Appendix 2: Charrette Summary

• All agreed that dog etiquette is necessary and felt that signage concerning on- and off-leash areas could be improved. Also suggested were size-limited areas (ie: small dog area/big dog area).
• All felt that enforcement of on- and off-leash areas was the only thing that would actually make irresponsible dog owners follow the rules
• All felt that every effort should be made to not resort to fences in order to define different areas in the park
• All expressed desire to keep the blackberries near the McLellan trail, citing them as a great draw to the park
• All felt that drainage should only be improved on the trail itself, but if the field were to have its drainage improved small wetland areas would be good options due to their low-maintenance nature and large-scale effects. Craigflower creek was referenced for its small ponds that manage stormwater
• A vegetated swale the length of the creek in order to clean the water and make the dry ditch look better during summer was suggested (no one opposed)
• All agreed that the trail section alongside the creek should be designated on-leash or have no dogs permitted, and that it should be separated by the off-leash area by a wide planting bed. Use of planting beds as pedestrian circulation funnels supported by all
• Dog walkers expressed a desire to maintain darkness during non-daylight hours, but requested that any implemented lighting be ground lighting. General consensus was that lighting was only required at key intersections and entrances

Table 2

Notes:

• Wayne MacDonald offered little comment – came to observe as he is a cyclist but not a View Royal resident
• All but one enjoyed the undeveloped ambiance & relative quiet of the park & wanted that maintained (at end of 2 hours had consensus on a plan with some passive activities planned into it)
• Vocal majority strongly opposed to reduction in size of off leash area
• All strongly opposed to introduction of fences
• All appreciate relatively large & open field that is dark at night. It provides a good opportunity star gazing – not many Town areas where light levels are such that you can see stars at night.
• Group did not want to see lights introduced to field
• The dog walkers also appreciated the field for dog play. The dog walkers described 2 informally recognized groups: fetchers who use the field, and walkers who use the loop.
• All would like to see trail maintenance improved – fix potholes & remove weeds & encroaching grass from edges. Most felt if weeds & grass were removed from path footprint it would not need to be made wider

• All would like to see drainage improved but when asked no one in this group expressed interest in creation of a wetland, (they didn’t see it as a worthwhile investment)
• 2 individuals felt a slightly widened path would be useful for walking with friends (say 6' wide – don't know what original path width was). Most saw no need.
• One individual indicated he had been hit by bikes in the park 3 times, one individual was a cyclist who travels through the park, one individual indicated speeding down the hill off McLennan trail and from the public access from Peacock Place were concerns, however, none that spoke up felt the number of bikes in the park warranted a widened trail or a multi-use trail. The majority opinion was that widening the trail would encourage more bicycle use and would allow current cyclists to go faster, and there was no desire to do that
• When asked about connections to the E&N and Galloping Goose, the vocal participants indicated they didn't want the park to be used as a cycling connection. Only 1 participant indicated he felt the connection would be both desirable and inevitable
• All felt mounds in south portion looked artificial and could be removed if necessary to accommodate other activities
• All were supportive of adding more benches (adding fitness stations was not discussed)
• There was no support for keeping dogs out of the riparian area in the off leash portion of the park, but all agreed the off-leash portion should be more clearly marked.
• After considerable discussion there was consensus that providing a pedestrian path through the park, from the parking lot to the McLennan trail, that did not go through an off-leash area, was appropriate. It was agreed that to do this a 5m wide border of vegetation might be planted on the inside of the west half of the existing trail that circumnavigates the field, and a new path installed on the inside of the new vegetation. This would create a closed loop trail within an off leash area around the field, and establish a linear trail in an on-leash area to the west of the field.
• All agreed that establishing a viewing area was desirable, preferably where there is already a break in vegetation. An area at a bend in the creek just south-east of the ecological demonstration area was selected as a good option. The group felt the viewing area should be dog-friendly and may or may not include a constructed viewing platform.
• There was agreement that introducing interpretive signs would be acceptable; about half felt introducing interpretive signs would be beneficial
• There was agreement that current on-leash areas should remain so (assuming no loss of land in the off-leash area).
• The group felt the area north of the existing playground, including the black cottonwood stand and planted ditch, should be designated as a family picnic area. The group recommended additional picnic tables, a picnic shelter and perhaps a small amphitheatre be introduced, and the ditch be enhanced to become a more significant water feature/ nature feature. The sound of running water would be appreciated.
• The group felt the play area should be expanded and re-worked into a play ‘environment’. The new environment would occupy the space between the family picnic area and the north edge of the existing mounds in southern half of park. The play environment need not have ‘fixed’ edges but might have fingers into the adjacent on-leash activity areas.
• The group felt that the southern portion of the park, from the parking lot to the play area, should be used as a community space and could include community gardens (no more than 20 plots at 20'x20'), and possibly an native plant/educational garden, an amphitheatre (gathering space) and picnic tables. One participant suggested the area include fruit trees - this did not receive group support due to concerns about fruit drop, maintenance, etc.

• There was discussion around other possible locations for community gardens (within the park) but none were agreed upon. There was some concern expressed about increased parking demands with the introduction of community gardens and park improvements in general.
• There was discussion around including a nature trail in or adjacent the riparian area and the group concluded they'd prefer creation of viewing platforms, i.e. establish specific points of access rather than a trail because they did not want any dog-free trails established.
• The group recommended invasive plants be removed from the park, but did not recommend additional riparian planting (they felt it would fill in with time). The group wanted removal efforts to be kept up & were concerned that they wouldn't be.
• One participant indicated they felt unsafe walking past the ecological demonstration area and all agreed it could potentially be a troublesome area because it puts pedestrians in a 'blind spot', and because it is in an area of the park that is routinely used for bush parties. It was agreed the path should be re-routed to go on the field side of the demonstration area, and that the demonstration area should be cleared/thinned to allow visual penetration through it.
• There was agreement that a washroom would be an asset and that it would be best located near the parking lot where services are more easily connected to, and where 'untoward' behavior is somewhat less likely (can be visually monitored by drive-by traffic).
• There was agreement that low level lighting could (not should) be introduced along the path leading from the parking lot, past the playground and on to Paddock Place. The group opposed lighting elsewhere in the park.
• The group noted that development in the park had to consider adjacent residents who might be bothered by additional noise & activity in the park.
• At the end of the 'workshop' portion of the charrette, several table 2 group members indicated they were pleased with the outcome.

Table 3

Notes:

• Group was diverse and included people who lived next to park and others who did not.
• All appreciated the park as a refuge of open space and natural areas. They agreed the creek was the most significant feature in the park
• The group agreed the park was large enough for variety of uses. Although most were dog walkers who wanted to keep all off-leash areas, they were willing to compromise
• All wanted to see the drainage of the park improved
• Trail improvement was a priority- particularly improving accessibility for seniors on scooters.
• One participant wanted to encourage more preschoolers to use the park and to install a more imaginative play space
• There was group support for increasing the planting of trees and shrubs, particularly along the riparian area. One participant wanted more large shade trees established along the edge of the meadow to create more “stately” and “elegant” trees

• All supported some form of “zoning” with area south of the meadow expanding community facilities.
• Several participants were concerned with security. They did not want park improvements to encourage more transient use. Trails could be widened to improve police access in case of emergencies (ie deal with undesirable activities). Park improvements/ uses should be sympathetic to park neighbours.
• The group was supportive of installing a bridge across Craigflower creek and other viewing points. The bridge location was to be determined by engineering study, but the preferred location was to the existing pedestrian walkway from the cul-de-sac. However, they warned that residents of the cul-de-sac may resist a bridge (encourage more transient/ unwanted activity)
• One participant wanted a canoe/ kayak launch near the parking lot entrance. Others did not think this feasible due to the fluctuating water levels.
• The group supported improving connectivity to the future E&N railway, but there was some concern that this could increase criminal/ undesirable activity in the park. A commuter corridor through the park may also increase conflicts with dogs.
• Half of the group supported community gardens, half did not. Those opposed perceived community gardens as a form of private control over public space.
• Those living adjacent to the park on Paddock Place wanted to maintain private access to the park.
• The group did not want a dog agility course
• The group did not want a band shelter, but a “gathering place” was acceptable. This gathering place was to be located between the two picnic shelters

Table 3 identified the following activities as potential action items for the park:

Improve Drainage: Activities for improving park drainage include:

• An assessment of park soils to understand why flooding is occurring
• Constructing rain gardens in areas where seasonal flooding occurs
• Constructing wetlands- plantings should improve habitat, but discourage transient use (no high shrubs, dense trees)

Trail Improvement

• Raise or move trails to avoid flooding conditions
• Maintain ‘perimeter’ location of main trail
• Create ‘scooter friendly’ surface to improve accessibility- preferably not asphalt
• Widen trail if necessary to improve emergency access/ trail maintenance
• Construct bridge to improve connectivity to adjacent neighbourhoods
• Consider maintaining private access to park from backyards
• Create a new trail through cottonwoods, over “stream” to meadow. This could be a viewing point of the constructed wetland

Riparian/ Habitat Improvement

• Expand planting adjacent to riparian zone
• Plant large shade trees on edge of meadow/ trails to create “stately” open grown trees
• In addition to bridge, create viewing platforms at key locations. Interpretive signs should be installed at viewing points to improve public education and awareness

• Conduct assessment for best location for bridge (engineering/ ecological study)

Develop Zones of Use Within Park

• Maintain a significant portion of the meadow for off-leash use
• Consider creating a new trail across the meadow to delineate a northern Off-lease Zone and a southern General Recreation/ On-Leash Zone. The trail could have trees/ shrubs to help delineate the two zones.
• Install physical fitness points along the trail adjacent to the meadow
• The current on-leash area (south of bridge) could have expanded community use
• Install two picnic shelters – one near play area, one closer to parking lot
• Improve playground equipment
• More benches could be installed, but more garbage cans was a higher priority

*Amalgamated Plan - An Amalgamated Plan (incorporating all ideas from Tables 1, 2, & 3) was prepared by the Consultants during the lunch break and presented to participants at 1:20pm. Also presented was a list indicating some areas where additional assessment & research is required to determine feasibility of some of the ideas explored during the charrette. (this list was not comprehensive). It included:

• Ecological study to determine appropriate location for a canoe/kayak launch
• Ecological & engineering study to determine appropriate location for bridge
• Drainage study
• Cycling study – understanding of present & anticipated volumes and timing
• Regulatory (DFO, MOE, etc) Approvals for bridge, viewpoints, trails, etc.

Q&A

Comments After Presentation of Amalgamated Plan:

• Consider empty lot on Glenairlie for community garden
• Consider off-leash dog area at View Royal Park as trade off for off leash dogs at Thetis Lake Park (work with CRD)
• Participants expressed desire to see amalgamated plan publically posted and to receive follow-up information on master plan before final decisions are made. Participants would like another opportunity to speak up. Contact should not just be web based as some don’t have computers.
• Consider planting shade trees at perimeter of park
• Consider planting fruit trees (mixed reaction from participants)
• Open field is an important feature for kite flying, informal play (eg pick-up games) – consider having part of the field apportioned to ‘people’ rather than ‘dogs’
• Consider adding vegetative buffer along highway
• Consider switching on-leash / off-leash trail suggested in amalgamated plan so on-leash is closer to water and allows ‘everyone’ to enjoy the creekside environment