Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
June 6, 2022
Executive Committee Meeting Agenda June 6, 2022 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Council Chambers Chair: Councillor Butt For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Members of the public may attend the meeting in person, or may observe the meeting proceedings by viewing the livestream. A recording of the meeting will also be available on the City’s website following the meeting. Page 1. Roll Call 2. Disclosure of Interest 3. Delegations Members of the public looking to provide a verbal delegation to Members of the Executive Committee may do so either in person, or through a virtual audio telephone connection into the meeting. For more information, and to register as a delegate, visit www.pickering.ca/delegation, and complete the on-line delegation form or email clerks@pickering.ca. The list of delegates who have registered to speak will be called upon one by one by the Chair in the order in which they have registered. A maximum of 10 minutes shall be allotted for each delegation. Please be advised that your name and address will appear in the public record and will be posted on the City’s website as part of the meeting minutes. 3.1 Mary Evans (In Person) Brigitte Sopher (In Person) Sally Campbell (Virtual – available for questions if needed) Re: Whitevale Road and North Road Improvements - Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Implementation Project 4. Matters for Consideration 4.1 Director, Community Services, Report CS 08-22 1 Pickering Sports Medicine & Wellness Centre - Lease Agreement Recommendation: 1. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Lease Agreement with Pickering Sports Medicine & Wellness Centre set Executive Committee Meeting Agenda June 6, 2022 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Council Chambers Chair: Councillor Butt For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca out in Attachment 1 to this report, subject to minor revisions as may be required by the Director, Community Services and the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 4.2 Director, Community Services, Report CS 11-22 23 Amberlea Tennis Club Court Expansion - Shadybrook Park Recommendation: 1. That Report CS 11-22, regarding Amberlea Tennis Club Court Expansion at Shadybrook Park, be received; 2. That Council endorse, in principle, the proposed plan to design and construct a third court at Shadybrook Park for Tennis and Pickleball; 3. That funding for design and construction of the third court at Shadybrook Park for Tennis and Pickleball be considered in the preparation of the 2023 Parks Capital Budget; 4. That subject to approval of the design and construction of the third court at Shadybrook Park for Tennis and Pickleball, staff be directed to update the lease agreement with Amberlea Tennis Club and return it for Council’s approval; and, 5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions indicated in this report. 4.3 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 11-22 40 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority - Non-mandated Programs and Services Recommendation: Executive Committee Meeting Agenda June 6, 2022 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Council Chambers Chair: Councillor Butt For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 1. That Report ENG 11-22, regarding Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) Non-mandated Programs and Services, be received for information; 2. That City staff be authorized to continue discussions with TRCA on the development of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for municipally requested non-mandatory programs and services; 3. That staff report back to the Executive Committee on progress of developing a MOU no later than June, 2023; and, 4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 4.4 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 14-22 47 Claremont Drainage Plan - Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Recommendation: 1. That Report ENG 14-22 of the Director, Engineering Services regarding the Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment be received; 2. That the Claremont Drainage Plan completed by Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions dated May 10, 2022 be endorsed in principle by Council and submitted to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks; 3. That staff be authorized to issue a Notice of Study Completion in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process; and, 4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations of this report. 4.5 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 16-22 133 Proposed All-way Stop Executive Committee Meeting Agenda June 6, 2022 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Council Chambers Chair: Councillor Butt For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca - Spruce Hill Road and Shadybrook Drive Recommendation: 1. That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule "7" to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation of stop signs on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of The Corporation of the City of Pickering, specifically to address the proposed installation of an all-way stop control at the intersection of Spruce Hill Road and Shadybrook Drive; and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 4.6 Director, Operations, Report OPS 03-22 138 Beverley Morgan Community Park - Licence Renewal Agreement Recommendation: 1. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute a license renewal agreement with the Minister of Infrastructure - Hydro One Networks Inc. for a further ten year term, commencing August 1, 2022 and ending on July 31, 2032, that is in a form satisfactory to the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; and, 2. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect hereto. 4.7 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 26-22 156 Geographic Information System Corporate Strategic Plan - Preliminary Assessment and Evaluation, and GIS Vision Staff / Consultant Delegation David Holdstock, CEO, Geographic Technologies Group (Virtual) Sharon Stevenson, GIS Strategic Planner, Geographic Technologies Group (Virtual) Recommendation: Executive Committee Meeting Agenda June 6, 2022 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Council Chambers Chair: Councillor Butt For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca That Report PLN 26-22 regarding the Geographic Information System Corporate Strategic Plan, and the Executive Summary of the Preliminary Assessment and Evaluation Report, dated April 29, 2022, prepared by Geographic Technologies Group and contained in Appendix I, be received for information. 4.8 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 27-22 165 Proposed Amendment to the City’s Street Naming Policy Recommendation: 1. That the draft Street Naming Policy ADM 220, as amended in relation to War Veterans and the War Dead, contained in Appendix I to Report PLN 27-22, be approved; and, 2. That a copy of Council’s resolution and the revised Street Naming Policy ADM 220 be forwarded to the Royal Canadian Legion, Branches 606 and 483, the Regional Municipality of Durham, and the Durham Regional Police Services. 4.9 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 28-22 180 Heritage Permit HP 01-22 - Demolition of former Whitevale Blacksmith Shop 405 Whitevale Road Recommendation: 1. That the Heritage Permit Application HP 01/22, to demolish the former Whitevale Blacksmith Shop, be approved, subject the following conditions: a) that a demolition plan is submitted to the satisfaction of the Director, City Development & CBO, including notes for salvage and storage of a selection of metal tiles, nails, ring fasteners (metals) and available wood materials; and, Executive Committee Meeting Agenda June 6, 2022 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Council Chambers Chair: Councillor Butt For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca b) that an appropriate location for storage of materials is provided to the satisfaction of the Director, City Development & CBO; 2. That staff take necessary steps to salvage wood, metal, or other materials to be preserved at the Pickering Village Museum, as part of a collection, or in Whitevale as display, or plaque; and, 3. That the appropriate City officials and staff be authorized to take the necessary actions to implement Council’s decision. 5. Other Business 6. Adjournment Report to Executive Committee Report Number: CS 08-22 Date: June 6, 2022 From: Sarah Douglas-Murray Director, Community Services Subject: Pickering Sports Medicine & Wellness Centre -Lease Agreement -File: A-1440-001 Recommendation: 1.That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Lease Agreement with Pickering Sports Medicine & Wellness Centre set out in Attachment 1 to this report, subject to minor revisions as may be required by the Director, Community Services and the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; and, 2.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Executive Summary: Angela Dye Physiotherapy Professional Corporation has an existing Lease Agreement with the City of Pickering to operate Pickering Sports Medicine & Wellness Centre for the period of January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2022. Pickering Sports Medicine Centre includes approximately 2,093 square feet of space on the 2nd floor of the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex. The Community Services Department recommends that a renewal agreement be initiated with Pickering Sports Medicine & Wellness Centre. Financial Implications: The revenue generated through rental payments made by Pickering Sports Medicine & Wellness Centre from January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022 will be $47,070.00 (plus HST). This is an increase of 4.9 percent from the rate in 2021 of $44,872.80 (plus HST). Please note that for each successive year of this renewal lease, the annual rent shall increase by an amount equal to any increase in the Consumer Price Index for Ontario as established by Statistics Canada for the period between October and November of the previous year of the renewal lease. Discussion: Pickering Sports Medicine & Wellness Centre operates as a sports medicine out-patient clinic with the services of physiotherapy, massage therapy and visiting - 1 - Report CS 08-22 June 6, 2022 Subject: Pickering Sports Medicine & Wellness Centre Page 2 Orthopedic Surgeon. The business is owned by Angela Dye, Registered Physiotherapist and services are implemented by Health Care Professionals. In 2013, Pickering Sports Medicine & Wellness Centre and the Wellness Spa separated into two distinct businesses owned and operated by different proprietors. As a result, individual Lease Agreements were prepared for both Angela Dye Physiotherapy Professional Corporation and The Wellness Health Centre Limited, owned by Sonia Fernandes and Grace Brito. The two businesses have been operating autonomously with separate Lease Agreements from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2022. In January 2018, the Pickering Sports Medicine & Wellness Centre expanded their services and assumed additional space that included the meeting room adjacent to their location. In doing so, the lease holder paid all fees to upgrade the meeting space and join the two units. Rental space was increased by 1,400 square feet, bringing their current space allocation to 2,093 square feet. Pickering Sports Medicine & Wellness Centre offers services that are compatible with the City’s mandate to encourage the development of balanced and healthy lifestyles contributing to the well- being of both mind and body. Pickering Sports Medicine & Wellness Centre has operated in a professional manner that has satisfied the City. The Community Services Department recommends that the Lease Agreement included as Attachment 1 be initiated for a five year term beginning January 1, 2023 and ending December 31, 2027. Attachments: 1. Lease Agreement Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed ByOriginal Signed By Jody Morris Sarah Douglas-Murray Manager, Community Services Administration Director, Community Services JM:jm - 2 - Report CS 08-22 June 6, 2022 Subject: Pickering Sports Medicine & Wellness Centre Page 3 Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 3 - Attachment #1 to Report CS 08-22 This Lease made in duplicate this XX day of XXX , XXX . Between: Angela Dye Physiotherapy Professional Corporation carrying on business as Pickering Sports Medicine & Wellness Centre (the “Tenant") -and- The Corporation of the City of Pickering (the “Landlord") Now therefore this agreement witnesseth that, in consideration of the rents, covenants and agreements hereinafter reserved and contained on the part of the Tenant to be paid, observed and performed, the Landlord hereby leases to the Tenant during the term of this agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “Lease”) one suite containing approximately 2,093 square feet located in the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex located at 1867 Valley Farm Road, Pickering, Ontario to operate a sports medicine & wellness centre (hereinafter referred to as the “Premises”). Definitions In this Lease, (a) "Commencement Date" means January 1, 2023; (b) "Lease" means this lease as it may be amended from time to time; (c) "Premises" means one suite as set out in Schedule “A” containing approximately 2,093 square feet located at the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex to operate a sports medicine & wellness centre at 1867 Valley Farm Road, in the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham ; (d) "Term" means the term of this Lease as set out in Section 1.0; and (e) “Rent" means the rent payable pursuant to Section 2.0. 1 - 4 - 1.0 Term The term of this Lease (hereinafter referred to as the "Term") shall commence on the 1st day of January, 2023 and shall end on the 31st day of December, 2027, provided that the Tenant shall have the option thereafter of one additional five year Term on the provision that at least two (2) months prior written notice of the renewal period is given by the Tenant to the Landlord of the Tenant's intent to renew the Lease and provided further that the Tenant shall have been a Tenant in good standing throughout the entire Term of the Lease determined solely by the Landlord and provided further there has been no breach of any provisions of the Lease at any time by the Tenant. Each successive renewal shall be based on the same Terms and conditions as set out herein, save and except for the amount of rent payable. Rent payable for the renewal Term shall be as mutually agreed upon by both the Landlord and the Tenant at least one month prior to the commencement of the renewal Term. Failing such mutual agreement, this Lease shall be at an end and the Tenant shall vacate the Premises upon expiration of the original Term. 1.1 Upon the expiration of the Term, or if the Landlord shall become entitled to Terminate and shall declare this Lease to be Terminated pursuant to any provisions hereof, the Tenant shall surrender to the Landlord possession of the Premises and all of the fixtures and improvements erected thereon (all of which the Tenant acknowledges to be the property of the Landlord without any claim by or compensation to the Tenant), all the lights of the Tenant under this Lease shall Terminate (but the Tenant shall notwithstanding such Termination, be liable to the Landlord for any loss or damage suffered by the Landlord by reason of any default of the Tenant). 1.2 No early Termination of possession of the Premises shall release the Tenant from its obligations under the Terms herein unless such Termination is consented to by the Landlord in writing. 2.0 Base Rent 2.1 The Tenant shall pay base rent to the Landlord in the amount of $47,071.56 per annum ($3,922.63 per month) plus applicable H.S.T. throughout the Term of the Lease. 2.2 For each successive year of the Term, the annual rent shall increase by an amount equal to any increase in the Consumer Price Index for Ontario as established by Statistics Canada for the period between October and November of the previous year of the Term. 2.3 Rent shall be payable monthly. Prior to the commencement of each year of the Term, the Tenant shall provide to the Landlord, twelve (12) post-dated cheques, dated the first day of each and every month of the ensuing year, made payable to The Corporation of the City of Pickering. 2 - 5 - 3.0 Taxes 3.1 The Tenant covenants that it shall pay all taxes, if applicable, license fees and all other taxes or grants paid in lieu thereof or in addition thereto against or attributable to all Leasehold improvements, equipment and facilities and the Premises and the operation of the Tenant's business thereon. 3.2 In the event of the failure of the Tenant to make any such payments called for in this paragraph directly to the relevant authority, the Landlord may make any such payment and any amounts so paid by the Landlord shall be payable by the Tenant to the Landlord forthwith upon demand and shall be considered by the Landlord and the Tenant to be rent for the purposes of this Lease. 4.0 Payment of Rent 4.1 The Tenant covenants that at the times and in the manner provided in this Lease, it will pay in lawful money of Canada to the Landlord, at the address of the Landlord set out herein or at such other place as the Landlord may designate from time to time, the rent hereby reserved and all other amounts payable by the Tenant pursuant to the Terms of this Lease (all of which other amounts it is hereby agreed between the parties are payable as additional rent and recoverable by the Landlord from the Tenant as rent including H.S.T. and all applicable taxes and the facility usage fee), without any deduction or set-off whatsoever, or any abatement except as expressly provided under this Lease. 4.2 If the Tenant fails to pay, when same is due and payable, any rent and all other amounts payable by the Tenant pursuant to the herein Lease, such unpaid amounts shall bear interest from the due date thereof to the date of payment at a rate per annum which is two (2) percentage points in excess of the minimum lending rate to prime commercial borrowers current at the due date charged by any Canadian chartered bank designated by the Landlord from time to time, subject to annual compounding. 5.0 Use 5.1 The Tenant shall use the Premises only for the purpose of a wellness clinic, which scope of services will include an orthopaedic surgeon, physiotherapy, myofacial release, comprehensive cardiac rehab program, a kinesiologist, occupational therapy, social work, chiropractic treatment, holistic nutritional counseling, massage therapy, homeopathy, acupuncture, an orthotist and bracing specialist and the sale of wellness-oriented products. 5.2 The Tenant covenants that it will not provide any other services, other than those identified in 5.1 above, without first obtaining the prior written consent of the Landlord, which consent may not be unreasonably withheld. 3 - 6 - 5.3 The Tenant covenants that it will provide, at its sole expense, visible signage in its reception area throughout the Term of this Lease that identifies to its patients the services it provides and stating that the services are independent of the Landlord. The signage shall be approved by the Landlord prior to being displayed. 5.4 The Tenant shall provide to the Landlord a copy of a standardized written waiver which shall state that the scope of services being provided by the Tenant are 5.5 6.0 6.1 independent of The Corporation of the City of Pickering. Such waiver shall be provided to the Landlord for approval prior to the commencement of the Tenant's business being conducted on the Premises. The Tenant shall further provide such waiver to the Tenant's clients and patients prior to providing or delivering any services. Services provided by the Tenant shall be supervised by a duly licensed health professional and registered to provide wellness services in the Province of Ontario. Each employee and contracted service provider of the Tenant shall be duly licensed to carry out any service to be provided by such employee and contracted service provider as may be provided by any statute or regulation of any legislative authority. Sale of Products The Tenant covenants that it shall only sell product lines that are wellness- oriented. Such products include the following: Braces cervical pillows lumbar back support tubing-therapeutic orthotics cervical collars seating products cervical hot packs tens machines – portable bottled water 16.5 oz. 6.2. The Tenant covenants that it will not provide for resale any product other than those identified in 6.1 above, without first obtaining the prior written consent of the Landlord, which consent may not be unreasonably withheld. 6.3 The Landlord reserves the right to restrict the sale of any items which the Landlord, in its sole discretion, considers distasteful and/or not in the best interest of the general public. 4 - 7 - 7.0 Hours of Operation 7.1 The Tenant covenants to operate its business only on those days when the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex is open to the public. The Tenant shall operate within the same operating hours as the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex's operating schedules, which operating schedules shall be determined solely by the Landlord from time to time. 7.2 The Tenant acknowledges that the Landlord reserves the right to alter the operating schedules and further acknowledges that the Landlord will not be responsible for any losses or damages including any lost revenues and/or additional expenses incurred by the Tenant due to operating schedule changes and/or Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex closures, for any reason whatsoever. 7.3 In addition to scheduled closings, the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex shall be closed or have reduced hours on the following holidays: New Year's Eve closed at 12:00 noon; New Year's Day; Family Day Closed at 5:00 pm; Good Friday; Easter Sunday; Victoria Day; Canada Day; Civic Holiday; Labour Day; National Day for Truth & Reconciliation; Thanksgiving; Christmas Eve Closed at 12:00 noon; Christmas Day; Boxing Day; and any other holiday declared by the Landlord. 8.0 Utilities/Telephone Service 8.1 The Landlord shall supply heat, hydro, water and air-conditioning to the Premises at its sole expense. 8.2 The Landlord reserves the right to prohibit the Tenant from installing or using any equipment that requires increased voltage, which may result in additional costs to the Landlord. 8.3 The installation, removal and daily supply of telephone service shall be at the Tenant's sole expense. 9.0 Leasehold Improvements 5 - 8 - The Tenant is responsible for construction, painting, decorating, maintenance, replacement, repair and insurance of the Tenant's Leasehold improvements, equipment, fixtures and facilities on the Premises and shall abide by the Terms as provided for in paragraph no. 11 herein. 10.0 Entry to the Premises 10.1 The Landlord shall provide the Tenant with keys to the Premises. The Tenant shall not, without prior written consent of the Landlord, change the lock on the Premises or place additional locks upon the door of the Premises and shall not permit any duplicate key to be made. 10.2 The Tenant acknowledges that the Landlord will keep in its possession keys that would provide access to the Premises by the Landlord in the event it becomes necessary to enter the Premises during a time when the Tenant's business is not operating. 10.3 The Tenant covenants and agrees that upon the Landlord becoming entitled to re-enter the Premises under any of the provisions of this Lease, the Landlord in addition to all other rights shall have the right to enter the Premises as the agent of the Tenant either by force or otherwise, without being liable for any prosecution therefore and to relet the Premises as the agent of the Tenant, and to receive the rent therefore and, as the agent of the Tenant, to take possession of any furniture or other property on the Premises and to sell same at public or private sale without notice and to apply the proceeds of such sale and any rent derived from reletting the Premises upon account for the rent and additional rent and facility usage fees under this Lease and the Tenant shall be liable to the Landlord for the deficiency, if any. 11.0 Alterations & Improvements 11.1 The Tenant covenants not to make or erect in or to the Premises any installations, alterations, additions or partitions without submitting drawings and specifications to the Landlord and without obtaining the Landlord's prior written consent in each instance, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. the Tenant must further obtain the Landlord's prior written consent to any change or changes in such drawings and specifications submitted as aforesaid. such work may be performed by contractors engaged directly by the Tenant provided a written contract is approved in writing by the Landlord and subject to all reasonable conditions which the Landlord may impose; without limiting the generality of the foregoing, any work performed by or for the Tenant shall be performed by competent workers whose labour union affiliations are not incompatible with those of any workers who may be employed by the Landlord, its contractors or subcontractors' the Tenant shall pay, when due, the costs of all such work and of all materials, labour and services involved therein provided that 6 - 9 - applicable statutory requirements imposed by the Occupational Health and Safety Act and regulations made thereunder. The Tenant covenants that it will not suffer or permit any mechanics or other liens for work, labour, service or materials ordered by it or the cost of which it may be in any way obligated to pay to attach to the Premises and that, whenever and so often as any such liens shall attach or claims therefore shall be filed, the Tenant shall, within twenty (20) days after the Tenant has notice of the claim for lien, procure the discharge thereof by payment or by giving security or in such other manner as may be required or permitted by law. The Tenant acknowledges that all renovations and constructions to the Premises become part of the Premises and shall be deemed to be the property of the Landlord. Renovations and constructions are not to be dismantled or destroyed at either the end or Termination of the Lease. All alterations, renovations and new construction must be approved by the Landlord and must be completed under the authority of a building permit issued by the Landlord. All related permit fees and costs including the provision of any diagrams, architectural plans and architectural fees are at the expense of the Tenant. Maintenance The Tenant covenants and agrees to keep and maintain during the Term and to deliver up at the end of the Term (or such earlier or later Termination of this Lease as is provided for herein), the Premises in a state of good maintenance, cleanliness and repair. The Tenant covenants to permit representatives of the any such payments may be withheld pursuant to the provisions of Construction Lien Act (Ontario). The workmen performing works on the Premises shall provide satisfactory evidence of insurance to the Landlord prior to commencing any works on the Premises. 11.2 The contractor shall obey all federal, provincial and municipal laws, acts, ordinances, regulations, orders-in-council and by-laws which could in any way pertain to the work outlined in the contract or to the employees of the Tenant. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the contractor shall satisfy all 11.3 11.4 11.5 12.0 12.1 Landlord on site at any time for the purpose of inspection and to determine compliance with this provision. 12.2 The Tenant will covenant that it will be responsible for maintenance of its own property and equipment. 12.3 The Landlord reserves the right to close sections of the Premises, or the whole area of the Premises, as required for maintenance from time to time. The Tenant 7 - 10 - must be paid by the Tenant within ten (10) days after receiving notice in writing from the Landlord of the costs incurred by the Landlord. In the event the Tenant neglects to pay such costs as set out in writing, such expense may be set off against the security deposit held by the Landlord. 12.5 The Landlord shall give the Tenant 24 hours notice with respect to the inspection and maintenance of the Premises (except in an emergency, in which case, the Landlord shall give such notice, if any, as is practicable). 13.0 Garbage Removal The Tenant shall be responsible, at its own expense, for the daily removal of its garbage from the Premises to a location designated by the Landlord, with the exception of any medical wastes, in which case the Tenant shall be responsible for both the safe removal and disposal of such medical wastes from the Premises. 14.0 Signs 14.1 The Tenant shall not display any sign, picture, advertisement, notice or lettering on the inside or outside of the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex facility without the prior written consent of the Landlord, which consent may not be unreasonably withheld. 14.2 The parties agree that the Landlord will provide an area in the main lobby of the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex for the Tenant to display a sign at the Tenant's sole expense in accordance with section 14.1 above, advising the patrons of the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex of the Tenant's operations and its location within the Pickering Recreation Complex, noting shall have no right to claim for any losses or damages to the Tenant arising from such closures by the Landlord. 12.4 The Landlord reserves the right to enter and view the state of maintenance and repair of the Premises. The Tenant agrees to repair according to notice in writing any deficiencies, and in the event the Tenant neglects to make said repairs and carry out the necessary maintenance with five (5) days of such notice by the Landlord, the Landlord may enter the Premises and make such repairs and carry out such maintenance at its option and at the expense of the Tenant, which sum thereon that the Tenant's operation is a service supplied independent of the Landlord. 14.3 The Landlord reserves the right to have the Tenant immediately remove, upon written notice, any sign, picture, advertisement, notice or lettering on the inside of the Premises, which the Landlord at its sole discretion considers inappropriate or offensive, or in contravention of this Lease or any other agreement to which the Landlord may be bound. 8 - 11 - put in place by the Landlord, including but not limited to the Landlord's Harassment Policy. 15.2 The parties agree that the Landlord shall be entitled from time to time, to establish reasonable rules and regulations with respect to the use of the Premises, hours of operation and common areas used by the Tenant, its employees and all persons visiting or doing business with it including rules relating to the parking of vehicles in connection with the Tenant's business. The Tenant, its employees and all persons visiting or doing business with it agree to comply with all such rules and regulations and to fully co-operate in avoiding obstruction and/or conflict with the operation and services of the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex and third parties. The Tenant, its employees and all persons visiting or doing business with it agree to alter or modify their use of the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex and common areas when so requested by the Landlord from time to time. 16.0 Indemnity of Tenant The Tenant covenants to indemnify the Landlord against any and all claims, actions, damages and liability (including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, all claims for personal injury, death and/or property damage) and also damages arising from any breach of this Lease by the Tenant or from any act or omission of the Tenant or those for whom the Tenant is at law responsible in or around the Premises and against all costs incurred in connection with any such claim, except as provided in section 17 below. 17.0 Indemnity of Landlord 14.4 The Tenant covenants that any additional advertising within the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex shall be subject to the parties hereto entering into an advertising agreement, which agreement will be subject to additional costs to the Tenant for such a service. 15.0 Rules and Regulations 15.1 During the Term of this Lease, the Tenant agrees to comply with the various rules and regulations, policies and procedures, as amended from time to time, The Landlord shall not be liable for any loss or damage to any property belonging to the Tenant or to any other persons or for any injury to any person while such person or property is on the Premises unless such loss, damage or injury is caused directly by the negligence of the Landlord, or those for whom the Landlord is at law responsible. 18.0 Insurance 9 - 12 - 18.1 Prior to occupying the Premises, the Tenant shall, at its own expense, shall provide: (a) Commercial General Liability insurance, identifying The Corporation of the City of Pickering as an additional insured, including coverage for bodily injury including death, personal injury, property damage, contractual liability, Tenant's legal liability, non-owned automobile liability, on an occurrence basis with respect to the business carried on at the Premises and the Tenant's use and occupancy of the Premises, with coverage for any one occurrence of not less than $5,000,000, and shall contain a cross liability, severability of insured clause which shall protect the Landlord in respect of claims by the Tenant as if the Landlord was separately insured; (b) All risk property insurance covering the Leasehold improvements, trade fixtures, furniture and equipment in the Premises for not less than the full replacement cost thereof. The policy shall contain a waiver of subrogation in favour of the Landlord; (c) Professional malpractice insurance in the amount of not less than $2,000,000 per claim. Such insurance shall provide coverage for all services in the rendering of, or failure to render, professional services in connection with the lease. Upon termination of the Lease the policy shall remain in force for twelve (12) months. (d) a certificate of insurance coverage in a form satisfactory to the Landlord, prior to the Tenant taking possession of the Premises, which insurance coverage shall be kept in full force and effect throughout the Term of the Lease and any renewal(s) thereof. 18.2 The Tenant covenants with the Landlord that the Tenant, in its use and occupation of the Premises, will not do or omit or permit to be done or omitted anything which shall cause any insurance premium of the Landlord to be increased, and if any insurance premium shall be so increased, the Tenant shall pay to the Landlord forthwith upon demand the amount of such increase. if notice of cancellation or lapse shall be given respecting any insurance policy of the Landlord or if any insurance policy shall be cancelled or refused to be renewed by an insurer by reason of the use or occupation of the Premises or any part thereof, the Tenant shall forthwith remedy or rectify such use or occupation upon being requested to do so in writing by the Landlord and if the Tenant shall fail to do so the Landlord may, at its option, Terminate this Lease forthwith by notice in writing and the Tenant shall immediately surrender possession of the Premises to the Landlord and thereupon rent and all other amounts for which the Tenant is liable under this Lease shall be apportioned and paid in full to the date of surrender; provided that the Tenant shall have the right to replace such cancelled insurance at any time prior to the Landlord's notice of Termination. If the Premises are at any time destroyed or damaged as a result of fire, the elements, accident or other casualty, not caused by the Tenant, rendering the Premises 10 - 13 - rebuilt or repaired within sixty (60) days of the damage, the Landlord shall commence to repair or rebuild the Premises to the extent only as the Premises existed prior to the date of this Lease (not including the Tenant's improvements) and only to the extent of the insurance proceeds actually received by the Landlord. 19.0 Deliveries The Landlord has the right to restrict the hours of deliveries to the Tenant at its sole discretion. 20.0 Disclaimer The Tenant agrees to provide each patient with a written notice that the Tenant's services are being provided independent of The Corporation of the City of Pickering and to obtain a written acknowledgment from the patient/client releasing The Corporation of the City of Pickering from any claims arising from the Tenant's services. 21.0 Complex Fitness Room/Cardio Annex and Pool 21.1 The Landlord covenants to allow the Tenant's patients to use the fitness room, cardio annex, members’ change room whirlpool, pool and pool area, in the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex only (collectively, the “Fitness Facilities”), pursuant to sections 21.2, 21.3, 21.4 and 21.5 below. 21.2 The Tenant covenants that its patients will use the Fitness Facilities only during their wellness clinic appointments and only under the direct supervision of a uniformed wellness clinic therapist/healthcare provider. The Tenant untenantable and, if in the opinion of the Landlord the Premises cannot be rebuilt or repaired within sixty (60) days of the damage, the Landlord and the Tenant may mutually agree to Terminate this agreement and thereupon the Tenant will pay all applicable rent due and additional fees owing to the Landlord, which rent and fees will be apportioned and paid to the date of the damage. 18.3 If the Premises are at any time destroyed or damaged as a result of fire, the elements, accident or other casualty, not caused by the Tenant, rendering the Premises untenantable and, if the opinion of the Landlord, the Premises can be acknowledges and agrees that a group of patients shall be limited to three (3) and all patients must be in visual contact with the wellness clinic therapist/healthcare provider. 21.3 Usage by the Tenant's patients for treatment purposes shall not adversely affect the Landlord's members' use of any of the Fitness Facilities and as such the Landlord reserves the right to limit the number of wellness clinic patients using the Fitness Facilities at any one time. 11 - 14 - Wherever notice is permitted or required to be given hereunder by either party hereto, it must be given in writing and is sufficiently given if served personally on an officer of the party to whom notice is being given, delivered by facsimile to the telephone number below with confirmation of receipt or if mailed by registered mail postage prepaid addressed to the Tenant at: Pickering Sports Medicine & W ellness Centre 1867 Valley Farm Road Pickering, ON LlV 3Y7 Attention: Angela Dye Fax: 905.839.8806 and to the Landlord at: The Corporation of the City of Pickering Civic Complex One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Attention: City Clerk Fax: 905.420.9685 or to such other address as either party may designate by notice given from time to time in accordance with this paragraph. 21.4 Usage by the Tenant’s patients of the Fitness Facilities shall be determined and monitored by the Landlord. Usage by the Tenant under this section 21 shall be by means of an access card issued by the Landlord. 22.0 Notice 22.1 The Landlord has the right, notwithstanding section 1 herein, to cancel this Lease for any reason by giving the Tenant six (6) months written notice of its intention to cancel. The Landlord shall not be liable for costs or damages of any kind caused to the Tenant by such cancellation. 22.2 22.3 Any notice given personally shall be conclusively deemed to have been given and received on the date of service. 22.4 Any notice mailed as aforesaid shall be conclusively deemed to have been given and received on the third day following the date on which it is mailed as aforesaid provided that if there is a disruption or threatened disruption in the postal service in the postal area through which such notice must be sent, notice must be given personally or by means of printed electronic or printed telephonic communications. 12 - 15 - Tenant, or in case the Premises shall be vacated or remain unoccupied for five (5) days or in case the Term shall be taken in execution or attachment for any cause whatever, then and in every such case, it shall be lawful for the Landlord thereafter to enter into and upon the Premises or any part thereof in the name of the whole and the same to have again, repossess and enjoy as of its former estate, anything in this Lease contained to the contrary notwithstanding. 24.0 Bankruptcy In the event that the Premises shall be used by any person other than the Tenant or for any other purpose than that for which the same were let without the prior written consent of the Landlord or in the case the Term or any of the goods and chattels of the Tenant shall be at any time seized in execution or attachment by any creditor of the Tenant or the Tenant shall make any assignment for the benefit of creditors or any bulk sale or become bankrupt or insolvent or take the benefit of any act now or hereafter in force for bankrupt or insolvent debtors, or, if the Tenant is a corporation and any order shall be made for the winding-up of the Tenant, or other Termination of the corporate existence of the Tenant, then in any such case this Lease shall, at the option of the Landlord, cease and desist and the Term shall immediately become forfeited and void and the Landlord may re-enter and take possession of the Premises as though the Tenant or other occupant or occupants of the Premises was or were holding over after the expiration of the Term without any right whatever. 25.0 Distress The Tenant waives and renounces the benefit of any present or future statute taking away or limiting the Landlord's right of distress, and covenants and agrees that notwithstanding any such statute none of the goods and chattels of the Tenant on the 23.0 Default It is hereby expressly agreed that if and whenever the rent or any additional rent or fees hereby reserved or any part thereof shall not be paid on the day appointed for payment thereof, whether lawfully demanded or not, or in case of breach or non-observance or non-performance of any of the covenants, agreements, provisos, conditions or rules and regulations on the part of the Tenant to be kept, observed or performed after two (2) business days after written notice of default has been given by the Landlord to the Premises at any time during the Term or any renewal thereof shall be exempt from levy by distress for rent in arrears. 26.0 No Waiver No condoning, excusing or overlooking by the Landlord or the Tenant of any default, breach or non-observance by the other at any time or times in respect of any covenant, proviso or condition herein contained shall operate as a waive of the Landlord's or the Tenant's rights hereunder in respect of any continuing or subsequent default, breach or 13 - 16 - provisions of law concerning the Premises including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing all laws, ordinances, requirements, order, directives, permits, rules and regulations of all governmental authorities. 27.2 The Tenant acknowledges that it has taken all reasonable steps to satisfy itself that the proposed use of the Premises complies with applicable laws and regulations. The Tenant shall not hold the Landlord responsible for any losses or damages incurred by the Tenant should it be determined that the proposed use is not permitted under the applicable laws and regulations. 28.0 Assignment This Lease and possession of the Premises shall not be assigned, sublet or otherwise transferred in whole or in part by the Tenant to any other party without first obtaining written consent of the Landlord which consent may be unreasonably withheld. 29.0. Governing Law This Lease shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario. 30.0 No Registration of Notice The Tenant covenants that it will not register this Lease or any notice thereof against the title to the Premises. 31.0 Guarantee non-observance, or so as to defeat or affect in any way the rights of the Landlord or the Tenant herein in respect of any such continuing or subsequent default or breach and no waiver shall be inferred from or implied by anything done or omitted by the Landlord or the Tenant save only express waiver in writing. All rights and remedies of the Landlord and the Tenant in this Lease contained shall be cumulative and not alternative. 27. Compliance with Laws 27.1 The Tenant covenants to comply, at its own expense, with all present and future The parties agree that this Lease agreement shall be conditional upon the Landlord receiving an executed personal guarantee by Angela Dye prepared in the fo rm attached hereto as Schedule “B”. 32.0 Entire Agreement The parties acknowledge that this Lease sets forth the entire agreement between them with respect to the Premises and that there are no promises, representations or undertakings other than as set out herein. Any offer to Lease or agreement to Lease 14 - 17 - entered into by the Landlord and Tenant prior to the execution of this Lease shall be deemed to have been merged and extinguished in this Lease. This Lease shall not be amended or cancelled except by agreement in writing executed by all parties hereto. 33.0 Inspection The Landlord or any employee or agent of the Landlord shall have the right during business hours of the Tenant or at any time during an emergency as determined by the Landlord, to enter the Premises for any of the following purposes: (a) to examine the state of maintenance, repair and decoration of the Premises and the equipment and fixtures therein; and (b) to show the Premises to prospective Tenants during the last three (3) months of the Term. 34.0 Year End Statements The Tenant shall within sixty (60) days after the end of each year Term of the herein Lease agreement, provide the City with a financial statement for that previous Term of the total operating expenses and gross revenue of its business operation. 35.0 Severability Should any provision or provisions of this Lease be illegal or not enforceable, it or they shall be considered separate and severable from the Lease and its remaining provisions shall remain in force and be binding upon the parties hereto as though the said provision or provisions had never been included. 36.0 Enurement This Lease shall enure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the parties hereto and their respective representatives, successors or assigns except as herein otherwise expressly provided. 37.0 Guarantee The Landlord has entered into this Lease in reliance upon the Guarantee attached hereto as Schedule “B”. In witness whereof the parties have hereunto affixed their respective corporate seals under the hands of their proper officers duly authorized in that behalf. 15 - 18 - Angela Dye Physiotherapy Professional Corporation carrying on business as Pickering Sports Medicine & Wellness Centre per: ___________________________________ Name: Title: I have the authority to bind the Corporation. The Corporation of the City of Pickering per: ___________________________________ Name: David Ryan Title: Mayor per: ___________________________________ Name: Susan Cassel Title: City Clerk We have the authority to bind the Corporation. 16 - 19 - BRI D G E OPEN TO BELOW LEASE AREA Schedule "A" FITNESS STUDIO CO R R I D O R CO R R I D O R STORAGE STORAGE CORRIDOR CORRIDORWALKWAY WOMEN'S MEN'S WR WR PROGRAM OFFICE OFFICE ROOM 4 POOL VIEWING AREA WELLNESS SPA SUITE UPPER LOBBY ELEC. ROOM 4 MECHANICAL WALKWAY FITNESS AREA WALKWAY CORRIDOR WALKWAY PROGRAM ROOM 3 WALKWAY MECHANICAL ROOM 3 ART PHYSIO EXPANSION MEETING MEETING STUDIO SUITE ROOM 2 ROOM 3 1,420 sf 673 sf STORAGE KITCHENSTORAGE WA L K W A Y SCHEDULE A PICKERING RECREATION COMPLEX NORTH 1867 VALLEY FARM ROAD PARTIAL SECOND FLOOR PLAN NOT TO SCALE - 20 - 61 Beaufort Road Toronto, ON M4E 1M8 In consideration of the sum of one dollar ($1.00) now paid by the Landlord to the guarantor and other valuable consideration (the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged), the guarantor covenants with the Landlord that the Tenant shall duly perform and observe each and every covenant, proviso, condition and agreement in the Lease on the part of the Tenant to be performed and observed, including the payment of rent and all other amounts agreed to be paid or payable under the Lease on the days and at the times and in the manner therein specified and that if any default be made by the Tenant, whether in payment of rent or other amounts from time to time falling due thereunder as and when they become due and payable or in the performance or observance of any of the covenants, provisos, conditions or agreements which under the terms of the Lease are to be performed or observed by the Tenant, the guarantor shall forthwith pay to the Landlord on demand such rent and other amounts in respect of which such default shall have occurred and all damages resulting from the non-observance or non- performance of any such covenants, provisos, conditions or agreements. The guarantor covenants with the Landlord that the guarantor is bound with the Tenant for the fulfillment of all obligations of the Tenant under the Lease. In the enforcement of its rights thereunder, the Landlord may proceed against the guarantor as if the guarantor was named as a Tenant in the Lease. Schedule “B” Guarantee Landlord: The Corporation of the City of Pickering Tenant: Pickering Sports Medicine & Wellness Centre Leased Premises: Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex Lease Dated: as of January 1, 2023 Guarantor: Angela Dye Address of Guarantor: 1. 2. 3. The guarantor hereby waives any right to require the Landlord to proceed against the Tenant or to proceed against or to exhaust any security held from the Tenant or to pursue any other remedy whatsoever which may be available to the Landlord, before proceeding against the guarantor. 4. None of the following, or any combination thereof, shall release, discharge or in any way change or reduce the obligations of the guarantor under this Guarantee: 1 - 21 - (a) neglect or forbearance of the Landlord in endeavoring to obtain payment of the rent or the amounts required to be paid under the Lease, as and when due; (b) delay by Landlord in enforcing performance or observance of the covenants, provisos, conditions or agreements to be performed or observed by the Tenant under the Lease; (c) any extension of time given by the Landlord to the Tenant, or any other act or failure to act of or by the Landlord; (d) the Landlord permitting or consenting to any assignment or encumbering of the Lease by the Tenant or any subletting by the Tenant; (e) the bankruptcy or insolvency of the Tenant; (f) the dissolution of the Tenant; (g) the disclaimer of the Lease pursuant to the provisions of any statute. 5. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in the Lease. Signed, Sealed and Delivered ) In the presence of: ) ) ) ) Angela Dye ) ) ) 2 - 22 - Report to Executive Committee Report Number: CS 11-22 Date: June 6, 2022 From: Sarah Douglas-Murray Director, Community Services Subject: Amberlea Tennis Club Court Expansion -Shadybrook Park -File: A-1440-001 Recommendation: 1. That Report CS 11-22, regarding Amberlea Tennis Club Court Expansion at Shadybrook Park, be received; 2. That Council endorse, in principle, the proposed plan to design and construct a third court at Shadybrook Park for Tennis and Pickleball; 3. That funding for design and construction of the third court at Shadybrook Park for Tennis and Pickleball be considered in the preparation of the 2023 Parks Capital Budget; 4. That subject to approval of the design and construction of the third court at Shadybrook Park for Tennis and Pickleball, staff be directed to update the lease agreement with Amberlea Tennis Club and return it for Council’s approval; and 5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions indicated in this report. Executive Summary: At the Council meeting of February 28, 2022, Council received correspondence Corr. 11-22 (Resolution #814/22) from Amberlea Tennis Club (ATC) requesting the design and construction of a third court at Shadybrook Park to be used jointly for Tennis and Pickleball. Through Resolution #825/22, Council directed staff to discuss ATC’s proposal; conduct an engagement of the residents who reside in the Amberlea community near the Park; identify possible funding sources for construction; and, to report back to Council through the Executive Committee no later than the June 6, 2022 meeting. Accordingly, City staff met with ATC in March 2022 and developed a proposed plan for a newly constructed third court for Tennis and Pickleball (Attachment 1). Community engagement was conducted in April 2022 as outlined in this report, with a majority of the respondents indicating support of the proposed court expansion. At this time, City staff are recommending that Council endorse, in principle, the proposed plan to construct a third court at Shadybrook Park for Tennis and Pickleball and that funding for design and construction be considered in the 2023 budget preparation process. - 23 - CS 11-22 June 6, 2022 Subject: Amberlea Tennis Club Court Expansion Page 2 Financial Implications: Staff have prepared a preliminary cost estimate for the project and estimate the project to cost $450,000.00 to $500,000.00. Upon endorsement in principle of the project by Council, staff will work to refine the cost estimates and are recommending that funding for the court be considered in the 2023 Parks Capital Budget process. Staff have also investigated grant opportunities for construction of the court and at this time no open grant opportunities have been identified. Staff have identified that this project may be eligible for future Trillium Foundation Capital Grants to either the Municipality or the Club, however the 2022-23 Grant criteria and eligibility have not yet been confirmed. Discussion: ATC is a volunteer run Tennis Club that has a lease agreement with the City to exclusively operate two tennis courts at Shadybrook Park. ATC has an active membership that has grown from 150 members in 2018 to over 300 members in 2021. ATC offer drop in court usage and organized league play, and provide court facilities for the St. Mary Catholic Secondary School tennis program. The cost of club membership is currently $20.00 for juniors, $30.00 for adults or $55.00 per family for the 2022 season. At the Council meeting of February 28, 2022, Council received correspondence Corr. 11-22 (Resolution #814/22) from ATC requesting the construction of a third court at Shadybrook Park that could be used jointly for Tennis and Pickleball. Through Resolution #825/22 (Item 12.1 of the February 28, 2022 Council Agenda), Council directed staff to discuss ATC’s proposal; conduct an engagement of the residents who reside in the Amberlea community near the Park; identify possible funding sources for construction ; and, to report back to Council through the Executive Committee no later than the June 6, 2022 meeting. Staff met with representatives from ATC on March 9, 2022. They confirmed their request for construction of a third court and their desire for the court to be perpendicular to the two existing courts, be lit to enable nighttime play and that the access would be via a key lock as per their existing courts. Staff have also received the attached correspondence from ATC (Attachment 2) confirming that if a third court is constructed, ATC would work with the pickleball players to develop a shared schedule for pickleball and tennis that would include a minimum of 50 percent of court time available for pickleball and the remainder of court time available for tennis. The court times for each sport would be spread across daytime/evening and weekday/weekend use to ensure equal representation for each group of users. The lease agreement between ATC and the City will be updated with this as a condition, and returned for Council’s approval subject to the approval for a third court. Staff has developed a preliminary proposed layout for the new court which was supported by ATC. The proposed court would be constructed on the north side of the existing courts, fenced to approximately 18m by 36m in size, colour coated and line painted to allow for either one tennis game or four pickleball games to be in play at one time. Lighting would be provided for evening play. Additional site work would be required to suitably regrade the area and relocate a section of the existing access path and bicycle rack that would be impacted by the new court. An engagement plan for the residents surrounding the park included a survey and hand delivered postcard (Attachment 3). The postcards were delivered to 92 homes surrounding - 24 - CS 11-22 June 6, 2022 Subject: Amberlea Tennis Club Court Expansion Page 3 Shadybrook Park as outlined in the map attached as Attachment 4. A summary of the 21 responses received is attached as Attachment 5. Based on the community feedback received largely in support of a third court, the request by ATC and ongoing demand for pickleball courts, staff are recommending that Council endorse, in principle, the proposed plan to design and construct a third court at Shadybrook Park for Tennis and Pickleball. As outlined above staff are recommending that funding for the design and construction of the court be considered in the 2023 Parks Capital Budget. Staff will also continue to investigate other possible external funding options for this project. Subject to Council’s approval to design and construct the third court, staff will update the lease agreement with Amberlea Tennis Club and return it for Council’s approval. Attachments: 1. Proposed Court Expansion Plan 2. ATC Letter of Support 3. Shadybrook Park -ATC Survey Postcard 4. Shadybrook Park -Distribution Map 5. Shadybrook Park -ATC Survey Results - 25 - CS 11-22 June 6, 2022 Subject: Amberlea Tennis Club Court Expansion Page 4 Prepared/Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Sarah Douglas-Murray Director, Community Services Original Signed By: Richard Holborn, P.Eng. Director, Engineering Services SDM:sdm Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 26 - Attachment #1 to Report CS 11-22 - 27 - Attachment #2 to Report CS 11-22 To the City of Pickering, ON Attn: Council May 16, 2022 We appreciate Council taking the time to review and consider our proposal for adding a 3rd court, that would be used for pickleball and tennis. We understand that if this 3rd court were to be approved by Council and constructed, then a guaranteed minimum amount of court time would be made available for pickleball. For this 3rd court, the club would work with the pickleball players to develop a shared schedule for pickleball and tennis that would include a minimum of 50% of court time for pickleball and 50% court time for tennis. The court times for each sport would be spread across daytime and evening and weekday and weekend use to ensure equal representation for each group of players. In addition, Amberlea Tennis Club understands that upon completion of a third court, the lease agreement with the City of Pickering would be updated to reflect the new court and associated uses. Regards, Henrik Villumsen President, Amberlea Tennis Club - 28 - Neighbourhood Survey Attachment #3 to Report CS 11-22 Amberlea Tennis Club: New Pickleball/Tennis Court Proposal Amberlea Tennis Club has proposed the addition of a combination Tennis & Pickleball Court to the Club’s existing courts, located in Shadybrook Park. In response, The City of Pickering is currently requesting your feedback to assess community support for this project. We invite you to participate a short survey on the reverse of this postcard. Completed surveys can be dropped of at Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex, 1867 Valley Farm Road, Pickering. Alternatively, the survey can be completed online via the QR code provided. scan for survey The City of Pickering will be collecting your feedback until April 29, 2022. For questions about this project or the survey, please contact: Rob Gagen at 905.420.4660 ext. 5228 or rgagen@pickering.ca. Personal information collected on this form is collected under the authority of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c.25 and shall only be used for the purpose of providing participants with further information relating to this project. Questions about this collection should be directed to Susan Cassel, City Clerk, City of Pickering, One The Esplanade, Pickering, Ontario, L1V 6K7, 905.420.4660 extension 2019. - 29 - _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ Amberlea Tennis Club Pickleball/Tennis Court Survey Please provide your Postal Code: _________________ Have you or someone in your household been a member at the Amberlea Tennis Club? Yes No If you or someone in your household has been a member of the Amberlea Tennis Club, how often do you/they use the tennis courts during the outdoor season? Have you or someone in your household played Pickleball in the last year? Yes No Daily Weekly Monthly Less than monthly N/A If someone in you household plays Pickleball, how often do you/they play? Daily Weekly Monthly Less than monthly N/A If a combination Pickleball/Tennis court is added to the Amberlea Tennis Club’s courts, Likely Not likely are you or someone in your household to likely to play either one of these sports? Are you in favour of adding a third court with both tennis and pickleball lines to the Amberlea Tennis Club courts at Shadybrook Park? If you are not in favour of adding the proposed court, please describe your concern(s) (300 characters). ________________________ Yes No Thank you for your time. Please provide an email if you would like to receive an update on this project: ________________________ - 30 - Attachment #4 to Report CS 11-22 Amberlea Tennis Club Map data ©2022 Google 20 m Houses backing onto the park on: Amberlea Tennis Club 5.0 ★★★★★ 1 review Non-pro t organization Directions Save Nearby Send to your phone Hedgerow Place, Eastbank Road, Meadowview Ave Houses fronting onto/near the park on: Shadybrook Drive All houses on road adjacent to park on: Orion Crt. Share - 31 - Attachment #5 to Report CS 11-21 Neighbourhood Survey: Amberlea Tennis Club @ Shadybrook Park Q1 Please provide your postal code. Answered: 21 Skipped: 0 # RESPONSES DATE 1 l1v3x5 5/6/2022 12:02 PM 2 L1V3J9 5/6/2022 11:59 AM 3 L1V 3G7 4/16/2022 9:47 AM 4 L1V 3j9 4/11/2022 3:14 PM 5 L1V 3J9 4/11/2022 2:43 PM 6 L1V3J9 4/5/2022 3:51 PM 7 L1V3J9 4/4/2022 11:19 AM 8 L1V3T5 4/4/2022 7:37 AM 9 L1X2S2 4/2/2022 3:07 PM 10 L1V 3G7 4/1/2022 5:26 PM 11 L1X 2S2 4/1/2022 4:37 PM 12 L1X2S1 4/1/2022 4:36 PM 13 L1x2s1 4/1/2022 4:31 PM 14 L1V3X5 4/1/2022 4:03 PM 15 L1V 3G7 3/31/2022 4:20 PM 16 L1v 3t5 3/31/2022 2:59 PM 17 L1V 3T6 3/31/2022 10:44 AM 18 L1v3g7 3/31/2022 8:52 AM 19 L1V 3X5 3/31/2022 8:30 AM 20 L1V3J9 3/30/2022 5:32 PM 21 L1v3j9 3/30/2022 10:13 AM 1 / 10- 32 - Neighbourhood Survey: Amberlea Tennis Club @ Shadybrook Park Q2 Have you or someone in your household been a member at the Amberlea Tennis Club? Answered: 21 Skipped: 0 Yes No 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES 33.33% Yes 66.67% 14 No Total Respondents: 21 2 / 10 7 - 33 - Neighbourhood Survey: Amberlea Tennis Club @ Shadybrook Park Q3 If you or someone in your household has been a member of the Amberlea Tennis Club - how often do you/they use the tennis courts during the outdoor season? Answered: 20 Skipped: 1 Daily Weekly Monthly Less than monthly N/A 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 15.00% Weekly ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES 5.00% Daily 0.00% Monthly 15.00% Less than monthly 65.00% 13 N/A Total Respondents: 20 3 / 10 3 1 0 3 - 34 - Neighbourhood Survey: Amberlea Tennis Club @ Shadybrook Park Q4 Have you or someone in your household played Pickleball in the last year? Answered: 21 Skipped: 0 No Yes 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES 61.90% 13 No 38.10% Yes Total Respondents: 21 4 / 10 8 - 35 - Neighbourhood Survey: Amberlea Tennis Club @ Shadybrook Park Q5 If you or someone in your household plays Pickleball, how often do you/they play? Answered: 20 Skipped: 1 Daily Weekly Monthly Less than monthly N/A 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 20.00% Weekly ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES 25.00% Daily 0.00% Monthly 0.00% Less than monthly 55.00% 11 N/A Total Respondents: 20 5 / 10 4 5 0 0 - 36 - Neighbourhood Survey: Amberlea Tennis Club @ Shadybrook Park Q6 If a combination Pickleball/Tennis Court is added to the Amberlea Tennis Club's courts, are you or someone in your household likely to play either one of these sports? Answered: 21 Skipped: 0 Likely Not likely 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES 71.43% 15 Likely 28.57% Not likely Total Respondents: 21 6 / 10 6 - 37 - Neighbourhood Survey: Amberlea Tennis Club @ Shadybrook Park Q7 Are you in favour of adding a third court with both tennis and pickleball lines to the Amberlea Tennis Club courts at Shadybrook Park? Answered: 21 Skipped: 0 Yes No 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES 71.43% 15 Yes 28.57% No Total Respondents: 21 7 / 10 6 - 38 - Neighbourhood Survey: Amberlea Tennis Club @ Shadybrook Park Q8 If you are not in favour of adding the proposed court, please describe your concerns (300 characters or less) Answered: 7 Skipped: 14 # RESPONSES DATE 1 In favour -we need more outdoor rec facilities like this!! Pickleball is a unique activity suited for all ages ie: grandchildren can play with their grandparents 5/6/2022 12:02 PM 2 tennis is a quiet sport; pball is a loud/noisy sport and will interfere with tennis already in place.Should build pball courts in a separate (pball only) location - as has been successfully done in Whitby near Cullen Gardens. 5/6/2022 11:59 AM 3 Amblerlea tennis court is very close to houses. The noise of the paddle against the ball would be a constant irritant unlike tennis which is a quieter hit. PB in more open area would be better, but not close to residences would interfere with quiet time on the deck/patio. 4/11/2022 2:43 PM 4 The courts t hat are there are empty quite a bit, adding a third court with the cost to tax payers doesn’t make sense. 4/5/2022 3:51 PM 5 Noise, congestion, not enough parking, more park litter 3/31/2022 4:20 PM 6 I believe t here are other projects and initiatives our tax dollars can go towards. 3/30/2022 5:32 PM 7 There are already 2 courts. What we lack is an upgraded larger playground for the children and a splash pad. Everyone over crowds the water park in the next neighborhood (Amberlea). Amberlea now has a pickle ball court, along with a good playground and popular splash pad. My backyard backs onto the two current courts and they play up until midnight with music some nights and it gets loud. Not interested in a third court. The childrens’ needs are just as important. There are no accessible playground equipment either. 3/30/2022 10:13 AM 8 / 10- 39 - Report to Executive Committee Report Number: ENG 11-22 Date: June 6, 2022 From: Richard Holborn Director, Engineering Services Subject: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority - Non-mandated Programs and Services - File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1. That Report ENG 11-22, regarding Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) Non-mandated Programs and Services, be received for information; 2. That City staff be authorized to continue discussions with TRCA on the development of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for municipally requested non-mandatory programs and services; 3. That staff report back to the Executive Committee on progress of developing a MOU no later than June, 2023; and, 4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. Executive Summary: In October 2021 and January 2022, the Province filed seven regulations making changes to the Conservation Authorities Act. The intent of the changes is to improve overall governance, oversight, transparency, and accountability of conservation authority operations. O. Reg 687/21 requires conservation authorities to execute Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) and Service Level Agreements (SLAs) with partner municipalities to deliver non-mandatory programs and services that are requested by those municipalities. Through Resolution #704/21, Council directed staff to enter into discussions with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) regarding the municipal funding of non-mandated services, and to report back to Council prior to June 2022. Staff have commenced discussions with TRCA on the preparation and the financial implications of the required MOUs and SLAs. The Province has set a deadline of January 1, 2024 for the execution of MOUs and SLAs. City staff and the TRCA are working toward having these agreements completed for consideration of Council by Q3/Q4 of 2023. Financial Implications: There are no immediate or direct financial implications related to the recommendations set out within Report ENG 11-22. Throughout the balance of 2022 and into 2023, prior to a MOU being executed, there will be no change, financially, with how the - 40 - ENG 11-22 June 6, 2022 Subject: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Non-mandated Programs and Services Page 2 City conducts business with TRCA. As development of the MOU progresses, and staff have a better understanding of which programs and services are recommended to be provided by TRCA on a fee-for-service basis, staff will be able to determine the financial implications going forward. Discussion: At the Council meeting of October 25, 2021 Council received Correspondence 49-21 from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario regarding the release of Phase 1 Regulations of the Conservation Authorities Act, and directed staff to enter into discussions with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) regarding the municipal funding of non-mandated services, and to report back to Council prior to June 2022 (See Resolution #704/21 attached as Attachment 1). On October 7, 2021, as part of Phase 1, the Province filed three new regulations under the Conservation Authorities Act to implement changes in how programs and services are provided to municipalities. The new regulations are: • O. Reg 686/21 Mandatory Programs and Services, • O. Reg 687/21 Transition Plans and Agreements for Programs and Services, and, • O. Reg 688/21 Rules of Conduct in Conservation Areas. The province introduced four Phase 2 regulations in January 2022 and these were filed on April 20, 2022. The Phase 2 regulations are: • O. Reg 399/22 Amending O. Reg 687/21, • O. Reg 400/22 Information Requirements, • O. Reg 401/22 Determination of Amounts Under Subsection 27.2 of the Act, and, • O. Reg 402/22 Budget and Apportionment. City staff have entered into preliminary discussions with TRCA staff to specifically review the requirements of O. Reg 687/21 as that regulation determines how municipalities and the conservation authority will conduct business in the future. O. Reg 687/21 requires conservation authorities such as the TRCA to prepare a transition plan, outlining the steps to develop an inventory of programs and services, and to enter into agreements with municipalities, such as the City of Pickering, in order to deliver non-mandated, municipally requested services. TRCA has prepared a draft inventory of programs and services to fulfill the requirements of O. Reg 687/21 and have organized them according to nine service areas: 1. Watershed Studies and Strategies 2. Water Risk Managements 3. Regional Biodiversity 4. Greenspace Securement and Management 5. Tourism and Recreation 6. Planning and Development Review 7. Education and Outreach 8. Sustainable Communities 9. Corporate Services - 41 - ENG 11-22 June 6, 2022 Subject: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Non-mandated Programs and Services Page 3 The inventory within each service area has been divided into three main categories: Category 1 – Mandatory programs and services: Mandatory programs and services represent the core mandate of TRCA, and will continue to be provided through the Regional municipality levy. Local municipalities, such as the City of Pickering, are not levied for conservation authority services. Category 2 – Municipally requested programs and services: Non-mandatory, municipally requested programs and services will be provided through Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) and Service Level Agreements (SLAs) with local municipalities on a fee-for-service basis. Category 3 – Other programs and services: Other programs and services are specific to private sector partners or non-municipal public partners (such as Metrolinx, Hydro One, etc.) and are not applicable to the City of Pickering. Currently, City staff are reviewing TRCA’s draft inventory to determine which programs and services within Category 2 are of interest to the City of Pickering. Once it is determined which programs and services the City is interested in, City and TRCA staff will work together on developing an overarching MOU that will be brought forward to Council for consideration. Once a MOU is in place, specific projects, programs or services, that the City wishes to retain TRCA to provide, will be covered through standard letter agreements or purchase orders. The deadline for the execution of MOUs and SLAs between conservation authorities and partner municipalities for Category 2 programs and services is January 1, 2024. It is staff’s intention to continue with discussions with TRCA staff on MOU development over the next 12 months to be in a position to bring the required agreements to Council in Q3/Q4 of 2024. This schedule is a little less aggressive than TRCA’s schedule to have an MOU in place by the end of Q2 2023. Until such time as a MOU has been executed, there is no change in how the City conducts business with TRCA from a financial lens. As such, staff is advising that there are no financial or budgetary impacts in 2022 or 2023.When the MOU is brought to Council for consideration, the financial implications for 2024 will be addressed. Attachment: 1.Resolution #704/21 - 42 - ENG 11-22 June 6, 2022 Subject: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Non-mandated Programs and Services Page 4 Prepared/Approved/Endorsed By: Original signed by: Richard Holborn, P. Eng. Director, Engineering Services Original signed by: Brian Duffield Director, Operations Original signed by: Kyle Bentley, P.Eng. Director, City Development & CBO Original signed by: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Service & City Solicitor RH:mjh Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original signed by: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 43 - Legislative Services Division Clerk’s Office Directive Memorandum November 1, 2021 To: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Richard Holborn Director, Engineering Services From: Susan Cassel City Clerk Subject: Direction as per Minutes of the Meeting of City Council held on October 25, 2021 Corr. 49-21 Association of Municipalities Ontario Re: AMO Policy Update – Phase I Regulations of Conservation Authorities Act Released Council Decision Resolution #704/21 1.That Corr. 49-21, from the Association of Municipalities Ontario, dated October 12, 2021, regarding the AMO Policy Update – Phase I Regulations of Conservation Authorities Act Released, be received; and, 2.That Staff be directed, through the CAO, to enter into discussions with the Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) regarding the Municipal funding of non-mandated services and report back to Council on budgetary impacts prior to June 2022. A copy of the original correspondence is attached for your reference. Please take any action deemed necessary. Susan Cassel Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Attachment #1 to Report ENG 11-22 - 44 - October 12, 2021 AMO Policy Update – Phase I Regulations of Conservation Authorities Act Released On Thursday, October 7th the Province filed three new regulations under the Conservation Authorities Act to implement the changes that were required by Bill 229, the Protect, Support and Recover from COVID-19 Act (Budget Measures), 2020. The three regulations are described below: 1.Mandatory Programs and Services (O. Reg 686/21): prescribes the mandatory programs and services conservation authorities (CAs) would be required to provide, including core watershed-based resource management strategies. The regulation comes into effect January 1, 2022. 2.Transition Plans and Agreements for Programs and Services (O. Reg 687/21): requires each CA to have a ‘transition plan’ that outlines the steps to be taken to develop an inventory of programs and services and to enter into agreements with participating municipalities to fund non-mandatory programs and services through municipal funding. It also establishes the transition period to enter into those agreements. The regulation came into effect on October 1, 2021. 3.Rules of Conduct in Conservation Areas (O. Reg 688/21): consolidates the current individual CA ‘Conservation Area’ regulations under S. 29 of the Conservation Authorities Act into one Minister’s regulation that regulates the public use of CA owned land. This regulation will come into effect when the unproclaimed provisions of Part VI and VII of the Conservation Authorities Act that deal with development permissions come into effect. AMO is pleased to see these regulations moving forward. Now that O.Reg 687/21 is in effect, municipal governments are encouraged to start having conversations with - 45 - Association of Municipalities of Ontario 200 University Ave. Suite 801,Toronto ON Canada M5H 3C6 To unsubscribe, please click here the CA(s) in their area as soon as possible. This will ensure that CAs are aware of the municipal budget process, goals and timelines, and enable CAs to create a workplan by the end of 2021. More information on the specific changes and next steps will be provided by AMO in the coming weeks. AMO’s COVID-19 Resources page is being updated continually so you can find critical information in one place. Please send any of your municipally related pandemic questions to covid19@amo.on.ca. *Disclaimer: The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) is unable to provide any warranty regarding the accuracy or completeness of third-party submissions. Distribution of these items does not imply an endorsement of the views, information or services mentioned. Please consider the environment before printing this. - 46 - Report to Executive Committee Report Number: ENG 14-22 Date: June 6, 2022 From: Richard Holborn Director, Engineering Services Subject: Claremont Drainage Plan -Municipal Class Environmental Assessment -File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1.That Report ENG 14-22 of the Director, Engineering Services regarding the Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment be received; 2.That the Claremont Drainage Plan completed by Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions dated May 10, 2022 be endorsed in principle by Council and submitted to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks; 3.That staff be authorized to issue a Notice of Study Completion in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process; and, 4.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations of this report. Executive Summary: The Claremont Drainage Plan (CDP) provides a comprehensive analysis of the existing drainage system and solutions to the drainage system deficiencies in the central area of the Hamlet of Claremont. A study area map is included as Attachment 1. The recommended solutions from the CDP when implemented will result in reducing surface runoff, by replacing the existing storm sewers with larger pipes on various City roads, as well as the storm sewer along Regional Road #5 (Central Street), and constructing an underground storage system within the Regional Road #5 (Central Street) right-of-way. Upon completing and satisfying the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment requirements, the recommended solutions can proceed directly to the detailed design and construction phases in accordance with a priority plan specified in the report. Works within the Regional Road #5 (Central Street) right-of-way require approval from, and coordination with, the Regional Municipality of Durham. It is recommended that the Claremont Drainage Plan be endorsed in principle by Council, submitted to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP), and that the Notice of Study Completion be issued. - 47 - ENG 14-22 June 6, 2022 Subject: Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class EA Study Page 2 Financial Implications: Council recommendation to submit the Claremont Drainage Plan to the MECP and issue the Notice of Study Completion is a commitment in principal to implement the recommended projects required to address the drainage system deficiencies in the Hamlet of Claremont. The individual recommended projects in the Claremont Drainage Plan, estimated to have a total cost of $5.91 million, will need to be approved in future capital budgets in order to be implemented. Staff will consider phasing opportunities in order to spread the cost over multiple years. Opportunities for grant funding to offset municipal costs will be sought out. Discussion: Due to the age of the development of the Hamlet of Claremont, the drainage system infrastructure in the community was not built to meet formal and current engineering standards. Periodically, the City receives drainage complaints from residents of the community related to localized flooding caused by blocked driveway culverts, cross road culverts and roadside ditches. To address the flooding issues within the Study Area (Attachment 1), the City of Pickering retained Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions (formerly known as Amec Foster Wheeler) to prepare the Claremont Drainage Plan (CDP) in accordance with the planning principles of the Master Planning component of the Municipal Engineers Association’s Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) (October 2000, amended 2007, 2011, and 2015), which is an approved process under the Environmental Assessment Act. The purpose of the study was to complete a holistic analysis of the existing drainage system within the central area of Claremont, identify deficiencies, determine the appropriate level of service and to recommend projects to improve the existing drainage system. The CDP addresses Phase 1 and 2 of the MCEA process (identifying the problem or opportunity, and identifying alternative solutions to the problem or opportunity), and incorporated broad public, agency, and Indigenous Peoples consultation on all aspects of the Drainage Plan development. Public consultation consisted of a Notice of Study Commencement, meetings with residents and Claremont Development Corporation (Geranium Corporation – owner of developable lands located north of Franklin Street), two Public Information Centres (PICs) which allowed for public and stakeholder input throughout the project. The meetings with residents and Claremont Development Corporation were formed as part of the enhanced public consultation plan for the project, and proved to be a useful forum to provide input to the plan and exchange ideas with the project team. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, the PICs were held as virtual on-line presentations. The first PIC was posted on the City’s website on November 20, 2020, for the review and commenting period until December 11, 2020. The second PIC was posted on the City’s website on August 19, 2021, with comments due on September 16, 2021. The comments received included input on the existing drainage conditions, localized flooding issues within the study area and questions regarding the existing drainage system assessment and evaluation. The comments received also referred to general maintenance requirements of the roads and ditches. Following public and agency engagement, the recommended Drainage Plan was prepared. A significant consideration in evaluating alternative solutions was that the rural character of the - 48 - ENG 14-22 June 6, 2022 Subject: Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class EA Study Page 3 Hamlet is to be maintained. The CDP consists of a combination of improvement measures to address flooding issues that will provide adequate protection for the local residents within the Study Area. All of the preferred solutions identified as elements of the Drainage Plan are categorized as Schedule A/A+ undertakings under the MCEA, which means they can proceed directly to detailed design and/or construction. For projects identified as Schedule A+, public notification is required prior to implementation. The summary of the preferred alternatives and the prioritization are outlined in the table below. Priority Location Preferred Alternative High William Street/ Canso Drive Upsize the storm sewers from Henry Street to the outfall at the West Channel; 250 m (+/-) of 1050 mm diameter storm sewer. High Central Street Upsize the storm sewers from Franklin Street to William Street/Canso Drive and construct three (3) underground SWM tanks within the Central Street ROW; 400 m (+/-) of storm sewers ranging in diameter from 750 mm to 975 mm. High Franklin Street Install new storm sewers on Franklin Street from 100 m north of Joseph Street to Joseph Street, increase the storm sewer sizes on Franklin Street from Joseph Street to Central Street, and install four (4) twin catch basins, two (2) single catch basins, and three (3) ditch inlet catch basins; the total length of storm sewer is 280 m (+/-) ranging in diameter from 600 mm to 750 mm. High Old Brock Road Implement new storm sewers and catch basins on Old Brock Road from 170 m (+/-) north of Joseph Street to Henry Street; with catch basins installed on Joseph Street. Increase the diameter of the existing 60 m (+/-) of 375 mm diameter storm sewer north of Central Street to 450 mm diameter. High Wixson Street Install ten (10) single new catch basins and two (2) twin catch basins on Wixson Street between Lane Street and Central Street. Increase the diameter of the existing 85 m (+/-) of 450 mm storm sewer north of Central Street to 525 mm diameter. Low Lane Street Regrade the east side of the Lane Street and Old Brock Road intersection to convey drainage away from the intersection. Re- profile the existing east Old Brock Road ditch. Low Livingston Street Re-profile the east Livingston Street ditch, twin the existing 375 mm CSP culvert that traverses the roadway, and re-profile the easement ditch between Livingston Street and the East Channel. - 49 - ENG 14-22 June 6, 2022 Subject: Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class EA Study Page 4 Priority Location Preferred Alternative Low Canso Drive, Acorn Lane Upsize the existing 300 mm diameter storm sewers on Canso Drive and Acorn Lane, 90 m (+/-) and 85 m (+/-) respectively, to 450 mm diameter, and implement a storage tank within the Canso Drive boulevard. Low Wellington Street Do nothing; the reduction in peak flow rates discharging to the East Channel will mitigate the impacts to the Wellington Street roadside ditches, however, will not fully mitigate the risk of flooding to the adjacent properties. It should be noted that Claremont Development Corporation has commented that the works from the CDP would be unnecessary as the build-out of the Claremont Development Corporation subdivision would address the flooding issues. The build-out of the Claremont Development Corporation subdivision may result in some modifications to the recommended works from the CDP but the majority of the recommended works would still be required. Furthermore, the timing of the build-out of the Claremont Development Corporation subdivision is subject to factors outside of the City’s control. Notwithstanding, at the detailed design stage, staff shall consider the implications and timing of the development of lands adjacent to Franklin Street on the proposed works. Next Steps The Claremont Drainage Plan (CDP) has been completed and satisfies the requirements of the MEA Municipal Class Environmental assessment process, including public and regulatory agency notification and consultation. A Draft CDP report has been submitted to the MECP, the Regional Municipality of Durham and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, for preliminary review and comments. The feedback from these agencies will be included in the Final report prior to formally submitting the CDP to MECP. Subject to endorsement in principle of the Draft CDP report by Council, and the submission of the CDP report to MECP, the Notice of Study Completion will be published, and issued to the review agencies, the public, and Indigenous Peoples. Copies of the CDP report will be made available at the Pickering Public Library (Central and Claremont Branches), and the City Clerk’s Office. The CDP report will also be made available electronically on the Claremont Drainage Plan Project webpage. Comments will be received on the Final CDP report during the formal 30 calendar day public review period. Attachments: 1. Study Area Map 2. Draft Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Report (Appendices are available upon request) - 50 - ENG 14-22 June 6, 2022 Subject: Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class EA Study Page 5 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Irina Marouchko, P.Eng. Richard Holborn, P.Eng. Senior Water Resources Engineer Director, Engineering Services IM:mjh Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer Original signed by:Original signed by: Original signed by: - 51 - TOWNSHIP O F U X B R I D G E F 1 1 5 LC STUDY AREA N.T.S.May 2022 Engineering Services Department Study Area Map Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Attachment #1 to Report ENG 14-22 - 52 - Attachment # 2 to Report ENG 11-22 Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report City of Pickering Project # TPB168152 Prepared for: City of Pickering Pickering Civic Complex, One the Esplanade, Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 May 10, 2022 - 53 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report City of Pickering, Hamlet of Claremont Project # TPB168152 Prepared for: City of Pickering Pickering Civic Complex, One the Esplanade, Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 Prepared by: Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions a Division of Wood Canada Limited May 10, 2022 Copyright and non-disclosure notice The contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright owned by Wood (© Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions a Division of Wood Canada Limited). save to the extent that copyright has been legally assigned by us to another party or is used by Wood under license. To the extent that we own the copyright in this report, it may not be copied or used without our prior written agreement for any purpose other than the purpose indicated in this report. The methodology (if any) contained in this report is provided to you in confidence and must not be disclosed or copied to third parties without the prior written agreement of Wood. Disclosure of that information may constitute an actionable breach of confidence or may otherwise prejudice our commercial interests. Any third party who obtains access to this report by any means will, in any event, be subject to the Third Party Disclaimer set out below. Third-party disclaimer Any disclosure of this report to a third party is subject to this disclaimer. The report was prepared by Wood at the instruction of, and for use by, our client named on the front of the report. It does not in any way constitute advice to any third party who is able to access it by any means. Wood excludes to the fullest extent lawfully permitted all liability whatsoever for any loss or damage howsoever arising from reliance on the contents of this report. We do not however exclude our liability (if any) for personal injury or death resulting from our negligence, for fraud or any other matter in relation to which we cannot legally exclude liability. - 54 - - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report Executive Summary Introduction Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions (Wood); formally Amec Foster Wheeler, has been retained by the City of Pickering (City) to assess the Hamlet of Claremont’s (Hamlet) drainage system and to develop recommendations for measures to improve its performance. The study is intended to develop a comprehensive drainage improvement plan for the Hamlet that will address current drainage concerns and provide an implementation plan for the management of flooding in the area. The Hamlet is located in the Region of Durham in Southern Ontario, north of Lake Ontario. It is a part of the Greater Toronto Area and has a population of approximately 1,200 as of the 2016 census. The Hamlet is a largely rural community located adjacent to the West Duffins Creek valley. The community is characterized by a mixture of agricultural lands and rural estate and low-density residential land uses. Drainage throughout the Hamlet is currently serviced by a series of roadside ditches, swales, culverts and storm sewers. The area’s drainage system reflects the standards prevalent during the era of construction with mixed use of roadside ditches and driveway culverts, storm sewers with curbs or gutters, and natural outlets for overland drainage. The City has received periodic drainage complaints of nuisance flooding within both public and private properties, sometimes resulting from blocked driveway culverts, road cross culverts, and debris within roadside ditches in the Hamlet. The Hamlet has been the subject of previous drainage system assessments, which were initiated in response to flooding incidents, however the previous studies did not assess the entirety of the Hamlet’s drainage system and did not follow the formal Municipal Class EA process. A Class EA study is required to complete a holistic analysis of the drainage system located within the Study Area (indicated in Figure 1), and to identify deficiencies and recommend projects to improve the drainage system and determine the appropriate level of service. Class Environmental Assessment Process The Hamlet of Claremont Drainage Plan Class Environmental Assessment is considered to be a Master Plan (Approach #2, Schedule B) as per the Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) Class EA process (ref. Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, MEA 2015). Under Approach #2, Schedule B projects which are to be implemented in accordance with the recommendations provided in this Master Plan would not require filing of a Project File for public review before the detailed design and implementation stages. Master Plans are one form of Class EA document representing long range plans which integrate infrastructure requirements for existing and future land use with environmental assessment planning principles. Summary of Existing Drainage Conditions To develop an understanding of the existing drainage conditions, site visits were conducted and input from the local community was requested. Records of historical flooding events was provided by residents and the City. The existing drainage system performance has been also assessed using a computer PCSWMM integrated hydrologic/ hydraulic model which was calibrated using observed flow and rainfall data. Through modelling and input from the community and stakeholders, an understanding of local issues for both the minor system (storm sewers and culverts) and major system (overland drainage) has been determined as per the following: Deficient storm sewer and culvert capacity (capacity < 5-year storm): Franklin Street Storm Sewer – indicated as surcharging to surface; existing 300 mm diameter storm sewer constructed in 1997. Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page ES i - 55 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report Central Street Storm Sewer between Franklin and Canso Street – indicated as surcharging to surface; - existing 450 mm to 600 mm diameter storm sewers constructed in 1997. Canso Street Storm Sewer between Central Street and the Canso Street Outlet – indicated as surcharged; existing 675 mm to 910 mm diameter storm sewers constructed in 1991. William Street Storm Sewer between David Street and Central Street – indicated as surcharged; existing 675 mm diameter storm sewer constructed in 1991. Deficient overland flow capacity (excessive roadway depths for 100-year storm): Franklin Street (Urban) - sag point south of Joseph Street. Franklin Street (Rural) – north of Joseph Street. Barber Street (Rural) – insufficient ditch capacity. Barclay Street (Rural) – insufficient ditch capacity. Livingston Street (Semi-Rural) – insufficient ditch capacity. Wixson Street (Semi-Urban) – roadway crown overtopped. Canso Street (Urban) – roadway crown overtopped at sag. Old Brock Road (Rural) – insufficient ditch capacity. Additional identified areas of concern: Numerous crushed or filled culverts Numerous filled ditches Standing water in ditches (various locations) Alternative Assessment Alternatives to address both minor and major drainage systems have been determined. A long-list of alternatives has been screened by considering alternative performance, costing and feasibility. A short-list of alternatives has undergone detailed assessment and evaluation as required by the MEA Class EA process with functional, environmental, social, economic and constructability evaluation categories. The short-listed alternative assessment has focused on resolving various drainage issues throughout the community with the preferred alternatives being divided between north of Central Street, Central Street and south of Central Street. The preferred alternatives for the areas of concern which convey runoff to or from the Central Street drainage system would mitigate the major and minor system performance deficiencies. The preferred alternatives include storm sewer upgrades, installing new storm sewers, and implementing additional catch basins (ref. Table EX.1). The implementation of these preferred alternatives would result in increased peak flow rates to the Central Street drainage system, particularly from the Franklin Street drainage improvements. Therefore, the Central Street drainage system would require to be upgraded prior to implementing the contributing drainage system improvements. The implementation of the preferred alternatives for the areas of concern which convey runoff to or from the Central Street drainage system are considered to be a high priority, and should be constructed following the construction of the Central Street preferred alternative. The preferred alternative for the Central Street drainage system, and for the mitigation of the increased peak flow rates due to the contributing area drainage system improvements, is to divert runoff from the East Channel control manhole westward via a diversion storm sewer to three (3) proposed underground SWM storage tanks within the Central Street ROW at the intersection with Williams Street / Canso Drive. The SWM tanks would discharge to the Canso Drive storm sewer and the West Channel outfall located behind the residential property at 4994 Canso Drive. This preferred alternative would mitigate the peak flow rates discharging to the East and West channels, while also mitigating the Central Street major and minor system performance deficiencies. Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page ES ii - 56 - - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report The preferred alternative of upsizing the Central Street storm sewer from Franklin Street to Williams Street / Canso Drive, in addition to the upsizing of storms sewers which contribute to Central Street, has been recommended for implementation to address the ongoing drainage deficiencies to the major and minor systems. Three (3) underground stormwater management tanks will be required to address the peak flow rate increases to the West Channel outfall, at Canso Drive. The preliminary cost for the construction of all the recommended works is the $5,474,000 with an additional $435,000 for road restoration works following construction. The preliminary annual operations and maintenance cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $3,000. Implementation Prior to detailed design of the preferred alternatives, the following should be conducted: 1.A Stage 2 archaeological assessment by means of test pit survey should be conducted in those areas of archaeological potential, and a pedestrian archaeological survey should be conducted at 5-m intervals on open agricultural fields. 2.Site-specific inventories of the key Natural Heritage features (if works are proposed within minimum areas of influence) and the habitat of SAR should be conducted to determine the need for additional assessment. 3.Based on a wetland assessment of the East and West Wetlands, additional flow monitoring, a groundwater characterization, and hydrological continuous simulation modeling is required in addition to further consultation with TRCA for the West Wetland. Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page ES iii - 57 - - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report Table EX-1 Summary of the Preferred Alternatives and the Prioritization Priority Location Preferred Alternative High William Street / Canso Drive Upsize the storm sewers from Henry Street to the outfall at the West Channel (250 m (+/-) of 1050 mm diameter storm sewer). High Central Street Upsize storm sewers from Franklin Street to William Street / Canso Drive and construct three (3) underground SWM tanks within the Central Street ROW; 400 m (+/-) of storm sewers ranging in size from 750 mm to 975 mm. High Franklin Street Install new storm sewers on Franklin Street from 100 m north of Joseph Street to Joseph Street, increase the storm sewer sizes on Franklin Street from Joseph Street to Central Street, and install four (4) twin catch basins, two (2) single catch basins, and three (3) ditch inlet catch basins; the total length of storm sewer is 280 m (+/-) ranging in diameter from 600 mm to 750 mm. High Old Brock Road Implement new storm sewers and catch basins on Old Brock Road from 170 m (+/-) north of Joseph Street to Henry Street; catch basins should also be installed on Joseph Street. The existing 375 mm diameter and 60 m (+/-) long storm sewer north of Central Street would be increased to 450 mm diameter. High Wixson Street Install ten (10) single new catch basins and two (2) twin catch basins on Wixson Street between Lane Street and Central Street. Increase the diameter of the existing 450 mm 85 m (+/-) long storm sewer north of Central Street to be 525 mm diameter. Low Lane Street Regrade the east side of the Lane Street and Old Brock Road intersection to convey drainage away from the intersection. Re-profile the existing east Old Brock Road ditch. Low Livingston Street Reprofile the east Livingston Street ditch, twin the existing 375 mm CSP culvert that traverses the roadway, and reprofile the easement ditch between Livingston Street and the East Channel. Low Canso Drive – Acorn Lane Upsize the existing 300 mm diameter storm sewers on Canso Drive and Acorn Lane, 90 m (+/-) and 85 m (+/-) respectively, to be 450 mm diameter, and implement a storage tank within the Canso Drive boulevard. Low Wellington Street Do nothing; the reduction in peak flow rates discharging to the East Channel will mitigate the impacts to the Wellington Street roadside ditches, however, will not fully mitigate the risk of flooding to the adjacent properties. Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page ES iv - 58 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose / Overview ............................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Study Background............................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Class Environmental Assessment Process ................................................................................................. 2 1.4 Public/Agency Consultation ........................................................................................................................... 5 1.4.1 Notice of Study Commencement ................................................................................................ 5 1.4.2 Meetings ................................................................................................................................................ 5 1.4.3 Notice of Study Completion .......................................................................................................... 6 1.5 Project Organization/Management ............................................................................................................. 6 1.6 Reporting Overview ........................................................................................................................................... 6 2.0 Phase 1 – Identification and Description of the Problem .................................................................................... 7 2.1 Definition of the Drainage Plan Study Area ............................................................................................. 7 2.2 Identification of the Problem ......................................................................................................................... 7 2.3 Problem Statement ............................................................................................................................................ 7 3.0 Phase 2- Identification and Evaluation of Alternative Solutions to the Problem ....................................... 8 3.1 Background Information and Documentation ........................................................................................ 8 3.1.1 Monitoring Data ................................................................................................................................. 8 3.1.2 Technical Drawings and Maps....................................................................................................... 8 3.1.3 Topographic Survey .......................................................................................................................... 9 3.1.4 Reports ................................................................................................................................................... 9 3.1.5 Modelling Data ..................................................................................................................................10 3.2 Study Area Characteristics .............................................................................................................................10 3.2.1 Soils ........................................................................................................................................................11 3.2.2 Land Use ..............................................................................................................................................11 3.3 Study Area Investigation ................................................................................................................................11 3.4 Natural Heritage System ................................................................................................................................12 3.4.1 Federal Legislation ...........................................................................................................................12 3.4.2 Provincial Legislation ......................................................................................................................13 3.4.3 Municipal Legislation ......................................................................................................................16 3.4.4 Existing Conditions ..........................................................................................................................16 3.4.5 Potential Environmental Impacts, Proposed Mitigation, and Approvals....................19 3.5 Cultural Heritage Assessment ......................................................................................................................21 3.6 Archeological Assessment .............................................................................................................................22 3.7 Drainage System Assessment ......................................................................................................................23 3.7.1 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modelling .......................................................................................23 3.7.2 Model Selection ................................................................................................................................23 3.7.3 Modelling Data ..................................................................................................................................24 3.7.4 Storm Events ......................................................................................................................................24 3.7.5 Hydrologic Parameters ...................................................................................................................25 3.7.6 Hydraulic Parameters ......................................................................................................................27 3.7.7 Model Validation ..............................................................................................................................28 3.7.8 Hydrologic Results ...........................................................................................................................29 3.7.9 Hydraulic Systems Assessment ...................................................................................................31 3.7.10 Local Drainage Issues......................................................................................................................32 3.7.11 Summary of Existing Drainage System Concerns ................................................................33 Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page i - 59 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report 4.0 Long-List of Alternatives for Drainage System Improvements .......................................................................34 4.1 Minor System (Storm Sewers and Culverts) ...........................................................................................34 4.2 Major System (Overland Drainage Systems)..........................................................................................36 5.0 Short-Listed Alternative Assessment .........................................................................................................................39 5.1 Evaluation .............................................................................................................................................................39 6.0 Detailed Assessment of the Short-Listed Alternatives ........................................................................................41 6.1 Franklin Street.....................................................................................................................................................42 6.2 Wixson Street ......................................................................................................................................................43 6.3 Old Brock Road ..................................................................................................................................................43 6.4 William Street-Canso Drive ...........................................................................................................................44 6.5 Central Street ......................................................................................................................................................45 6.6 Canso Drive-Acorn Lane .................................................................................................................................50 6.7 Lane Street ...........................................................................................................................................................51 6.8 Wellington Street ..............................................................................................................................................52 6.9 Livingston Street ................................................................................................................................................52 7.0 Preferred Alternatives, Prioritization and Implementation................................................................................55 7.1 Prioritization ........................................................................................................................................................55 7.2 Implementation .................................................................................................................................................55 8.0 Wetland Assessment ........................................................................................................................................................57 9.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ..........................................................................................................................58 9.1 Conclusions .........................................................................................................................................................58 9.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................58 List of Figures Figure 1.1. Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process (ref. Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, MEA 2015).....................................................................................................................................................................4 Figure 1: Study Area Plan Figure 2: Drainage System Characterization Figure 3: Subcatchment Boundary Plan Figure 4: 5 Year Performance Summary (Minor System) Figure 5: 100 Year Performance Summary Figure 6: Drainage Issues Summary Figure 7: Alternative 1 Claremont Memorial Park Figure 8: Alternative 2 Central Street Right-of-Way Figure 9: Alternative 1 Claremont Memorial Park 5 Year Performance Summary (Minor System) Figure 10: Alternative 1 Claremont Memorial Park 100 Year Performance Summary (Major System) Figure 11: Alternative 2 Central Street Right-of-Way 5 Year Performance Summary (Minor System) Figure 12: Alternative 2 Central Street Right-of-Way 100 Year Performance Summary (Major System) Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page ii - 60 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report List of Tables Table 3.1. Fish Species known to the Study Area................................................................................................................ 18 Table 3.2. Species identified through NHIC within the Study Area.............................................................................. 19 Table 3.3. City of Pickering, 12-hour AES Synthetic Frequency Design Storms Rainfall Depths ...................... 25 Table 3.4. Comparison of Geotechnical Reports and Ontario Base Soils Mapping............................................... 26 Table 3.5. Characterization of Flow Monitoring Locations .............................................................................................. 28 Table 3.6. Select Storm Events Extracted from Rainfall Monitoring Data.................................................................. 28 Table 3.7. Initial and Final Parameters for the PCSWMM Model .................................................................................. 29 Table 3.8. Model Validation Summary..................................................................................................................................... 29 Table 3.9. Simulated Peak Flows at Nodes of Interest ...................................................................................................... 30 Table 4.1. Minor System Short Listed Alternatives ............................................................................................................. 36 Table 4.2. Major System (ROW) Short Listed Alternatives ............................................................................................... 38 Table 5.1. Hamlet of Claremont Drainage System Alternatives Evaluation Approach ......................................... 39 Table 6.1. East Channel Control Manhole Orifice Stage and Sizing............................................................................. 46 Table 6.2. East Channel Outfall at Central Street 2-100 Year 12 Hour AES Peak Flow Rate Comparison (m3/s)...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 46 Table 6.3. East Channel Downstream of Old Brock Road 2-100 Year 12 Hour AES Peak Flow Rate Comparison (m3/s) ............................................................................................................................................................................ 47 Table 6.4. West Channel Outfall at Canso Drive 2-100 Year 12 Hour AES Peak Flow Rate Comparison (m3/s)...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 48 Table 6.5. West Channel Outfall at Canso Drive 2-100 Year 12 Hour AES Peak Flow Rate Comparison (m3/s)...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 49 Table 6.6. Evaluation of the Central Street (Regional Road 5) Drainage Alternatives .......................................... 54 Table 7.1. Summary of the Preferred Alternatives and the Prioritization .................................................................. 56 List of Appendices Appendix A Field Reconnaissance Appendix B Monitoring Data for Select Storm Events Appendix C Rating Curve Development Appendix D Background Information Appendix E Natural Heritage Systems - Wetland Assessment Appendix F Cultural Heritage Assessment Appendix G Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Appendix H City of Pickering IDF Relationships and Design Storms Appendix I Hydrologic / Hydraulic Model Parameterization Appendix J Hydrologic / Hydraulic Model Calibration / Validation Appendix K Existing Condition Major and Minor System Performance Results Appendix L Preliminary Cost Estimates Appendix M Public Consultation Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page iii - 61 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose / Overview Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions (Wood); formerly Amec Foster Wheeler, has been retained by the City of Pickering (City) to assess the Hamlet of Claremont’s (Hamlet) drainage system and to develop recommendations for measures to improve its performance. The study is intended to develop a comprehensive drainage improvement plan for the Hamlet that will address current drainage concerns and provide an implementation plan for the management of flooding in the area. This document represents the final Claremont Drainage Plan Class EA report. This report documents the review of background information provided as part of this study, establishes a baseline characterization of the study area (i.e. soils, land use, topography) and drainage infrastructure, identifies and evaluates alternatives to address the ongoing drainage issues, and the selection of a preliminary preferred alternative. A summary of the recommended drainage system improvements in provided accordingly along with a preliminary prioritization. 1.2 Study Background The Hamlet is located in the Region of Durham in Southern Ontario, north of Lake Ontario. It is a part of the Greater Toronto Area and has a population of approximately 1,200 as of the 2016 census. The Hamlet is a largely rural community located adjacent to the West Duffins Creek valley. The community is characterized by a mixture of agricultural lands and rural estate and low-density residential land uses (ref. Figure 1). Drainage throughout the Hamlet is currently serviced by a series of roadside ditches, swales, culverts and storm sewers. The area’s drainage system reflects the standards prevalent during the era of construction with mixed use of roadside ditches and driveway culverts, storm sewers with curbs or gutters, and natural outlets for overland drainage (ref. Appendix A for site reconnaissance photographs). In 2009/2010, the City retained a Consultant to undertake an analysis of the drainage system in Claremont, following some flooding incidents on Franklin Street. The study provided findings regarding the storm sewers on Franklin Street and Central Street. However, the scope of the subject analysis was determined to be too narrow to assess and improve the overall drainage system in the central area of the Hamlet. As a part of the study, a PCSWMM model of the drainage system was created. The model included storm sewers on William Street, Wixson Street, Franklin Street, Dow Street and Central Street. The results of the 2009/2010 analysis determined that the drainage system is largely undersized. The study recommended improvements to the drainage system, which included providing a 10-year capacity storm sewer on Central Street and 5- year capacity storm sewers elsewhere. In 2012, the City received drainage complaints from properties located along Livingston Street and Bovingdon Place, about a poorly functioning ditch due to excessive vegetation growth. The City retained a Consultant in 2013 to complete a design for the ditch cleanout, and secure the necessary approvals from Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and Ministry of Northern Development, Mines, Natural Resources, and Forestry (MNDMNRF) prior to construction. During the design process, subsurface utilities mapping determined that the TransCanada pipeline is only 1.3 m below the surface of the ditch, and a minimum allowable cover of 1.2 m over the pipeline is required. Given this restriction, the maximum possible slope that could be achieved on the ditch was 0.5%. It was hence determined that this gentle slope would be too difficult to construct with precision and would promote more vegetation growth, which would prevent the ditch from functioning properly. Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 1 - 62 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report In recognition of the foregoing, the City of Pickering initiated this Class EA Study to more broadly and comprehensively formalize the understanding of the legacy of drainage problems facing the Hamlet, and to systematically and consultatively develop a Drainage Plan to address the Hamlet’s drainage concerns. 1.3 Class Environmental Assessment Process The Ontario Environmental Assessment Act provides for “…the betterment of the people of the whole or any part of Ontario by providing for the protection, conservation and wise management in Ontario of the environment.” An approved Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) document describes the process that a proponent must follow for a class or group of undertakings in order to satisfy the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act, and represents a method of obtaining an approval under the Environmental Assessment Act and provides an alternative to carrying out individual environmental assessments for each separate undertaking or project within the class. The Hamlet of Claremont Drainage Plan Class Environmental Assessment is considered to be a Master Plan as per the Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) Class EA process (ref. Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, MEA 2015). Master Plans are one form of Class EA document representing long range plans which integrate infrastructure requirements for existing and future land use with environmental assessment planning principles. The following characteristics distinguish the Master Planning Process from other processes: a. The scope of Master Plans is broad and usually includes an analysis of the system in order to outline a framework for future works and developments. Master Plans are not typically undertaken to address a site-specific problem. b. Master Plans typically recommend a set of works which are distributed geographically throughout the study area and which are to be implemented over an extended period of time. Master Plans provide the context for the implementation of the specific projects which make up the plan and satisfy, as a minimum, Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA process (ref. Figure 1.1). Notwithstanding that these works may be implemented as separate projects, collectively these works are part of a larger management system. Master Plan studies in essence conclude with a set of preferred alternatives and, therefore, by their nature, Master Plans will limit the scope of alternatives which can be considered at the implementation stage. The Hamlet of Claremont Drainage Plan has been prepared in accordance with the Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) Class Environmental (Class EA) procedures. The Master Plan has adopted Approach #2 in the 2015 MEA Documentation for all Schedule B projects. Approach # 2 involves the preparation of a Master Plan document at the conclusion of Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class EA process. Approach # 2 addresses Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA process (ref. Figure 1.1). Under Approach #2, Schedule B projects which are to be implemented in accordance with the recommendations provided in this Master Plan would not require filing of a Project File for public review before the detailed design and implementation stages. The Terms of Reference outlined a three (3) part task-based work plan as follows. Part 1: Project Initiation (Problem Definition and Site Analysis) Part 1 represents Phase 1 of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process (ref. Figure 1.1). For this Class Environmental Assessment, that has included conducting a background review of available documents, drawings, mapping and modelling and receiving input from agency stakeholders and the public. Based the background review, an initial problem statement was prepared, which was revised as assessment of the Hamlet proceeded. Assessment of the Hamlet included existing drainage conditions, soils, the natural heritage system, cultural heritage, and an Archaeological Stage 1 Investigation. Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 2 - 63 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report Part 2: Development of Alternatives, Alternative Analysis and Preferred Alternatives Part 2 represents Phases 2 and 3 of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process (ref. Figure 1.1). A long list of drainage improvement alternatives has been developed and subsequently assessed using standard Class EA criteria to determine a short-list of alternatives, which undergo a detailed assessment to facilitate selection of the preferred alternative(s). Part 3 Project File (Reporting) Part 3 Project File represents Phase 4 (ref. Figure 1.1) of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process, the Environmental Study Report (ESR). Following selection of the preferred alternatives, the ESR is prepared and is then placed on public record for review by the public and review agencies. A Notice of Study Completion is circulated, allowing the public and agencies thirty (30) days to review the report and provide comments. As part of the review process, the public and/or agencies can request an order from the Minister of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) to require revisions to the report. Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 3 - 64 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report Figure 1.1. Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process (ref. Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, MEA 2015) Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 4 - 65 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report 1.4 Public/Agency Consultation As noted, the Claremont Drainage Plan is subject to the Class EA process; as such it has been conducted according to the requirements outlined in the governing MEA, Municipal Class EA process. The study approach has been established to meet the following objectives: i. Protection of the environment, including natural, social and economic components of the environment. ii. Participation of a broad range of stakeholders in the study process to allow for sharing of ideas, education, testing of creative solutions and developing alternatives. iii. Documentation of the study process in compliance with all phases of the Municipal Class EA process. The Municipal Class EA requires notification of, and consultation with, relevant stakeholders (ref. Appendix M for Public Consultation). The Project Team has ensured that stakeholders were notified early in the planning process, and throughout the study as per the following: 1.4.1 Notice of Study Commencement The Notice of Commencement for the Study was issued on February 22, 2017. The notice was published in the Pickering News Advertiser for two (2) consecutive weeks, and copies of the notice were mailed out to stakeholders, review agencies, First Nations, as well as local residents. A copy of the notice, distribution list and responses from review agencies are included in Appendix L. 1.4.2 Meetings The consultation process also included one meeting with local residents held on March 9, 2020, and one meeting with Geranium Homes and engineering consultant held on December 10, 2020. Public Information Centre No. 1 (November 20, 2020 to December 11, 2020). Public Information Centre No. 2 (August 19, 2021, to September 16, 2021) The first Public Information Centre (PIC#1) was posted on the City’s website on November 20, 2020, for the review and commenting period until December 11, 2020. The PIC#1 was advertised in the Pickering News Advertiser for two consecutive weeks, and copies of the notice were mailed out to stakeholders, review agencies, First Nations, as well as local resident. Four (4) Local residents provided comments via comment form or email to the project team regarding the material presented within PIC#1. Comments were also received from two (2) the stakeholders and one (1) reviewing agency, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA); the comments are provided within Appendix M. The second Public Information Centre (PIC#2) was posted on the City’s website on August 19, 2021, with comments due on September 16, 2021. The PIC#2 was advertised in the Pickering News Advertiser for two consecutive weeks, and copies of the notice were mailed out to stakeholders, review agencies, First Nations, as well as local residents. Six (6) Local residents submitted comments via the comment form or email to the project team; the comments are summarized within Appendix M. One (1) stakeholder provided comments in addition to comments received by TRCA and the Region of Durham. Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 5 - 66 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report The Notice of Study Completion will be posted once the report is finalized All notices were also posted on the City’s website https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/claremont- drainage-plan.aspx>. 1.5 Project Organization/Management This drainage assessment has been directed and reviewed by a Project Team, which has been comprised of representatives from various departments at the City of Pickering and Toronto Region Conservation Authority. The Project Team has consisted of staff from the following organizations: Proponent: City of Pickering Marilee Gadzovski, Division Head, Water Resources and Development Services (Involved for the review of the Existing Conditions Report only) Irina Marouchko, Senior Water Resources Engineer – Water Resources and Development Services Stakeholder Agency: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) Caroline Mugo, Senior Planner Shauna Fernandes, Senior Planning Ecologist Catalina Herrera, Planning Ecologist Sukhmani Bola, Water Resources Engineer Consultant: Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions (formerly Amec Foster Wheeler) Ron Scheckenberger, Project Advisor Steve Chipps, Senior Project Manager Patrick MacDonald, Project Engineer 1.6 Reporting Overview The report describes the background information, field reconnaissance and outlines the analyses of the Hamlet’s drainage system under existing conditions while identifying a long list of mitigation measures that could be implemented to address the existing drainage deficiencies. The long list of alternatives for drainage system improvements has been reviewed and screened to a short list of alternatives that have been evaluated for the various streets within drainage performance deficiencies to select a series of preferred alternatives. Details regarding the analyses completed, including field photographs, hydrologic/hydraulic models, and calculations are provided within the respective appendices. 1.4.3 Notice of Study Completion Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 6 - 67 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report 2.0 Phase 1 – Identification and Description of the Problem 2.1 Definition of the Drainage Plan Study Area Drainage throughout the Hamlet is currently serviced by a series of roadside ditches, swales, culverts and storm sewers. The area’s drainage system reflects the standards prevalent during the era of construction with mixed use of roadside ditches and driveway culverts, storm sewers with curbs or gutters, and natural outlets for overland drainage (ref. Appendix A for site reconnaissance photographs). As such, the drainage infrastructure within the community was not built to meet formal or current engineering standards 2.2 Identification of the Problem There is a lack of capacity in the major (overland) and minor (storm sewer) drainage systems which has resulted in an increased frequency of flooding to private property and within the public rights of way. The City initiated the study to complete a comprehensive analysis of the existing drainage system, identify deficiencies, and develop a drainage management strategy to address the deficiencies. 2.3 Problem Statement The City has received periodic drainage complaints of nuisance flooding within both public and private properties, sometimes resulting from blocked driveway culverts, road cross culverts, and debris within roadside ditches in the Hamlet. The Hamlet has been the subject of previous drainage system assessments, which were initiated in response to flooding incidents, however the previous studies did not assess the entirety of the Hamlet’s drainage system and did not follow the formal Municipal Class EA process. A Class EA study is required to complete a holistic analysis of the drainage system located within the Study Area (indicated in Figure 1), and to identify deficiencies and recommend projects to improve the drainage system and determine the appropriate level of service. Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 7 - 68 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report 3.0 Phase 2- Identification and Evaluation of Alternative Solutions to the Problem 3.1 Background Information and Documentation Various datasets of background information have been used for this assessment which include monitoring data, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping, reports and drawings and modelling data. A summary description of the information used for this assessment has been provided in the following. 3.1.1 Monitoring Data Monitoring data which includes measured rainfall data and local flow monitoring data, collected by Wood, are provided in Appendix B while the discharge rating curves are provided within Appendix C. Flow data were recorded in 15-minute intervals at three (3) locations; one (1) monitoring location within the City’s storm sewer network and two (2) monitoring locations within open channel systems within the study area. Data were collected for the period between April 2017 to November 2017. 3.1.2 Technical Drawings and Maps The City of Pickering provided a CAD base map for the Hamlet, which included 1-meter interval contour data, mapping of storm water management infrastructure such as storm sewers, maintenance holes, catch basins, swales, outfalls, as well as aerial imagery for the study area. Additional data provided includes road right-of-way limits, building footprints and property parcels. In addition to the aforementioned information, the City of Pickering and Toronto Region Conservation Authority have supplied reports, drawings and other documentation as per the following: i. Joseph Street – Plan and Profile (City of Pickering, October 1973) ii. Lane Street – Plan and Profile (City of Pickering, November 1973) iii. Lorn Street – Plan and Profile (Town of Pickering, August 1975) iv. David Street – Plan and Profile (City of Pickering, August 1976) v. Dow Street – Plan and Profile (City of Pickering, October 1976) vi. Henry Street – Plan and Profile (City of Pickering, October 1976) vii. Livingston Street – Plan and Profile (City of Pickering, June 1977) viii. Central Street, Regional Road 5 Plan and Profile (1986). ix. Claremont Estates – Plan and Profile of William Street (Cosburn Patterson Wardman Ltd, March 1987) x. Plan of Survey of Part of Lot 19, Concession 8 and Part of Lots 7,8,9,10,14,15 and Block 22 (1988). xi. Regional Road 5 – Plan and Profile (Region of Durham, August 1991) xii. County Creek Estates – Plan and Profile for Acorn Land and Canso Drive, (John Hudspith Associates Limited – October 1991) xiii. Plan of Survey of Part of Lots 1,2,4,7,8,12,13,14 (1992). xiv. Central Street, Regional Road 5 Plan and Profile (Paul Theil and Associates – May 1996) xv. XMPL Subdivision Phase II - Plan and Profile for Acorn Lane, (David Schaeffer Engineering Ltd, October 1997) xvi. Wixson Street – Plan and Profile (City of Pickering, February 1998) xvii. Claremont Estates – Phase II – Plan and Profile of Tom Thomson Court (David Schaeffer Engineering Ltd, April 2006) xviii. Victoria Street – Plan and Profile (City of Pickering, July 2007) xix. Wellington Street – Plan and Profile (City of Pickering, July 2007) xx. Claremont Park Master Plan - Concept Plan (January 2016). xxi. Sewer CCTV Inspection by Eye-View (Completed October 2017). Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 8 - 69 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report 3.1.3 Topographic Survey In order to fill gaps related to topography for areas with missing information, specifically related to surface drainage features including open channels, culverts and roadside ditches, Wood’s survey crew was deployed. These data have been incorporated into the hydraulic modelling of the Hamlet, as discussed in further detail in Section 4. 3.1.4 Reports The following documents and reports (ref. Appendix D) considered relevant to the project objectives, have been reviewed: “Study of Road Improvements for RR No. 5”, Paul Theil Associates Limited (May 1996) The study was undertaken to examine proposed improvements to Rural Road No. 5 proposed through Claremont. The study investigated the study area’s existing conditions and developed a hydrologic model using OTTHYMO89 to assess the existing drainage network. The objective of the study was to model the area and develop a strategy to improve the existing road drainage and alleviate impacts where possible. The recommended approach was a ‘Natural Drainage’ approach which included conveyance by ditches or shallow swales along Central Street. The report also investigated several existing drainage issues which were pre-existing in the area. “XMPL Phase II Subdivision’ Hydrogeologic Study”, Jagger Hims (March 2010) This report was prepared in support of the application for approval of the Draft Plan of Subdivision ‘XMPL Phase II’. The study was undertaken to document the availability of ground water to service the 26-lot residential development, and to assess the impacts of subsurface sewage disposal systems. The properties are located on Acorn Lane, Kodiak St, and Carpenter Ct. which is west of the subject study area. The report indicated that there were signs of a high groundwater table within all but one of the test pits. The report identified that the high-water table was between 0.45 m and 1.25 m below ground surface. “Claremont Flooding Analysis Solutions”, AECOM Canada Ltd. (July 2010) This memorandum summarized the results of several PCSWMM hydrologic modelling assessments developed to evaluate various alternatives for mitigating drainage issues within the Hamlet. The drainage issues had been previously investigated in earlier reports commissioned in response to basement flooding in the study area. The memorandum evaluated nine (9) proposed alternatives on the basis of cost and effectiveness in flood reduction. The alternative recommended was Alternative 9, which was to provide a 10-year storm sewer on Central Street and 5-year storm sewers elsewhere. “2012 Duffins Creek Hydrology Update”, Aquafor Beech Limited (February 2013) The purpose of the report was to update the hydrologic model of the Duffins Creek Watershed. The key objectives of the study were to capture land use changes, update Stormwater management criteria, develop flood control criteria, and assess impacts to Regional Storm flows associated with proposed future developments. The hydraulic model was initially developed in 1979 by James F. MacLaren Limited, and was periodically updated to reflect changes within the watershed. The model was prepared using Visual OTTHYMO version 2.1, with model parameters derived from TRCA’s GIS database. The watershed was divided into 56 subcatchments, where data were available stormwater management facilities were incorporated into the model. The model was calibrated using existing rainfall data and data from streamflow gauges. Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 9 - 70 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report The report prescribed an updated stormwater control strategy based on pre-development unit flow rates for each subcatchment. The prescribed control strategies were expected to mitigate the large flow increases which would otherwise occur without control. It would also better match existing flow rates on the West, East and downstream branches of Duffins Creek. “City of Pickering Stormwater Design Guidelines” (As of: January 2017) The City of Pickering has developed Stormwater Design Guidelines for developers, engineers and architects for preparing development plans in the City of Pickering. The goal of the manual is to provide technical tools and guidelines to comply with the City’s stormwater management requirements and infrastructure design standards (current). Various relevant standards have been identified as per the following: Minor Systems shall be sized to capture and convey the 5 Year Storm. Major Systems shall be sized to capture and convey the Regulatory Event to a safe outlet without flooding adjacent properties and should provide a minimum of 300 mm of freeboard from the maximum water surface elevation of the major system flow path to the minimum opening of structures. The Regulatory Event is defined as the larger of the 100 year storm or the Regional Storm. Local Roadway’s which are utilized as a major drainage system shall be designed such that flow depth resultant of the Regulatory Event is limited to the lesser of 150 mm above the roadway crown, or the right-of-way (ROW) limit. Culverts servicing ‘rural local’ roadways shall be sized to convey at least the 25 year storm, Culverts servicing ‘urban local’ roadways shall be sized to convey at least the 50 year storm. 3.1.5 Modelling Data The following modelling data were provided by the City of Pickering and/or the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority: HEC-RAS hydraulic model for Duffins Creek (ref. TRCA Duffins Creek Floodline Mapping Study: Catchments 13, 14 and 27, October 2003). The hydraulic model does not include the drainage features contained within the study area. PCSWMM model developed as part of an earlier drainage study (AECOM, 2013). The model was not discretized to sufficiently account for inlet capacity constraints within the study area. The model did not extend south of Central Street. 3.2 Study Area Characteristics The identified study area, shown on Figure 1, generally consists of low-density residential areas, with agricultural external drainage areas contributing to the runoff to residential drainage systems; the residential drainage systems discharge to flow-through wetlands prior to out-letting to tributaries of Duffins Creek. There are multiple drainage conveyance systems within the low-density residential study area, and are summarized as follows: Rural roadway with storm sewers Urban roadway with storm sewers Rural roadway with ditches Mixed rural and urban roadway with ditches and storm sewers Storm sewer system Open channel – overland flow Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 10 - 71 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report The mixture of drainage practices were likely implemented at various stages of the community’s development, and prior to the generally accepted current drainage practices. The mixture of drainage practices were also implemented to convey runoff during frequent, storm events, and likely were not designed to convey the runoff generated during less frequent, larger storm events. The following sub-sections further discuss the study area characteristics. 3.2.1 Soils Surficial soils data for the study area (as available from Agriculture Canada – Ontario Soil Survey Reports) suggest that the surficial geology within the Hamlet is characterized as medium textured Glaciolacustrine deposits (silt, sand, and minor clay). The dominant soil group for the study area was identified as ‘Woburn’ which corresponds to a Loam to Silt Loam NRCS soil classification. The City of Pickering also provided a Hydrogeologic Study (Jagger Hims Ltd, March 2000), which indicated that there were signs of a high groundwater, west of the study area (now Carpenter Crescent and Kodiak Street). The study identified that the high-water table was interpreted as between 0.45 m and 1.25 m below ground surface. The soils identified for the area were reasonably consistent with those identified by the Ontario Soil Survey report (Agriculture Canada, 1956). 3.2.2 Land Use The existing land use within the Hamlet is primarily residential, with some institutional land use (schools, church), and parkland/agricultural areas. Figure 1 provides an aerial overview of the study area. Residential development in the Hamlet is generally older (1850’s or newer), and consists of single detached residences, with larger backyard areas, which are typically well-vegetated (with extensive tree coverage). 3.3 Study Area Investigation Site investigations of the study area have been conducted as part of this study (ref. Appendix A). Initial site visits of the drainage features and crossings occurred on March 27, 2017 to identify suitable locations for the installation of flow monitoring equipment. An additional site visit was conducted on September 25, 2017 to review existing drainage features, crossings, as well as document existing conditions. The investigations identified that there was standing water within a number of ditches, and several culverts were damaged/crushed. Standing water within ditches is generally attributable to localized grading issues. Within the Hamlet of Claremont, standing water is considered to be attributable to shallow ditch/channel grades and localized pools/depressions., as well as the presence of a high groundwater table (ref. Jagger Hims Ltd, March 2000). The drainage systems within the Study Area include urban (curb and gutter with storm sewers and catch basins), semi-urban (curb, gutter outlets mixed sewer and ditch servicing), rural (ditches and driveway culverts), and a hybrid-rural (roadside ditches with storm sewers and ditch inlets). The locations of these drainage systems are presented on Figure 2. Although it is understood that future infill/intensification will be limited within the Hamlet , as part of the site reconnaissance, several new homes were noted to be recently constructed or currently under construction. In general, the new homes are larger than older existing homes, which would in turn would contribute to additional runoff to local drainage systems, due to increased lot coverage. Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 11 - 72 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report 3.4 Natural Heritage System 3.4.1 Federal Legislation Species at Risk Act The Species at Risk Act (SARA) was passed into law in 2002 and was last amended 2 March 2022. The purpose of SARA is to prevent wildlife species in Canada from disappearing, to provide for the recovery of wildlife species, and to manage species to prevent further risk to their status. Only species listed as Threated, Endangered, or Extirpated under Schedule 1 are afforded both individual and habitat protection under SARA. Outside of federal lands, SARA legislation only applies to the following: Migratory Birds (i.e., those species listed under Article I of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 10994) that are also included on Schedule 1 of SARA. This does not include the species’ critical habitat; however, it does include residences of migratory birds which have residence descriptions; and Aquatic Species that fall under Schedule 1 of SARA. SARA prohibitions may be applied through ministerial order on public or private lands if provincial legislation or voluntary measures to not adequately protect federally listed species, their residences, and/or their critical habitats. Migratory Birds Convention Act The Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA) was passed in 1917, updated in 1994, and the last amendment was on 12 December 2017. The MBCA prohibits harming and/or killing most species of birds and/or destroying or collecting their eggs or nests. The MBCA does not permit the incidental take of a migratory bird or its nest, with some exceptions. Protected species are listed under Article I of the MBCA. These species are native or naturally occurring in Canada and are species that are known to occur regularly in Canada. Most birds found in the Property Boundary receive protection under the MBCA, and nearly all of the remaining species receive similar protection under the Provincial Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997. The MBCA, together with the Migratory Birds Regulations (C.R.C., c. 1035), last amended on 18 June 2020, are federal legislative requirements that are binding on members of the public and all levels of government, including federal and provincial. The “incidental take” of migratory birds and the disturbance, destruction or taking of the nest of a migratory bird is prohibited. No permit can be issued for the incidental take of migratory birds. Bird species not regulated under the MBCA include Rock Dove, American Crow, Brown-headed Cowbird, Common Grackle, House Sparrow, Red-winged Blackbird, and European Starling. Conversely, if the species identified is protected under Ontario’s Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) or SARA, additional restrictions may apply. Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) and the Canadian Wildlife Service have compiled nesting calendars that show the variation in nesting intensity by habitat type and nesting zone within broad geographical areas distributed across Canada. While this does not mean nesting birds will not nest outside of these periods, the calendars can be used to reduce the risk of encountering a nest. Fisheries Act The Fisheries Act came into effect in 1985 and was last amended to reflect the modernization of the Act on 28 August 2019. The Fisheries Act provides for the management and control of fisheries, the conservation and protection of fish, the protection of fish habitat, and the prevention of pollution. The Fisheries Act prohibits the killing of fish as well as harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat, and prohibits the deposition of deleterious substances in to waters frequented by fish. Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 12 - 73 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) have developed measures to protect fish and fish habitat, required to be implemented by projects. In the even that proponents cannot completely implement the measures to protect fish and fish habitat, then they can determine if the [Interim] Standards and Codes of Practices apply to their Project. If the Project is not eligible for either of these approaches, then the Project submits a Request for Project Review and initiates a file with DFO to determine the potential impacts of a Project on fish and fish habitat and to assess the need for any authorizations under the Fisheries Act. 3.4.2 Provincial Legislation Endangered Species Act The Ontario Endangered Species Act (ESA) was passed into law in 2007 and came into effect on 30 June 2008, and was last amended on 19 October 2021. In Ontario, SAR are determined by the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO). If a species is listed under the ESA as Extirpated, Endangered, or Threatened, Section 9 of the ESA prohibits killing, harming, harassing, capturing, taking, possessing, collecting, buying, selling, leasing, trading or offering to buy, sell, lease or trade a member of the species. Similarly, Section 10 of the ESA prohibits the damage or destruction of the habitat of all Endangered and Threatened species. Habitat is broadly characterized within the ESA as the area prescribed by regulation as the habitat of the species or an area on which the species depends directly or indirectly, to carry out its life processes, including reproduction, rearing of young, hibernation, migration or feeding. Habitat is specifically defined for some species. Species listed as Special Concern are not afforded protection under Section 9 and 10 of the ESA; however, they are protected under SWH. Destruction of SAR and their habitats constitutes a contravention of the ESA unless authorized by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP). The MECP may authorize damage to habitat or individuals through registration or permit. Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (FWCA) was established in 1997 and was last amended on 3 June 2021. The FWCA applies to ‘wildlife’, which is defined as “an animal that belongs to a species that is wild by nature, and includes game wildlife and specially protected wildlife” (Section 1 (1)).” Those species considered “specially protected wildlife” include those specially protected amphibians, birds, invertebrates, mammals, and reptiles, as identified within Schedules 6 to 11 under the FWCA. The FWCA is managed by the Ministry of Northern Development, Mines, Natural Resources and Forestry (MNDMNRF) and applies to all wildlife as defined under the FWCA. In instances where wildlife will require collection or relocation at any point in the project (i.e., through trapping/collection and relocation), permits and approvals under the FWCA may be required. Planning Act The Planning Act is provincial legislation that sets out the ground rules for land use planning in Ontario. Established in 1990, the Planning Act was last amended on 1 January 2022. The Act describes how land use may be controlled and who may control them. The Planning Act also provides the basis for developing regional and municipal official plan documents to guide development. Municipally, the Project falls under the jurisdiction of the City of Windsor Official Plan (Section 2.3.1). The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) is issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH). Under the Planning Act, the PPS is applicable province-wide and provides overall policy directions on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. Regional plans, municipal official plans, and the PPS work together to establish and protect natural features. Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 13 - 74 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report Provincial Policy Statement The PPS came into effect in 1995 and has been amended several times since - in 1997, 2005, 2014, and most recently in 2019. The latest PPS came into effect on 1 May 2020. The PPS provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development (Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 2020). The PPS is comprised of various policies on development and land use patterns, resource protection and management, and public health and safety. The PPS provides policies specific to natural heritage and states that natural features must be protected for the long term. The following sections of the PPS are relevant to this report. Section 2 of the PPS provides direction for the wise use and management of resources, including the protection of natural areas and features. Relevant natural heritage policies are in Section 2.1 of the PPS and generally states that the diversity and connectivity of natural heritage (including surface and groundwater features) should be maintained, restored or, where possible, improved. Section 2.2 of the PPS relates more specifically to water resources and supports planning authorities to protect, improve, and restore the quality and quantity of water. Policy 2.1.4 lists significant natural heritage features where development and site alteration is not permitted in (concerning Ecoregion 7E): significant wetlands; and significant coastal wetlands. Policy 2.1.5 lists significant natural heritage features where development and site alteration is not permitted unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions, including (concerning Ecoregion 6E): significant woodlands; significant valleylands; significant wildlife habitat (the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (MNRF 2000) and Ecoregion schedules were prepared by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) to assist planning authorities and other participants in the land use planning system); significant areas of natural and scientific interest; and coastal wetlands that are not subject to policy 2.1.4(b). Policy 2.1.6 states development and site alteration are not permitted in fish habitat except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements. Policy 2.1.7 states development and site alteration are not permitted in the habitat of endangered species and threatened species, except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements. Policy 2.1.8 states development and site alteration are not permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas identified in policies 2.1.4, 2.1.5 and 2.1.6 unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions. Adjacent lands for the purposes of policy 2.1.8 are lands contiguous to a specific natural heritage feature or area where it is likely that development or site alteration would have a negative impact on the feature or area. The extent of the adjacent lands may be recommended by the Province or based on municipal approaches which achieve the same objectives. Negative impacts in regard to natural heritage features and areas means “degradation that threatens the health and integrity of the natural features or ecological functions for which an area is identified due to single, multiple or successive development or site alteration activities”. Development, in the context of the PPS, means the creation of a new lot, a change in land use, or the construction of buildings and structures requiring approval under the Planning Act, but does not include activities that create or maintain infrastructure (Infrastructure includes sewage and water systems and transit Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 14 - 75 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report and transportation corridors and facilities) authorized under an environmental assessment process or works subject to the Drainage Act. The PPS provides overall policy direction and is informed by and should be read in conjunction with other provincial, regional, and municipal plans. The more stringent of policies apply unless otherwise explicitly stated. Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act (ORMCA) was passed into law in 2001 and was last amended on 1 June 2021. The ORMCA was established to protect the ecological and hydrological integrity of the Oak Ridges Moraine. The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) Regulation defines the land use and planning policies consistent with the Act. The Study Area falls within the Rural Settlement Area (Countryside Area) of the ORMCP area. Land use patterns within Settlement Areas will support the development of complete communities. The ORMCP encourages rural uses that: 13 (1)(c) protect and restore natural areas and features that sequester carbon and provide ecological functions, including water storage, to help reduce the impacts of climate change; 13 (2)(a) maintain, and where possible improve or restore the ecological integrity of the plan area; 13(2)(b) maintain, and where possible improve or restore, the health, diversity, size, and connectivity of key natural heritage features, key hydrological features and the related ecological functions; 13 (2)(c) maintain the quantity and quality of groundwater and surface water; 13(2)(d) maintain groundwater recharge; 13(2)(e) maintain natural stream form and flow characteristics; 13(2)(f) protect landform features; Infrastructure uses are permitted with respect to land in Countryside Areas, subject to Parts III and IV of the ORMCP. Minimum area of influence for Key Natural Heritage Features (KNHFs) and minimum vegetation protection zones are required to be confirmed in accordance with the policies outlined in Part III of the ORCMP. Development and Site Alteration within the ORMCP area must conform with the policies of the ORCMP. Works supporting flood or erosion control projects are permitted but only after all alternatives have been considered. A Natural Heritage Evaluation may be required for work within the minimum area of influence that relates to a KNHF. A hydrological evaluation may be required for work within the minimum area of influence of a key hydrologic feature. Conservation Authorities Act The Conservation Authorities Act (CAA) was established in 1990 and was last amended on1 October 2021. The CAA authorizes the formation of conservation authorities in Ontario and addresses their roles, responsibilities, and governance in resource management and environmental protection. The purpose of the CAA is “to provide for the organization and delivery of programs and services that further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources in watersheds in Ontario.” Section 28 of the CAA sets out prohibited activities that include development in areas that could be unsafe for development because of natural processes associated with flooding or erosion and interference with, or alterations to, watercourses, wetlands, or shorelines. Each of Ontario’s 36 conservation authorities has its own Section 28 Ontario Regulation. The core mandate of conservation authorities is to undertake watershed-based programs to protect people and property from flooding and other natural hazards and conserve natural resources for economic, social, and environmental benefits (Conservation Ontario, 2021). In the Study Area, the CAA is applied via the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 15 - 76 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report 3.4.3 Municipal Legislation Regional Municipality of Durham (Upper Tier) The 2020 Durham Regional Official Plan (ROP) is based on a Regional Structure, which includes a continuous Greenlands System that is integrated with both the Urban and Rural Systems, to protect and connect the Oak Ridges Moraine, key natural heritage, and key hydrologic features. Development or Site Alteration within Key Natural Heritage Features and/or Hydrologic Features and their vegetation protection zones is generally not permitted; flood and erosion control projects demonstrated to be necessary in the public interest and after all alternatives have been considered are exempt from this restriction. City of Pickering (Lower Tier) The 2019 City of Pickering Official Plan (OP) sets out the land use policy directions for long-term growth and development in the City of Pickering. The City of Pickering has an Open Space System which plays a role in maintaining ecological health and improving ecological and hydrological integrity of the Natural Heritage System. This OP recognizes the policies of the ORMCP and caries forward with the requirement for the identification of KNHFs and NHFs, minimum areas of influence, and minimum vegetation protection zones. Development and Site Alteration must conform with the policies of the OP. Works supporting flood or erosion control projects are permitted but only after all alternatives have been considered. A Natural Heritage Evaluation may be required for work within the minimum area of influence that relates to a KNHF. A hydrological evaluation may be required for work within the minimum area of influence of a key hydrologic feature. 3.4.4 Existing Conditions Natural Environment Natural Heritage Systems Documented features associated with Natural Heritage Systems identified under the Durham Regional Plan and the City of Pickering Official Plan are present within the Study Area. Key Natural Heritage and Hydrologic Features have also been identified within the Study Area. Key Natural Heritage Features (Significant Woodland) are present within the Study Area (Appendix E). Key Hydrological Features are present, associated with intermittent and permanent drainages/watercourses within the Study Area (Appendix E). In some places, wetlands are associated with the drainage/watercourse features (Appendix E). The entirety of the Study is encompassed by Groundwater Recharge Areas, while select areas within the Study Area are identified as High Aquifer Vulnerability Areas (Appendix E). Terrestrial Environment The Study Area is situated within Ecoregion 6E, the Lake Simcoe-Rideau Ecoregion, which extends from Lake Huron in the west to the Ottawa River in the east and includes most of the Lake Ontario shore and the Ontario portion of the St. Lawrence River Valley and is the second most densely populated ecoregion in Ontario. Flora in this ecoregion is relatively diverse with hardwood forests dominated by Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum), American Beech (Fagus grandifolia), White Ash (Fraxinus americana), Eastern Hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), and numerous other species are found where substrates are well developed on upland sites. Lowlands, including rich floodplain forests, contain Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), Silver Maple (Acer saccharinum), Red Maple (Acer rubrum), Eastern White Cedar (Thuja occidentalis), Yellow Birch (Betula alleghaniensis), Balsam Fir (Abies balsamea), and Black Ash (Fraxinus nigra) (Crins, 2009). Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 16 - 77 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report High-level ELC data was provided to Wood by the TRCA (Figure 3). No ELC community information was available for the Study Area; however, delineations for portions of the surrounding area were provided with the following vegetation communities delineated as follows: CUM1-A Native Forb Meadow; CUW1-A3 Native Deciduous Successional Woodland; CUT1-E Red Osier Dogwood Deciduous Thicket; FOM7-1 Fresh-Moist White Cedar - Sugar Maple Mixed Forest; FOC4-1 Fresh-Moist White Cedar Coniferous Forest; FOM6-1 Fresh-Moist Sugar Maple - Hemlock Mixed Forest; and MAM2-2 Reed Canary Grass Mineral Meadow Marsh. Generally, based on aerial interpretation, the Study Area appears to be comprised of manicured and anthropogenic vegetation communities associated with residential dwellings. Other vegetation communities that may be present based on high-level aerial imagery interpretation include agricultural areas, cultural meadows, riparian areas, and hedgerows. Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Characteristic mammals of Ecoregion 6E – Lake Simcoe-Rideau Ecoregion include White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Common Raccoon (Procyon lotor), Striped Skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and Woodchuck (Marmota monax). Wetland habitats are used by many species of water birds and shorebirds, including Wood Duck (Aix sponsa), Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias), and Wilson’s snipe (Gallinago delicata). Open upland habitats are used by species such as Field Sparrow (Spizella pusilla), Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), and Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna). Upland forests support populations of species such as Hairy Woodpecker (Leuconotopicus villosus), Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), Scarlet Tanager (Piranga olivacea), and Rose-breasted Grosbeak (Pheucticus ludovicianus). Reptiles and amphibians found in this ecosystem include American Bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus), Northern Leopard Frog (Lithobates pipiens), Spring Peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), Red-spotted Newt (Notophthalmus viridescens viridescens), Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina), Eastern Gartersnake (Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis), and Northern Watersnake (Nerodia sipedon sipedon) (Crins, 2009). The Study Area is primarily characterized by a suburban altered environment. Wildlife and wildlife habitat associated with suburban environments are expected with limited opportunity for significant wildlife habitat or significant congregations of wildlife. Potential for significant wildlife habitat (amphibian corridor, amphibian breeding, marsh bird breeding) was identified as part of the TRCA Wetland Water Balance Risk Evaluation (Appendix E). Aquatic Environment The Study Area is located within the Duffins Creek Watershed (TRCA 2018). Rural areas dominate the north of the watershed, while the southern portions are urban or urbanizing. Historically, Duffins Creek watershed was dominated by vast forests; however, agricultural practices have negatively impacted the local ecosystem. Duffins Creek’s 81 kilometres of streams are in relatively good condition and are dominated by cold water aquatic communities such as sculpin, trout, and numerous other fish species. A total of 17 fish species were identified for the watercourses within the Study Area through background information review consisting of cold, cool, and warmwater species. Redside Dace, which is listed as an endangered species by both the federal and provincial governments was also identified. Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 17 - 78 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report Table 3.1. Fish Species known to the Study Area Coldwater Fish Species Coolwater Fish Species Warmwater Fish Species Redside Dace (Clinostomus elongatus) Brassy Minnow (Hybognathus hankinsoni) Brown Bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus) Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) Blacknose Dace (Rhinichthys atratulus) Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) American Brook Lamprey (Lethenteron appendix) Common Shiner (Luxilus cornutus) Pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus) Slimy Sculpin (Cottus cognatus) Creek Chub (Semotilus atromaculatus) Longnose Dace (Rhinichthys cataractae) Mottled Sculpin (Cottus bairdii) Northern Redbelly Dace (Chrosomus eos) Rainbow Darter (Etheostoma caeruleum) Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieu) White Sucker (Catostomus commersonii) Species at Risk Data from the NHIC identifies five faunal species at risk within the four 1-km squares surrounding the Study Area, as shown below (Table 3.2). No SAR plants have been previously reported within the Study Area. This however does not rule out the possibility of SAR plants occurring within the potential impact footprint. For example, Black Ash (F. nigra) is a SAR wetland species which was formerly common in the province so is often not included in NHIC database searches. While it is possible this species occurs within the wetlands, it is unlikely; additionally, this species is currently subject to a Minister’s Order temporarily pausing protections under the Endangered Species Act (O. Reg. 23/22, 2022). Screening through the NHIC does not preclude the project from proponent responsibility in avoiding contravention of the Endangered Species Act. Whereas the Study Area is highly suburban and previously modified and there is likely limited potential for Species at Risk and/or their habitats, there remains the potential that Species at Risk and/or their habitats could occur within the Study Area. Species at Risk that may occur include those that are habituated to anthropogenic influences and are often associated with anthropogenic structures, such as Barn Swallow. Species may also include those that are dependent on anthropogenic features throughout parts of their life processes, such as Little Brown Myotis, a common resident of anthropogenic structures during the maternity roosting period, and Chimney Swift, who may use chimneys during migratory and reproductive periods. Depending on the crop rotation associated with the agricultural lands, Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark may occur (e.g., if hay or if left to fallow). Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 18 - 79 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report Table 3.2. Species identified through NHIC within the Study Area OGF ID Common Name Scientific Name SARO Status COSEWIC Status ATLAS NAD83 IDENT 1038534 Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii END END 17PJ5070 1038534 1033933 1038443 1034024 Redside Dace Clinostomus elongatus END END 17PJ5070 17PJ4969 17PJ5069 17PJ4970 1033933 1034024 Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna THR THR 17PJ4969 17PJ4970 1033933 Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus THR THR 17PJ4969 1033933 Eastern Wood- pewee Contopus virens SC SC 17PJ4969 3.4.5 Potential Environmental Impacts, Proposed Mitigation, and Approvals Impacts Terrestrial Environment: There is the potential for removal of vegetation associated with improvements to drainage function within the Hamlet of Claremont. Extent of vegetation removals are not known at this time, and vegetation communities that may be affected have not been identified or delineated. Generally, the area where improvements are being considered to reduce flooding is a suburban neighbourhood characterized by paved roads, sidewalks, manicured lawns, horticultural plantings, and sparse, retained native trees. No direct removals are currently proposed to Key Natural Heritage Features. Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat: There is the potential for removal of vegetation associated with improvements to drainage function in the Hamlet of Claremont. Removal of vegetation may have impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat. Vegetation removals have yet to be quantified and are not known at this time. Construction noise, duration, lighting, and dust may have impacts on resident wildlife. The Project is along a busy road which may have previously affected wildlife populations currently residing in the Study Area – species present are expected to be those generally tolerant of disturbance and human presence, though field surveys have not been completed to confirm this assumption. Aquatic Environment: There is the potential for alteration to Study Area hydrology which may affect watercourses that drain towards Lake Ontario. Alterations to local drainage may result in increased or reduced flows to watercourses during storm events, deviating from known baseline conditions. Where fish occupied, these changes could have impacts on resident fishes and their habitats, and potential implications to downstream fish and habitats. Wetlands: Potential impacts to wetland hydrology have been identified. An assessment of the risk associated with the changes to local hydrology was completed following TRCA’s Wetland Water Balance Risk Evaluation (TRCA 2017) and is included in Appendix E. Risk to wetlands downstream of the drainage plan area have been characterized as low to high depending on the magnitude of hydrological change and the sensitivity of species and their habitats (flora and/or fauna) known to the Study Area. Species at Risk: Species at Risk have been identified within the Study Area. Currently, proposed works are not known to affect Species at Risk and/or their habitats (general or regulated). Preliminary Screening for Species at Risk and their habitats should be completed following MECP guidelines for proponents (MECP 2019) in order to complete due diligence during subsequent phases of the Project. Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 19 - 80 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report Detailed assessment of impacts for all of the above-listed natural heritage features should be developed through subsequent project phases and in consultation with authorities having jurisdiction. Mitigation Preliminary mitigation measures have been developed to reduce, to the greatest extent possible, the potential effects of the Project on the natural environment. These mitigations are intended to be starting points and should be further developed throughout subsequent Project stages. Consultation with authorities having jurisdiction may be required to further develop these mitigations through the design phase and support the creation of targeted Project-specific mitigations. Confirm presence or no detection of natural heritage features and Species at Risk and their habitats during future design phases through targeted field inventories, as required. Through design stages, confirm risk evaluation per TRCA’s Wetland Water Balance Risk Evaluation. Vegetation removals are recommended to take place between November 1 and March 31; outside of the breeding bird window and the SAR bat roosting window. The limits of the work area may be bounded with exclusionary fence. Sediment fence may contribute to the exclusion of some wildlife (e.g., herptiles) from the work area, if it is properly installed and maintained. o Sediment fence that is intended to have the dual function of wildlife exclusion should be installed by March 1st and remain in place, intact, until the completion of the works. o It is recommended that daily integrity checks are completed on sediment fence. o Ensure that no wildlife is trapped within the area enclosed by sediment fence. Other Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) measures should be considered and applied in consultation with a qualified practitioner in order to reduce the risk of sedimentation into the watercourses. Engage directly with DFO through the RFR process to address Redside Dace and its Critical Habitat (if identified) if impacts are anticipated during the design phase. All applicable authorizations and/or permits must be acquired in support of any necessary aquatic works. Immediately prior to the initiation of construction activities, the Project Area should be searched by a qualified biologist for the presence of wildlife, including SAR, and/or habitat features. o Where appropriate, authorized, and legal (i.e., certain permits or authorizations may be required to relocate some wildlife), wildlife found within the work area will be allowed to disperse and/or relocated to suitable habitat outside of the Project work area. In the unlikely event that Project activities result in any injured or orphaned wildlife, the injured or orphaned wildlife will be immediately transferred to a local wildlife rehabilitation facility. Confirm in-water work window with DFO. If watercourse is associated with Redside Dace, July 1 to September 15 of any given year is considered the workable window. If any SAR are encountered during the execution of the Project, then works should cease and MECP will be contacted immediately. Where vegetation rehabilitation is required following removals, native species suitable to compliment, and known to occur within, existing vegetation communities should be used. The use of non-native, invasive, species should be avoided. Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 20 - 81 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report Approvals A summary of permits and approvals that may be required for the project is provided below: Consultation with Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) may be required given the presence of Redside Dace. This species is considered Endangered federally and a permit under SARA may be required for in-water work. Consultation with the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks may be required given the presence of Redside Dace. This species is considered Endangered provincially and a permit under the ESA may be required for in-water work, work within the meander belt + 15 metres, or work affecting a contributing or occupied watercourse. Opportunities for regulatory exemption could be explored by the proponent. If in-water works are proposed and salvage of wildlife or fish is required, a license from the MNDMNRF will be required to authorize the scientific collection. The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority administers permits for works within regulated areas under the Conservation Authorities Act. The Study Area includes regulated areas associated with watercourses. Early consultation with the TRCA is recommended during the design phase to establish Terms of Reference for any additional natural heritage investigations required to support the issuance of any required permits. Development and Site Alteration within the ORMCPA must conform with the policies of the ORCMP. Works supporting flood or erosion control projects are permitted but only after all alternatives have been considered. A Natural Heritage Evaluation may be required for work within the minimum area of influence that relates to a KNHF. Summary Improvements to the existing drainage in the Hamlet of Claremont may intersect with several environmental constraints, including Key Hydrological Features (permanent/intermittent streams, wetlands), Key Natural Heritage Features (wetlands, woodlands, significant wildlife habitat, fish habitat), and SAR and/or their habitats. In advance of the execution of any drainage improvements, site-specific inventories of these features (if works are proposed within minimum areas of influence) and the habitat of SAR should be conducted to determine the need for additional assessment (e.g., Natural Heritage Evaluation), mitigation, and permitting. 3.5 Cultural Heritage Assessment A cultural heritage assessment has been completed in support of the Municipal Class EA and is provided within Appendix F. Currently, there is only one listed property within the study area: The Mason’s Union Lodge, Brougham Union at 4953 Old Brock Road, which is protected by an easement agreement with the City of Pickering under Section 37 of the Ontario Heritage Act. However, this cultural heritage assessment has recorded 64 heritage resources or potential heritage resources near the proposed drainage infrastructure improvements. It is recommended that this area be considered for a Heritage Conservation District, Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act in order to further protect its uniqueness and sense of place. The effects due to the drainage improvements that are anticipated would likely result in impacts on vegetation, and view-scapes. These impacts are characterized from low to high, based primarily on the distance of resources and vegetation from the right-of-way or impact zone. The impacts of this project are characterized as low. Nevertheless, potential property encroachment during drainage work should be sensitive to the rural character of the identified and potential heritage resources. Moreover, any required post-construction landscaping should employ heritage plantings and heritage themes to help conserve and enhance the cultural heritage character near the heritage resources. Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 21 - 82 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report The following mitigation measures are recommended: Construction fencing and tree hoarding should be installed around and in front of those heritage resources which are closer to the project work, at a sufficient distance to ensure that there will be no direct construction impacts as a result of the movement of construction equipment or machinery; Standard construction techniques should be used where possible, excluding all avoidable construction techniques (such as deep foundation work or piling) that could cause structural damage to heritage resources; All trees that cannot be saved should be replaced with large caliper nursery stock that are appropriate for roadside use (i.e. salt resistant). Replacement trees should replicate as closely as possible the heritage appearance, assortment and placement of the current trees; Wherever possible, the projected drainage work should be engineered to ensure that the heritage character of the buildings and landscapes is not unduly impacted or obscured; Due to the concentration of heritage resources with special character and/or historical association, Claremont should be considered for a Heritage Conservation District under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act in order to protect its uniqueness and sense of place. This would allow the City of Pickering to adopt a district plan for the Hamlet to guide future change in the village by creating policies and guidelines for the conservation, protection and enhancement of the area’s special character. 3.6 Archeological Assessment This archaeological assessment was triggered by a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) for anticipated infrastructure improvements. The archaeological assessment was conducted prior to any project related land alterations. A development plan is currently unavailable. In support of the Municipal Class EA and in anticipation of infrastructure improvements, a Stage 1 archaeological assessment background study has been conducted for the Hamlet Study Area to assess the archaeological potential based on its historical use and its potential for early Euro-Canadian (early settler) and pre-contact Aboriginal occupation. The objectives of a Stage 1 background study are as follows: Provide information about the study area’s geography, history, previous archaeological fieldwork and current land condition; Evaluate in detail the property’s archaeological potential which will support recommendations for a Stage 2 assessment for all or parts of the study area if warranted; Recommend appropriate strategies for Stage 2 assessment if warranted. The archeological assessment concluded that undisturbed portions of the study area have archaeological potential for three principal reasons: the presence of a number of watercourses within the study area A clear pattern of pre-contact Aboriginal and historic Euro-Canadian land use in the vicinity as demonstrated by the presence of eight previously registered archaeological sites within a 1-km radius; The fact that the Hamlet is an historic settlement and contains historically important transportation routes. Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 22 - 83 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report Areas of archaeological potential comprise approximately 79.5% (55.2 ha) of the study area (Appendix G: Figures 6a-i). This also includes the areas previously assessed as noted on Figures 6e and 6f, Appendix G (TLA, 2012). Areas where archaeological potential has been removed as a result of existing infrastructure associated with current roadways constitute approximately 16% (11.2 ha). Areas that have been previously assessed (AMICK 2014, Appendix G: Figures 6e and 6f) make up 4.5% (3.2 ha) and require no further assessment. In light of these results, the following recommendations have been made: Prior to land alteration, a Stage 2 archaeological assessment by means of test pit survey should be conducted in those areas of archaeological potential where ploughing is not viable (approximately 50 hectares). If archaeological resources are found their exact distribution should be documented and any diagnostic artifacts recovered and inventoried. Upon the discovery of cultural materials, the test pit survey grid should be continued to determine whether there are enough archaeological resources to meet the criteria for making a recommendation to carry out a Stage 3 assessment. Prior to land alteration, a Stage 2 archaeological assessment by means of pedestrian survey should be conducted at 5-m intervals on open agricultural fields (approximately 5.2 hectares) shown as having archaeological potential. The fields must first be ploughed by means of mouldboard ploughing and provisional disk harrowing to provide for at least 80% ground surface visibility. The section of the study area that has been previously assessed, does not require further archaeological assessment (approximately 3.2 ha). The remainder of the study area that has had archaeological potential removed does not require further archaeological assessment (approximately 11.2 ha). 3.7 Drainage System Assessment In order to assess the existing performance of the drainage system, an integrated hydrologic/ hydraulic model of the drainage system has been developed to identify the peak flow rates for various storm frequencies and in turn assess corresponding hydraulic conditions. 3.7.1 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modelling 3.7.2 Model Selection Hydrologic and hydraulic analyses of the Hamlet have been previously completed using the PCSWMM integrated hydrologic/ hydraulic modelling platform PCSWMM combines hydrologic modelling (i.e. simulated storm runoff response from land areas), with hydraulic modelling (i.e. calculated water surface elevations and velocities within storm sewers, road surfaces, open watercourses, culverts). The integration of hydrologic and hydraulic analyses facilitates the determination of ponding areas, backflow in pipes, surcharging of manholes, tailwater conditions (which may affect upstream storage and flow capacity within pipes), capacity at inlets to the sewer network (which would reduce the amount of runoff entering the sewer network and increase the amount of runoff conveyed overland during storm events), and depth of flooding of overland conveyance systems; these capabilities of the PCSWMM software make it particularly well-suited for analyzing rural and urban drainage systems such as those within the Hamlet. Further, PCSWMM is capable of applying both event methodology for single storm events and continuous simulation of a long-term period of record for multiple storm events. For this assessment the Event Methodology using synthetic design storms has been used. PCSWMM is capable of accounting for various conditions at outlets (i.e. open/unobstructed/free-flowing, partially/completely submerged to a constant depth, time-varying depth conditions, gated conditions). The hydraulic routing component within PCSWMM can be based on unsteady state (i.e. time-varying flow) conditions using Kinematic Wave or Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 23 - 84 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report Dynamic Wave routing techniques of the core St. Venant equations (which combine continuity and momentum equations to solve for 1-dimensional flow). The dynamic wave routing technique is the full solution of this set of equations, and is thus capable of accounting for complex hydraulic situations such as pressure and reverse flow. The kinematic wave routing technique is a simplified solution which is more appropriate for simplified flow conditions. Given the expected surcharging and complex hydraulics within the study area, dynamic wave routing has been applied in this case. The numerical stability of the PCSWMM platform allows for complex networks and systems to be readily modelled in the unsteady state condition, with little to no requirement for network simplification. PCSWMM employs the United States EPA-SWMM computational engine as its base, thus modeling files created in PCSWMM can be opened and executed within the EPA-SWMM program, as well as PCSWMM. This also provides an additional degree of reliability and quality assurance to the modelling program. 3.7.3 Modelling Data PCSWMM requires the following input data for completing an integrated hydrologic and hydraulic analysis: Drainage areas and directly connected impervious coverages for the land segments contributing to the conveyance system of interest. Soils information (infiltration parameters) for the soils underlying the land segments, including initial abstraction/depression storage Surface slopes for the contributing drainage areas. Land use characteristics for both the pervious and impervious components of the land segments in order to establish the “roughness” of the surface. Length, size, and inverts of storm sewer networks. Material of the sewer network. Manhole rim elevations (based on topographic mapping or survey) Cross-sections and elevations of the surface drainage system (i.e. roads). Locations of storm sewer inlets (catch basins, ditch inlets) Elevation and surface area relationships for surface storage zones (i.e. channels or designated off- line storage areas). The details for the Hamlet’s storm drainage system have been obtained based upon the following information to develop the models for the major-minor system: Storm sewer, culvert, maintenance hole, and catch basin mapping Topographic survey data Watercourse mapping Road mapping Property boundary mapping 1 m elevation contour data Aerial photography A considerable effort has been spent as part of the model construction to ensure accurate modelling of the storm drainage system; this has been complemented by multiple topographic surveys as noted previously, as well as review of the resulting data. 3.7.4 Storm Events As noted, an event-based methodology has been selected for this study, through the application of synthetic design storms. Based on the City of Pickering’s Stormwater Management Guidelines, a 12-hour AES synthetic design storm has been adopted, with a 15-minute time step. The synthetic design storms’ hyetographs are provided in Appendix H, rainfall depths have been summarized in Table 3.3. Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 24 - 85 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report Table 3.3. City of Pickering, 12-hour AES Synthetic Frequency Design Storms Rainfall Depths Frequency Storm 2 Year 5 Year 10 Year 25 Year 50 Year 100 Year Rainfall Depth (mm) 45.9 59 67.6 78.5 86.7 94.7 3.7.5 Hydrologic Parameters Hydrologic parameters have been established on the basis of existing land use conditions; namely land use as evident on the aerial photography provided (ref. Figure 1). The subcatchments within the study area have been established based on a review of the topographic data (contours/spot elevations) provided by the City, as well as a review of the plan and profile drawings. Subcatchments have been discretized in order to reflect the drainage system geometry based upon catch basin and lateral locations. The delineated subcatchments are presented in Figures 3a and 3b. Based on the subcatchment delineation, subcatchment parametrization has been established based upon the mapping data provided for this study, and available tools and techniques within the PCSWMM modelling software. The following provides further details regarding the parameterization of the subcatchments within the PCSWMM hydrologic model. Imperviousness has been calculated based upon the aerial photography provided (2012). Impervious areas were mapped and an area weighting approach used to calculate each subcatchments’ imperviousness. Catchment slope has been calculated using the contour mapping provided. Catchments flow lengths have been directly measured as the sheet flow length (i.e. back of the property line to the roadway) Manning’s roughness coefficients of 0.013 and 0.200 have been applied for impervious and pervious overland flow components respectively Base depression storage depths of 1 and 5 mm have been applied for impervious and pervious catchment portions respectively; depression storage was adjusted during the model validation process. Infiltration has been simulated using the Green and Ampt Infiltration methodology, with soil parameters based upon underlying soil types. Ontario Base Soils Mapping (OBSM) (ref. Soil Survey Report 23 – Soil Survey of Ontario County) identified the study area soils as ‘Woburn’; a calcareous brown loam till with good drainage characteristics. In order to further validate the OBSM surficial soils, the data have been compared to select borehole log data from geotechnical reports; the results of this comparison are presented in Table 3.4. Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 25 - 86 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report Figure 3.1. Ontario Base Soils Mapping (ref. Soil Survey Report 23, October 1979) Claremont Table 3.4. Comparison of Geotechnical Reports and Ontario Base Soils Mapping Geotechnical Reports Data - Author / Report - Description Geotechnical Reports Data - Depth (mBG) Geotechnical Reports Data - Soil Description Ontario Base Soils Mapping V.A Wood Associates Limited Carpenter Ct Borehole 6, July 19, 1988. 0.13 -1.9 Very stiff brown Clayey Silt Till with traces of coarse sand and gravel. damp Wol brown loam till (Hyd. Grp B) V.A Wood Associates Limited Carpenter Ct Borehole 10, July 19, 1988. 0.3 - 2.9 Compact to very dense brown Silty Sand Till with some gravel Wol brown loam till (Hyd. Grp B). Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 26 - 87 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report From this comparison, it is considered that the surficial soils mapping is reasonably consistent with the more resolute geotechnical borehole data; however, variability is evident. It is suggested that the OBSM data can reasonably be applied for the determination of infiltration. Infiltration parameters have been adjusted during model calibration/validation. Subcatchment parameterization details are provided in Appendix I. 3.7.6 Hydraulic Parameters Hydraulic links have been incorporated into PCSWMM based on the following: Both the minor (storm sewers, culverts) and major systems (open channels, ditches roadways) have been modelled. Data for storm sewers and culverts have been entered directly into PCSWMM based upon data from the background information provided, as well as supplementary data obtained through survey. Surcharge height has been added to hydraulic nodes as required to ensure no loss of flow under surcharge conditions. Culvert overflow sections have been added as required to allow for spill, should culverts become sufficiently surcharged; elevations have been estimated based on available data, and overflow widths have been approximated accordingly. Open channel sections have been entered based on results from the topographic survey, or where not available, elevation contour data and typical representative channel sections have been used. A roughness value of 0.013 has been applied for concrete and PVC sewers/culverts, and a value of 0.024 has been applied for CSP sewers/culverts. Conduit exit losses have been applied to account for the hydraulic losses associated with sharp bends. Head loss coefficients from Urban Drainage Design Manual, U.S. Department of Transportation, Publication No. FHWA-NH1-01-021 August 2011, Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 22 (FHWA HEC-22) have been applied for this purpose. Several different types of roadway sections have been modelled: o Urban (curb and gutter roadways with storm sewers) o Semi-urban (curb and gutter roadways, with a mix of ditches and storm sewers) o Rural (ditched roadways with no storm sewers) o Hybrid-Rural (ditched roadways with storm sewers) The roadway sections have been modelled based on the background information provided. For rural roadways, ditch sections have been modelled individually, with weir sections added to allow for overflow between sections, should flows reach the roadway crown elevation. Inlet Functions have been incorporated to represent the interaction between the minor and major systems through inlets (catch basins, ditch inlet grates, etc.). In order to ensure model stability under surcharge and reverse flow conditions, inlet functions have been modelled as orifices (bottom orifices for grates and covers, and side orifices for catch basin leads). Calculations for catch basin grates (including catch basin manholes) have been based on an opening area of 0.125 m2 per standard catch basin (OPSD 400.110). This value has then been multiplied by the number of catch basins being represented to determine the equivalent opening area for which a representative square orifice has been applied. Orifices representing catch basin leads have been based on an equivalent opening area equal to an assumed 250 mm diameter pipe size per catch basin (300 mm diameter pipe size for double catch basins). Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 27 - 88 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report 3.7.7 Model Validation The performance of the PCSWMM model has been validated using rainfall data and flow data collected between May and November of 2017. The rainfall data were collected by a gauge located on the Dr. Nelson F. Tomlinson Community Centre roof, setup and operated by Wood for this study. Flow data were collected using gauges setup at the three (3) monitoring locations (as summarized in Table 3.5, gauge locations have been depicted on Figure 1). Table 3.5. Characterization of Flow Monitoring Locations Flow Gauge Location ID Drainage Area (ha) Imp. (%) Location Notes 1 16.3 16.8 Central Street, within ‘Control Manhole’ 2 16.5 16.5 Ditch, south of Central Street Sewer outfall 3 20.2 - 36.5 28.3 Watercourse, west of Canso Street outfall The total rainfall depth and peak rainfall intensity recorded for each storm event selected for the hydrologic model calibration/validation is summarized in Table 3.6. These storm events have been selected as their rainfall depths were greater than 10 mm; it is noted that shorter duration events with greater intensity are generally preferable, as the runoff response is more easily observed and contribution/influence of baseflow is not as apparent. The monitoring data for the selected storms are included in Appendix B. Table 3.6. Select Storm Events Extracted from Rainfall Monitoring Data Rainfall Event No. Rainfall Date Total Rainfall (mm) Peak Rainfall Intensity (mm/hr) Storm Duration (hr) Notes 1 April 27, 2017 10.6 23.2 2 - 2 April 30, 2017 41.4 13.6 23 2 Cells 3 May 4, 2017 39.2 4.0 30 - 4 May 30, 2017 23.8 44.0 3.5 2 Cells 5 June 23, 2017 51.6 26.4 9 Double Peak 6 June 26, 2017 32.8 44.8 4 - As part of the model validation, subcatchment parameters for hydraulic conductivity, suction head, and initial moisture deficit have been refined to improve upon the correlation between the simulated peak flows and total runoff volumes generated by the PCSWMM model, versus observed through monitoring. Refinements have been applied to several subcatchment parameters and the PCSWMM model has been executed for several iterations in order to support the validation process. The model parameters adjusted as part of this validation assessment were the Green and Ampt infiltration parameters, the depression storage for pervious and impervious segments, as well as subcatchment routing for the pervious land segments. The percentage of runoff routed between sub-areas has been varied between 15 - 45 %. Routing 35 % of the impervious area to pervious, was determined to more effectively account for disconnected downspouts within residential areas. Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 28 - 89 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report A summary of the initial and validated model parameters for the PCSWMM model is provided in Table 3.7. A tabular summary of the validation results is provided in Table 3.8, and scatter plot comparisons of the model output versus observed is included in Appendix J. Table 3.7. Initial and Final Parameters for the PCSWMM Model Model Parameter Initial Value Final Value Hydraulic Conductivity (mm/hr) 3.3 2.5 Suction Head (mm) 89.9 110 Initial Moisture Deficit 0.110 0.35 Depression Storage – Pervious (mm) 5 4/8 Depression Storage – Impervious (mm) 1 3 Subcatchment Routing 1: Pervious Percent Routed 1 0 25 – 55 Note: 1 The subcatchment routing parameter controls how subcatchments’ runoff is routed between pervious and impervious land segments. Using the ‘Pervious’ options routes a user defined percentage of runoff from the impervious area onto the pervious land segment; allowing additional infiltration to occur. Table 3.8. Model Validation Summary Flow Monitoring Location Peak Flow - Trendline Slope Peak Flow – R2 Runoff Volume - Trendline Slope Runoff Volume - R2 Central Street Outlet 1.08 0.98 0.77 0.96 Control Manhole 1.46 0.87 0.77 0.93 Canso Outlet 1.15 0.81 1.25 0.90 The results of the model validation indicate that the adjusted PCSWMM model, with the refined subcatchment parameters, reasonably approximates peak flows and runoff volumes. The slope of the trend line for peak flow ranged between 1.08 and 1.46, and for runoff volumes ranged from 0.77 to 1.25 all with reasonably strong correlation coefficients (R2 > 0.70) which is indicative of a good validation. The Canso Street Outlet ranged between 0.94 to 1.19 for two (2) out of the three (3) storm events, with a strong correlation coefficient for all simulations (~ > 0.70). A review of the observed hydrographs and the simulated hydrographs suggest that the timing of the peak flow rates and the shape or form of the hydrographs are within reason represent a reasonable comparison of the results; the hydrographs are presented within Appendix J for visual inspection. Based upon the foregoing results, the validated and refined PCSWMM hydrologic models have been advanced for use in the assessment of drainage system performance. 3.7.8 Hydrologic Results Hydrologic modelling has been conducted using PCSWMM for the 5 and 100 year storm events based on the 12 hour AES design storm distribution previously described. Table 3.9 presents the simulated peak flow results at nodes of interest for the 5 and 100 year storm events. For comparison, the 1996 Paul Theil Associates Limited (PTAL), Stormwater Management Study for Regional Road 5, using an unvalidated OTHHYMO89 hydrologic model determined the 100 year peak flow to be 0.42 m3/s at the south side of the control manhole on Central Street and 1.24 m3/s at the sewer outlet to the channel located in the school. The current PCSWMM integrated hydrologic/ hydraulic modelling has determined 100 peak flows of 0.82 m3/s (95% greater than PTAL flow) at the southside of the control manhole (not including a 0.50 m3/s contributing flow over the road) and 1.90 m3/s (55% greater than PTAL flow) at the sewer outlet to the channel. As such the peak flows determined using the validated modelling are considered to be significantly Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 29 - 90 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report higher than the flows determined in the previous Paul Theil Associates study. The difference in peak flows can be attributed to several factors: PTAL used the 1 hr AES storm (100 yr: 55.3mm), while this Class EA has used the City of Pickering’s 12 hr AES storm (100 yr: 94.7mm). The PCSWMM model integrates hydrologic and hydraulic modelling, resulting in a more representative drainage system performance. The PTAL modelling was a simplified single purpose hydrologic model. The PCSWMM model has been validated using observed flows and rainfall, while the PTAL modelling was not validated. The PCSWMM modelling has used aerial mapping to determine impervious coverages. The PTAL modelling was based on estimations of impervious coverages using topographic mapping. Table 3.9. Simulated Peak Flows at Nodes of Interest Junction Node Minor / Major Location Catchment Series Area (ha) Peak Flow (m3/s) 5 Year Peak Flow (m3/s) 100 Year T-3-97- MH05 Minor Manhole - Intersection of Franklin and Joseph 100 10.72 0.105 0.112 J49 Major Major System – Franklin Street and Joseph Street 100 10.72 0.381 0.937 J183 Major Franklin Street – Spill to Remnant Channel 100 11.67 0.037 0.378 J173 Major Franklin Street – Spill to rear yard of 1764 Central Street 100 12.4 0.362 0.687 D96-3- S05 Minor Manhole at Intersection of Franklin Street and Central Street 100 14.8 0.303 0.340 CMH_A Minor Central Street – Control Manhole – Flow West 100 16.34 0.204 0.202 CMH_B Minor Central Street – Control Manhole – Flow East 100 16.34 0.578 0.824 J40 Major Central Ditch/Channel – Upstream of Wellington Street Culvert Crossing 200 20.39 0.628 1.606 J41 Major Central Ditch/Channel – Downstream of Wellington Street Culvert Crossing 200 22.21 0.751 1.913 J69 Major Central Ditch/Channel – at Junction with Community Center East Ditch 200 23.87 0.822 2.071 J9_1 Major Central Ditch/Channel – Confluence with Livingston Street Ditch 200 3.06 1.095 2.659 J13 Major Central Ditch/Channel – Upstream of Bovingdon Place Culvert 200 32.36 1.034 2.794 J14 Major Central Ditch/Channel – Downstream of Bovingdon Place Culvert 200 35.53 1.075 2.887 J76 Major Canso Street Outlet 400 36.18 1.075 1.895 Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 30 - 91 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report 3.7.9 Hydraulic Systems Assessment Hydrologic/hydraulic analyses have been conducted to determine the performance of the minor (storm sewer and culvert) and major (roadway, ditch, and open channel) drainage systems within the study area. The minor system has been evaluated based upon simulated incidences of flooding and surcharging during the 5 year storm event, with particular emphasis upon the occurrence of flooding. The minor/major system model has been used for this assessment, using an event methodology as described previously. Simulated results under existing land use conditions for selected conduits are presented within Appendix K by indicating whether a storm sewer has no surcharging, less than or greater than 50% surcharge to the surface or floods (surcharges to the surface). The hydraulic results with respect to capacity have been presented graphically on Figures 4 and 5. As a further check, the results within Appendix K provide an indication of the storm sewer flow capacity (based on full flow calculated using Manning’s equation) versus the simulated peak flows via the Qpeak/Qcapacity column. Some of the sewers have been noted as surcharged even though the storm sewer capacity is above the peak flow; in these cases surcharging is considered to be attributable to the influence of tailwater conditions and energy losses (due to bends, expansion/contraction, etcetera). Based on the results presented in Appendix K, a large proportion of the selected conduits are at capacity and become surcharged or flooded during a 5-year storm event, suggesting that in general, the minor drainage system lacks 5-year conveyance capacity. Under the 100-year storm event, the majority of the selected conduits would be expected to be flooded or surcharged, which is consistent with the expected performance of the minor system under such a formative storm event. Conduits which indicate un-surcharged conditions are typically culverts rather than storm sewers, which are usually designed to a higher standard by conveying at least the 10-year storm event. The results of the PCSWMM hydrologic/hydraulic analyses for major overland flow have been reviewed further in order to identify the incidences of flooding of the major system during severe storm events. The overland system consists of roadways, ditches, open channels, overland drainage routes through residential lots at roadway sags, and drainage easements in rear yards. Current practice for major drainage systems is to provide for safe and positive conveyance of flows, either within road rights-of-way or if possible within publicly owned overland drainage systems. However, the Hamlet of Claremont overland drainage system was not designed to current practice when the community and roadways were established during the mid to late 1800’s; the standards prevalent during the era of construction with a mixed use of roadside ditches, storm sewers with curbs or gutters, and natural outlets for overland drainage. Furthermore, previous drainage design standards likely did not size infrastructure for the less frequent storm events, rather for the frequent storm events. This has led to capacity deficiencies which result in periodic flooding of private and public properties. The Hamlet has a number of locations where the flood depths during major events are considered problematic. The depth of flooding within major system conduits has been determined for both the 5- and 100-year storms and summarized within Appendix K. Within rural roadway types, flows would be conveyed by roadside ditches, before being captured either locally by catch basin manholes (on semi-urban streets) or by inlets/culverts at the downstream limits (for fully rural roadways). For fully urban streets, flows would be conveyed by the roadway directly from the lowest elevation in the gutter. Summarized results present both maximum depths for key locations of interest, as well as a qualitative assessment with respect to whether or not simulated depths are within the right-of-way, less than or greater than 50% to buildings, and at or beyond buildings. Flow depths within ditches (not associated with public rights-of-way) have been characterized as flow within or beyond the ditch limits. Major system performance, for the 100-year design storm, with respect to depth capacity is also illustrated graphically in Figure 5. Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 31 - 92 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report Based on the results provided within Appendix K, under a 5-year storm event the selected sections of roadway as expected would largely be expected to contain flow within the ditch (rural sections) or below the roadway crown (urban sections), with the exception of two roadway sections along Wixson Street (which has a nominal exceedance of the crown height) and Franklin Street (which has a poorly defined major system outlet and undersized minor system). These results are generally consistent with those presented within Appendix K for the minor system. Under a 100-year storm event, the selected sections of roadway have variable performance, with a number of rural roadway sections indicating depths in excess of ditch capacity, but below roadway crowns. Although these results suggest that roadway ingress/egress during flooding would not be affected, there may still be the potential for spill towards private property, given that in many cases adjacent properties are below roadway crown elevations. With respect to urban roadway sections, multiple sections would be anticipated to have flow depths in excess of the roadway crowns. Those locations with the highest simulated flow depths appear to be at roadway sag points, which again is to be expected given the tendency for localized ponding in these areas. In general, those sections of roadway which display the highest simulated overland flooding depths for the 100-year storm event include (Ref. Figure 5): Franklin Street (Urban) – Sag point north of Central Street Franklin Street (Rural) – At Joseph Street intersection Central Street (Semi-Rural) – Floods at various ditch inlets Wixson Street (Urban) – floods at intersection with Central Street Barclay Street (Rural) – The ditch exceeded, below crown. Canso Street (Urban) – Sag at outlet to west channel William Street (Urban) - At intersection with Central Street Henry Street (Semi-Rural) – Low crown height Acorn lane (urban) – At sag in road at outlet 3.7.10 Local Drainage Issues In addition to the drainage issues identified by the hydrologic/hydraulic modelling, there are additional localized drainage issues are not directly captured by the analytical assessment (nuisance flooding and ponding in particular). To summarize some of the primary local drainage issues reported by residents include (Ref. Figure 6): Poor ditch grading and standing water along Barber Street Poor ditch grading and standing water along Lorn Street Frequent ditch and roadway flooding along Franklin Street Rear yard flooding reported along Barclay Street Local drainage deficiency along Franklin Street at a low point, drainage overtops Franklin Street major system and flows to property’s rear yard. Rear yard flooding reported along the central portion of the East Channel, west of Livingston Street; the channel is partially conveyed through private property and with a poorly defined longitudinal profile. Local drainage deficiency where central channel crosses Bovingdon Place; flooding within yards Local drainage deficiency along Old Brock Road; ponding along road way Joseph Street drainage deficiency at Wixson Street; lack of major system capacity. Poor grading and standing water along Wixson Street (sump pumps discharge to street) Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 32 - 93 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report 3.7.11 Summary of Existing Drainage System Concerns The existing minor and major drainage systems have been characterized to determine performance constraints and identified concerns. Local drainage issues have also been considered, based on information reported by City staff, as well as the information supplied by residents. Figure 6 provides a compilation of all of these identified drainage issues within the Hamlet. Based on this compilation, the following locations are considered to be of primary concern with under sized storm sewer for the contributing drainage area, and should be addressed further as part of the subsequent alternative assessment process: Deficient storm sewer and culvert capacity (capacity < 5-year storm): Franklin Street Storm Sewer – indicated as surcharging to surface; existing 300 mm diameter storm sewer constructed in 1997. Central Street Storm Sewer between Franklin and Canso Street – indicated as surcharging to surface; existing 450 mm to 600 mm diameter storm sewers constructed in 1997. Canso Street Storm Sewer between Central Street and the Canso Street Outlet – indicated as surcharged; existing 675 mm to 910 mm diameter storm sewers constructed in 1991. William Street Storm Sewer between David Street and Central Street – indicated as surcharged; existing 675 mm diameter storm sewer constructed in 1991. Deficient overland flow capacity (excessive roadway depths for 100-year storm): Franklin Street (Urban) - sag point south of Joseph Street. Franklin Street (Rural) – north of Joseph Street. Barber Street (Rural) – insufficient ditch capacity. Barclay Street (Rural) – insufficient ditch capacity. Livingston Street (Semi-Rural) – insufficient ditch capacity. Wixson Street (Semi-Urban) – roadway crown overtopped. Canso Street (Urban) – roadway crown overtopped at sag. Old Brock Road (Rural) – insufficient ditch capacity. Additional identified areas of concern: Numerous crushed or filled culverts Numerous filled ditches Standing water in ditches (various locations) Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 33 - 94 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report 4.0 Long-List of Alternatives for Drainage System Improvements The following “long-list” of potential management alternatives has been compiled for consideration to address the minor and major drainage system deficiencies. 4.1 Minor System (Storm Sewers and Culverts) A long-list of alternatives to mitigate the surcharge and flooding conditions for the minor system during the 5 year storm event, as well as to alleviate the depth of flooding during the 100 year storm event, has been developed. The following alternatives have been advanced for consideration in order to address the deficiencies associated with minor system performance during the 5-year storm event: i. Do Nothing ii. Increase size of affected storm sewers/culverts, or twinning iii. Implement super pipes to provide on-line storm water quantity control iv. Implement on-site storm water management for individual private properties v. Implement off-line storage areas within available public spaces vi. Retrofit existing storm water management facilities to provide additional quantity control vii. Diversions (local inter-catchment) viii. Roof leader/foundation drain disconnection ix. Low Impact Development (LID) Best Management Practices (BMPs) (other than Alternative viii) x. New drainage outlets (relief systems) to Duffins Creek, using new storm sewers xi. Inlet Control Devices (ICDs) xii. Combinations of the above The following alternatives have been screened from further consideration in the drainage system assessment. Alternative (iii) (Implement super pipes to provide on-line storm water quantity control) is a potential alternative, however typically requires significant storage to effectively reduce peak flows to a level that does not result in flooding. Super pipes also consume considerable amount of space within the right-of-way or other public lands and are typically cost prohibitive. The equivalent storage of a super pipe can usually be implemented with less expensive prefabricated plastic storage chambers. The potential for utility conflicts is high. This alternative is typically one of the last considered in reducing flood potential. As such, this alternative has been screened from further consideration. Alternative (iv) (Implement on-site storm water management for individual private properties) is considered to be problematic given the predominant land use (single detached residential), wide spread use of septic tanks within the Hamlet, and lack public control; to obtain any significant quantity control benefit a large number of private residences would be required to participate (which may not be feasible). Additionally, in many areas residences are already considered to be completely disconnected (i.e. no direct impervious connection). Given the anticipated difficulty in achieving sufficient landowner consent, and the limited benefit to quantity control, this alternative has been screened from further consideration. Alternative (vi) (Retrofit existing SWM facilities) is not considered to be a viable option, as there are no existing SWM facilities within the Hamlet. This alternative has hence been screened from future consideration. Alternative (viii) (Roof leader/foundation drain disconnection). Based on the site reconnaissance and information provided by the City of Pickering, there do not appear to be many connected roof leaders or foundation drains (to the storm sewer). In some instances, roof leaders were noted to Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 34 - 95 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report be directed to driveways rather than pervious surfaces, however these locations are considered to be a small percentage. Accordingly, this alternative has been screened from future consideration. Alternative (xi) (Inlet Control Devices) – implemented within catch basins ICDs can be a low cost and effective approach to reducing the inflow to the minor system, therefore preventing surcharging of the minor system. However, this may not be an appropriate solution due to the major system performance during the 100-year storm event which would be exacerbated with increased flow peak flow rates from the effect of the inlet control devices on the catch basins (CBs will fill and flows will bypass CBs and add to the major system flow). Accordingly, the short-listed alternatives considered for addressing the minor system capacity deficiencies are: Alternative (i) (Do Nothing) does not address the issues associated with deficient infrastructure capacity and flooding. Although this alternative functionally does not improve hydraulic conditions, it may be the selected alternative for some situations where there is limited benefit from improving the drainage system. Further, as part of the Municipal MEA Class EA process the Do Nothing alternative has to be assessed and cannot be screened from consideration. Alternative (ii) (Increase size of affected storm sewers/culverts, or twinning) is typically one of the most effective, although there are possible issues with respect to cost and existing utility conflicts, as well as required ground cover. Alternative (v) (Implement off-line storage areas within available public spaces) is considered possible, however limited space is available based on the existing development of the study area; Claremont Memorial Park is the only public space other than the municipal rights-of-way within the study area. Off-line storage can be implemented either as surface storage or subsurface storage; surface storage would likely not be favourable due to a reduction in useable public space, while subsurface storage would be more expensive. Alternative (vii) (Local Diversions) is possible, and can be an effective option, however, this alternative assumes that there is a system with sufficient residual capacity to accept the additional flow, and that a diversion is possible given existing grades. Alternative (ix) (LID BMPs) or source controls, are typically applied to new greenfield development where they can be more readily incorporated into the urban planning fabric, although can be an effective approach to reduce runoff at source in retrofit and reconstruction areas (both for public roadways or private properties). However, the applicability of LID BMPs can be constrained by site- specific limitations (such as available space within the ROW, grading constraints, utilities, soils, groundwater levels, etc.); several 2-laned streets within Claremont have a narrow ROW of approximately 7-8 m, with limited to no available space to implement source controls. While the groundwater conditions within the study are not formally documented, discussions with residents and City staff have indicated that there is a high groundwater table within Claremont which would hinder the implementation of LID BMPS. As common practice, LID BMPS are usually designed to capture and infiltrate runoff from the more frequent storm events, such as the 25 mm storm event up to the 5-year storm event. The localized implementation of LID BMPs could benefit individual properties and address minor surface ponding concerns, although the implementation of widescale LID BMPs on private and public properties would likely take several years, potentially, decades to implement, and would not provide short term benefits for the mitigation of the minor system performance deficiencies. Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 35 - 96 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report Alternative (x) (New Drainage Outlets - relief systems using storm sewers) could be considered (new outlets to Duffins Creek) where grades and locations are appropriate. Given established drainage pathways, it may be simpler to increase capacity of existing pathways; however, the potential for new drainage outlets should be considered further. Alternative (xii) (Combinations) is likely an appropriate solution where no single alternative is sufficient to fully address the drainage deficiencies. The short list of minor system alternative is presented in Table 4.1 and has been advanced for further consideration to the areas with drainage issues. Table 4.1. Minor System Short Listed Alternatives Altern. # Altern. Franklin St Central St Wixson St Old Brock Rd William St - Canso Dr Canso Dr at Acorn Lane i Do Nothing X X X X X X ii Increase Storm Sewer/Culvert Size or Twin X X X X X X v Off-line Storage X vii Local Diversion X ix LID BMPs X x New Drainage Outlet X xii Combinations X X X X X X 4.2 Major System (Overland Drainage Systems) A long list of alternatives to mitigate major system flooding during the 100-year storm event has been developed. The following specific alternatives have been advanced for consideration: i. Do Nothing ii. Increase size of storm sewers and culverts to reduce depth of flooding of the major system to within acceptable limits iii. Implement new storm sewers to alleviate surface ponding and improve major system conveyance iv. Implement super pipes to provide on-line storm water quantity control v. Implement on-site storm water management for individual private properties vi. Implement on/off-line storage areas within available public spaces vii. Retrofit existing storm water management facilities to provide additional quantity control to mitigate these conditions viii. Modify grading on private property to mitigate flooding. ix. Modify grading within road right of way or other public property to mitigate flooding. x. Low Impact Development Best Management Practices (LID BMPs) xi. New major system (overland) outlets xii. Improve major system capacity with the implementation of curb and gutter. xiii. Improve major system capacity by re-ditching (re-sectioning) the existing ditches xiv. Combinations of the above. Consistent with the alternatives screened to address the minor system performance deficiencies, alternatives iv, v, and vi have been screened from further consideration. The following alternatives have been initially screened from further consideration: Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 36 - 97 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report Alternative(viii) (Modify grading on private property to mitigate flooding) could be conducted to a limited extent to either reduce or eliminate potential flooding from open watercourses, overland flow routes across private property, or rear yard drainage features. Such works would be limited in scope however, and would require agreement from affected landowners (which may not be forthcoming) and would potentially also require compensation measures. Alternative (x) (LID BMPs) is generally more appropriate for managing smaller storm events, rather than major flood events. Although this approach should be encouraged for addressing localized minor system deficiencies, its effectiveness to address major system deficiencies is considered limited. This option has therefore been screened from future consideration. Alternative (xi) (New overland outlets) is not feasible given the limited amount of available public property and the difficulty and costs involved with obtaining required property (either through purchase or easement agreements) from private landowners. Alternative (xii) (Improve major system capacity with the implementation of curb and gutter) can be considered in isolated locations. There are limitations to this alternative as it could prevent drainage conveyance to the roadway from the surrounding properties if the elevation of the ROW is not lower than the surrounding properties. This alternative has been implemented on Franklin Street as a temporary solution to mitigate the major system capacity deficiencies and conveyed to private property from the ROW. Accordingly, the short-listed strategies to mitigate the impacts of flooding of private property during the 100-year storm event include: Alternative (i) (Do Nothing) functionally does not improve hydraulic conditions. It may be the selected alternative for situations where there is limited benefit from improving the drainage system. As part of the Municipal Class EA process the Do Nothing alternative has to be assessed and cannot be screened from consideration. Alternative (ii) (Increase size of storm sewers and culverts to reduce depth of flooding of the major system to within acceptable limits) is a potential alternative to be considered when overland flow through private property is to be limited or reduced. Typically, this alternative would only be considered for short lengths due to the high cost. Alternative (iii) (Implement new storm sewers to alleviate surface ponding and improve major system conveyance) would mitigate the excess flow conveyed via the major system and would provide long term solution to the major system drainage deficiencies. An existing receiving storm sewer system would be required otherwise a new outlet would need to be constructed. Alternative (ix) (Modify grading within road right of way or public property to mitigate flooding) can be conducted to a limited extent to either reduce or eliminate potential flooding from roadways on private or public property. Any modifications of road grading within Toronto Region Conservation Authority’s regulated areas would require approval. Alternative (xiii) (Improve major system capacity by re-ditching (re-sectioning) the existing ditches) would be a community wide recommendation which would include regular and manicuring of the ditches to provide unobstructed conveyance within the ditches. Furthermore, where possible, it is recommended that selected ditches be re-sectioned or re-ditched to increase the capacity within the ditches. While additional groundwater level data is required prior to implementing any LID BMP features such as infiltration trenches, it is anticipated that there are high static and seasonal high groundwater levels as noted from the City Staff, Claremont residents, and the available groundwater data. The high groundwater levels would likely prevent inclusion of infiltration trenches within the ditched as a long-term alternative for mitigating the ditch capacity issues. Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 37 - 98 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report Combinations (Alternative xiv) is likely an appropriate solution where no single alternative is sufficient to fully address issues. The short list of major system alternative is presented in Table 4.2 and has been advanced for further consideration to the areas with drainage issues. Table 4.2. Major System (ROW) Short Listed Alternatives Altern # Altern. Franklin St Central St Wixson St Old Brock Rd Wellingt on St Livingst on St Lane St i Do Nothing X X X X X X X ii Increase Storm Sewer/Culvert Size or Twin X X X X iii Implement new storm sewers X ix Modify Grading on Public Property X X xiii Re-Ditching X X X xiv Combinations X X X X X X X Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 38 - 99 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report 5.0 Short-Listed Alternative Assessment 5.1 Evaluation Evaluation Methodology In order to assess the various short-listed minor and major drainage system improvements, an evaluation framework, has been advanced to assess the suitability of each alternative against appropriate “evaluation factors”. The evaluation factors consist of considerations related to a two-tier hierarchy of potential impacts/issues organized by Evaluation Category, which have been supplemented by more detailed and specific Evaluation Criteria. Evaluation Category A broad description of considerations under each category includes: i. Functional – Extent or effectiveness of how the alternative performs as related to the mitigation of surcharging and flooding. ii. Environmental – Potential environmental impacts or benefits that alternatives may have on Duffins Creek, including erosion, and water quality. iii. Social – Impacts/issues relating to the interaction of the community/neighbourhood with the implementation of the various alternatives. iv. Economic – Capital costs and cost-benefits of the alternative including operations and maintenance. v. Constructability – Construction considerations related to accessibility for machinery and the potential impact of construction techniques and access on private property. Evaluation Criteria: Specific evaluation criteria relevant to each Evaluation Category have been summarized in Table 5.1. Table 5.1. Hamlet of Claremont Drainage System Alternatives Evaluation Approach Evaluation Category Evaluation Criteria Criteria Description Functional Extent to which the Alternative Mitigates the Drainage System Flow Capacity Deficiencies Each alternative, to varying degrees, provides opportunities to improve the existing storm system (minor and major) flow capacity. Environmental Impacts to Creek Systems (stream bank, erosion, water quality), terrestrial systems, aquatic systems, erosion and water quality, and also temporary upheaval Any alternative which would result in degradation of the creek systems (including erosion) or would result in decreased water quality would be considered a negative. Alternatives which are beneficial would be considered positive. Social Ability to Improve Public Safety Depending on reduced flooding risk within both private and/ or public property, public safety would be improved to varying degrees. Social Impacts on Private Properties Relates to the change in flood risk on private lands. Social Impact on Public Lands Depending on the alternative there are varying degrees of impact to flooding conditions on public lands including roadways. Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 39 - 100 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report Evaluation Category Evaluation Criteria Criteria Description Economic Capital Costs Lower costs are preferred over higher costs. Economic Operations and Maintenance Costs Lower costs are preferred over higher costs. Constructability Ease of Construction and Accessibility Depending on the selected alternative, the machinery and materials required to construct will vary. The ease and accessibility of alternative construction will vary depending upon alternative location. Constructability Construction staging and timing Depending on the alternative and the extent of the proposed works, the project may need to be staged (multiple phases), and may require multiple years to construct. Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 40 - 101 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report 6.0 Detailed Assessment of the Short-Listed Alternatives While drainage system alternatives have been identified for the primary areas of concern based on the existing conditions PCSWMM modelling and site observations, addressing the lack of a major system outlet at Franklin Street is paramount to mitigating the drainage issues within the Hamlet. As noted within Section 7.1.10, the Franklin Street storm sewer is surcharged during a 5-year storm event while the road sag on Franklin Street causes ponding and conveyance of runoff from the ROW through private property during the 100-year storm event. The approach undertaken for this assessment has been to conduct the alternative assessment for Franklin Street to inform the Claremont drainage system preferred alternative. The alternative assessment for the other areas of concern has been undertaken to coincide with the Franklin Street preferred alternative. In addition to the Franklin Street drainage deficiencies, it will be shown that the preferred alternatives for several areas of concern will result in increased conveyance to the Central Street storm sewer system and will need to be addressed with quantity controls. Two (2) quantity control locations have been identified as the Central Street primary alternatives which include the following: Alternative 1 - Diverting runoff to an offline underground storage tank within Claremont Memorial Park and discharge to the ditch on Old Brock Road Alternative 2 – Convey runoff to three (3) online underground storage tanks within the Central Street ROW at the intersection William Street / Canso Drive intersection. The preferred sub alternatives for several areas of concern which discharge to the Central Street primary alternative or convey drainage from the Central Street would be common for both primary alternatives. The areas of concern that discharge to or from Central Street are summarized as follows: Franklin Street Wixson Street Old Brock Road Williams Street Canso Drive East Channel West Channel The selection of the preferred alternatives for the foregoing areas of concern has been undertaken prior to selecting the preferred alternative for Central Street, as these will inform quantity controls for the Central Street preferred alternative. Mitigation alternatives have not been directly considered for the East Channel of West Channel as is it not feasible to undertaken construction efforts within these areas due to their locations within or behind private property, in addition to grading constraints. As such, mitigation of the channel capacity deficiencies has been indirectly proposed through the implementation of the sub alternatives and primary alternatives. The benefits of these alternatives to the channel capacity deficiencies are discussed in the subsequent sections. Alternatives have also been considered for areas of concern that do not contribute to or receive drainage from the Central Street drainage system. These areas of concern include the following locations: Lane Street Canso Drive at Acorn Lane Livingston Street Wellington Street Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 41 - 102 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report The selection of the preferred alternatives for the foregoing areas of concern would not impact or inform the primary alternatives. Nevertheless, the preferred alternatives for the areas that do not contribute to or receive drainage from the Central Street drainage system would be common for the Central Street primary alternatives. 6.1 Franklin Street The existing conditions assessment identified that the Franklin Street 300 mm storm sewer was undersized for the 12.2 ha (+/-) drainage area that is conveyed to the storm sewer; the storm sewer has been simulated to surcharge to the surface during a 5-year storm event. The storm sewer is 177 m (+/-) in length, commencing at the intersection of Franklin Street and Joseph Street, discharging to the Central Street storm sewer. In addition to the undersized storm sewers, the Franklin Street roadway sag, 30 m (+/-) north of Central Street prevents major system conveyance to Central Street and conveys runoff through private property during less frequent storm events. The Central Street (Regional Road 5) ROW elevation could be lowered to provide an outlet for the Franklin Street major system, however, this would require coordination with the Region of Durham and would result in significant construction impacts to the properties fronting onto Central Street. A temporary solution to address the major system deficiencies at the Franking Street sag was the construction of a barrier curb to prevent flow conveyance from the ROW through to the rear yard of the private property.. This temporary solution will not address the minor system deficiencies. As such the following long-term alternatives have been considered for implementation: Do Nothing: This alternative does not mitigate the major or minor system deficiencies on Franklin Street or the potential impacts to the residential properties on Franklin Street. The flood damage and operations and maintenance costs associated with the clean up and repairs incurred due to major storm events would continue. Increase Storm Sewer Size: The existing 300 mm diameter storm sewer would be increased to 600 mm diameter commencing at Joseph Street for 50 m (+/-) and to 750 mm diameter for 130 m (+/-), to Central Street to convey the 100-year storm event peak flow rate. This would mitigate the storm sewers surcharging to the surface up to and including the 100-year storm event while also mitigating the depth of ponding on the Franklin Street ROW. Four (4) additional twin catch basins and two (2) additional single catch basins would be required on Franklin Street to provide conveyance from the Franklin Street ROW to the upsized storm sewer. Storm sewers downstream on Central Street would also need to be upsized to convey the increased peak flow rates. The existing Central Street storm sewer between Franklin Street and the East Channel is surcharged above the obvert elevation during the 5-year storm event and should be upsized to provide appropriate flow conveyance; the alternative assessment for the Central Street storm sewer system are summarized within Section 10.5 Central Street. Implement New Storm Sewers: A storm sewer would be implemented from the north end of Franklin Street to Joseph Street and discharge to the Franklin Street storm sewer. Presently, there is no storm sewer at this section of roadway and runoff from the 7.9 ha (+/-) agricultural external drainage area is conveyed to the Franklin Street roadside ditches prior to capture through the ditch inlets on both sides of the road near Joseph Street; the ditch inlets convey the runoff to the existing 300 mm diameter storm sewer. The capacity of both ditches is exceeded under existing conditions during a 5-year storm event, and the runoff from the ditches is conveyed southward on Franklin Street to the sag in the ROW. Implementing a new storm sewer from the north end of Franklin Street to Joseph Street with three (3) additional ditch inlet catch basins would reduce the flow conveyed to the ditches and address the ditch capacity constraints. The Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 42 - 103 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report ditches should not be replaced with a curb and gutter cross section as the ditches provide informal water quality treatment for the contributing drainage area. Combination: The strategic combination of the preceding alternatives of implementing a new storm sewer from the north end of Franklin Street to Joseph Street and increasing the storm sewer size from Joseph Street to Central Street has been considered to address the performance capacity of the storm sewer and roadway drainage. A new 600 mm diameter storm sewer would be implemented from the north end of Franklin Street to Joseph Street to connect to the upsized 600 mm storm sewer south of Joseph Street. This has been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 6.2 Wixson Street The performance of the Wixson Street storm sewer for the existing conditions assessment has been simulated as surcharged during the 5-year storm event, for approximately 400 m of storm sewer. There is approximately 180 m (+/-) of 450 mm diameter storm sewer from Central Street northward, while the remainder of the storm sewer is 300 mm in diameter. The cause of the surcharging is two-fold; there is insufficient capacity within the storm sewer to convey the 5-year peak flow rate, and there is a backwater condition caused by the undersized Central Street storm sewer. The Wixson Street major system is generally flat with no ditches or curb and gutter. The major system has been simulated as surcharged beyond the ROW to the homes for both the 5 and 100-year storm events for 76 m (+/-) north of Central Street. The available storm sewer and manhole data indicates the elevation of the Central Street ROW is greater than the Wixson Street ROW elevation, which would prevent a major system outlet from Wixson Street to Central Street. This could be mitigated by lowering the Central Street ROW. Significant modifications to the Wixson Street ROW, such as implementing curb and gutter or raising the ROW, are not feasible; the ROW is narrow with a width of 7.5 m (+/-) and while such modifications would likely improve conveyance to Central Street, the drainage from the private properties to the ROW would be impacted and could cause further flooding risks. Do Nothing: This alternative does not mitigate the major or minor system deficiencies on Wixson Street or the potential impacts to the residential properties on Wixson Street. The flood damage and operations and maintenance costs associated with the cleanup and repairs incurred due to major storm events would continue. Increase Storm Sewer Size: The last two (2) sections of the Wixson Street storm sewer would be increased in diameter from 450 mm to 525 mm for 85 m (+/-) and to 600 mm for 7 m (+/-). Additionally, ten (10) single catch basins and two (2) twin catch basins would be constructed and connected to the existing and proposed storm sewer sections to mitigate the major system performance. The Wixson Street storm sewer would not be surcharged during the 5-year storm event and the performance of the major system would be improved to not flow beyond the ROW to the homes. This has been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 6.3 Old Brock Road The capacity of the existing Old Brock Road east ditch, between Lane Street and Joseph Street, has been simulated as exceeded during the 100-year storm event. The ditch is 300 m (+/-) in length with a flood risk to the adjacent residential and commercial properties. The capacity of the Joseph Street ROW, between Wixson Street and Old Brock Road, has also been simulated as exceeded during the 100-year storm event. The section of roadway is approximately 85 m (+/-) in length, with residential buildings constructed at the limits of the ROW. Drainage from Joseph Street is conveyed westward toward Old Brock Road. There is a flood risk to those residential buildings during the 100-year storm event. Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 43 - 104 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report In addition to the ditch capacity exceedance, the 375 mm diameter, 62 m (+/-) long Old Brock Road storm sewer, between Henry Street and Central Street, has been simulated as surcharged to the surface during the 5-year storm event. Do Nothing: This alternative does not mitigate the drainage system deficiencies on Old Brock Road or the potential impacts to the residential properties on Old Brock Road. The flood damage and operations and maintenance costs associated with the cleanup and repairs incurred due to major storm events would continue. Implement New Storm Sewers: A 450 mm diameter storm sewer and ditch inlet catch basin would be installed on Old Brock Road, in addition to installing two (2) double catch basins on Joseph Street between Wixson Street and Old Brock Road. The storm sewer would commence 130 m south of Lane Street with a ditch inlet catch basin, approximate to where the capacity of the ditch is exceeded. The storm sewer would extend to Central Street where the existing 375 mm diameter storm sewer would be replaced, with a total length of 350 m (+/-) of new storm sewer. The proposed storm sewer would discharge to the proposed Central Street storm sewer and ultimately discharge to the West Channel, as per the existing conditions, with no change to the drainage outlet. The proposed storm sewer would reduce the runoff conveyed via the major system and mitigate the major and minor drainage system deficiencies on Old Brock Road, and the major system drainage system deficiencies on Joseph Street. This has been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 6.4 William Street-Canso Drive The existing 675 mm diameter storm sewers on William Street and Canso Drive, totaling 210 m (+/-), are surcharged during the 5-year storm event and surcharged to the surface during the 100-year storm event. In addition to the runoff conveyed to the storm sewer from William Street and Canso Drive, the storm sewers also convey the flow from Central Street and the upstream contributing drainage area of 15.8 ha (+/-). The storm sewers discharge to the West Channel at the west end of the pedestrian walkway; the storm sewer within the pedestrian walkway is a 910 mm diameter CSP. The flow is contained to the ROW during the 100-year storm event, however, there is a major system spill of 1.0 m3/s from Canso Drive to the West Channel through the pedestrian walkway located between 4994 and 4996 Canso Drive. GIS data received from the City indicates that there is a 6 m (+/-) easement adjacent to the pedestrian walkway. The William Street and Canso Street major systems consist of curb and gutter. Major system drainage on William Street is conveyed north to south to the Central Street ROW; conveyance beyond Central Street is impeded as the elevation of Central Street is greater than William Street. Major system drainage on Canso Drive is conveyed from Central Street to the sag in the road at the pedestrian walkway, located 100 m (+/-) south of Central Street. The crest of Canso Drive is located 220 m (+/-) south of Central Street. Do Nothing: This alternative does not mitigate the major or minor system deficiencies on William Street and Canso Drive or the potential impacts to the residential properties on William Street and Canso Drive. The flood damage and operations and maintenance costs associated with the cleanup and repairs incurred due to major storm events would continue. Increase Storm Sewer Size: The storm sewers on William Street and Canso Drive would be increased in diameter from 675 mm to 1050 mm. Similarly, the 910 mm diameter CSP within the pedestrian walkway would be increased to 1050 mm diameter. There is a depth of cover constraint, particularly at the Canso Drive sag, as such, the slope of the storm sewer pipes would be limited to 0.5 % (+/-). The upsized storm sewers would provide sufficient capacity beyond the 5-year storm event and would be surcharged between the obvert and the rim elevation during the 100-year storm event. Furthermore, the depth of flow within Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 44 - 105 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report the ROW would be reduced and there would be no flow from the Canso Drive ROW through the pedestrian walkway. This has been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 6.5 Central Street The existing conditions assessment identified the Central Street storm sewer as either surcharged or surcharged to the surface during the 5-year storm event, from Franklin Street to William Street/Canso Drive. The storm sewer is surcharged to the surface during the 100-year storm event, totaling 530 m (+/-) of storm sewer. Furthermore, the Barclay Street ditches, which discharge to the East Channel control manhole, are exceeded due to the surcharging of the Central Street storm sewers. There are two (2) minor system outlets for this storm sewer system; the first is located at the East Channel, 80 m (+/-) west of Franklin Street, where a control manhole diverts flow to the East Channel, while a diversion sewer provides conveyance westward to the second outlet. The second outlet is at the Canso Drive storm sewer which discharges to the West Channel. The Central Street major system outlets are consistent with the minor system outlets. There are limited major system deficiencies on Central Street between Franklin Street and William Street/Canso Drive as the Central Street ROW is generally greater in elevation than the perpendicular side streets, which prevents major system conveyance from the side streets to the Central Street ROW. Notwithstanding, there are two (2) locations within the identified section of roadway with simulated performance deficiencies during the 100-year storm event; the first is located at the south ditch, between Barclay Street and Victoria Street while the second located at the north ditch west of Dow Street. In addition to these locations, there are also three (3) locations with observed capacity deficiencies, however, have not been simulated with capacity deficiencies; two (2) are located at the north ditch on Central Street both east and west of Barber Street, while the third location is located at the north ditch east of Victoria Street. The recommended storm sewer diameter increases for Wixson Street, Old Brock Road, and William Street would result in additional capacity requirements for the Central Street storm sewer which conveys the minor system flow from the noted side streets to the respective outlet. Furthermore, the recommended Franklin Street storm sewer has been sized to convey the peak flow rate for the 100-year storm event, and the receiving Central Street storm sewer will also have to convey the 100-year Franklin Street peak flow rate. An increase to the Central Street storm sewer capacity to convey the Franklin Street 100-year storm event peak flow rate will result in peak flow rate increases to the East Channel. This is unacceptable as there is a simulated existing condition capacity deficiency for the East Channel in addition to observed capacity issues. Undertaking channel rehabilitation works is not an option for the East Channel as noted within Section 1.2 due to grading constraints and limited depth of cover on the TransCanada pipeline. The City has requested that the peak flow rates be reduced to the East Channel to mitigate the capacity deficiencies. Furthermore, there is a documented wetland toward the downstream limit of the East Channel, located between Livingston Street and Claremont Memorial Park, which extends southwest beyond Old Brock Road. The less frequent storm event peak flow rates (2-year storm event and less) cannot be reduced to this wetland area nor the channel further downstream as there is potential Redside Dace habitat, which is a Species at Risk. Due to the potential increase in peak flow rate, a quantity control storage facility is required to mitigate the peak flow rates conveyed to the East Channel. Two (2) locations have been identified for an underground SWM storage tank; Claremont Memorial Park, and within the Central Street ROW at the intersection with William Street/Canso Street. A description of each alternative is provided below. Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 45 - 106 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report Do Nothing: This alternative does not mitigate the major or minor system deficiencies on Franklin Street or the potential impacts to the residential properties on Franklin Street. The flood damage and operations and maintenance costs associated with the clean up and repairs incurred due to major storm events would continue. Combination 1, Diversion and Offline Storage – Claremont Memorial Park: Increase the storm sewer size from 450 mm diameter to 750 mm diameter, from Franklin Street to the manhole located 50 m (+/-) west of Franklin Street. The next leg of storm sewer would be increased from 450 mm diameter to a 735 mm x 1145 mm horizontal elliptical pipe and would discharge to the control manhole at the East Channel outlet. A horizontal elliptical pipe has been selected due to depth of cover constraints upstream of the control manhole. Four (4) orifice controls would be required to maintain the existing conditions peak flow rates while also conveying flow westward to the proposed storage tank; the orifice dimensions are summarized in Table 6.1. Table 6.1. East Channel Control Manhole Orifice Stage and Sizing Orifice Stage Discharge Location - East Channel Discharge Location - Central Street Storm Sewer Primary 50 mm Diameter orifice 390 mm Diameter orifice Secondary 3000 mm x 460 mm (W x H) Rectangular orifice 500 mm x 600 mm (W x H) Rectangular orifice As noted within Table 6.1, the four (4) orifices vary in size and geometry, while the largest orifice is the secondary orifice for the East Channel, at 3000 mm x 460 mm, which would necessitate a 3600 mm diameter control manhole to be installed to implement the orifice controls. The orifice control dimensions could be optimized at the next stages of planning and design as the discharge peak flow rates have been established through this assessment. The existing 600 mm diameter pipe from the control manhole to the outfall would be replaced with a 735 mm x 1145 mm horizontal elliptical pipe. This outfall pipe would need to be increased otherwise the upstream storm sewers would surcharge to the surface during less frequent storm events. Consequently, the outfall headwall would also have to be replaced. A comparison of the existing and proposed conditions peak flow rates discharged to the East Channel from the control manhole are provided in Table 6.2. Table 6.2. East Channel Outfall at Central Street 2-100 Year 12 Hour AES Peak Flow Rate Comparison (m3/s) Scenario 2 Year 5 Year 10 Year 25 Year 50 Year 100 Year Existing Condition 0.294 0.580 0.745 1.016 1.190 1.354 Proposed Condition 0.299 0.537 0.683 0.849 0.959 1.048 Difference (m3/s) +0.005 -0.043 -0.062 -0.168 -0.231 -0.306 Difference (%) +1.84 -7.46 -8.34 -16.49 -19.40 -22.60 As shown in Table 6.2, the proposed 2-year storm event peak flow rate is maintained while the 5-year and 100-year peak flow rates have been reduced by 7.5 % to 22.6 % respectfully. The excess flow conveyed to the control manhole would be conveyed to the revised Central Street diversion storm sewer. Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 46 - 107 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report The existing 450 mm diameter diversion storm sewer that is conveyed westward on Central Street to the Canso Drive would be replaced with a 675 mm storm sewer that is conveyed westward to Victoria Street and would discharge to a 2,950 m3 (+/-) underground SWM storage tank located below the baseball diamond within Claremont Memorial Park. As such, no flow would be conveyed from the East Channel control manhole to the West Channel via Central Street. The tank would have a footprint area of 2,700 m 2 (+/-) and a depth of 1.1 m (+/-). A 300 mm diameter outlet pipe would be installed from the SWM storage tank to a new outfall located on the west ditch downstream of the driveway culvert at 4934 Old Brock Road, approximately 100 m (+/-) south of the Claremont Memorial Park baseball diamond. The outlet pipe cannot be extended further south on Old Brock Road as it would interfere with the TransCanada pipeline that traverses Old Brock Road. The Old Brock Road west ditch is conveyed to the East Channel, at the downstream end of the 1200 mm diameter CSP culvert that traverses Old Brock Road. A comparison of the existing conditions and proposed conditions peak flow rates that would be discharged to the East Channel downstream of Old Brock Road is provided in Table 6.3. Table 6.3. East Channel Downstream of Old Brock Road 2-100 Year 12 Hour AES Peak Flow Rate Comparison (m3/s) Scenario Location 2 Year 5 Year 10 Year 25 Year 50 Year 100 Year Existing Condition East Channel 0.714 1.471 1.979 2.695 3.085 3.492 Existing Condition Old Brock Road West Ditch 0.055 0.087 0.106 0.129 0.145 0.162 Existing Condition Total 0.768 1.558 2.085 2.824 3.230 3.654 Proposed Condition East Channel 0.688 1.483 1.972 2.551 2.847 3.214 Proposed Condition Old Brock Road West Ditch 0.059 0.093 0.113 0.136 0.154 0.171 Proposed Condition Total 0.747 1.576 2.085 2.687 3.001 3.385 Difference (m3/s) Total -0.022 +0.017 -0.001 -0.137 -0.230 -0.269 Difference (%) Total -3.04 +1.19 -0.04 -5.07 -7.45 -7.70 As shown within Table 6.3, the peak flow rates conveyed to the East Channel downstream of Old Brock Road would be reduced for the 2, 10, 25, 50, and 100-year storm events, while there would be a moderate peak flow increase of 1.19 % (+/-) for the 5-year storm event. The capacity of the Old Brock Road west ditch has been reviewed within the PCSWMM model; there is sufficient capacity within the ditch to convey the 100-year storm event peak flow rate of 0.17 m3/s as the longitudinal slope has been estimated at 5.4 % (+/-). The Central Street storm sewer from Wixson Street to William Street / Canso Drive would also be upgraded to mitigate the surcharging conditions and provide capacity for increased flow rates from the upgraded storm sewers on Wixson Street, Old Brock Road, and Williams Street. The existing Central Street storm sewers range from 450 mm to 600 mm diameter while the upgraded storm sewers would be 600 mm to 825 mm diameter. As noted, no flow would be conveyed from the East Channel control manhole to the Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 47 - 108 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report West Channel via Central Street. The alternative is shown graphically within Figure 7. A comparison of the existing conditions and proposed conditions peak flow rates that would be discharged to the West Channel outfall at Canso Drive is provided in Table 6.4. Table 6.4. West Channel Outfall at Canso Drive 2-100 Year 12 Hour AES Peak Flow Rate Comparison (m3/s) Scenario 2 Year 5 Year 10 Year 25 Year 50 Year 100 Year Existing Condition 0.945 1.410 1.571 1.959 2.273 2.426 Proposed Condition 0.691 1.000 1.192 1.429 1.600 1.758 Difference (m3/s) -0.254 -0.410 -0.379 -0.530 -0.673 -0.668 Difference (%) -26.84 -29.08 -24.12 -27.05 -29.61 -27.54 As shown within Table 6.4, the peak flow rates for the 2-year through 100-year storm events would be reduced at the West Channel outfall by 0.25 m3/s to 0.67 m3/s (+/-). The Central Street storm sewer performance from Franklin Street to Williams Street / Canso Drive would be improved such that the storm sewers would convey the 5-year storm event with available capacity, while the Central Street major system performance deficiencies would be mitigated. Additionally, the performance of the Barclay Street ditches would be improved as the Central Street storm sewer would not be surcharged at the East Channel control manhole. The major and minor system performance results are shown on Figures 9 and 10 respectively. While the peak flow rates would be reduced to the East and West channels as shown in Tables 6.2 and 6.3, there would no change to the volume of runoff conveyed to the wetlands from the contributing drainage area. The impact to the wetlands is further discussed in the Wetland Assessment (Ref. Appendix E). The implementation of a new storm sewer on Victoria Street may likely be unfavourable to the Claremont community. Victoria Street was repaved within the last 10 years and new construction activities on Victoria Street may be viewed as an unnecessary cost to the residents of the Hamlet. Consequently, the residents would benefit from improved public safety both on private and public property, and flooding impacts would be mitigated to private property. Similarly, the underground SWM tank may be unfavourable at the baseball diamond within Claremont Memorial Park as rehabilitation would be required following construction, and this may be regarded as an unnecessary cost to the residents of the Hamlet for an existing baseball diamond. However, the construction staging and timing of the SWM tank within the park would be less restrictive and would be considered beneficial. To that end, the SWM tank would need to be constructed prior to implementing the storm sewer upgrades for the area contributing to the SWM tank; the storm sewers could be constructed in an upstream direction. Similarly, the storm sewer upgrades for the area contributing to the West Channel would also need to be constructed in an upstream direction; these storm sewers could be constructed concurrently with the area contributing to the SWM tank as there is no proposed connection between the storm sewer systems. A review of available drawings from the City has demonstrated that there is limited information regarding existing utilities within the ROW. Known utilities include gas lines, Bell Canada communication lines, and hydro poles, in addition to the existing storm sewers. However, the identified utilities are not consistent for the full length of the ROW. City Staff have indicated that the properties within the Hamlet are serviced with Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 48 - 109 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report dug/drilled wells and septic tanks; sanitary sewers and water mains have not been identified within the available drawings. A preliminary cost to implement the storm sewer diversion and offline SWM tank storage within Claremont Memorial Park, in addition to the sub alternatives for the side streets, would be $6,518,000 with preliminary annual operations and maintenance costs of $3,000 (ref. Appendix L). It is anticipated that all the disturbed roadways would be restored to the existing conditions where applicable; the preliminary road restoration cost for all the proposed works would be $514,000. Wood will also note that there is an opportunity to coordinate the proposed drainage upgrades with the reconstruction of Central Street by the Region as a joint venture, as Central Street is a Regional Road. The evaluation of this alternative is provided in Table 6.6. Combination 2, Offline Storage – Central Street ROW at Canso Drive: The storm sewer upgrades from Franklin Street to the East Channel control manhole as noted for the Claremont Memorial Park storage alternative would be consistent for this alternative. The existing 450 mm diameter Central Street diversion storm sewer from the East Channel control manhole would be replaced with a 675 mm diameter storm sewer to Wixson Street. The existing Central Street 450 mm diameter storm sewer west of Wixson Street would be upgraded to a 750 mm diameter storm sewer, increasing in size to a 975 mm diameter storm sewer east of Williams Street / Canso Drive. Underground storage tanks would also be required for this alternative to mitigate the peak flow rate increases to the West Channel due to the increased flow through the diversion storm sewer at the East Channel control manhole. Three (3) SWM tanks would be required within the Central Street ROW near Williams Street / Canso Drive to mitigate the peak flow rate increases to the West Channel; the volumes of the tanks would be 840 m3, 980 m3, and 480 m3 (+/-). While one tank with an equivalent combined volume of the three (3) tanks would likely be preferrable, the tanks have been proposed to be primarily within the boulevard on both sides of the road such that the full closure of the road would not been required during the construction period. The location of the tanks would also provide a corridor at the centreline of the road should additional utilities need to be implemented in the future. The preliminary layout of the tanks has been placed 3 m from the property line to facilitate excavation without impacting private property. The preferred layout locations could be undertaken as the next stages of planning and design. The alternative is shown graphically within Figure 8. A comparison of the existing conditions and proposed conditions peak flow rates that would be discharged to the West Channel outfall at Canso Drive is provided in Table 6.5. Table 6.5. West Channel Outfall at Canso Drive 2-100 Year 12 Hour AES Peak Flow Rate Comparison (m3/s) Scenario 2 Year 5 Year 10 Year 25 Year 50 Year 100 Year Existing Condition 0.945 1.410 1.571 1.959 2.273 2.426 Proposed Condition 0.722 1.135 1.385 1.649 1.688 1.733 Difference (m3/s) -0.223 -0.275 -0.186 -0.310 -0.585 -0.693 Difference (%) -23.57 -19.50 -11.84 -15.82 -25.74 -28.57 The peak flow rates shown within Table 6.5 demonstrate that the discharge at the West Channel would be reduced by 0.22 m3/s to 0.69 m3/s (+/-) for the 2 to 100-year storm events respectively. The Central Street Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 49 - 110 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report storm sewer performance would be improved to convey the 5-year storm event with available capacity, while the Central Street major system performance deficiencies would be mitigated. The major and minor system performance results are shown on Figures 11 and 12 respectively. Consistent with the Claremont Memorial Park SWM tank alternative, there would no change to the volume of runoff conveyed to the wetlands from the contributing drainage area. The construction impacts due to the implementation of a SWM tanks within Central Street may likely be unfavourable to the Claremont community as there would be vehicular and pedestrian traffic impacts during the construction period. Furthermore, the construction staging and timing would be more restrictive for construction within the ROW. To that end, the SWM tank would need to be constructed prior to implementing the storm sewer upgrades for the area contributing to the SWM tank; the storm sewers could be constructed in an upstream direction. Consequently, the construction of the Franklin Street storm sewer upgrades would not be constructed until all the downstream storm infrastructure was constructed. Plastic rectangular storage tanks (or approved equivalent) have been identified for implementation within the Central Street ROW. A plastic storage tank that can be sealed should be selected to prevent interaction with groundwater (there is evidence to suggest there is a high groundwater table within the study area), while the tanks should be designed to sustain a 60 Ton load with a minimum cover of 800 mm. Additional details can be established at the next stages of planning and design. Similarly, to the Claremont Memorial Park SWM tank alternative, there is limited information regarding existing utilities within the Central Street ROW. Known utilities include gas lines, Bell Canada communication lines, and hydro poles, in addition to the existing storm sewers; the identified utilities are not consistent for the full length of the ROW. A preliminary cost to implement the storm sewer diversion and offline SWM tank storage within the Central Street ROW, in addition to the sub alternatives for the side streets, would be $5,474,000 with preliminary annual operations and maintenance costs of $3,000 (ref. Appendix L). It is anticipated that the roadways would be restored to the existing conditions where applicable; the restoration costs for the Central Street ROW alternative would be less than the Claremont Memorial Park alternative, at $435,00. Wood will also note that there is an opportunity to coordinate the proposed drainage upgrades with the reconstruction of Central Street by the Region as a joint venture, as Central Street is a Regional Road. The evaluation of this alternative is provided in Table 6.6. 6.6 Canso Drive-Acorn Lane The exiting 300 mm diameter storm sewers on Canso Drive and Acorn Lane and the existing 500 mm diameter storm sewers through the easement to the rear yards of the properties on Acorn Lane have been simulated as surcharged above the obvert during the 5-year storm event. The 300 mm diameter storm sewer on Canso Drive has been simulated as surcharged to the surface during the 100-year storm event. Standing water has also been observed at the outfall to the 500 mm storm sewer in the easement to the rear yards of the properties on Acorn Lane. There is no outlet for the flow conveyed to the sag at the intersection of Canso Drive and Acorn Lane. The simulated depth of ponding at the sag during the 100-year storm event is 0.36 m (+/-). Do Nothing: This alternative does not mitigate the major or minor system deficiencies on Canso Drive at Acorn Lane or the potential impacts to the residential properties on Canso Drive at Acorn Lane. The flood damage and operations and maintenance costs associated with the cleanup and repairs incurred due to major storm events would continue. Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 50 - 111 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report Increase Storm Sewer Size: The existing 300 mm diameter storm sewers on Canso Drive and Acorn Lane would be replaced with 450 mm diameter storm sewers to mitigate the surcharging during the 5-year storm event. Offline Storage: A 312 m3 SWM tank would be constructed within the east boulevard on Canso Drive, to mitigate flooding at the sag in the ROW and storm sewer surcharging during the 100-storm event. LID BMPs: There is potential to implement an infiltration gallery, dependent on the seasonal high groundwater levels within the area; records indicate they are high in Claremont) and infiltration rates. The infiltration gallery would promote groundwater recharge and should be considered at the next stages of planning and design. Combination: The strategic combination of the preceding alternatives of upsizing the existing 300 mm diameter storm sewer to 450 mm diameter and implementing offline storage within the Canso Drive boulevard has been considered to improve drainage conveyance and mitigate ponding water during major storm events. The mitigation efforts at this location are considered to be of low priority as there is limited risk of flooding to the residential properties, and this would be considered nuisance flooding or standing water. This has been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 6.7 Lane Street The drainage on Lane Street, at the north end of the Hamlet of Claremont, is conveyed east to west. East of Wixson Street, the runoff on the south side of Lane Street is conveyed to Wixson Street, while west of Wixson Street the runoff is conveyed west to Old Brock Road and southward on Old Brock Road. The runoff on the north side of Lane Street is conveyed to the Old Brock Road intersection, where it is conveyed northward within the Old Brock Road roadside ditch. The Lane Street cross section has been estimated from online data (Google Street View TM) in lieu of onsite measurements. An existing sidewalk and curb are located on the south side of the street while there is a shallow, 2 cm (+/-) deep, asphalt gutter on the north side of the street which outlets to the Old Brock Road ditch. The PCSWMM model simulation has not indicated drainage issues on Lane Street as the model is likely not sufficiently discretized; notwithstanding, correspondence from a resident has indicated that standing water has been observed on the east side of the intersection of Lane Street and Old Brock Road during major storm events. It is anticipated that the standing water at the intersection has been caused by poor grading at the intersection. Appropriate alternatives have been reviewed for this localized area. Do Nothing: This alternative does not mitigate the major system deficiencies on Lane Street or the potential impacts to the residential properties on Lane Street. The flood damage and operations and maintenance costs associated with the cleanup and repairs incurred due to major storm events would continue. Re-Ditching: The Old Brock Road northeast and southeast ditches would be re-ditched to provide improved drainage conveyance away from the intersection of the Old Brock Road and Lane Street. Ponding would be reduced at the intersection once improvements have been made to the outlets. Modify Grading on Public Property: There are limited opportunities to improve the grading on Lane Street as the ROW is relatively narrow at 10 m wide (+/-) for two (2) lanes of traffic and a sidewalk, and the area is developed. Furthermore, the longitudinal regrading of Lane Street However, the road grade and the crown within the ROW could be improved, particularly at the intersection of Lane Street and Old Brock Road. An increase to the road crown would increase the slope on both sides of the road to ensure runoff is conveyed to both sides of the roadway and to the ditches on Old Brock Road, while also mitigating the ponding at the intersection. Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 51 - 112 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report Combination: The strategic combination of the preceding alternatives of re-ditching the east Old Brock Road ditches and modifying the grading within the Lane Street ROW has been considered to improve drainage conveyance from the intersection and mitigate ponding water during major storm events. This has been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 6.8 Wellington Street The existing Wellington Street north ditches between Victoria Street and Livingston Street have been simulated as exceeded during the less frequent storm events. A review of the results has shown that the ditches are exceeded at the sag in the road, where the East Channel traverses the road via a 750 mm CSP culvert, while the ditches are not exceeded near Victoria Street or Livingston Street. The East Channel through this area is surcharged, and causing a backwater condition within the ditches which impedes the conveyance within the ditches. The proposed Central Street storm sewer upgrades and revised orifice controls at the East Channel control manhole would reduce the peak flow rate conveyed to the channel, however, would not fully mitigate the surcharged East Channel or the impact to the Wellington Street ditches. It is anticipated that the exceedance of the ditches during the 100-year storm event would not impact the residential structures on the north side of Wellington Street, however, the flow may encroach on the front yards of the private properties. Ditch Re-Profiling: Re-profiling the ditches would not improve the ditch performance due to the flow rates conveyed to the East Channel, which will impact the drainage from the ditches. Do Nothing: This alternative does not mitigate the major system deficiencies on Wellington Street or the potential impacts to the residential properties on Wellington Street. The flood damage and operations and maintenance costs associated with the clean up and repairs incurred due to major storm events would continue. This has been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 6.9 Livingston Street The capacity of the existing east ditch on Livingston Street has been simulated as exceeded during the 100 year storm event, from Wellington Street to the easement ditch at the East Channel, a distance of 175 m (+/-). There is a 375 mm CSP culvert that traverses Livingston Street; this culvert conveys runoff from the east ditch to the easement ditch as the culvert does not provide sufficient capacity. The easement ditch between the Livingston Street and the East Channel has also been simulated as exceeded. There is potential for the flow within the ditches to exceed the banks and spill onto private property, however, it is not anticipated that any residential buildings would be impacted on Livingston Street. Standing water has also been observed in the east ditch, south of the 375 mm CSP culvert. The following alternatives have been considered for Livingston Street. Do Nothing: This alternative does not mitigate the ditch performance deficiencies on Livingston Street or the potential impacts to the residential properties on Livingston Street. The flood damage and operations and maintenance costs associated with the clean up and repairs incurred due to major storm events would continue. Twin Existing Culvert: The existing 375 mm CSP culvert would be twinned to provide greater flow capacity from the Livingston Street east ditch to the easement ditch. There would be moderate construction impacts as the road would have to undergo opencut excavation to install the culvert; the duration of the construction is not anticipated to be a lengthy process and could likely be completed within a single day. Ditch Re-Profiling: The east Livingston Street ditch and the easement ditch would be re-profiled to provide additional conveyance capacity. There is sufficient space within the ROW to widen the Livingston Street Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 52 - 113 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report east ditch from 1.8 m (+/-) wide to 2.5 m wide. Similarly, the easement ditch would be reprofiled from a 3.5 m (+/-) wide and 0.25 m (+/-) v-ditch to a 1.5 m (+/-) bottom width trapezoidal ditch with a depth of 0.25 m (+/-). The easement ditch would likely still be exceeded at the downstream end at the confluence with the East Channel, however, the depth of flow at the upstream end would be contained to the ditch. Combination: The strategic combination of the preceding alternatives of re-ditching the east Livingston Street ditch and the easement ditch in addition to twinning the 375 mm has been considered to improve drainage conveyance and mitigate ponding water during major storm events. The mitigation efforts at this location are considered to be of low priority as there is limited risk of flooding to the residential properties, and this would be considered nuisance flooding or standing water. This has been selected as the Preferred Alternative. Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 53 - 114 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report Table 6.6. Evaluation of the Central Street (Regional Road 5) Drainage Alternatives Evaluation Category Evaluation Criteria Do Nothing - Comment Do Nothing - Grade Diversion to a SWM Tank within Claremont Memorial Park - Comment Diversion to a SWM Tank within Claremont Memorial Park - Grade Diversion to SWM Tanks within the Central Street ROW - Comment Diversion to SWM Tanks within the Central Street ROW – Grade Functional Effectiveness No improvement -1 Mitigates the major and minor drainage system deficiencies +1 Mitigates the major and minor drainage system deficiencies +1 Environmental Impacts to Aquatic Systems Not applicable 0 The East Channel peak flow rates would be maintained at the Old Brock Road culvert The West Channel peak flow rate would be reduced at the Canso Drive outfall 0 The East Channel peak flow rates would be maintained at the Old Brock Road culvert The West Channel peak flow rate would be reduced at the Canso Drive outfall 0 Environmental Impacts to Terrestrial Systems Not applicable 0 No significant impacts to the terrestrial systems 0 No significant impacts to the terrestrial systems 0 Social Improve Public Safety No improvement -1 Reduced flooding would improve public safety +1 Reduced flooding would improve public safety +1 Social Impacts to Private Property No improvement -1 The flooding impacts to private properties would be mitigated +1 The flooding impacts to private properties would be mitigated +1 Social Impacts to Public Property No improvement -1 There would be construction impacts to the Claremont Memorial Park and the ROW -1.0 There would be construction impacts to the ROW -0.5 Economic Capital Costs Not applicable 0 Preliminary capital cost $6,518,000 Road restoration cost $514,000 -1 Preliminary capital cost $5,474,000 Road restoration cost $435,000 -0.5 Economic Operations and Maintenance Costs Not applicable 0 Preliminary annual operations and maintenance cost $3,000 -0.5 Preliminary annual operations and maintenance cost $3,000 -0.5 Constructability Ease of Construction and Accessibility Not Applicable 0 Construction impacts to recently improved public park and Victoria Street -1 Construction impacts to the Central Street (Regional Road 5) ROW requires Region of Durham approval -0.5 Constructability Construction Staging and Timing Not Applicable 0 Staging and timing would be less restrictive due to implementation within the park -0.5 Staging and timing would be more restrictive due to implementation within the Central Street ROW -0.5 Results -4 -1.0 +0.5 Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 54 - 115 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report 7.0 Preferred Alternatives, Prioritization and Implementation 7.1 Prioritization Drainage system improvements have been recommended for Central Street based on their functional performance (i.e. their ability to address the identified drainage system deficiency), as well as other criteria related to environmental, social, economic and constructability considerations. Drainage system improvements have also been recommended for the areas that convey runoff to the Central Street drainage system or convey flow from the Central Street drainage system; the functional performance is the primary criteria for these areas of concern. Similarly, recommendations have been provided for areas of concern that do not receive or convey drainage to or from Central Street; the functional performance is also the primary criteria for these areas, however, these areas are considered to be of lower priority due to a lower risk of flooding impacts or frequency. The preferred alternatives for the areas of concern which convey runoff to or from the Central Street drainage system would mitigate the major and minor system performance deficiencies. The preferred alternatives include storm sewer upgrades, installing new storm sewers, and implementing additional catch basins. The preferred alternatives are summarized within Table 7.1. The implementation of these preferred alternatives would result in increased peak flow rates to the Central Street drainage system, particularly from the Franklin Street drainage improvements. Therefore, the Central Street drainage system would require to be upgraded prior to implementing the contributing drainage system improvements. The implementation of the preferred alternatives for the areas of concern which convey runoff to or from the Central Street drainage system are considered to be a high priority, and should be constructed following the construction of the Central Street preferred alternative. The preferred alternative for the Central Street drainage system, and for the mitigation of the increased peak flow rates due to the contributing area drainage system improvements, is to divert runoff from the East Channel control manhole westward via a diversion storm sewer to three (3) proposed underground SWM storage tanks within the Central Street ROW at the intersection with Williams Street / Canso Drive. The SWM tanks would discharge to the Canso Drive storm sewer and the West Channel outfall located behind the residential property at 4994 Canso Drive. This preferred alternative would mitigate the peak flow rates discharging to the East and West channels, while also mitigating the Central Street major and minor system performance deficiencies. Central Street (Regional Road 5) is owned by the Region of Durham and coordination and approval with the Region of Durham is required to implement the proposed works within Central Street. The Region has indicated that Central Street will be reconstructed as part of a separate project undertaking. The preferred alternatives for the areas of concern that do not contribute to Central Street, such as Lane Street, Livingston Street, and Canso Drive at Acorn Lane, (ref. Table 7.1) are considered to be of lower priority and these works should be undertaken following the completion of the Central Street preferred alternative. 7.2 Implementation The following should be considered prior to conducting detailed design of the preferred alternatives: 1. A Stage 2 archaeological assessment by means of test pit survey should be conducted in those areas of archaeological potential, and a pedestrian archaeological survey should be conducted at 5-m intervals on open agricultural fields. 2. Site-specific inventories of the key Natural Heritage features and the habitat of SAR should be conducted to determine the need for additional assessment, mitigation, and permitting. 3. Additional assessment of the West and East Wetlands as indicated in Section 8 Wetland Assessment. Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 55 - 116 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report Table 7.1. Summary of the Preferred Alternatives and the Prioritization Priority Location Preferred Alternative High William Street / Canso Drive Upsize the storm sewers from Henry Street to the outfall at the West Channel (250 m (+/-) of 1050 mm diameter storm sewer). High Central Street Upsize storm sewers from Franklin Street to William Street / Canso Drive and construct three (3) underground SWM tanks within the Central Street ROW; 400 m (+/-) of storm sewers ranging in size from 750 mm to 975 mm. High Franklin Street Install new storm sewers on Franklin Street from 100 m north of Joseph Street to Joseph Street, increase the storm sewer sizes on Franklin Street from Joseph Street to Central Street, and install four (4) twin catch basins, two (2) single catch basins, and three (3) ditch inlet catch basins; the total length of storm sewer is 280 m (+/-) ranging in diameter from 600 mm to 750 mm. High Old Brock Road Implement new storm sewers and catch basins on Old Brock Road from 170 m (+/-) north of Joseph Street to Henry Street; catch basins should also be installed on Joseph Street. The existing 375 mm diameter and 60 m (+/-) long storm sewer north of Central Street would be increased to 450 mm diameter. High Wixson Street Install ten (10) single new catch basins and two (2) twin catch basins on Wixson Street between Lane Street and Central Street. Increase the diameter of the existing 450 mm 85 m (+/-) long storm sewer north of Central Street to be 525 mm diameter. Low Lane Street Regrade the east side of the Lane Street and Old Brock Road intersection to convey drainage away from the intersection. Re-profile the existing east Old Brock Road ditch. Low Livingston Street Reprofile the east Livingston Street ditch, twin the existing 375 mm CSP culvert that traverses the roadway, and reprofile the easement ditch between Livingston Street and the East Channel. Low Canso Drive – Acorn Lane Upsize the existing 300 mm diameter storm sewers on Canso Drive and Acorn Lane, 90 m (+/-) and 85 m (+/-) respectively, to be 450 mm diameter, and implement a storage tank within the Canso Drive boulevard. Low Wellington Street Do nothing; the reduction in peak flow rates discharging to the East Channel will mitigate the impacts to the Wellington Street roadside ditches, however, will not fully mitigate the risk of flooding to the adjacent properties. Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 56 - 117 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report 8.0 Wetland Assessment Drainage from the Hamlet of Claremont is primarily conveyed to two (2) channels, identified as the East and West Channel, which convey runoff to two (2) wetlands features downstream of and within the channels. The Claremont Drainage Plan MCEA preferred alternative has recommended to divert flow from the East Channel to the West Channel while also implementing stormwater management quantity controls. The proposed quantity controls would largely mitigate potential peak flow rate increases at the West Channel, however, there would be an increase in the runoff volume discharged at the storm sewer outfall to the West Channel based on the City of Pickering 2 -100 year AES 12 hour design storm events. Consequently, there would be a reduction in the runoff volume discharged at the storm sewer outfall to the East Channel. The Wetland Water Balance Risk Evaluation (TRCA, November 2017) has been used to determine the hydrological impact to the two (2) wetlands; a surrogate approach has been used based on the change in runoff volume rather than the change in imperviousness or catchment size. The increase in runoff volume to the West Wetland would be greater than 10 % and less than 25 % and the magnitude of runoff volume change (hydrological change) would be considered Medium as per Table 2 within the Wetland Water Balance Risk Evaluation (TRCA, November 2017). The decrease in runoff volume to the East Wetland would be less than 10 % and the magnitude of runoff volume change (hydrological change) would be considered Low as per Table 2 within the Wetland Water Balance Risk Evaluation (TRCA, November 2017). A desktop review of available resources has been completed to evaluate the ecological sensitivity of the wetlands: The data indicated that there are low sensitivity vegetation species within the West Wetland, and limited data for the East Wetland; conservatively, a medium sensitivity has been used for the East wetland vegetation species. The data was reviewed for known fauna within the wetlands; the combined sensitivities of known fauna within the wetlands is High due to the presence of High sensitivity species, the Northern Leopard Frog. The overall sensitivity ranking for flora within the subject wetlands is Medium (conservative estimate in absence of formal species list). Significant Wildlife Habitat for high sensitivity species (amphibians) is thought to be present in the subject wetlands based on observations of multiple amphibian species; as such, the sensitivity rating is High. The subsequent wetland hydrological sensitivity and ecological sensitivity have been reviewed in reference to the Project Risk Decision Tree within the Wetland Water Balance Risk Evaluation (TRCA, November 2017). The magnitude of hydrological change (Medium and Low) and the sensitivity of the wetland (High) were considered, and the decision tree points to High (west wetland) and Low (east wetland) risk under these parameters. Due to the high sensitivity of the west wetland, additional flow monitoring, a groundwater characterization, and hydrological continuous simulation modeling is required in addition to further consultation with TRCA. The east wetland does not require additional monitoring due to the evaluation sensitivity of a low risk; further non-continuous hydrological monitoring would be required. Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 57 - 118 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report 9.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 9.1 Conclusions The following conclusions have been prepared based on the findings of this study: 1. A validated PCSWMM hydrologic/hydraulic model has been developed to simulate the existing Hamlet of Claremont drainage system to identify areas of concern based on the performance of the major and minor conveyance systems. The model has been validated with six (6) observed rainfall events recorded from April 27, 2017, to June 26, 2017, which coincides to flow data recorded at three (3) locations. The model has been simulated with the City 5- and 100-year 12-hour AES design storm events. 2. Storm sewers identified with insufficient capacity during the 5-year storm event include Franklin Street, Central Street between Franklin Street and Canso Drive, Canso Drive south of Central Street, and William Street between Henry Street and Central Street. Major systems (roadways) that do not have adequate flow capacity include Franklin Street, Barclay Street, Livingston Street, Wixson Street, Canso Street, and Old Brock Road. 3. A cultural heritage assessment has been completed and identified one (1) property, The Mason’s Union Lodge, Brougham Union at 4953 Old Brock Road, which is protected by an easement agreement with the City of Pickering under Section 37 of the Ontario Heritage Act. However, this cultural heritage assessment has recorded 64 heritage resources or potential heritage resources near the proposed drainage infrastructure improvements. 4. A Stage 1 archaeological assessment background study has been conducted For the Claremont Study Area to assess the archaeological potential based on its historical use and its potential for early Euro- Canadian (early settler) and pre-contact Aboriginal occupation. The archeological assessment concluded that undisturbed portions of the study area have archaeological potential due to the presence of watercourses within the study area, a clear pattern of pre-contact Aboriginal and historic Euro-Canadian land use in the vicinity, and due to the historic nature of the Hamlet which contains historically important transportation routes. 5. Improvements to the existing drainage in the Hamlet of Claremont may intersect with several environmental constraints, including Key Hydrological Features (permanent/intermittent streams, wetlands), Key Natural Heritage Features (wetlands, woodlands, significant wildlife habitat, fish habitat), and SAR and/or their habitats. 6. The wetland hydrological sensitivity and ecological sensitivity have been reviewed as per the supporting Wetland Assessment; the Wetland Assessment was completed at the request of TRCA. The magnitude of hydrological change (Medium and Low) and the sensitivity of the wetland (High) were considered according to the Wetland Water Balance Risk Evaluation (TRCA, November 2017); the wetlands are considered to be, High (west wetland) and Low (east wetland) risk under these parameters. 9.2 Recommendations The following recommendations have been prepared based on the findings of this study: 1. The preferred alternative of upsizing the Central Street storm sewer from Franklin Street to Williams Street / Canso Drive, in addition to the upsizing of storms sewers which contribute to Central Street, has been recommended for implementation to address the ongoing drainage deficiencies to the major and minor systems. Three (3) underground stormwater management tanks will be required to address the peak flow rate increases to the West Channel outfall, at Canso Drive. The preliminary cost for the construction of all the recommended works is the $5,474,000 with an additional $435,000 for road restoration works following construction. The preliminary annual operations and maintenance cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $3,000. Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 58 - 119 - Claremont Drainage Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report 2. Construction within rights of way such as Central Street (Regional Road 5) can be disruptive to the existing community and natural environment. As such, construction impacts should be mitigated to limit the disruption to the community and through traffic while ensuring that appropriate restoration measures are applied to the ROW and private property if required. Excessive construction noise and dust could impact the natural heritage systems (i.e. vegetation, wetlands, birds, and other wildlife). Mitigation measures should be considered at the next stages of planning and design to address short- term impacts while ensure there are no long-term impacts to these systems. 3. To mitigate the impacts to the cultural heritage of the community during construction, a series of recommendations have been provided which are summarized as implementing construction fencing at cultural heritage resources, applying standard construction techniques, replacing trees where necessary, and the projected drainage work should be engineered to ensure that the heritage character of the buildings and landscapes is not unduly impacted or obscured. 4. Prior to implementing the recommended drainage system improvements, a Stage 2 archaeological assessment by means of test pit survey should be conducted in those areas of archaeological potential, and a pedestrian archaeological survey should be conducted at 5-m intervals on open agricultural fields. 5. In advance of the execution of any drainage improvements, site-specific inventories of the key Natural Heritage features (if works are proposed within minimum areas of influence) and the habitat of SAR should be conducted to determine the need for additional assessment (e.g., Natural Heritage Evaluation), mitigation, and permitting. 6. Additional flow monitoring, a groundwater characterization, and hydrological continuous simulation modeling is required in addition to further consultation with TRCA for the West Wetland as recommended within the supporting Wetland Assessment. The east wetland was considered a low risk following the wetland sensitivity evaluation and does not require additional monitoring due, however, further non-continuous hydrological monitoring would be required. Report prepared by, Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, a Division of Wood Canada Limited Per: Steve Chipps, P. Eng. Per: Patrick MacDonald, P. Eng. Associate Engineer, Water Resources Water Resources Engineer Project # TPB168152 | May 10, 2022 Page 59 - 120 - ACORN LN CA R P E N T E R C T CA N S O D R OL D B R O C K R D DO W S T HENRY ST DAVID ST WI L L I A M S T LANE ST OL D B R O C K R D JOSEPH ST BA R C L A Y S T FR A N K L I N S T BA R B E R S T LO R N S T WELLINGTON ST VI C T O R I A S T LI V I N G S T O N S T BOVINGDON PL WI X S O N S T T O M T H O M S O N C T KOD I A K S T BROC K R D / R E G I O N A L R D 1 CENTRAL ST BR O C K R D / R E G I O N A L R D 1 REGIONAL RD 5 CENTRAL ST REGIONAL RD 5 5 1 1 LEGEND 1:2500 TPB168152S 1 CLAREMONT DRAINAGE PLAN STUDY AREA PLAN CITY OF PICKERING TRANS-CANADA P I P E L I N E 5 - 121 - JOSEPH ST BA R C L A Y S T FR A N K L I N S T BA R B E R S T LO R N S T CENTRAL ST BR O C K R D / R E G I O N A L R D 1 LANE ST OL D B R O C K R D WI X S O N S T T O M T H O M S O N C T WI L L I A M S T DAVID ST HENRY ST DO W S T CA R P E N T E R C T ACORN LN BOVINGDON PL CA N S O D R WELLINGTON ST VI C T O R I A S T LI V I N G S T O N S T BROC K R D / R E G I O N A L R D 1 TRANS-CANADA P I P E L I N E OL D B R O C K R D REGIONAL RD 5CENTRAL ST REGIONAL RD 5 5 5 1 1 45 0 37 5 45 0 37 5 30 0 450 450 300 300 30 0 250 30 0 300 450 45 0 450 450 450525600600 67 5 67 5 3 0 0 910 67 5 67 5 75 0 60 0 375 525 525 450 52 5 37 5 300 525 200 30 0 300 50 0 50 0 500 37 5 45 0 30 0 30 0 30 0 20 0 300 LEGEND 1:2500 TPB168152S 2 CLAREMONT DRAINAGE PLAN DRAINAGE SYSTEM CHARACTERIZATIONCITY OF PICKERING KOD I A K S T - 122 - 5 1 1 45 0 450 450 30 0 30 0 450 45 0 450 450 450525600600 67 5 6 7 5 910 67 5 67 5 75 0 200 30 0 37 5 45 0 30 0 30 0 30 0 120 0.09ha 109 0.87ha 118 0.08ha 161 0.09ha 162 0.14ha 150 0.49ha 149 0.43ha 158 0.51ha 145 0.11ha 169 1.05ha 168 1.02ha S20 0.15ha 170 0.42ha 402 1.36ha 503 7.36ha 504 2.69ha 143 0.31ha 137 0.31ha 181 3.05ha 129 0.39ha 103 1.62ha 101 7.91ha 111 0.3ha 119 0.18ha 153 0.32ha 501 1.17ha 182 1.99ha 151 0.65ha 146 0.55ha 144 0.69ha 133 0.57ha 108 0.32ha 107 0.74ha 138 0.46ha 102 0.36ha 167 0.55ha 403 0.82ha 505 5.62ha 110 0.59ha 114 0.24ha 115 0.22ha 112 0.36ha 113 0.22ha 117 0.2ha 116 0.46ha 123 0.16ha 121 0.17ha 124 0.07ha 125 1.6ha 122 1.01ha 178 0.71ha 128 0.14ha 179 0.1ha 180 0.7ha 176 0.16ha 502 0.56ha 165 0.09ha 166 0.07ha 152 0.35ha 157 0.11ha 139 0.16ha 140 0.73ha 141 1.23ha 136 1.44ha 142 1.89ha 134 1.03ha 160 0.45ha 148 0.5ha 147 0.38ha 172 0.36ha 175 0.26ha 159 0.29ha 171 0.29ha 104 0.32ha 130 0.11ha 105 0.3ha 154 0.09ha 156 0.32ha 155 0.11ha 173 0.15ha 177 0.09ha 127_1 0.62ha 127_2 2.44ha 126_1 0.15ha 126_2 0.25ha 404 5.52ha 302_2 0.76ha 301_3 2.52ha 301_4 0.48ha 301_2 0.58ha 301_5 1.37ha 202_3 2.51ha 202_4 0.69ha 202_2 1.3ha 202_1 0.63ha 202_6 0.69ha 135_1 0.54ha 135_2 0.22ha S1 1.67ha 401_1 0.32ha 401_2 0.85ha 132_2 0.33ha 132_3 0.12haS2 0.07ha 131_1 0.15ha 131_2 0.14ha 106_2 0.51ha 106_3 0.32ha 106_4 0.22ha 164_1 0.04ha164_2 0.04ha ACORN LN CA R P E N T E R C T CA N S O D R OL D B R O C K R D DO W S T HENRY ST DAVID ST WI L L I A M S T LANE ST OL D B R O C K R D JOSEPH ST BA R C L A Y S T FR A N K L I N S T BA R B E R S T LO R N S T WELLINGTON ST VI C T O R I A S T LI V I N G S T O N S T BOVINGDON PL WI X S O N S T T O M T H O M S O N C T KOD I A K S T BROC K R D / R E G I O N A L R D 1 CENTRAL ST BR O C K R D / R E G I O N A L R D 1 REGIONAL RD 5 CENTRAL ST REGIONAL RD 5 LEGEND 150 0.49ha 1:2500 TPB168152S 3 CLAREMONT DRAINAGE PLAN SUBCATCHMENT BOUNDARY PLANCITY OF PICKERING TRANS-CANADA P I P E L I N E 5 - 123 - JOSEPH ST BA R C L A Y S T FR A N K L I N S T BA R B E R S T LO R N S T CENTRAL ST BR O C K R D / R E G I O N A L R D 1 LANE ST OL D B R O C K R D WI X S O N S T T O M T H O M S O N C T WI L L I A M S T DAVID ST HENRY ST DO W S T CA R P E N T E R C T ACORN LN BOVINGDON PL CA N S O D R WELLINGTON ST VI C T O R I A S T LI V I N G S T O N S T BROC K R D / R E G I O N A L R D 1 TRANS-CANADA P I P E L I N E OL D B R O C K R D REGIONAL RD 5CENTRAL ST REGIONAL RD 5 5 5 1 1 45 0 37 5 45 0 37 5 30 0 450 450 300 300 30 0 250 30 0 300 450 45 0 450 450 450525600600 67 5 67 5 3 0 0 910 67 5 67 5 75 0 60 0 375 525 525 450 52 5 37 5 300 525 200 30 0 300 50 0 50 0 500 37 5 45 0 30 0 30 0 30 0 20 0 300 LEGEND 1:2500 TPB168152S 4 CLAREMONT DRAINAGE PLAN 5 YEAR PERFORMANCE SUMMARY (MINOR SYSTEM) CITY OF PICKERING KOD I A K S T - 124 - JOSEPH ST BA R C L A Y S T FR A N K L I N S T BA R B E R S T LO R N S T CENTRAL ST BR O C K R D / R E G I O N A L R D 1 LANE ST OL D B R O C K R D WI X S O N S T T O M T H O M S O N C T WI L L I A M S T DAVID ST HENRY ST DO W S T CA R P E N T E R C T ACORN LN BOVINGDON PL CA N S O D R WELLINGTON ST VI C T O R I A S T LI V I N G S T O N S T BROC K R D / R E G I O N A L R D 1 TRANS-CANADA P I P E L I N E OL D B R O C K R D REGIONAL RD 5CENTRAL ST REGIONAL RD 5 5 5 1 1 45 0 37 5 45 0 37 5 30 0 450 450 300 300 30 0 250 30 0 300 450 45 0 450 450 450525600600 67 5 67 5 3 0 0 910 67 5 67 5 75 0 60 0 375 525 525 450 52 5 37 5 300 525 200 30 0 300 50 0 50 0 500 37 5 45 0 30 0 30 0 30 0 20 0 300 LEGEND 1:2500 TPB168152S 5 CLAREMONT DRAINAGE PLAN 100 YEAR PERFORMANCE SUMMARYCITY OF PICKERING KOD I A K S T - 125 - JOSEPH ST BA R C L A Y S T FR A N K L I N S T BA R B E R S T LO R N S T CENTRAL ST BR O C K R D / R E G I O N A L R D 1 LANE ST OL D B R O C K R D WI X S O N S T T O M T H O M S O N C T WI L L I A M S T DAVID ST HENRY ST DO W S T CA R P E N T E R C T ACORN LN BOVINGDON PL CA N S O D R WELLINGTON ST VI C T O R I A S T LI V I N G S T O N S T BROC K R D / R E G I O N A L R D 1 TRANS-CANADA P I P E L I N E OL D B R O C K R D REGIONAL RD 5CENTRAL ST REGIONAL RD 5 5 5 1 1 45 0 37 5 45 0 37 5 30 0 450 450 300 300 30 0 250 30 0 300 450 45 0 450 450 450525600600 67 5 67 5 3 0 0 910 67 5 67 5 75 0 60 0 375 525 525 450 52 5 37 5 300 525 200 30 0 300 50 0 50 0 500 37 5 45 0 30 0 30 0 30 0 20 0 300 LEGEND 1:2500 TPB168152S 6 CLAREMONT DRAINAGE PLAN DRAINAGE ISSUES SUMMARYCITY OF PICKERING KOD I A K S T - 126 - 37 5 37 5 30 0 300 300 250 3003 0 0 60 0 375 525 525 450 52 5 37 5 300 525 300 50 0 50 0 500 20 0 KODI A K S T JOSEPH ST BA R C L A Y S T FR A N K L I N S T BA R B E R S T LO R N S T CENTRAL ST BR O C K R D / R E G I O N A L R D 1 LANE ST OL D B R O C K R D WI X S O N S T T O M T H O M S O N C T WI L L I A M S T DAVID ST HENRY ST DO W S T CA R P E N T E R C T ACORN LN BOVINGDON PL CA N S O D R WELLINGTON ST VI C T O R I A S T LI V I N G S T O N S T BROC K R D / R E G I O N A L R D 1 TRANS-CANADA P I P E L I N E OL D B R O C K R D REGIONAL RD 5CENTRAL ST REGIONAL RD 5 5 5 1 1 300 LEGEND 1:2500 TPB168152S 7 CLAREMONT DRAINAGE PLAN CITY OF PICKERING ALTERNATIVE 1 CLAREMONT MEMORIAL PARK 45 0 - 127 - 37 5 37 5 30 0 300 300 250 30 0 3003 0 0 60 0 375 525 525 450 52 5 37 5 300 525 300 50 0 50 0 500 20 0 KODI A K S T JOSEPH ST BA R C L A Y S T FR A N K L I N S T BA R B E R S T LO R N S T CENTRAL ST BR O C K R D / R E G I O N A L R D 1 LANE ST OL D B R O C K R D WI X S O N S T T O M T H O M S O N C T WI L L I A M S T DAVID ST HENRY ST DO W S T CA R P E N T E R C T ACORN LN BOVINGDON PL CA N S O D R WELLINGTON ST VI C T O R I A S T LI V I N G S T O N S T BROC K R D / R E G I O N A L R D 1 TRANS-CANADA P I P E L I N E OL D B R O C K R D REGIONAL RD 5CENTRAL ST REGIONAL RD 5 5 5 1 1 300 LEGEND 1:2500 TPB168152S 8 CLAREMONT DRAINAGE PLAN CITY OF PICKERING ALTERNATIVE 2 CENTRAL STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY 45 0 - 128 - 52 5 75 0 75 0 60 0 37 5 37 5 30 0 300 300 250 3003 0 0 60 0 375 525 525 450 52 5 37 5 300 525 300 50 0 50 0 500 20 0 675 750 75 0 67 5 600 60 0 600 675 675750750825 10 5 0 10 5 0 1050 10 5 0 82 5 82 5 30 0 45 0 45 0 60 0 45 0 45 0 67 5 67 5 67 5 200 KODI A K S T JOSEPH ST BA R C L A Y S T FR A N K L I N S T BA R B E R S T LO R N S T CENTRAL ST BR O C K R D / R E G I O N A L R D 1 LANE ST OL D B R O C K R D WI X S O N S T T O M T H O M S O N C T WI L L I A M S T DAVID ST HENRY ST DO W S T CA R P E N T E R C T ACORN LN BOVINGDON PL CA N S O D R WELLINGTON ST VI C T O R I A S T LI V I N G S T O N S T BROC K R D / R E G I O N A L R D 1 TRANS-CANADA P I P E L I N E OL D B R O C K R D REGIONAL RD 5CENTRAL ST REGIONAL RD 5 5 5 1 1 300 LEGEND 1:2500 TPB168152S 9 CLAREMONT DRAINAGE PLAN CITY OF PICKERING ALTERNATIVE 1 CLAREMONT MEMORIAL PARK 5 YEAR PERFORMANCE SUMMARY (MINOR SYSTEM) 45 0 - 129 - 52 5 75 0 75 0 60 0 JOSEPH ST BA R C L A Y S T FR A N K L I N S T BA R B E R S T LO R N S T CENTRAL ST BR O C K R D / R E G I O N A L R D 1 LANE ST OL D B R O C K R D WI X S O N S T T O M T H O M S O N C T WI L L I A M S T DAVID ST HENRY ST DO W S T CA R P E N T E R C T ACORN LN BOVINGDON PL CA N S O D R WELLINGTON ST VI C T O R I A S T LI V I N G S T O N S T BROC K R D / R E G I O N A L R D 1 TRANS-CANADA P I P E L I N E OL D B R O C K R D REGIONAL RD 5CENTRAL ST REGIONAL RD 5 5 5 1 1 45 0 37 5 37 5 30 0 300 300 250 3003 0 0 60 0 375 525 525 450 52 5 37 5 300 525 300 50 0 50 0 500 20 0 675 750 75 0 67 5 600 60 0 600 675 675750750825 10 5 0 10 5 0 1050 10 5 0 82 5 82 5 30 0 45 0 45 0 60 0 45 0 45 0 67 5 67 5 67 5 200 KODI A K S T JOSEPH ST BA R C L A Y S T FR A N K L I N S T BA R B E R S T LO R N S T CENTRAL ST BR O C K R D / R E G I O N A L R D 1 LANE ST OL D B R O C K R D WI X S O N S T T O M T H O M S O N C T WI L L I A M S T DAVID ST HENRY ST DO W S T CA R P E N T E R C T ACORN LN BOVINGDON PL CA N S O D R WELLINGTON ST VI C T O R I A S T LI V I N G S T O N S T BROC K R D / R E G I O N A L R D 1 TRANS-CANADA P I P E L I N E OL D B R O C K R D REGIONAL RD 5CENTRAL ST REGIONAL RD 5 5 5 1 1 300 LEGEND 1:2500 TPB168152S 10 CLAREMONT DRAINAGE PLAN CITY OF PICKERING ALTERNATIVE 1 CLAREMONT MEMORIAL PARK 100 YEAR PERFORMANCE SUMMARY (MAJOR SYSTEM) KODI A K S T - 130 - 75 0 75 0 60 0 37 5 37 5 30 0 300 300 250 30 0 3003 0 0 60 0 375 525 525 450 52 5 37 5 300 525 300 50 0 50 0 500 20 0 52 5 675 750750 750 750 750975975 10 5 0 10 5 0 1050 10 5 0 10 5 0 10 5 0 30 0 45 0 45 0 75 0 60 0 45 0 45 0 KODI A K S T JOSEPH ST BA R C L A Y S T FR A N K L I N S T BA R B E R S T LO R N S T CENTRAL ST BR O C K R D / R E G I O N A L R D 1 LANE ST OL D B R O C K R D WI X S O N S T T O M T H O M S O N C T WI L L I A M S T DAVID ST HENRY ST DO W S T CA R P E N T E R C T ACORN LN BOVINGDON PL CA N S O D R WELLINGTON ST VI C T O R I A S T LI V I N G S T O N S T BROC K R D / R E G I O N A L R D 1 TRANS-CANADA P I P E L I N E OL D B R O C K R D REGIONAL RD 5CENTRAL ST REGIONAL RD 5 5 5 1 1 300 LEGEND ALTERNATIVE 2 CENTRAL STREET ROW 5 YEAR PERFORMANCE SUMMARY (MINOR SYSTEM) 1:2500 TPB168152S 11 CLAREMONT DRAINAGE PLAN CITY OF PICKERING 45 0 - 131 - 75 0 75 0 60 0 37 5 37 5 30 0 300 300 250 30 0 3003 0 0 60 0 375 525 525 450 52 5 37 5 300 525 300 50 0 50 0 500 20 0 52 5 675 750750 750 750 750975975 10 5 0 10 5 0 1050 10 5 0 10 5 0 10 5 0 30 0 45 0 45 0 75 0 60 0 45 0 45 0 KODI A K S T JOSEPH ST BA R C L A Y S T FR A N K L I N S T BA R B E R S T LO R N S T CENTRAL ST BR O C K R D / R E G I O N A L R D 1 LANE ST OL D B R O C K R D WI X S O N S T T O M T H O M S O N C T WI L L I A M S T DAVID ST HENRY ST DO W S T CA R P E N T E R C T ACORN LN BOVINGDON PL CA N S O D R WELLINGTON ST VI C T O R I A S T LI V I N G S T O N S T BROC K R D / R E G I O N A L R D 1 TRANS-CANADA P I P E L I N E OL D B R O C K R D REGIONAL RD 5CENTRAL ST REGIONAL RD 5 5 5 1 1 300 LEGEND 1:2500 TPB168152S 12 CLAREMONT DRAINAGE PLAN CITY OF PICKERING ALTERNATIVE 2 CENTRAL STREET ROW 100 YEAR PERFORMANCE SUMMARY (MAJOR SYSTEM) 45 0 - 132 - Report to Executive Committee Report Number: ENG 16-22 Date: June 6, 2022 From: Richard Holborn Director, Engineering Services Subject: Proposed All-way Stop -Spruce Hill Road and Shadybrook Drive -File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1.That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule "7" to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation of stop signs on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of The Corporation of the City of Pickering, specifically to address the proposed installation of an all-way stop control at the intersection of Spruce Hill Road and Shadybrook Drive; and, 2.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Executive Summary: Safety concerns related to intersection right-of-way have been identified at the intersection of Spruce Hill Road and Shadybrook Drive. The intersection is a three-way intersection with traffic approaching eastbound, westbound and southbound. Current placement of stop control for eastbound traffic only can cause conflicts between southbound turning vehicles and westbound through vehicles, as both of these movements currently do not have to stop. To safely designate right-of-way at the intersection, and eliminate any conflicts at the intersection, Engineering Services staff recommend an all-way stop be placed at the intersection of Spruce Hill Road and Shadybrook Drive. Financial Implications: The installation of stop signs, advance warning signs, and pavement markings at the intersection of Spruce Hill Road and Shadybrook Drive can be accommodated within the 2022 Roads Current Budget. Discussion: City staff have identified safety concerns, related to the designation of right-of-way, at the intersection of Spruce Hill Road and Shadybrook Drive. The intersection is a three-way intersection (or “T” intersection) with traffic approaching eastbound, westbound and southbound. Typically the layout of this type of intersection would have a stop sign placed on the intersecting street, which at this intersection, would be the southbound approach. Currently the stop sign at the intersection, however, is placed on the eastbound approach only. The current placement of stop control on the eastbound approach can cause conflicts between southbound turning vehicles and westbound through vehicles as these movements both currently do not have to stop. This also creates a conflict for pedestrians crossing at the - 133 - ENG 16-22 June 6, 2022 Subject: Proposed All-way Stop Spruce Hill Road and Shadybrook Drive Page 2 intersection. It should be noted, however, that although the current stop location at the intersection can create vehicular and pedestrian conflicts, there have been no complaints or concerns as of yet from residents regarding collisions or safety. In order to safely designate right-of-way at the intersection, and eliminate any conflicts at the intersection, Engineering Services staff recommend an all-way stop be placed at the intersection of Spruce Hill Road and Shadybrook Drive. Notification has been sent to residents in the immediate area informing them of the proposed change in traffic control. The proposed all-way stop control at the intersection of Spruce Hill Road and Shadybrook Drive is shown graphically in Attachment 1. The draft by-law amendment to Schedule “7”, Stop Signs, of By-law 6604/05 is presented in Attachment 2. Attachments: 1.Proposed All-way Stop Control – Spruce Hill Road and Shadybrook Drive 2.Draft By-law Amendments to Schedule “7”, Stop Signs, to By-law 6604/05 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Nathan Emery Richard Holborn, P.Eng. Coordinator, Traffic Operations Director, Engineering Services Scott Booker Manager, Capital Projects & Infrastructure NE:mjh Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer Original signed by:Original signed by: Original signed by: Original signed by: - 134 - Sp r u c e H i l l R o a d Shadybrook Drive Proposed All-way Stop Existing Stop Sign Proposed All-way Stop NTS May, 2022 Engineering Services Department N Spruce Hill Road and Shadybrook Drive Sp r u c e H i l l R o a d Welrus Street Attachment #1 to Report ENG 16-22 - 135 - Attachment #2 to Report ENG 16-22 The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. Being a by-law to amend By-law 6604/05 providing for the regulating of traffic and parking, standing and stopping on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of the City of Pickering and on private and municipal property. Whereas By-law 6604/05, as amended, provides for the regulating of traffic and parking on highways, private property and municipal property within the City of Pickering; and Whereas, it is deemed expedient to amend Schedule 7, Stop Signs, to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation of stop signs on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of the Corporation of the City of Pickering. Specifically, this by-law is to provide for the installation of an all-way stop at the intersection of Spruce Hill Road and Shadybrook Drive. Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. Schedule 7 to By-law 6604/05, as amended, is hereby further amended thereto by the following: Schedule 7 Stop Signs Column 1 Column 2 Highway Compulsory Stop Facing Traffic Add Shadybrook Drive Shadybrook Drive, eastbound @ Spruce Hill Road Spruce Hill Road Spruce Hill Road, westbound and southbound @ Shadybrook Drive - 136 - By-law No. Page 2 By-law passed this 27th day of June, 2022. _______________________________ David Ryan, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 137 - Report to Executive Committee Report Number: OPS 03-22 Date: June 6, 2022 From: Brian Duffield Director, Operations Subject: Beverley Morgan Community Park - Licence Renewal Agreement - File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute a license renewal agreement with the Minister of Infrastructure - Hydro One Networks Inc. for a further ten year term, commencing August 1, 2022 and ending on July 31, 2032, that is in a form satisfactory to the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; and, 2. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect hereto. Executive Summary: The Town of Pickering entered into a 25 year licence agreement with Ontario Hydro on August 1, 1992 to July 31, 2017 in respect of the property located in part of Lot 21 and 22, Concession 2, also known as Beverley Morgan Community Park. The City of Pickering entered into a licence renewal agreement with the Minister of Infrastructure - Hydro One Networks Inc. for a further five year term, commencing on August 1, 2017 and ending on July 31, 2022. The Minister of Infrastructure - Hydro One Networks Inc. is in agreement to extend the licence agreement for a period of ten years, commencing on August 1, 2022 and ending on July 31, 2032. Financial Implications: Under the existing agreement, the City is responsible for the full cost of maintenance on the lands used for recreational purposes, and for paying the taxes or other similar charges levied against the lands. Discussion: The City of Pickering entered into the most recent licence agreement with the Minister of Infrastructure - Hydro One Networks Inc. on January 1, 2017 for the property located in part of Lot 21 and 22, Concession 2, also known as Beverley Morgan Community Park (“the park”). The park is located within the hydro corridor adjacent to Pine Ridge Secondary School and runs from Liverpool Road at the west limit to Duffin’s Creek at the east limit, as illustrated on the location map (attachment 3). The lands consist of 22.3 acres and includes a parking lot, two football fields, a soccer field, a baseball diamond, and interconnecting asphalt pathways. - 138 - OPS 03-22 June 6, 2022 Subject: Beverley Morgan Community Park – Licence Renewal Agreement Page 2 In order for the City of Pickering to continue providing recreational services on the land, a further licence renewal agreement in a form satisfactory to the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, is required. The Director, Operations recommends that a licence renewal agreement for a further ten year term (August 1, 2022 to July 31, 2032) be entered into, and that Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement in its final form. Attachments: 1. Draft Pickering T 632.1-550 - Public Recreation Licence Renewal 2022 2. Original Hydro Corridor Licence Renewal - Beverly Morgan Park - June 2017 (signed) 3. Location Map Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Brian Duffield Paul Bigioni Director, Operations Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor BD:rg Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 139 - HONI File #: PICKERING T 632.1-550 HYDRO CORRIDOR Licence Renewal (rec.) March 2022 LICENCE RENEWAL AGREEMENT – (RECREATIONAL) BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO as represented by THE MINISTER OF GOVERNMENT AND CONSUMER SERVICES (hereinafter called the "Licensor") -and - THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING (hereinafter called the "Licensee") WHEREAS: A.Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation acting as agent on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Infrastructure now the Minister of Government and Consumer Services entered into a Licence Agreement with the Licensee, dated June 21st, 2017 (the “Licence Agreement”), regarding certain lands located in the City of Pickering, in the Regional Municipality of Durham, described as Part of Lots 21 and 22, Concession 2, Geographic Township of Pickering, comprising an area of approximately 22.3 acres, (the “Licence Lands”) for the purpose of public recreation only; B.The Minister of Government and Consumer Services is responsible for certain aspects of government real property pursuant to the Ministry of Infrastructure Act, S.O. 2011, c. 9, Sched 27; C.Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation confirms that it is the designated agent of the Minister of Government and Consumer Services with authority to act in respect of the Licence Agreement. IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth and the sum of two dollars ($2.00) paid by the Licensee to the Licensor, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, and other good and valuable consideration, the Licensor and the Licensee agree as follows: 1.The Licence Agreement is hereby renewed, subject to the terms set out below. 2.“Licensor” shall mean Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation acting as agent on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Government and Consumer Services. 3.The Term of the Licence Agreement shall be ten (10) years, commencing on the 1st day of August, 2022. Attachment 1 to Report OPS 03-22 - 140 - HONI File #: PICKERING T 632.1-550 2 4. The Licensee shall pay to the Licensor an amount equal to Fifty percent (50%) of the annual realty taxes or grants and/or payments in lieu thereof payable with respect to the Licence Lands, as owned by the Licensor and used by the Licensee pursuant to the Licence Agreement for the purposes stated herein. 5. The Licensor’s address for service of notice pursuant to the notice section of the Licence Agreement and other related particulars are amended as follows: Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation Real Estate Transactions 1 Dundas Street West, Suite 2000 Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z3 Attention: Director, Hydro Land Transactions Telephone: (437) 537-5511 Facsimile: (416) 327-3942 With a copy to: Attention: Director, Legal Services (Real Estate) 1 Dundas Street West Suite 2000 Toronto, ON M5G 1Z3 Facsimile: 416-327-3376 6. All terms which are defined in the Licence Agreement shall have the same meaning when used in this Licence Renewal Agreement unless they are amended herein. 7. Except as they may be amended by this Licence Renewal Agreement, all of the terms and conditions of the Licence Agreement shall apply to the renewed Term and shall be binding upon and enure to the benefit of the Licensor and the Licensee. 8. This Licence Renewal Agreement may be offered and accepted by electronic or facsimile transmission and by different parties in separate counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement. Delivery by facsimile or by electronic transmission in portable document format of an executed counterpart is as effective as delivery of an originally executed counterpart. Any party delivering an executed counterpart by facsimile or by electronic transmission in portable document format (PDF) shall also deliver an originally executed counterpart within seven (7) days of the facsimile or electronic transmission, but the failure to deliver an originally executed copy does not affect the validity, enforceability or binding effect. - 141 - HONI File #: PICKERING T 632.1-550 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Licence Renewal Agreement. Signed by the Licensee at this day of 20 . THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING Per:______________________________________ Name: Title: Per:______________________________________ Name: Title: I/We have authority to bind the Corporation Signed by the Licensor at_________________this day of _____________________20 . HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO as represented by THE MINISTER OF GOVERNMENT AND CONSUMER SERVICES, as represented by ONTARIO INFRASTRUCTURE AND LANDS CORPORATION Per: Name: Title: Authorized Signing Officer - 142 - HONI File #: PICKERING T 632.1-550 4 - 143 - Attachment 2 to Report OPS 03-22 - 144 - - 145 - - 146 - - 147 - - 148 - - 149 - - 150 - - 151 - - 152 - - 153 - - 154 - Attachment 3 to Report OPS 03-22 BEVERLEY MORGAN PARK Attachment #3 to Report OPS 03-22 - 155 - Report to Executive Committee Report Number: PLN 26-22 Date: June 6, 2022 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Geographic Information System Corporate Strategic Plan -Preliminary Assessment and Evaluation, and GIS Vision -File: A-1200-011 Recommendation: 1.That Report PLN 26-22 regarding the Geographic Information System Corporate Strategic Plan, and the Executive Summary of the Preliminary Assessment and Evaluation Report, dated April 29, 2022, prepared by Geographic Technologies Group and contained in Appendix I, be received for information. 1.Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the preparation of a Geographic Information System (GIS) Corporate Strategic Plan, outlining the process to date. This report also includes a summary of the Preliminary Assessment and Evaluation of the City’s current GIS function and environment, the overall guiding goals and objectives for the GIS Strategic Plan, and the recommended enterprise1 GIS Vision for the City of Pickering. 2.Background In September 2021, City Council approved the proposal by Geographic Technologies Group (GTG), to prepare a Corporate GIS Strategic Plan for the City (PLN 37-21, Resolution #682/20). Once approved, the GIS Plan will provide a unified GIS vision, and five year GIS Implementation and Business Road Map for the City. GTG’s approved scope of work consists of ten Tasks/Deliverables, and is summarized in Attachment #1 to this report. The first five project tasks have been completed. The consultants are now in a position to provide a report to Council that outlines the project deliverables to date, and to present the overall goals and objectives for the GIS Strategic Plan, and an enterprise GIS Vision for the City. This will be the completion of Task #6 of the approved scope of work. 1 The term “enterprise” refers to “corporate-wide”. - 156 - Report PLN 26-22 June 6, 2022 Subject: GIS Corporate Strategic Plan Page 2 3.GTG’s Reports GTG has prepared a Preliminary Assessment and Evaluation Report, dated April 29, 2022. The Executive Summary of that Report is provided as Appendix I to PLN 26-22. The full Preliminary Assessment and Evaluation Report is available from the City Development Department. The Preliminary Assessment and Evaluation Report principally deals with preliminary observations of and suggestions for: GIS Governance; GIS Data and Databases; Procedure, Workflow and Integration; GIS Software; I.T. Infrastructure; and Training, Education and Knowledge Transfer. The report also includes the results of the online Public Survey, which closed on April 4, 2022. GTG also prepared a GIS Vision Report, dated April 29, 2022, which is available from the City Development Department. This Vision Report developed the following suggested GIS Vision statement, in consultation with the GIS Technical working group: “The vision of the City of Pickering’s GIS is to maintain an enterprise, scalable, sustainable, and highly secure GIS that promotes the effective and innovative use of geospatial technology and location intelligence through best practices, community engagement, and innovation, supported by good GIS governance, coordination, accurate and reliable data, standards, and on-going training and education.” The GIS Vision Report furthermore identifies six overarching goals of the GIS Strategy, being: Goal 1: Establish an Effective GIS Governance Model Goal 2: Maintain Accurate and Reliable GIS Data and Databases Goal 3: Develop and Enhance GIS Procedures, Workflow, Integration, and Interoperability Goal 4: Promote Effective, Efficient, and Innovative Use of GIS Software Goal 5: Maintain Enterprise IT Infrastructure to Support GIS Goal 6: Implement GIS Training, Education, and Knowledge Transfer 4.Conclusion This report provides an update to the GIS Corporate Strategic Plan exercise, and the City of Pickering recommended enterprise GIS Vision. Staff recommend that Report PLN 26-22 be received for information. In accordance with the project work plan, GTG aims to complete the remaining project deliverables over the next couple of months, in consultation with the City’s GIS community. It is anticipated that the comprehensive Corporate GIS Strategy will be presented in September 2022. - 157 - Report PLN 26-22 June 6, 2022 Subject: GIS Corporate Strategic Plan Page 3 Appendix: Appendix I GIS Preliminary Assessment and Evaluation Executive Summary, dated April 29, 2022, prepared by Geographic Technologies Group Attachment: 1.Summary of GTG’s Approved Scope of Work Prepared By: Original Signed By Jill McMullen Supervisor, Geomatics Original Signed By Déan Jacobs, MCIP, RPP Manager, Policy & Geomatics Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Original Signed By Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO JM:DJ:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 158 - Appendix I to Report No. PLN 26-22 GIS Preliminary Assessment and Evaluation Executive Summary dated April 29, 2022, prepared by Geographic Technologies Group - 159 - Preliminary Assessment and Evaluation Executive Summary Project Overview Geographic Technologies Group (GTG) administered an online survey to all GIS stakeholders within the City of Pickering, Ontario, and launched an online community engagement survey through the City’s Let’s Talk Pickering engagement platform. GTG conducted a GIS Needs Assessment (NA), performed a SWOT and GAP analysis, and benchmarked the City of Pickering using the six pillars of GIS sustainability. The City of Pickering staff were engaged throughout this data-gathering phase of the project and have proved to be invaluable in assessing the existing GIS conditions of the City. The following represents a preliminary assessment and evaluation of the existing corporate and department GIS conditions and offers initial recommendations to improve the existing corporate and departmental GIS conditions. GIS Governance There are significant opportunities to improve GIS governance. It is recommended that the City formalize a true hybrid GIS governance model organized within the IT department. A GIS steering committee, technical committee, and user group should be established. There should be strategies to improve lines of authority, communication, and accountability, and improvements made to enterprise management and collaboration. The City should develop and enforce GIS policies, an annual GIS work plan, Service Level Agreements (SLA) between the core GIS staff and each department, and the creation and monitoring of GIS Key Performance Indicators (KPI). The GIS governance strategy should also embrace promoting and encouraging the use of GIS for community consultation and engagement. GIS Data and Databases The opportunities to improve digital GIS data and databases should be focused on management tasks, including maintaining a master data list, enforcing Metadata standards, and embracing an enterprise modern data structure. In addition, the City should conduct a digital data assessment of all existing data layers, develop data creation standards and - 160 - policy, examine and improve digital data management and life cycle practices, and assign GIS custodians and stewards to encourage departmental participation. The City would also benefit from the addition of new digital data layers and a commitment to the Esri Arc GIS Hub solution. Procedures, Workflow, and Integration A characteristic of a successful enterprise GIS is the integration of business systems. This is a system of systems that embraces location intelligence and geospatial tools. The City should explore integrating GIS with all existing enterprise business systems, including but not limited to Active Net, City Reporter, and more. In addition, the City should improve the integration of GIS with asset management and work order solutions, including AMANDA RFS. It will be important to consider GIS integration with Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software, Public Safety software, and Document Management solutions, including Laserfiche and Bluebeam. Additional improvements should be made to departmental access and use of GIS software for editing, analysis, and visualization, GIS data creation and maintenance procedures, GIS ticketing and support procedures, and data ownership, access, and data sharing policies. GIS Software The City uses Esri software solutions and Geocortex software. It is recommended that the City explore optimizing GIS software licensing to focus on the Esri ecosystem. The City should embrace web and widget development within the Esri toolkit. There is a significant opportunity to develop story maps, including but not limited to a memorial bench program, neighborhood watch, heritage and placemaking, by-law compliance, city development, and historic site and tour story maps. The City has an opportunity to create crowdsourcing solutions to engage the public. The City should consider utilizing real-time GIS in Council meetings. The City should also consider using Esri GIS modeling extensions and ArcGIS Hub Map portal solution, mobile GIS, and Global Positioning Systems (GPS) solutions for office- to-field, field-to-office workflows to increase the use and participation of GIS by departments. The City should also evaluate GIS predictive analysis tools for specific departmental tasks. - 161 - IT Infrastructure The City should develop a GIS architectural design plan to understand and visualize the complex interrelationship between GIS and IT technology components diagrammatically. It is also recommended that the City develop GIS training for IT professionals, including geodatabase administration and the GIS security platform. In addition, the City should consider creating a GIS mobile action plan and examining its existing GIS data security policy. Finally, it is recommended that the City develop data storage and distribution strategies to support the growth of the GIS initiative. Training, Education, and Knowledge Transfer There are significant opportunities to improve GIS training, education, and knowledge transfer, including the development of a formal GIS training plan that will include a multi- tiered strategy for all levels of user. Mobile GIS training should be on topics like GPS, AVL, and field data collection solutions. It is also recommended that departmental-specific GIS training be scheduled to increase organizational GIS skills and knowledge. Education and knowledge transfer should be promoted through conference attendance, online seminar participation, and informal training sessions. GIS succession and continuity of operations plans should be an essential initiative. Community consultation and engagement should also be implemented through sharing ideas, discussions, and information about GIS and emerging technologies. - 162 - Attachment #1 to Report PLN 26-22 Summary of GTG’s Scope of Work The purpose of this GIS Strategic Plan Study is to develop a Strategic Roadmap, by: •conducting a review of the City’s current GIS use; •developing a list of what the needs are, and will be, for City of Pickering staff; •evaluating the City of Pickering’s current GIS environment against public sector best practices; •establishing a unified GIS vision beneficial for all City departments; and •delivering a five year implementation and business plan. 1.Task 1 – Start-up Meeting – November 24, 2021 The start-up meeting provided an opportunity for the consultant’s project manager and the municipal project manager to review the approved scope of work, timeline, and invoicing process, and to address any questions that needed addressing prior to the Project Kick-off Seminar. 2.Task 2 – Project Kickoff Seminar – December 2, 2021 The kickoff seminar provided an opportunity for introductions between the consultant and City of Pickering staff. The early involvement of stakeholders within the planning process assisted with subsequent participation and preliminary gathering of corporate GIS requirements. It also allowed the consultant to describe the benefits of GIS within a municipality and the added benefits of a corporate-wide GIS model. 3.Task 3 – Current Situation and User Needs Assessment – April 14, 2022 This task included the development of a complete understanding of the current situation, including technical, data, staffing, financial information, as well as the associated user needs. This involved meetings with the various City Departments and those staff who participated within the GIS User Group and GIS Management Team to gather the required information, and included an online questionnaire and the release of a Task 3 Needs Assessment Report. 4.Task 4 – Preliminary Assessment and Evaluation – April 29, 2022 Building from the Current Situation and User Needs Assessment, a preliminary assessment of the strengths and weaknesses within the City of Pickering was developed, including a comparison to other similarly sized municipalities, and recommended actions that will assist the City to improve GIS service delivery throughout the corporation. The consultant also determined associated risks with the documented actions and recommend potential solutions to these defined risks. 5.Task 5 – GIS Vision – April 29, 2022 The consultant developed a unified GIS vision statement for the City of Pickering, coupled with a set of goals and objectives, in consultation with the City’s technical working group. - 163 - 6. Task 6 – Council Report and Presentation – June 6, 2022 The consultant will provide a report and presentation to Council outlining the process to date, the overall guiding goals and objectives for the GIS Strategic Plan, and the City of Pickering enterprise GIS vision. The purpose of this task is also to answer any questions members of Council may have regarding the study process and progress. 7. Task 7 – Organizational Planning/Communication – May – August 2022 The consultant will investigate how other similarly sized municipalities structure their respective GIS teams, and provide organizational options to the City of Pickering with the pros, cons and risks associated with each. The consultant will also develop a communication and transition plan to further assist the corporation. The goal is to ensure that the GIS resources are effectively organized across the corporation allowing for the maximum return on investment. This task includes recommendations regarding any staffing requirements/gaps, including revised or new job descriptions, and the development of a Transition Plan. 8. Task 8 – Strategy for Implementation – May – August 2022 The City of Pickering is looking for a strategy that will help support the enhancement of the corporate GIS over the next 5 years. The consultant will investigate how other similarly sized municipalities support their GIS. Key deliverables include: identifying the projects, activities, investments, licenses and resources required to advance the system; prioritizing these advancements according to relevant value and risk criteria; sequencing these advancements and investments according to desired timeframes and ability of the City to execute; and providing a GIS cost estimate schedule (5 year – maintenance/operational). 9. Task 9 – Corporate GIS Strategic Plan – May – August 2022 This will be the main planning document providing direction to the City of Pickering for the next five years. It will be a synthesis of work completed throughout the project as described in previous sections, including organizational structure, and technical recommendations, as well as a transition plan that will assist the City of Pickering to achieve the outlined goals. Where necessary, the document should outline associated risks and possible solutions. 10. Task 10 – Final Presentation – September 2022 Council The final presentation will be a summary of the GIS Strategic Plan highlighting the key findings within the document and providing an executive summary and recommendations to City of Pickering staff. This will further provide an opportunity for key stakeholders to ask any final questions regarding the GIS Strategic Plan. - 164 - Report to Executive Committee Report Number: PLN 27-22 Date: June 6, 2022 From: Kyle Bentley Director of City Development & CBO Subject: Proposed Amendment to the City’s Street Naming Policy - File: D-9610 Recommendation: 1. That the draft Street Naming Policy ADM 220, as amended in relation to War Veterans and the W ar Dead, contained in Appendix I to Report PLN 27-22, be approved; and 2. That a copy of Council’s resolution and the revised Street Naming Policy ADM 220 be forwarded to the Royal Canadian Legion, Branches 606 and 483, the Regional Municipality of Durham, and the Durham Regional Police Services. Executive Summary: This reports seeks approval of proposed amendments to the City’s Street Naming Policy ADM 220. Among other minor matters, the amendments establish requirements to select street names in relation to W ar Veterans and the War Dead; identify additional information needed to support the name of a War Dead or War Veteran to be added to the City of Pickering’s Street Name Reserve List; and, waive the fees for requests received from the Royal Canadian Legion to add names to the City’s Reserve List. The draft Street Naming Policy is attached as Appendix I to Report 27-22. It is recommended that Council approve the Policy. Financial Implications: Under the City’s current Schedule of Fees and Charges, there is a $1,020.00 fee to request a name be considered for inclusion on the City’s Street Name Reserve List. The fee covers the work required by staff to evaluate the submitted name against the requirements of the City and the Region. There would be a proportionate loss of revenue to the City with the implementation of the amendments to Policy ADM 220 that waive the fees for the names submitted on a list submitted by the Royal Canadian Legion to add names to the City of Pickering’s Reserve List of Street Names. 1. Background On November 23, 2020, Street Naming Policy ADM 220 was approved by Council (Resolution #466/20). The Policy: consolidated previous Council Resolutions on the use of personal names; implemented criteria for selecting names; established a process and cost recovery mechanism for adding street names to the reserve list; and clarified the process for assigning a street name. - 165 - Report PLN 27-22 June 6, 2022 Subject: Street Naming Policy Page 2 On March 28, 2022, Council passed Resolution #856/22, giving direction to staff to initiate amendments to the Street Naming Policy, to give veterans’ names first priority in the selection or assignment of names to the streets; to waive the application fees when names are submitted by the Royal Canadian Legion once per year; to include a reference to Engineering Services Department Standards P-809, regarding the use of the poppy symbol and the Fire Services symbol; and, to report back to Council before the Summer 2022 recess. This Report responds to Council’s direction. 2. Discussion: The City of Pickering currently has no streets named after War Veterans or the War Dead. The Street Naming Policy ADM 220, approved November 23, 2020, changed the criteria for these names. However, a priority on the use of names of Veterans or War Dead was not included in the policy. The Royal Canadian Legion, Branches 483 and 606, have submitted a list of 45 names. However, the back-up information on each individual has not yet been submitted. Once the back-up material is submitted, each name will be evaluated by the City, and approvals will be sought from the Region of Durham and the Durham Regional Police Services. It is anticipated that these names can be approved for use by the end of 2022. It was determined that recognition of Veterans and the War Dead is better served by using their names on streets with more prominence. As such, it is recommended that the name of a War Dead or the name of a Veteran be selected for Type C Arterial or Collector Roads in all developments within Pickering, provided there is one available on the City’s approved reserve list. Considering roads designated as a Type C Arterial or a Collector, staff have identified that most roads in these categories are already named. However, there may be a few opportunities in northern parts of Seaton. Therefore, staff are also recommending that, for developments that do not have a Type C Arterial or a Collector Road, that at least one street in each phase of development (whether for wayfinding in a private development with condominium roads or a public street), have a name selected from the Veterans and War Dead section of the Reserve Street List. The proposed amendments to the Street Naming Policy are highlighted in yellow in the draft policy contained in Appendix I to this Report. They can be summarized as follows: • Section 1: Definitions, was updated to include a new definition for the Legion and re-alphabetized. • Section 2: Street Naming, Clauses i) & ii) of Subsection 02.01 g) were updated to include the submission requirements for the names of the War Dead and War Veterans. • Subsection 02.02 a): was updated to include new Subsection 02.02 b) providing the Legion the opportunity to submit a list of names once per year; and waiving the application fees associated with the submission of street names by the Legion and re-alphabetized. - 166 - Report PLN 27-22 June 6, 2022 Subject: Street Naming Policy Page 3 • Subsection 02.02 c): the word “vet” was replaced with the word “evaluate”. • Subsection 02.02 d): the word “vetted” was replaced with the word “evaluated”. • Section 3: Street Name Signs, was updated by adding Subsection 03.04 and 03.05 on the use of the Pickering Fire Services crest or the poppy icon on street signs. • Section 6: Priority Use of the names of War Dead or War Veterans, was added to require Street Names for Type C Arterial or Collector Roads in new subdivisions in Pickering to be selected from the War Dead or War Veterans section of the City’s Reserve List; and to require for each development, or phase of development, that does not have a Type C Arterial or Collector Road, have at least one main street, whether public or used for wayfinding in private roads, to be selected from the War Dead or War Veterans section of the City’s Reserve List; and, should a development use a particular theme for the street names, then the Director of City Development has the ability to waive the requirements for the names of the War Dead or War Veterans, if unsuitable. 3. Conclusion and Recommendation Staff consulted with internal departments including City Development (Planning & Design Division and Engineering Services) during the formulation of the amendments to the policy. Street Naming Policy ADM 220, as amended, has been reviewed by the City’s Policy Committee. It is recommended that the amended Street Naming Policy ADM 220, contained in Appendix I to Report 27-22, be approved by Council. Appendix: Appendix I Proposed Amended Street Naming Policy ADM 220 - 167 - Report PLN 27-22 June 6, 2022 Subject: Street Naming Policy Page 4 Prepared By: Original Signed By Jill McMullen Supervisor, Geomatics Original Signed By Déan Jacobs, MCIP, RPP Manager, Policy & Geomatics Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Original Signed By Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO JM:DJ:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 168 - Appendix I to Report No. PLN 27-22 Proposed Amended Street Naming Policy - 169 - Policy Procedure Title: Street Naming Policy Policy Number ADM 220 Reference Resolution #466/20 Date Originated (m/d/y) November 23, 2020 Date Revised (m/d/y) June 27, 2022 Pages 10 Approval: Chief Administrative Officer Point of Contact Supervisor, Geomatics Policy Objective To implement a comprehensive policy on street naming including: criteria for selecting street names; consolidating previous Council Resolutions on the use of personal names; process and cost recovery and responsibilities for adding a street name to the Reserve List; assigning a street name; establishing a naming and signage convention for Private Streets; establishing municipal addressing for both standard condominiums and common element condominiums; and retiring street names. Index 01 Definitions 02 Street Naming 03 Street Name Signs 04 Changing Street Names 05 Names of Streets being stopped up and closed 06 Priority use of the names of the War Dead or War Veterans 01 Definitions 01.01 Back Lane – those Public Streets which are intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles along the back yard of properties. 01.02 City – The Corporation of the City of Pickering. 01.03 Civic Number – the number assigned by the City to a property or building, which forms part of a Municipal Address. 01.04 Council – the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering. 01.05 Customers – property owners, developers, builders and Pickering residents or their representatives/agents. - 170 - Policy Title: Street Naming Policy Page 2 of 10 Policy Number: ADM 220 01.06 Emergency Services – those members of the Police Services, Fire Services, Ambulance and Paramedic Services. 01.07 Geomatics Staff – the staff members within the Geomatics Subsection of the Policy & Geomatics Section of the City Development Department of the City. 01.08 Legion – the Royal Canadian Legion, Branches 606 and 483, from Pickering and Claremont, respectively. 01.09 Municipal Address – the Civic Number and Public Street name. 01.10 Pickering Firefighters – those members of the Pickering Fire Services. 01.11 Private Street – the lands, which provide vehicular access to a development but is not owned or maintained by a public municipal, provincial or federal body. 01.12 Proper Names – the names of people, brand names and/or companies. 01.13 Public Street – a common and public highway, road, avenue, parkway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles, and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof. 01.14 Region – the Regional Municipality of Durham. 01.15 Reserve List – the list of reserved names that have already gone through all the approvals required for reserving the street name; these names can be used for any proposed Public or Private Street. 01.16 Street Name – the name and suffix assigned for each Public or Private Street within the City of Pickering. 01.17 Street Name Signs – the signs erected at the intersection of two of more streets and identifying those streets by displaying the names of the streets. 01.18 Street Suffix – words that follow a street name and that usually indicate the type of street configuration and or street direction. 01.19 War Dead – those persons who died or went missing in action while serving overseas in active military duty including in the Canadian Merchant Navy that served in a war zone as defined by the Canadian Government and in nursing overseas during: the Peninsular and Crimean Wars, the Boer War, World War 1, World War 2, peacemaking action initiated by the United Nations and/or NATO including the Korean War, the Gulf War of 1991 and Afghanistan or any peacekeeping action initiated by the United Nations and/or NATO in which Canada played an active military role. - 171 - Policy Title: Street Naming Policy Page 3 of 10 Policy Number: ADM 220 01.20 War Veterans – those persons who voluntarily enlisted with Canadian military forces including the Canadian Merchant Navy that served in a war zone as defined by the Canadian Government and in nursing and served overseas in active duty during: the Peninsular and Crimean Wars, the Boer War, World War 1, World War 2, peacemaking action initiated by the United Nations and/or NATO including the Korean War, the Gulf War of 1991 and Afghanistan or any peacekeeping action initiated by the United Nations and/or NATO in which Canada played an active military role. 02 Street Naming 02.01 Criteria for selecting names to be reserved for Public or Private Streets in Pickering: a) Street Names shall not impair the ability of Emergency Services to respond to emergencies or the City’s ability to deliver services; b) Street Names shall not result in or be perceived to confer, any competitive advantage, benefit or preferential treatment or advertisement to the named party, or product, service or a particular business; c) Street Names shall not result in inappropriate abbreviations or acronyms; d) Street Names shall be easy to pronounce; e) Street Names shall not duplicate or sound similar to other street names including spelling variations of the same name being used within the Region; f) Street Names shall be a reasonable length so as to fit the size of a standard street sign blade width when combined with the street type abbreviation (for sign blade width see Engineering Services Department Standards P-809.1 & P-811); g) Proper Names will only be approved for use by the City if: i) the names are those of the War Dead who were residents of Pickering at the time they served. Submissions shall include their service record (length of military service and which branch of service) and awards, medals or decorations received; ii) the names are those of War Veterans who were, or became and remained, residents of Pickering after their service. Submissions shall include their service record (length of military service and which branch of service), awards, medals or decorations received, and, if applicable, community service in Pickering; iii) the name is that of a Pickering Firefighter who was killed on the job or passed as a result of a job-related injury/illness; or - 172 - Policy Title: Street Naming Policy Page 4 of 10 Policy Number: ADM 220 iv) the name is that of a resident, living or deceased, who has exhibited significant importance to Pickering’s heritage. 02.02 Procedure for reserving names not on the Reserve List to be used for Public or Private Streets in Pickering: a) All customers must submit an “Application to Add a Street Name to the Reserve List” to the City Development Department, (see Appendix 1), which shall include the proposed name and the rationale for the name, in addition to the applicable fees as per the City’s Fees and Charges By-law; b) Despite subsection a) above; i) a list of names of the War Dead or War Veterans can be submitted by the Legion no more than once per year; ii) application fees shall be waived for the list of names submitted by the Legion; c) Geomatics Staff will evaluate names submitted by customers to ensure that they comply with section 02.01 of this policy; and d) Names evaluated by Geomatics Staff, and found in compliance with section 02.01 of this policy, will be submitted to the Region for approval according to their procedure for Street Names in Regional Procedure D20. 02.03 Process and responsibilities for assigning reserved names to proposed Public or Private Streets in Pickering: a) The Customer picks names from the Reserve List or submits names as per sections 02.01 and 02.02 of this policy; b) Suffixes are assigned by Geomatics Staff to ensure the appropriate suffix is used to describe the type, function, length and configuration of the street, and are chosen from the standard list of Street Suffixes used by Canada Post (see Appendix 2); i) Only Back Lanes will use the suffix “Mews”; ii) Private Streets will only use the suffix “Private”; c) Private Streets will be named to provide wayfinding using the following criteria but shall not form part of the Municipal Address: i) where a development has multiple Private Streets; ii) where a development has a complex layout; and iii) where a development has multiple access points to public streets (see Appendix 3); - 173 - Policy Title: Street Naming Policy Page 5 of 10 Policy Number: ADM 220 d) notwithstanding subsections b) and c) above, all Private Streets named prior to this policy will be grandfathered (see Appendix 4); e) Street Names will be registered through one of the following processes as the City deems appropriate to the development type: i) registration of a draft plan of subdivision/condominium; ii) registration of a development agreement/site plan agreement; or iii) registration of a by-law on title. 03 Street Name Signs 03.01 Street Name Signs will adhere to the development standards as set out in the development agreement, subdivision/condominium agreement or site plan agreement. 03.02 Street Name Signs for Public Streets will use a green background with white lettering. 03.03 Street Name Signs for Private Streets will use a blue background with white lettering. 03.04 Street Name Signs for those using the name of a firefighter shall use the Pickering Fire Services crest as per Engineering Services Department Standard P-809.3. 03.05 Street Name Signs for those using the name of the War Dead or a War Veteran shall use a poppy icon as per Engineering Services Department Standard P-809.3. 04 Changing Street Names 04.01 Applications to change an existing Public Street Name, including those initiated by the City, are overseen by the Legal Services section of the Corporate Services Department. All costs associated with the procedure to change the street name will be the responsibility of the applicant. Selecting the name to replace an existing Street Name will be in accordance with section 02 of this policy. 05 Names of Public Streets being stopped up and closed 05.01 A Street Name of a Pickering street that is permanently stopped up and closed, in its entirety, will be retired and not re-used anywhere else within Pickering. - 174 - Policy Title: Street Naming Policy Page 6 of 10 Policy Number: ADM 220 06 Priority Use of the names of the War Dead or War Veterans 06.01 A street shall be assigned the name of a War Veteran or the War Dead, if: a) there are names of War Veterans or War Dead available on the City’s Reserve List; and b) the street is a Type C Arterial or a Collector Road; or c) the street is a private street to be named for wayfinding, with a minimum of one street so named within each phase of development; or d) the street is a main road, which provides the greatest exposure, within a draft plan of subdivision, with a minimum of one street so named within each registered phase; and e) if the street referred to in subsection c) and d) above, is within: i) a development application currently under review where the names have not yet been assigned to the streets as of the date of approval of this policy, as amended; or ii) a new development application submitted after the date of the approval of this policy, as amended. 06.02 Notwithstanding subsection c) and d) above, the Director, City Development & CBO may, at his discretion, waive the requirement for the assignment of the name of the War Dead or a War Veteran to a street in a plan of subdivision, if the name does not fit in or complement the street name theme associated with a particular development. Please refer to all associated Procedures and Standard Operating Procedures, if applicable, for detailed processes regarding this Policy. Appendices Appendix 1 Application to Add a Street Name to the Reserve List Appendix 2 Standard list of Canada Post Street Suffixes and their Approved Abbreviations Appendix 3 Examples of Developments with multiple Private Streets, complex layouts and multiple access points to Public Streets Appendix 4 Existing Private Street Names grandfathered by this Policy - 175 - Policy Title: Street Naming Policy Page 7 of 10 Policy Number: ADM 220 Appendix 1 Application to Add a Street Name to the Reserve List - 176 - Policy Title: Street Naming Policy Page 8 of 10 Policy Number: ADM 220 Appendix 2 Canada Post Standard Street Suffixes and their Approved Abbreviations Suffix Abbreviation Suffix Abbreviation Suffix Abbreviation Abbey ABBEY Front FRONT Passage PASS Acres ACRES Gardens GDNS Path PATH Alley ALLEY Gate GATE Pathway PTWAY Avenue AVE Glade GLADE Pines PINES Bay BAY Glen GLEN Place PL Beach BEACH Green GREEN Plateau PLAT Bend BEND Grounds GRNDS Plaza PLAZA Boulevard BLVD Grove GROVE Point PT By-Pass BYPASS Harbour HARBR Port PORT Byway BYWAY Heath HEATH Private PVT Campus CAMPUS Heights HTS Promenade PROM Cape CAPE Highlands HGHLDS Quay QUAY Centre CTR Highway HWY Ramp RAMP Chase CHASE Hill HILL Range RG Circle CIR Hollow HOLLOW Ridge RIDGE Circuit CIRCT Impasse IMP Rise RISE Close CLOSE Inlet INLET Road RD Common COMMON Island ISLAND Route RTE Concession CONC Key KEY Row ROW Corners CRNRS Knoll KNOLL Run RUN Court CRT Landing LANDING Square SQ Cove COVE Lane LANE Street ST Crescent CRES Limits LMTS Terrace TERR Crossing CROSS Line LINE Thicket THICK Cul-de-sac CDS Link LINK Towers TOWERS Dale DALE Lookout LKOUT Townline TLINE Dell DELL Loop LOOP Trail TRAIL Downs DOWNS Mall MALL Turnabout TRNABT Drive DR Manor MAOR Vale VALE End END Maze MAZE Via VIA Esplanade ESPL Meadow MEADOW View VIEW Estates ESTATE Mews MEWS Village VILLGE Expressway EXPY Moor MOOR Vista VISTA Extension EXTEN Mountain MTN Walk WALK Farm FARM Orchard ORCH Way WAY Field FIELD Parade PARADE Wharf WHARF Forest FOREST Park PK Wood WOOD Freeway FWY Parkway PKY Wynd WYND - 177 - Policy Title: Street Naming Policy Page 9 of 10 Policy Number: ADM 220 Appendix 3 Examples of Developments with multiple Private Streets, Complex Layouts and Multiple access points to Public Streets Example 1 Example 2 - 178 - Policy Title: Street Naming Policy Page 10 of 10 Policy Number: ADM 220 Appendix 4 Existing Private Street Names grandfathered by this Policy Names of Private Streets with a suffix other than “Private” Adirondack Chase Beachpoint Promenade Bluebird Crescent Boston Glen Castlegate Crossing Durham Live Avenue Garrison Crossing Grenwich Glen Gull Crossing Hidden Valley Glen Huckleberry Crossing Jackpine Crossing Ladyfern Crossing Nantucket Chase Mayapple Crossing Moonbeam Glen Shining Star Chase Stallion Chase Tribro Studios Avenue Universal City Way Waterpoint Street - 179 - Report to Executive Committee Report Number: PLN 28-22 Date: June 6, 2022 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Heritage Permit HP 01-22 - Demolition of former Whitevale Blacksmith Shop 405 Whitevale Road - File: A-3300-047 Recommendation: 1. That the Heritage Permit Application HP 01/22, to demolish the former Whitevale Blacksmith Shop, be approved, subject the following conditions: a) that a demolition plan is submitted to the satisfaction of the Director, City Development & CBO, including notes for salvage and storage of a selection of metal tiles, nails, ring fasteners (metals) and available wood materials; and b) that an appropriate location for storage of materials is provided to the satisfaction of the Director, City Development & CBO; 2. That staff take necessary steps to salvage wood, metal, or other materials to be preserved at the Pickering Village Museum, as part of a collection, or in Whitevale as display, or plaque; and 3. That the appropriate City officials and staff be authorized to take the necessary actions to implement Council’s decision. Executive Summary: A Heritage Permit has been submitted to demolish the former Whitevale Blacksmith Shop, located at Whitevale Park, municipally known as 405 Whitevale Road. The Park is located within the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District. The reason for demolition is that the structure is severely deteriorated and structurally not stable, as identified in a Structural Condition Assessment prepared in 2018 (see Structural Condition Assessment, Attachment #4) A Documentation and Salvage Plan, prepared by a qualified heritage consultant, was also submitted (see Documentation & Salvage Plan, Attachment #5). The building, while not usable, contains evidence of blacksmith work, such as nails, metal fasteners, metal tiles, and more. The full documentation provides a deeper understanding of the historical background, and architectural features, for archival purposes. Further, it labels and documents items for possible salvage and display in the future. - 180 - Report PLN 28-22 June 6, 2022 Subject: Heritage Permit HP 01/22 Demolition of former Whitevale Blacksmith Shop Page 2 While the City of Pickering Heritage Delegation By-law allows the Director, City Development & CBO to grant minor heritage permits, any requests for demolition or removal of a building within a Heritage Conservation District must be approved or denied by Council, in consultation with its Municipal Heritage Committee. The Heritage Permit was brought forward to the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee for consideration. The Committee recommended approval of the request to demolish the Blacksmith Shop, with conditions to ensure efforts would be made to salvage materials. Staff recommend that the demolition permit be approved, with careful consideration to salvage and store items from the building for future display, commemoration or exhibition. While demolition is the last resort, the current building poses a safety hazard to the public. The full documentation of the building, professional photographs, materials salvage, and an accurate historical timeline, allow the story of blacksmithing in Whitevale to continue to be told. Financial Implications: Demolition costs will be funded from account 504100-C10320.1705 (WVCC Picnic Shelter), which has $54,404.42 remaining available for this purpose. Discussion: 1. Background The subject lands are located on the south side of Whitevale Road, west of Duffins Creek, within Whitevale Park (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The park is owned by the City of Pickering and has an area of approximately 1.59 hectares. The Whitevale Park forms part of the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD), designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act by By-law 4074/92. The Whitevale Community Centre, Mary Christian House, a picnic shelter, a parking lot with access to the Seaton Hiking Trail, and the former Blacksmith Shop, currently occupy the park (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #2). The former Blacksmith Shop is not identified in the Whitevale HCD Guide as either a historic or non-historic building in the District. The Whitevale HCD Study, completed by Unterman McPhail Heritage Resource Consultants (1989), indicates the structure was used by Norman Miller as a blacksmith's shop until the mid-1900s. It is possible that James Miller, father of Norman Miller, who was listed as occupying Lot 32, Concession 4 in the 1864 assessment rolls, also used this structure as his blacksmith shop. Half of this shop was destroyed by fire in the early 1900s. The building is presently owned by the City of Pickering and is now derelict. The City of Pickering Heritage Delegation By-law 7651/18 does not permit the Director, City Development & CBO to grant a Heritage Permit for demolition or removal of a building that is part of a Heritage Conservation District. Therefore, as required by the Ontario Heritage Act, the status of this heritage permit application is to be decided by Council, in consultation with its Municipal Heritage Committee. - 181 - Report PLN 28-22 June 6, 2022 Subject: Heritage Permit HP 01/22 Demolition of former Whitevale Blacksmith Shop Page 3 1.1 Heritage Permit Application A Heritage Permit Application was received by the City Development Department in February 2022 (see Heritage Permit Application, Attachment #3). The City proposes to demolish the former Blacksmith Shop, given that the structure has significantly deteriorated beyond repair. Where possible, City staff will salvage wood and metal, to be used in future museum collections or on City property in Whitevale. The City’s Operations Department has committed to materials salvage, as recommended in a Documentation & Salvage Plan, prepared by Branch Architecture. Current options being explored by staff include: • preserving a collection of the metal tiles and other metal hardware from the exterior of the Blacksmith Shop at the Pickering Museum Village for use in future exhibits; • incorporating the materials in a display created when future repairs are expected at the Whitevale Arts and Cultural Centre in 2022; and • including in the demolition contract the requirement to salvage materials from the demolition, to be turned over to the City, subject to the availability of suitable storage. 1.2 Structural Condition Assessment A Structural Condition Assessment was prepared and submitted by Barry Bryan Associates, dated February 2018, with the Heritage Permit application (see Structural Condition Assessment, Attachment #4). Main observations from the report include: • severe deterioration of the wood roof decking; • lack of structural foundation or floor slab below the wood-frame structure, resulting in heaving of the structure, and damage to the structural supporting elements above; • wood beams supporting the rafters experiencing significant rotting at several locations; and • wood beams appear to be in poor condition. The report concluded that the existing building is severely deteriorated and structurally not stable. The deterioration is a result of prolonged exposure to moisture, insects, and limited maintenance. Demolition is recommended, with selective salvage of the original building components of historical significance. Such artifacts may be archived, or included in the construction of a replacement structure. 1.3 Documentation and Salvage Plan A Documentation and Salvage Plan was prepared and submitted by a qualified heritage consulting and architectural firm, Branch Architecture, dated January 2022 (see Documentation & Salvage Plan, Attachment #5). The report provides a full historical summary, physical description, photographs, and elevation plans. The report also reviews potential materials and recommended opportunities for salvage. - 182 - Report PLN 28-22 June 6, 2022 Subject: Heritage Permit HP 01/22 Demolition of former Whitevale Blacksmith Shop Page 4 Additional historical information was provided by the heritage consultant. The Miller family settled in Pickering in the 1860s, where James Miller was employed as a blacksmith. Norman, their son, was born in Whitevale in 1869, and purchased a blacksmith business in 1900 from Benjamin Ellison. Norman moved in with his family residing in the old Miller home west of the bridge in 1924, which is the current location of the blacksmith shop. Norman Miller also served as the first librarian of Whitevale Public Library until 1955. The roof of the building collapsed due to snow in 1945. It is generally understood that the Blacksmith Shop was relocated when Whitevale Road was widened. The report includes possible materials for salvage, including: • section of weathered girt with several ring fasteners along the east wall; • an area of the west wall covered in pressed metal tiles; • boards covered in a large number of nails from the mid-19th to early 20th centuries (tapered square nails, cut nails, and circular wire cut types); • a ring fastener at the floor; • simple metal chimney stack; and • large door openings; shelving. Salvage options, record photographs, drawings, and floor plans were also provided. Branch Architecture recommends the following salvage options: Wood elements: wood boards that are not at grade, floorboards, or exterior planks are salvageable for reuse. These would be useful in undertaking repairs or restoration work at other City-owned heritage buildings. Metal elements: as many of the metal elements found were handmade in response to an immediate need, they represent an authentic expression of the local blacksmith’s trade. 1.4 The Ontario Heritage Act Section 42(1.4) of the Ontario Heritage Act states that no owner of property designated under Part V (part of a Heritage Conservation District) shall demolish or remove a building or structure on the property unless the owner obtains a permit from the municipality. Within 90 days after receiving an application (or a time agreed upon by the applicant and council), the council, after consultation with its municipal heritage committee, may consent to the application, consent to the application subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified by the council, or refuse the application. If the council fails to notify the owner of its decision within the 90 day time period, council shall be deemed to have consented to the application. - 183 - Report PLN 28-22 June 6, 2022 Subject: Heritage Permit HP 01/22 Demolition of former Whitevale Blacksmith Shop Page 5 2. Analysis 2.1 Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee The heritage permit application was presented to the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee (Heritage Pickering) on two occasions. On April 21, 2022, Heritage Pickering met virtually, but not all staff could be present due to technical issues. Heritage Pickering raised the following concerns and issues with regards to demolishing the Blacksmith Shop: • did not agree that the structural issues were sufficient reason to permit demolition; • that the City has not explored all options, such as determining how much it would cost to rehabilitate the structure; • that the City should explore options outside of the municipality to give the buildings to individuals or companies who may be interested in salvage of materials, or the building as a whole; and • would like to see salvage of materials and commemoration of the site by way of plaque/storyboard, marking the foundation in the ground as an example. Subsequently, the Committee recommended that the Heritage Permit application be refused. The matter was brought forward again to a special meeting on May 12, 2022. At this meeting, the Manager, Facilities Capital Projects, was present and was able to address Heritage Pickering’s concerns, including those from the meeting prior. Staff provided the following additional information at this second meeting: • a response letter to the Committee’s concerns (see Memo to Heritage Pickering, Attachment #6); • findings of the Structural Condition Assessment conducted in 2018, noting severe structural deterioration; • that the City offered the Whitevale District Residents Association a two-year window of opportunity to prepare a business plan to ensure longevity of the structure, but received no submissions; • the need to address safety concerns as the structure continues to deteriorate; and • the opportunity to salvage some structural material for potential reuse. Heritage Pickering passed the following motion: That the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee decision from April 21, 2022 pertaining to HP 01/22, 405 Whitevale Road be amended to endorse the City staff recommendations as follows: Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee recommends that Heritage Permit Application HP 01/22 be approved subject to the following conditions: - 184 - Report PLN 28-22 June 6, 2022 Subject: Heritage Permit HP 01/22 Demolition of former Whitevale Blacksmith Shop Page 6 1. That a demolition plan is submitted to the satisfaction of the Director, City Development & CBO, including notes for salvage and storage of a selection of metal tiles, nails, ring fasteners (metals) and available wood materials; and 2. That an appropriate location for storage of materials is provided to the satisfaction of the Director, City Development & CBO. 2.2 Staff Analysis The Blacksmith Shop is not listed as a building with or without historical significance in the Whitevale HCD Guidelines. However, it is within a property included in the Whitevale HCD, and it has been a part of the fabric and story of Whitevale. Photographs included in the report show that the building was in poor repair as far back as 1989. While structural integrity is not a defining factor of cultural heritage significance, the open building and roof pose a risk to public safety. Demolition is only considered as a last resort. In times where demolition is proposed, best practices encourage proper documentation of the building, and where possible, salvage of materials or other commemorative plans. At the request of City Development staff, the applicant has provided full documentation of the structure, and filled in missing historical information, for archival purposes. Salvage of materials will be possible either on-site, or through the Pickering Museum Village. The City also reached out to the Whitevale District Residents Association (WDRA) in 2018, stating that the building was intended to be demolished, based on its condition and providing them with an opportunity to present a business case for the restoration and reuse of the structure. Over three years have passed and no business case has been provided. The Whitevale Heritage Conservation District guide provides guiding principles, and the following are applicable: Section 6.1.1 The heritage buildings described in this guide are to be preserved. Adaptive re-use is encouraged. The demolition of these buildings is strongly discouraged. Section 6.1.2 Maintenance repair and restoration of heritage buildings are encouraged. Section 6.1.6 Documented evidence of original features, such as historical pictures and physical samples, should form the basis for constructing replacement parts. Borrowing of features from other buildings is to be avoided. - 185 - Report PLN 28-22 June 6, 2022 Subject: Heritage Permit HP 01/22 Demolition of former Whitevale Blacksmith Shop Page 7 The City of Pickering Official Plan, Chapter 8, Cultural Heritage, states that City Council, in consultation with its Municipal Heritage Committee, shall discourage or prevent the demolition or inappropriate alteration of a heritage resource, but where demolition or inappropriate alteration is unavoidable: (i) consider the acquisition and conservation of the resource; and (ii) if acquisition is not possible, conduct a thorough review and documentation of the resource for archival purposes. 3. Conclusion The former Blacksmith Shop has deteriorated due to long term lack of repair and maintenance, and poses a risk to public safety. This structure remains a reminder of Whitevale’s first residents who served their community, and passed the business through generations. Staff recommend that the demolition permit application be approved, with careful consideration to salvage and store items from the building for future display, commemoration, or exhibit. While demolition is the last resort, the current building poses a safety hazard to the public. The full documentation of the building, professional photographs, the salvage of materials, and an accurate historical timeline, allow the story of blacksmithing in Whitevale to continue to be told. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Air Photo Map 3. Heritage Permit Application HP 01/22 4. Structural Condition Assessment, prepared by Barry Bryan Associates, dated February 2018 5. Documentation & Salvage Plan, prepared by Branch Architecture, dated January 2022 6. Memo to Heritage Pickering, prepared by Manager, Facilities Capital Projects - 186 - Report PLN 28-22 June 6, 2022 Subject: Heritage Permit HP 01/22 Demolition of former Whitevale Blacksmith Shop Page 8 Prepared By: Original Signed By Elizabeth Martelluzzi, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner, Development Review & Heritage Original Signed By Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Original Signed By Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO EM:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 187 - Attachment #1 to Report PLN 28-22 Whitevale Road Churchwi n S t reet G l a d s t one Street Mill St re e t Fa c t o r y S t r e e t Al t o n a R o a d WhitevalePark 1:4,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile: Municipal Address: HP 01-22 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Mar. 14, 2022405 Whitevale Road SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Other\Heritage\HP01-22_405WhitevaleRd_LocationMap.mxd Whitevale Heritage District Boundary By r o n S t r e e t Applicant:City of Pickering - 188 - Attachment #2 to Report PLN 28-22 Whitevale Road 1:1,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Air Photo Map Municipal Address:405 Whitevale Road THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Mar. 14, 2022 File:HP 01-22 BlacksmithShop Applicant:City of Pickering - 189 - Attachment #3 to Report PLN 28-22 Application for Heritage Permit In accordance with Sections 33 and 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, a Heritage Permit is required for proposed alterations, additions or demolition to property designated individually under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act or proposed new construction, changes, additions or demolition to a property located in a Heritage Conservation District designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. Date Filed Application Number *Required field First Name *Last Name * Street Address *Unit City *Province *Postal Code * Primary Phone *Ext.Alternate Phone Ext. Email Address * Are you an agent working on behalf of the Applicant/Registered Owner?* Is applicant different from Registered Owner * First Name *Last Name * Street Address *Unit City *Province *Postal Code * Primary Phone *Ext.Alternate Phone Ext. The application number will be assigned by the City of Pickering Part 1: Applicant/Agent Joseph Earle 1955 Clements Road Pickering On L1W 4C2 A1A 1A1 905.420.4660 999.999.9999 3226 905.706.2833 jearle@pickering.ca Yes No Yes No Part 2: Registered Owner City of Pickering City of Pickering One the Esplanade Pickering On L1V 6K7 A1A 1A1 905.420.4660 999.999.9999 - 190 - Email Address * How is the property designated?* Street Address *Unit City *Province *Postal Code * Lot Number Concession Number Registered Plan Number Description of work to be undertaken (check all that apply)* Full description of proposed work, reasons for undertaking the works and description of how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV Individual Designation By-law or Part V Heritage Conservation District Guidelines. (This may also be submitted as an attachment in part 5 of this form. If attached, indicate below.)* Have you consulted with City Development staff regarding this proposal?* Existing total floor area (meters squared)*Proposed total floor area (meters squared)* Existing use of subject property *Proposed use of subject property * Please attach drawings of the proposed construction. Drawings must be to scale and indicate the existing building and proposed additions, including: a. A site plan showing location of proposed works, with dimensions. b. Overall dimensions of proposal on an elevation drawing. c. Specific sizes of building elements (signs, windows, awnings, etc.). d. Detail information including trim, siding, mouldings, etc. jearle@pickering.ca Part 3: Property Information Individual designation (Part IV) Heritage District Designation (Part V) 405 Whitevale Road Whitevale On L0H 1M0 A1A 1A1 405 Part 4: Proposed Work Alterations to building/property Additions to building/property New construction Demolition (1,000 characters max) The proposed work at Whitevale Park Blacksmith shop is the complete demolition and removal of the building due to its derelict state. A report compiles in 2018 by BBA for the City of Pickering (Attached) details that "the existing building structure is severely deteriorated and structurally not stable". They go on to recommend that a demotion procedure be developed to selectively salvage original building components of historical significance". At the Request of the Whitevale District Residents Association (WDRA), a window of time was provided for them to present a business case for restoration and use of the structure. Three years have passed and no business case has been provided. Any opportunity to salvage materials has passed. The sturcture must now be fully demolished and removed from the site in order to eliminate a potential hazard to the public. Yes No 29.33 0 Unused/Park Parkland/Community centre Part 5: Construction Drawings, Sketch Plans, Scale Drawings - 191 - e. Materials to be used. Please attach these below or bring them to Pickering City Hall at One The Esplanade, Pickering, ON L1V 6K7, 905.420.4611. Upload Drawings and cover letter Other Information You may provide other written information or documents supporting your proposal for the City's consideration. Photographs Photographs of the building including general photos of the property, the streetscape in which the property is located, the facing streetscape, and if the property is located at an intersection, all four corners. Photos of the specific areas that may be affected by the proposed change or alteration assist the City with the review of the application. Professional Assistance Although it is not a requirement to obtain professional assistance in the preparation of this information, the applicant may wish to seek such assistance from an architect, architectural technologist, preservation specialist, or others familiar with the unique requirements of designated heritage buildings. Ontario Building Code and By-laws This application relates to heritage approval only. It is not a building permit application. It is the applicant's responsibility to apply for and obtain a building permit prior to undertaking any construction. Other Applications Do you have any concurrent applications (i.e., Committee of Adjustment, Building Permit, Site Plan, Zoning By- law Amendment, Official Plan Amendment)?* If yes, please list. Full name of Owner *Full name of Applicant or Authorized Agent * Signature of Owner *Signature of Applicant, or Authorized Agent * Date * Notice of Collection: Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Personal information is collected under the authority of the Planning Act, RSO. 1990 as amended, and will be used to assist in making a decision on this matter. All names, addresses, opinions and comments will be made available for public disclosure. Any questions related to the collection of this information should be directed to the City Clerk, One The Esplanade, Pickering, ON L1V 6K7, 905.420.4611. 17204 Blacksmith Report FINAL 2018-02-13.pdf 1.32MB DWG - Whitevale BS Shop - East and West Elevations.pdf 294.7KB DWG - Whitevale BS Shop - North and South Elevations.pdf 294.6KB Maximum upload is 5 PDF files, 10 mb each. Part 6: Important Information Yes No Building Permit for demolition Part 7: Authorization City of Pickering Joseph Earle 24-Sep-21 - 192 - Alternate formats available upon request at 905.683.7575. CDD 0901-10/19 Rev. 19/01/04 - 193 - Attachment #4 to Report PLN 28-22 Structural Condition Assessment for the WHITEVALE PARK BLACKSMITH SHOP The City of Pickering BBA PROJECT NO. 17204 FEBRUARY 13, 2018 - 194 - Structural Condition Assessment for the WHITEVALE PARK BLACKSMITH SHOP BBA PROJECT 17204 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 GENERAL BUILDING DESCRIPTION AND HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE ........................................................................... 2 OBSERVATIONS...................................................................................................................................................... 3 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................. 4 APPENDIX PHOTOGRAPHS - 195 - Structural Condition Assessment for the WHITEVALE PARK BLACKSMITH SHOP BBA PROJECT 17204 Barry Bryan Associates 1 | Page February 13, 2018 INTRODUCTION Barry Bryan Associates (BBA), Architects, Engineers, Project Managers were engaged by The City of Pickering to complete a structural condition assessment of the timber framed auxiliary building located within the Whitevale Community Park in Pickering. The building is considered a historically significant building and is part of the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District. BBA conducted an initial site visit on November 21, 2017. The purpose of the site review was to review the existing condition of the structural components, identify any areas of structural concern and provide recommendations on any remedial repairs and/or replacements. The building was not inspected for hazardous materials. There were no reference drawings available for the existing building and site at the time of the inspection. Further, our report is based on visual observations made on site on the date of the review. We did not undertake any destructive or intrusive testing. - 196 - Structural Condition Assessment for the WHITEVALE PARK BLACKSMITH SHOP BBA PROJECT 17204 Barry Bryan Associates 2 | Page February 13, 2018 GENERAL BUILDING DESCRIPTION AND HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE The original building consists of timber frame construction and was likely constructed as a part of the Whitevale Community Centre (originally the Miller House). The Miller House was originally constructed between 1825 and 1835. The building is a single storey structure with approximately 300 square feet. The timber structure was originally constructed as the Norman Miller Blacksmith shop and is located at the north side of the Whitevale Community Centre, adjacent to the restored Whitevale Bridge. The building is no longer used as a blacksmith shop and appears to have been abandoned for several years. The original building structure generally consists of exposed heavy timber and wood rafters supported on wood beams and posts. The ground floor structure consisted of wood decking on grade. The basic roof structure consists of a tin roof which is supported on wood plank decking. The roof deck spans between rough cut 4”x4” heavy timber rafters spanning north/south which are spaced at approximately 4’-0” centre to centre. The rafters are complete with lateral struts at the ridge and are notched at the perimeter timber beams. The perimeter beams span a maximum of 8’-0” between rough cut timber posts and diagonal bracing. We observed the timber posts terminating to a perimeter wood grade beam. The building is complete with a gable roof which is supported on perimeter timber walls. Board and batten siding partially remained on the perimeter of the building. - 197 - Structural Condition Assessment for the WHITEVALE PARK BLACKSMITH SHOP BBA PROJECT 17204 Barry Bryan Associates 3 | Page February 13, 2018 OBSERVATIONS BBA did not enter the existing building as the building due to potential health and safety hazards. The building structure has been partially hoarded to prevent access by the general public. Our review was completed from safe accessible areas at the exterior of the building structure. Our observations include: •Severe deterioration of the wood roof decking was observed throughout the building structure allowing water infiltration into the building (Photos 001, 002). The deterioration appeared to be a result of the advanced deterioration of the tin roof above and continuous exposure to the elements. A tarp enclosure was secured to the top of the timber structure to prevent excessive water infiltration through the roof structure, however, the tarp presently appears to be in poor condition. •Severe water staining was noted at several locations on the underside of the wood roof decking, rafters, beams and posts (Photos 003, 004). This condition is typical for timber members exposed to consistent moist/damp conditions. The water/moisture appeared to have infiltrated through the deteriorated roofing membrane into the building interior. •The roof structure appeared to have been previously reinforced with lateral struts at several locations (Photo 005). The timber reinforcement appeared to be in good condition. •The timber structure was observed to be situated on concrete masonry block units at several locations along the perimeter of the building (Photos 006, 007). •The post for the timber structure appeared to be situated on a wood grade beam. There is no structural foundation or floor slab below the wood structure. Several areas of the wood floor decking appeared to be displaced and in poor condition (Photo 008). The absence of the foundations and excessive water/moisture infiltration into the building has resulted in the heaving of the structure and damage to the structural supporting elements above. •It was observed that a tarp enclosure was previously secured to the top of the exterior walls to protect the building from excessive water/moisture infiltration but has now since been cut/damaged, fully exposing the interior of the building structure to the elements (Photo 009, 010). The excessive water/moisture infiltration has resulted in the significant deterioration of the structural supporting members. •The tin roof was buckled and bowed in many areas allowing probable moisture infiltration into the structure (Photo 011) •The wood beams supporting the rafters appeared to be experiencing significant deterioration and rotting at several locations along its span (Photo 012). The wood beams appeared to be in poor condition. This is likely a result of the continuous exposure to moisture and condensation below the roof. •The wood soffit and fascia is severely deteriorated due to persistent exposure to weather (Photo 013). - 198 - - 199 - Structural Condition Assessment for the WHITEVALE PARK BLACKSMITH SHOP BBA PROJECT 17204 APPENDIX PHOTOGRAPHS - 200 - Structural Condition Assessment for the WHITEVALE PARK BLACKSMITH SHOP BBA PROJECT 17204 Photo 001 Deteriorated Wood Deck Photo 002 Deteriorated Wood Deck Photo 003 Water Staining Photo 004 Water Staining - 201 - Structural Condition Assessment for the WHITEVALE PARK BLACKSMITH SHOP BBA PROJECT 17204 Photo 005 Reinforced Roof Structure Photo 006 Masonry Block Units at Grade Photo 007 Masonry Block Units at Grade Photo 008 Deteriorated Wood Floor Deck - 202 - Structural Condition Assessment for the WHITEVALE PARK BLACKSMITH SHOP BBA PROJECT 17204 Photo 009 Damaged Tarp Enclosure Photo 010 Damaged Tarp Enclosure Photo 011 Damaged Tin Roof Photo 012 Deteriorated Beam - 203 - Structural Condition Assessment for the WHITEVALE PARK BLACKSMITH SHOP BBA PROJECT 17204 Photo 013 Deteriorated Wood Soffit and Fascia - 204 - Attachment #5 to Report PLN 28-22 BLACKSMITH SHOP: DOCUMENTATION + SALVAGE PLAN WHITEVALE PARK PICKERING, ONTARIO - 205 - Cover Image: Blacksmith Shop, 2021. (Branch Architecture, BA) PREPARED FOR: Joseph Earle Acting, Coordinator, Facilities Capital Projects City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 T: 905.420.4660 ext.3226 E: jearle@pickering.ca PREPARED BY: Branch Architecture 2335 County Road 10 Picton, ON K0K 2T0 E: lreid@branch-architecture.com T: (613) 827-5806 ISSUED: December 17, 2021 DRAFT January 21, 2022 - 206 - iDOCUMENTATION + SALVAGE PLAN CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 HISTORICAL SUMMARY 3 3 BUILDING DESCRIPTION 9 4 SALVAGE OPTIONS 10 Appendix 1: Record Photographs Appendix 2: Record Drawings - 207 - ii BLACKSMITH SHOP, WHITEVALE PARK PROJECT NORTH 1.Map showing location of Blacksmith Shop within Whitevale Park, 2017. (City of Pickering aerial) Blacksmith Shop Whitevale R o a d 2.Blacksmith Shop within Whitevale Park. (Google streetview) Blacksmith Shop - 208 - 1DOCUMENTATION + SALVAGE PLAN 1 INTRODUCTION Branch Architecture was retained by the City of Pickering to provide a written and visual record of the former Blacksmith Shop at Whitevale Park, and to advise on the viability of salvaging building elements for reuse or interpretative purposes. The City of Pickering intends to demolish the former Blacksmith Shop at the Whitevale Park. This decision was informed by the Structural Condition Assessment of the building by Barry Bryan Associates (February 2018). The assessment (based on a visual review of the structure) determined that “the existing building structure is severely deteriorated and structural not stable” as a result of prolonged expo- sure to moisture, insects and limited maintenance. The report recommended that the City develop a demolition procedure that included salvaging select building components of historical significance. Branch Architecture visited the site on November 18, 2021. This visit included a visual review of the building, both interior and exterior. This work was completed with respect to the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit and the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada as well as other charters and guidelines that exemplify heritage best practice. - 209 - 2 BLACKSMITH SHOP, WHITEVALE PARK 3. Part of Ontario County Map by George R. Tremaine, 1860. (University of Toronto) 4. Part of the Village of Whitevale map showing select buildings and the lot subdivision plan, 1877. (Illustrated Historical Atlas of Pickering Township) - 210 - 3DOCUMENTATION + SALVAGE PLAN Whitevale Park, where the former Blacksmith Shop resides, forms part of the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD) and is protected under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act under by-law 4074/92 dated June 7, 1993. The park is located on the south side of Whitevale Road, directly west of the creek. According to the Background Report of the Hamlet of Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Study by Unterman McPhail Heritage Resource Consultants (August 1989), the building was constructed in the 1860s. The Study provides the following description for the property: Used by Norman Miller as a blacksmith’s shop until the mid 1900s, this building is now derelict. It is possible that James Miller, father of Norman Miller, who was listed as occupying Lot 32, Concession 4 in the 1864 assess- ment rolls also used this structure as his blacksmith shop. Half of this shop was destroyed by fire in the early 1900s. The building is presently owned by the Town of Pickering. The building itself does not appear on the 1860 or 1877 historical maps shown on the opposite page. The 1860 map indicates that the property the building rests on today was owned by T.P. White. James Miller was born in Scotland in 1828. In 1855, Miller and Robina (Robenna) Traill Craigie were married. The couple must have immigrated soon after their marriage as their first child, William, was born in Markham in 1856. Five years later, they were living in Pickering in a 1 1/2 storey frame house.1 He was employed as a blacksmith. Their children included William, James, John, Robina, Anna and Norman Louis.2 3 By 1871, James was no longer listed in the census as he had died in 1870. Norman Louis Miller was born in Whitevale on October 9, 1869. By 1891, Miller (then 20 years old) was working as a blacksmith. At that time he was living with his mother Robina (a widow) and siblings William, James, Robina and Anna.4 Of note, the family was listed next to Benjamin Ellison; Ellison was one of two local black- smiths listed in the 1898-1899 Eastern Ontario Gazetteer and Directory. 1 Library and Archives Canada; Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Census Returns For 1861; Roll: C-1057 2 Year: 1871; Census Place: Pickering, Ontario South, Ontario; Roll: C-9973; Page: 52 3 Year: 1881; Census Place: Pickering, Ontario South, Ontario; Roll: C_13244; Page: 62; Family No: 307 4 Year: 1891; Census Place: Pickering, Ontario West, Ontario, Canada; Roll: T-6358; Family No: 31 2 HISTORICAL SUMMARY - 211 - 4 BLACKSMITH SHOP, WHITEVALE PARK 5. Sketch of the Village of Whitevale showing select buildings, 1877. (Illustrated Historical Atlas of Pickering Township ) 6. Looking east along Whitevale Road, 1912. (Pickering Archives) - 212 - 5DOCUMENTATION + SALVAGE PLAN Norman Miller married Lilly Cordelia Buckler on December 30, 1896.5 They had several children together including Annie, Arthur, Florence, Alma and Elsie. He continued to work as a blacksmith in Whitevale.6 7 8 In 1900, Miller purchased the blacksmithing business of Benjamin Ellison.9 In the fall of 1924, The Pickering News reported that Norman Miller had vacated his premises on the east hill, and had moved in with his family residing in the old Miller home west of the bridge.10 This description aligns with the current location of the blacksmith shop. A few months later, in January of 1925, The Pickering News welcomed a new black- smith to Whitevale: They have purchased the property recently vacant by Norman Miller and Mr. Burgess and sons will carry on the business of general blacksmithing at the old stand.11 According to The Township of Pickering Public Library history, Miller was also the Whitevale Public Library’s first librarian. The library was established in 1925 and, “Mr. Norman Miller, the local blacksmith was appointed librarian and served in this capacity till 1955.”12 On Friday, February 16, 1945, The Pickering News published the following in the Whitevale column: The roof of Norman Miller’s blacksmith shop collapsed on Saturday evening under the terrific weight of the snow. It appears to be a complete loss. Fortunately, Mr. Miller was absent at the time.13 Miller died on September 3, 1957, and is buried in the Whitevale Cemetery. It is understood that the Blacksmith Shop was relocated when Whitevale Road was widened. 5 Ontario marriage certificate. 6 Year: 1901; Census Place: Pickering, Ontario (West/Ouest), Ontario; Page: 3; Family No: 31 7 Year: 1911; Census Place: 6 - Pickering, Ontario South, Ontario; Page: 4; Family No: 52 8 Reference Number: RG 31; Folder Number: 75; Census Place: 75, Ontario South, Ontario; Page Number: 10. This polling division included Whitevale (lots 25-35 in the 4th concession and lots 27-35 in the 5th concession). 9 The Pickering News, Vol. XX, Friday, November 2, 1900, No. 3, p.1. 10 The Pickering News, Vol. XLIV, Friday, October 31, 1924,No. 8, p.1. 11 The Pickering News, Vol. XLIV, Friday, January 30, 1925, No. 21, p.5. 12 The Township of Pickering Public Library by Moyra R. Whiteford, p. 36. 13 The Pickering News, Vol. LXIV, Friday, February 16, 1945, No. 26, p.5. - 213 - 6 BLACKSMITH SHOP, WHITEVALE PARK 7.Photos of the Whitevale “Blacksmith Shop”, 1970. (A Rural Ontario History, Pickering Archives) - 214 - 7DOCUMENTATION + SALVAGE PLAN 8. Blacksmith Shop as viewed from the south-west, c. 1989. (The Hamlet of Whitevale HCD Study) 9. “Norman Miller Blacksmith Shop”, 1989. (Pickering Archives) - 215 - 8 BLACKSMITH SHOP, WHITEVALE PARK 7' - 3 1/2" Sk-015 2 3 419 ' - 1 " 5' - 1 0 1 / 8 " 6' - 1 0 5 / 8 " 5' - 8 1 / 4 " 16' - 0" N Scale1/4" = 1'-0" 11/30/21 11:56:51 AM Interior Elevs Sk-011/4" = 1'-0"101 Main 1/4" = 1'-0"2 North Int 1/4" = 1'-0"3 East Int 1/4" = 1'-0"4 South Int 1/4" = 1'-0"5 West Int 10.Rendered interior elevations, not to scale. (Branch Architecture) - 216 - 9DOCUMENTATION + SALVAGE PLAN 3 BUILDING DESCRIPTION The former Blacksmith Shop (now vacant) is located along the north edge of Whitevale Park adjacent to Whitevale Road and the bridge. The building is roughly 16 ft. x 19 ft. with the short side facing north. The building does not have a proper foundation but rather the floor structure rests on several concrete blocks at grade. Along the north elevation, the sill plate is partially concealed by earth. The structure is a simple timber frame building. The heavy timber frame, secondary timbers (girts and braces), floor joists and notched rafters are generally consistent in size, type and configuration. The primary structural elements (posts and beams) range in size and include 4” x 6”, 6” x 6” and 8” x 6” members. The secondary struc- tural elements and cross braces are also 4” x 4”. The primary structural elements are joined using pegged mortise and tendon connections. The timbers do not appear to have been salvaged from another structure. The floor is made up of two layers of 1 1/2” thick wood boards, approximately 12” wide. The exterior is clad in 1” thick wood planks up to 18” in width and set in a board and batten pattern (where intact) and pressed metal tiles (on the west side only). The roof displays pressed metal panels. As it is today, the building is a unique example of a timber frame Blacksmith Shop in the hamlet. The building displays a weathered appearance due to its age, expo- sure to the elements, and the impact of its long-standing use as a blacksmith shop. Upon close inspection of the interior, there many charming details and custom pieces that are likely related to its former use. These include: a weather girt with several ring fasteners along the east wall; an area covered in pressed metal tiles along the west wall; boards covered in a large number of nails from the mid-19th and early 20th centuries (tapered square nails, cut nails, and circular wire cut types); a ring fastener at the floor; simple metal chimney stack; large door open- ings; shelving; etc. - 217 - 10 BLACKSMITH SHOP, WHITEVALE PARK 4 SALVAGE OPTIONS The former Blacksmith Shop presents a few opportunities for reuse and interpre- tation specific to the wood, pressed metal tiles and metal hardware. 1. Wood elements - Salvage for future repairs Due to the robustness of the construction and the fact that the building rests on concrete blocks (allowing for ventilation beneath), the wood timbers and boards largely appear to be in sound condition. Wood elements located adjacent to grade or directly below roof leaks display rot or deterioration related to moisture, however, many of the above grade timbers, floor boards and exterior wood planks (cladding) are salvageable for reuse. Given the age of the building and the associated quality and sizing of the wood elements - true size structural elements, thick floor boards and exterior cladding - these are good candidates for salvage. These would be useful in undertaking repairs or restoration work at other City owned heritage buildings. It is often diffi- cult to find good matches in wood species, size, quality, texture and natural wear. 2. Metal elements - Salvage for interest / display While the building has been stripped of much of its original hardware, examples of nails, metal rings and pressed metal tiles remain. As many of these elements were likely handmade in response to an immediate need, they represent an authentic expression of the local blacksmith’s trade. Samples of the following could be collected for a future display at the Miller House at Whitevale Park: • a piece of wood board (18” x 18”) that displays a large number and variety of historic nails; • a section of the weathered rail or girt with metal rings (3 to 4 feet in length); and • a few intact samples of the pressed metal tiles. Further, in the interest of diverting demolition material from landfill, it is recom- mended that if the City is not interested in salvaging these items for reuse that a historic building salvage company or local heritage contractor be invited to remove sound building elements for reuse as part of the demolition process. - 218 - 11DOCUMENTATION + SALVAGE PLAN Appendix 1: Record Photographs 1.As viewed looking north-east from within Whitevale Park. Context - 219 - 12 BLACKSMITH SHOP, WHITEVALE PARK 2. As viewed looking east along Whitevale Road. 3. As viewed looking north from vegetation near the creek and within Whitevale Park. - 220 - 13DOCUMENTATION + SALVAGE PLAN 4.North elevation. 5.East elevation. Exterior Elevations - 221 - 14 BLACKSMITH SHOP, WHITEVALE PARK 6. South elevation. 7. West elevation. - 222 - 15DOCUMENTATION + SALVAGE PLAN 8.North interior elevation. 9.Shelving at corner. Interiors with details 10.Pegged mortise and tendon joints. - 223 - 16 BLACKSMITH SHOP, WHITEVALE PARK 11. East interior elevation. 12. Wood blocking (former shelf support?)13. Weathered or shaped girt (middle rail). - 224 - 17DOCUMENTATION + SALVAGE PLAN 14.South interior elevation. 15.Metal rings at girt (middle rail).16.Joint connections at middle rail. - 225 - 18 BLACKSMITH SHOP, WHITEVALE PARK 17. West interior elevation. 18. Knee brace fastened to heavily pegged timber.19. Door threshold. - 226 - 19DOCUMENTATION + SALVAGE PLAN 20.Looking west at roof structure. 21.Looking east at roof structure. - 227 - 20 BLACKSMITH SHOP, WHITEVALE PARK 22. Perspective view from the north-west. 23. Perspective view from the south-west. Perspectives - 228 - 21DOCUMENTATION + SALVAGE PLAN 24.West elevation, floor structure.25.West elevation, vertical boards attached to structure with wood dowels Building Details 26.South elevation, floor structure. - 229 - 22 BLACKSMITH SHOP, WHITEVALE PARK 27. South elevation, sample window opening. 28. Typical window sill.29. Typical window / door header. - 230 - 23DOCUMENTATION + SALVAGE PLAN 30.Eaves detail.31.Metal shingle roof and chimney 32.Pressed metal tile.33.Nail heads. - 231 - 24 BLACKSMITH SHOP, WHITEVALE PARK Appendix 2: Record Drawings - 232 - 19 ' - 1 " O . D . 5' - 1 0 1 / 8 " op e n i n g 6' - 1 0 5 / 8 " 5' - 8 1 / 4 " 16' - 0" O.D. N 4x6 post 8x6 post 8x6 post 4x4 post 8x6 post7.75x64x5.5 4x4 post 4x4 post opening 4' - 1 3/4" opening 2' - 2 1/4" opening 5' - 7 1/2" 7' - 8 1/2"7' - 7 1/2" 9' - 0 1 / 2 " 9' - 4 1 / 2 " 2' - 2 3/4" roof line above Scale1/4" = 1'-0"12/17/21 12:01:56 PM Floor Plan405 Whitevale Road, Pickering Whitevale Blacksmith Shop Sk-0121-02-02 - 233 - 4x4 rafters, typ 2x4 collar ties, typ 6x6 beam open open4x4 girt 4x4 brace 6x6 beam 1x4 sill 9' - 1 1 / 2 " 14 ' - 2 1 / 4 " metal tiles 4x4 girt 4x4 brace 6x6 beam open Scale1/4" = 1'-0"12/17/21 12:01:56 PM Interior Elevations405 Whitevale Road, Pickering Whitevale Blacksmith Shop Sk-0221-02-02 1/4" = 1'-0"1 North Int 1/4" = 1'-0"2 East Int - 234 - open openopen open 4x4 girt open 6x6 beam 9' - 1 1 / 2 " Scale1/4" = 1'-0"12/17/21 12:01:56 PM Interior Elevations405 Whitevale Road, Pickering Whitevale Blacksmith Shop Sk-0321-02-02 1/4" = 1'-0"1 South Int 1/4" = 1'-0"2 West Int - 235 - Attachment #6 to Report PLN 28-22 Memo To: Elizabeth Martelluzzi May 5, 2022 Senior Planner, Development Review & Heritage From: Vince Plouffe Manager, Facilities Capital Projects Copy: Director, Community Services Director, City Development Director, Operations Manager, Facilities Maintenance Manager, Development Review & Urban Design Coordinator, Park Capital Assets Subject: Whitevale Park -Blacksmith Shop Demolition File: O-8320 The following responses are offered to comments and questions raised at the April 21, 2022 Heritage Advisory Committee meeting regarding the proposed demolition of the derelict blacksmith shop structure located on the same property as the Whitevale Community Centre at 405 Whitevale Road. 1.Why not fix it? A lease agreement exists between the City and Whitevale District Residents Association (WDRA) for the operation and cleaning of the Whitevale Community Centre. Capital repairs and infrastructure maintenance remain the responsibility of the City. When the structural report prepared by Barry Bryan Associates was received in 2018, the City met with senior representatives of the WDRA to review what could be done. The City was not prepared to invest funds to restore or replace a fully deteriorated structure, preferring to prioritize resources to maintain the Whitevale Community Centre, replacing the adjacent picnic shelter and complete repairs to the Whitevale Arts and Cultural Centre. WDRA committed to providing a proposal to the City within two years, to include a proposed scope of work and funding to support it. No proposal has been received. It has now been four years and the structure has deteriorated even further, to an extent that constitutes a potential public hazard. 2.Why not do more with it? There is little to nothing left of the building that can reasonably be salvaged. Any effort to repurpose it would require a full replacement of the existing structure. Given the extent of the damage, any attempt to do more would begin by removing the existing materials. - 236 - May 5, 2022 Page 2 of 2 Whitevale Park – Blacksmith Shop Demolition 3.Why not have it deconstructed rather than demolished? Most of the wood is completely rotten and the tin roof is heavily corroded. As identified in the original demolition submission, the City intends to salvage some of the materials, to be transferred to the Pickering Museum Village for future display and commemoration. It is unlikely that more than a few individual boards and roof panels would be re-usable in manner that would be sustainable beyond the short term, if at all. They are beyond end of serviceable life. 4.Why not save more of it? Simply put: there is nothing more to save. The structure was in very poor condition when the original structural assessment and review was completed in 2018. Four years of additional exposure to the elements has only worsened its deterioration. 5.Whitevale Community has historically been allowed to maintain pieces of heritage infrastructure and may have interest in participating in preserving it. The practice of community ‘work bees’ to undertake building repair projects was discontinued in 2014 due to liability concerns and potential conflicts with the City’s collective agreement with CUPE union staff, specifically pertaining to Facilities Maintenance. As noted in #1, above, WDRA were provided with ample opportunity to propose and fund a solution, but no proposal received. The City remains open to any such proposals, but cannot allow a potential public safety hazard to remain in place while awaiting a submission. I will gladly meet with the Heritage Advisory Committee, at their convenience, in order to address these or any other questions in greater detail. The City has every intention of respecting its own local history. Unfortunately, this particular structure was already beyond the point of salvage before this conversation even began, and now constitutes a concern for public safety that can no longer be deferred. VP:- - 237 -