ... those with a libertarian, don't tread-on-us attitude towards government oversight ~ who were quite happy to be operating in gray zones and wanted to carry on doing so.
 
I spent a fair bit of time transcribing the videotape from the Oct. 1 public hearing ... more than three dozen people spoke that night, for and against and straddling the middle ground. It's pretty amazing document of a community that is split in a number of ways ... and it led to a tight 4 vs. 3 vote that has brought us to tonight. 
 
Here's a telling quote from Councillor Kevin Pearson: "We're a rural community that has transitioned into an urban community. That transition brings with it a lot of historic wrongs. Deals were made -- wink/nod/go ahead and do these things -- and it continued on through our history. It's time we need to start growing up, applying the rules and regulations, and acknowledging what our history has been."
 
Wielding the sword of Damocles at this point may seem just and right in 2019 ~ and the Lewers family, other business owners who've played by the rules and various speakers on Oct. 1 have certainly given us a long list of reasons, rationales and valid arguments to do so ~ yet there are also the matters raised by Ms. Faulkner, Mr. Drivers and those who supported his business at the previous public hearing ... Laurel Faulker-Killham: "This is the case of a landowner who has been doing something for a very long time with what appears to the approval, blessing, knowledge of the local government." 
 
Following the letter of the law and enforcing it in 2019 after letting things slide for nearly two decades is not the answer here, and this is in the opinion of the District's professional staff, its lawyers, the Mayor, the three other councillors who voted for this current process on Oct. 1 and the five of us who have been voting to continue down this road in recent months. 
 
Whatever happens, as Councillor Kasper said back on Oct. 1, we're likely not going to walk away without paying a fortune in legal bills. We have better things to spend our limited public monies on ... as we'll hear tonight, there's the matter of a new $800k fire truck + $150k for washrooms and water fountains at John Phillips and Whiffin Spit + of course, a huge want list of sidewalks, street lights, an east-west connector road, sewer system improvement and expansion + all the other wishes identified in strategic plans and our latest Five Year Plan.  
 
I believe that the recommendations from District staff and the District's lawyers is that best way forward. 
 
2010 OCP (pg. 76) section 5.2 Gateway Residential 
 
Under Policies ... item g) "Permit, by temporary use permit, the continuation of historic non-conforming, non-residential uses that are outside the scope of home-based business regulations." 
 
Under Action Items item 5.2.4, item d) "Review the need for a highway commercial-type land use designation in the area adjacent to Highway 14 to accommodate historic non-residential land usesand appropriate new non-residential uses." 
 
That latter action item hasn't happened yet but it will during the OCP review this year ... 
 
We, the people, get to determine what "commercial highway-type" zoning might look like in Saseenos, by which I mean specifically from Cooper's Cove to Ayum Creek. 
 
C1 - Neighbourhood Commercial-- artisan industries, micro-breweries, bakery, restaurant. 
 
C2 - General Commercial-- which includes auto service, amusement facility, bank, funeral home, hotel/motel
 
C3 - Service Commercial-- body & paint shops, machine shops, vehicle repair ... 
 
Or some fresh Gateway-specific, Cooper's Cove to Ayum Creek-only zoning that will arise from the process? That's for the open houses and focus groups to determine in the months ahead. 
 
 I'd like to take us forward 18 months or so into the future ... 
 
1. Non-conforming businesses ~ at least one of them, at any rate ~ have continued operating in the interim with Temporary Use Permits whose strict-parent conditions re: noise, operating hours, etc. etc.  are enforced and regulated. 
 
2. OCP review has taken place and our vision for the community as a whole and its neighbourhood parts has been refreshed. 
 
3. Vision for Saseenos and its commercial node has been analyzed and extended into the future
 
4. One idea I'm fond of ~ If and when Sooke Road is straightened as per one of the suggestions in the Ministry of Transportation's Hwy #14 report last year and the constant thrum of traffic has been diverted, and even if not  ... involves the Coopers Cove to Ayum Creek zone evolving into a prime south island daytrip location-- 40 minutes from the Inner Harbour, a nice downhill glide from the Galloping Goose.  
 
Cooperative marketing efforts by Saseenos businesses, which I understand did take place once upon a not-that-distant time ago, are drawing visitors to a whole range of activities: Kayaking tours departing from Cooper's Cove ... outdoor adventure education workshops ... an overnight stay at one of the local oceanfront lodges or a revitalized Sunny Shores ... time well spent in a brewery tasting room ... shopping at a farmgate with a petting zoo and tea garden ... a walk along Ayum Creek out to Goodrich Penninsula, which one day could be home to who knows what -- perhaps, as some have suggested, the headquarters for some kind of outdoor adventure operation -- perhaps a national headquarters for Surf Canada with an artificial wave machine as one local wise guy has suggested ... or, as former fire chief Steve Sorenson has dreamed, a Great Wolf Lodge family waterpark. One of the latter is planned for someplace on the west coast -- Powell River and Surrey were potential locations, but both have fallen through. Why not Sooke?   
 
 Daytrippers might also have the opportunity to visit a hot-rod museum and check out vintage cars in a one-of-a-kind used car lot dedicated to vehicles that pre-date the Beatles. We are a town that's proud of its vintage cars, and this along with the car show on the Flats each summer fits our history and identity.

Possibly, perhaps quite likely, C3 welding activities would not pass muster during the OCP review and the new commercial highway zoning would exclude it. If that's the case, then this one particular non-conforming business will need to relocate to other industrial lands in the Sooke/Langford region. 
 
Keeping the process alive as we move forward with the OCP review will allow businesses to continue to operate and, most significantly, will keep us out of court.  Rick Kasper on Oct. 1: " I do not want to see this community go through a long protracted court case that could cost thousands and thousands of dollars. It's not an issue I would want any council to wrestle with. The legal steps that would have to be taken to stop this operation are lengthy, time-consuming and expensive. Is that in the public interest in the long run? I don't think so." 
 
The way forward ... 

1. Non-conforming businesses apply for TUP

2.District to receive TUP applications. First & second readings + public hearing.
 
3. Strict, enforceable conditions re: operating hours, riparian measures, noise abatement, buffer zone, lighting of the site, etc. 

4. TUP for a one-year period (?) that can be pulled if non-compliant. 
 
5. Full proviso that the OCP review is going ahead and that the TUP may well NOT be renewed should the community determine that a particular use is not wanted in this area. 
 

****************************************************************************
 
Random notes ... 
 
TUP for a three-year term with option of a one-year renewal ... clarify ?? (one year?) 

Ivy Campbell ~ if this amendment is approved and a TUP will come soon thereafter after a minor zoning amendment, there is still a chance through the OCP amendment that this is not the appropriate place for heavier commercial or industrial, then it would have to be reassessed. ​
 
Taxes: Classification is determined by BC Assessment. 
Assessed at $621k as of July 1, 2018
Shell across the street (5529 Sooke Rd. ~ $958k)
Lewers (5526 Sooke Rd. ~ $382,300 ... farmland) 
 
Driver now assessed at a split rate -- 50 percent commercial, 50 percent residential. 
 
2014 forward has been paid at this split rate. 
All years previous have been paid at agricultural rate. 
 
Brent Blackhall: "BC Assessment uses a highest and best use of the land. 
They've determined that this is a commercial vs. an industrial use. 
They may not be aware of this current TUP if it were to be granted. 
They do desk audits all the time. 
They are aware of the hot button properties around here.
 
If it didn't have commercial classification, we'd be concerned about that. 
It is up to BC Assessment. Change the proportion of it. Or consider it to be industrial." 
 
Laurel Faulker-Killham: "In my review so far of information, the evidence discloses that from the start that these uses were considered to be within what is permitted, and over time there has been a thinking shift.   In cases where there is ambiguity ... courts will generally protect the land owner. 
 
Kasper: 10-year span between 2007 and 2017 ... No record of any activities or action taken by the DOS against this property.  
 
Kilham: Driver interfaced with the District, inquired at various times, and had the status of his 'lawful non-conforming' status confirmed, and continued to do business with the District
 
Lewers: pollution, odor, noise, light, traffic, viewscapes, parking or loading.  Empathy.  What a nightmare. 
 
CRD Zoning Bylaw #2040 was applicable when Mr. Driver took over
lot size = .86 hectare (less than one) THEREFORE the CRD Home Business definitions did not apply (must be one hectare or more) to this property 
 
Oct. 1 comments from Langford's Mike Wignell: "Mr. Driver has started a business and has now grown beyond its original location. We have had situations like this in Langford ... and when they get successful, they have to move.
Set up a process where Mr. Driver can continue to operate where he is, but on a defined time frame ... longer-term he will be moving to a new location. A consultative process, as long as Mr. Driver recognizes that long term it won't work there ... get what guarantees you need and support him/encourage him to move to a better location in Sooke that is more industrialized." 
 
Maja Tait: "Part of the growth -- it's painful. We are a young municipality and we're hitting pain along the way.  How do we grow and evolve? We are not the only community faced with this -- everyone struggles with this at one point in time.  It is not a problem unique to Sooke. We are looking for fairness right across the board."I would support a text amendment to the OCP for a Temporary Use Permit. It is fair to a business that needs to have a transition period.  The terms and conditions of that transition period must be clearly stated." 
 
Bev Berger: "As stated by our head planner and respecting the legal advice staff have received, I support the staff recommendation to afford all the residents in the OCP as designated as Gateway Residential the opportunity to apply for a permit."
 
Rick Kasper: "I want to see this community move on and ensure that the activities that do occur are on a temporary basis until future deliberations occur regarding the community plan ... stringent conditions attached to whatever those uses shall be.
 
Tait:"The OCP does need to be re-done. We see where it falls out of sync with a dynamic, growing community like Sooke and it provides that opportunity for the community to weigh in and see how these uses find their home in our community"

​

[Updated (12/18/2018) ~ My tally of housing starts and upcoming projects now includes the newly resold Notts Brook property off Otter Point Road on the western third of our old 18-hole golf course (whose covenant was controversially deep-sixed in the mid-'00s to facilitate, I suggest with a positive reframe, exactly this ~ 127 homes on 20 acres, as the original plan stated, not far north of our currently designated Town Centre and within easy walking distance of services, shops and, the best legacy of that egregious covenant shred, John Phillips Memorial Park) + the two new BC Housing projects that will bring 244 genuinely affordable rental apartments to Sooke, i.e., 49 shelter-rate rooms (ranging from $375 to $660/month) for those on income assistance along with 195 nice-priced options for renters variously priced at $875 per month (1 bed), $1,100 (2 bed) and $1,300 (3 bed).

Also newly added is the first of what will surely be an ongoing series of "surprise" projects ~ i.e., the 16 or so home sites likely destined for 2445 Otter Point Rd., a little northeast of Helgeson Rd. Currently a sleepy forested property with two homes hidden in the woods, it suddenly popped up on the radar last month when McElhanney Consulting -- acting on behalf of Valley Remediation Ltd. (which I assume is an ironic name if in reference to the adjoining green jewel of a valley that holds the Helgeson farmbelt and needs wise stewardship, not remediation) -- filed an upzoning request for 27 single-family homes (with potential 3600-sq. foot building envelopes) squeezed into its 2.07 hectares.

We stood our ground as council and insisted the developer stick with the current zoning. In the process, we began asking questions about Sooke's lack of a Community Amenity Contribution Policy (the 2010 version was repealed on May 23, 2017 with a recommendation by council that staff utilize the BC Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing's best practices guidelines for amenities and density bonusing in determining fair payments). Basically, the sense (rightly or wrongly) is that we're  being shortchanged by developers compared to, say, the City of Langford, in terms of contributions to  our town's current and future infrastructure needs. As councillor St-Pierre has noted, we want to creatively partner with investors in ensuring win-wins all around. And 'win' in my mind means congruence with the spirit and letter of the Official Community Plan. (Reference: DOS Development Cost Charge Imposition Bylaw #202, Rev. Nov, 2012). 

As I asked in this article originally, how many more of these potential new developments are ready to be birthed? In its first decade, the District upzoned untold numbers of parcels for future development. How many? We won't know until the Transportation Masterplan is underway next year. The conclusion for now: #SookeSmartGrowth is anything but until we get the numbers and anticipate as best we can the x, y and z of future growth.] 

As you'll see in the list I've created below, there are more than 1,000 (revised: 1593+) new single-family, townhouse and low-rise apartment homes in the works for Sooke at the moment. There are also an unknown number of properties in town that have been zoned for development by the District of Sooke since incorporation in 1999 but which, for any number of potential reasons, have yet to file development permits and seek final approval to break ground.

Prior to the 2014 election, I was led to believe that as many as 4,000 "doors" had been pre-approved for construction. I was curious to know how far that total has shrunk during the building boom of the last four years in tandem with how many new approvals had been added to the tally since then. 

Candidates for municipal office can request information from the District during the campaign period. If available, it's shared with all candidates. (I asked for a meeting with Fire Chief Kenn Mount last month, and his notes from that hour-long chat were made available to us all; you'll find it along with my thoughts about our first-rate emergency response services here). 

My latest request (for which I developed the summation of current activity below) was denied on the understandable grounds that i) it would burn up too much limited staff time; and ii) the numbers will be compiled for baseline use in the creation of next year's update of the Transportation Masterplan (recently awarded to the BC consulting firm Urban Systems along with affiliated work on our next Parks & Trails Masterplan.)  

I asked because It strikes me that we need to be aware of how much potential growth is incoming (and where) before we can effectively consider further new development applications.  Each "door" is liable to house one or two adults plus x number of children and an additional cohort of renters occupying any potential secondary suites. And each of these doors represents a likely minimum of one, or perhaps two or even three vehicles that will add volume to an already busy Hwy #14 and our secondary road network. 

Good to know, however, that staff recognize that we already must factor in more than 2,500 more residents once these homes are built-out, taking our current 13,001 residents (2016 census; link to Sooke page) to a number approaching 15,600 and beyond as we reach official city status.

I trust our next council is equally aware of what's coming before it approves additional upzoning in response to development and market pressure while also honouring the spirit and letter of our Official Community Plan. 

Town Centre
*  133 Aragon Properties homes and townhouses at the northwest corner of Wadams Way & Church
*  42 Knox Vision Society affordable rental units at southwest corner of Wadams Way & Church 
*  31 apartment units at West Wind Harbour Cohousing on the waterfront west of Mariner’s Village
*  16 single-family lots 6829 Grant Road/Stone Hearth Lane (R3 zone)
*  34 units total of duplex, cluster dwellings or town homes at 6829 Grant Rd/Stone Hearth Lane (RM2 zone)
*  36 units/three stories stories of seniors’ cohousing rentals above the multi-use community centre on Lot A
* 10 townhouses on Ayre Road 
* 123 (potential) single family and duplexes at Notts Brook (Otter Point Rd. across from Speedsource Fitness)
(425) 

Otter Point Rd. North
* 41 single-family homes in phase 1 of West Ridge Trails (Burr Road at eastern edge of Broom Hill) 
* 72 single-family homes in phase 2 of West Ridge Trails
* ? at Farrell Estates (40 hectares of small, medium & large-lot residences in the Blanchard/Sellars Rd. area) 
* 16 single-family homes maximum at 2445 Otter Point Rd. (east side just past Helgeson Rd. ~ potential; upzoning request for 27 homes rejected by council on Dec. 10)   
(129+) 

Sooke ~ East of Otter Point Rd. 
* 22 townhouse units at Grasslands (2119 Charters Rd.) 
* 75 (15 units at shelter rate, 24 affordable units and 36 near-market units) at Throup Road
* 169 (34 units at shelter rate, 52 affordable units and 83 near-market units) at northwest corner of Drennan/Sooke Rd. 
* 60 more single-family homes to build-out at Woodlands Creek
* 50+ more “patio-style homes” to build-out at RiversEdge Village/Sunriver
* ? more single-family homes to build-out of Sunriver (its website references “a community of 715 homes”)  
(376+)

Sooke ~ West of Otter Point Rd. 
* 24 (?) town homes between Brailsford and Melrick Place
* 137 single-family homes planned for the remaining phases of Viewpointe Estates
* 34 single-family homes in phase three of Stone Ridge Estates
* 22 single-family homes in phase four of Stone Ridge Estate
* 27 condos at The Residences on Sooke Harbour, 1820 Maple Ave. South 
* 10 single-family homes in phase seven of Heron View
* 14-lot potential at 7057 West Coast Road 
* ? single-family homes to build-out in future phases of Erinan Estates
* ? rezoning on southside of Grant Rd. west of Maple 
* 11.5 cluster homes at 1923 Maple Rd. (potential; 2 homes approved on Nov. 26) 
* 6 single-family homes on southside of 6000-block West Coast Road across from Sooke Harbour Resort
(661+) 

Sasseenos 
* Five strata homes at 5651 Woodlands Rd. (upzoned on Nov. 26 from previously permitted one home) 

Sooke Pointe 
* 127 building sites 

TOTAL: 1593 + unknown number of potential homes in existing zoning

PS Land Use Best Practices: The Union of BC Municipalities' Local Government in BC textbook identifies "the three objectives of land use regulation -- greater certainty about the future, avoiding negative external effects, and assuring adequate infrastructure for new developments -- have corresponding regulatory activities: planning, zoning and subdivision control." (pg. 156; PDF copy available). 

We've got all that's required in terms of well-crafted planning, zoning and subdivision bylaws. Application is the issue. To me "greater certainty" means that a homeowner can sleep easy at night knowing that an adjoining property or one down the road won't be upzoned and that the version of the 'good life' they bought into originally won't be radically changed. Sooke Zoning Bylaw No. 600 (revised: 2013) should effectively be written in stone save for occasional common-sense revisions. But it has been amended no less than 61 times over the last five years ~ often for good reasons, I'm sure, but certainly not always in ways that are consistent with these UBCM guidelines. 

More from the UBCM textbook: "The underlying assumption is that, unless adjacent land uses are controlled, undesirable external effects will abound." And this is why the Community Charter insists that rezonings undergo public hearings at which neighbours get to document these potential undesirable impacts. We need to listen to them closely and, certainly, not shame anyone with a NIMBY label.  

It's also important to recognize what we've approved and where it might fit on BC Housing's continuum of housing types. Developers in Sooke have seemingly been focused on market demands for single family detached dwellings, of which there were 2,290 in the District according to the 2016 census. (FYI, we also have 350 units in five low-rise apartment buildings; 335 semi-detached homes; 245 row homes; 340 flats or apartments in duplexes; and 170 movable dwellings, i.e., mobile homes, houseboats, RVs.)

* As Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute pointed out in the Victoria Times Colonist this summer, there's a growing need for the "missing middle" in housing options for those who can't afford big ticket homes. Affordable, smaller-footprint homes and rentals are in demand.

* Sooke is home to a number of first-rate mobile-home parks, including Lannon Creek (Blythwood in Saseenos), Rustic Acres (off Grant and Henlyn Rds.) and Woodside Estates (adjacent to Woodside Farm on the West Coast Road). All provide affordable alternatives to traditional single-family homes in attractive settings. More please!  

* Housing is dealt with in section 4.7 of the 2010 Official Community Plan (pp. 45-48). Its goals: 

         ~ Provide a variety of housing options and densities for diverse populations; 
         ~ Create a population that supports a range of businesses and cultural activities in the Town Centre; 
         ~ Ensure residential development reflects the small-town character of Sooke;
         ~ Develop housing that has a minimal environmental footprint. 

* Councillor Ebony Logins' Affordable Housing Committee is off to a strong start these last four months. District of Sooke staff produced a white paper for its first meeting in July. It included complete copies of the CRD Regional Housing Affordability Strategy (2018) and the District of Sooke Housing & Social Housing Policy (Policy #13.2, adopted Oct. 9, 2007, not available online). The latter, by the way, anticipated much slower population growth in Sooke than we're now experiencing. It projected a 2026 population of 14,730 (based on 11 percent growth between 2001 and 2006).  

* Transition Sooke's Ecohome Tours have demonstrated the range of possibilities for alternative, natural (cob, straw bale, rammed earth) and micro housing. One tour highlight the last two years has been the Harmless Home, an East Sooke aerie built by local company Ridgeco Developments with revolutionary, lego-like blocks made of a durable, highly energy efficient (R-40) blend of hemp fibre and lime.  Also involved with the project is Nanaimo's Jack Anderson, who is currently overseeing construction of an innovative "cluster home" development on the site of the former Quamichan Inn near Duncan that will use these same JustBiofibre blocks. Might this Calgary-based company be wooed to Sooke to start-up a Vancouver Island division? We'll need to develop light industrial land before we make the pitch, of course. 

* Advocacy groups like the Tiny Home Alliance of Canada and the Tiny House Advocates of Vancouver Island are championing true alternatives for 21st-century micro lifestyles.

* Sooke PocketNews "Affordable Housing" archive 

* Link to Canada's National Housing Strategy 

The council meeting of Monday, Nov. 26, our third including the ceremonial inaugural, was the true into-the-fire initiation for the new crew ~ a challenging, engaging, mildly contentious and, above all, suitably educational and enlightening marathon for the newcomers and a longer-than-usual epic for the three incumbents.

We began in-camera at 6 pm for an hour.  I now realize why such meetings must be private given how they involve sensitive, process-oriented, suitably redactable matters concerning staffing, land and legal. In confirming what I've grown to understand in recent months, there was no advance discussion about the night's agenda. The Local Government Act dictates that we must conduct business entirely in public when four or more of us, i.e., a quorum, have gathered. Council agendas are assembled by the Corporate Services team without our input and are based largely on the current flow of municipal business. (I have little idea about what's ahead of us this coming Monday night, for instance, until the agenda is published later this afternoon.)  
 
The council meeting proper began as usual on the dot of 7. We adjourned four and 3/4 hours later. Not sure about the record length of a Sooke council meeting to date, but we may have been flirting with it. (A couple had gone past 11 pm during the previous council's term, I recall.)  For me at least, the time flew and I held up well enough minus any caffeine nor stretch breaks (the latter wouldn't be a bad idea;  I might follow Councillor Logins' lead by getting up and stretching as required). I confess I lost the plot a bit during the hour-long conversation about the sale and cultivation of cannabis locally, but that's not unusual for me when meetings slip past the three hour mark (or when binging on a compelling mini-series for that matter; as I've experienced in some other contexts, it might be wise to put strict time limits on open-ended discussion items in the interest of our staying somewhat sharp.) 
 
Overall, I reckon from my seat on the far right of the council table, we functioned well under the quality leadership (yes, I'm all the more a fan) of Mayor Tait. We passed most items unanimously while also revealing we have some diverse views and opinions via a pair of 4 vs 3 votes and some useful dissent about a proposed tree bylaw that generated healthy debate.  Contrary to the write-ups,  the "honeymoon" is assuredly not over for the new council (we seem to genuinely get along, like and respect one another). Neither in the least were/are we "bedevilled" by the prospect of the Lot A charrette as another reporter suggested. (As a number of council veterans I've spoken to have advised, I must relax, enjoy the unpredictable ride and not sweat the small stuff if I'm to survive these next four years.) 

It was a good night: We got some business done, heard from a range of constituents, questioned staff intelligently enough, absorbed a fair bit of information and emerged on the far side with smiles and good grace intact. No molotov cocktails have landed on my and Carolyn's doorstep just yet, so I take that as a good early sign, haha. 

The reliable Ms. Santowski did a smashing job with her summary as ever (even with the clickbait fin-de-honeymoon headline, bless her), however here's my take on the night ... 
 
* CAO Search Begins: The headline news was delivered late in the proceedings when Mayor Tait offered a "rise and report" (i.e., she publicly announced a matter that had been finalized in-camera) about the fact we've selected a recruitment firm (Waterhouse Executive Search of Vancouver) to begin seeking the District's (and council's only) next hire ~ Sooke's next Chief Administrative Officer. Further details on the process TBA. 

* 1923 Maple Road rezoning/public hearing: No major hesitation from any of us in approving a pair of micro-lots (250 sq. meters each for a pair of 1200 sq. foot homes that will sell in the $300-400k range) at the street-front edge of an acre lot. The property, about 100 meters north of Buffy's, was already zoned Medium Density Multi-Family for 10 homes; it's part of a west-end residential area that shapes up as a future commercial node with its existing clusters of row homes and the eventual arrival of The Residences at Sooke Harbour at the Government Wharf.

A number of us were curious about how residental parking would be handled ~ just one car is allowed per home in a shared driveway, and yet this is the era of the two-income/two-car household. Good news is that a West Coast Rd. bus stop is not far away and one or more residents in these homes may be tempted to mode shift given the inconvenience of parking a second car elsewhere. There's certainly no room to park on Maple Road itself. 

I took the opportunity to pay due respect to developer John Brohman, who I first heard about obliquely not long after arriving here in a passing reference to 'Brohmanville'. I've since seen him routinely appear in council chambers regarding land development matters and it was interesting to learn that he's also a landlord who built Sooke's first apartment block back in the day.  

And I couldn't resist mentioning the fact that when Maple Road South was repaved in 2012 and transformed from a sleepy secondary road into a fast track, no consideration was given to also creating matching sidewalks or installing a rolling speed hump or three. A strange way to encourage a walkable community, either for local residents or anyone using the unofficial street/off-road network that links through Millennium Park. 

 * Woodlands Road rezoning/public hearing: Held at the night's outset, the public hearing ended with a 4 vs 3 vote that spelled doom for my first windmill tilt at "pressing pause" (as promised) on new residential upzoning outside the town centre until we get our masterplans and infrastructure needs sorted. Councillors Logins and St-Pierre also disagreed for their own excellent reasons, I think. You'll find a snapshot of their thoughts and those of all participants in this Sooke PocketNews summary here. My perspective in brief: 

In permitting the switch from RU4 (Rural Residential) to RU5 (Neighbourhood Rural Residential), council has greenlighted five new strata homes on a five-acre parcel of raw land where just one dwelling was permitted previously. The subject property is in the v-shaped wedge bordered by Harbourview and Woodlands. This area is largely rural with large lots (mainly one or two acres, with larger ones of five and 12 acres respectively). There are several new-builds at the roadside frontage of panhandle lots. Other tracts of forested bare land still exist, and there are agricultural properties nearby (Laughing Duck Farm, for one). Not a single five-home compound among them, however. 
 
Drainage issues, increased traffic, the loss of neighbourhood character, and (worst) the fact that area landowners will be tempted to seek their own subdivisions with this precedent were cited by area residents, either in person or through written submissions. 
 
Councillors who voted in favour cited the staff report's mention of an OCP passage that allows "low density infill" in the Gateway Residential area. The applicant had crafted his ask so that he'd meet the 2500 sq. meter minimum lot size (while still finding room for five homes likely to be valued at $500k-plus each on a property whose 2018 assessed value was $430k). This portion of Sassennos is evidentally also in the "Community Growth Area" (the parameters of which I'm still unclear about ~ questions to DOS staff pending.) 
 
When it was my turn to speak, I acknowledged I was a greenhorn on land use issues, then cited a passage from the Union of BC Municipalities' Local Government in BC textbook outlining (and I quote) "the three objectives of land use regulation -- greater certainty about the future, avoiding negative external effects, and assuring adequate infrastructure for new developments." (pg. 156; PDF copy available) 
 
I noted that the dissenting neighbours had done a good job in listing the "negative external effects" of this rezoning. As for the word "certainty," I pondered (rightly, wrongly, perhaps naively) that it might mean that best municipal land-use practices would honour, not rewrite, established zoning bylaws. (I noted that Sooke's zoning Bylaw 600 has been amended 46 times since its passage in 2013 for reasons both good and logical, I'm sure, yet also to maximize profits in some cases.)  "Certainty" would ideally mean that I, if I was a homeowner in the area, would have the confidence that local zoning would remain intact. Not so in this case, however. 

* Cains Park Staircase: I was puzzled about this $55k spend by the District on a steep-slope staircase descending from Water St. (due south of Kennedy St. South in the town centre) to the shoreline atop Cains Park, a wedge of green space dedicated to the city by the Cains family. (As Ms. Peers notes, the family's Sooke Rd. gas station, the first of its kind in Sooke, is due north of the park and is now the home of West Shack Auto, run by my neighbour Steve Christiansen.) 

My concern was that this location isn't cited among the nine priority seaside access spots identified in Sooke's current Parks & Trails Masterplan, most of which are "kayak/canoe pull-up spots" at sea level (such as Whiffin Spit's Possession Point, which is set for a short staircase to the beach next year). Nor, for that matter, is Cains Park one of the seven secondary "if funding/desire permits" recommended ocean access points.

It was good to learn, however, that nearby Sooke Elementary students and their teachers enjoy field trips wandering through this part of town and they needed a spot like this by which to beachcomb. The theory of "build it and they'll come all the more often" is solid in this case. Yet with no public parking opportunities whatsoever and a surrounding terrain suitable only for mountain goats or the very fit on this portion of Sooke's high-bank waterfront, I opted to vote against. Result: I again came out on the short end of a 4 vs 3 vote. (Paradoxically, I was still pleased that Sooke was serving the youngest end of our age-friendly community and so have no lasting concerns apart from the nagging thought that we need to do a better job of heeding community plans built through full public process.)   

* Mick Rhodes Delegation: Sooke's valiant and effective Mayoralty candidate is staying the course with his big-picture vision of saving Sooke's last, best remaining town-centre waterfront viewpoint for this and future generations. As he stated again, and I concur, we need a creative, fluid approach moving ahead in discussions with the new landowners. 

* SEAPARC: All systems go for the swank new entrance and long-awaited weight room. After 40 years of steady evolution, the CRD's community fitness centre, pool and arena complex continues to move from strength to strength under Steve Knoke's leadership. 

* Cannabis Regulation:  District staff produced an excellent, exhaustive report (see the website version here) as a prelude to public engagement (likely through a to-be-scheduled Committee of the Whole discussion) on how the District opts to regulate production, sales and consumption. We can draw on a growing number of working examples in BC and nationally; the night's report featured a comparison between policies and approaches in Victoria, Nelson, Courtenay, North Van and Nanaimo.

Good to know that our local RCMP have no issues with the fact that (like in many communities) two of our three stores remain open for business without a formal license while awaiting the finalization of provincial and municipal guidelines. Personally, and without knowing much at all about the nuances or complications, I like the idea of Sooke continuing with a maximum of three independently owned and operated stores. There's apparently been many inquiries from small-scale "micro-cultivation" (aka "craft weed") growers locally, so perhaps we'd like to keep things as local as possible and perhaps say 'no' (if we indeed we have the option) to a BC LDB Cannabis Store pedalling so-called "corporate weed" from across the country. A reputation for being home to a connoisseur array of 21st century BC Bud  wouldn't harm our tourist and daytrip trade, I imagine. 

* Tree Bylaw: Full credit and praise to Councillor Parkinson for introducing the motion and eloquently arguing why it matters; we voted (six in favour, one against) for a staff report into how such a bylaw might look here where,  in a former logging community, every other home has a chainsaw.  My thoughts from last month on this blog capture my position. I've since learned that the District has a policy (#11.6, Jan. 24, 2005) for trees on municipal property (but it's conditional on oversight by our Municipal Engineer and that position has been vacant since Elizabeth Nelson's departure in early 2016). The DOS also has created an "urban tree inventory" through its top-drawer GIS mapping technology and has an established "Street Tree Strategy." One of the District's parks employees is training as a certified arbourist. Ideally, we'll come up with a bylaw that does the job of protecting important, significant and/or character trees without any undue hardship to homeowners concerned about dangerous limbs and dying trees on their private property. Further investigation:  

i) CRD tree protection bylaws (in 10 of the region's 13 municipalities; thanks for the link to Heather Phillips)
ii) "Love of Trees, Not Bylaws" ~ survey of 400 Canadian communities by Garden Making Magazine 
iii) Creatively United's Community Trees Matter Network. 

* Grantwriting: Kudos to Chief Mount and his team for doing the legwork in lining up the second in what will be a series of  UBCM Community Emergency Preparedness Fund grant applications for Sooke ~ in this case for a $25k study exploring evacuation options for Sunriver, Phillips Road and Sooke River Road residents. Other District staff are tapping into the UBCM Commuity Child Care Planning Program for a local child-care needs assessment study. Both documents (like the Affordable Housing needs assessment approved at our second meeting) are essential planning tools going ahead.  

* Committee appointments: My 2019 daytimer is on order.  In addition to the Vancouver Island Regional Library Board,  I've been assigned a seat with the Sooke Region Community Health Network's Age-Friendly Committee. It's a good fit for me, logically, given that I'm a geezer of a certain age myself who has his (euphemism alert) sunset years to anticipate. I'm looking forward to joining SRCHN's Rick Robinson, Christine Bossi and others in helping shape "a community where everyone enjoys a safe, enriched and dignified life." The group can trace its roots to a 2008 "age-friendly dialogue" held at the Community Hall, following which Marlene Barry and other local VIPs got busy in doing the hard work (launching the Sooke Region Volunteer Centre, for instance) that led to official recognition for Sooke as a BC Age-Friendly Community in 2015.  (reference: UBCM page)

My other role is as Sooke council representative to the Victoria Family Court and Youth Justice Committee, a one-year appointment that opens up a new world to me. I have some modest understanding of issues facing youth-at-risk through my years with the EMCS Society, but I'm sure this will be a real eye-opener. Monthly meetings begin in the New Year with a big group that features front-line restorative justice workers, police department appointees and reps from the CRD's 13 municipalities and four school districts.

Okay, long meeting, long post. Onwards to prepare for tonight's opening round of the Lot A charrette.  No guarantees, but my intention is to continue writing these recaps in the months ahead as a way of tracking lessons learned. 

[Update: Nov. 27 ... A road report following my first rainy night drive on the improved Sooke Rd: "First time this winter driving #14 in somewhat lousy conditions last night and happy to say it was a breeze for me. The broadened white perimeter lines were my guide and a ton of strategically placed roadside posts, reflective lights and markings carried me smoothly from one bend to the next. Such a dramatic difference to a few years ago, or even last year at this time. Last night, the wipers were working hard on the way to Royal Roads, and there were fog patches on the return. Nonetheless, it was a relaxed, flesh-toned knuckles drive while listening to CFAX for a time (BC legislature speculation, natch) and some pleasure with a mix CD featuring a few classics like this one. So yes, go Johnny go, drive cautiously, always and ever, but do so with renewed confidence that the pros at the Ministry of Transportation are doing a superb job in making it a safer route."]

Hwy #14 (like health care, death and taxes) will always and ever be an ongoing obsession for us locally. 

Dedicated local social media sites buzz with daily updates about road conditions, accidents and, in recent weeks, McKenzie exchange construction crawls. Strategies on how to deal with our two lanes-that-could-be-four were a prime issue in the 2017 provincial election. And some locals wanted to highlight #14 in this fall's Sooke election even though it's a provincial, not municipal, matter ~ not that this distinction downplays our essential role as advocates, officially as a District and as individual citizens. (Locals are the true, real-world authorities on the subject, more so than MOTI's Nanaimo-based civil servants). Apt, then, that Gord Phillips' "Sooke Highway" is our unofficial civic anthem. (Such a pleasure to singalong with him and it during the recent Sooke Talks #2).

As everyone knows, phased highway improvements have accelerated, deservedly so given the problems, with our MLA's ascension to the Premier's job. Yet the growing number of cars on the road and its in-built shortcomings remain a matter of deep concern, especially now that the early nightfalls and heavy rains are back for another season of winter drives ~ white-knuckle ones, in my and many experiences on certain downpour nights, when navigating a happily rare few tricky twist-turn-and-dip stretches (especially when contending with new-breed headlights that beam unpredictable degrees of brightness and intensity).  Result: Some heart-in-mouth scares I remember vividly as 'this could be it' moments. Again, this hasn't happened often - it takes a certain combination of darkness, rain, rush hour lights and fast-beating windshield wipers to get me off my 70 kmph (dry conditions, traffic dependent) Sooke Rd. game. I like driving this road: Minus the heavy traffic, it's pure car commercial country. (As I've said before, there is pullover, slow-track tourism potential with basin and Goose access should MOTI's Connie-Harbourview straightening of #14 one day proceed ~ pending negotiations with landowners and the North Sooke Community Association).  

Anyway, while there have already been notable safety improvements, a fresh wave of alarm has nonetheless arisen on social media about the relative ineffectiveness (for some drivers) of the newly repainted, broader perimeter road markings during foul weather. The common theme: "They're too indistinct, they vanish in the rain, we don't feel safe, and something tragic will inevitably happen without a lasting fix" 

I shared a sampler of these concerns in a Nov. 1 email to the BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure's Kristen Reimer.  At the Hwy #14 Open House in June at EMCS, I'd suggested to her and other MOTI staff that the engagement process would be improved if ministry staff routinely tracked the steady flow of comments, concerns and bright ideas posted on Sooke social media. (I also suggested MOTI honour Sooke's Transportation Master Plan in making its decisions, i.e.  heed our roundabout-first policy at Sooke River Road rather than installing a signal light -- the cost for what would have had to be a double-laned traffic circle would have been prohibitive, I was told, so we must accept what we're given with good grace.)  

Not long after that open house, I sent Ms. Reimer (with a cc to MLA Horgan) a file of Hwy #14 Facebook comments that I'd collected over the years. And, in the wake of the latest concerns after the season's first torrential downpour just before Halloween, I did so again.  

She replied the other day with the following email: 

"I chatted with Shawn Haley, our Road Area Manager responsible for this section of road, about your concern and he let me know that  Highway 14 has been painted twice already this year with a reflective beaded paint. He also informed me that, going forward, we will be painting our major numbered routes twice a year (as opposed to just once, which we historically have done). 
 
As you may be aware, the province historically used lead based paint, but due to environmental issues, we have switched to a material that’s water based. We are working on finding the perfect balance between being environmentally friendly, and highly reflective and durable. Here’s a link to a blog outlining our quest for the perfect paint: https://www.tranbc.ca/2017/09/27/new-tool-shines-a-light-on-line-paint-brightness/
 
We’ve also recently installed street lights at key intersections along the route – which went active on Oct 31, 2018. We expect at least three more to come online very soon. 
 
It’s also important for all drivers to remember that when conditions are wet, it’s dark, and there’s oncoming traffic, motorists need to slow down and drive to conditions.
 
If you have any further questions or concerns, don’t hesitate to let me know. I also really appreciated hearing your positive feedback on the work being done to improve BC Highway 14 J
 
You can also connect with us online by clicking on any of the icons listed below my signature.
 
Thanks again for connecting with us. Safe travels.
 
Kristen Reimer
Information Officer, iPAS Business Manager
Web and Social Media Services
Ministry of Transportation & Infrastructure
PO Box 9850 Stn Prov Govt I Victoria I BC I V8W 9T5
778-974-5305  Kristen Reimer@gov.bc.ca

So that's where things stand at the moment. Essentially, we must all heed the message of "drive safe, slow down, take care."  Wise advice always! Personally, I've not yet experienced a daunting drive this winter, but I can certainly relate to what some FB commentators have said about how 'muscle-memory' and 'pure faith' have helped them through the worst passages. Driving slow works to a degree, though only if everyone else is being patient and doing likewise. 

Which brings me back to the subject of advocacy: It's critical that the District, council and citizens alike maintain the pressure. Phone or write MOTI Area Roads Manager Shawn Haley at 778-974-2627; Shawn.Haley@gov.bc.ca. And cc our Mr. Horgan in the process: john.horgan.mla@leg.bc.ca. 

Meanwhile In Sooke member Susan Jones has been sharing the following useful contacts as well:  

* Main Road South Vancouver Island: 1-877-391-7310; corporate@mainroad.ca
* Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Claire Trevena:  250-387-1978;  Minister.Transportation@gov.bc.ca 
* MOTI Deputy Minister Grant Main:  250 387-3280 

As she says, phoning and emailing "will get action if enough people do it."  ​


Further Background (Misc)  

Perspective
* Elida Peers documents history of Sooke Road
* MOTI, regional districts, municipalities and logging companies are variously responsible for nearly 50,000 km
​of paved + 22,000 km unpaved roads in BC
* Canada's National Highway system
* Canadian Encyclopedia: Roads & Highways in Canada
* Province of BC's Driving & Transportation home page 
* BC's 12 Deadliest Highways (#14 does not feature on this list based on ICBC stats from 2004-13)  

Highway 14 & Regional Studies
* BC Ministry of Transportation Highway 14 Route Study (1991; viewable by request at Sooke's Municipal Hall)
* District of Sooke's Transportation Master Plans (2000, 2009 and now being revised for 2019)
* MOTI Highway 14 Corridor Study (2008; copy in the agenda package dated Sept. 27, 2018 on the District's website.)

* Capital Regional District's Regional Transportation Plan (1990s, revised 2014)
* CRD Origin Destination Travel Household Survey (2011) 
* CRD Pedestrian and Cycling Master Plan (2015)
* CRD Household Travel Survey (2017)
​* Drive BC Road Conditions + BC Map + #14 updates here

Highway 14 Improvements (2011-present) 
* Aug. 2011: "Sooke-tacular Improvements Come to Highway 14" (MOTI newsletter) 
* 2012: Highway 14 improvements (MOTI newsletter re: fixing the flood zone west of Kangaroo Rd.) 
* Jan., 2018: "Mayors Call for Action" (Maja Tait, Stew Young)  
* Jan., 2018, Premier Horgan announces $10m in funding for road improvements.
* June 2018: This preliminary report from MOTI kickstarted the Sooke community engagement process
* Aug., 2018: Engagement Summary Final Report.

Topping Sooke's consensus wish list: i) Improved paint lines; ii) More roadside delineation/reflectors; iii) Highway realignments; iv) Additional passing opportunities; v) Improved street lighting; vi) Improved intersections; vii) Speed-reader boards and more RCMP traffic enforcement.) 

* Sooke PocketNews Highway 14 archive 
* Advocacy by the #DividedBy14 initiative of the Sooke Economic Development Group
* Advocacy by the Otter Point and Shirley Residents & Ratepayers Association
* Advocacy by the Sooke Chamber of Commerce
* Westshore Voice News article on Transition Sooke's "Rethinking Traffic As Usual" workshop (Nov. 2017)
* CRD Transportation Committee minutes (2017/18)  

* ICBC Crash Spots Van Isle: 2013-17 (search: Sooke) 
​* "Surveillance camera catches Sooke Rd. crash" (Sept. 14, 2018)

Sooke Local Road Issues 
​* District of Sooke Business Case Phase Two (Phillips to Charters) of Connector Road Project
* Sooke Borrowing Referendum 2005 backgrounder
* Wadams Way opening (Oct. 2014) 
* "Roundabout part of $9 million in Sooke roadwork" (July 2015) ​
* "Sooke's new Brownsey Blvd. Now Open" (June 2016)   
  
Colwood (and Malahat) Crawl
* Westshore Parkway Langford
* Jack Knox Times Colonist column: "Is the Colwood Crawl Driving You Crazy?" (Nov. 2018) 
​* "New 'Urgency' to find Malahat Highway Alternative" (CBC interview with Minister of Transportation Trevena) 

Alternatives: Light Rail & Rapid Buses 
* Victoria Regional Rapid Bus Project (BC Transit, spring 2011) 
* Premier Horgan: "Rapid-bus system from Westhills to downtown Victoria would be a better bet." (May, 2018) 
* "Region's Politicians Laud Movement" re: Langford-Victoria LRT (May 17, 2018) 
* Better Transit Alliance of Greater Victoria
* Victoria Region Bus Lanes Project (BC Transit, updated 2018)

​* Island Corridor Foundation (reviving the E&N Rail line from Victoria to Courtenay)
* E&N Rail Reports & Studies (Province of BC)
​* "Rail for Vancouver Island" Facebook group
* MOTI Trans-Canada/Malahat Corridor Study (2007)    

​* Victoria Transport Policy Institute  
* Regional Transit Funding Options (CRD, 2012) 
* Transportation Service Feasibility Study (CRD, 2014) 

BC Transit
​* BC Transit "Advantage" Newsletter 
* Sooke Local Area Transit Plan study begins (Fall/Winter, 2018) 
* Westshore Local Area Transit Plan (completed 2014) 

A few key facts about #14 
* Annual average daily traffic volume = 16,000 cars per day (up 25 percent since 2007)
* Hwy #14 is closed an average of six times a year (usually for two hours, but as long as seven hours or more, as per the early October closure this year)
* Most dangerous spots: Gillespie Rd., Cooper's Cove, Parkland, Otter Point/Murray, Sombrio
 
Source: 2018 MOTI report. Clip: "Annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes along the corridor have increased by approximately 25% over the past 10 years. The corridor is experiencing increasing platoons of commuter traffic (where congestion causes vehicles to travel closely together), and areas west of Sooke lack shoulders, pullouts and pavement conditions are of concern for this important tourism and commercial route." 

Capturing some point-form notes from the Capital Regional District's orientation sessions for new and incumbent councillors hosted late last month by Esquimalt Mayor Barb Desjardins. 

​First, some thoughts on the subject of "Council Dynamics and Decision Making" as presented by Tracey Lorensen from the municipal government consulting firm Paragon Strategic. My overall takeaway following her two-hour talk: Respect the professionals and the public, listen actively, ask good questions and always cultivate "beginner's mind" while working with whatever the unpredictable tides of municipal engagement bring to the shoreline.

* Elected representatives, staff, committee members and the public = "We." (Keep egos in check and govern from this expanded, inclusive perspective while also confronting reality and making sometimes hard decisions.) 

* Little known fact: Only about 10% of municipal business requires the involvement of council for policy decisions. The lion's share of day-to-day business is operational and carried on by staff under the CAO's overall direction.  

* Council's job is to be visible in the community ~ available, responsive and ready to act as advocates as best they can for citizens within the limits of personal time and energy. 

* Staff relationship: Value and respect civic professionals. Ask good questions that have been formulated with forethought, homework and careful perusal of civic plans and agenda packages. Expect and require exceptional performance from staff. Council must provide clear direction to its Chief Administrative Officer. Be disciplined in the number of staff reports that you request while recognizing that each requires considerable energy and time. 

* Views and considered opinions from vocal members of the public are to be valued, but not at the expense of professional input and your own considered judgement. Remember that the silent majority is indeed silent and that their opinions are likely not nearly as direct, pointed, urgent nor loud as those who do speak up. Some people seek and create dramas -- don't get drawn in and allow other people to use you either unconsciously or "for sport." 

* Don't grandstand from the council podium. Track your air time ~ if you're speaking at length about every agenda item, consider limiting your comments. No need to "vehemently agree" with other councillors (i.e., make an obvious statement when a simple hand-raised vote in the affirmative is confirmation enough). Listen actively and consider the question "do I need to speak?" 

​* Councillors are advised to be "more curious than certain" in their view of any given matter. On the road to a decision, it's wise to consider any real or theoretical opposing/conflicting opinions even if these opinions are not being voiced. Always stay open to changing your mind based on facts, data and reasoned arguments. 

* Keep in mind the "taxpayers of the future" when making spending decisions, i.e. regular infrastructure upkeep is essential even if costly. When being asked why such-and-such is not being accomplished, reply that "taxpayers will only get the services they wish to pay for and can afford." Do not apologize for the cost of living in "paradise." 

* Recognize the difference between single "projects" (such as building a bridge) and a higher level "strategic plan" (i.e., fiscal responsibility).

* Be patient: "Nine people can't have a baby in one month." 

* The cost of property and business taxes are often less important to "investors" (i.e., potential new residents and businesses) than a particular community's overall reputation, stability and the level of civility displayed during council meetings.

* "You're in the business of disappointment. Don't be afraid to disappoint people." Remember that elections are the most "robust" process a democracy can offer the electorate and that you've been selected for a four-year term. Be true to your own higher angels. 

* There is such a thing as "obstructionist" councillors whose major goal and objective is to preserve the status quo and subvert growth, change and evolution. Work with, recognize, respect and adapt to all viewpoints. 

* "The law is a crude way to resolve issues." 

* Recommended reading: Stephen Covey's The Speed of Trust. 
​

Second, some notebook jottings from a session on "Respect In the Workplace" offered by BC labour, employment and human rights lawyer Marli Rusen.  ​More on this subject in Ms. Rusen's blog.

​PS Local incidents at Sooke's City Hall and the preliminary work by the province on Bill 14 led the District of Sooke to create its own Anti-Bullying and Harassment Policy (Policy No. 7.13) in May, 2011. 

* The Province of BC passed the Workers Compensation Amendment Act (Bill 14) in 2012. It dramatically expands the definitions of workplace bullying enforced by WorkSafe BC. Rather than merely physical harm, it now includes a wide range of aggressive behaviour, including belittlement, intimidation, shaming, psychological harm, aggressive sarcasm, gossip, tone of voice, language and hostile facial expressions.   

* Mayor and council must champion integrity and fair process. The District has a legal duty to prevent or minimize the conditions responsible for a "disrespectful workplace," and this includes during council meetings. Elected officials are in a position to be role models. The CAO and Corporate Officer are ultimately responsible for their staff, however council must do its part in mitigating risk to the District, staff and the public at large. 

* The legal test of what constitutes bullying is based on a provincial community standard: "What would a reasonable person living in BC today think of this situation?"  Even if no legal action results, there will be impacts on the bully through the courts of "public and staff opinion." 

* Unacknowledged and ongoing disrespect in the workplace will cost the municipality in terms of lost motivation, absenteeism, spikes in medical leave and the loss of talent to other municipalities. It is also difficult to shake the bad reputations that can cling to certain municipalities that have not dealt effectively with workplace bullying.

* Excuses such as "they started it," "I had to lay into someone because this issue was so close to my heart," or "I acted this way because it's just the way I am" are not acceptable. All parties are expected to act as adults who know their own personalities and shortcomings, and moderate their behaviours accordingly. 

* Intense debates and fact-based disagreements and a desire for more information are fine and acceptable. Intimidation, name-calling and personal attacks are not. 

A recent Facebook comment I received suggested I couldn't see the forest for the trees about another matter I believe is pertinent to this election. Whether true or not in that context, the phrase brought to mind a letter I submitted  to council in May, 2017. In turn, it was the root for one of the items on my current website "Ideas" page ~ namely a tree-preservation bylaw for the District of Sooke. 

I sent the letter last year out of concerns for the 30-acre forest at our southwestern end of Whiffin Spit. It had been sold after long years on the market (the lovely photo at right was taken by the realtor at the time), and all of us around here were concerned about its fate.

​The good news was that District staff soon were to meet with the new owners (a Steveston family with ties to the commercial fishing fleet) and be reassured that they had zero interest in levelling the forest (as was the rumour in those early days after the sale).

Instead, there was talk of between one and three single-family homes as per allowable zoning limits. Earlier this year, I heard from a connection in the local tourism industry that the owners were interested in exploring ideas for an ecolodge, however there's been no confirmation of that and no activity on the land to date to my knowledge. Some campers set up a tent at the ocean's edge during the summer, and were politely asked to move on by District of Sooke bylaw officers.

My one-street-over neighbour Pat Forrest, the career deep-sea fisherman affiliated with the Sooke Lions Club and the Sooke Salmon Enhancement Society, has been the long-time caretaker of the property. He let me know about some huge old-growth giants at the cliffside edge that he feared would be lost. (Spruce in the forest are already suffering due to our drier summers in recent years.) 

And so with Pat as inspiration, I did some research and found evidence that other communities have enacted tree protection bylaws that could ensure that old growth and other notable species are saved in the face of development. 

As you'll see in the latter stages of my letter below, I wrote: 

"Investigate a tree protection bylaw similar to what is on the books in Duncan, Nanaimo, Victoria, Saanich and elsewhere.  The District's estimable Laura Hooper suggested this as a possibility in her Nov. 18, 2013  Report for Information submitted to the Land Use and Environment Committee of the day. (File No. 6300-00).

Such a bylaw would protect 'significant trees,' defined in the Duncan example by 'unique characteristics such as size, age, species, aesthetic value, cultural significance, and ecological importance that provide considerable benefit to the community.'  In Duncan, residents are encouraged to nominate what they deem to be 'significant trees' for protection."

As it turned out, my letter was discussed briefly towards the end of the June 12, 2017 council meeting along with that of another resident. Mayor Tait suggested it was a timely idea that might flow out of the OCP revision. Councillor Kasper sounded reasonable notes of caution and said he wasn't in favour given that "I've seen this in other jurisdictions" and "it tends to have the opposite effect" (as it inspires folks to chop down trees before any pending bylaw can be enacted).

"If there is an appetite for this, it should be done very cautiously," he said. "It could be viewed as, 'here's another infringement on people's property rights.'" Mr. Kasper also noted that a tree bylaw would have "prevented the District from removing alder trees on our property on Lot A." Of course, weed-like alders would not qualify as "significant trees" of the kind I'd suggested that the District would want to save. 
  
May 19, 2017
Submission for Council Reader File
cc Maja Tait, Council <council@sooke.ca>, Laura Hooper, Brent Blackhall, Sarah Temple, Teresa Sullivan, Britt Santowski, Kevin Laird, Mary Brooke 

Hello All, 
 
As you’re undoubtedly aware, the 32-acre oceanfront forest running parallel to Deerlepe Rd. in Whiffin Spit sold a month ago for a little over its assessed value of $2.7 million (a bargain compared to the initial $14.5m pricetag in 2008). The property includes the circa 1925 “Deerlepe House,” a 4,500-square foot character home formerly owned by Lee Thompson, the late Hollywood producer/director. 
 
The other morning a neighbour who also lives on Briarwood Place (which dead-ends at the eastern edge of the forest) encountered a logger who has been directed by the new owners (names unknown) to apparently (quote/unquote) “clear cut” the forest beginning next week.  We’re hoping this is an exaggeration and that we’ll see selective logging rather than wholesale destruction. Whatever the case, this is the rightful decision for the new owners as we’ve confirmed in phoning the District. (They live in Vancouver and we’re trying to track them down via their Richmond-based buying agent.)  
 
None of us around here are happy about this, of course. Losing the forest will effectively change the microclimate of this neighbourhood. The forest is also home to all kinds of wildlife — deer, eagles, owls, raccoons, black bears, even the rare sighting of cougar and wolf.  It serves as an effective buffer to the strong winds that blow in off the Strait of Juan de Fuca. And the green wall at the end of our street has been a much cherished reminder that we’re living in Sooke by the Sea, not metropolitan suburbia.  

Also, I’m told by Pat Forrest, who had been caretaking the property on behalf of the Thompson family, that there are a number of magnificent old-growth trees on the land as well. 
 
All this said, it seems we must deal with reality and get on with life. The good news is that the current zoning (RU3 - “small lot agricultural” - in the Agricultural Land Reserve, I understand) allows just one home (plus secondary suite) per 9.88 acres. So in theory (and pending any rezoning applications with sewer expansion) we’ll be seeing a maximum of three new homes, not a subdivision. Our hope is that the new owners purchased the land as a semi-private — less so with the trees gone, naturally — waterfront getaway, not as speculative investment. 
 
I write not merely to vent but to suggest that perhaps it's time the District of Sooke considered a Tree Protection Bylaw similar to what is on the books in Duncan, Nanaimo, Victoria, Saanich and elsewhere. 

Laura Hooper suggested this as a possibility in her Nov. 18, 2013 Report for Information submitted to the Land Use and Environment Committee of the day. (File No. 6300-00). 
 
Even if it had been in place, such a bylaw (if we were to follow the Duncan example) wouldn’t prevent a private landowner from taking this action. But it would protect "significant trees” (such as those identified by Pat) which are defined as such by  "unique characteristics such as size, age, species, aesthetic value, cultural significance, and ecological importance that provide considerable benefit to the community.”   In Duncan, community members are encouraged to nominate what they deem to be “significant trees.” 
 
I realize the District is operating with staff shortages and is faced with many other priorities (a bear-wise garbage bylaw, among them, I trust). Yet with tree protection legislation, we might save other local big trees in the future. Who knows, but with such legislation we might still have a row of cedars at Cedargrove Mall (if not the logging pole at Evergreen Mall).  
 
sincerely, 
Jeff Bateman 
7083 Briarwood Place 
Sooke, BC V9Z 0T2 ​


Feedback I received as shared on my Facebook page:  May 20, 2017 10:02am
Update of the triple-plus good kind with this message received yesterday from the District of Sooke's Laura Hooper re: the Deerlepe forest: "We have just met onsite with the property owners. They have had an assessment of the forest to gather information on the trees as they move forward (and to remove deadfall) but we have been reassured that they do not intend to clear-cut the property. We were given the impression that they are likely to selectively remove trees once they work with professionals in the replacement of the house. We provided information on the BC Ministry of the Environment's Developing with Care guidelines and the federal Department of Fisheries & Oceans setback requirements from the ocean. We expressed our willingness to work with them as they make decisions on what to do with the property." Sincere thanks to all who brought this matter to the District's attention and to DOS staff for the prompt and timely follow-up with the new owners. :-)

Original FB post...
May 16, 2017 1:59pm
Sad to hear that the beautiful 32-acre forested lot at the end of our street (Briarwood) here in Whiffin Spit is set to be logged. The oceanfront parcel -- once owned by the late Lee Thompson, the Hollywood director/producer who made The Guns of Navarone and the original Cape Fear-- has been on the market since 2008. It sold to offshore buyers for under $3m a few months back (a bargain compared to the original asking price of $14.5m). It's zoned RU-3 ("small-scale agricultural") and allows a maximum of one home (plus optional secondary suite) per 9.88 acres. Already standing is Deerlepe House, built in 1925 and which, by local standards, might be worthy of heritage status if indeed Councillor Parkinson had got any traction on her call last year for Sooke's first heritage (aka "character home") designation.

The District informs us that the owners are free to do what they will with the property within zoning restrictions and, who knows, we could potentially be dealing with Canada's first/only oceanfront feedlot (LOL, fingers loosely crossed). A neighbour encountered some hired hands this morning and they announced they'd be harvesting lumber from the property ... but hopefully not the entire forest, thereby leaving existing homes further exposed to the strong winds blowing in off the strait. And, of course, it's quite possible that the new owners will seek a rezoning either before or after the seemingly inevitable extension of the sewer system to the western reaches of town.

Anyway, so it all goes and further proof that change is the only constant. Frederique and Sinclair Philip rented the house for a few years, and the former noted that it would be perfect as an art school given its roomy two-storey charms along with the panoply of land and waterscapes. Me, I thought it might be a great spot for a retreat centre or even a climate-change research station, but buying lottery tickets isn't part of my life strategy. So there will be some grief hereabouts.

The forest (aka carbon sink) is a magnificent place, home to all kinds of wildlife -- bears, otters, owls, eagles, deer. It's a real shame to lose it (as well as local scenes like this one, borrowed from the realtor's property listing).


Back to the Present
My bottom line thought at the moment is that the District needs to insist that developers do a better job of leaving more trees standing. Two examples: The denuded "Broom Flats" (as one local wag has taken to calling the moonscape and controversial blast zone on the south, formerly thickly forested slope of what the T'Sou-ke Nation calls "sacred mountain"). And, closer to my home here in the Whiffin Spit area, a multi-acre parcel at the corner of Wright and Francis Roads that's been stripped of all trees in a zone that allows just one house. I'd like to be able to see the trees and the forest. 

Image: Google Earth screenshot of the forest in question (that's Briarwood at the top right, our home is second in on the southside; Pat Forrest lives just out of frame on the waterfront side of Richview.) 

I'm likely starting to sound like a broken record, but here are replies to questions from the West Shore Voice News' Mary Brooke, who noted in her invitation that "answers will be published verbatim (with the right to condense as required)."  

In sending the answers prior to Wednesday morning's deadline, I replied: "Thank you for the license to contribute whatever word count we like, and I'm sure you'll need to edit what follows."  It eventually shrank to a little over 500 words for publication, but here are my unedited, er, verbateman answers ...  
 
 What is your vision for Sooke over the next 4 years?
 
The District of Sooke will continue to move incrementally forward with timelines already underway on key community projects, i.e. completion of the five-year road improvement program; continued work on drainage issues; sidewalk and streetlight expansion; critical equipment replacement in the Fire Department; trailhead signage and park improvements (drinking water fountains and washrooms at John Phillips Memorial Park and Whiffin Spit); and the establishment of the long-awaited dog park/run. 
 
A new Official Community Plan (currently perhaps 50 percent complete) will be finalized following full public process; just as was the case in 2009, it will be informed by new Transportation, Parks & Trails and Town Centre masterplans. A set of revised, modernized and enforced District bylaws will flow from it.  In the process, we will reaffirm a community vision with threads that connect to area community plans dating back at least 40 years. 
 
We will get a better handle on residential growth by discovering exactly how many already approved (1999 to present) building lots have yet to break ground in the District and what this means for future population growth and traffic impacts. We will then be in a better position to field new development approvals. I imagine council would be following OCP wishes by encouraging modestly dense growth in the core while discouraging further satellite housing developments outside of it. 
 
A talented and experienced new Chief Administrative Officer will be in position as council's one and only hire. She/he will lead and empower professional District staff. Part-time or contract positions might also be established for i) a communications officer to ensure a vastly better flow of District news and information to the public; and ii) an economic development specialist who could liaise with the Chamber of Commerce and the EDG (Economic Development Group) to effectively woo and welcome targeted developers, gap businesses, government agencies, telecommuters, services and new residents to town. 
 
The current OCP also encourages light industrial activity east of Sooke River Road, the development of a commercial node in Saseenos and the retention of our wilderness and rural character elsewhere in the District. 
 
To this end, and pending a staff report that has yet to be filed, I imagine we will have looked seriously at extending the sewer across the Sooke River as far as Kaltasin to service light industrial, First Nation, residential and school needs while also securing the environmental health of the harbour. Another upside of sewage expansion would be the opportunity to establish a social services hub on a small portion of (hopefully donated) light industrial land for a shelter and new homes for the Sooke Food Bank and the Sooke Crisis & Referral Centre. 
 
Also to be anticipated in the next four years: A new library, hooray, plus a masterplan for Lot A that, by 2022, will have seen ground broken for the new seniors/youth centre with three stories of seniors' rental cohousing. SEAPARC's latest phases of expansion will be complete with a new activity room and the all-season/lacrosse box within proximity of the new Sooke River Elementary School in Sunriver. We will have found a better solution to boat-trailer parking issues that endanger pedestrians east of the Prestige. 
 
Finally, we will have established an expanded range of select, standing and advisory committees to tap the wealth of expertise in Sooke's greatest resource, its people. Ideally, the District will have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the T'Sou-ke Nation to explore how we can extend the boundaries of Solar City and its Net Zero housing initiatives to the rest of town. 
 
What improvements can be made within the community in the short term, and what will you work on longer-term? 
 
Short-term necessities and improvements are cited in my answer to #1 above. 
 
Longer-term, the District must patiently, persistently keep its needs front and centre with senior levels of government and other public and private funding sources.  We are one of 162 municipalities and regional districts in BC that all hunger for attention. Only through the kind of dedicated, consistent, strategic advocacy we've seen from Mayor Tait on the healthcare file will we continue to attract our fair share. 
 
Establishing a true harbour viewpoint park or series of them (either at sea level or from the heights) is essential for this and future generations. No end of great ideas about all manner of local and big-picture subjects pop up and vanish on social media and in other public forums. I'd be interested to explore how can we effectively tap this flow of raw ideas and package them so that we can more effectively lobby with real-world feedback in such areas as Hwy #14, public transit, green energy, forestry, fisheries, education and the environment. 
 
Our road network is straining at the seams, and the new Transportation Masterplan will likely reveal that we must refocus on a secondary bypass route (perhaps the Throup/Grant connector or another route) and establish a second Sooke River crossing (likely twinned with the existing bridge). Our current Town Centre plan is dependent on this bypass route. 
 
Regarding Hwy #14, we must always press for our share of MOTI funding for ongoing improvements while recognizing and being grateful for the money the province has already spent these last five years. We might also ask the province to investigate an emergency exit route (perhaps via an upgraded Butler Main logging road to south Shawnigan Lake that would be used only during Malahat and Sooke Rd. closures.) I believe that a true, $100 million-plus alternative main road that connects seamlessly with Langford and/or Hwy #1 is a pipedream for at least the next 25 years. 
 
 
What is your plan to ensure the widest possible range of housing affordability options in Sooke?
 
Affordability, of course, means that people should pay no more than 30 percent of their gross household income for housing costs. 
 
The housing spectrum we need to look at spans from market-priced home ownership and rentals; affordable (by the 30 percent definition) home ownership and rentals; social housing units (i.e., the Hope Centre and the Knox Vision Society low-rise); and shelters for the homeless. 
 
My first thought is that we need to more fully address this range of needs rather than continuing our current overwhelming focus on market housing as driven by mainstream developers. We also need to tap into the wealth of approaches to alternative, relatively low-cost housing, notably smaller footprint residences, mobile-home parks and micro-homes on either fallow ALR land or as secondary rental suites. 
 
We have a relatively small population of homeless youth and adults, and this makes us an ideal community in which to test creative new solutions to a growing national crisis. Dorm-style, long-stay shelters matched with on-site health workers and employment opportunities would stabilize many lives. Seed funding through Ottawa’s National Housing Strategy and the shelter portion of BC Employment & Assistance programs could underwrite costs. 
 
 
Other than nature-based tourism, what are the economic growth possibilities for Sooke?
 
Given the length of earlier answers, I'll keep this short: 
 
i) Creation of new office, retail and light industrial opportunities and space; 
 
ii) Active marketing of Sooke as an ideal "telecommuting" community for government and private-sector workers; 
 
iii) Initiatives to attract gap independent businesses (while discouraging chains with Langford outlets that will weaken our unique civic character);
 
iv) Age-friendly healthcare and other support services for our growing population of new retirees. 
 
v) Tap into the trades department at EMCS by giving graduating students a wider range of solid opportunities to work locally (perhaps in cooperative business start-ups) and put down roots in the community. 
 
 
What is your experience with governance, budget management, and community engagement?
 
I've never held elected public office. From 2013 until recently, I was president of Transition Sooke, a non-profit volunteer citizen's group in good standing with the BC Societies Act. I have also been president (2015 to present) of the Edward Milne Community School Society. [edit: I failed to mention any of the public events both organizations have undertaken -- the Sooke Ecohome Tours, the Planet Earth Celebration, Zero Waste Sooke Repair Cafes and street clean-ups, the Sooke Talks series at EMCS (next one is on Nov. 2, not to be missed!) ...Scrabble tournaments, TS speaker nights, open-space community meetings with full documentation and reporting to the District ... so yes, I've my share of experience with community engagement.]

In both cases, these groups have either a skilled treasurer or, in the case of the EMCS Society, first-rate accounting and financial reporting professionals in charge of budget management. If elected, I would certainly respect and rely on District staff, especially the Director of Financial and Corporate Services, to continue to earn their keep with (as I've witnessed to date) best municipal practices. 

I've seen my share of fire department presentations in council chambers by former Chief Steven Sorensen and current Chief Kenn Mount over the years, including three fascinating (to municipal geek me) five-year budget-planning sessions in the spring that spoke volumes about how politics can rear its head even in as seemingly professional a sector dedicated to the common good as emergency response. (Visit the video archive for the meetings of March 27, April 5 and April 9 to see for yourself.)

These last two weeks I've furthered my education. I requested an hour with Chief Mount for a 101 overview that  generated the point-form report below. It was shared with all the candidates, and so I, in turn, am sharing it with you. 

On Sept. 26 at the Community Hall,  I was speed dated by a tag team of volunteer firefighters led by Chaplin Gordon Kouwenberg. Their mission: To inform candidates about their efforts and to gauge our feelings on whether we believe they merit consideration for an approx. $7/hour honorarium. That stipend, relatively commonplace in BC volunteer fire departments, would help the perennial efforts to recruit/retain an effectively free labour pool that gives so much back to the community at the cost of sleep and quality time with their families.

I said 'yes, of course,' after quickly calculating that at 300 hours per year on average per volunteer, the payout would be about $2,100 a head. Multiply this by the Chief's desired maximum of 45 volunteers, and the total cost would be less than $100k per year (of which part-funding is available from the province). Whether my numbers are accurate or this strategy will work or not remains to be seen, but it's worth a try. (The department currently has an annual budget of $2 million for staffing, training and equipment costs.) 

Finally, on a recent Friday, I sat with new DOS career firefighter @Ben Temple for an hour at the Stick In The Mud Coffee House ~ not far from the spot where I met with this year's BC Fire Training Officer of the Year Cam Norris-Jones during the 2014 campaign. 

My takeaway from all this is that we're fortunate to be served by a set of first-rate, peer-reviewed and approved professionals and volunteers. They merit respect and the leeway to do the work for which they're trained with all due oversight from council but minus the enhanced degree of micro-management and second guessing they received from council's financial watchdogs in the spring. 

Bonus from this intensive: I'm now well enough versed in local emergency services to at least partially keep up with Stick cohort Bob Hudson when he launches into the subject, as he is prone to do.  🤔

Okay, here's the run-down of the facts circulated by Corporate Officer Carolyn Mushata and compiled (I assume) by Chief Mount following our meeting ... 

"The District received the following request for information from a candidate and is provided to all candidates for information:

· Volunteer recruitment process and status:

o Current Roster is at 41 including all paid staff, support members and suppression firefighters. Need to be between 50-55 members

o Volunteers have requested to look at a plan for true Paid On Call system to be phased in

· Staffing levels and 10 min response time challenges:

o Defined what the 10 min response time means and revisited the past presentation to Council. Explained the B.C. Building Code limited distance

o Explained how the 10 min response time does not work in the province with the Volunteer Composite Model due to mustering time and staffing requirements

o Explained the that Superior Tanker Shuttle Service Accreditation is an impact on water supply requirements and not related to a 10 min response time. Residents are being advised about this insurance dwelling protection grading savings by mail out. Many residents walk into the station asking for a letter of support now for their insurance renewals.

o The Office of The Fire Commissioners Playbook minimum standards and our Full Service Capabilities is a training standard that Sooke Fire has met the competencies for years in advance of this and this Provincial required standard; this standard is not associated to the B.C Building Code. 10 min response time requires a comprehensive long term staffing model. Training is not a barrier to this.

· Asset Management and Apparatus Replacement Plan – FCABC presentation

o The long term apparatus replacement plan has been inputted into the district asset management system

o The District is seen as leaders in the Province when it comes to this type of planning

o We were noted in the Province with a presentation request at the Fire Chiefs Association of B.C conference.

o Presentation was well received and the plan is under further review with Fire Under Writers Survey with a current grading rating evaluation

o Current Fleet is under some pressure as small utility vehicles are showing significant signs of unreliability and downtime

· Sooke Emergency Program and Neighborhood Emergency Preparedness Program (NEPP) Planning growth

o The NEPP pods are showing interest and growth

o More Grant applications will be forthcoming that Council will be advised on and require support

o The Sooke Emergency Program has a small budget

o Acknowledging that this program needs more focus and staff support after our June 28th exercise. Report is attached to the ESS grant application for review.

o Future UBCM Grants of interest for the Sooke Emergency Program will be for Emergency Centre Operations and evacuation planning

· Emergency Operation Centre Improvements

o More training for staff support will be necessary in 2019

o Grant application will be focusing on the Information Technology Improvements

o Running the program on the side of the desk without full focus creates challenges

o District is moving in the proper direction to better serve Emergency Management, the grants will be very helpful

· Bylaw and weekend Bylaw Officer coverage status

o With a new Bylaw Officer providing service over the weekends and evenings is making a difference

o Receiving good feedback from residents regarding a new presence with Bylaw

· Motor Vehicle Incidents and the impacts on Sooke Road

o We have a steady stream of Motor Vehicle Incidents recently and reviewed the most recent week of back to back extrication being required

o Comments on feedback from other agencies with respect to the good team work and competencies of skills in auto extrication techniques

o Advised that the Fire Dept does not close roads and the most recent incident the Fire Dept provided extrication support and the extended delays were due to the scene being under the control of a traffic analyst and BC Hydro flaggers.

o Mutual Aid relationship is excellent. Discussed how Fire Dept managed 5 incidents at once with support:
· Otter Point MVI
· Dog Bite
· Landing Zone support
· Medical Call
· Smoke Chase

· We continue to invest in Critical Incident Stress Management and Health and Wellness for our membership

· Summarized that the Fire Department is in good shape morale wise and is in a better position administratively than it was a few years ago.

· Hosting the B.C Training Officers Association conference and having the Training Officer of the Year designation has been a good experience

· With respect to staffing and overtime this is still be address and the it will take some time to recover still and be reflected with time off. We are making progress on managing this better.
​
· Talked about the Volunteer support with the wildfire deployments with our reserve Engine and more revenue generation. Will continue to focus on Wildfire Training and the Structural Protection Programs. Advised that we do have a Community Wildfire Protection Plan and long term fuel mitigation strategies take some significant planning and potential long term maintenance requirements."

In an exchange last week on the excellent Sooke Municipal Election 2018 FB page, now ex-Councillor Kerrie Reay unexpectedly dropped my name into the thick of a heated thread with others. As she's said in the past, both publicly and in person, she views me as a root cause of the social media abuse she endured during 2016/17 and which has made her an exemplar of  politicians assaulted by online trolls. And so on this mid October morning, I'm stepping away from more productive pre-election activities to, I trust, definitively and finally address her concerns. 

Here's what she wrote the other day when replying to another correspondent (you can read the whole thread at the group's FB page; Oct. 8 at 6:48 am)  ~ "... I’ll say it again, the former CAO was not a friend of mine so people can quit that crap. Perhaps Jeff Bateman would finally be kind enough to admit that he drew a conclusion off something he read on the internet that sparked all this in the first place. Secondly, this community destroyed a persons life by the innuendo you [not me, Ms. Reay is addressing another person here] continue to spread, makes your opinion no better than those you have trashed here. Thirdly why do you ignore the comments of another member of the Hiring Committee, that unequivocally states the hiring process was a rigorous process meeting all HR Standards for all levels of govt hiring across Canada" 

So, once more with feeling ~ and since Ms. Reay has again raised the matter in public ~I need to explain myself. To be clear, I am generally a kind person, that's true, and yet to quote the late, great Tom Petty, I won't back down on this matter. Fact: I did not nor ever have suggested she was a "friend" of ex-CAO Teresa Sullivan (who left the District's employ last February after 26 eventful months that proved frustrating for her supporters, detractors and the vast majority of us who simply want Sooke's municipal business to be overseen smoothly and effectively by a city manager earning $140k per annum in salary and training costs).

What I did say (exact quotes in purple further down this page) at the Dec. 14, 2015 council meeting was that I had concerns about Ms. Sullivan's hiring given her and Ms. Reay's connections with the Conservative Party of Canada ~ Reay as the party's former riding association chief in Esquimalt-Saanich-Sooke and Sullivan as campaign manager for 2015 Conservative candidate Shari Lukens (with whom Sullivan had served on Colwood council from 2011-14).

Rather than rewriting it again, I'm sharing below a long chain of posts from my Facebook page in which I repeatedly (ad nauseum, I know) explain my thinking. Included is my rebuttal to Ms. Reay's reference to me at the Feb. 14, 2017 council meeting at which she revealed she wasn't going to seek re-election due to online bullying. There are also notes on a letter I sent to the Sooke News Mirror, my thoughts on the ex-CAO's hiring of the ex-Corporate Officer (yes, it gets a little complicated), and observations about the abrupt departures of some key long-time District staff in the wake of Ms. Sullivan's arrival. 

It's all ancient history, I realize, yet it remains a flashpoint and likely should be an election issue given that incumbent councillors Pearson and Kasper are again seeking a seat and served as the other two-thirds of the hiring committee. Neither have dedicated any time at all (to my knowledge) these last few months to sharing their thoughts about Sullivan's hiring and troubled tenure. (Councillor Pearson did acknowledge at the All-Candidates debate last week that capable CAOs are in short supply generally speaking and filling the role is a problem faced by many municipalities. I'd think that Mayor Tait, given her top-rank connections with the Union of BC Municipalities, would be perfectly positioned to assist the District's new Human Resources officer -- a position that didn't exist at the time of Sullivan's hiring -- in securing a solid short list of candidates.)  

To recap: The hiring committee (chaired by Reay with Kasper and Pearson) voted with Councillor Bev Berger in favour of giving the job to Sullivan at a council meeting dated Nov. 20, 2015; Councillors Logins and Parkinson voted against. Mayor Tait was on pregnancy leave at the time.  With the Mayor back in office five months later, Council gave Sullivan a unanimous vote of confidence at the conclusion of her probationary period. (Ms. Reay is not happy with the Sooke PocketNews coverage of the Sullivan years, but I'll link it here since, for me and many, it's the most solid and well-reported record of the matter you'll find out there.) 

I have respected Ms. Reay as a councillor, and have learned much from witnessing her reasoned, cautious (re: the dangers of council making "motions on the fly," for instance), compassionate yet level-headed approach to discussions and decisions. We certainly disagree on some key big-picture issues, notably our respective stances on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion (she, as I said, is a Conservative federally and ran for the BC Liberals locally in 2013; I voted Liberal federally in 2015 and have backed John Horgan at the provincial level. I'd also likely have voted for NDP-er Rick Kasper in the '90s had I lived here then).

As for the still lingering matter in question, I've talked to Ms. Reay about it in person a number of times, most recently while snacking on smoked salmon at the Charters River Salmon Interpretive Centre two Sundays ago. Yet I'm clearly not getting my point across. So, in a final (I trust) effort to set things straight, I share a series of pertinent FB posts in reverse chronological order. https://www.facebook.com/batemansookebc

Feb 27, 2017 4:56pm 
​
"It's taken awhile, but after a friend laughingly accused me of bullying not long after Pink Shirt Day last week, I was advised to watch Councillor Kerrie Reay's Feb. 14 council address and listen for my name. I did so for the first time this afternoon, at least up until the point where the councillor states that, at the meeting of Dec. 14, 2015, I accused her of conflict of interest in her role as chair of the council committee that hired CAO Sullivan. Yikes! Did I flat-out accuse her of this? Memories can be tricky, mine definitely included. I'd intended to ask, in the public interest, for further clarity about Ms. Sullivan's hiring. But maybe in my shambolic fashion I'd gone too far.

So I went back to the video replay of said meeting. It was a rare full house in council chambers. Arts supporters had turned out in numbers regarding the Community Grant process. The shock waves and sadness over Bonnie Sprinkling's sudden departure were in the air. It was also CAO's Sullivan's first meeting. Acting Mayor Pearson had to quiet the crowd a few times, noting "there's passion in the room."

I've now revisited my turn at the mic that night 15 months ago. Here's what I said in closing:

"Welcome to our new CAO Teresa Sullivan. Welcome and best wishes in the position. My one concern regards the hiring process. Councillor Reay, who leads the hiring committee, is past president of the Conservative Party of Canada’s riding association in Esquimalt-Saanich-Sooke. Ms. Sullivan was most recently campaign manager for (ESS) Conservative party candidate Shari Lukens.”

I then acknowledge that I was an ABC (Anything But Conservative) voter in the federal election of a mere seven weeks earlier and incoherently come to a stop before getting to the point:

“It strikes me as a potential conflict of interest and I’d appreciate some clarification and perhaps some simple transparency about how the process of hiring our town’s top civil servant took place.”

Good, that's a relief then: I did not directly accuse Councillor Reay of wrongdoing. I asked a question in what I believed then (and still do) is the public interest and which I think qualifies as fair comment. Of course, I never received an answer and long ago learned that I shouldn't expect one. Facts: The hiring was an in-camera decision made by a designated council committee (Reay, Kasper and Pearson). Due diligence was apparently done in seeking capable and suitable candidates. The Mayor and council later approved the hiring. All was done by the book and is, frankly, none of the public's business.

In fact, I was quick to say as much, as per this letter sent a year ago and published in the Sooke News Mirror. It reads in part: "Like many, I'm curious about the political ties linking Councillor Reay (former Conservative Party riding association president) and CAO Teresa Sullivan (campaign manager for CPC candidate Shari Lukens). As one of the 82.3 percent of Esquimalt Saanich Sooke voters who cast ballots for other parties, I never imagined a rising Conservative tide might conceivably be lapping on our shores.

I'd also have been compelled to seek clarity if a hiring scenario like this was conjured by senior campaigners affiliated with any federal party. To me, it's simply not cricket, no matter how gifted the hiree nor how theoretically little political worldviews impact on bricks/mortar municipal governance.

As is their right under the Government Act, the hiring committee has revealed nothing about the CAO recruitment process. I'm relieved, however, to hear Councillor Reay announce that she has kept Mayor Tait apprised of all developments. If indeed it's okay by the individual we overwhelmingly elected to lead Sooke forward, then that's a vote of confidence I accept and celebrate. Viva Sooke/T'Sou-ke - ancient, old, new, emergent.

I'm actually pretty chilled these days by this subject. Done deal, case closed, let's move on. I wish the knowledgeable and skilled (from all reports I've heard) Ms. Sullivan the best in working with Council and our returning Mayor as they tackle the minutiae of municipal business."

Postscript: Okay, now that I've set the record somewhat straight about myself in this context, I've gone ahead and listened to the rest of Councillor Reay's speech. Like many, I regret that she's had to take this decision. As she says, some people have gone WAY too far, especially (as I've said before on this page) those who threaten staff or (as I've now learned) council members at their homes. (The incident with Councillor Reay's dog is truly mean-spirited and cruel - whoever did that, shame on you, what kind of brute are you?). As for those relative few who drop unthinking, gossipy, egregious, borderline litigious bombs into otherwise interesting, engaging and well-intentioned comment threads on social or online media, please STOP, keep your reactivity to yourself, and save us all from having to process your juvenile views and opinions."

Apr 06, 2016 3:58pm
(written after learning of Councillor Kasper's infamous parking lot rendezvous with Mayor Tait's husband)

"I rather regret using the word "good" in relation to the Sooke News Mirror in the opening line of my last post after the drama of today's unsubstantiated front-page piece about what I've taken to calling (since this is the wild west, after all) the Shoot-out at the SoOKe Corral. As I just wrote over at the FB group Sooke Issues (where the discussion is blowing up and turning a little fractious): "Fact: None of us know what happened the night of March 23. There's no videocam record and the regrettably sensationalistic SNM article is based on a single anonymous source. This person's definition of "aggressive behaviour" might be seen by another as "assertive and forthright" ... Let's all calm down and wait for more information. Monday night's council meeting -- Mayor Tait's first since September - should be fascinating. 7 p.m. start and you'll need to get there early to grab a seat." 

Also a bone to pick with Mr. Laird: Your choice of a sweet photo of Mamma Maja with her son to illustrate the flip-page of an article titled 'Police Called After Altercation At Council" is in poor taste. The story -- and the respect that needs to be paid to the office of the Mayor -- calls for a formal photo, not an image that belongs with a personality profile.  

To end on an upbeat note, thanks for a second-week running to Mr. Laird for his editorial. The groanworthy "labour pains" headline aside, this week's column about Mayor Tait's rights under the BC Employment Standards Act is right-on. "Tait is entitled to everything she left behind when she went on parental leave" - her CRD directorship included. Hopefully this will be sorted out quickly on Monday night or in whatever in-camera session council has planned (because if indeed council voted to gave Councillor Kasper the CRD directorship for 2016 without taking into account Mayor Tait's return, they seemingly did so in private ... or at least I can't find any public record of it, and that may be my oversight).

Mr. Kasper was appointed in December when the CRD made its annual board announcement, and I'm confident he'll do the right thing by stepping back into his alternate-director role now that the Mayor is back. As I've noted before, we gave her a 2/3rds majority for this town's top elected position and we, the majority of voters, have every right to expect her to be representing us at regional and provincial levels - just as Mayors Evans and Milne have done in the past." https://www.crd.bc.ca/about/news/2015/12/09/capital-regional-district-announces-2016-board-chair

Apr 04, 2016 7:33pm
(musings about a News Mirror article at time of Mayor Tait's return from pregnancy leave)

"Good to see @Sooke News Mirror editor Kevin Laird dedicating last week's editorial to the return of Mayor Mom™ ;-). As he writes, it is indeed great to have our popular elected leader back in office. Ms. Tait won a two-thirds majority based on her inspiring vision, personality, smarts, work ethic and two-term experience in local government. And with baby Ewan in tow, she is all the more emblematic of the New Sooke, a place where young families are as essential to our town's future as zoomer retirees and a non-commuting adult labour force. Along with Harbourside Cohousing, the @T'Sou-ke Nation and the outliers in our funky independent business community, she's a big part of why Sooke is more widely viewed these days as an intriguing, off-the-beaten-path municipality with character, spirit, ready access to the super, natural west coast and heaping helpings of promise and potential. I'll echo what Laird and everyone I meet in my rounds around town these days is saying: Welcome back, Maja, you've been missed. 

While I appreciated Laird's editorial, I do question a few of his lines. Like this one in relation to council's actions in her six-month absence: "Sometimes you got the sense that (Acting Mayors Pearson, Reay and Kasper) were just waiting for your return before they could get down to serious work." Excuse me? This crew sitting on their hands? Not likely and quite the contrary. Let me count a few of the ways they're taken the opportunity to shape the immediate and longer-term future of Sooke: 

1. The acting mayors formed the hiring committee that brought in CAO Sullivan, an action that, in turn, triggered a seismic overhaul of municipal staff. 

2. Councillor Reay's tenure as Acting Mayor ended with the surprise announcement of the really rather massive (by our municipal standards) $1.4 million purchase of the land behind Evergreen Mall, a portion of which is reserved for our new library but otherwise no other plans have been revealed. 

3. Councillor Kasper again led the five-year budget deliberations, ensuring with the rest of the staff/council team that this year's tax hike is the bare minimum and that the plan maintains necessary future big spends on the connector road network, sidewalks and waterfront town centre development. Bravo! 

4. Out of the blue, the District opted last week not to renew the EPCOR sewer contract. Instead Sooke will run the system itself with the help of contracted pros. Unlike the transparent public process that led to EPCOR getting a five-year extension in 2011, this weighty decision was made in-camera by council and staff. 

5. We're now on course for new $1m all-weather fields at Fred Milne Park thanks to Councillor Berger's recognition that the District's reserve funds don't have to remain tucked away in perpetuity and can be put to good immediate use. 

6. In addition to all this action, we're invited to vote on April 30 in the SEAPARC golf-course purchase referendum; major zoning bylaw revisions have been executed along with a sea-change in how the public is expected to address council; community groups and non-profits have been put on notice that Community Grant funding is finite; and a Tait-less council initially danced enthusiastically with the blue-sky visionaries at the Greater Victoria Economic Development Agency only to then drop out without explanation to explore partnering up with west-shore allies instead. 

So, Mr. Laird, I beg to differ: Rather than twiddling thumbs and "stumbling along," council has taken substantial and impactful actions in the Mayor's absence that will resonate for some time to come. While it's fine to end by stating that "everyone is expecting you (Maja) to lead the way and move forward," I'd argue that this too is naive. As Mayor Milne discovered, it takes patience, perseverance and considerable composure and sang-froid to ride herd on a council as strong-willed and experienced as this one. (After all, our recent Acting Mayors have either vied for the Big Chair themselves or have had aspirations to higher office, i.e., 2013 BC Liberal candidate Ms. Reay.)"

Feb 22, 2016 3:50pm
(long form of a SNM letter to the editor that was subsequently edited by the paper)

"My letter to the Sooke News Mirror wasn't published last week, though maybe there will be space for it this time. Here's the long-form version I first submitted prior to being asked to cut it back to the allowableable 300 words. It's a variation on what I posted here earlier and I'm sharing it here because, well, it's my page and I'll do what i wanna ... :-) 

Dear Editor: 

"Jeff" - a four-letter word - appearing in Lorne Christensen's Op Ed piece in the Feb. 10 Sooke News Mirror. A few points in reply, if indeed the reference is addressed to yours truly: 

i) I'm not sure which "blog" Mr. Christensen refers to, but I don't post my opinions under pseudonyms anywhere or anytime, though other Mildreds, Davids and Jeffs in town might. 

ii) Like many locals, I did and still do have concerns about the intimate Conservative Party of Canada affiliations of the party's former local riding association president, Councillor Reay (who also chaired the District's hiring committee), and CAO Teresa Sullivan, who most recently was campaign manager for Conservative candidate Shari Lukens. I stated this publically at a council meeting before Christmas, hopefully politely and with due respect, but perhaps not enough. (I'd describe it as a plaintive query and request for clarity from a guy who, like 82.3 percent of Esquimalt Saanich Sooke voters, had cast a ballot for another party mere weeks earlier and never imagined that a rising Conservative tide might conceivably be lapping on our municipal shores).  

iii) I'd also have been compelled to seek clarity if a hiring scenario like this was conjured by federal campaigners with incontestable ties to the Liberals, Greens, NDP, Communists, Rhino Party of Canada or whoever - to me, it's simply not cricket, no matter how gifted the hiree nor how theoretically little political worldviews impact on the bricks-and-mortar decisions made at the municipal level. 

iv) Of course, that's my opinion and, as the Local Government Act makes clear, it's ultimately none of my nor anyone else's business. The hiring decision was made in camera by a committee of three (Councillors Reay, Kasper and Pearson). As is their right, they have offered no insights into the recruitment process nor spoken about their deliberations. Case closed. (I'm much relieved, however, to hear Acting Mayor Reay say at Council last week that she has kept Mayor Tait apprised of developments in her absence (not that this signals approval from our Mayor). If all this rapid change at the District is okay by the individual we elected by a two-thirds majority to lead Sooke forward, then that's a vote of confidence I accept and celebrate. Viva Sooke/T'Sou-ke - ancient, old, new and emergent.)

v) Apart from my comment at council and a similar post at the time on my Facebook page, I'm actually pretty chilled these days by this subject while remaining curious and engaged. In fact, I sincerely (read: I mean it, this is genuine and for whatever it's worth) wish the knowledgeable, skilled and focused (from all reports I've heard) Ms. Sullivan the best in working with Council and our returning Mayor as they enact the Strategic Plan, refresh the Official Community Plan and tackle all the minutiae of municipal business.  

vi) Not the least paradoxically, I also agree with Harrison Lansing's letter in last week's paper calling for transparency and accountability in public hiring processes. 

Jeff Bateman 
7083 Briarwood Place
Sooke"

Feb. 10, 2016 
(edited to remove text I later used in the SNM letter above ... PS Congrats on you likely very few who've read this far! No prizes save for a virtual high-five from Candidate Jeff)  

"From all reports (I'm not yet met Ms. Sullivan, so no personal insights), she's hard working, smart, connected, likeable, talented ... and clearly unafraid to take command at Municipal Hall. Of course, it's for those very reasons and qualities that we elected Mayor Tait to the Big Chair, and won't it be great to have her back at the helm of the ship of state soon-ish - because Mayor Tait is much more than one vote among seven, she's the one more than two-thirds of we voters overwhelmingly chose to lead us further out of the dark ages of municipal adolescence and truly begin maximizing our town's promise & potential.

There must be more graceful, compassionate ways to ensure lines of succession for senior staff than what we've witnessed lately (i.e., had Ms. Sprinkling not earned the right to participate in the selection & mentoring of her successor while exiting District employ on her own timetable?).

Finally, I was impressed by Ms. Sullivan's response to a rare comment i posted in the Sooke PocketNews (replicating exactly what i wrote here on Dec. 8). Her reply: "Thank you, Jeff. Exciting times for Sooke. Mayor and Council have found a responsible balance between economic development and respecting green space and the natural beauty of the wild west coast. I look forward to introducing myself to the community. I’ve worked with the provincial Socreds, NDP, Liberal Party as well as the CPC and many stakeholders – both private, non-for-profit and public sectors. I had a wonderful experience sitting with Colwood City Council from 2011 to 2013. Mayor and six Councillors who respected one another who chose to ‘get2yes’ (my twitter hashtag). I am proud of the work I’ve done and look forward to getting to know you better."

So, in closing, slack is formally cut for Ms. Sullivan from me here in my obscure corner of Web. 2.0 (not that it ever wasn't and for whatever it's worth). Not at all paradoxically, I also agree with Harrison Lansing's letter in this week's SNM calling for transparency and accountability in public hiring processes."    
 
Feb. 4, 2016, 11:34 am
(first thoughts on new CO Gabryel Joseph; after a year during which he introduced some sharp new procedural mechanisms, he promptly jumped to a bigger pond (the City of Port Coquitlam) and was replaced by Carolyn Mushata, a skilled, experienced civic-government veteran who is a grounded, professional civic governance oracle in council chambers, much like Bonnie Sprinkling before her.)

"On another front, local media is reporting that Gabryel Joseph has been hired away from the City of Edmonton to fill Bonnie Sprinkling's seat as Director of Corporate Services effective earlier this week. Sleuths who search Twitter and Facebook for his accounts will discover interesting insights into his character and worldview, and his LinkedIn profile gives you his professional background (which includes a commendation from CAO Teresa Sullivan from when they were both involved with the British Columbia Anesthesiologist's Society in 2013/14, so clearly she knows him and figures he'll make an ideal sidekick). Still lots of grief, anger and disbelief out there at Ms. Sprinkling's trap-door exit (at least in the circles in which I travel), but let's welcome Mr. Joseph and give him every benefit of the doubt. (i.e., scanning his Twitter account, it appears he has insights into Edmonton's solid waste-to-biofuels project, an energy-smart initiative that could well work at our wastewater treatment plant.)"


Jan. 27, 2016, 3:19 pm
(posted after getting a bounced back email sent to then-Corporate Officer Bonnie Sprinkling which revealed she'd suddenly left the District after 16 years employment) 

":-( Wow, this automatic reply to an email i just sent shocked and saddened me. I've no insights into the back story, but like so many here in Sooke, I was impressed by Ms. Sprinkling's class, knowledge, kindness, patience, responsiveness, empathy and deep understanding of the minutiae of municipal governance. Respect to her and thanks for her many years of local public service (a decade or more). May the road rise up to meet her whatever life brings next.

(from the comments thread): At Monday night's council meeting, the CAO clearly stated that she's entirely responsible for staff decisions, so Ross is right: new broom, predictable story (and nice cover for any councillors who might wish to see changes in staff ranks, of course). Broken record time, but, as stated on this page awhile back, I'm concerned that figures so intimately associated with the Conservative Party of Canada are now embedded in our municipal government. I've no doubt they will do a fine, perhaps outstanding, job with Sooke's corporate strategic plan, yet it's the mindset that may colour their worldviews that concerns me. These are folks who passionately backed the Harper government and campaigned for its continuance despite all the evidence that it had seriously gone off the rails in so many and varied ways (http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/08/10/Harper-Abuses-of-Power-Final). Federal politics is a nasty, name-calliing business as we witnessed so vividly last fall, ever thus and still is ... for a pertinent local example, visit Shari Lukens's Facebook page, where she recently called PM Trudeau "classless" and is delighting in posting as many National Post hatchet jobs on the new gang in Ottawa as she can find. It's confrontational and very much an 'us' vs. 'them' mentality. It would truly be a shame if these kind of divisive, cut-throat, our-way-or-the-highway practices were to take hold here in what I've always pictured (in my admittedly naive fashion) as a friendly, neighbourly, "perfectly imperfect" (TM JB) little town with heart & soul to spare. All this said, let's hope Ms. Sprinkling did step down willingly and wasn't pushed."

Dec 08, 2015 3:49pm
(a first FB post upon learning of CAO Sullivan's hiring and days prior to my fateful turn at the mic that has generated all this rear-view mirror gazing today) 

"Oil-spill emergency response, tourism opportunities, our shabby (and not likely to be replaced) x-ray facility and Community Grant funding cuts for arts groups dominated last night's lively, well-attended COW meeting, yet the most significant news was the introduction of Teresa Sullivan as the District's new Chief Administrative Officer.

She arrives at an interesting moment: roundabout complete, investment in the town core poised for at least a mini-boom now that the infrastructure's improved, Harbourside Cohousing opening its doors next month ... and the Greater Victoria Development Agency now onside as a new collaborative partner to begin putting us more creatively on the South Island map in ways that we (i.e., the Official Community Plan) want us to be placed. Here's the District's press release on Ms. Sullivan's hiring via the Sooke PocketNews]. Not mentioned is that she was most recently campaign manager for Conservative Party of Canada candidate Shari Lukens] (whom she sat alongside on Colwood council circa 2011-14; one of their colleagues was Judith Cullington, campaign manager for Frances Litman - Green Party.

Neither does the release tell us of the hiring process, but I do trust Mayor Tait, several councillors and senior District staff were all involved. (I'm sure Councillor Kerrie Reay absented herself given that she's riding president for the Esquimalt Saanich Sooke Conservatives.)

Anyway, welcome to Ms. Sullivan, stepping into big administrative shoes filled over the last 15 years by the departing Gord Howie (thanks for the public service and, since he's a member of the Ekoos ensemble, the songs), Evan Parliament, Peter Jmaeff, Tom Day and David Gawley."
 
BONUS: And, while I'm at, here's a Jan. 2015 FB post that references Ms. Reay and discusses the fallout of the successful  "no more tankers" plebiscite question that Jo Phillips and I lobbied for on behalf of Transition Sooke ... 

Jan 23, 2015 4:00pm
":-) to the District of Sooke for sending an email reminder about Monday night's council agenda to me and who knows who else in the bcc line. High fives to Ms. Sprinkling and those responsible for this simple new strategy. A courteous gesture that will ensure more bums in seats in the future and a more efficient democratic process.

I'm on the list because council is debating how to deal with the 2/3rds YES vote on November's oil tanker plebiscite. Hopefully an invite's also gone to Jo Phillips, who launched the process with me last summer. And to the dozen-plus locals who stood up at the council mic to express their concerns last fall ... and that includes reps from the Sooke Salmon Enhancement Society and the Dogwood Initiative's local chapter.

I'd also hope former councillor Haldane has been given a head's up. It was his rousing council speech back in mid September that turned the tide and gave Sooke a plebiscite rather than more modest, low-key actions recommended by staff and endorsed by Mayor Milne (i.e., an online survey and fresh resolution). Anyway, I'm curious to witness council's next move.

Two weeks back a draft "renew and restate opposition to tankers" resolution was returned to staff to remove one too many "whereas" and "furthermore" clauses. Councillor Pearson, for one, noted that it went beyond the ballot question's mandate. This Monday's agenda package on the subject -- all 96 (!) pages of it -- surprisingly (to me) doesn't include a reworked resolution, and instead regurgitates existing background material dating back to the initial docs that Jo and I filed last summer.

All that's missing is a transcript of Councillor Reay's prepared statement that she read in council a fortnight ago. (skip to 45:28 of the Jan. 12 meeting available at http://sooke.ca/online-services/council-videos/regular-council-video). Watch for yourself, but here's my take on what she said:

Echoing BC Liberal (for whom Ms. Reay ran back in 2013) and federal Conservative talking points, she tells us she'll be voting against any resolution on the subject no matter how it's worded. There are some obvious upsides to a resource-based economy, she noted, including jobs and funding for social programs. Without these revenues, a number of Sooke families would suffer, especially as jobs vanish in the oil patch. Ms. Reay also felt the plebiscite process wasn't fair since no individuals or groups publically championed the 'no' position. Instead, the brochures, info booths and drive-by rallies all delivered the Team Yes message. (Sitting in the cheap seats back on Jan. 12 listening to Ms. Reay, my thought was, 'hmmmm, why didn't you voice your reservations during the election and lead the dissent in what could have turned into a authentic point/counter-point debate?')

As you'll see if you continue watching the replay, Councillor Parkinson followed up by noting that her brother works in the oil industry and that she too would like to have heard "from both sides, not just one." Then over to Councillor Logins, who took a cheerworthy opposite tact and said firmly that she'd be voting in favour of any council resolution to honour a democratic vote. Bravo.

Council has much bigger roundabout-shaped fish to fry, of course, so hopefully they'll cut to the chase, do the right thing in honouring the Nov. 15 results and pass a resolution at the council level. Then, as an exclamation point, our new group of seven (Coucillor Reay excepted, of course) might champion a sister resolution of some kind that can be brought to the AVICC (Association of Vancouver Island Coastal Communities) convention in April. Something perhaps related to how we need an independent BC review of the Trans Mountain and Northern Gateway proposals - an ask now being made by groups and individuals troubled by how the National Energy Board is handling the process.

Whew, that was a doozy, if you're read this far, trust it made sense and I've not put dear reader into a coma." 



~ end ~ 

Echoing that last line to say: Likewise with this marathon! Okay, now that the record is hopefully again somewhat straight, onwards with a final week of campaigning. 

CAO 2015