We, the undersigned residents and users of Hideaway Off-Leash Dog Park, ask the City of Toronto to redesign and maintain the park as a safe, accessible, properly drained and genuinely usable public space throughout as much of the year as reasonably possible.  Dog ownership is the only recreation that requires space 365 days a year at least twice a day.

Hideaway is more than an off-leash area. For many residents, it functions as an outdoor community centre: a recurring place of connection among neighbours of different ages, cultures and backgrounds, including seniors, people living alone and people with disabilities. This role is consistent with the City's own finding that off-leash areas enrich owners' lives by supporting social contact, outdoor time and exercise. [2]

These are not requests for luxury features. They ask the City to correct long-standing deficiencies and ensure that rehabilitation improves - rather than diminishes - safety, accessibility, thermal comfort, maintainability and year-round use.

We ask the City to commit to five outcomes:
1.    Correct the underlying drainage and grading problems.
2.    Retain and restore natural turf and living ground cover wherever reasonably feasible.
3.    Provide genuinely accessible gates, entrances, pathways and gathering areas.
4.    Provide seating and shade proportionate to the park's use.
5.    Disclose the evidence, lifecycle costs and evaluation criteria supporting the final design.

1. Correct the Underlying Drainage and Grading
For approximately two decades, users have experienced standing water, mud, holes, ruts, uneven ground and drainage problems at Hideaway. These conditions can be unsafe for older residents, people using mobility aids and anyone managing a dog on unstable ground.

Changing the surface without first diagnosing and correcting drainage risks treating a symptom rather than its cause. Toronto's current standard requires good drainage in new off-leash areas, and its technical guidance requires engineered sub-drainage beneath engineered wood-chip and synthetic K-9 turf installations. [1, 2]

We therefore ask the City to:
•    commission and share a professional drainage, soil and grading assessment before final surface selection;
•    correct grade, compaction and water-flow problems and remediate unsafe rocks, holes and unstable areas;
•    use on-site, low-impact stormwater measures where feasible;
•    design for rain, snow, freeze-thaw cycles, heavy use and extreme heat; and
•    publish measurable performance and maintenance requirements for the selected design.

2. Apply a Natural-Turf-First, Evidence-Based Surface Decision
Toronto's Strategy recognizes grass, engineered wood chips and K-9 turf as possible surfaces and calls for a site-specific choice. It does not establish wood fibre or synthetic turf as the default. The City's public survey also found grass was the most frequently preferred surface (34%), while artificial turf/rubber was selected by 10%; grass plus 'natural surface' totalled 53% when those two reported categories are combined. [2, 3]

Natural turf should therefore be retained and rehabilitated wherever feasible. If high-wear points require reinforcement, the City should first consider a mixed-surface design that preserves the majority living surface and uses alternatives only where demonstrated to be necessary. [2]

The comparison must address:
•    surface temperature and available shade;
•    drainage, infiltration and runoff;
•    accessibility across the usable park, not only along one route;
•    odour, sanitation and the high urine load beside neighbouring homes;
•    animal and human comfort and safety;
•    seasonal usability and environmental effects;
•    maintenance frequency, staffing and enforceable service standards; and
•    full lifecycle cost, including drainage works, irrigation, cleaning, top-up, repair and replacement.

Maintenance accountability
Toronto's published standards require engineered wood fibre/chips to be raked six times per year or as needed and topped up annually. Synthetic K-9 turf is to be cleaned and brushed every seven to ten days from spring to fall, with a functioning automatic irrigation system. Turf/sod is to be mown, reseeded and remediated as required. [1]

Given Hideaway's history of unresolved surface deficiencies, the City should identify the funded maintenance schedule, accountable division and remedy if service standards are missed before installing any maintenance-dependent surface. Residents' recent observation that ground cover regenerated after watering resumed should be formally assessed before the living surface is removed.

Heat and animal welfare
Artificial turf can become dramatically hotter than natural grass. A 2024 systematic review of 23 studies found synthetic surfaces consistently hotter; reported differences between synthetic and natural grass were approximately 9.4 C to 33.7 C, and individual studies recorded synthetic surfaces above 60 C. The authors cautioned that evidence is principally from sports fields, so Hideaway still requires a site-specific assessment. [5]

Toronto's own policy direction reinforces the need for heat mitigation: its Thermal Comfort Guidelines recognize parks as public spaces that must provide respite during extreme heat, while the Toronto Green Standard treats artificial turf as non-roof hardscape addressed through heat-island mitigation strategies. [4, 7]

Odour and sanitation beside homes
Because Hideaway directly adjoins homes, any proposed wood-fibre or synthetic system should be supported by a site-specific sanitation and odour-control plan. The plan should state how urine and moisture will be drained, diluted or removed; cleaning and replacement frequencies; products and irrigation required; winter procedures; and how complaints will be monitored and corrected. Absorption alone is not a maintenance plan.

3. Require Functional Accessibility, Not Paper Compliance
Toronto's current OLA standard requires an accessible pathway at least 2.1 metres wide to the entrance gate and within the OLA to the seating area. The City's accessibility guidance also requires accessible routes and operable elements to account for clear width, stable surfaces, manoeuvring space, reach and operating force. [1, 6]

A perimeter path is insufficient if loose material migrates onto it or if a mobility-device user cannot reach the places where people normally sit and socialize. Gate design must be tested as a complete task: controlling a dog, operating latches, manoeuvring through a double-gated transition and exiting independently.
•    firm, stable and slip-resistant approaches and internal routes;
•    adequate clear width and turning/manoeuvring space;
•    reachable, one-hand-operable latches with appropriate force;
•    two safe double-gated pedestrian entrances;
•    level transitions without loose material migrating onto the route; and
•    a practical usability review with residents who use walkers, wheelchairs, scooters or canes.

4. Treat Shade and Seating as Required Infrastructure
Toronto's current standard makes shade mandatory in new OLAs, supplied by trees or a shade structure; requires at least one bench per 500 square metres; and requires an accessible pathway to the seating area. New trees are to be positioned outside the OLA so they still provide shade, while healthy mature trees are to be protected. [1]  Hideaway off-leash lost 4 trees to the pea gravel installation in 2006 with no commitment from the City to replace them.

Hideaway's rehabilitation should meet at least this contemporary benchmark. We understand that the non-off-leash portion of Hideaway received seven new tables and benches over the past few years while the off-leash area has had one bench added and the same table  since at least 2000. The City should verify actual use, provide shade over accessible seating, and explain whether the allocation reflects the needs of seniors and people with disabilities.

5. Make the Decision Transparent and Measurable
Before approving a final design, we ask the City to publish:
•    the drainage and grading assessment;
•    the alternatives considered, including restoration of natural turf and mixed-surface options;
•    a weighted decision matrix covering heat, accessibility, drainage, sanitation, neighbourhood impact, seasonal use and lifecycle cost;
•    anticipated surface temperatures and shade coverage under Toronto summer conditions;
•    capital and ten-year operating/replacement costs for each option;
•    the maintenance schedule, responsible unit and performance measures; and
•    a written explanation of how resident input affected the selected design.

This request is consistent with the Strategy's commitments to community engagement, quality design, consistent maintenance and state-of-good-repair investment. [1, 2]

The Commitment Requested
We call upon the City of Toronto to incorporate the following requirements into the design, construction, rehabilitation and ongoing maintenance of Hideaway Off-Leash Dog Park:

DRAINAGE AND GRADING: Correct underlying drainage and grading before selecting or installing a replacement surface.
NATURAL TURF FIRST: Retain and restore living turf wherever reasonably feasible; use alternatives only where evidence shows they produce a superior overall result.
GENUINE ACCESSIBILITY: Provide independently usable gates, routes, seating and gathering areas for people with mobility disabilities managing dogs.
SHADE AND SEATING: Meet or exceed Toronto's current OLA benchmarks for shade, benches and accessible connections.
TRANSPARENT RATIONALE: Publish the evidence, lifecycle costs, maintenance commitments and decision criteria before final approval.
A park that is muddy after rain, unsafe underfoot, difficult to navigate with a mobility aid, excessively hot in summer or dependent on maintenance that cannot be sustained is not serving its intended purpose.
Hideaway is a neighbourhood public space used throughout the year and an informal outdoor community centre. Its social value should be preserved - not inadvertently designed out of the park.
Toronto has an opportunity to make Hideaway a model of accessible, climate-conscious and evidence-based off-leash park design. We ask the City to take it.

EVIDENCE APPENDIX
This appendix distinguishes published evidence from residents' site observations. Citations correspond to the numbered source list; each source title is linked to the original document.
A. Off-leash areas are community infrastructure
Toronto describes OLAs as important park assets that support exercise, outdoor time and social connection, and recognizes their growing importance in a denser city with limited parkland. The Strategy estimates 600,000 or more dogs in Toronto, compared with 44,229 licensed dogs in 2024, and reported 81 designated OLAs plus 13 then under development. The population estimate is an extrapolation, not a census. [2]

B. Drainage is mandatory and cannot be solved by surface substitution
The City lists good drainage as a mandatory feature. Its design guidance calls for stormwater to be managed on site where possible and requires engineered sub-drainage for engineered wood-chip and synthetic-turf installations. A new surface therefore does not eliminate the need to diagnose the underlying water problem. [1, 2]

C. Grass is an accepted surface and the strongest survey preference
The Strategy permits grass, engineered wood chips and/or K-9 turf according to site conditions. In the 2024 public survey of more than 8,400 residents, grass led the reported surface preferences at 34%; artificial turf/rubber received 10%. Combining the separately reported grass (34%) and natural-surface (19%) categories yields 53%; that combined figure is a petition calculation. [2, 3]

D. Artificial turf has a documented heat burden
The 2024 systematic review included 23 studies and found synthetic grass consistently hotter than natural grass. Reported surface-temperature differences ranged roughly from 9.4 C to 33.7 C, with some observed synthetic-turf temperatures exceeding 60 C. Because most evidence concerns sports surfaces, a site-specific Hideaway assessment remains appropriate. [5]

E. Toronto policy requires heat-resilient public space
Council-adopted Thermal Comfort Guidelines address parks and open spaces as part of the public realm and emphasize shade and vegetation as heat-mitigation tools. The Toronto Green Standard identifies artificial turf as non-roof hardscape within heat-island mitigation requirements. [4, 7]

F. Shade, seating and accessible routes are current OLA benchmarks
New OLAs must provide shade from trees or a structure, at least one bench per 500 square metres, and a 2.1-metre accessible path to the entrance and seating area. Trees should be positioned to provide shade, and healthy mature trees are to be protected. [1]

G. Surface choices carry recurring maintenance obligations
Toronto specifies raking engineered wood fibre/chips six times yearly or as needed plus annual top-up; synthetic K-9 turf requires cleaning and brushing every seven to ten days spring through fall and working automatic irrigation; turf/sod requires mowing, reseeding and remediation as required. [1]

H. Accessibility must address the whole user task
Toronto's OLA standard covers the route to the gate and seating, while its broader accessibility guidance addresses clear widths, stable surfaces, manoeuvring space, reach and operating force. At a dog park, these requirements must work while a person is simultaneously managing a dog and navigating a double-gated enclosure. [1, 6]

I. Parkland must perform multiple public functions
Toronto's Parkland Strategy describes parks as essential for health, wellbeing, community cohesion, ecology, rest and recreation, and calls for barriers to be removed across ages and abilities. That supports evaluating Hideaway as community infrastructure, not merely as a dog surface. [8]

J. Site observations requiring City verification
Residents report long-standing standing water, ruts, holes, displaced pea gravel, limited maintenance, recent removal of user-provided tools, renewed watering and substantial ground-cover regrowth, adjacency to homes, and an unequal seating allocation. These are first-hand observations. The petition asks the City to inspect, document and respond to them rather than presenting them as independently verified technical findings.

Footnotes
[1] City of Toronto, Dogs Off-Leash Strategy webpage (mandatory design features and maintenance standards; modified March 16, 2026)
[2] City of Toronto, Toronto's Dog Off-Leash Strategy: A Citywide Approach to Dogs Off-Leash Areas (April 2025)
[3] City of Toronto, Dog Off-Leash Strategy public and stakeholder engagement report (2025)
[4] City of Toronto, Thermal Comfort Study and Council-adopted Thermal Comfort Guidelines (2025)
[5] Singh et al., The effect of synthetic grass sports surfaces on the thermal environment: a systematic review (2024)
[6] City of Toronto, Toronto Accessibility Design Guidelines (2021)
[7] City of Toronto, Toronto Green Standard Version 4 - Ecology and Biodiversity / Heat Island Effect
[8] City of Toronto, Parkland Strategy