As with our car washes and Tim Hortons outlets, dog parks are another example that services and amenities demanded by certain segments of our population may take years to manifest but, when they do arrive, they tend to do so in pairs. 

A few weeks after we approved the Development Permit for the Wadams Farm subdivision that will include a small public dog park (see pg. 14) upon its completion in (guesstimate) 2024, council will tonight determine whether we're going ahead immediately with a staff recommendation for another fenced dog mecca -- this one double the size (90 x 25 sq. meters, which is approx. one-and-a-half hockey rinks long, one rink wide) in the Ponds Park corridor a short leash-tugging stroll west of Church Road (where a dozen angled parking spaces will be added). 

Talk of a fenced dog park or run locally dates back at least to the John Phillips Memorial Park study of 2006 (see pg. 7 to 23; the recommendation was for a meadow dog run on the slope leading to Wadams Way, which might conceivably remain possible even given the Sooke Lions Centre proposal.)

Since then, committees have called for formal public consultation, councils have discussed options and, in 2013, a dog-owner lobby group gathered 457 signatures in favour of a fenced area in Ponds Park or JPMP itself (the latter ruled out by council of the day because of seasonal groundwater problems well known to golfers and off-trail walkers). (Details on the back-story below.) 

The current council included item 2.3.5 in our 2018-2022 Strategic Plan ~ “Identify location(s) and establishment of dog park(s).”  The how, why and where of it was to be investigated in the larger context of the updated Parks & Trails Master Plan, adopted in October, 2020. (All its dog management references are neatly captured in this press release.) 

Parks Master Plan action item 6.19 (pg. 55) states: "Establish dog off-leash areas within a 15-minute walk of all residents: i) Establish two larger dog off-leash areas, one north of the highway and one south, eg. in the Ponds Park corridor and at a future beach access; ii) incorporate smaller dog off-leash areas within existing and proposed community and neighbourhood parks per the spacing above; and iii) Designate trails where dogs are allowed off-leash." 

Previous discussions had always recommended further public consultation. With our long-awaited Communications Coordinator in place, it happened during a COVID year when in-person hearings were impossible.  The consultation was predicated on certain assumptions: Ponds Park had been identified as the best possible location for the north-of-Sooke-Road dog park; and alternate options in JPMP were challenging and costly due to drainage issues. We as a community were being asked to identify amenities (and recognize their pricetags) with the end goal of ensuring a best-possible experience for owners, their furry companions and the neighbouring community. 

Read the results yourself on the District's Let's Talk Sooke website, in particular this summary document presented at the July 19 Committee of the Whole. The 48 (of 100) survey respondents who took the time to write comments shared pro/con sentiments about the location:  "40% (19/48) express strong support for a fenced dog park at Pond’s Park Corridor; 15% (7/48) express opposition for a fenced dog park at Pond’s Park Corridor; 13% (6/48) ask for enforcement of hours of operation and dog behaviour."  

Not unexpectedly, opposition has come from many near neighbours (if by no means all; I chatted with two in-favour couples on Saturday who live within 100 meters) who fear the worst -- barking dogs, traffic issues in Acreman Place, negative impacts to home values and the loss of relative peace and quiet. (An early June petition netted 68 signatures against from 46 area households. One irony: the manufactured home park due south of Ponds Park does not allow dogs.  You'll find several letters against in tonight's council agenda -- pp. 205-207 -- as well as this recent Sooke PocketNews letter.)  

At last week's COW meeting, six of us voted in favour of "authorizing construction of a fenced dog park at 2276 Church Road." I voted against on the grounds that this kind of impactful, rather controversial decision would best be decided when council chambers are again fully open to the public -- likely starting with our meeting of Sept. 20.  I imagine one of those exciting (to me, at least) full-house occasions when the tides of passion run strong and everyone has the right and opportunity to bark as loudly as they like (2 minutes maximum) in favour or against.  E-feedback is fantastically useful, of course, but not everyone is wired for the 21st century and there is that truth about body language and vocal tone representing 85% of communication.

I'll likely say exactly this tonight and ask that we postpone the decision until we can invite the public back into chambers. It would give opponents the right to share their concerns in person. And it would allow proponents from elsewhere in Sooke to rally and express their support.  (One missing link in the discussion so far has been the widely recognized best-practice dog-park partnership of local governments with a community group-- a 'Friends of the Dog Park' pet-owning collective of some kind that would take its share of responsibility for managing, cleaning, operating and raising funds for future phased development of park amenities such as a separate fenced area for small dogs.)  

A pause (still my favourite word in a world that is spinning way too fast by my increasingly antiquated standards) would give us all time to further chew over this already mangled but clearly still flavourful bone. There are remarkably few fenced dog parks in the CRD, but how are other municipalities managing those they do operate? The City of Victoria's Paws In Parks program shows the way. As for the tricky business of siting future dog parks, we could learn from Saanich, which this summer is experimenting with "pop-up dog parks" in five locations to allow residents a chance to experience them in real time before any final decisions are made.

What do existing best-practice documents have to offer such as this one from the US Trust for Public Land or this guide to designing and managing dog parks via the National Recreation and Park Association?  Dog owners also have their share of reasons to enjoy and equally be wary of dog parks (as documented here and in this New York Times article shared by one of our recent thumbs-down correspondents.) 

Personally speaking, we Batemans are cat people and have not been around dogs regularly since our childhoods (long-haired dachshunds Rufus, Remus & Nicki + a Yorkshire terrier named Kimbo for me; shelties Raider and Dawn for Carolyn). But we appreciate them as wonderful sentient beings and engage in as much interspecies communication on the Spit and elsewhere as their owners allow.

We also embarked on a delightful visit two weekends ago to the Vic West Dog Park. We lingered at the edge of this small, gravel-based park and watched the romparound antics by the assembled pack -- perhaps a dozen dogs of all sizes, including a Burmese mountain dog and her puppy, several lean hounds at full sprint (running in looped circles around and across a big exposed rock) and one nervous but game rescue dog who'd been relocated from a Texas kill shelter and become the beloved companion of a man living in nearby Dockside Green. When dogs pooped, watchful and responsible owners promptly scooped. Apart from a couple of yelps and a few barks of hello, it was an idyllic and happy scene -- dogs and owners alike enjoying the socialization time.

Whatever unfolds, here's the no-matter-what guarantee: Every dog will have its day. 

Bonus extras ... 

i) Except from the Wadams Farm development permit 
"Public Dog Park: A 1086 m2 public park is proposed at the corner of Wadams Way and Church Road. As detailed in sections L1.05, L3.05 and L5.01 on the landscape plans, the features of the dog park include salvaged cedar or rot-resistant logs for dog play and slope retention, center located concrete stairs with center located handrails to facilitate access to sloped areas and enable pet clean-up, pedestrian bollard solar lighting along the public pathway , bicycle racks, one standard parking space designated for park maintenance vehicle with signage, park signage and "petiquette" signs, water service with water fountain (dog/human/bottle filler), two benches along the public pathway and three benches within the dog park, bear-resistant waste bins and dog bag dispensers. A black chain link fence will surround the dog park with a double gate for dog park safety and a second access gate is provided for service maintenance. Cedar split rail fencing will surround all rain garden areas and wetland habitat." 

ii) View Pointe Estates
A tiny chunk of land (2,100 sq. feet) for a suggested dog park was donated to the District by View Pointe Estates in 2017. It is a miniscule portion (perhaps better suited as a viewpoint) of the 32% of this sprawling 137-home development dedicated for parkland, a trail system and easy legal access for us all to the gob-smackingly spectacular panoramas. 

iii) Excerpt from Guidelines for Successful Off-Leash Dog Areas by the University of California's Centre for Animals In Society

"If asked about the three things that influence how well an off-leash dog park works, one could answer maintenance, maintenance, and maintenance. This is a factor that proved to significantly correlate with ranking of park success, regardless of park size or whether dog-exclusive or multiple-use. The bottom line is that before establishing on an off-leash park, the community must plan ahead and commit resources for maintenance. The monetary costs and time for maintenance should be budgeted and taken into consideration prior to approval of the park. The factors that are part of maintenance include, but are not limited to, are: frequency of emptying refuse cans; re-supplying disposable plastic pick up bags; replacing or fixing broken, bent, or weathered signs displaying rules; filling holes dug by dogs; irrigation and maintenance of vegetation and turf; repairing fencing. Maintenance also includes cleaning restrooms and other park user amenities, such as benches. One perspective is that, as in reducing the occurrence of graffiti in urban areas by promptly removing graffiti, promptly removing fecal droppings encourages people to follow the rules about cleanliness.  The following are our recommendations:

1. Plan and budget for appropriate maintenance and a cleaning schedule, which includes adequate sanitation procedures, filling of holes that are dug by dogs, proper maintenance of the substrate, and proper maintenance of fencing and amenities.

2. It is suggested that an active dog park club help advise the municipality as to the needed resources to maintain the park, and to help monitor their condition. However, do not rely on the club to handle the required maintenance. 

iv)  My Facebook post from July 12, 2020
"Sharing this amusing Portlandia sketch while preparing for tomorrow night’s latest in a nearly 15-year series of discussions of an off-leash dog park in John Phillips Memorial Park.

I’ve done a little homework: In Sept. 2012, the District’s Land Use and Environment Committee of the day recommended a public consultation take place for a JPMP dog park (as originally identified in the park’s 2006 masterplan). The committee also noted its concerns about drainage issues on the old golf course and potential conflicts with other park users.

After It’s Over Rover’s Jacklyn Orza rounded up 457 signatures in favour of a dog park in early 2013, council asked staff to look at the feasibility of the nearby Ponds Park corridor. A basic fenced area along the corridor near Church (I believe) would have cost $14k; seemingly essential amenities like lighting, a water supply for thirsty dogs and benches for their owners added another $11k. For reasons I’m not clear about, this scheme died on the books.

In Oct., 2016, the then-extant Parks & Trails Advisory Committee recommended that council “develop a public consultation plan for an off-leash dog park.” At its meeting a month later, the committee heard from one speaker that JPMP and an area near Sunriver Nature Trail Park were the best candidates for a dog park or two. Another resident quoted in the minutes wanted to see a park in the heart of the town centre (mentioning the Horne/Goodmere Rd. area, and perhaps meaning the underutilized Lions Park on Murray Rd.).

Conflicting views were also expressed about Whiffin Spit, which to this day is designated dogs off-leash/under effective control. One speaker noted that off-leash here was essential given the lack of a dog park in town. Another conversely noted the Spit should be on-leash exclusively to curb conflicts with dog-shy walkers and to protect the eel grass habitat (aka migratory bird stopover refuges).

As in 2012, however, I don’t believe a public consultation plan was ever initiated.

Fast forward to 2019, and the new Council’s Strategic Plan included item 2.3.5 ~ “Identify location(s) and establishment of dog park(s).”

The draft 2020 Parks & Trails Masterplan released last month identified (pg. 52) that dogs are as increasingly popular with boomers and millennials in Sooke as they are across North America. The tail count in town now tops 2500 loyal, adorable, beloved canines of all shapes and sizes. Their needs for romp-around socialization opportunities in an enclosed space must sooner rather than later be addressed here as in so many other communities.

The PTMP states that Sooke requires the following:

1. “An on-leash bylaw to prevent dog issues throughout the District.”
2. “Designated dog off-leash areas.”
3. “Dog management is needed on Whiffin Spit in particular.”
4. “More bylaw control of dogs and consideration of dog
waste management within sold waste management planning.”
5. “Designated off-leash and on-leash trails.”

Now a group from the Sooke Community Association has approached the District with an offer to build and maintain a fenced dog park in JPMP. On the map in our agenda package, the proposed location appears to be due east of the duck pond where two trails converge. As I recall from winter rambles, this portion of the old golf course gets pretty swampy, so it may not be the best location.

As Mayor Milne was quoted as saying in 2013, the park needs to be fairly central and in a “high and dry location” – hence the preference for the Ponds Park corridor back then. The 2006 JPMP masterplan (created by a citizen's committee after the golf course covenant was controversially shredded and the land split into two while creating our town's beautiful central park and a still undeveloped parcel for housing) suggests a "meadow dog run" be located on the hillside leading up to Waddams Way.

Anyway, it’s good the issue has arisen again. As a preview, a gorgeous Newfoundlander named Eve, owned by a military family newly relocated to Sooke, romped over at the end of yoga in the park this morning and greeted us all one by one. Most of us were delighted by this sweet, gentle giant of a dog. One of our number might well have been wary due to possible past experience with less friendly dogs, however, and this theoretical person also has rights to the quiet, safe enjoyment of the park as much as the rest of us.

So it’s a complicated matter (what isn’t?), and I look forward to seeing how the council pack addresses it tomorrow night -- likely by agreeing to the staff recommendation that a public engagement plan and funding options be developed for further consideration." 

Pictured: My late mum and dad's beloved and final daschund, Tessa D'Iberville. 

August 18 update: The Alternative Approval Process opened last week and ends on Sept. 15. Further information on the project from the District here and at an AAP explainer page that includes the elector response form you'll need to sign and submit if you're opposed. Should 1,122 others join you, then a referendum it shall be. 

If you have doubts about the democratic fairness of the AAP, formally known as a "counter petition" or the more attention-grabbing "negative vote," here's an editorial/rationale from the Cowichan Valley Citizen newspaper related to an AAP in its area held last year. <clip> "If we sent everything to referendum we’d have a completely unwieldy system of government where nothing ever got done ... Though imperfect, as any system is, it actually manages to be a decent middle ground between council making a decision and a full-scale referendum. It does allow the public to have a voice beyond the usual consultations, or sending in letters of protest. It can also be decent at gauging just how much opposition there may be in the community to a particular idea, though sometimes it can lead to a loud minority carrying the day." 

Interesting to see how this unfolds. Lots of support vs. rumblings against, especially in the wake of last week's Sooke News Mirror article, a letter this week and the promise of further pushback by well spoken somebody/somebodies who've labelled him/her/themselves "Sookeonfire Taxpayers." 

As noted below, Sooke last went to an AAP in spring 2020 when locking in our ability to borrow funds to pair with the $4.6 million federal/provincial grant we recently received to expand the wastewater treatment plant.  

While I don't speak for my council colleagues (and certainly not Cllr. Beddows, who as a Lion himself has always and ever recused himself from any in-camera or public council discussions on the matter), I think it's fair to say the six others of us opted for the AAP approach vs. referendum for these reasons:  i) The consensus public vision for JPMP since its acquisition by the District 15 years ago was that it evolve into a popular, well-utilized central park, not a sanctuary/refuge for the relative few (as per the conclusions of the JPMP Trust Committee and two Parks & Trails Master Plans); ii) The chosen site (once considered for the new library and covering approx. 10% of the total parkland) is nicely positioned in the rarely utilized meadow area, leaving its finest natural features untouched (i.e., the pond, the poplars, the northern hillside loop trail); iii) The Lions have developed a multi-faceted vision that will fill gaps and serve community needs -- including day care, an emergency reception centre and a concert stage, all within steps of the town centre. Plus it's a fluid, developing proposal, the Lions welcome community ideas and input, and (most importantly) they have the will, appetite and enthusiasm to make it happen.  

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

​The Sooke Lions Club has stepped up boldly (as is its nature) with a plan for a multi-purpose community gathering place in the southwest corner of John Phillips Memorial Park. See pp. 179-188 of Monday night's council agenda for a map, a rationale statement by the applicant (both attached below), the business plan and the pair of options available to council and the District in securing elector approval for the required long-term lease of public land. 

The proposal -- labelled as a "Community Hall" on the map but known formally as the "Sooke Lions Centre" -- calls for a 21st Century companion and counterpart to our wonderfui 1937 heritage hall on Eustace. The business plan highlights parkside reception and convention space with 300-person capacity (suitable for meetings, weddings, family parties and public events) + commercial kitchen, offices, an outdoor stage and a concession stand. 

A much-needed daycare centre is part of the vision. Facilities would be available for multi-generational programming. And the two-storey building would double as a reception centre in the event of a large-scale emergency.  All within the five-to-ten minute walkability zone that our evolving Official Community Plan has identified as critical in unlocking the potential of a compact town centre in which the majority of our population resides. 

The tentative deal on the table would see the Lions sell its Murray Road pocket park behind Pizzability to the District at a fair-market price; the Lions would plough the proceeds back into the new build and the District will retain the Murray Road green space as P1-zoned (public recreation use) parkland.  They'd also secure the long-term lease of 1.9 acres of the park at the foot of the southwest slope leading up to Wadams Way. (Back in 2016, I believe the same approximate spot was mulled by council of the day as a site for the new Sooke library prior to their savvy decision to purchase Lot A.) 

Given that JPMP is owned by the District (i.e., all of us), the Community Charter requires that any sale or, in this case, lease of public park land receive "approval of the electors," to quote Monday's staff report. "There are two processes through which this can be achieved: Assent Voting and the Alternative Approval Process (AAP)."  

The first option would involve a referendum (likely to be held during the Oct. 2022 municipal election). The AAP, on the other hand, requires at least 10% of eligible Sooke voters (i.e., 1,123 precisely) to formally express their opposition and thus trigger a referendum with a 50% + 1 vote majority deciding the question. (AAPs are relatively commonplace in BC when councils determine that a subject isn't divisive enough to require a referendum; for mostly recent examples, see Nanaimo, Esquimalt, North Cedar, Courtenay, Pemberton, Port Alberni, the Peace River district, and our own Capital Regional District). 

Council will determine on Monday night whether to accept the staff recommendation that we proceed with the AAP process this year. [This council's one experience with an AAP was in the first quarter of 2020 re: Sewer Loan Authorization Bylaw No. 776 (pp. 153-159), which will allow the District to borrow up to $2.2 million to pay our share of a $6.8 million expansion of the wastewater treatment plant. The remainder would be covered by the federal/provincial Investing In Canada Infrastructure Program. There was no public opposition, and we now eagerly await word on a $4.6 million grant that would increase the plant's currently challenged capacity by 50%, thus accommodating incoming growth through at least 2040 -- population 22k by then, state the CRD projections -- and ensuring the environmental health of the harbour and basin.]

Variations on the Lions Centre idea have been percolating for more than a decade as the Sooke clubs sought a long-term lease on centrally located public land. Smack in the heart of our smart-growth town centre, the park is the wholly logical spot. JPMP has been envisioned as a well-utilized central park ever since the District acquired the eastern half of the old golf course in 2005 (following the controversial covenant-shred documented in the minutes from this 2004 public hearing; see pp. 5-10).  

​That civic-park vision was captured after full public input by the JPMP Trust Committee chaired by Neil Flynn. It delivered its findings in late 2006. (See pp. 7 to 23 of this agenda for the final report.)  And it's been reaffirmed in two successive Parks & Trails Masterplans, most recently the 2020 version where it's identified as a "community park" and defined as "a destination park that services residents and visitors; helps to form the visual, physical and social focus of the community; offers natural features and/or built facilities, cultural features and other opportunities; and supports diverse activities - picnics, special events, sports, play areas, recreation." (see pg. 26-44.) 

If successful, the Sooke Lions Centre proposal would substantially launch the JPMP committee's vision of a vibrant community green space -- specifically, to quote the 2006 report, an "active, well-used park" that "caters to the general public rather than individual or small-group ownerships," "provides a meeting place, a central gathering area, for family and neighbourhood groups, festivals, community markets, etc." and "serves a wide range of community needs, including those of seniors, families, youth, children and tourists."

All while maintaining the park's natural assets, especially the pond, the trails, grassy expanses and the shady places. No question that extra careful, environmentally sensitive development of the site will be required, as the Lions are fully aware.  

Over the last 15 years, loop walking trails have been embedded in the naturescape and it was determined that a Sooke bike park, as recommended in the report, would be (and is) a better fit next to Stan Jones Field at SEAPARC. Yet aside from a handful of summer events, JPMP has remained a serene green space populated by relatively small numbers of walkers, dog owners, fitness groups and Nott Pond's armada of ducks and red-winged blackbirds. 

Since 2019, however, aspects of the vision have picked up momentum along with so much else in our rapidly maturing town core. Washrooms, a water fountain and signage for the Stickleback Urban Trail have been added. The relocated Sooke Country Market has drawn great numbers on Saturday mornings this summer and last just south of the Municipal Hall.  A long-overdue public parking lot in the current site of the market was negotiated earlier this year as part of the deal the District struck with the developer of a pair of mixed-use commercial/residential rental buildings (see pp. 7-122) at the former Mulligans/Speed Source. And just last night the Sooke Program of the Arts Committee passed a motion (pp. 7-15) asking council to hire professionals to blueprint a design for festival and event infrastructure (an amphitheatre, for instance) in the park. 

Now enter this ambitious possibility, one with a far-bigger scope and community purpose than the traditional "Lions Dens" established as home bases by and for Lions Clubs world-wide. As the map shows, the area in question is a 1.9 acre slice at the edge of a scoop of private land (not actual parkland as so many of us assume) owned by Aragon Properties. (Aragon is the widely respected Kitsilano-based boutique developer of the now-approved Wadams Farm housing project and also owners of the property on the western half of the former golf course destined for the future Nott Brook development of 127 single-family homes.)

This private land (zoned R3 - Small Lot Residential) on the east side of Otter Point Rd. will ideally be part of the future roundabout that will access the Lions project while also servicing traffic flows from Wadams Way, Otter Point and a new stretch of Wadams linking up with Grant Road (possibly via another roundabout at Gatewood, a right-of-way that logically would be opened up for through traffic from Eustace.) 

Personally, I'm excited. LIke so many in Sooke, I respect and value the long-standing community contributions of the Lions, the Sooke Lionesses and the Sooke Harbourside Lions (as conveyed to me in person over the years by the  members I've befriended over coffee at the Stick -- Pat Forrest, John Patterson, Randy Welters and Maxine & Godfrey Medhurst -- as well as my former across-the-street neighbours, Jeanette & Larry Umbach.  The Lions Clubs International purpose and ethics shared by 1.4 million members  world-wide says it all. Like so many in Sooke, it's clear to me that these folks and their colleagues have Sooke's very best interests at heart and that this proposal smartly addresses local needs.)

Whether Sooke at large agrees or not is the next question. Some people will likely and understandably not be in favour of losing this portion of the park's lightly populated, peaceful character that has been the norm since the cries of fore from golfers were silenced. If we do indeed agree to okay the Alternative Approval Process, then opponents will need to organize and find support from those 1,122 others in Sooke needed to spark a referendum. (The required AAP forms are included in Monday's agenda linked at the outset above.)