WPC`M 2B_ Z(tter Gothic 12cpi (N) (N)#|d!cpi (N)Helv 10pt Bold (25inOne!)Helv 14pt Bold (25inOne!)HP LaserJet IID (Local)HPLASIID.PRS&d|@8E,t0 =@2 A Q (̾d USUK4SiHPLAS4SI.PRS&d|@8E\$a@USUK(2 2,.}Letter Gothic 12cpi (N)Helv 10pt Bold (25inOne!) Gothic Italic"m^,4Phdt 44T\4\,0X\\\\\\\\\88T\Tdptxxldx0\x`xpxp`xthhd<88TTT\d\d`8dd,0\,dddd@\4d\XXP<< & ~ & ~? &  &  ?0& ?? ?p% ?? p% x? p% x? % p % 0 % 80 % x % ? % ? % ?  ~? ? <  <  8       ?  ?  ?À  ???    &  & ? &  &  &  ?&  &   &   ?&   &   &  ? ' ?? ? ' ?  '    ?      ? ? ?? ? ? ? ?  0 ??  p   ?  `    ? 8         ? ???ǀ ?8 ?|? ??8 ????p ??  ? ??p <?? ???< ? ? ? ? ?)@> ?? ? *?? .? ??~  ?  @? ? ?   ?>??   8? 8 ?  p    @ ?_?>&?? `& ~ &&&?&?&p? ?& ?,? , ?, ,-? - ? -  - - - À|?-?-??...|/55?54?4444443!?3!3!2!2"2"?1"1#1#0#$$Ѓ?%?%% ?&&'(>'* /y&V(  v ,,b!KJJJJAJJ766666?À6À6666?$$$?# # ?# ?# ?#À ?#À À??# ?# ?# À?" À?" À"?߀ À#? ǀ#? Àǀ#? ǀ?À#? ?ǀ# # ?# ?# #À # ?# ?# # # #? ??#? ?#À # ?# ??#? À??# # # # # ?ǀ" ?Àǀ"? À??ǀ" ǀ0~À" `p?À" "? " "8 À?" ǀ! ?!À ?! ?    ? | ? ??< 8|8? |?ÀÀ? ? p>?`? ?? ??? ?? ?p??    >? ?~ ? 0 ? q?  a? ?  ? À  ?? x? ? ? ? ? ?ǀ??? ?? ??  À `?  ? ? ??À ?  À ??>À|??? ??? @?????@ ??@?@ÀЄ?@w@AA?Ç A A?? B/ BÀ BǀCCCD?D D EF vF_GÀ?IǀJUVVÀVVVV?V?V?WWWWWWWXXXXX?XY?Y?YYZZZ?Z[[\\\b   F,,H=<;@: 9O9?8/ 7 6 6 5 54443@?*?*_****?;*?*?*?  ?? ?? ? ?  ?  _? ? ?  /    ?? ???  ?  ??  ??  ? 6_  ?? ? ǀ ? ǀ?    ?    ?            ?     ?À  ? ?  ? ǀ? ? ǀ ?    ?     ?   ?    ? ?  ?             ?  '        ? ?         ??   ?    |z   ?  ?             @     ?       ? L  p  ?x?ǀ  ?ǀ2FO ǀ ?ǀ? ? ǀ?  ?ǀ?  À?  ???p???????g?c?%&......?.?.../ /// ! ?     ? ? ? ? ? ?? ??   ?>?  ??<? x?|8?  ~? ?p| ? ?|>? |>~? >~? ?     <?  ? > >?~< ??~8 ?p~ ?0<   ?? 444445H  ` xh 3'3'Standard3' Conseil d'administration, SLBNLVO 3'Standard0094HPLASIID.PRS&d|(̰X  &d|@E B%CITY OF OTTAWA/VILLE D'OTTAWA +EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  2X From/De:Department ofhh*6Ref.: ACS1998/0805017 NEW1C0422 h<` << Engineering and Works  2  SUBJECT/OBJET 1.<<Animals Dogs Parks Designation Policy(#< <<Animaux Chiens Politique sur la d)signation des parcs (EW34601)(#<   Synopsis and Impact of Recommendations: The report recommends: <<replacement of the 1991 "Parks Designation Policy and Signing Procedure" with a more flexible policy intended to ensure objectivity in the designation of parks for use by dogs;(#< <<approval of new park designations based on the policy and public input;(#< <<a modest dog license fee increase to offset the cost of implementation and maintenance;(#< <<a twoyear moratorium on redesignation reviews.(#< Cost of Recommendations: There is a capital cost of $35,000 to sign parks to reflect new designations. Annual sign maintenance costs are expected to increase by $5,000. The dog license fee increase will generate new revenue in the amount of $12,000 annually. That revenue will be applied first to implementation and, thereafter, to the cost of sign maintenance and enforcement of dogrelated bylaws generally. Given funding constraints, it is expected to take three years to implement all the designation changes. Public Input: Over 800 residents submitted comments by calling, writing, attending public meetings or signing their names to petitions. A number of organizations including Community Associations, Recreation Associations, and the Humane Society of OttawaCarleton offered comment as well. In general, there was widespread support for the policy and its objectives. Ninety percent of comments received related to the proposed designation of a specific park or parks. Of those comments, 90% related to ten parks. In trying to strike a reasonable balance between freedom from dogs in parks and access to parkland by dog owners with their dogs, the designations which the Department has proposed do not satisfy all park users at every park. However, the designations are objective and defensible and, on a citywide basis, they ensure access to parkland by dogs with their owners as well as freedom from dogs where parks, parts of parks, or park activities are not compatible with the presence of dogs. Contact: Jules Bouvier, 244530013383(,))   <` h 3' Conseil d'administration, SLBNLVO 3'Standard0094HPLASIID.PRS&d|3' Conseil d'administration, SLBNLVO 3'Standard0422HPLASIID.PRS&d|(̰X  &d|@E B%CITY OF OTTAWA/VILLE D'OTTAWA  2X From/De:Department ofhh*6Ref.: ACS1998/0805017 OEW1C0422 Engineering and Works Policy Actionhh*Date:`(#MWard/Quartier Ex)cution politiquehh*March 10, 1998`(#QCityWide׃ `(#8Interpretation/Interpr)tation [ ]  2 BL#҇ [1] Community Services and Operations Committee/Comit) des services communautaires et des op)rations) ,)) [2] City Council Conseil municipal 8) ,)) ))8ԯ   h<` <` <`   2I  SUBJECT/OBJET Animals Dogs Parks Designation Policy Animaux Chiens Politique sur la d)signation des parcs (EW34601)   <` <`   2  RECOMMENDATIONS 1.<<That the "Dogs in Parks Designation Policy" attached as Document 1 be approved to replace the "Parks Designation Policy and Signing Procedure" approved by City Council in 1991.(#< 2.<<That the parks designations listed in Document 2 be approved, to take effect immediately in parks where no sign changes are required and, where sign changes are required, upon the posting of those signs.(#< 3.<<That, as a contribution to implementation and maintenance costs, dog license fees be increased from $15 to $16 a year for sterilized/young dogs and from $30 to $32 a year for unsterilized dogs beginning with the 19981999 dog license.(#< 4.<<That Bylaw Number 8392 (Dogs at Large), Bylaw Number 22574 (Recreation and Parks) and Bylaw L6 (Dog Licensing) be amended as required to give effect to the foregoing.(#< !,))Ԍ( 5.<<That no redesignation requests be considered for two years following implementation of the designations approved under Recommendation 2.(#< y! J ddROBINSON.TIF y E. M. Robinson Commissioner of Engineering and Works,)) yA( LJ( ddCAO-1.TIFy Approved By: John S. Burke Chief Administrative Officer8,))X))8ԯ JLB:mm Contact: Jules L. Bouvier, 2445300 ext. 3383(  2  FINANCIAL COMMENT Subject to City Council approval, additional annual revenue estimated at $12,000 will be credited to Animal Enforcement account 085832. This additional revenue will be offset by the cost and additional maintenance of the new park signs with no impact to the department. The installation of new signs will be completed by the end of the year 2000. The Department of Engineering and Works will identify additional annual maintenance/enforcement costs estimated at $5,000 and additional net revenue of $7,000 in the 2001 Operating Budget.    1 A 1 ya0   ddEMC-FOR.TIF<<y$(#(#{ { (#(#a{ $ a{  a{  a{  { { (#(#8(#(#  ECM/JG:cds 98.03.16   2  EXECUTIVE REPORT REASONS BEHIND RECOMMENDATIONS  2  Background Prior to 1981, Bylaw 22574 (Recreation and Parks) prohibited people from bringing any animals onto the Corporation's parkland unless the City granted special permission. In 1981, an amendment to the bylaw authorized people to bring dogs into City parks as long as the parks were not signed as an area where dogs were prohibited. At the same time, the Stoop & Scoop Bylaw came into effect. Today, most city parks either permit dogs ("Stoop & Scoop") or prohibit dogs ("No Dogs"); a few have a mixed designation where natural or manmade boundaries easily distinguish the separate areas. 0$,)) { a0ԌThe parks designation policy which preceded the one that exists today provided that "Stoop & Scoop" signs would be installed only in parks with serious dog waste problems. If signed notification of the regulation coupled with enforcement did not cause unsanitary conditions to improve, staff would sign the park as "No Dogs". As people complained over the years about park cleanliness, the number of parks from which dogs were prohibited increased, with some communities eventually having only "No Dogs" parks. The policy did not provide a mechanism to consider the numerous requests which arose in the late 1980's to redesignate parks from "No Dogs" to "Stoop & Scoop (Dogs Allowed)". In 1991, City Council approved a new "Parks Designation Policy and Signing Procedure" which provides the procedural framework within which park designation changes may be effected today. The policy delegates to the Commissioner of Engineering and Works the authority to change a park designation based on compliance with stoop and scoop regulations: if there is a dog waste problem, a park may be designated "No Dogs"; if there is no dog waste problem, a park may revert from "No Dogs" to "Stoop & Scoop". Over fifty redesignation requests have been processed since the 1991 policy was established. Although the current policy has been useful in providing a framework within which to relax designations and in ensuring the participation of the community, it also has drawbacks: because each redesignation request requires a minimum threemonth monitoring period, the policy is very consuming of time and enforcement resources; it can be initiated as a result of a single complaint which is not necessarily indicative of a problem park or the wishes of the broader community; with its dog waste/park cleanliness focus, it does not address park designation changes related to people/dog conflicts for example; and it does not offer as much flexibility in designation options as may be useful to park users. With those limitations in mind, the Department initiated a review of the designation policy in June of 1996. The goal of the review was to develop an equitable, objective and easytoadminister policy that, when applied citywide, would ensure access to parkland by dogs with their owners as well as freedom from dogs where parks, parts of parks, or park activities are not compatible with the presence of dogs. It was reasoned that achievement of that goal would: establish designations indefinitely (in the absence of major changes in the park or the surrounding community); relieve enforcement staff of timeconsuming monitoring exercises; and eliminate, as much as possible, the subjective arguments on the topic that have tended to divide communities along pro or antidog lines. This report recommends to City Council the policy and parks designations that are the products of that review.  2`"  Recommendation 1 Document 1 contains the "Dogs in Parks Designation Policy" which is proposed to replace the 1991 "Parks Designation Policy and Signing Procedure". Highlights of the proposed policy, and the ways in which it differs from its predecessor, are set out below. ',))Ԍ 2 Designation Criteria Instead of establishing stoop and scoop compliance as the only criterion to consider when making a designation decision, such things as park size, the nature and number of facilities, and proximity to schools and community centres are taken into account in the new policy. Those criteria, intended to measure the relative opportunities for dog/people conflicts, are each assigned a point value; the higher the total point score, the more incompatible the park is with the presence of dogs.  2 Types of Designations The policy adds two new designations to the "Stoop & Scoop" and "No Dog" options: "Dogs on Leash" and "Timed". The "Dogs on Leash" designation is particularly wellsuited to the City's pathways, trails and linear parks, and is already in place on weekends in McNabb Park pursuant to the City Council direction of August 6, 1997. The "Timed" designation may be useful in parks adjacent to schools where a "No Dog" designation is appropriate during school hours but not necessary at other times; Jack Purcell Park is an example of a timed "No Dogs" park in operation, also approved by City Council last August.  To protect children's play areas in particular from dog waste and people/dog conflicts, the policy also introduces a general prohibition of dogs from within 5 metres of pools and play structures in all parks that allow dogs. The bylaw giving effect to that restriction will be drafted in such a way that persons will not be prevented from walking leashed dogs on asphalt paths that, leading to other locations, pass within 5 metres of a play area or pool. Compliance with the new prohibition is expected to safeguard children, reduce dog/people conflicts, and decrease future requests for "No Dogs" parks.  2p Park Redesignations The policy proposes a redesignation process which can be triggered only if there is sufficient community interest in having the park designation reviewed. The onus will be on the applicant to provide proof of that interest either by way of Community Association endorsement or a petition from a minimum number of adjacent households. A twoyear time frame between reviews of the same park is also proposed. In respect of requests that satisfy those prerequisites, the Department will post notices in the park to solicit comment on the redesignation request. If the community and the Ward Councillor agree, and there are no other reasonable impediments to the change, a redesignation can be implemented without long trial programmes or monitoring periods. `",))Ԍ 2 ` Departmental Discretion Where the old designation policy provided that only persistent dog waste problems could lead to the "No Dogs" designation, the new policy concerns itself more with dog/people conflicts and how those can be reduced or eliminated while still offering to dog owners access to the Corporation's parks with their dogs. Nevertheless, it continues to be true that, where there is chronic disregard of the Stoop & Scoop Bylaw, the only solution may be a prohibition of dogs. In anticipation of such cases, the new policy provides that the Department of Engineering and Works may impose a "No Dogs" designation, either permanently or temporarily, where there are chronic dog waste problems, with notice to the Ward Councillor and the community.`  2(  Recommendation 2 Departmental staff visited all of the Corporation's parks to evaluate each one against the designation criteria set out in the new designation policy. An initial point score and proposed designation for each park, together with the draft policy, were circulated to the public for confirmation or other comment. Where community input identified park features that had been inadvertently overlooked by staff or where there was strong support for a designation other that the one proposed by the Department but still compatible with the policy, the designation was revised.  2 Impact on Dogs Allowed Areas Currently 131 parks and parts of 6 others permit dogs offleash for a total of 136 parks within which to exercise dogs. Subject to approval of the proposed designations, 95 parks will allow dogs to be exercised offleash throughout the park, 22 will permit offleash exercise in part of the park, and 22 will permit only leashed dogs for a total of 138 parks that are dogfriendly.   2 Impact on Dogs Prohibited Areas Eightyone parks and parts of 6 others prohibit dogs today. The proposal will result in 69 parks from which dogs will be entirely prohibited and 24 others from some part of which dogs will be prohibited, bringing to 93 the parks or parts of parks that prohibit dogs. A breakdown of existing and proposed designation types by Ward is contained in Document 3. It is the case that, in trying to strike a reasonable balance between freedom from dogs in parks and access to parkland by dog owners with their dogs, the designations which the Department has proposed do not satisfy all park users at every park. However, the designations are objective and defensible and, on a citywide basis, they ensure access to parkland by dogs with their owners as well as freedom from dogs where parks, parts of parks, or park activities are not compatible with the presence of dogs. The Department expects the new designations to reduce dog/people conflicts and safeguard children's play areas and wading pools while still providing dog owners with ample access to parkland to walk with or exercise their pets.' ,))Ԍ 2 @řImplementation It is proposed that park designations will take effect immediately in parks where no sign changes are required and, where sign changes are required, upon the posting of those signs. New revenue generated by the increase in dog license fees proposed under Recommendation 3 of this report will fund implementation of the new designations and will offset the increase in maintenance costs associated with them.@ Given funding constraints, it is expected to take three years to implement all the designation changes. The removal and posting of signs will proceed as resources and weather permit in the following general order: 1.<<parks that generated the most interest and comments: Brantwood, Brewer, Britannia, Brown's Inlet, Greenboro and the Greenboro Pathway System;(#< 2.<<parks that generated many comments or that have requests for redesignation outstanding: Strathcona, Windsor, Grandeur, Fairmont, Elizabeth Manley, Central, Grasshopper Hill, and Dundonald;(#< 3.<<parks with children's play areas having a history of dogrelated requests for service;(#< 4.<<parks that are to be designated "No Dogs" that have a history of poor stoop and scoop compliance;(#< 5.<<parks that are to be designated "Stoop and Scoop" in areas where few or no "Dogs Allowed" parks exist;(#< 6.<<very small parks that are to be designated "No Dogs";(#< 7.<<other parks.(#<    2  Recommendation 3 Modest dog license fee increases of $1.00 (sterilized/young dogs) and $2.00 (unsterilized dogs) will generate new revenue in the amount of $12,000 annually. That revenue will be applied first to the cost of implementation of the new designations proposed by this policy and, thereafter, to the cost of signs maintenance and enforcement of dogrelated bylaws generally. Dog licenses expire and are renewable in April of each year. To generate new revenue this year so that implementation of the approved parks designations can begin immediately, a decision on dog license fees is required before the setting of the budget in May.  2# x Recommendation 4 Amendments to bylaws will be required to give effect to the new regulations that the policy document introduces, such as the 5 metre prohibition around play structures and pools. The Office of the City Solicitor will draft the necessary amendments in consultation with this Department, and will process them to City Council for enactment.x( ,))Ԍ 2 ԙ Recommendation 5 In setting out to improve the parks designation policy, one of the Department's objectives was to relieve staff and the community from ongoing, and often divisive, reviews. It is the expectation of the Department that, having evaluated each park against objective criteria in an equitable and defensible manner, there will be few or no change requests forthcoming once the new designations are implemented. However, in the event that there are occasional requests, the Department recommends a twoyear moratorium on redesignation reviews. That twoyear time frame will give communities an opportunity to adjust to the new designations, and will give staff time to identify problem parks and assign enforcement resources to try to resolve issues.  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT No environmental impact is anticipated as the recommendations fall within the MEEP Automatic Exclusion List Routine Operations Section 1 (f).  PUBLIC INPUT Over 800 residents submitted comments by calling, writing, attending public meetings or signing their names to petitions. A number of organizations including Community Associations, Recreation Associations, and the Humane Society of OttawaCarleton offered comment as well. In general, there was widespread support for the designation policy itself and its objectives. Ninety percent of the public comment related to the proposed designation of a specific park or parks. Of those comments, 90% related to these ten locations: Brantwood; Brewer; Britannia; Brown's Inlet; Clare Gardens; Copeland; Greenboro; Greenboro Pathway System; Jack Purcell; and McNabb. The latter two parks were redesignated by City Council last August; the comments and issues associated with the other eight are explained in more detail in Document 4. No consultation was undertaken with respect to funding options, including the dog license fee increase. The consultation process and its outcome are detailed in Document 5, and all comments received have been recorded by park and are on file with the City Clerk's Office as Document 6. DEPARTMENTS CONSULTED The Office of the City Solicitor participated in the development of the report and will process the necessary bylaw amendments to City Council for enactment.  The Department of Community Services participated in the development of the report, and supports the recommendations in general. H& ,))Ԍ 2  DISPOSITION Office of the City Solicitor to draft amending bylaws and process them to City Council for approval, and to draft and file set fine application with the Province of Ontario. The Department of Engineering and Works to implement, notify and enforce.   2@  LIST OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION Document 1 Dogs in Parks Designation Policy Document 2 Parks Designations Document 3 Changes in Park Designation Types by Ward Document 4 Parks Generating Most Comment Summary of Issues and Outcome Document 5 Compatibility With Public Participation Policy Document 6 Parks Designation Policy Public Input by Park (On file with the City Clerk) H ,))  2  PART II `@(#PDocument 1  2 0, CITY OF OTTAWA  "DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND WORKS  2!  #DOGSINPARKS DESIGNATION POLICY ă  2  OVERVIEW The "DogsinParks Designation Policy" has been developed in consideration of all people who use City parkland. The policy establishes fair and consistent criteria which, when applied citywide, ensures access to parkland by dogs with their owners as well as freedom from dogs where parks, parts of parks, or park activities are not compatible with the presence of dogs. The policy provides for community involvement in the designation process.  2  APPLICATION This policy applies to all dedicated parkland owned or leased by the Corporation. Where there is Corporation grassland contiguous to but not part of the park, the designation of the park will apply to the grassland.  2i  1.<<DESIGNATION CRITERIA The DogsinParks Designation Criteria assesses various elements of City parks to determine whether or not dogs are compatible with activities expected in the park. A point value is assigned to the park size and facilities with higher points assigned to the least "dog compatible" elements of a park. Elements Measured and Assignment of Points The following elements are used to assess "Dog/Park" compatibility: park size; facilities; proximity to schools/community centres.  2  A. Park Size The park inventory has been divided into eight size categories with each category assigned a point value: T ddx !dd  $l ""T  @ @ PX  ZPark Size Category"?Points"ItNumber of Parks@ @ P   2  Very Small ` p# ( 0.000 0.199 hectares) ă"Al30"O26    2  Small ` p# ( 0.200 0.399 hectares) ă "Al25 "O22    2  Medium 1 ` p# ( 0.400 0.799 hectares) ă!"Al20!"O33     2!  Medium 2 ` p# ( 0.800 1.199 hectares) ăi""Al15i""O33  !  2"  Medium 3 ` p# ( 1.200 1.799 hectares) ăN#"Al10N#"O37  i"  2j#  Medium 4 ` p# ( 1.800 3.199 hectares) ă3$"B53$"O27  N#  2O$  Large ` p# ( 3.200 9.999 hectares) ă%"B0%"O30   3$  24%  Very Large ` p# (10.000 over ) ă-&"B0-&"P064% ,))  %xЙThe park size criterion generally measures the availability of open space for the purpose of exercising dogs. Small parks which do not provide sufficient space to exercise dogs are not appropriate for dogs: the potential for dog/people conflicts increases and, where "Stoop & Scoop" is not observed, the concentration of dog waste is most problematic in small parks. Consequently, small parks rate the highest point score. Very large parks, on the other hand, can usually accommodate a number of designations, and so have no points associated with size.x Since the overall size of the park was used to assign a point score, the measurement does not always reflect the actual open space available after taking into account facilities in the park such as buildings, sports courts, wading pools, and play structures. Facilities in a park are separately accounted for below.  2  B.<<Park Facilities Park facilities are divided into 6 categories. The point value assigned to each facility takes into consideration: the compatibility of the facility with the presence of dogs; the amount of space occupied by the facility; and the probability that dogs might safely use the space when the facility is not in use by park patrons. <` <` |<` |<` |  20  B.1Play Area/Play Structures 04 for the first 1 for each additional  2 << Swings  $||, 01 for each structure These facilities are used primarily by exuberant children running from one structure to another. The children's noise and movements may provoke dogs. The area around these structures should not be contaminated by dog waste.  2  B.2Wading Pool/Spray Pad||,04 for the first  2p <<` `   $||,02 for each additional water facility Wading pools are used primarily by children. The children's noise and movements may provoke dogs. The area around these structures should not be contaminated by dog waste.  2   B.3Ball Diamond$||,03 for each lit Ball Diamond  2 <<` `   $||,02 for each unlit Ball Diamond When not in use, ball diamonds may offer open spaces for dogs to exercise. A higher point value is assigned to lit ball diamonds because they are more apt to be used at all times during park hours.  2!  B.4Sports Field$||,03 for each lit Sports Field  2`" <<` `   $||,02 for each unlit Sports Field When not in use, sports fields may offer open spaces for dogs to exercise. A higher point value is assigned to lit sports fields because they are more apt to be used at all times during park hours. H&,))Ԍ 2 @ B.5Basketball/Tennis Courts02 for each type of court  2 <<Horseshoe $||,01 for each pitch Tennis and basketball courts are often fenced and their surface is not appropriate for dogs. The point value reflects the fact that the surface area taken up by the courts reduces the overall park space available for dogs. Of the two, the horseshoe pitch takes up less space and is usually grassed. @  2@  B.6Picnic (4 Tables)||,01 point per each 4 tables The space around picnic tables may be used by dogs for exercise when the tables are not in use. Picnic tables are typically used during lunch/supper times for short periods. The presence of many tables in a park is an indication that picnics are common occurrences.  2  C.<<Proximity to Schools||,000003 points  2 <<Proximity to Community Centres0002 points The proximity of schools and community centres to a park is associated with higher park use, often by young people. Consequently, there is an increased opportunity for dog/people conflict in such parks. In this policy, proximity means the school or community centre abuts the park.  2  2.<<TYPES OF DESIGNATIONS  2  A.<<"No Dogs" The "No Dogs" designation is the designation most restrictive of dogs, prohibiting them from the park at all times. The designation is appropriate where the small size of the park is not compatible with exercising dogs, or where the combination of size and facilities creates a high risk of people/dog conflicts. Dog waste tends to be concentrated in certain areas of such parks with healthrelated risks more acute than in other parks even if "Stoop & Scoop" provisions are observed. Parks receiving a score of 30 points or higher are designated "No Dogs" parks. Parks with a score of less than 30 points but with facility points of more than 15 may also be designated "No Dogs" if onsite conditions such as the location or distribution of the facilities are incompatible with "Dogs Allowed" designations. SIGN: profile of black dog enclosed by red circle on white background with interdictory stroke through dog. All "No Dogs" parks to be signed.  2`"  B.<<"No Dogs" within 5m of Play Areas/Wading Pools/Spray Pads The prohibition of dogs from all play areas within 5 metres of play structures, wading pools and spray pads will apply in all City parks that allow dogs. The prohibition will not prevent persons from walking leashed dogs in "Dogs Allowed" parks on asphalt paths that pass within 5 metres of a play area or pool. The prohibition will be posted in problem parks but may be otherwise unsigned. Like "Stoop & Scoop", which is often unsigned, awareness of the prohibition and(,)) hence, voluntary compliance with it, is expected to build over time. SIGN: "No Dogs" sign plus written bilingual notice of 5m restriction. Parks to be signed at the discretion of the Department.  2  C.<<"Dogs on Leash" The "Dogs on Leash" designation will permit dog handlers to bring only leashed dogs into a park so signed. The dogs must be under control at all times. The designation will be used in parks where heightened control of the dog is in order but where a total prohibition is not necessary. Unrestricted roaming or interaction with park patrons will be prohibited but people will be able to walk with their dogs through a park that links a network of paths, or through a park that provides convenient access from one neighbourhood to another. SIGN: black profile of dog on leash and handler within green circle on white background; the "Stoop & Scoop" graphic may also be included. All "Dogs on Leash" parks to be signed.  2  D.<<"Timed Designation" The "Timed" designation will establish a particular designation or designations during certain times of the day, days of the week, or months of the year. Since parks are closed to the public between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. pursuant to Bylaw 22574, those times will not be included in any timed designation period. SIGN: "No Dogs" or "Dogs on Leash" sign plus the posted times. All "Timed" restrictions to be signed.  2p  E.<<"Mixed" Designation As is the case currently, a number of parks can support a "Stoop & Scoop" (Dogs Allowed) area and a "No Dogs" area. The boundaries of the separate areas must be well defined by signs, or by natural or manmade delineations. SIGN: Sign appropriate to the designation plus arrows identifying the area to which the designation relates. Restrictive designations to be signed; "Stoop & Scoop" (Dogs Allowed) designation to be signed at the discretion of the Department.  2  F.<<"Stoop & Scoop" (Dogs Allowed) Parks which are not signed with a more restrictive designation will permit dogs offleash but always under control. Such parks must have sufficient space to allow dogs to run offleash without interfering with other park patrons. SIGN: profile of black dog within green circle on white background with "Stoop & Scoop" reminder. Parks to be signed at discretion of the Department. H&,))Ԍ 2  3.<<DESIGNATION OF PARKS The designation of each City of Ottawa park is as listed in Appendix 1. (LIST TO BE APPENDED AND TO FORM PART OF THE POLICY DOCUMENT AFTER CITY COUNCIL'S DISPOSITION OF RECOMMENDATION 2.)  2  4.<<PARKS REDESIGNATIONS Applications to change a park designation will be accepted by the Department of Engineering and Works if: <<submitted in writing by a recognized Community Association, or(#< <<accompanied by a petition supporting the redesignation signed by the occupants of 25 or more households residing within a fiveblock or 500 metre radius of the subject park, whichever is the lesser distance, and (#< <<no request for redesignation of the same park has been processed within two years immediately preceding the date of the application.(#< The application must outline clearly the reasons for the requested change. If the application is in order, the Department will accept it and, as soon as possible, will post notices in the park of the redesignation request. Persons will be invited to submit comment to the Department during a specified timeframe (not less than three weeks). At the conclusion of the consultation period, the Department will report to the Ward Councillor with the results of the public consultation, a history of dogrelated service requests related to the park, and the Departmental recommendation. If the Ward Councillor agrees with the Departmental recommendation, appropriate action will be taken by the Department to either effect the change or notify the applicant that there will be no change. If the Ward Councillor disagrees with the Departmental recommendation, the matter will proceed to the Community Services and Operations Committee (CSOC) by way of Departmental report. The decision of CSOC will be final.  2  5.<<DEPARTMENTAL DISCRETION Despite any other provisions of this policy, the Department of Engineering and Works may impose a "No Dogs" designation in parks where chronic disregard of the "Stoop & Scoop" Bylaw results in health concerns or maintenance problems especially if dog waste is regularly found within 5 metres of play structures. The Department will advise the Ward Councillor of the intention to redesignate and the public will be notified in at least one community newspaper fourteen (14) days before the "No Dogs" signs are installed.#,))  3' Conseil d'administration, SLBNLVO 3'Standard0422HPLASIID.PRS&d|'3'3Standard0422HPLASIID.PRS&d|̰X '3'3Standard0422HPLASIID.PRS&d|'3'3Standard0422HPLASIID.PRS&d|̰X  }Z R #D4p*$S<#<A#&d H@7.QX@#у`*.nDocument 2  2   D9 PARKS DESIGNATIONS ă  2  *DENOTES AMENDMENTS MADE AFTER PUBLIC CONSULTATION h !dd  $l "" Add<YL bC@@@@@@@ h *<B BB BBR2B BB BBRY*  k+ BRITANNIA/RICHMOND (WARD OT1) PARK DESIGNATIONS"e(PARK POINTS$2B BB BBR@@PY$  k+ B PARK NAME] 4T(EXISTING] xBPROPOSED]"[$SIZE]"`c&FACILITIES]"ky*SCHOOL]"t-TOTAL@@P  AMBLESIDE_ DOGS ALLOWED_ DOGS ALLOWED_"\I$25_"e'0_"n-+0_"u.25  ] BARWELLA DOGS ALLOWEDA NO DOGSA"\I$30A"e'4A"n-+0A"u.34 x _ BRITANNIA# NO DOGS# *NO DOGS DOGS ALLOWED northeast corner"]m$0"d'37"n-+5"u.42x  A BYRON STRIP DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ON LEASH"]$"e'"nQ+"vW.   CASTLEWOOD} DOGS ALLOWED} DOGS ALLOWED} "\I$15} "e'0} "n-+0} "u.15   CONNAUGHT_ DOGS ALLOWED_ DOGS ALLOWED_ "\I$10_ "e'2_ "n-+0_ "u.12  }  DUMAURIERA DOGS ALLOWEDA DOGS ALLOWEDA "\I$10A "e'6A "n-+0A "u.16  _  ELMHURST# DOGS ALLOWED# DOGS ALLOWED# "]m$0# "e'0# "n-+0# "v3.0 x A  FRANK RYAN NO DOGS DOGS ON LEASH on grass and DOGS ALLOWED in woods* "]m$0 "d'17 "n-+0 "u.17x  #  GEORGE C. BROWN} NO DOGS} NO DOGS}"\I$20}"d'11}"n-+3}"u.34    GLABAR_ DOGS ALLOWED_ DOGS ALLOWED_"\I$25_"e'0_"n-+0_"u.25  } GRANDEURA NO DOGSA DOGS ON LEASHA"\I$10A"e'9A"n-+0A"u.19  _ GRENON# NO DOGS# DOGS ALLOWED#"]m$5#"d'14#"n-+0#"u.19  A JILL BROWN DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ON LEASH"\I$15"e'1"n-+2"u.18  # JUDGE DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED"\I$10"e'9"n-+0"u.19   KINGSMERE NO DOGS *NO DOGS"\I$15"d'13"n-+0"u.28   LINCOLN HEIGHTS DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED"]m$5"d'16"n-+3"u.24   MCEWEN DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED"\I$20"e'4"n-+0"u.24   MICHELEo NO DOGSo DOGS ALLOWEDo"]m$5o"d'16o"n-+2o"u.23   NEW ORCHARDQ DOGS ALLOWEDQ NO DOGSQ"\I$25Q"e'6Q"n-+0Q"u.31  o WESTWOOD3 NO DOGS3 DOGS ALLOWED3"\I$103"e'53"n-+03"u.15   Q WOODROFFEE NO DOGSE DOGS ALLOWEDE"\I$10E"d'10E"n-+6E"u.26  3E **  | Add<YL bC@@@@@@@  addxL bC@@@@@@@ | *xB BB BBRnB BB BBR*  k+p CARLETON (WARD OT2)6 PARK DESIGNATIONS6"e(PARK POINTS$nB BB BBR@@P$ B PARK NAMED 4T(EXISTINGD xBPROPOSEDD"[$SIZED"`c&FACILITIESD"ky*SCHOOLD"t-TOTAL@@P> 6 AGINCOURT NO DOGS NO DOGS"\I$15"d'13"n-+3"u.31>  D AINSLEY NO DOGS DOGS ALLOWED"\I$15"e'2"n-+0"u.17   BELAIR NO DOGS NO DOGS"\I$15"d'14"n-+0"u.29   CLINE DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ON LEASH"\I$30"e'0"n-+0"u.30   COPELAND NO DOGS *NO DOGS"\I$15"e'6"n-+3"u.24   GARFIELD DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED "\I$20 "e'0 "n-+3 "u.23   GREENLAWN6 DOGS ALLOWED6 NO DOGS6 "\I$206 "e'96 "n-+06 "u.29    KENSONT NO DOGST DOGS ALLOWEDT "\I$10T "e'1T "n-+0T "u.11  6  KILREENr DOGS ALLOWEDr DOGS ALLOWED north of tennis courts DOGS ON LEASH the balance of the park"]m$5"d'16"n-+0"u.21  T  LISA& NO DOGS& NO DOGS&"\I$20&"d'12&"n-+0&"u.32 J  MORRISOND NO DOGSD DOGS ON LEASH western 2/5 (tennis and basketball courts) DOGS ALLOWED eastern 3/5 (ball diamond)p"]m$5p"d'16p"n-+0p"u.21J  & NAVAHO NO DOGS DOGS ALLOWED"\I$15"e'2"n-+0"u.17  p PARKWAY NO DOGS DOGS ON LEASH northern half of the park DOGS ALLOWED southern half of the parkB"\I$15B"d'12B"n-+3B"u.30   PINECREST` *ND / DA` *NO DOGS / DOGS ALLOWED`"]m$0`"d'25`"n-+5`"u.30 N  B RIDGEVIEW NO DOGS DOGS ALLOWED"\I$20"e'4"n-+3"u.27N  ` ** | addxL bC@@@@@@@  ddxL bC@@@@@@@ "| *xB BB BBRnB BB BBR*  k+ SOUTHGATE (WARD OT3)n PARK DESIGNATIONSn"e(PARK POINTS$nB BB BBR@@P$ B PARK NAME| 4T(EXISTING| xBPROPOSED|"[$SIZE|"`c&FACILITIES|"ky*SCHOOL|"t-TOTAL@@P> n BRUFF DOGS ALLOWED *NO DOGS"]m$0"d'11"n-+0"u.11>  | CALZAVARA DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED"]m$0"d'10"n-+0"u.10   CONROY DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED"\I$15"e'0"n-+0"u.15   DOSSETER DOGS ALLOWED NO DOGS"\I$25"e'6"n-+0"u.31   ELIZABETH MANLEY2 DOGS ALLOWED2 NO DOGS / DOGS ALLOWED2"]m$02"d'292"n-+22"u.31   FAIRLEAP DOGS ALLOWEDP DOGS ALLOWEDP "]m$5P "e'9P "n-+3P "u.17  2 GHOSHn DOGS ALLOWEDn DOGS ON LEASHn "\I$25n "e'5n "n-+0n "u.30  P  GREENBORO DOGS ALLOWED *DOGS ON LEASE "\I$15 "e'0 "n-+0 "u.15  n  **GREENBORO COMMUNITY CENTRE DOGS ALLOWED *DOGS ALLOWED "]m$0 "d'24 "n-+2 "u.26    GREENBORO PATHWAY SYSTEM DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ON LEASH "]$ "e' "nQ+ "vW.    GREENBORO PAVILION DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED"\I$15"e'4"n-+0"u.19    HEATHERINGTON DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED"]m$0"e'7"n-+2"v3.9   KARSH" DOGS ALLOWED" DOGS ALLOWED""]m$5""e'6""n-+0""u.11   PIKE@ DOGS ALLOWED@ *NO DOGS@"\I$15@"e'0@"n-+6@"u.21  " GEORGE R. PUSHMAN^ NO DOGS^ NO DOGS / DOGS ALLOWED^"]m$0^"d'16^"n-+3^"u.19  @ RESTON| DOGS ALLOWED| *DOGS ALLOWED|"\I$30|"e'8|"n-+0|"u.38 N  ^ TOPLEY DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ON LEASH"\I$30"e'0"n-+0"u.30N  | *Greenspace north of the pathway located south of Johnston Road between Tapiola Crescent "Dogs Allowed" Z ** | ddxL bC@@@@@@@ " dd<L bC@@@@@@@ | *<B BB BBR2B BB BBR*  k+4 RIDEAU (WARD OT4) PARK DESIGNATIONS"e(PARK POINTS$2B BB BBR@@P$ B PARK NAME 4T(EXISTING xBPROPOSED"[$SIZE"`c&FACILITIES"ky*SCHOOL"t-TOTAL@@P  ALVIN HEIGHTS DOGS ALLOWED NO DOGS"\I$25"d'13"n-+0"u.38   BATHGATE DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ON LEASH"]m$5"e'8"n-+0"u.13   CARDINAL GLEN DOGS ALLOWED NO DOGS"\I$30"d'10"n-+0"u.40   CARSONt DOGS ALLOWEDt NO DOGSt"\I$30t"e'4t"n-+3t"u.37   CUMMINGSV NO DOGSV NO DOGSV"\I$25V"e'6V"n-+3V"u.34  t FORBES8 DOGS ALLOWED8 NO DOGS8"\I$208"d'128"n-+38"u.35  V GIL O JULIEN NO DOGS NO DOGS "]m$0 "d'23 "n-+3 "u.26  8 HEMLOCK DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED "\I$15 "e'6 "n-+0 "u.21    LAWSON DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED "\I$15 "e'4 "n-+3 "u.22    LINDENLEA NO DOGS NO DOGS "\I$15 "d'13 "n-+2 "u.30    LONDON TERRACE DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED "\I$10 "e'4 "n-+0 "u.14    MANOR NO DOGS NO DOGS "]m$5 "d'16 "n-+5 "u.26 x   MANOR (BEDFORD)f DOGS ALLOWED*  DOGS ALLOWED* DOGS ON LEASH"\I$20"e'0"n-+0"u.20x    METZ DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED"\I$15"e'0"n-+3"u.18   NEW EDINBURGH DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED"]m$0"d'20"n-+0"u.20 x  OVERBROOK DOGS ALLOWED NO DOGS west of Community Centre DOGS ALLOWED east of Community Centre8"\I$108"d'178"n-+28"u.29x   PRESLAND DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED"\I$15"d'10"n-+0"u.25  8 RIVERSIDE MEMORIAL NO DOGS NO DOGS"\I$30"e'0"n-+0"u.30 x  ST. PAUL'S DOGS ALLOWED NO DOGS pool play area and ball diamond DOGS ALLOWED rest of sitet"\I$15t"d'12t"n-+3t"u.30x   ST. LAURENTV NO DOGSV NO DOGSV"]m$0V"d'12V"n-+2V"u.14  t THORNCLIFFE8 DOGS ALLOWED8 NO DOGS *8"\I$208"d'138"n-+08"u-33*   V TROJANJ DOGS ALLOWEDJ DOGS ALLOWEDJ"\I$20J"e'7J"n-+0J"u.27  8J **  | dd<L bC@@@@@@@  ddxL bC@@@@@@@ | *xB BB BBRnB BB BBR* BRUYERE/STRATHCONA (WARD OT5)n PARK DESIGNATIONSn"e(PARK POINTS$nB BB BBR@@P$ B PARK NAME| 4T(EXISTING| xBPROPOSED|"[$SIZE|"`c&FACILITIES|"ky*SCHOOL|"t-TOTAL@@P> n BESSERER DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED"\I$25"e'0"n-+0"u.25>  | BINGHAM NO DOGS NO DOGS"\I$20"d'13"n-+0"u.33   BORDELEAU DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ON LEASH"\I$15"d'13"n-+3"u.31   CATHCART DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED"\I$20"e'6"n-+0"u.26   CUMBERLAND MINI2 DOGS ALLOWED2 NO DOGS2"\I$302"e'22"n-+02"u.32   DUTCHIE'S HOLEP DOGS ALLOWEDP DOGS ALLOWEDP "\I$10P "d'10P "n-+0P "u.20  2 JULES MORIN/ANGLESEAn NO DOGSn NO DOGSn "\I$10n "d'19n "n-+3n "u.32  P  MACDONALD NO DOGS DOGS ALLOWED"  NO DOGS east side DOGS ALLOWED west side" "]m$0" "e'4" "n-+0" "v3.4  n  RAPHAEL BRUNET@ DOGS ALLOWED@ NO DOGS@ "\I$30@ "e'4@ "n-+3@ "u.37  "  RIDEAU RIVER TRAIL^ ND / DA^ DOGS ON LEASH^"]$^"e'^"nQ+^"vW.  @  ROBINSON SPORT FIELD| DOGS ALLOWED| DOGS ALLOWED|"]m$5|"e'2|"n-+0|"v3.7  ^ ROSE/BRUYERE MINI DOGS ALLOWED NO DOGS"\I$30"e'0"n-+0"u.30  | SANDY HILL DOGS ALLOWED N *NO DOGS south 1/3 DOGS ALLOWED north 2/3N"\%$*10N"d_'*15N"m +*2N"u-*27   SIR WILFRED LAURIERl NO DOGSl NO DOGSl"\I$25l"d'13l"n-+2l"u.40  N STRATHCONA NO DOGS NO DOGS DOGS ON LEASH some paths, Rideau River Trail "]m$0 "d'13 "n-+0 "u.13 N  l ST. GERMAINn NO DOGSn DOGS ON LEASHn"\I$20n"e'2n"n-+3n"u.25N     ** | ddxL bC@@@@@@@  ddxL bC@@@@@@@ | *xB BB BBRnB BB BBR* SOMERSET (WARD OT6)n PARK DESIGNATIONSn"e(PARK POINTS$nB BB BBR@@P$ B PARK NAME| 4T(EXISTING| xBPROPOSED|"[$SIZE|"`c&FACILITIES|"ky*SCHOOL|"t-TOTAL@@P> n ARLINGTON MINI DOGS ALLOWED NO DOGS"\I$30"e'4"n-+0"u.34>  | BRONSON DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ON LEASH"\I$25"e'0"n-+0"u.25   CHAUDIERE NO DOGS NO DOGS"\I$30"d'12"n-+0"u.42   COMMISSIONER DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ON LEASH"\I$20"e'0"n-+0"u.20   DALHOUSIE SOUTH2 DOGS ALLOWED2 NO DOGS2"\I$302"e'42"n-+02"u.34   DUNDONALDP NO DOGSP NO DOGS in play area DOGS ON LEASH in rest of park "\I$20 "e'6 "n-+0 "u.26  2 MCCANN NO DOGS NO DOGS "\I$30 "e'4 "n-+0 "u.34    MINTO" DOGS ALLOWED" DOGS ALLOWED" "\%$*20" "e'1" "n-+0" "u.21    PIAZZA DANTE MINI@ DOGS ALLOWED@ NO DOGS@ "\I$30@ "e'0@ "n-+0@ "u.30  "  PLOUFFE^ NO DOGS^ NO DOGS^"\I$10^"d'21^"n-+0^"u.31  @  PRIMROSE| DOGS ALLOWED| DOGS ALLOWED|"\I$20|"e'5|"n-+2|"u.27 N  ^ ST. LUKE'S NO DOGS NO DOGS"\I$20"d'17"n-+2"u.39N   | ` ** | ddxL bC@@@@@@@  dd<L bC@@@@@@@ | *<B BB BBR2B BB BBR* KITCHISSIPPI (WARD OT7)2 PARK DESIGNATIONS2"e(PARK POINTS$2B BB BBR@@P$ B PARK NAME 4T(EXISTING xBPROPOSED"[$SIZE"`c&FACILITIES"ky*SCHOOL"t-TOTAL@@P 2 ARMSTRONG NO DOGS NO DOGS"\I$30"e'4"n-+0"u.34   BAYVIEW NO DOGS NO DOGS"\I$30"d'5*"n-+0"u-35*   BYRON STRIP DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ON LEASH"]$"e'"nQ+"vW.   CARRUTHERS/STIRLING NO DOGS NO DOGS"\I$30"e'5"n-+0"u.35   CHAMPLAIN NO DOGS NO DOGS"\I$15"d'14"n-+0"u.29   CLARE GARDENSp *NO DOGSp *NO DOGSp"\I$20p"d'9*p"n-+0p"u-29*   EVERGREENR DOGS ALLOWEDR DOGS ALLOWEDR"\I$25R"e'0R"n-+0R"u.25  p EV TREMBLAY4 NO DOGS4 NO DOGS4 "\I$204 "d'134 "n-+04 "u.33 x R FAIRMONT DOGS ALLOWED NO DOGS north of south side of courts DOGS ALLOWED south of tennis courts "\I$10 "e'8 "n-+0 "u.18x  4  FISHER NO DOGS DOGS ON LEASH "]m$0 "d'18 "n-+5 "u.23    GRANGEp DOGS ALLOWEDp NO DOGSp "\I$30p "e'2p "n-+0p "u.32    HAMPTONR NO DOGSR DOGS ON LEASHR "]m$0R "d'18R "n-+0R "u.18  p  HINTONBURG4 NO DOGS4 DOGS ALLOWED4"]m$04"d'114"n-+54"u.16  R  IONA NO DOGS *NO DOGS"\I$15"d_'*15"n-+0"u.30  4 LAROCHE DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED"]m$5"d'22"n-+0"u.27   LIONS DOGS ALLOWED NO DOGS"\I$15"d'14"n-+2"u.31   MAHONEY DOGS ALLOWED NO DOGS"\I$25"e'7"n-+0"u.32   MCCORMICK DOGS ALLOWED NO DOGS"\I$30"e'0"n-+0"u.30   MCKELLAR NO DOGS NO DOGS"]m$5"d'25"n-+0"u.30   PARKDALEb DOGS ALLOWEDb NO DOGSb"\I$20b"d'10b"n-+0b"u.30   REIDD NO DOGSD DOGS ALLOWEDD"]m$5D"d'12D"n-+0D"u.17  b RIVERSIDE TERRACE& DOGS ALLOWED& DOGS ALLOWED&"\I$10&"e'0&"n-+0&"u.10  D ROY DUNCAN DOGS ALLOWED NO DOGS"\%$*25"d'*7"n-+0"u-*32  & TILLBURY NO DOGS *NO DOGS"\%$20*"d_'10*"n-+0"u-30*   TOM BROWN DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED"]m$5"e'0"n-+0"v3.5   WESTBORO BEACH NO DOGS NO DOGS"\I$10"e'9"n-+0"u.19    WESTBORO KIWANIS NO DOGS *NO DOGS"\%$10*"d'14"n-+5"u-29*   ** | dd<L bC@@@@@@@  !ddxL bC@@@@@@@ | *xB BB BBRnB BB BBR* MOONEY'S BAY (WARD OT8) PARK DESIGNATIONS"e(PARK POINTS$nB BB BBR@@P$ B PARK NAME 4T(EXISTING xBPROPOSED"[$SIZE"`c&FACILITIES"ky*SCHOOL"t-TOTAL@@P>  ALEXANDERP DOGS ALLOWEDP DOGS ALLOWEDP"\I$10P"d'16P"n-+2P"u.28>   ARNOTTn DOGS ALLOWEDn DOGS ALLOWEDn"]m$5n"d'13n"n-+3n"u.21  P BELLEVIEW MANOR NO DOGS NO DOGS"\I$20"d'17"n-+2"u.39  n CAHILL DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED"\I$10"e'6"n-+0"u.16   CARLETON HEIGHTS DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED"\I$10"d'14"n-+2"u.26   CARLINGTON NO DOGS NO DOGS "]m$0 "d'20 "n-+0 "u.20   ERNIE CALCUTT DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED "\I$15 "e'0 "n-+0 "u.15    FIELDING" DOGS ALLOWED" DOGS ON LEASH" "\I$30" "e'0" "n-+0" "u.30    FLANNERY GREEN@ NO DOGS@ DOGS ALLOWED@ "\I$10@ "e'0@ "n-+0@ "u.10  "  GEOFF WIGHTMAN^ DOGS ALLOWED^ DOGS ALLOWED^"\I$20^"e'0^"n-+9^"u.29  @  GILLESPIE| DOGS ALLOWED| DOGS ALLOWED|"\I$15|"e'0|"n-+0|"u.15  ^ HARROLD PLACE DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED NO DOGS in square that includes pool0"\I$200"e'40"n-+00"u.24  | LEDBURYN NO DOGSN DOGS ALLOWEDN"]m$5N"d'16N"n-+0N"u.21  0 LEXINGTONl DOGS ALLOWEDl DOGS ALLOWEDl"]m$5l"e'9l"m +5*l"u-19*  N LINTON NO DOGS DOGS ALLOWED"\I$10"e'2"n-+0"u.12  l MARBLE DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED"]m$0"e'0"n-+0"v3.0   MCCARTHY DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED"]m$0"d'20"n-+2"u.22   MEADOWLANDS DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED"\I$25"e'0"n-+0"u.25   MEADOWVALE DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED"\I$10"d'12"n-+0"u.22   MOONEY'S BAY  NO DOGS  NO DOGS "]m$0 "d'10 "n-+0 "u.10   MORRISET BALL DIAMOND> DOGS ALLOWED> DOGS ALLOWED>"\I$25>"e'2>"n-+0>"u.27    OTTERSON\ DOGS ALLOWED\ DOGS ALLOWED\"\I$20\"e'6\"n-+0\"u.26  > OWLz NO DOGSz DOGS ALLOWEDz"]m$0z"d_'19*z"n-+6z"u-25*  \ PAULINE VANIER NO DOGS NO DOGS"\I$10"d'15"n-+3"u.28 **  z PAUL LANDRY DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED"]m$5"e'6"n-+3"u.14   RAVEN< NO DOGS< NO DOGS west of field house DOGS ALLOWED rest of park"\I$15"d'13"n-+0"u.28   RIDEAUVIEW DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED"\I$10"d'13"n-+3"u.26   RIDGEMONT NO DOGS DOGS ALLOWED"]m$5"d'13"n-+0"u.18   SPRINGLAND/HOBSON, DOGS ALLOWED, DOGS ALLOWED,"\I$20,"e'6,"n-+3,"u.29   STANSTEADJ NO DOGSJ NO DOGS* 8 a.m. 4 p.m. Monday to FridayJ"\I$10J"d'14J"n-+3J"u.27  , UPLANDSh DOGS ALLOWEDh DOGS ALLOWEDh"\I$15h"d'12h"n-+0h"u.27  J UPLANDS/RIVERSIDE NO DOGS DOGS ALLOWED "]m$0 "e'0 "n-+0 "v3.0 N  h WALKLEY/ALBION NO DOGS DOGS ALLOWED "]m$5 "d'10 "n-+0 "u.15N  " |   | !ddxL bC@@@@@@@  Add<L bC@@@@@@@ "| *<B BB BBR2B BB BBR* CAPITAL (WARD OT9) PARK DESIGNATIONS"e(PARK POINTS$2B BB BBR@@P$ B PARK NAME 4T(EXISTING xBPROPOSED"[$SIZE"`c&FACILITIES"ky*SCHOOL"t-TOTAL@@P  BALLANTYNE DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ON LEASH"\I$25"e'0"n-+0"u.25 x  BRANTWOOD~ NO DOGS~ NO DOGS DOGS ON LEASH grass strip along Rideau River"]m$0"d'20"n-+0"u.20x x  BREWER *NO DOGS DOGS ALLOWED NO DOGS DOGS ALLOWED"]m$0"d'39"n-+0"u.39x   BRIGHTON BEACHn NO DOGSn DOGS ALLOWEDn"\I$25n"e'0n"n-+0n"u.25 x  BROWN'S INLETP DOGS ALLOWEDP DOGS ON LEASH 9 a.m.6 p.m.; June 1 to Sept 30 DOGS ALLOWED during all other park hours"\I$10"e'0"n-+0"u.10x  n CAPITAL NO DOGS NO DOGS "\I$20 "e'8 "n-+0 "u.28 x  CENTRAL DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED* between Lyon and Bank DOGS ON LEASH between Bank and Clemow@ "]m$0@ "e'1@ "n-+0@ "v3.1x    CHAMBERLAIN" DOGS ALLOWED" DOGS ALLOWED* between Lyon and Glendale" "\I$20" "e'4" "n-+0" "u.24  @  GLEBE MEMORIAL NO DOGS NO DOGS "\I$10 "d'10 "n-+0 "u.20 x "  HERON DOGS ALLOWED NO DOGS north of field house DOGS ALLOWED south of field house|"\I$10|"d'15|"n-+0|"u.25x    KALADAR^ DOGS ALLOWED^ DOGS ALLOWED^"]m$0^"d'15^"n-+9^"u.24  | LANSDOWNE@ MIXED@ NO DOGS* ball diamonds DOGS ON LEASH most of park DOGS ALLOWED within dogrunl"]m$0l"d'22l"n-+0l"u.22  ^ LINDA THOMN NO DOGSN DOGS ON LEASHN"\I$10N"e'0N"n-+0N"u.10  l LIONAL BRITTON0 NO DOGS0 NO DOGS0"\I$300"e'90"n-+00"u.39  N MONTGOMERY MEMORIAL NO DOGS NO DOGS"\I$30"e'9"n-+0"u.39  0 PATTERSON'S CREEK DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ON LEASH between Glebe and Clemow*"]m$5"e'0"n-+0"v3.5   OSBORNE DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED"\I$25"e'0"n-+0"u.25   RIDEAU RIVER TRAIL DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ON LEASH"]m$0"e'"n-+0"v3.0   ROBERT F. LEGGET DOGS ALLOWED NO DOGS"\I$30"e'0"n-+0"u.30   SENATOR EUGENE FORSEY| DOGS ALLOWED| NO DOGS|"\I$25|"e'6|"n-+0|"u.31   SPRINGHURST^ NO DOGS^ DOGS ALLOWED^"\I$15^"d'11^"n-+0^"u.26  | SYLVIA HOLDEN@ DOGS ALLOWED@ DOGS ALLOWED@"\I$15@"e'0@"n-+0@"u.15   ^ WINDSORR DOGS ALLOWEDR DOGS ALLOWED most of park DOGS ON LEASH along river path"]m$0"d'20"n-+0"u.20  @ ** | Add<L bC@@@@@@@ " add<P aC@@@@@@@ | *<B BB BBR2B BB BBR* ALTA VISTA/CANTERBURY (WARD OT10) PARK DESIGNATIONS"e(PARK POINTS$2B BB BBR@@P$ D PARK NAME 6V(EXISTING zBPROPOSED"[$SIZE"`f&FACILITIES"k|*SCHOOL"t-TOTAL@@P  ALDA BURT/DEMPSEY CC NO DOGS DOGS ALLOWED"\M$10"d'12"n0+2"u.24   ALTA VISTA~ DOGS ALLOWED  *NO DOGS area including field house, pool and play area DOGS ALLOWED north of field house"\M$15"d'15"n0+3"u.33   APPLEWOOD DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED"\M$20"e'5"n0+0"u.25   BALENAn DOGS ALLOWEDn NO DOGS which includes field house, pool and play structures DOGS ALLOWED* open space, asphalt parking and dirt path0 "]q$50 "d'220 "n0+00 "u.27   BILLINGS DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED "\M$10 "e'2 "n0+0 "u.12  0  CANTERBURY DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED* area north of arena including sports field and ball diamond NO DOGS includes parking lot, play areas, pool, tennis and basketball courts and community centre "]q$0 "d'26 "n0+2 "u.28    CECIL MORRISON NO DOGS NO DOGS "\M$20 "d'18 "n0+0 "u.38    CONFEDERATIONz DOGS ALLOWED*z DOGS ON LEASHz"\M$30z"e'4z"n0+0z"u.34    CORONATION\ DOGS ALLOWED\ DOGS ALLOWED\"]q$5\"e'6\"n0+0\"u.11  z CUNNINGHAM> DOGS ALLOWED> DOGS ALLOWED>"\M$10>"e'0>"n0+0>"u.10  \ DALE  DOGS ALLOWED  DOGS ALLOWED "]q$5 "e'4 "n0+0 "v6.9  > EDGEHILL DOGS ALLOWED NO DOGS"\M$25"e'7"n0+0"u.32    FEATHERSTON DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED"]q$5"d'12"m +6*"u-23*   GRASSHOPPER HILL DOGS ALLOWED *NO DOGS"\M$20"e'8"n0+0"u.28   HAWTHORNE DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED"]q$0"d'14"n0+3"u.17   HUTTON DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED"\M$15"e'6"n0+0"u.21   JOHN MURPHYl DOGS ALLOWEDl NO DOGSl"\M$30l"e'8l"n0+0l"u.38   KILBORNN *DOGS ALLOWEDN *DOGS ALLOWEDN"\)$*10N"db'*10N"m +*0N"u-*20  l LINDA LANE0 DOGS ALLOWED0 DOGS ALLOWED0"]q$00"e'60"n0+00"v6.6  N ORLANDO NO DOGS NO DOGS*"\)$15*"d'9*"m +3*"u-27*  0 ORLANDO ANNEX NO DOGS DOGS ALLOWED*"]q$0"d'4*"n0+0"u.4*   PLAYFAIR DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED"\M$10"e'9"n0+3"u.22   REEVES SITE NO DOGS DOGS ALLOWED"\M$20"e'0"n0+0"u.20   RIVERVIEW DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED"\M$10"e'8"n0+3"u.21   ROBERT ANDREW RUSSELL| NO DOGS| NO DOGS|"\M$25|"e'5|"n0+2|"u.32   RON MILKS BALL^ NO DOGS^ DOGS ALLOWED^"\M$25^"e'2^"n0+0^"u.27 **  | SANDLEWOOD NO DOGS DOGS ALLOWED"]q$5"d'15"n0+0"u.20   SHAREL NO DOGS DOGS ALLOWED"\M$10"d'13"n0+0"u.23   SHEFFIELD GLEN DOGS ALLOWED DOGS ALLOWED"]q$5"d'11"n0+0"u.16 >   WESTON DOGS ALLOWED NO DOGS west of path that transects park DOGS ALLOWED eastern 1/3 of park including path that transects park"\M$15"d'11"n0+0"u.26>   ..  1 `$, 0qDocument 3  2 . CHANGES IN PARK DESIGNATION TYPES BY WARD ă  XX  add<P aC@@@@@@@  Xddx!q 0>   p     0"!Ward" Dogs Allowed"6No Dogs"GDogs on Leash"^$Timed "rY,Mixed:p      @ @ @ @ @ !:"I" current"&proposed"1current":7proposed"E0current"Mproposed"X"current"a&proposed "l*current "t.proposed: @ @ @ @ @ P @ @ @ @ @ :"eBritannia/Richmond" 13")I13"4P9">%4"H0"Q3"[#0"ey'0 "oN+0 "x /2:P @ @ @ @ @ P @ @ @ @ @ :" YCarletonO"! 4O"*{5O"310O">%5O"H0O"Q1O"[#0O"ey'0 O"oN+1 O"x /4:P @ @ @ @ @ P @ @ @ @ @ :" 'Southgate " 16 "*{8 "4P1 ">%3 "H0 "Q4 "[#0 "ey'0  "oN+0  "x /2:P @ @ @ @ @ P @ @ @ @ @ O:"Rideau " 16 "*{7 "4P6 "=11 "H0 "Q1 "[#0 "ey'0  "oN+0  "x /3:P @ @ @ @ @ P @ @ @ @ @  :"eBruyere/Strathcona? "! 9? "*{4? "4P5? ">%6? "H0? "Q2? "[#0? "ey'0 ? "oN+1 ? "x /3:P @ @ @ @ @ P @ @ @ @ @  :" YSomerset "! 7 "*{2 "4P5 ">%7 "H0 "Q2 "Zr#2* "dG'2*  "oN+0  "x /1:P @ @ @ @ @ P @ @ @ @ @ ? :" Kitchissippi" 12"*{6"315"=17"H0"Q3"[#0"ey'0 "oN+0 "x /1:P @ @ @ @ @ P @ @ @ @ @  :" Mooney's Bay/" 20/")I25/"313/">%4/"H0/"Q1/"[#0/"ey'1 /"oN+0 /"x /2:P @ @ @ @ @ P @ @ @ @ @ :"Capital" 13"*{6"4P8">%6"H0"Q4"[#0"ey'1 "oN+2 "x /6:P @ @ @ @ @ P @ @ @ @ @ /:"AltaVista/Canterbury" 21")I19"4P9">%6"H0"Q1"[#0"ey'0 "oN+0 "x /4:P @ @ @ @ @  B  B  B  B  B :" Citywide Totalo" t 131o")I95o"381o"=69o"H0o"P22o"Zr#2*o"dG'4* o"oN+4 o"w.28% B  B  B  B  B   % * includes Jack Purcell and McNabb Parks Designations approved by City Council in August 19977 ** '3'3Standard0422HPLASIID.PRS&d|3'3'Standard0422HPLASIID.PRS&d|(XXX 3'3'Standard0422HPLASIID.PRS&d|3'3'Standard0422HPLASIID.PRS&d|(XXX  } eF: R #D4p*$S<#`2#&d H@7.QX@#у XX `@(#PDocument 4  2  PARKS GENERATING MOST COMMENT SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND OUTCOME ă  2  Ninety percent of all comments received during the consultation process related to the proposed designation of a specific park or parks. Of those comments, 90% related to these ten locations: Brantwood; Brewer; Britannia; Brown's Inlet; Clare Gardens; Copeland; Greenboro; Greenboro Pathway System; Jack Purcell; and McNabb. The latter two parks were redesignated by City Council last August. This document explains in more detail the comments and issues associated with the  2 other eight locations.  2`  BRITANNIA PARK WARD OT1 <` |     2  Current Designation:%No Dogs Draft Proposal: %No Dogs Final Proposal: %Mixed: Dogs Allowed in northeast corner;  2H  %otherwise No Dogs  2  Public Input A request to have Britannia Park or a portion of it designated "Dogs Allowed" was received along with 35 names supporting the request. A public meeting was held at Lakeside Gardens on April 30, 1997 to discuss the draft policy, designation options and enforcement. A subsequent meeting on May 5 with the Ward Councillor and Britannia Village representatives resolved that the northeast corner of the park (Britannia Village) might be suitable as a dogsallowed area. A trial "Dogs Allowed" designation in the area commenced in June 1997 and proved to be a success (no increase in dogs in other parts of the park, no increase in dog waste problems).  2  Departmental Comment The designation finally proposed for Britannia Park reflects the wishes of the Ward Councillor and the Britannia Village community to accommodate dogs in a portion of the park.  2  COPELAND PARK WARD OT2 Current Designation:%No Dogs Draft Proposal: %Dogs Allowed  2 Final Proposal: %No Dogs  2`"  Public Input A 120name petition was received which opposed dogs in Copeland Park because: dogs may scare or harm children; some dog owners allow their pets to dirty the park; and students at St. Daniel School use Copeland Park facilities as their only play structure, track and playing field. ',****Ԍ A 22name petition and an 8name petition were received which asked that the current "No Dogs" designation not be changed. A number of individuals wrote in support of the current "No Dogs" designation.   2  Departmental Comment Although application of the designation criteria would rate Copeland Park as a "Dogs Allowed" park, the considerable community support for the existing "No Dogs" designation has caused the Department to recommend its retention.  2  GREENBORO COMMUNITY CENTRE PARK WARD OT3  2(  Current Designation: %Dogs Allowed Draft Proposal: %Dogs Allowed  2 Final Proposal: %Dogs Allowed  2H  Public Input A 46name petition and a 30name petition were submitted asking that the park remain "Dogs Allowed". Twentyfive form letters were submitted which argued that requiring some dogs to be leashed in large open spaces or on pathways was punitive. Some of the letters were sent by people who signed the two petitions. A 42name petition was submitted that asked that the park and contiguous pathways be designated "Dogs on Leash". The petition was from residents whose backyards border on the park and who oppose the uncontrolled running of dogs that intimidate children, damage gardens and deposit waste everywhere.  28  Departmental Comment The proposed criteria rates Greenboro Community Centre Park as a "Dogs Allowed" park. The park offers significant open space appropriate for exercising dogs offleash. The general prohibition of dogs in or near play areas and wading pools will apply. As outlined in more detail below, a "Dogs on Leash" designation has been proposed for the entire Greenboro Pathway System.  2x  GREENBORO PATHWAY SYSTEM WARD OT3  2  Current Designation:%Dogs Allowed Draft Proposal: %Dogs on Leash  2! Final Proposal: %Dogs on Leash  2(#  Public Input The community is divided with respect to whether or not dogs should be leashed on the pathway system. Those who support leashing believe that unleashed dogs are rarely under control and consequently are a danger to children and adults. Those who oppose leashing consider it punitive and note that it will not necessarily improve stoop and scoop compliance.' ,****Ԍ 2  Departmental Comment The Greenboro Pathway System in the Greenboro/Hunt Club area is an alternative to sidewalks, and is heavily used by pedestrians, joggers, cyclists, inline skaters and dog owners wishing to exercise their dogs. The presence of unleashed dogs on the pathway is likely to cause dog/people conflicts. Where the pathway transects a "Dogs Allowed" park, dog walkers will not be restricted to the path and will not have to leash the dog in the rest of the park. Where a path abuts or is within 5 metres of children's play areas, the dog owner/handler may walk the dog on that path provided the dog is leashed and under control.  2  CLARE GARDENS WARD OT7  2(  Current Designation:%No Dogs Draft Proposal: %Dogs Allowed  2 Final Proposal: %No Dogs  2H  Public Input A number of individual residents opposed the proposed relaxation of the existing "No Dogs" designation. The Westboro Community Association reported that, having discussed the redesignation with quite a few members of the community, the consensus is that the community supports the current "No Dogs" designation. A subsequent survey undertaken by the Westboro Community Association had these results: 114 "No Dogs"; 19 "Dogs on Leash"; 3 "Dogs Allowed". The Dovercourt Recreation Association reported that the park is heavily used by preschoolers and other children but that a "Dogs on Leash" designation might be supportable.  2  Departmental Comment Although application of the designation criteria would rate Clare Gardens as a "Dogs Allowed" park, a considerable segment of the community prefers to retain the current "No Dogs" designation. The Department is satisfied to recommend retention of the "No Dogs" designation.  2X  BRANTWOOD PARK WARD OT9  2  Current Designation:%No Dogs Draft Proposal: %Mixed No Dogs/Dogs on Leash  2x Final Proposal: %Mixed No Dogs/Dogs on Leash  2  Public Input The community is divided with respect to the proposed designation. Many support the "Dogs on Leash" designation along the river, with some suggesting that the designation should allow for dogs throughout the park. Others are opposed to any relaxation of the "No Dogs" designation, predicting that the relaxation will ruin the park and suggesting that there are plenty of other places for dog owners to walk their pets. Some referred to a community survey undertaken a couple of years ago by the former Ward Councillor which resulted in retention of the "No Dogs" designation in Brantwood Park. '!,****Ԍ 2 @ Departmental Comment The proposed "Dogs on Leash" designation will apply only to a 10metre wide strip of land abutting the Rideau River. The strip of land serves as an extension of the Rideau River Trail, and is located away from park facilities. The designation will not interfere with the "No Dogs" designation in the balance of the park. The Department believes that the proposed designation is a reasonable compromise that will open the park to more users.@  2  BREWER PARK WARD OT9  2  Current Designation:%Mixed No Dogs/Dogs Allowed Draft Proposal: %Mixed No Dogs/Dogs Allowed  2( Final Proposal: %Mixed No Dogs/Dogs Allowed  2  Public Input Those who favour greater access to the park by dogs report that lawful dogwalking areas in Brewer Park are limited and even more restricted during spring flooding. Those who oppose uncontrolled dogs in the park believe that dog owners rarely pay attention to the dogrelated signs and that they allow their dogs to get too close to the children's play area.  2  Departmental Comment The document circulated to the public indicated that Brewer Park is currently a "No Dogs" park when in fact the park is a mix of "Dogs Allowed" and "No Dogs". The final proposal will cause only minor onsite amendments to the status quo intended to simplify the delineation between the "No Dogs" area and the "Dogs Allowed" areas. Dog owners may experience some inconvenience during spring flooding; however, the inconvenience should be limited to having to walk a greater distance to the "Dogs Allowed" area.  2  BROWN'S INLET WARD OT9 Current Designation:%Dogs Allowed Draft Proposal: %Dogs Allowed Final Proposal: %Dogs on Leash 9:00 am to 6:00 pm, June 1 to  2 September 30; otherwise "Dogs Allowed" (#  2@  Public Input A number of individuals wrote in support of the existing "Dogs Allowed" designation. The Glebe Community Association (GCA) passed a resolution at their April 22, 1997 meeting in support of a "Dogs on Leash" designation. The GCA and individual respondents who support more restrictions on dogs reported the following concerns; large, aggressive and uncontrolled dogs are on the increase; many dog owners are inattentive and do not comply with stoop and scoop requirements; dogs run loose, knock over children and enter private yards; barking dogs disturb nearby residents. Some suggested that Brown's Inlet be designated "No Dogs" to allow it toh)",**** "recover". At a community meeting chaired by the Ward Councillor and attended by approximately 50 people, the general consensus was that a compromise which accommodated all types of park users was preferred. It was agreed that a total prohibition of dogs was not warranted but that some restrictions might be appropriate.  2@  Departmental Comment The number of dog owners using Brown's Inlet is an indication that there is a local need for such open spaces to exercise pets. Few other parks in the immediate area accommodate dogs. However, to address the concerns expressed by many members of the community, the Department proposes that dogs be leashed between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. from June 1 to September 30. That summer daytime restriction is expected to result in less boisterous dog activity during times when children and families are most likely to use the park, while still providing dog owners two hours in the morning and five hours at night to exercise their pets offleash (but under control). A return to a "Dogs Allowed" designation in the winter recognizes that the park is not as frequently used by children and families during those months. 0#,**** `@(#PDocument 5  2  COMPATIBILITY WITH PUBLIC PARTICIPATION POLICY STAKEHOLDERS IDENTIFIED 76 Community Associations 43 Recreation Associations 6 Local School Boards Humane Society of OttawaCarleton National Capital Commission Ottawa Pedestrian Advisory Group OTTAWALK General Public (as park users and/or dog owners) NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION PROCESS During the first week of February 1997, a copy of the draft DogsinParks Designation Policy, including the parks designation listing, was mailed to identified stakeholders. To reach the general public, an invitation to comment on the proposal was published in the Ottawa Citizen and Le Droit on February 14 and 15 respectively. In total, over two hundred copies of the draft policy were distributed directly by the Department. In ensuing months, the Ottawa Citizen and a number of community newspapers published related articles. CBC Radio reported on the topic on September 1, 1997. In two parks, citizens posted onsite notices to advise park users of the review. Three Ward Councillors chaired six public meetings to discuss the designation of specific areas. STAKEHOLDER INPUT Over 800 residents and several organizations submitted comments by way of phone calls, letters, petitions and attendance at public meetings.  2  On the Policy The criteria and related point system were wellreceived as an objective and balanced way of designating parks, although a handful of respondents thought that the availability of parks or the dog population of a particular area should be included in the evaluation, and some considered the point system bureaucratic and unscientific. The citywide prohibition of dogs from within 5 metres of play structures and pools received wide support. The low level of compliance with dogrelated regulation generally was identified as the only likely problem with an otherwise sensible restriction. The new "Timed" and "On Leash" designation options were both wellreceived as alternatives to "No Dogs" and tools for compromise, although a few respondents expressed concern that dog waste might remain a problem under either of those designations. h)$,****Ԍ 2 ԙ On Specific Park Designations Ninety percent of the comments received by the Department related to the proposed designation of a specific park or parks. Of those, 90% addressed one of the ten locations explored in greater detail in the preceding document. Generally, persons seeking stronger restrictions in a park or parks within their communities cited as rationale violations of the Stoop & Scoop Bylaw, the safety of children and the elderly, disturbing noise relating to dogs, and the belief that parks are for people. The arguments used most frequently by those seeking greater access to and freedom on parkland for their dogs were: dogs need to exercise and socialize; personal safety and security in parks is enhanced by dogs; dogs are members of the family; dog owners pay for parks with taxes; and dog owners clean parks and socialize with neighbours. The application of the "Dogs on Leash" designation to pathways and trails was not part of the draft proposal but has been included in the final designation recommendations in response to public input. A number of Greenboro residents abutting the Greenboro Pathway System expressed concern about dogs running loose along the pathways and trespassing into private yards; some reported that neighbours let their dogs run out of their backyards into the pathway system without any supervision contrary to City bylaws. Those who opposed the leashing requirement on the Greenboro Pathway System consider the designation to be an unnecessary restriction on their dogs precipitated by a few residents whose homes abut the pathway. Many residents called asking for access to the Rideau River Trail in Brantwood and Strathcona Parks, two "No Dogs" parks, so that dogs could be walked along the entire length of the trail. Strathcona and Brantwood users expressed concern that access to the Rideau River Trail would threaten the "No Dogs" designation which is in place in the parks proper and for which there is considerable community support.  2 Departmental Comment on Parks Designations Generally The designations circulated in draft for public comment were revised when community input identified park features that had been inadvertently overlooked by staff, or when there was strong community support for a designation other than the one proposed by the Department but still compatible with the policy. It is acknowledged though that, in trying to achieve a balance in the policy between access to parkland for dogs and freedom from dogs in parks, the designations proposed do not satisfy all park users at every park. They are objective and defensible however and, on a citywide basis, they provide lots of parkland on which to exercise dogs as well as lots of parkland that will be free from dogs.  2`" @Departmental Comment on the Greenboro Pathway System The Greenboro Pathway System attracts a variety of users including joggers, cyclists, inline skaters and people out for walks in number; there is a high risk of dog/people conflicts in such an environment. The pathway is an alternative to sidewalks, and the onleash designation is reasonable there. The Greenboro Pathway System links many city parks in the Greenboro/Hunt Club area, most of which allow dogs to be exercised offleash.@ (%,****Ԍ 2 Departmental Comment on Strathcona, Brantwood and the Rideau River Trail In Strathcona and Brantwood Parks, it is proposed to allow leashed dogs only on the path or narrow strip of land along the Rideau River. That designation will allow people to walk their dogs along the entire length of the Rideau River Trail but will not change the "No Dogs" designation in the parks otherwise.  2x  On Awareness, Compliance and Enforcement A number of people took the opportunity presented by the draft policy to comment on enforcement. Some criticized the document because it did not include a proposal to improve or enhance enforcement of stoop and scoop and dogatlarge regulations generally. Others simply stated that enforcement of dogrelated regulations must be increased. Many expressed the hope that the redesignations would be supported not only by enforcement but by awareness and education initiatives.  2H Departmental Comment The Department recognizes that there is dissatisfaction with the level of service that it is able to provide in the area of animal control. Enforcement resources are quite limited and must be judiciously assigned to the most problematic cases and locations. Voluntary compliance, respect for public property, pride in one's neighbourhood and peer pressure have to be relied upon to help achieve a level of compliance that keeps the parks clean and safe for all users. Although the Parks Designation Policy was not developed or intended to be used as an enforcement tool, it may be expected to improve compliance by virtue of its reasonableness and objectivity; the designations are defensible and they do create more opportunities for dogs to be on parkland lawfully. In addition to onsite signs, the Department plans a number of other educationrelated initiatives. An easytoread information brochure which lists and explains all dogrelated bylaws has been developed recently by the Department, and is available at the Spay/Neuter Clinic, the Humane Society of OttawaCarleton, and the City's public counters. New dog license applicants and those who renew dog licenses in April will receive a copy of the new brochure together with information about parks designations. After City Council's disposition of this report, the Department will contact the National Capital Commission with a request to reactivate a planned joint DogsinParks Map, deferred many months ago until the City's review was concluded. FEEDBACK TO THE PUBLIC AND FURTHER NOTICE By telephone and letter, feedback to the public has been ongoing throughout the review. All persons who sought information from the Department about the status of the review, generally or in relation to a particular park, received replies. All stakeholders on the original circulation list and 500 more who provided comment and whose names and addresses were known to the Department were notified of the Standing Committee meeting at which it would be considered, and were sent a bilingual summary of the report and a copy of Document 2 (Parks Designation Listing).