HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 3, 2024Executive Committee
Meeting Agenda
September 3, 2024
Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm
Council Chambers Chair: Councillor Butt
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Council & Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
Members of the public 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.Call to Order/Roll Call
2.Disclosure of Interest
3.Delegations
Members of the public looking to provide a verbal delegation to Members of the ExecutiveCommittee may do so either in person or through a virtual 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 theChair in the order in which they have registered. Delegates are allotted a maximum of 5
minutes to make their delegation.
Please be advised that your name will appear in the public record and will be posted onthe City’s website as part of the meeting minutes.
4.Matters for Consideration
4.1 Director, Community Services, Report CS 22-24 1 Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan
Consultant Delegation
Steve Langlois, Principal Planner, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants (In Person)
Recommendation:
1.That the Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan, as set out inAttachment 1, be endorsed; and,
2.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized
to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Committee
Meeting Agenda
September 3, 2024
Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm
Council Chambers Chair: Councillor Butt
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Council & Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
4.2 Director, Community Services, Report CS 28-24 314 Post Manor Feasibility Study
Consultant Delegation
Julie Whelan, Associate Director, Nordicity (Virtual) Caitlin Cross, Consultant, Nordicity (Virtual)
Recommendation:
1.That Report CS 28-24 regarding the Post Manor Feasibility Studyby received;
2.That staff be directed to continue discussions with Brock and
Kingston Holdings Inc. on acquiring the Post Manor building, for
lease or purchase for use as a public art gallery, anticipating anoccupancy date in 2029, and report back with an update to Councilby Q4, 2025; and,
3.That the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the
necessary actions as outlined in this report.
4.3 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report CLK 04-24 351 Review and Updates to ADM 100, Public Notice Policy
Recommendation:
1.That Report CLK 04-24, regarding the Review and Updates toADM 100 Public Notice Policy, be received;
2.That the draft ADM 100 Public Notice Policy, as set out in
Attachment 1 to this report, be approved;
3.That going forward, the City Clerk be authorized to updateAppendix 1 of Policy ADM 100 to accommodate for any legislatedchanges pertaining to the provision of notice to the public;
Executive Committee
Meeting Agenda
September 3, 2024
Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm
Council Chambers Chair: Councillor Butt
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Council & Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
4.That the draft By-law, appended as Attachment 3 to this report, to
repeal By-law No. 6166/03 be approved; and,
5.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to takesuch actions as are necessary to give effect to therecommendations in this report.
4.4 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report CLK 05-24 401 2025 Committee and Council Meeting Schedule
Recommendation:
1.That the 2025 Committee and Council Meeting Schedule,appended as Attachment 1 to Report CLK 05-24, be approved;and,
2.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take
the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
4.5 Director, Community Services, Report CS 23-24 405 Celebration of Gordon Lightfoot Public Art – Artist Selection -Commission of Public Art
Recommendation:
1.That Council endorse the commission of the public art, entitled“Gordon’s Guitar” to be installed in Ernie L. Stroud Park, Steeple
Hill and be awarded to Geordie Lishman;
2.That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to financethe net project cost of $53,933.00 to be funded by a transfer fromthe Public Art Reserve as approved in the 2024 Current Budget;
3.That the Mayor and the City Clerk be authorized to execute theLetter of Understanding, between Geordie Lishman and the City ofPickering, set out in Attachment 1, subject to minor revisionsacceptable to the Director, Community Services and the Director,
Corporate Services & City Solicitor; and,
Executive Committee
Meeting Agenda
September 3, 2024
Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm
Council Chambers Chair: Councillor Butt
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Council & Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
4.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized
to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
4.6 Director, Community Services, Report CS 24-24 456 Volunteer Program 2023 Activities Update and Volunteer Policy Revisions
Recommendation:
1.That Report CS 24-24, regarding the City of Pickering VolunteerProgram 2023 Activities Update, be received;
2.That Council endorse the revisions in CUL 080 The VolunteerPolicy, as set out in Attachment 2 to this report, subject to minorrevisions acceptable to the Director, Community Services; and,
3.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized
to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
4.7 Director, Community Services, Report CS 25-24 473 City Property Naming
-John E. Anderson
Recommendation:
1.That Report CS 25-24 regarding the City Property Naming in
honour of John E. Anderson be received;
2.That staff be directed to explore the naming of the Exhibit Gallery inthe Pickering Heritage & Community Centre as the John E.Anderson Exhibit Gallery subject to undertaking the work outlined in
the City Property Naming Procedure (ADM 110-006) and report
back with the final recommendations in Q4 2024;
3.That Council grant staff the authority to solicit public comment onthe proposed name, as set out in Section 03.02 of City Property
Naming Procedure (ADM 110-006); and,
4.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to takethe necessary actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Committee
Meeting Agenda
September 3, 2024
Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm
Council Chambers Chair: Councillor Butt
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Council & Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
4.8 Director, Community Services, Report CS 26-24 476
City Property Naming - Wayne Arthurs
Recommendation:
1. That Report CS 26-24 regarding the City Property Naming in honour of Wayne Arthurs be received;
2. That staff be directed to explore the naming of the gymnasium in the future Seaton Recreation Complex & Library as the Wayne
Arthurs Gymnasium subject to undertaking the work outlined in City
Property Naming Procedure (ADM 110-006) and report back with the final recommendations in Q2 2025;
3. That Council grant staff the authority to solicit public comment on the proposed name, as set out in Section 03.02 of City Property
Naming Procedure (ADM 110-006); and,
4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
4.9 Director, Community Services, Report CS 27-24 479
Indoor Pickleball Facility – Update
Recommendation: That Report CS 27-24 regarding an update on Indoor Pickleball facilities
be received for information.
4.10 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 13-24 486 Pine Creek Erosion Assessment - Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Recommendation: 1. That Report ENG 13-24 regarding the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment Municipal Class Environmental Assessment be
received;
Executive Committee
Meeting Agenda
September 3, 2024
Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm
Council Chambers Chair: Councillor Butt
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Council & Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
2.That Council endorse the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment prepared by AquaforBeech Limited, dated May 10, 2024, to be used by staff as aresource document for identifying and planning projects for PineCreek rehabilitation in areas under the jurisdiction of the City of
Pickering;
3.That the recommendations within the Pine Creek ErosionAssessment Municipal Class Environmental Assessment beimplemented in a phased approach, subject to budget and further
Council approval for the individual projects; and,
4.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorizedto take the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
4.11 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 14-24 660
Detailed Design for Radom Street Culverts Replacement -Request for Proposal No. RFP2024-8
Recommendation:
1.That Request for Proposal No. RFP2024-8 submitted by AquaforBeech Limited for Consulting and Professional Services for theDetailed Design for Radom Street Culverts Replacement in theamount of $140,261.25 (HST included) be accepted;
2.That the total gross project cost of $172,913.00 (HST included),including the fee amount and other associated costs, and the totalnet project cost of $155,714.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved;
3.That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance
the total net project cost of $155,714.00 as approved in the 2021Roads Capital Budget to be funded by a transfer from the Road andBridges Reserve Fund; and,
4.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized
to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
4.12 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 16-24 665 Pickering City Centre Park
Executive Committee
Meeting Agenda
September 3, 2024
Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm
Council Chambers Chair: Councillor Butt
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Council & Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
-Request for Proposal RFP2024-1
Recommendation:
1.That Request for Proposal No. RFP2024-1 for the Pickering City
Centre Park - Design as submitted by MacLennan Jaunkalns Miller
Architects Ltd., in the amount of $744,105.00 (HST included) beaccepted;
2.That the total gross project cost of $862,778.00 (HST included),
including the tendered amount, a contingency and other associated
costs, and the total net project cost of $776,958.00 (net of HSTrebate) be approved;
3.That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance
the total net project cost of $776,958.00 as follows:
a)The sum of $388,479.00 available budget in capital projectC10572.2409 as approved in the 2024 Parks Projects CapitalBudget to be funded by a transfer of funds from the Casino
Reserve;
b)The sum of $388,479.00 available budget in capital projectC10572.2409 as approved in the 2024 Parks Projects CapitalBudget to be funded by a transfer of funds from theDevelopment Charges Parks & Recreation Reserve Fund;
and,
4.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorizedto take the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
4.13 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 17-24 672
Sideline 24 Hard Surfacing from Highway 407 to Whitevale Road
-Request for Tender No. T2024-9
Recommendation:
Executive Committee
Meeting Agenda
September 3, 2024
Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm
Council Chambers Chair: Councillor Butt
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Council & Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
1.That Request for Tender No. T2024-9 for Sideline 24 Hard
Surfacing as submitted by IPAC Paving Limited in the total tenderedamount of $501,457.28 (HST included) be accepted;
2.That the total gross project cost of $604,347.00 (HST included),including the tendered amount, contingency and other associated
costs, and the total net project cost of $544,233.00 (net of HST
rebate) be approved;
3.That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to revisethe funding source for this project by a transfer from the BuildingFaster Fund (BFF) Reserve Fund, subject to the Province’s
approval of the project;
a)If the Province does not approve the eligibility of BFF fundingfor this project, that Council authorize the Director, Finance &Treasurer to finance the project from its original approvedfunding source, by a transfer from the Roads & Bridges
Reserve Fund; and,
4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorizedto take the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
4.14 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 18-24 678
Proposed Community Safety Zone
-West Shore Boulevard
Recommendation:
1.That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule “14”
to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation of Community SafetyZones on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction ofThe Corporation of the City of Pickering to provide for a CommunitySafety Zone on West Shore Boulevard, from Bayly Street to
Beachpoint Promenade; and,
2.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorizedto take the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Committee
Meeting Agenda
September 3, 2024
Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm
Council Chambers Chair: Councillor Butt
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Council & Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
4.15 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 19-24 689
Proposed All-way Stop -Marshcourt Drive and Beechlawn Drive
Recommendation:
1.That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule “6”and Schedule “7” to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation ofstop signs on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdictionof The Corporation of the City of Pickering, specifically to address
the proposed installation of an all-way stop control at the
intersection of Marshcourt Drive and Beechlawn Drive; and,
2.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorizedto take the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
4.16 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 16-24 695 2023 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund
Recommendation:
It is recommended that Report FIN 16-24 from the Director, Finance & Treasurer regarding the 2022 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund be received for information.
4.17 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 17-24 698
Letters of Credit & Surety Bonds Acceptance Policies
Recommendation:
1.That Report FIN 17-24 regarding the Letters of Credit (LC) and
Surety Bonds Acceptance Policies be received;
2.That Council approve financial policies for the acceptance ofLetters of Credit and Surety Bonds (FIN 100 and FIN 110), as set
out in Attachment 1 and 2 to this report; and,
3.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized totake the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Committee
Meeting Agenda
September 3, 2024
Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm
Council Chambers Chair: Councillor Butt
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Council & Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
4.18 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 18-24 715
Building Faster Fund – 2024 Investment Plan
Recommendation:
1.That Report FIN 18-24 regarding the Building Faster Fund grant
from the Province of Ontario be received;
2.That Council authorize and approve the capital project listing inthe report to be funded by the Building Faster Fund grant; and,
3.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be given authority to
take the necessary actions to give effect thereto.
4.19 Fire Chief, Report FIR 04-24 723 Funding Request for Fire Station Alerting -Quotation No LL-072224
Recommendation:
1.That Quotation LL-072224 for the sole source supply andinstallation under the Canoe Cooperative Purchasing of Fire
Station alerting (Zetron™) services for Fire Stations 1, 2, 4, 5, and
6, submitted by Williams Communications in the amount of$189,475.00 (HST included) be accepted;
2.That the total gross project cost of $189,475.00 (HST included)and the total net project cost of $170,628.00 (net of HST rebate)
be approved;
3.That Council authorize that the budget shortfall of $136,628.00 beapproved with funding to be provided at the discretion of theDirector Finance & Treasurer; and,
4.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized
to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
5.Member Updates on Committees
6.Other Business
Executive Committee
Meeting Agenda
September 3, 2024
Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm
Council Chambers Chair: Councillor Butt
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Council & Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
7. Adjournment
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: CS 22-24 Date: September 3, 2024
From: Laura Gibbs Director, Community Services
Subject: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan -File: A-1440-001
Recommendation:
1. That the Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan, as set out in Attachment 1, be endorsed;
and
2.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessaryactions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s endorsement of the final Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan (the “Plan”).
As per Resolution #218/23, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants Inc. was retained on June 5,
2023 to undertake the development of the Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan for the City of
Pickering. After extensive community engagement, demographic and trend analysis, and service level review, the draft Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan was shared with Council for information at the Council meeting of June 24, 2024.
As per Resolution #514/24, Council received the draft Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan for information and directed that any consideration to permanently repurpose the Racquetball Courts not be actioned until further meaningful discussions are undertaken with the Racquet Ball Club on its growth plan including the impact of intensification and growth targets in the City
of Pickering.
The draft Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan (Attachment 1) includes 101 recommendations.
The plan was developed through a comprehensive consultation process that included a City-wide survey, two public Open Houses, community pop-ups at various locations in the City, a
youth engagement initiative in collaboration with the School Boards, key stakeholder interviews, and Sport/Culture User Groups Feedback sessions. Over 2,200 surveys were completed providing invaluable feedback throughout the process. The entire campaign reached over 15,000 people and was highly successful in engaging the community in the
planning process.
The Plan is designed to address changes in current and future community demographics, changing recreational behaviour patterns and trends, aging community infrastructure, and
future areas for growth and development. The scope of the Plan includes: (i) the development
of indoor recreation facilities such as community centres, arenas, pools, senior/youth spaces,
- 1 -
CS 22-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan Page 2
and sport facilities; (ii) outdoor recreation amenities such as sport fields, sport courts, playgrounds, splash pads, skate parks and community gardens; (iii) parkland, including
acquisition to support future growth; and (iv) recreation services such as drop-in and registered programs, partnerships, community development, and related policies.
Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priorities of Advocate for an Inclusive, Welcoming, Safe & Healthy Community; Advance Innovation & Responsible Planning to Support a Connected,
Well-Serviced Community; Strengthen Existing & Build New Partnerships; and Foster an
Engaged & Informed Community.
Financial Implications: There are no cost implications associated with this report. As strategic action items within the Plan move forward, those items requiring funding will be
further evaluated and brought to Council for its consideration. Larger projects will be incorporated into the City’s Capital Budget Forecast.
Discussion: The purpose of this report is to seek Council endorsement of the Plan.
1. Community Engagement
The draft plan was developed through a comprehensive engagement process that included a
City-wide survey, two public Open Houses, community pop-ups at various locations in the City,
a youth engagement initiative in collaboration with the School Boards, key stakeholder interviews, and Sport/Culture User Groups Feedback sessions. Over 2,200 surveys were completed providing invaluable feedback throughout the process. The entire campaign
reached over 15,000 people and was highly successful in engaging the community in the planning process. Following presentation of the draft Plan at the June 2024 Council Meeting, the full draft Plan
was posted on the Let’s Talk Pickering site. Feedback on the draft plan was sought through:
• Open House sessions held on July 9, July 10, and July 17, 2024. Approximately 60 persons attended these three sessions.
• The draft plan was circulated to all involved stakeholders.
• An online questionnaire was available from June 28 to July 24, 2024. Approximately 96
persons submitted their input on the following questions: o What do you like best about the new Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan? o What do you feel is missing from the Plan that we should consider adding or
what do you feel should be revised in the Plan? o Any additional comments/feedback? Key themes from community input on the draft plan are summarized below:
• The Pickering Swim Club and its members are seeking eight to ten lanes in the 25m pool proposed for the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library in order to support competitive swimming. A 50m pool was also requested.
- 2 -
CS 22-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan Page 3
• The Pickering Swim Club expressed concern about the timing of the proposed Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex (CHDRC) pool shutdown (longer-term). The Club is supportive of improvements to the pool (e.g., improved air quality, deck space and configuration, etc.), but is concerned about the impact of a shutdown on its events
and operations.
• The Racquetball Club is not supportive of repurposing any of the two existing indoor courts at CHDRC as these are the only courts in the area. The Club indicates that they require two courts for annual events and are starting up new programming.
• Pickleball players requested more dedicated indoor pickleball courts, as well as shared use of gymnasiums. The group noted that tennis has dedicated indoor and outdoor courts, but that pickleball has more players.
• Comments appeared supportive of a third-party partnership for more indoor pickleball
courts, use of school gyms, use of the indoor tennis centre, etc. The Pickering Pickleball Club requested dedicated pickleball courts for club use.
• Pickleball players expressed concern with the quality of existing outdoor pickleball courts as they are shared use, perceived as substandard and comments received
indicated they are not well used as a result.
• There were also requests for more dedicated outdoor pickleball courts. There were suggestions that the City fully convert outdoor tennis courts, introduce new pickleball courts at Petticoat Creek Conservation Park, using outdoor courts at schools, etc.
• There were a variety of comments supporting planned and recommended improvement
to the trail network, ball diamonds, playgrounds, outdoor rinks, splash pads, off-leash dog parks, etc.
• There were suggestions for expanded health and wellness, fitness and aquatic
programming.
• Some responses expressed frustration with the pace of capital construction, with residents seeking new community infrastructure to be delivered in step with population
growth.
2. Changes to the Draft Plan based on Community Engagement
The Plan contains 101 recommendations. The following updates were made to the draft plan considering the community feedback collected since June 24, 2024:
- 3 -
CS 22-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan Page 4
Topic Comment Change made to the Plan
Aquatics (Seaton Recreation Complex &
Library)
The Pickering Swim Club and its members are seeking eight to 10 lanes in the 25m pool proposed for the Seaton Recreation Complex &
Library in order to support competitive swimming. A 50m pool
was also requested.
Update text on page 48 to read:
Given the regional nature of high-
performance sport, it is not feasible for Pickering to provide a 50-metre pool or large regional competition venue in Seaton, but
rather should consider a pool
design that satisfies community-level needs…Local swim clubs have expressed a preference for
at least eight lanes at this location; however, this will be space and budget dependent.
Aquatics (CHDRC) The Pickering Swim Club expressed concern about the timing of the proposed CHDRC pool
shutdown (longer-term). The Club is supportive of improvements to
pool (e.g., improved air quality, deck space and configuration, etc.),
but is concerned about the impact of a shutdown on its events and operations.
Update recommendation 11 to read:
Prioritize the revitalization of the CHDRC indoor aquatic centre as
part of the proposed facility
revitalization strategy following the opening of the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library.
Racquetball Courts The Racquetball Club is not supportive of repurposing any of
the two existing courts as these are the only courts in the area. The Club indicates that they require two courts for annual events and are
starting up new programming.
Recommendation 17 (as per Resolution #514-24) has been
changed to reflect Council’s direction: Engage the local racquetball club to assess their future outlook and ways to increase
usage of the courts prior to repurposing one racquetball court
at the CHDRC.
- 4 -
CS 22-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan Page 5
Topic Comment Change made to the Plan
Indoor Pickleball Pickleball players requested more dedicated indoor pickleball courts, as well as shared use gymnasiums. The group noted that tennis has
dedicated indoor and outdoor courts, but that pickleball has more
players.
Comments appeared supportive of a third-party partnership for more indoor pickleball courts, use of
school gyms, use of the indoor tennis centre, etc. The Pickering Pickleball Club requested dedicated pickleball courts for club use.
Amended recommendation 18 (and Executive Summary) as follows:
Consideration may be given to relocating CHDRC indoor tennis
courts to another accessible
location within Pickering in the
longer-term, possibly through an air-supported dome and the joint provision of pickleball courts.
This is a matter that may be more fully examined through the recommended recreation complex facility revitalization study, the City
Centre project, and/or planning of the future parks and recreation
facility sites.
Outdoor Pickleball Pickleball players expressed
concern with the quality of existing outdoor pickleball courts as there is
a perception that they are shared use and substandard and not well used as a result.
There were also requests for more dedicated outdoor pickleball courts. There were suggestions that the
City fully convert outdoor tennis courts, developing courts at
Petticoat Creek Conservation Park, using outdoor courts at schools,
etc.
Remove: Pickleball lines have been
added to several tennis courts from accomplishments on page 8.
Minor change in wording on page 71:
Due to the rapid rise of the sport, very few municipalities have yet to
establish firm targets for outdoor pickleball court provision. Many communities responded quickly through the provision of shared
courts, but now dedicated courts
are becoming more common due to the level of demonstrated demand and their ability to support
organized play. (removed mention to benchmarking)
- 5 -
CS 22-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan Page 6
Topic Comment Change made to the Plan
Skate Parks Clarification of recommendations and context relating to existing and future all wheels’ parks.
Minor change in wording on page 41 (Seaton Recreation Complex & Library):
Outdoor Spaces: identified through the outdoor facilities
assessment, including a destination
playground, skate spot park, and
more; the full extent of outdoor facilities will depend on land availability.
Park Amenities There were a variety of comments supporting planned and
recommended improvements to the trail network, ball diamonds, playgrounds, outdoor rinks, splash pads, off-leash dog parks, etc.
These items are supported throughout the plan – no change
required.
Recreation Programming There were suggestions for expanded health and wellness, fitness, and aquatic programming.
These items are supported throughout the plan, with many tied to new capital projects – no change required.
Timing of Implementation Some responses expressed frustration with the pace of capital
construction, with residents seeking
new community infrastructure to be
delivered in step with population growth.
A wide range of capital projects are recommended within the plan, to be
completed as funding and other
opportunities allow – no change
required.
Consultation Efforts Revise the Ten Year Plan to reflect public input on the draft. Complete edits to Section 3.1 to reflect public input phase on Draft
Plan.
Add new section in Appendix C
(A5: Feedback on Draft Plan).
Grammar, etc. Some small misspellings, etc. were identified Complete edits.
- 6 -
CS 22-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan Page 7
3.Implementation of the Plan
The Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan establishes progressive directions that support the
City and community stakeholders in delivering responsive and sustainable facilities and services. Specifically, the Plan provides direction and guidance for managing parks and
recreation programs, infrastructure, and investment in a fiscally responsible manner to the year 2034. In services, facilities, and parks that are required to serve existing and future populations. It also considers the timing and priority of the recommendations, along with the implementation strategies. Implementation of the plan will take place from 2024 – 2034.
Attachment:
1.Recreation & Parks - Ten Year Plan
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Marilou Murray Laura Gibbs MBA, MSc. Manager, Community Services Director, Community Services Administration & Strategic Initiatives
LG:mm
Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council
Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer
Original Signed By Original Signed By
Original Signed By
- 7 -
Attachment 1 to Report CS 22-24
- 8 -
City of Pickering
Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan
(2024 – 2034)
August 2024
- 9 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 i
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ................................................................................. iii
Executive Summary .................................................................................. v
1. Introduction ........................................................................................... 1
1.1 About the Ten Year Plan .................................................................................... 1 1.2 Study Process .................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Needs Assessment Methodology ....................................................................... 3
2. Community Context and Growth ......................................................... 6
2.1 Benefits of Recreation and Parks ....................................................................... 6
2.2 Recent Accomplishments ................................................................................... 8 2.3 Planning for Growth ........................................................................................... 9 2.4 Other Demographic Considerations ................................................................. 12 2.5 Leading Studies and Corporate Reports .......................................................... 14 2.6 Recreation and Parks Trends and Best Practices ............................................ 14
2.7 Preliminary Research Findings ........................................................................ 15
3. Community Engagement .................................................................... 19
3.1 Overview .......................................................................................................... 19 3.2 Summary of Public Input .................................................................................. 20 3.3 Summary of City Input ...................................................................................... 25
4. Strategic Framework .......................................................................... 29
5. Indoor Recreation Facilities ............................................................... 32
5.1 Recreation and Community Centres ................................................................ 32 5.2 Arena Facilities ................................................................................................. 44
5.3 Indoor Pools ..................................................................................................... 46
5.4 Gymnasiums .................................................................................................... 50 5.5 Indoor Fitness Spaces ..................................................................................... 52 5.6 Indoor Sport Facilities ...................................................................................... 54 5.7 Requests for Other Types of Facilities ............................................................. 58
6. Outdoor Recreation and Park Facilities ............................................ 60
6.1 Soccer and Multi-Use Fields ............................................................................ 60
6.2 Ball Diamonds .................................................................................................. 64 6.3 Cricket Pitches ................................................................................................. 67 6.4 Tennis Courts ................................................................................................... 68 6.5 Pickleball Courts .............................................................................................. 70 6.6 Basketball Courts ............................................................................................. 74
6.7 Splash Pads and Outdoor Aquatics ................................................................. 76 6.8 Outdoor Ice Rinks ............................................................................................ 79 6.9 Skateboard Parks ............................................................................................. 80 6.10 Playgrounds ..................................................................................................... 84
- 10 -
ii City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
6.11 Outdoor Fitness Equipment.............................................................................. 84 6.12 Community Gardens ........................................................................................ 85 6.13 Off-Leash Dog Areas ....................................................................................... 87
6.14 Outdoor Event Spaces ..................................................................................... 89
6.15 Beach and Waterfront Facilities ....................................................................... 90 6.16 Other Outdoor Facilities ................................................................................... 92
7. Parkland .............................................................................................. 94
7.1 Planning Context .............................................................................................. 94 7.2 School Board Consultation ............................................................................... 95
7.3 Parkland Provision ........................................................................................... 97
7.4 Parkland Policy .............................................................................................. 120 7.5 Park Design, Maintenance, and Renewal ...................................................... 135 7.6 Recreational Trails ......................................................................................... 139
8. Recreation Service Delivery ............................................................. 144
8.1 Overview ........................................................................................................ 144 8.2 Sustaining Service Delivery............................................................................ 145
8.3 Expanding Programs and Services in a Growing Community ........................ 150 8.4 Increasing Participation of Diverse and Under-represented Residents .......... 154 8.5 Supporting a High-Performing Staff Team ..................................................... 158
9. Implementation ................................................................................. 162
9.1 Plan Evaluation and Monitoring...................................................................... 162 9.2 Financial Considerations ................................................................................ 163
9.3 Implementation Strategy ................................................................................ 165
Appendix
Appendix A: Project Alignment Appendix B: Trend and Best Practice Review Appendix C: Analysis of Public Input
Appendix D: Asset Inventory and Mapping
Appendix E: Supporting Materials for Facility Needs Assessments (Trends, Input, Usage) Appendix F: Types of Partnerships and Approaches to Evaluation Appendix G: Description of Existing Park Type
Appendix H: Parkland Policy Background
- 11 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 iii
Acknowledgements
We appreciate the valuable input provided by Pickering residents, community groups,
and partners into this Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan. We also recognize the
insightful contributions from elected officials and staff of the City of Pickering. Your
passion for our recreational spaces and parks has been instrumental in crafting a plan
that truly reflects the needs and aspirations of our community.
City of Pickering Council (2022-26)
Mayor Kevin Ashe
Maurice Brenner, Regional Councillor - Ward 1
Linda Cook, Regional Councillor - Ward 2
David Pickles, Regional Councillor - Ward 3
Lisa Robinson, City Councillor - Ward 1
Mara Nagy, City Councillor - Ward 2
Shaheen Butt, City Councillor - Ward 3
City of Pickering Working Group
Laura Gibbs, Director, Community Services
Brian Duffield, Director, Operations
Richard Holborn, Director, Engineering Services Marilou Murray, Manager, Community Services Administration & Strategic Initiatives Vince Plouffe, Division Head, Operations Services Rob Gagen, Manager, Parks & Property
Arnold Mostert, Manager, Landscape & Parks Development
Blaine Atwood, Senior Coordinator, Capital Assets Michael Cain, Supervisor, Safety, Security & Well-Being Karen Coleman, Manager, Recreation Services Kevin Hayes, Manager, Facilities Maintenance
Paul Wirch, Principal Planner, Policy
Chantal Whitaker, Manager, Sustainability & Strategic Environmental Initiatives Nicole Hann, Coordinator, Public Affairs & Corporate Communications Jaclyn San Antonio, Senior Advisor, Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Kelly Generoso, Administrative Assistant
Project Consultants
Monteith Brown Planning Consultants Ltd.
Tucker-Reid & Associates
MJMA Architecture & Design (Arena Strategy) Largo Facility Management (Arena Strategy)
- 12 -
iv City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Land Acknowledgment
We acknowledge that the City of Pickering resides on land within the Treaty and traditional territory of the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation and Williams Treaties signatories of the Mississauga and Chippewa Nations. Pickering is also home
to many Indigenous persons and communities who represent other diverse, distinct, and
autonomous Indigenous nations. This acknowledgement reminds us of our responsibilities to our relationships with the First Peoples of Canada, and to the ancestral lands on which we learn, share, work, and live.
- 13 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 v
Executive Summary
Pickering is a fast-growing and culturally-diverse community within the Greater Toronto Area, offering a blend of urban and rural settings along a picturesque Lake Ontario waterfront. The City
boasts high quality parks, recreation, and culture programs and facilities that contribute to the
personal health and wellbeing of residents and the community in so many ways.
This Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan establishes progressive directions that support the City and community stakeholders in delivering responsive and sustainable facilities and services. Specifically, the Plan provides direction and guidance for managing parks and recreation
programs, infrastructure, and investment in a fiscally responsible manner to the year 2034. In
doing so, the plan identifies the general types, quantities, locations, and timing of recreation services, facilities, and parks that are required to serve existing and future populations. It also considers the timing and priority of the recommendations, along with implementation strategies.
Rapid and significant population growth is the single biggest challenge that the City will
face in the coming years. Over the ten-year projection period of this study (2024-34), the City is
projected to grow to approximately 149,000 persons – growth of 45%.1 This Ten Year Plan will help position the City to respond to this growth, deliver efficient, inclusive, relevant, and valuable municipal services and, at the same time, remain fiscally prudent.
In charting a course for the next decade, the Plan:
• provides guidance on maintaining service levels in the face of rapid population growth, most notably for recreation facilities and parkland provision;
• considers emerging activities where supported by demonstrated needs, including both
structured and unstructured recreational activities;
• identifies options for addressing aging infrastructure;
• includes a comprehensive Arena Strategy (under separate cover) that identifies future
needs and provision strategies;
• offers new approaches for maximizing parkland supplies within growing neighbourhoods;
• provides direction on how to unlock the benefits of participation for all, including under-
represented populations; and
• provides tools for managing a broad range of partnerships and relationships that build community capacity and enhance public access to quality services.
1 City of Pickering. Detailed 20 Year Population Forecast. March 2023.
- 14 -
vi City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
A comprehensive public and stakeholder engagement program was initiated to ensure that the Plan responds to local aspirations, values, and priorities. Where appropriate, additional consideration was also given to participation trends, leading practices, socio-demographic data,
and growth projections.
There is much to be learned from the input provided by Pickering’s youth, residents, and organizations. Just some of the key themes that emerged from the engagement program include:
• Recreation and parks are critical to resident wellbeing. 92% of residents agree that City of Pickering recreation facilities are important to their quality of life.
• New indoor spaces and programs are needed to keep pace with a growing population, especially pools and gymnasiums in the Seaton area.
• Outdoor recreation demands are on the rise, such as trail use, racquet sports (tennis, pickleball, etc.), skateboarding, basketball, outdoor skating, and more.
• Youth are seeking more after-school recreation and arts-based activities in accessible and
convenient locations.
Pickering strives to be a complete, world class city...inclusive, connected, caring and prosperous. A key part of this corporate vision is recognizing the important contributions that recreation and parks services make to the community’s health, wellbeing, and overall quality of life. These services also benefit other community priorities and the public realm, such as active transportation, climate
change mitigation, social equity, economic growth and tourism, environmental health, and more.
Recreation and parks are worthy of sustained investment and enhanced focus. To inform the recommendations of this Ten Year Plan – as well as future decisions related to its implementation – a strategic framework has been developed.
Vision for Recreation and Parks:
Responsive recreation and park services that foster an active, inclusive, and
connected community where everyone can participate.
Core Principles:
1. Exceptional Service 2. Financial Sustainability
3. Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
4. Community Connectivity and Belonging 5. Adaptable and High Quality Spaces 6. Environmental Leadership and Innovation 7. Collaboration and Partnerships
8. Personal and Community Wellbeing
- 15 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 vii
Within the Ten Year Plan are 101 recommendations, organized by subject area and summarized in Section 9 (Implementation), along with timing and funding considerations. While the Plan identifies many key priorities, the most important indoor recreation requirement in the short-term is the
delivery of the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library – a multi-use facility that will serve as the
heart of the Seaton community and be accessible by residents and visitors of all ages and abilities. Other notable priorities are summarized below (see Section 9 for a complete listing).
A. Indoor Recreation Facilities
i. initiate planning for the long-term revitalization of the Chestnut Hill Developments
Recreation Complex (CHDRC) and consider relocating the indoor tennis courts to
another location, possibly within an air-supported dome that also accommodates pickleball
ii. introduce youth programming and space within the CHDRC
iii. continue to explore options for the proposed Seniors & Youth Centre in Pickering’s City Centre prior to 2034
iv. gradually reduce the number of community halls through attrition and/or improvements to
nearby facilities; no new community halls are recommended
v. examine future programming needs and potential capital replacement of the Dunbarton Indoor Pool
vi. provide up to 15 indoor pickleball courts by 2034 through the use of gymnasiums and
multi-use spaces
vii. consideration of arena requirements through an Arena Strategy (endorsed by Council with amendments; contained under separate cover)
B. Outdoor Recreation and Park Facilities
i. continue to advance park development in Seaton and growing neighbourhoods to address
growth related needs (playgrounds, splash pads, courts, etc.)
ii. earmark the Greenwood Conservation lands and future district park as locations for multiple sport fields
iii. repurpose selected surplus ball diamonds in south Pickering
iv. develop up to 19 new outdoor pickleball courts by 2034, including dedicated courts in
Diana, Princess of Wales Park, Dave Ryan Community Park, and another location in Seaton
v. continue with plans for a refrigerated skating rink/water feature within City Centre Park and consider a refrigerated outdoor ice pad at the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
vi. consider a covered multi-use pad in Claremont Memorial Park to support extended use for floor sports (ball hockey, skating, etc.), camps, and events
vii. work with the TRCA to enhance Petticoat Creek Conservation Park as a signature park site for large events and festivals
- 16 -
viii City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
C. Parkland
i. adjust the City’s parkland classification system (e.g., new park types in mixed use areas) and parkland dedication requirements identified in Bill 23
ii. adopt a minimum City-wide parkland provision target of 1.5 hectares per 1,000 residents
through to 2034
iii. prepare a parkland acquisition strategy to enhance current and future community access to parks; target the priority areas identified in the plan
iv. establish planning guidelines to evaluate proposals for privately-owned public spaces
(POPs) and strata parks and the need for appropriate legal agreements
v. adopt a “Parkland First” approach that prioritizes parkland conveyance over cash-in-lieu of parkland; actively pursue direct purchase of land in priority acquisition areas and unserviced land with future parkland potential
vi. continue to expand and connect the recreational trail network
D. Recreation Service Delivery
i. increase staffing levels by providing targeted leadership courses in aquatics, programs, and camps; reach out to area school boards to assist
ii. establish strategies to assist not-for-profit groups in the recruitment, training, and retention of volunteers to support community-led recreation and sport programs
iii. seek sponsorships and sustainable funding to reintroduce the Swim to Survive program
iv. support the sport and recreation needs of Indigenous Peoples through collaboration with this community and supporting agencies
v. ensure that all public spaces are safe and welcoming spaces for all users and staff, including under-represented populations
vi. develop a staff training and development continuum that identifies the necessary knowledge, skills, and competencies for each job type to keep staff performing at a high level and improve readiness for succession planning
vii. develop a Ten-Year Staffing Plan that reflects approved levels of service and changes in population-driven service requirements
Active implementation of the Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan is fundamental to its success. This requires coordinated efforts and a commitment from Council, staff, user groups, and the public, as well as a variety of funding sources.
- 17 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 ix
- 18 -
- 19 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 1
1. Introduction
1.1 About the Ten Year Plan
Informed by extensive research and consultation with the community, the City of Pickering last prepared a Recreation and Parks Plan in December 2017. This plan has
served as an effective guide for facility development, park planning, and service delivery
since that time.
However, much has changed in the past seven years. The City is now planning for additional growth beyond that contemplated in past plans, with new residents – many with diverse cultural backgrounds – moving to Pickering every day. New recreation
activities have emerged and others have grown in popularity, partly fueled by the
pandemic and greater time spent outdoors and in smaller group settings. Opportunities to secure parkland for future generations through the development process have been reduced (most recently through Bill 23), necessitating new approaches for community building. Furthermore, the City’s inventory of parks and recreation facilities is now a bit
older, requiring greater attention to renewal and revitalization.
The time has come to update the Recreation and Parks Plan and establish progressive directions that support the City and community stakeholders in delivering responsive and sustainable facilities and services. More specifically, this Ten Year Plan provides direction and guidance for managing parks and recreation programs, infrastructure, and
investment in a fiscally responsible manner for the period of 2024-2034. In doing so, the
plan identifies the general types, quantities, locations, and timing of recreation services, facilities, and parks that are required to serve existing and future populations. It also considers the timing and priority of the recommendations, along with implementation strategies.
As noted in the City’s Corporate Strategic Plan, rapid and significant population growth is the single biggest challenge that the City will face.
Over the ten-year projection period of this study (2024-34), the City is projected to grow to approximately 149,000 persons – growth of 45%.
A goal of this Ten Year Plan is to help position the City to respond to this growth, deliver efficient, inclusive, relevant, and valuable municipal services and, at the same time, remain fiscally prudent.
- 20 -
2 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Notable amenities and services addressed within the plan include (but are not limited to):
• indoor recreation facilities such as community centres, arenas2, pools, seniors
and youth space, sport facilities, and more;
• outdoor recreation amenities such as sports fields, sport courts, playgrounds, splash pads, skate parks, community gardens, and more;
• parkland, including future requirements across Pickering and within strategic growth areas (note: this Ten Year Plan will serve as a parks plan as required by the Planning Act); and
• recreation services, such as drop-in and registered programs, policies and
practices, community supports, and more.
This Ten Year Plan is being prepared with the assistance of a consulting team and being informed by a wide-ranging engagement program targeting input from both internal (City staff, Council) and external (public, service providers) stakeholders.
Additional consideration was also given to participation trends, leading practices, socio-
demographic data, and growth projections.
1.2 Study Process
The Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan establishes an approach to planning for the provision of recreation and parks facilities and services across the entire City of Pickering. Its focus is on recreation and parks facilities owned and/or operated by or in
partnership with the City that support participation in sport, recreation, and leisure
activities. This includes places and spaces that facilitate both structured and unstructured recreational experiences for the benefit of individuals and communities.
The methodology involved the preparation of a series of interim reports that build the foundation for the full plan, prepared by the Consulting Team and overseen by the City’s
inter-departmental Steering Committee. This includes: (1) an Internal Consultation
Report outlining key issues and priorities identified by City officials and staff; (2) a Situation Analysis Report containing demographic profiles of the City, facility inventory details, trends research, and summaries of related policy documents; (3) a Community Consultation Report summarizing the results of the initial phase of public and
stakeholder consultation; and (4) a Needs Assessment Report containing evidence-
based assessments for all in-scope facilities and services. The Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan was formed from these reports and includes a multi-year implementation strategy that identifies synergies and priorities across the city and for all facility types.
2 Note: Supported by the Ten Year Plan but delivered under separate cover is an Arena Strategy, a key initiative that was recommended within the 2017 Recreation and Parks Plan.
- 21 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 3
Figure 1: Ten Year Plan Deliverables
Additionally, an Arena Strategy was developed concurrently with the Ten Year Plan. Although the Arena Strategy is a distinct deliverable, the Ten Year Plan’s internal and
external consultation program was designed to inform both studies.
1.3 Needs Assessment Methodology
Creating a sustainable and equitable network of recreation facilities and parks for all community members requires considerable research and direction-setting. Regular monitoring and adjustments may be required as needs can be relative and may vary according to the type of facility and the communities they serve. In all cases, equity of
access is the primary objective – ensuring that all residents have appropriate access to
municipal recreation facilities and parks based on their interests.
This Ten Year Plan employs a standards-based gap and provision analysis that will help Pickering identify and plan for new parks and facilities as the city grows and needs evolve. Provision targets incorporating a multitude of variables (e.g., current service
levels, socio-demographic and growth factors, public and stakeholder input, trends
research, municipal benchmarking, municipal policy, etc.) have been established through an understanding of current service levels, usage, and demand indicators.
Examples of provision target types include:
• Total Population: Used to assess facilities that serve people of all ages, such as
recreation complexes.
• Target Population: Used to assess facilities that serve distinct age groups, such as youth-based facilities.
• Registered Participants: Used to assess facilities that are mostly used through permitted rentals, such as arenas and sports fields.
In
t
e
r
i
m
R
e
p
o
r
t
#
1
Internal Consultation (September 2023)
In
t
e
r
i
m
R
e
p
o
r
t
#
2
Situation Analysis (October 2023)
In
t
e
r
i
m
R
e
p
o
r
t
#
3
Community Consultation (January 2024)
In
t
e
r
i
m
R
e
p
o
r
t
#
4
Needs Assessment (April 2024)
Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan
- 22 -
4 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
• Geographic Distribution: Used to assess facilities with localized service areas to which residents may reasonably expect to walk or bike, such as playgrounds
and outdoor courts.
The provision targets are evaluated against the spatial distribution and growth factors to determine potential gaps and needs now and into the future. To support this analysis, a comprehensive, integrated inventory of parks and facilities was prepared. It is vital that the City keep this inventory up-to-date to support future planning efforts
and track progress.
All targets are intended to be applied flexibly and may be modified over time to remain responsive to local needs. Different targets may be established for unique circumstances, such as stable and growing communities with different urban structures. They are not intended to be strictly adhered to at the local level as each community may
have different needs based on its unique characteristics.
- 23 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 5
- 24 -
6 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
2. Community Context and Growth
This section provides summaries of supporting research, including the City’s demographic characteristics and growth forecasts. The implications of this information
on facility and park planning are substantial and will assist in identifying key geographic areas and population groups that should be priorities for future investment.
2.1 Benefits of Recreation and Parks
Access to recreation and parks services is a fundamental human need in all ages and stages of life. People participate in recreational activities for fun, enjoyment, fitness and health, social interaction, creative expression, a desire to connect with nature, relaxation
and to enhance their quality of life. Most people also understand and support the
beneficial role that recreation and parks play in community development.
Recreation, parks, and related service providers play an important role in collectively enabling residents and families to reach their full potential. Each organization has an inherent responsibility to understand and respond to local social, environmental, and
economic issues. Their role is to engage as many residents as possible in healthy and
active pursuits, and to inform, educate, engage, and activate residents toward the common community good.
All recreation and parks facilities and the services they provide play a role in placemaking, socialization, inclusion, physical activity, culture, and the city's history.
Many also address key drivers such as beautification, environmental stewardship, and
poverty reduction, all of which serve to position Pickering as a great city. Recreation and parks facilities and services also help build strong neighbourhoods and improve quality of life for residents. An effective combination of recreation spaces and parks in the right places can have a significant impact on resident interaction, community building, and
positive social outcomes.
A study “The Price of Inactivity: Measuring the Powerful Impact of Sport, Physical Activity and Recreation (SPAR) in Canada” was released in 2023 by the Canadian Parks and Recreation Association and the Canadian and Fitness Lifestyle Research Institute. Summarized below, this data and the respective impacts on Canadian society
are compelling and can assist all levels of government and related organizations make
evidenced-based decisions on investments in recreation and culture.
- 25 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 7
Table 1: Summary of the Impact of Sport, Physical Activity, and Recreation in Canada
Social Health
• SPAR contributes $13.6 billion in volunteerism
• 27% of Canadian adults actively volunteer in SPAR related activities
• 76% of Canadians feel welcomed and included through SPAR activities
• Programs, especially engaging older adults have the potential to reduce
isolation and loneliness and improve social cohesion
• 69% of Canadians agreed that SPAR contributes to reduction in harmful behaviours such as suicide ideation
• Physical inactivity accounts for $3.9 billion of annual healthcare expenditures
• Certain conditions like heart disease, diabetes, obesity, anxiety, and depression
disproportionately affect equity-seeking populations, such as women, older adults, Indigenous persons, those with disabilities and individuals from the LGBTQ2S+ community
• Physical inactivity is a risk factor for mental illness; the cost associated with treating depression in Canada is approximately $409 million annually. A 10% decrease in physical inactivity can reduce this cost by 17.3%
• SPAR has the potential to enhance cognitive function and overall mental health, crucial for quality of life and community prosperity
Economy Environment
• SPAR contributes $37.2 billion to Canada’s economy
• Retail sales of SPAR products reached $23.3 billion in 2022, a 7% increase from
the previous year, contributing $21.5 billion to GDP
• The amusement, recreation, and sport sector added 42,728 jobs in 2022 compared to 2021 (not including the public sector)
• Canadian governments invested $2 billion
in SPAR infrastructure in 2022, with $1.5 billion coming from municipalities. Some municipal investment could be from federal or provincial/territorial funding (e.g., through grants and contributions)
• The replacement value of replacing SPAR infrastructure is estimated at $42.5 billion annually
• If 1% of Canadians switched from car use to active transportation, $564 million could be saved in greenhouse gas emissions
• A 2% increase in bicycle infrastructure investment can prevent up to 18 premature deaths and reduce carbon emissions by up to 142,000 tonnes over 10 years
The benefits of participation in recreation for individuals and communities are well documented. By focusing on key community priorities and monitoring progress,
recreation and parks facilities are important indicators of Pickering’s success.
- 26 -
8 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
2.2 Recent Accomplishments
Recreation and park facilities are vital contributors to strong, vibrant communities and help residents to achieve many of their personal goals. Pickering boasts high quality parks, sports fields, recreation and culture programs, and major parks and facilities such
as the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex, Don Beer Arena, Pickering
Museum Village, Pickering Soccer Centre, Petticoat Creek Conservation Park, and much more. These recreation and park services contribute to the personal health of residents as well as the wellbeing of the Pickering community.
In recent years, the City has initiated and completed several significant projects – many
that were advanced through the 2017 Plan – including (but not limited to) the following.
a. Construction has begun on the Pickering Heritage & Community Centre, a new multi-use hub offering space for programs, events, and exhibitions.
b. Planning is underway on the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library, with the design process ongoing to be followed by construction starting in 2026.
c. The Pickering Soccer Centre was reopened following significant damage from
a winter storm.
d. Council has confirmed the construction of City Centre Park (consisting of a water feature/skating rink, pavilion, public art, vendor space, etc.) as a priority; Phase 2 of the City Centre Project (including the proposed Senior & Youth Centre and
Performing Arts Centre) has been deferred until 2028 for future consideration.
e. The City has initiated negotiations with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to enhance park amenities and year-round programming within Petticoat Creek Conservation Park project.
f. City of Pickering recreation programming has been expanded in Claremont and
implementation continues on the Claremont Memorial Park concept plan.
g. Restoration and rehabilitation of Rotary Frenchman's Bay West Park has been completed and work will soon begin on Beachfront Park.
h. The West Shore Skate Spot opened in 2022.
i. The running track at Beverley Morgan Park was recently replaced.
j. The City is in process of adding 4 new (shared) pickleball courts in Shadybrook
Park.
k. Dunmoore Park tennis courts have been reconstructed this year.
l. Various playground improvements have been completed across the city and more are underway.
m. Planning and development of many new community parks, neighbourhood parks, and village greens for the Seaton community are underway.
n. The Region is advancing planning for the Durham Meadoway, a proposed pedestrian and cycling route and linear park across Durham Region.
- 27 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 9
2.3 Planning for Growth
Until recently, population growth in Pickering has been quite. This has begun to change with the development of the Seaton community in Central Pickering and residential intensification within the City Centre and Kingston Road corridor. Between the 2016 and
2021 Census periods, the City grew from 91,771 to 99,186 persons. This is a five-year
growth rate of 8%, representing an average annualized growth rate of 1.6%. Durham Region also grew by 8% over the same period.
An estimate of 103,000 persons for 2024 will be used as a baseline population for this Ten Year Plan3.
Pickering is set to undergo substantial growth in the years to come. Over the ten-year projection period of this study (2024-34), the City is projected to grow to approximately 149,000 persons – growth of 45%. By 2042, this figure is forecasted to grow to 185,044 – growth of 80% from 20244. The Region has also set a longer-term population forecast for Pickering of 256,370 persons by 2051 – this would require an
expansion of the current urban area boundary.5 Part of this growth is attributed to the
provincial housing target of 13,000 units to be achieved by 2031, an average of 1,300 units per year for the next decade. These forecasts are much higher than previous estimates, including the ones included in the 2017 Plan.
Figure 2: City of Pickering Population Forecast for 2022 to 2042
Source: City of Pickering. Detailed 20 Year Population Forecast. March 2023.
Planned population growth is allocated to new communities and strategic growth areas. This includes the Seaton community in central Pickering, which will be home to 70,000 new residents within a more traditional greenfield subdivision (featuring mixed housing
3 Rounded from the 2024 estimate of 102,919 persons from the City of Pickering Detailed 20 Year Population Forecast (March 2023).
4 City of Pickering. Detailed 20 Year Population Forecast. March 2023.
5 Region of Durham. Envision Durham: Official Plan (adopted). May 2023.
100,000
118,091
139,430
163,350
185,044
90,000
100,000
110,000
120,000
130,000
140,000
150,000
160,000
170,000
180,000
190,000
2022 2027 2032 2037 2042
- 28 -
10 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
styles and designated employment lands), integrated with a thriving agricultural community and an extensive Natural Heritage System. Furthermore, higher density residential intensification is planned for the City Centre, Brock Road, and Kingston Road
Corridor area, which are intended to be compact, walkable, close to transit, and
environmentally sustainable communities.
The following map and table illustrate planned population growth to 2042 by neighbourhood based on active residential development applications and potential growth on vacant lands.
Figure 3: Projected Population Change by Neighbourhood, 2022 to 2042
- 29 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 11
Recreation and parks facilities and services are essential to fostering complete communities, including areas that are beginning to experience residential intensification. Within these areas, more compact urban built forms (e.g., condominium towers,
townhouses, etc.) are becoming more common, resulting in higher population densities
and putting pressure on existing systems such as recreation complexes and parks. Planning for this transformation has been many years in the making and remains ongoing.
Life in mixed use areas with mid- to high-rise buildings will differ in several ways to that
in traditional suburban neighbourhoods and people will interact with public space
differently. Some of the anticipated considerations of these changes are noted below.
• As the amount of private space shrinks, the public realm will increasingly become an extension of people’s homes. Higher quality and more robust public amenities
will be required, including “third places” where people can gather and socialize
freely.
• Given housing affordability challenges, families are likely to turn to condo ownership as places to raise their children, placing pressure on recreation
programs (e.g., swimming, etc.) and park spaces. The lack of backyard space will create challenges and place greater importance on the ability of public space to serve more people, more often, and in different ways.
• Condo amenities can include leisure-activity spaces; however, these are not
typically supervised or programmed in the same way as municipal facilities and
will be generally be smaller and of variable quality.
• Active transportation routes (trails, cycling corridors, etc.) and public transit that connect residents to key recreation and park destinations in other locations of the
city will be vital to ensuring that residents have ready access to amenities and
activities that are not possible to provide locally, such as sports fields and exposure to more naturalized settings.
• Higher-order facilities such as recreation complexes, artificial turf fields, event
venues, etc. may be more viable within high density areas due to the larger market. However, land economics suggest that building footprints will need to be significantly smaller, creating the need for multi-storey construction, reduced space allocations, less parking, and space-saving partnerships. Conversely, there may be requests for extended hours and services.
• Public spaces will be more diverse, accessible, flexible, dynamic, and safe, supporting year-round public life and setting the stage for daily social interaction and community building. Pickering will also seek to enhance and expand connectivity to Wi-Fi, digital sources, social media, eSports, artificial intelligence,
virtual and self-serve technologies, and more within its public spaces and
facilities.
• In general, the changes in built form and population growth associated with these growth areas will require innovative and integrated approaches to the funding
- 30 -
12 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
and delivery of recreation services, including partnerships, co-locations, and more.
New space and facilities should keep pace with growth to ensure that residents and
workers will be served by new, improved, and expanded recreation facilities and parks.
The City's ability to grow depends on responding to the demand for new or additional services and facilities in a timely and coordinated way.
2.4 Other Demographic Considerations
Age
Age is an important factor for planning recreation facilities and parks. While 26% of
Pickering’s population is represented by adults ages 35 to 54 years, the size of this age
cohort has been declining over the past 10-years as older adults (38%) and seniors (43%) have experienced the most significant increases (2021 Census).
With the exception of youth who have decreased by a rate of 14%, the City has experienced an increase in each of the other age cohorts between 2011 and 2021.
Pickering’s 40.8-year median age is slightly older than that of Durham Region (40.0
years), but younger than that of the Province (41.6 years). The following table and figure show the distribution and growth of Pickering’s population over the past three census periods.
Table 2: Population by Age Group, City of Pickering (2011 to 2021)
Age Cohort 2011 2016 2021 Change from 2011-2021
Children (ages 0 to 9) 9,035 9,455 10,785 19%
Youth (ages 10 to 19) 13,425 11,750 11,530 -14%
Young Adults (ages 20 to 34) 15,845 17,610 19,525 23%
Adults (ages 35 to 54) 27,910 25,930 26,040 -7%
Older Adults (ages 55 to 74) 17,945 21,575 24,800 38%
Seniors (ages 75 and over) 4,550 5,470 6,525 43%
Total 88,720 91,771 99,186 12%
Median Age 40.7 41.6 40.8 0%
Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Canada
Looking forward to the year 2051, the population in Durham Region (and – by extension – Pickering) is forecasted to continue to get older, with the number of seniors (age 75+) expected to grow faster than all other age cohorts. Age-specific forecasts are not
available only for the City of Pickering and it is possible that Pickering will experience
different rates of growth across its age spectrum as development occurs within the city’s strategic growth areas and new communities.
- 31 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 13
Figure 4: Durham Region, Total Population Forecast Shares by Major Age Group, 2021 to 2051
Source: Region of Durham, Region-Wide Growth Analysis Technical Report (June 2021)
Income
Research has found that income levels influence (or at least are an indicator of) participation levels in recreation and sport opportunities. 2021 Census data indicates
that the City’s median household income of $118,000 ($102,000 after-tax) was 10%
higher than the Durham Region median and 30% above the provincial median. The City’s median household income rose by 18% from five years prior. Higher incomes can contribute to high expectations for recreation facility provision and service delivery.
Municipalities are mindful of offering more low-to-no cost recreation offerings where
possible. While Pickering’s households have higher incomes than most communities,
the City provides several accessible low cost and subsidized recreation programs for residents.
Income disparity is a growing concern in many Ontario communities as less affluent individuals are less likely to participate in leisure activities than their more affluent peers.
Municipalities are mindful of offering more low-to-no cost recreation offerings where
possible.
In 2020, Pickering had 2,870 residents living below Statistics Canada’s low-income cut-off, after tax (LICO-AT), amounting to 2.9% of the overall population. This is down considerably from 2015, when 6.4% of the population was identified as low-income. For
comparison, 2.9% of Durham Region residents and 5.3% of Ontario residents were below the low-income cut-off in 2020.
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 2051
0-19 20-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
- 32 -
14 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Immigration and Diversity
Pickering has a diverse population that is represented by changing demands for recreation and sport. Notable is the significant population of visible minorities, which
account for 52% of the population in 2021 (up from 43% in 2016). There are several
studies that demonstrate that additional barriers to participation exist for residents of our BIPOC communities6.
The distribution of official languages spoken most often at home in Pickering is 82% English, 0.4% French, and 12.3% non-official languages. Non-official languages are
mainly represented by Tamil (2%), Urdu (2%), Tagalog (Pilipino, Filipino) (0.7%),
Gujarati (0.6%), and Mandarin (0.6%).
As the city has grown, its population has also become more diverse. Between the 2016 and 2021 Census periods, the number of Pickering residents born outside of Canada increased by 15% (adding 2,820 persons) – nearly two out of every five (38%) new
residents in Pickering were newcomers to Canada. Whereas immigrants to Canada
accounted for 34% of the population in 2016, newcomers comprise 36% of all Pickering residents in 2021 and this figure is expected to rise into the future.
Newcomers to Canada are more likely to reside in growing areas such as Seaton and intensifying areas closers to Highway 401.
2.5 Leading Studies and Corporate Reports
The City of Pickering and other public agencies have authored several studies, reports,
and plans that help to directly and indirectly inform and guide the provision and delivery of recreation and parks services and facilities. A listing of all relevant reports reviewed during the planning process can be found in Appendix A; their relevant findings are described in more detail within supporting documents.
2.6 Recreation and Parks Trends and Best Practices
Trends and best practices have played a significant role in shaping this Ten Year Plan.
They serve as valuable guides and benchmarks for planning, helping to improve the relevance, innovation, and alignment of planning efforts. By staying informed and adaptive to evolving trends, this plan can effectively meet community needs now and in the future. Notable trends and best practices are listed in Appendix B and are described in more detail within supporting documents.
6 One such example: “More than one in three Black youth, one in four Indigenous youth, and one in five BIPOC youth reported having directly experienced racism in sport.” MLSE Foundation (2021). https://www.mlsefoundation.org/news-stories/mlse-foundation-reveals-change-the-game-research-results
- 33 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 15
2.7 Preliminary Research Findings
Key findings from the initial situation analysis phase are summarized below. These themes (which are listed in no particular order) were considered in subsequent project phases along with public input and local demand indicators to inform the Ten Year
Plan’s recommendations.
Population
Growth
After years of little change, Pickering is poised for substantial population growth. By 2042, the City’s population is forecasted to
grow to 185,044 – an increase of 85%. These forecasts are much
higher than previous estimates, requiring thoughtful but significant adjustments to past recreation and park planning strategies.
New recreation and parks facilities will be required to address
growth-related demands, as well as changing participation. Park
creation is lagging behind past standards, making it more difficult to establish the land base required for active and passive uses. Greater pressure will also be placed on existing assets to meet the demands of a growing population.
Urban Form As Pickering grows, its urban form will change. Population growth is allocated to new communities and strategic growth areas such
as Seaton, City Centre, Brock Road, Kingston Road Corridor
area, and emerging Northeast Pickering area. The City’s planning policies support higher population densities in strategic growth areas. Higher residential densities often mean less private space (e.g., living space, backyards, etc.), making it more critical that
public spaces be accessible, well designed, and capable of
accommodating more intense use.
Participation Trends
Pickering is changing and recreational needs are expanding as
different interests and new trends emerge. Pickleball and outdoor activities are just some of the options that residents are looking for within the City’s facilities and parks. Flexible and inclusive spaces are needed to address current priorities and those to
come. Monitoring of trends in sports and activities allows the City to look toward a balanced range of amenities when and where they are needed. Flexibility in park and facility design also helps the City respond to these changing participation patterns.
- 34 -
16 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Evolving Demographic Profile
Pickering’s population has been aging over the past decade, with
increases in the number of older adults and seniors, coupled with a decrease in the youth population. This trend is forecasted to continue across Durham Region, with the number of seniors expected to grow faster than all other age cohorts. These trends
have led to increased demand for a wider variety of interests,
including both active pursuits (e.g., pickleball, hiking, etc.) and more passive activities (e.g., hobbies, socials, special events, etc.). With slower growth projected for child and youth cohorts, the demand for active sports amenities targeted to these
populations can also be expected to slow.
The current economic circumstances are challenging for many Pickering households, with many facing barriers in accessing leisure opportunities. Accessible spaces and affordable services are critical to ensuring that everyone can participate fully.
Pickering also has a diverse population, including a large BIPOC
community, and much of the City’s future growth is expected to be include newcomers to Canada. This will create new demands on recreation and parks services such as culturally-appropriate programming, picnic and special event spaces, cricket fields, etc.
Pandemic Implications
The pandemic will have a lasting impact on the recreation and parks sector, which is increasingly being viewed as essential not only to physical health, but also mental wellbeing. For example,
unstructured park use has increased, helping people stay active
and connected. Many recreation activities have grown or emerged through the pandemic as people have found new interests and are trying to catch up for lost time. Conversely, some organized sports have not fully rebounded and rising costs
are becoming a new concern for many. Long-term planning and
strategic investment are vital to support the significant role that these spaces play in our personal, social, and economic recovery and revitalization.
Facility Provision & Benchmarking
Facility provision ratios and municipal benchmarking are just some of the tools that are used in identifying long-term infrastructure needs. At a preliminary level, this data recognizes
some gaps in facility distribution and identifies key priorities for
growth-related facility development. With guidance from past plans, the City has several projects in the planning and construction pipeline that will help address growing needs relative to multi-use recreation complexes, outdoor courts, and more.
- 35 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 17
Project Alignment
Recent and relevant policy direction provides a strong foundation
upon which to build this Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan. Innovation, sustainability, and community building are just some of the common threads that are woven throughout the City’s planning documents – the plan’s strategic framework will seek
alignment wherever possible.
Previous Plan The 2017 Plan helped to guide the City’s recent capital program – 73% of its recommendations have been completed or are in
progress. Short-term planning helps the City to respond to emerging needs in a timely fashion, while taking the long-view ensures that major infrastructure can be integrated into long-range financial plans. In the next phase of analysis, the recommendations from this previous plan will be reviewed and
reassessed to align with current directions and updated
information.
Potential Impacts of Bill 23
The Planning Act has undergone several amendments in recent
years that represent fundamental changes in how growth planning is carried out in the province – this includes Bill 23 (More Homes Built Faster Act). One area of notable change is updated direction regarding the conveyance of parkland through the
development approvals process. The changes will make it
extraordinarily challenging for the City to realize established targets for parkland conveyance, especially within strategic growth areas. The policy and financial implications will be wide ranging as the City strives to maintain appropriate park provision
levels through acquisition and other tools.
Bill 23 also made sweeping changes to the Development
Charges Act, shifting some of the cost of growth from developers to municipalities to incentivize housing affordability and supply. Overall, the City’s estimated loss of Development Charge
revenues is approximately $22.8 million over the next four years
(2023-2026). This has the potential to delay the development of growth-related infrastructure or result in a reduction to service levels. Financial sustainability will be one of several goals advanced within this Ten Year Plan.
- 36 -
18 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
- 37 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 19
3. Community Engagement
Public engagement for this Ten Year Plan is essential to creating more inclusive, responsive,
and dynamic recreation and parks facilities and services that truly reflect the needs and aspirations of the community. This section summarizes the many ways in which the public have been involved within this planning process,
including key themes from the consultations.
3.1 Overview
Key engagement tactics utilized for this Ten Year Plan have included:
• Public Open Houses (in-person and virtual) to solicit input from the general public (engaged 210 participants) – input was also solicited through Activation
Boards (engaged 570 participants) available at key facilities.
• An online Community Survey (1,374 respondents representing an estimated 4,500 persons) to gather opinions and preferences from residents.
• An extensive Youth Engagement Program led by the City of Pickering to
engage students and local teens in the planning process – tactics included a youth-focused survey (827 respondents), in-school presentations, and other information gathering options.
• Stakeholder Input (26 groups participated representing an estimated 6,300 members) through topic-based workshops and focused interviews to gather input from community organizations, volunteer associations, and user groups.
• An Online Questionnaire (96 submissions, plus 3 stakeholder groups) and Public Open Houses (60 attendees) in July 2024 to gather input on the draft
Ten Year Plan.
Figure 5: Public Engagement Program Summary
Through this plan, we have directly consulted with over 3,100 persons, representing priorities for
over 12,100 residents and
recreation participants.
- 38 -
20 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
3.2 Summary of Public Input
Input from the plan’s community and stakeholder engagement is summarized below. These themes (which are listed in no particular order) have informed the Ten Year Plan’s recommendations. Additional detail can be found in Appendix C.
Recreation and parks are critical to resident wellbeing
Recreation and parks are the building blocks of healthy, happy, and vibrant communities. 97% of residents agree that City of Pickering parks are important to their quality of life and
92% say the same about local recreation facilities.
New indoor
spaces and programs are needed to keep up with a growing population
More than two-fifths (43%) of survey respondents indicated that they are not satisfied with the City’s breadth of recreation
programming. In particular, there is high demand for aquatic
programs and access to city pools for both residents and clubs. Needs are also rising for gymnasium sports such as volleyball, basketball, and pickleball. Additionally, requests were also received for expanded and new programming (e.g.,
youth, older adults, arts, general interest, etc.) that cannot be
accommodated within existing venues. Access to community recreation spaces is of particular importance to residents living in the growing Seaton community.
Outdoor recreation demands are on the rise
Residents place a high value on Pickering’s parks and outdoor spaces. Unorganized outdoor activities increased during the pandemic and exposed residents to many traditional and emerging pursuits that remain in high demand,
such as trail use, racquet sports (tennis, pickleball, etc.), skateboarding, basketball, outdoor skating, and more. Strong support was expressed for additional investment in outdoor spaces and amenities, including park washrooms, sport courts, playgrounds, splash pads, and open space to support
events and picnicking.
Youth are
seeking more
after-school
activities
Pickering’s children and youth want to participate in more
activities but are just as time-constrained as their parents.
Scheduling activities after-school is preferred, but they must be in accessible and convenient locations. They expressed interest in seeing more unstructured and drop-in recreation opportunities (such as swimming, beach volleyball,
basketball, etc.), as well as an expanded range of creative arts programs. Expanded Wi-Fi in parks and facilities was also suggested.
- 39 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 21
Sport participation is shifting
As the city’s population grows and becomes more diverse
(age, ethnicity, etc.), sport participation is also changing. Some traditional sports (such as ice hockey and baseball) are witnessing declining or stable participation profiles, while others (such as soccer, tennis, and swimming) are growing.
Pickleball and cricket also represent just some of the
emerging sports that are on the rise and need to be accommodated within the City’s parks system. Further, some lower participation sports (such as squash and racquetball) have strong local followings and expect that service levels be
maintained.
Many sports associations are regional – crossing municipal boundaries – and residents frequently travel outside of Pickering to access programs and spaces that are not available locally. It will be important to understand what
options existing within the region and Pickering’s role in
supporting the broader sport network. Some groups suggested a need to review the City’s permitting process to ensure that local organizations receive priority access.
Maintaining affordability promotes participation and access
Three-quarters (73%) of residents feel that Pickering’s program fees are reasonable and that maintaining affordability is a vital investment in the health of individuals and the community. Some community organizations and user
groups expressed concern about rental rates and new pricing
structures, but are largely satisfied with the level of service that these fees help to support. Improved public transit was also suggested as a way to ensure that the City’s recreation and parks spaces are inclusive of all needs.
Challenges
remain as we
emerge from the pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic was an unprecedented time for the recreation and parks sector and many community
organizations continue to be presented with new challenges
in this post-pandemic period. Declining volunteerism, rising costs, retention of girls/women in sport, and a lack of facility access are concerns for several groups, many of which are seeking ways to reduce the impact on their members so they
can maintain strong registration levels. Interest in virtual
programming was also expressed as a way to enhance accessibility and inclusion for all.
- 40 -
22 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Residents value access to the waterfront, trails
and natural areas
Walking is the most common activity for Pickering residents
(followed by trail use and picnicking) and demand for trails and informal park spaces topped the list of infrastructure investments. Residents particularly enjoy access parks and trails along the waterfront and Frenchman’s Bay, and place a
high value on open space properties (many of which are
operated by others, such as the Petticoat Creek Conservation Park). Stakeholder groups expressed an interest in expanding the trails network, improving connections to Rouge National Park, and enhancing waterfront access for activities
such as canoeing and dragon boating.
Climate change, environmental sustainability, and greenspace protection are also becoming more prominent themes in the City’s future planning.
Partnerships and collaborations will be important to moving forward
There is a spirit of cooperation amongst community groups, as many recognize the challenges of facility development and are open to working together to achieve common goals. For example, some organizations are open to cost-sharing for
facility enhancements. Long-term planning is essential to
supporting a strong and diverse network of recreation providers, and community organizations are willing to collaborate.
The two graphs below illustrate two key questions from the 2023 community survey that have helped to inform the plan’s recommendations, including:
• resident/household participation in recreation and park activities; and
• priority for public spending on various facility types.
- 41 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 23
Figure 6: During the past 12 months, please indicate the types of recreational or park activities that you and/or any members of your household have participated in (n=1374)
9%
1%
2%
2%
2%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
8%
8%
9%
9%
11%
11%
11%
11%
13%
13%
14%
14%
16%
16%
17%
19%
19%
20%
22%
23%
25%
27%
29%
29%
35%
35%
36%
42%
52%
82%
Other
Bocce
Racquetball
Lawn Bowling
Field Sports such as Rugby or Football
Curling
Beach Volleyball
Cricket
Squash
Teen Programs (e.g., drop-in activities, etc.)
Volleyball
Skateboarding or Scootering
Fishing
Badminton
Soccer (Indoor)
Baseball or Softball
Seniors Programs (e.g., luncheons, cards, etc.)
Pickleball (Outdoor)
Leisure Swimming (Outdoor)
Basketball
Lane Swimming
Kayaking/Canoeing/Dragon Boating
Tennis
Pickleball (Indoor)
Recreational Skating (Outdoor)
Hockey or Figure Skating
Soccer (Outdoor)
Running or Jogging on Outdoor Tracks
Beach Activities
Weight-training
Children’s Programs (plays, crafts, camps, etc.)
Recreational Skating (Indoor)
Splash Pads
Cycling on Trails
Special Events in Parks
Cycling on Roads
Use of Playground Equipment
Leisure Swimming (Indoor)
Fitness Programs and Classes
Picnicking or Casual Use of Parks
Use of Trails
Walking or Hiking on Trails or Outdoor Tracks
- 42 -
24 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Figure 7: To what degree do you oppose or support the City spending additional public funds to provide more of the following types of facilities in Pickering?(n=1052-1131)
Note: “Don’t Know” responses not shown.
32%
33%
37%
38%
40%
40%
46%
45%
47%
49%
53%
53%
53%
54%
55%
56%
57%
57%
57%
58%
58%
60%
64%
65%
65%
66%
72%
72%
73%
75%
76%
77%
79%
80%
81%
87%
42%
36%
35%
38%
34%
33%
37%
31%
34%
35%
26%
32%
34%
37%
29%
26%
25%
29%
26%
23%
25%
24%
16%
22%
21%
21%
17%
15%
14%
16%
14%
14%
12%
13%
11%
9%
Disc (Frisbee) Golf Courses
Racquetball Courts
Squash Courts
BMX Bike Parks
Football or Rugby Fields
Cricket Fields
Off-Leash Dog Parks
Skateboard Parks
Beach Volleyball Courts
Baseball or Softball Diamonds
Pickleball Courts (Outdoor)
Arts Studios
Arenas (Ice Sports)
Bike Lanes (on-road)
Community Halls or Banquet Rooms
Dance/Fitness Studios
Tennis Courts (Outdoor)
Outdoor Fitness Equipment or Exercise Areas
Basketball Courts (Outdoor)
Special Event Parks
Indoor Sport Fields (Soccer, etc.)
Soccer Fields (Outdoor)
Parkland Acquisition
Fitness Centres (equipment-based)
Community Vegetable Gardens
Swimming Pools (Outdoor)
Gymnasiums (Basketball, Volleyball, Pickleball,…
Dedicated Seniors’ Space
Dedicated Youth Space
Outdoor Skating Rinks
Splash Pads
Swimming Pools (Indoor)
Trails (off-road)
Informal Spaces in Parks for Picnics and Free…
Playgrounds
Park Washrooms
Support Oppose
- 43 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 25
3.3 Summary of City Input
Input from City Council and staff was equally important to the planning process. Key themes from these consultations are identified below (listed in no particular order).
Population and Growth-Related
Capital Needs
After years of slow growth, Pickering’s population is on the rise with substantial growth on the horizon (Seaton, Cherrywood, Northeast Pickering, etc.). This development will be focused on greenfield areas as well as strategic
growth areas such as the City Centre, bringing higher
density residential forms to the city, placing pressure on existing parks and facilities and generating demands for more.
A key priority for the City will be advancing the development
of a multi-use recreation complex in the Seaton area, which
is needed to address growing demands for aquatic services and recreational programming of all types. Longer-term, additional recreation facilities and park amenities will be needed to respond to growth (especially in the north),
greater cultural diversity, and changing interests. A focus should be placed on flexible spaces that can adapt to shifting needs.
Parkland Acquisition
A growing community will require new lands for recreation, community gatherings, sports, events, and respite. Expanding the City’s parks system is a high priority, particularly larger parks that can support active play and
sport as well as space for events and passive recreation.
There have been regular requests for more amenities such as sport courts (basketball, pickleball), splash pads, skateboard parks, community gardens, and more.
Recent changes to the Planning Act will reduce the amount
and quality of lands (and funds) that the City can acquire for
parkland in the future. The City must identify priorities and seek new and creative ways of securing lands, including optimizing existing spaces to respond to emerging needs.
- 44 -
26 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Aging Facilities
and Parks
Pickering’s recreation facilities and parks are aging and
many are approaching the end of their functional life, such as the West Shore Community Centre, Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex, Don Beer Arena, and single purpose halls/centres. This means that they are not
only unable to adequately accommodate modern demands
and uses, but that they require increasing investment and run a greater risk of failure.
Moving forward, an emphasis needs to be placed on flexible, multi-use spaces that are accessible to all (e.g.,
barrier-free), in locations that can be accessed by active
transportation and transit.
Outdoor
Activities and
Amenities
Demand for year-round outdoor recreation is on the rise.
From active sports that require courts and fields, to walking
and hiking on connected trail systems, to gathering together for picnics and community events. The City has been responding to these trends, but there is little additional space in its parks system to accommodate more.
In addition to new parks, park renewal projects are another
way that the City can address evolving needs, such as the recent improvements at Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park. Installing services (e.g., parking, water, electrical, shade, etc.) in appropriate park sites will help to maximum
functionality. Working with others to provide programming in
parks and public spaces can also be anticipated.
Equity,
Diversity,
Inclusion
Pickering’s population is becoming more diverse and the
range of needs is widening. The City has prided itself on offering a range of affordable activities and it is vital that Pickering’s parks, facilities, and programs continue to be designed to be welcoming and accessible to all, including
equity-seeking populations. Greater intentional efforts are
needed to include diverse populations in facility design, programs and services, as well as volunteerism and special events.
- 45 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 27
Staffing Levels City staff are proud of the high quality and responsive
services they offer. Employees work well together with the primary goal of serving the public interest. However, there is a sense that public needs are growing faster than staffing levels, creating gaps in service (e.g., aquatics, adult
programming, service to growth areas, etc.). Creating a staff
resource plan based on approved levels of service that supports incremental increases in staffing levels was suggested as a way to build capacity in line with community needs. How the City uses volunteers and works with
community groups should also be reviewed.
Technology
and Innovation
There is an interest in exploring new technologies and approaches that can create efficiencies, improve service,
and measure performance. Digital and online services are
one example that can increase user convenience while creating efficiencies. Different approaches are also being used to reduce environmental impacts and respond to climate change.
Communication and Marketing
The City has established effective networks and means of promoting services and opportunities, but there is a sense that more can be done to create public awareness of
opportunities to participate and engage in recreation and
parks services. There is also a desire to improve internal communication among staff teams, from daily tasks to corporate priorities.
Safety and Security
Staff have witnessed an increase in the number of volatile and aggressive behaviours from those using community facilities. Existing policies and procedures should be
continually reviewed to ensure that intentional decisions are
made to maintain the security of customers and staff.
Funding and
Implementation
There is excitement as the City plans for Pickering’s new
growth, but concern that there may not be enough funding
to fully support these needs. Capital projects are currently impacted by rising capital construction costs and rising high interest rates, significantly impacting the timing and financing of these projects. Creative approaches,
partnerships, and optimization of available funding are
necessary to ensure that projects move forward in a timely fashion in line with population growth. Following through on corporate priorities will be one of the ways that the City’s performance is measured.
- 46 -
28 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
- 47 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 29
4. Strategic Framework
Pickering strives to be a complete, world class city...inclusive, connected, caring and prosperous. A key part of this corporate vision is recognizing the important contributions
that recreation and parks services make to the community’s health, wellbeing, and overall quality of life. These services also benefit other community priorities and the public realm, such as active transportation, climate change mitigation, social equity, economic growth and tourism, environmental health, and more.
Recreation and parks are worthy of sustained investment and enhanced focus. To
inform the recommendations of this Ten Year Plan – as well as future decisions related to its implementation – a strategic framework has been developed. This framework creates focus for this plan and is intended to provide direction through Council to City staff and related partners and stakeholder groups.
The proposed vision and core principles reflect the City’s values and express
fundamentally how Pickering will approach investment and set priorities related to recreation and parks facilities and services over the long-term. To ensure alignment, connections have been made to the City of Pickering Corporate Strategic Plan (2024-2028). The vision and core principles are complementary and should be read and interpreted as a set.
Vision for Recreation and Parks:
Responsive recreation and park services that foster
an active, inclusive, and connected community
where everyone can participate.
Core Principles for Recreation and Parks
Corporate Strategic Plan Corporate Key: Good Governance/Customer Service Excellence
1. Exceptional Service: We are proactive and accountable to resident needs through exceptional customer service, responsive programming, proactive workforce training and development, and coordinated service delivery.
2. Financial Sustainability: Recreation and parks services offer intrinsic benefits to our community, but they must be delivered in a fiscally responsible manner. We will seek to balance the impact to taxpayers by pursuing creative funding approaches
that support our core services and community priorities.
- 48 -
30 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Core Principles for Recreation and Parks
Corporate Strategic Plan Priority 2: Advocate for an Inclusive, Welcoming, Safe & Healthy Community
3. Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion: We celebrate our diversity, support community members with diverse needs, foster a sense of belonging, show respect for all, and
strive for fairness in our decision-making.
4. Community Connectivity and Belonging: We strive to remove barriers to participation that allow community members – including youth, seniors, newcomers,
and vulnerable populations – to feel connected and safe. In part, we achieve this
through affordable programs and events and accessibility to public spaces, parks, trails, and waterfront spaces.
Corporate Strategic Plan Priority 3: Advance Innovation & Responsible Planning to Support a Connected, Well-Serviced Community
5. Adaptable and High Quality Spaces: Recreation facilities and parks are critical
places and spaces that are welcoming for all. We aim to meet the needs of current and future populations by optimizing existing assets and ensuring the timely delivery of growth-related infrastructure.
Corporate Strategic Plan Priority 4: Lead & Advocate for Environmental Stewardship, Innovation & Resiliency
6. Environmental Leadership and Innovation: We demonstrate environmental leadership by designing healthy, resilient, and sustainable parks and facilities and through responsible management practices. We seek opportunities to incorporate innovation in community infrastructure and operational practices.
Corporate Strategic Plan Priority 5: Strengthen Existing & Build New Partnerships
7. Collaboration and Partnerships: We foster collaboration and community partnerships that help improve service delivery, build capacity, engage volunteers,
attain shared goals, and achieve our vision of an active, inclusive, and connected
community.
Corporate Strategic Plan Priority 6:
Foster an Engaged & Informed Community
8. Personal and Community Wellbeing: Participation and engagement in recreation creates healthier individuals and communities. We include as many residents as
possible by supporting a wide variety of accessible programs and opportunities.
- 49 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 31
C
- 50 -
32 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
5. Indoor Recreation Facilities
From large recreation complexes to local community spaces, Pickering’s recreation facilities are critical places where residents come together to participate in structured
and unstructured activities, develop skills, create friendships, and build the kind of community in which we all want to live.
This section contains a needs assessment for indoor recreation facility, with recommendations supported by inventories, usage data, trends, public input, and related initiatives. While a focus is placed on needs for the next ten years (to 2034), a
high-level, longer-term view is provided to 2042 given the amount of advance planning needed for major recreation infrastructure.
An inventory of indoor recreation facilities can be found in Appendix D, along with comparisons to provision levels in other municipalities. Other supporting materials, such as facility-specific trends, community input summaries, and usage analyses are
contained in Appendix E.
5.1 Recreation and Community Centres
The City of Pickering offers three different types and scales of community and recreation spaces, with a variety of programming and operating models across these facility types:
• recreation complexes
• community centres
• community halls
These spaces are supplemented by stand-alone facilities offering sport- or activity-
specific spaces, such as Dunbarton Indoor Pool, Don Beer Arena, Pickering Soccer Centre, Pickering Museum Village, etc. These facilities and their individual components are discussed in more detail in the sections that follow.
Descriptions of existing, planned, and proposed community recreation facilities are
summarized below, following the map of all municipal indoor recreation facilities in
Pickering.
- 51 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 33
Figure 8: City of Pickering Municipal Indoor Recreation Facilities
- 52 -
34 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Table 3: Recreation Complexes in Pickering
Recreation Complexes Detail
Role / Description Recreation complexes are large-scale activity hubs that support a wide variety of indoor registered and drop-in City programming, casual use, rentals, and events that reflect the specific needs of area residents. They often include amenities such as indoor pools, gymnasiums, fitness rooms, space for youth/seniors, meeting spaces, and more.
Supply The City currently has one such facility at the Chestnut Hill
Developments Recreation Complex.
There are plans to build another recreation complex (and library) in Seaton, proposed to be designed in 2024 and opening by 2028/29.
Existing Facilities Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex (CHDRC):
Opened in 1983, CHDRC (formerly Pickering Recreation Complex) is the City’s primary hub for indoor recreation activities. The venue includes two arenas (Delaney and O’Brien), pools, indoor racquet
sport courts, weight room, fitness studios, community rooms, banquet hall, and more. At 230,000 square feet, it is one of the largest municipal recreation complexes in the Greater Toronto
Area (GTA).
Several additions have been attached to the building since it opened, including squash courts and a second ice pad in the early 1990s, then doubles squash courts and fitness expansion in 2009. Most recent renovations included the Delaney Arena in 2015 and the main lobby and change rooms in 2021.
Planned Facilities Seaton Recreation Complex & Library (SRCL):
Identified as a top capital priority of Council in January 2024, the planned Seaton Recreation Complex & Library will serve the growing community of Seaton and surrounding areas. Located at Whitevale Road and Sideline 24, this facility is envisioned to include various program amenities including a 25M indoor pool with a separate warm-water leisure tank, fitness centre with a group fitness studio, full-size triple gymnasium, two indoor ice pads, walking track, multi-purpose program rooms, and library branch with a full suite of services. The introduction of an arena in this facility is subject to an Arena Strategy which is currently being undertaken in conjunction with this Ten Year Plan. This Plan has an opportunity to inform the functional program for this facility, as will subsequent community engagement and the Council approval process.
- 53 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 35
Table 4: Community Centres in Pickering
Recreation Complexes Detail
Role / Description Community centres are smaller than recreation complexes, offering spaces that are used for City and community programming, meetings, and rentals such as activity rooms, gymnasiums, libraries, and more. Community centres are typically staffed (even if occasionally) and may be oriented to specific uses or markets (e.g., sports, youth, seniors, arts, etc.).
Supply The City currently has three (3) community centres including Dr.
Nelson F. Tomlinson Community Centre in Claremont (operated by a third-party), East Shore Community Centre, George Ashe Library & Community Centre.
A fourth community centre – the Pickering Heritage & Community Centre – will soon be under construction and scheduled to open in 2026.
Existing Facilities George Ashe Library & Community Centre (GALC):
George Ashe Library & Community Centre (formerly Petticoat Creek Community Centre) opened in 2000 and contains 3 multi-purpose spaces (used for City programs, gatherings, rentals, etc.)
and a branch library. Located along the Kingston Road corridor, the facility is well situated to serve both current residents and future growth.
East Shore Community Centre (ESCC):
The East Shore Community Centre (ESCC) was originally built as an elementary school in 1951, with a series of additions over the last 70 years. The facility contains a small gymnasium, a series of program and activity rooms, and a seniors centre (operated by the South Pickering Seniors' Club). The ESCC serves as the City’s primary hub for seniors programming. As the building is reaching end of its serviceable life, a replacement facility has been proposed
in the form of a Senior & Youth Centre included within the City Centre development proposal (funding has not yet been approved for this project, which has been deferred until 2028 for further
consideration).
Dr. Nelson F. Tomlinson Community Centre:
The Dr Nelson F Tomlinson Community Centre was built in 1997
within the Village of Claremont. The facility is co-located with a fire hall, newly renovated library branch, and community park. It contains a main hall (under-sized gymnasium), kitchen, and meeting room. The centre is managed under agreement by the Claremont & District Lions Club. The City has recently begun to offer direct programming to the community through this facility.
- 54 -
36 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Recreation Complexes Detail
Planned Facilities Pickering Heritage & Community Centre (PHCC):
The PHCC will celebrate the City’s rich heritage by bringing together a museum, library, and community centre under one roof on the upper site of the Pickering Museum Village (Highway 7 &
Greenwood Road). Construction on this facility has begun with opening anticipated in 2026.
This facility will serve many purposes, including as a new visitor’s
centre for the PMV, local history preservation, and providing a modern and accessible space for community groups (replacing the aging Greenwood Community Centre), programs, events, and exhibition space. PHCC is also designed to be zero-carbon, supporting Pickering’s journey of becoming one of the most sustainable cities in Canada.
Senior & Youth Centre (proposed):
There are longer-term plans to develop a Seniors & Youth Centre
within the City Centre campus; however, funding has not yet been allocated by Council to this phase of work and has been deferred to 2028 for further consideration. This project includes a double gymnasium, dedicated spaces for youth and seniors, programs rooms, library branch, and the potential to partner with developer for residential above. It is designed to replace the aging East Shore
Community Centre.
Table 5: Community Halls in Pickering
Recreation Complexes Detail
Role / Description Community halls are single purpose buildings typically containing
one or two meeting or activity spaces. These unstaffed buildings are primarily used for meetings, community events, and gatherings. Municipal programming is limited or non-existent. Many community halls are managed by volunteer associations and/or third-parties. They are typically older, repurposed facilities that are more commonly located in Pickering’s rural areas, receiving and intermittent use.
Supply The City currently has six (6) community halls including one that is operated by the City (West Shore Community Centre) and five that are operated by third-parties (Brougham Hall – currently closed –
and Greenwood Community Centre, Mt. Zion Community Centre, Whitevale Arts and Cultural Centre, and Whitevale Community Centre).
Note: despite their naming conventions, these facilities have levels of service more closely aligned with “community halls” than “community centres”
- 55 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 37
Recreation Complexes Detail
Existing Facilities West Shore Community Centre (WSCC):
West Shore Community Centre is located south of Highway 401. The centre is licensed to a nursery school on weekday mornings and available for community rentals on weeknights and weekends.
The facility was constructed in 1972 and does not meet contemporary standards for a municipal building.
Northern Community Halls:
In total, the City owns five (5) community halls located in the rural north. There are plans to replace the aging and inaccessible Greenwood Community Centre through the construction of PHCC, which will reduce this number to four (4), all of which are not operated by local community associations through lease agreements. These four buildings are each at least 100 years old and require significant capital investment to renew and maintain.
Planned Facilities none
- 56 -
38 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Existing Facilities
Many of the City’s existing recreation and community centres are reaching a point in their lifespan where they require significant renovation or rationalization. Implementing
capital plans to address these challenges will be a key focus for Pickering during the
course of this ten-year plan and beyond.
The Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex is the City’s cornerstone recreation facility, offering a wide range of services to residents and visitors. It is ideally located within the City Centre area and – through strategic upgrades and renewal
projects – it will be capable of serving future residents for years to come.
However, given its age (41 years in 2024), the City’s 2024 Facility Renewal Strategy indicates that strategically planned renovations and upgrades will become more critical within the years to come. The City currently has tens of millions identified in its budget forecast for capital projects over the next ten years, including tennis court resurfacing
(2024), renovation of the O’Brien rink (2027), and renovation of the pool (2029).
Intensification and growing demand will also place pressure on the facility and may accelerate the need for renewal and/or expansion.
In the interim, some items for further consideration at the CHDRC are listed below, based on input and observations from the research and consultation phase. Specifically,
future renovations may:
• consider strategic re-purposing of under-utilized spaces to active program spaces (e.g., tenant spaces, etc.);
• explore opportunities to improve public circulation and access between the arena wing and recreation complex wing;
• given the complex’s premium location, consider relocating the indoor tennis centre to another municipal recreation site (with consideration of an air-supported
dome) when it reaches end of life; these courts function more independently from
other spaces at the recreation complex and may benefit from another location that can support a minimum of four courts;
• add a gymnasium and flexible programming space should the proposed Senior &
Youth Centre project not proceed;
• improve and/or expand office space for Recreation Department staff; and
• consider additional recommendations for the arenas, as identified in the 2024
Arena Strategy.
The East Shore Community Centre is reaching end of its serviceable life according to the Facility Renewal Study. This centre is also not barrier-free and was not purpose-built for its current uses. A replacement for this facility has been proposed through the Senior & Youth Centre project within the City Centre development; however, approval of
funding for this project has been deferred until at least 2028. Should no replacement be
constructed in the next 5 to 10 years, significant capital investment can be anticipated to address the gradual deterioration of the ESCC. Replacing the building on the same site
- 57 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 39
is also possible, but would mean shuttering or displacing existing services during construction and is not recommended.
The 2024 Facility Renewal Study indicates that the West Shore Community Centre is
“beginning to show its age. Recent renovations and repairs have helped to extend its
serviceable life, but consideration should be given to longer term intentions for this site and particular facility, which will likely reach end of life in the next 20 years.” Reinvestment in this property is not recommended due to its limited utility and community benefit. It is likely that local demand can largely be absorbed within other
facilities (municipal, non-profit, private, etc.). Disposal of the full property is not currently
recommended given its co-location with West Shore Skate Spot, but rather a future use options report should be prepared to examine longer-term options for the property.
The City’s four northern community centres (Brougham Hall, Mt. Zion Community Centre, Whitevale Arts and Cultural Centre, and Whitevale Community Centre;
excluding Greenwood CC which is set to be replaced through the construction of
PHCC) are each at least 100 years old and require significant capital investment to renew and maintain, estimated to total over $5 million in capital costs over the next ten years. As recommended in the 2024 Facility Renewal Study, the potential closure and disposal of aging assets that would require significant costs to restore and maintain
should be considered as other alternatives become available in the vicinity (e.g.,
Pickering Heritage & Community Centre, Seaton Recreation Complex & Library, etc.).
These halls are not barrier-free, cannot accommodate a wide range of recreational activities, and are not conducive to City or other progressive programming. They serve as venues for occasional rentals, meetings, or small-scale community events. Most are
legacy facilities located in rural areas, serving smaller local markets. Although they are
not typically costly to operate as they rely on volunteer groups or third-party operators, capital renewal will be costly. Increasingly, these halls are viewed as liabilities and will require reinvestment if they are to remain in the inventory.
It is recommended that the City examine its community hall operating model and
prepare a study of options that examines local needs, capacity within area facilities, and
long-term requirements prior to undertaking significant investment. Looking ahead, the City may review the closure of underused halls, particularly where their functions can be accommodated within nearby facilities. The City may also explore opportunities to divest buildings and/or sites to others where appropriate and not needed for service delivery.
- 58 -
40 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Future Facilities
Recreation complexes and community centres serve residents of all ages and abilities. They are planned based on geographic accessibility and population, serving multiple
neighbourhoods. Facility components and programming may vary by location and will
be based on the specific needs of each community.
The trend has been toward larger, flexible facilities that support a wider array of activities, which is the model that the CHDRC was built upon and that the new Seaton Recreation Complex & Library carries forward. For planning purposes, provision targets
of one recreation complex for every 75,000 residents and one community centre per
35,000 residents are recommended; consideration may also be given to service radii of 2.0 to 2.5 km. To achieve this planning target, 1 additional recreation complex (the planned Seaton Recreation Complex & Library) and 1 additional community centre (the Pickering Heritage & Community Centre, opening in two years) are required within the
ten-year timeframe of this plan. As discussed earlier, several existing facilities should
also be enhanced or rationalized, including the planned replacement of East Shore Community Centre with the proposed Seniors & Youth Centre.
Table 6: Projected Long-term Needs for Recreation Complexes
Target: 1 per 75,000 pop. Now (2024) In Ten Years (to 2034) Further Ahead (to 2042)
Facility Needs 1.4 2.0 2.5
Current Supply (2024) 1 -- --
Surplus (Deficit) (0.4) (1.0) (0.5)
Potential Strategies n/a Proposed Seaton Recreation Complex
& Library
Consideration of needs in Northeast
Pickering
Population forecasts: 2024 = 103,000; 2034 = 149,000; 2042 = 185,000
Table 7: Projected Long-term Needs for Community Centres
Target: 1 per 35,000 pop. Now (2024) In Ten Years (to 2034) Further Ahead (to 2042)
Facility Needs 3.0 4.3 5.3
Current Supply (2024) 3 -- --
Surplus (Deficit) 0.0 (1.3) (2.3)
Potential Strategies n/a Pickering Heritage & Community Centre (opening 2026);
Senior & Youth Centre (replacement for ESCC)
future site in Seaton
Population forecasts: 2024 = 103,000; 2034 = 149,000; 2042 = 185,000
- 59 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 41
No provision target is provided for community halls as new halls are not recommended. These are legacy facilities that will be gradually phased out over time in response to community need and in keeping with responsible asset management practices.
Public interest is strong for new CRCs in growing communities. Looking beyond 2034, a
second community facility is planned for Seaton (Thompson’s Corners) and planning should also begin for a new recreation complex in Northeast Pickering (including securement of land). These projects are described in more detail below.
The Seaton Recreation Complex & Library will be the first multi-purpose recreation
complex built in Pickering since the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex opened in 1983. The co-location of multi-purpose spaces with other recreation and civic amenities is a common approach that facilitates a broad range of localized activities, cross-programming opportunities, and economies of scale.
Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
Based on a review of indoor recreation facility needs throughout this section, the future Seaton Recreation Complex & Library should be designed as a multi-use and multi-generational destination. Major recommended facility components include:
• Indoor Aquatics Centre: a 25-metre lane rectangular pool with a minimum of 6
lanes plus a separate leisure/therapeutic pool.
• Triple Gymnasium: a triple gym that is designed to an appropriate specification including adequate playout dimensions, ceiling heights, flooring, and support amenities.
• Fitness Centre: a training club with weight-training space and group fitness studios.
• Multi-Purpose Rooms: for meetings, programs, and gatherings that enable a flexible range of community uses.
• Arena: 2 NHL-size ice pads to replace the aging Don Beer Arena, as well as an indoor walking track (encircling an ice pad or the gymnasium).
• Outdoor Spaces: identified through the outdoor facilities assessment, including a
destination playground, skate park, and more; the full extent of outdoor facilities will depend on land availability.
• Library: space needs are supported through the Library’s Strategic Plan.
• General: provide sufficient spaces for casual social activity, change rooms,
washrooms, storage, office space, etc.
These components will be confirmed through architectural design to ensure that space exists on site to accommodate them along with vehicular parking and other servicing considerations.
In the interim, the City will be expanding programming to the newly constructed Rick
Johnson Memorial Park, including pre-registered, instructional programs for children
- 60 -
42 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
and youth, as well as weekly cultural events including small-scale concerts and movie nights in 2024.
With the ESCC reaching the end of its lifespan, a homebase is needed for seniors
programming. As of 2021, nearly one out of every three (31.5%) Pickering residents
were older adults 55 years of age or over. The proposed Seniors & Youth Centre is in a centralized and accessible location that offers convenient connections to higher-order transit that will help to support a flexible community hub within an area poised for growth in the future. It will be able to offer a wide range of activities that focus on active living,
health and wellness, education, arts, sports, and more. Beyond this location, youth,
seniors, and all-ages programming will continue to be delivered through other appropriate locations throughout Pickering in order to support inclusive and accessible opportunities. Flexible spaces where the entire population can become active and connected will be the preferred model over single-use or stand-alone facilities.
Looking beyond 2034, additional facilities will be needed in strategic locations to support
“complete communities”. Future opportunities are anticipated in both Seaton and Northeast Pickering.
1) The City has secured a second parcel of Seaton for a community centre in the Thompson’s Corners neighbourhood. This site is located on 5th Concession
(east of Brock Road) and is on a site adjacent to a future secondary school. This is a longer-term project that would seek to supplement (and not duplicate) services planned for the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library. Planning and design of this facility has not yet been initiated, but should be a priority over the course of this Ten Year Plan. Based on a preliminary needs assessment, the
community centre could include a variety of activity spaces (e.g., multi-use program rooms, sport-specific spaces, outdoor amenities, etc.), but would not likely include an indoor pool or arenas.
2) As the City’s next new community area, Northeast Pickering will require a full range of new community services and facilities, with consideration given to a new
recreation complex and arenas, among other community facilities. The Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan is underway and includes recreation planning at a high level that will be proportional to the amount of population planned for that area (approximately 45,000 people). Development of this area is beyond the timeframe of this Ten Year Plan.
It is also noted that, through the City’s Cultural Strategic Plan, a Performing Arts Centre has been proposed at the northwest corner of the CHDRC site. Funding has not yet been approved by Council for this long-term project, which would provide an auditorium and various spaces to host, display, and celebrate the arts both locally and beyond. The next term of Council is expected to advise on the timing and
implementation of this project.
- 61 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 43
Recommendations – Recreation Complexes and Community Space
1. As a high priority, continue to proceed with the timely development of the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library. At minimum, this facility should be designed to include a 25 metre 6-8 lane rectangular pool and separate warm water leisure
pool, fitness centre and studios, full size gymnasium, walking track, multi-
purpose spaces, two arena pads, and library.
2. Prior to undertaking significant capital renewal projects, initiate planning for the major long-term revitalization of the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex as supported by the City’s Facility Renewal Study. The
assessment should consider factors such as public input, asset management,
facility and program needs, related initiatives, site and partnership opportunities, potential funding sources, and more.
3. Seek to construct the proposed Seniors & Youth Centre in Pickering’s City Centre within the ten-year horizon of this plan (prior to 2034). Once open, the
East Shore Community Centre should be closed and declared surplus, with
programming transferred to the new facility.
4. Prepare a business case for the expansion of youth programming and space within the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex. This should be viewed as an interim measure prior to opening the Seniors & Youth Centre and
should be implemented through the repurposing of tenant spaces and/or under-
utilized areas (not a physical expansion to the building).
5. As part of the next Ten Year Plan (around 2034), initiate high-level planning for the development of a second recreation facility (Thompson’s Corners community centre) within the Seaton community on lands owned by the City
(east of Brock Road, south of Highway 407).
6. Through the Northeast Secondary Plan process, designate land for community facilities suitable for the development of a future recreation complex and library.
7. Prior to undertaking significant investment in existing community halls (e.g., West Shore Community Centre, Brougham Hall, etc.), prepare a study of options
that examines local needs, capacity within area facilities, and long-term requirements. The assessment should be used to guide options, including sale, third-party-lease, and/or reinvestment. Closure and sale of underused halls that require significant investment is possible, particularly where these functions can be accommodated within a nearby facility. New community halls should be
discouraged.
8. As a general principle, design indoor recreation facilities to be flexible, accessible, multi-use (non-dedicated space, where possible), inclusive, and age-friendly community hubs. Consider models co-located with libraries and other
community uses. Locate these sites in highly visible locations with strong
pedestrian, cycling, and transit connections for convenient access. Involve the community and stakeholders in the facility design process.
- 62 -
44 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
5.2 Arena Facilities
A comprehensive Arena Strategy has been prepared for the City of Pickering, the purpose of which is to guide planning and inform decisions for Pickering’s arena system for the next 10 years (to the year 2034). This strategy was recommended within the
2017 Plan to determine whether a net expansion to the City’s supply of ice pad and/or
relocation of an existing ice pad(s) is warranted based on prevailing market forces and arena operating conditions.
The Arena Strategy is presented under separate cover and includes considerable detail regarding arena usage, demand, operations, and approaches to provision. The
recommendations from the strategy are identified below.
Note: At its meeting of June 24, 2024, City of Pickering Council endorsed the Arena
Strategy (#514/24), save and except that the decision to decommission Don Beer Arena
be subject to a needs analysis. This impacts recommendations “c” and “d” below.
Recommendations from 2024 Arena Strategy:
a) Update the participant-based target to 1 ice pad per 400 registered youth participants (residents ages 5 to 19) to support current and future ice surface needs. This target applies to the arena supply and user base of arenas in both Pickering and Ajax, which must be considered together due to the cross-municipal boundaries of core user groups.
b) Align arena demand to supply based on a need for 4 indoor ice pads currently and 5 total ice pads by 2034. There is a surplus of ice at present; however, demand for ice sports will grow along with the population, gradually eroding this surplus. Should programs be formed that attract new users to ice sports (or if total registration changes in any substantial way), this forecast should be revisited.
Pickering and Ajax should share equally in addressing these demands.
c) Begin planning to replace Don Beer Arena (3 pads) with two (2) new ice pads within the Seaton community no later than 2029 (next five years). The preferred site is the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library. If the selected site cannot be expanded to a quad pad arena through a future phase of construction, a second site
may be required for a multi-pad arena beyond 2034, possibly in Northeast Pickering.
d) Maintain at least 2 ice pads at Don Beer Arena until such time as the new twin pad facility is open. In the interim, reduce capital spending at Don Beer Arena unless necessary for structural or legislated safety requirements. Consideration may also be given to removing ice from Rink 1 to limit capital and operating expenses
(non-ice activities may be permitted, as appropriate) and/or limiting off-peak hours of
operation. Once deemed surplus, dispose of Don Beer Arena property and use proceeds to offset funding of replacement infrastructure.
e) Continue to operate two ice pads at the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex for the foreseeable future. Capital requirements are
- 63 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 45
identified in the City’s long-term forecast, with further technical considerations within Section 4.1 of the Arena Strategy.
f) Continue to promote recreational skating and drop-in programs at the Chestnut
Hill Developments Recreation Complex and consider providing additional opportunities (e.g., Parent & Tot Skating, Parent & Tot Stick/Puck, Ticket Ice, etc.) to improve participation levels, accessible options for residents, and off-peak revenue enhancement. Expand programming to the new arena when built.
g) Consider adjustments to the City’s ice allocation practices to ensure that they
reflect local demand, provide adequate ice time to priority categories, and generate efficiencies. The submission of annual registration figures (including residency) by user groups should be strictly enforced as a condition of approval. Further, the City is strongly encouraged to work with the Town of Ajax to ensure that allocation practices and amounts are consistently applied across both jurisdictions to create a
fair and transparent approach to allocation. Should demand for ice rentals grow over
time, ice sport organizations should be encouraged to make efficient use of non-prime time hours and to adapt their programs to accommodate all participants, such as adjustments to practices, rosters, and scheduling.
h) Through future Recreation & Parks Plan updates, consider longer-term arenas
needs (post-2034), with a focus on growth areas such as Northeast Pickering as
well as a capital revitalization strategy for the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex arenas. It will be important for the City to secure sufficient blocks of land to support major recreation infrastructure within the Northeast Pickering community.
Recommendations – Arena Facilities
9. Utilize the findings and recommendations of the Arena Strategy to inform
decision-making regarding arena investment, development, and operations.
- 64 -
46 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
5.3 Indoor Pools
Pickering operates two indoor aquatic pool locations, each of which offers a slightly different aquatic experience through their respective designs and in turn influences how the City programs them or how conducive they are for aquatic sports and activities. The
City’s largest pool is located within the CHDRC and was built in 1983. The other is a
smaller facility attached to Dunbarton High School, which opened in 1972.
Table 8: Municipal Indoor Pools in Pickering
Indoor Pools Detail
Role / Description Indoor pools offer a wide range of shallow and deep water swimming instruction and activities to the general public. Facilities may contain one or more indoor pool basins that are generally available year-round.
Pools may be part of recreation complexes or co-located with schools, although the former model of provision is preferred as it offers greater public access and operational efficiencies.
Supply The City currently has two (2) indoor pool facilities including a two-tank
at the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex and a single tank facility at Dubarton Pool (attached to Dunbarton High School)
There are plans to build an aquatic centre as part of the proposed
Seaton Recreation Complex & Library.
Existing Facilities Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex:
The CHDRC’s indoor aquatic centre opened in 1983 and consists of a 25-metre 8-lane tank and a separate shallow warm-water tank. Both
are used for instruction and recreational swimming, while the larger rectangular tank is also used for lane swimming, training, and competition. It is home to the Pickering Swim Club, which has a broad
membership.
Dunbarton Pool:
This pool is attached to Dunbarton High School and is owned and
operated by the City on lands owned by the Durham District School Board. This pool consists of a 25-metre 6-lane tank. The City has access to the pool in the morning and after 5pm and on weekends, with the school accessing the pool during school hours. The pool is primarily used for swimming instruction and club rentals, but lacks many support amenities and conveniences (e.g., barrier-free change rooms, viewing areas, complementary activity spaces, etc.) that are available at the CHDRC.
- 65 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 47
Indoor Pools Detail
Planned Facilities Seaton Recreation Complex & Library:
The Seaton Recreation Complex & Library will serve the growing community of Seaton and surrounding areas. Preliminary designs include a 25-metre 6-lane indoor pool with a separate warm water
leisure tank, in addition to complementary activity and support spaces. A detailed design process is being initiated this year, with the goal of opening in 2028/29.
Existing Facilities
Aging infrastructure is a significant concern for the City’s indoor pool facilities as they
are an average of 47 years old and reaching a typical lifespan for a facility of this type (50-70 years).
For the CHDRC pool, the 2024 Facility Renewal Study indicates that “Minor repairs and
upgrades have been completed on the pool at CHDRC over the years, but the space has never received a complete renovation, and could be considered overdue.” While the
complex still has considerable life left, a recommendation has been made to begin long-term planning for its revitalization, which would also include the indoor pool facility.
In the interim, several repairs to the CHDRC pools are planned to be undertaken in 2029, with the goal of extending their life and avoiding the need for a lengthy shutdown prior to the planned pool at the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library coming online. As
the aquatics facilities at CHDRC are much larger than what is offered at Dunbarton Indoor Pool, they are critical to supporting municipal and community programming. By advancing the construction of an indoor pool in Seaton, it is anticipated that programs can be temporary shifted to accommodate a major revitalization project (currently
identified for 2029 in the City’s long-term capital forecast) as the CHDRC pools are
showing their age and could benefit from accessibility improvements.
Dunbarton Indoor Pool was built in 1972 and – despite benefitting from several renovations in the last 15 years – its structural elements are expected to be within their last 10 years of serviceable life. The City’s 2024 Facility Renewal Study notes that:
“Given the age and use of the building, additional renovation is not expected to be
practical or cost effective, meaning that replacement at this or another location will need to be considered.” Any capital projects on the pool or school could impact both operations, thus coordination with the Durham District School Board is vital. It is understood that the school board does not currently have any major capital work
planned for the site.
It is recommended that the City undertake a study to examine future programming needs and potential capital replacement of the Dunbarton Indoor Pool. This study should consider the need for this facility to remain operational during any extended shutdown of the CHDRC and should be completed following a minimum of one year of
the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library being fully operational.
- 66 -
48 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Future Facilities
The rate of population growth in Pickering lends support to the inclusion of indoor aquatic centres within all new recreation complexes and, where appropriate, community
centres. A provision target of one indoor pool location per 45,000 persons is
recommended, with any new or redeveloped aquatic centres including multiple tanks to accommodate expanded programming, where possible.
To achieve this target, one additional indoor pool location (multiple tanks) is required within the ten-year horizon of this plan – this facility is recommended as part of the
Seaton Recreation Complex & Library. Another indoor aquatic centre will be required to
serve growth beyond this timeframe, possibly in Northeast Pickering.
Table 9: Projected Long-term Needs for Indoor Pool Sites
Target: 1 per 45,000 pop. Now (2024) In Ten Years (to 2034) Further Ahead (to 2042)
Facility Needs 2.3 3.3 4.1
Current Supply (2024) 2 -- --
Surplus (Deficit) (0.3) (1.3) (2.1)
Potential Strategies n/a Proposed Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
Consideration of needs in Northeast Pickering
Population forecasts: 2024 = 103,000; 2034 = 149,000; 2042 = 185,000
The CHDRC pool is currently the largest in Durham Region and often hosts regional-level meets (it is not certified for provincial or higher-level competition). In 2024, the Town of Whitby began construction on a new sports complex including a 25-metre 10-lane pool that will offer additional opportunities for athletic training and competition
within the region. Given the regional nature of high performance sport, it is not feasible
for Pickering to provide a 50-metre pool or large regional competition venue in Seaton, but rather should consider a pool design that satisfies community-level needs. This supports the provision of a multi-tank pool within the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library, consisting of a 25-metre tank with 6 to 8 lanes and a separate warm-water
leisure pool designed to allow barrier-free entry. Modern pool designs include multiple
tanks with different water temperatures, universal change rooms, and barrier-free accessibility. Local swim clubs have expressed a preference for at least 8 lanes at this location; however, this will be space and budget dependent.
Looking beyond 2034, there is anticipated to be sufficient demand to support a
recreation complex and multi-tank indoor aquatic centre within the future Northeast
Pickering community. Indoor recreation needs should be validated through ongoing planning of this community and future updates to this Ten Year Plan.
Pickering has convenient access to modern 50-metre long-course indoor pools in both Markham and Scarborough – these facilities serve a broad market and require
- 67 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 49
extensive partnerships and unique funding models to support. A 50-metre pool is not recommended for Pickering at this time.
Recommendations – Indoor Pools
10. Provide multi-tank indoor aquatic centres within all new recreation complexes.
A 25-metre tank with 6 to 8 lanes and a separate warm water leisure pool are
recommended as part of the planned Seaton Recreation Complex & Library.
11. Prioritize the revitalization of the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex indoor aquatic centre as part of the proposed facility revitalization strategy following the opening of the Seaton Recreation Complex and Library.
12. Undertake a study to examine future programming needs and potential capital
replacement of the Dunbarton Indoor Pool. This study should consider the need for this facility to remain operational during any extended shutdown of the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex and should be completed following a minimum of one year of the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
being fully operational.
- 68 -
50 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
5.4 Gymnasiums
There are no regulation gymnasiums within the City’s facility inventory, although some spaces are used for court sports (sometimes on a modified basis). The City has agreements with local school boards to use selected gymnasiums on evenings and
weekends in order to support registered and drop-in programming, including many
youth activities.
Table 10: Gymnasiums in Pickering
Gymnasiums Detail
Role / Description Gymnasiums offer open court areas for sports (e.g., basketball, volleyball, badminton, pickleball, etc.), registered and drop-in programs, rentals, special events, community meetings, etc.
Supply The City currently has a variety of spaces that accommodate indoor
court sports on a modified basis, although few would meet the contemporary definition of a gymnasium:
• East Shore Community Centre – offers a small, non-regulation size gymnasium
• Dr. Nelson F. Tomlinson Community Centre – contains a hall that can be used for active sports (non-regulation size)
• CHDRC – the banquet hall has been used for pickleball, although active sports are a secondary use
• Pickering Soccer Centre – under the dome is a futsal court that can also be used for sports such as volleyball, badminton, etc. (operated by Pickering FC)
Additionally, the City has agreements with local schools to use selected gymnasiums (Dunbarton High School, Highbush Public School, Pine Ridge Secondary School, and St. Mary Catholic
Secondary School) outside of school hours.
Existing Facilities All gymnasium-like spaces in City community facilities are non-
regulation and under-sized, limiting their utility.
Planned Facilities There are plans to build gymnasiums as part of the proposed Seaton Recreation Complex & Library. New schools may also offer future opportunities for community and municipal use afterhours.
Two gymnasiums are considered in the proposed Senior & Youth Centre (City Centre), a project that has been deferred until 2028 for further consideration.
Gymnasiums are essential to supporting year-round organized sports programs and the
City is striving to increase its capacity to offer more sports programming to match with
growing demand. Over the past few years, the City has witnessed a remarkable surge
- 69 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 51
in the popularity of various sports programs, with many programs having extensive wait lists. Drop-in (pre-registered) activities such as youth sports and pickleball are especially in high demand. The lack of regulation-size gymnasiums is limiting the City’s
ability to address these needs in an equitable manner.
The new sport courts at the Pickering Soccer Centre are well used for futsal (the Provincial championships are being hosted here), as well as sports such as volleyball. Pickering FC (which operates the facility under agreement) is currently working with the City to improve the flooring so that it can be used for other sports such as pickleball.
Whereas older delivery models left the responsibility for gymnasium provision to
schools, it has now become common practice for municipalities to include large gymnasiums within recreation complexes. This is driven by increased needs for municipal program delivery, particularly for youth and increasingly for seniors, as well as challenges with gaining reliable access to some school facilities throughout the year.
There is no gymnasium at the CHDRC and the City of Pickering has a lower supply of
municipal gymnasiums in comparison to other communities (benchmarking average of 1:38,200). If this provision rate was applied to Pickering, there would be a need for four (4) gymnasiums by 2034. Going forward for Pickering, it should be a best practice to include a gymnasium as part of any new recreation complex (e.g., Seaton, etc.) and
gymnasiums should also be strongly considered within future community centres (e.g.,
Seniors & Youth Centre).
To maximize program flexibility and allow use for sports such as basketball, pickleball (up to 6 courts), and volleyball, a triple gymnasium specification should be incorporated in the design of the proposed Seaton Recreation Complex & Library. The design of
the gymnasium should allow for sufficient playout distance to the structural walls, have
an appropriate ceiling height, and preferably use a sprung-wood flooring system. Amenities such as a scoreboard, spectator viewing, and generous storage would significantly improve the user experience and functionality of the space.
In terms of accommodating the growing sport of pickleball, this plan recommends
expanded opportunities for both outdoor (see Section 3) and indoor play using a variety
of approaches. Pickleball is currently played indoors at the CHDRC Banquet Hall (4 courts) and though occasional use other community centre and school spaces for a total of 51 hours per week (drop-in and registered programming). To inform the City’s provision of indoor facilities, a guideline of one pickleball court per 10,000 residents is
comparable to approaches in other municipalities (based on an average provision of
one gymnasium per 40,000 persons and assuming that each gymnasium can accommodate 4 courts).
Applying this measure to Pickering, the City will be able to meet its current target of 10 indoor courts through upgrades at the Pickering Soccer Centre (up to 6 courts and 42
hours/court per week) and also its 2034 target (15 courts) through the development of
the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library. School gymnasiums and other spaces within the City’s inventory also offer opportunities to accommodate occasional use, as well as
- 70 -
52 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
the potential for non-municipal providers which are becoming more common across the Greater Toronto Area.
Recommendations – Gymnasiums
13. Provide gymnasiums within all new and redeveloped recreation complexes
(e.g., Seaton, etc.) and consider their provision within appropriate community
centres (e.g., Seniors & Youth Centre, etc.). A triple gymnasium (FIBA regulation) is recommended as part of the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library.
14. Provide one indoor pickleball court for every 10,000 residents, with a target of
15 indoor courts by 2034. The City will be able to meet its current target of 10
indoor courts through upgrades at the Pickering Soccer Centre (up to 6 courts and 42 hours/court per week) and also its 2034 target (15 courts) through the development of the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library.
15. Where additional access is required, expand agreements with local school
boards to offer programming within school gymnasiums and other community
spaces within Seaton and future growth areas.
5.5 Indoor Fitness Spaces
The City operates a fitness centre at the CHDRC. Additionally, the City offers group
fitness classes at locations such as East Shore and George Ashe community centres.
There are also many private sector fitness and health/wellness providers within Pickering.
Table 11: Fitness Centres in Pickering
Fitness Centres Detail
Role / Description Fitness centres provide opportunities for registered members to workout using weights and equipment and to participate in fitness
classes. They are typically complemented by other activity spaces such as indoor swimming pools.
Supply The City currently has one fitness centre location at the CHDRC.
There are plans to build another fitness centre in Seaton, proposed to be designed in 2024 and opening by 2028/29.
Existing Facilities Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex (CHDRC):
This fitness centre contains cardio and weight-training equipment along with fitness studios that offer floor-based programs. The facility is spread across two levels and also contains a small three-lane walking/running track.
- 71 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 53
Fitness Centres Detail
Planned Facilities Seaton Recreation Complex & Library:
The Seaton Recreation Complex & Library is currently proposed to include an equipment-based fitness centre with several studio spaces.
There are no widely accepted service level targets for municipal fitness centres based on population. Market economics guides private sector decisions as to whether they
invest in equipment-based fitness centres; however, most municipalities view fitness studios for group programs as a core level of service while others – like Pickering – go further by operating fitness centres based on a wellness philosophy. Municipal fitness centres are in a more competitive environment as the private sector is now entrenched
in the low-cost/discount membership market that used to be dominated by municipalities
and YMCAs.
While it is clear that there is competition in the fitness market from the private sector, the City has made a conscious decision to compete directly in this industry. In order to remain competitive in the marketplace, the City regularly invests in fitness equipment
and the overall customer experience. Part of Pickering’s advantage is its ability to co-
locate fitness centres with indoor pools and create convenient hubs where aquatic, fitness, and wellness activities are complemented by other spaces and services. This model differentiates the City’s fitness product from other providers and offers an affordable option for most residents.
On this basis, there is strong rationale to include fitness space within future recreation
complexes. These spaces will complement other components, offering user convenience and generating economies of scale. Inclusion of publicly-accessible indoor walking tracks within recreation complexes (elevated above a gymnasium or ice pad) is also recommended to reinforce opportunities for year-round physical activity and dry-
land training for sports groups. The provision of a second fitness centre and studio
space is recommended as a part of the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library.
Recommendations – Indoor Fitness Spaces
16. Provide fitness centres and studios within all new and redeveloped recreation complexes (including the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library) to support the delivery of health and wellness programming. Consider the provision of indoor walking tracks (free public access) within new recreation facilities, where
appropriate.
- 72 -
54 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
5.6 Indoor Sport Facilities
Addressed in this section are additional sport-specific facilities that the City and its partners offer to the community, including:
• Squash courts
• Racquetball/handball courts
• Indoor tennis courts
• Indoor soccer/turf fields
Note: Indoor pickleball is ideally played on gymnasium courts and is considered within the gymnasium section of this report.
Table 12: Indoor Sport Facilities in Pickering
Indoor Sport Facilities Detail
Role / Description Indoor sport facilities are purpose-built spaces that accommodate specific sports and activities, often on an exclusive use or membership-driven model. These facilities typically support sports on a year-round basis.
Supply The City and its partners currently offer.
• 8 squash courts (including 6 international single courts and 2 doubles courts) at the CHDRC
• 2 racquetball courts (also used for handball) at the CHDRC
• 4 indoor tennis courts at the CHDRC
• 1 indoor turf field (divisible into up to four small-sided fields) at the Pickering Soccer Centre
Existing Facilities Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex (CHDRC):
This facility is home to one of the largest municipal squash, racquetball, and indoor tennis court complexes in the GTA. Courts are accessed via membership and pay-as-you-go models.
Pickering Soccer Centre:
The Pickering Soccer Centre is the City’s sole indoor turf facility, which is a municipal capital facility that is operated by Pickering FC under agreement. The facility offers a certified FIFA regulation soccer field that can be partitioned into smaller fields, an associated sprint track, and futsal/sport courts.
Planned Facilities None, although there may be potential for smaller-scale sport facilities at future recreation complexes.
- 73 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 55
Squash & Racquetball Courts
Current and projected levels of usage for squash are adequate to support the continued provision of courts at the CHDRC, but insufficient to recommend additional facilities at
this time. As a premier site for squash in Ontario, Pickering is currently providing one
squash court per 13,000 residents, a rate nearly eight times greater than comparator communities (one per 105,000). Usage of squash courts and membership levels should be monitored to ensure that these spaces are optimized.
Pickering is currently providing one racquetball court per 51,500 residents, a rate more
than nine times greater than comparator communities (one per 475,000). Participation
in racquetball lags well behind squash and many municipalities that had racquetball courts in their supply have been gradually converting them to other uses due to low demand. Following years of declining utilization, Pickering’s 2017 Plan recommended that one or more of the City’s racquetball courts be repurposed to another use (guided
by public input) to enhance use of the space to benefit the broader community. This
recommendation was not supported by club members and in 2018 Council afforded the Racquetball Hub of Durham Region committee an opportunity to increase membership, usage, and revenues to reach City established targets over a 2-year period ending December 31, 2019. Despite the goals not being achieved over this period, in 2020
Council did not undertake further public consultation and did not support repurposing a
racquetball court. As of 2023, the number of racquetball and handball players remains below past levels.
Note: At its meeting of June 24, 2024, City of Pickering Council resolved (#514/24) that any consideration to permanently repurpose the racquetball courts not be actioned until further meaningful discussions are undertaken with the Racquetball Club on its growth plans including the impact of intensification and growth targets in the City of Pickering.
Indoor Tennis
There are 4 indoor tennis courts at the rear of the CHDRC. These courts are available to members and non-members, and classes and lessons are also offered. Members
have access to the fitness centre, swimming pool, and/or squash/racquetball courts depending on the membership category. The courts are well used most of the year, but less so during the summer months when the sport shifts outdoors.
The 2017 Plan found a surplus of indoor tennis courts and declining utilization levels (and efforts were subsequently made to trial the use of pickleball on these courts,).
From our experience in other communities, each indoor court should be able to support a minimum of 75 members; programs and lessons are in addition to this amount. Membership has since increased to 117 players in 2023 as demand for the sport has grown in recent years and there have been informal proposals to expand to other locations. There remains capacity for greater use at the existing indoor facilities.
No new indoor tennis courts are recommended within the ten-year timeframe of this plan; however, should the City receive a proposal to install a season air-supported
- 74 -
56 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
dome over outdoor courts at no cost to the municipality, this may be considered this through the partnership framework identified in Section 2.7 and Appendix F.
It is also noted that a planning process for the long-term revitalization of the CHDRC
has been recommended to be initiated during the next ten years. Given the large
footprint that the existing indoor courts account for at the CHDRC – coupled with its high land value and related plans that Pickering has established for the site and surrounding City Centre lands – consideration may be given to relocating the indoor courts to another accessible location within Pickering in the longer-term (with consideration of an
air-supported dome and the joint provision of pickleball courts). The optimal use of this
site may be more fully considered through the City Centre project and/or planning of the future parks and recreation facility sites.
Indoor Turf Fields (Pickering Soccer Centre)
The Pickering Soccer Centre is located in southeast Pickering and offers a FIFA
regulation soccer field that can be partitioned into smaller fields, an associated sprint
track, and futsal/sport courts. It is operated by Pickering FC under agreement with the City (it is a municipal capital facility). The air-supported dome was opened in 2014 and a new fabric was installed in 2023 (along with a new multi-use sports court) following heavy damage from a winter storm.
Pickering FC indicates that its membership has grown since the pandemic, especially in
younger ages and high performance streams. The club is projecting its membership to increase by 19% by over the next three years, generating greater demand for both outdoor fields and indoor turf time. One of the Club’s biggest challenges is the lack of indoor space as the group uses 98% of the hours on the Pickering Soccer Centre’s turf
field during the winter season. Given these trends, there is very little capacity on the
indoor turf field for non-soccer community rentals (e.g., other soccer clubs, football, softball, ultimate frisbee, lacrosse, cricket, rugby, etc.).
Trends are shifting to greater year-round use and more and more sports and activities that can use these facilities are demonstrating sustainable growth. As the operator,
Pickering FC administers rentals at the Pickering Soccer Centre and is not bound by
municipal allocation policies. Creating opportunities for other sports and organizations to access the field, as well as utilization of the field for a broader variety of recreation programs during off-peak times, are opportunities that the City should consider in partnership with the facility operator.
The Pickering Soccer Centre has been a significant success for the local club and City.
Indoor turf fields such as this are becoming more common, with the average level of provision being approximately one municipal turf facility per 100,000 residents. The City should work with Pickering FC and other organizations to monitor the demand for indoor turf facilities (including the collection of utilization and registration data from the
Pickering Soccer Centre and community organizations) to allow for a needs assessment
for a second indoor turf facility beyond 2034 within the Seaton or Northeast Pickering community areas (e.g., Thompson’s’ Corner recreation site, future district park, etc.).
- 75 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 57
Recommendations – Indoor Sport Facilities
17. Engage the local racquetball club to assess their future outlook and ways to increase usage of the courts prior to repurposing one racquetball court at the CHDRC.
18. Consideration may be given to relocating the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex indoor tennis courts to another accessible location within Pickering in the longer-term, possibly through an air-supported dome and the joint provision of pickleball courts. This is a matter that may be more fully examined through the recommended recreation complex facility revitalization
study, the City Centre project, and/or planning of the future parks and recreation
facility sites.
19. Encourage wider community access to the Pickering Soccer Centre field by working with Pickering FC to create an allocation framework and/or scheduling options that provide other youth-based organizations with access to the turf field
within prime, shoulder, and non-prime times.
20. Monitor the demand for indoor turf facilities and examine the potential to develop a second indoor turf facility beyond the timeframe of this Ten-Year Plan.
- 76 -
58 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
5.7 Requests for Other Types of Facilities
Future requests for municipal participation in capital projects not identified in this plan can be expected. There are several other types of facilities that fall outside of the traditional municipal scope of provision, but may offer benefit to area residents and
contribute greatly to the range of local services.
The City’s Community Grant program can be used to support minor requests (typically under $3,000) from non-profit organizations. To evaluate and respond to more significant unsolicited requests, a formal partnership framework should be used to guide the parameters for these relationships. Municipal involvement in such proposals must
be transparent and consider overall municipal priorities and the City’s capacity to
participate in such projects.
The evaluation of potential major capital partnerships should require the proponent to provide information such as (but not limited to):
• a comprehensive needs analysis • a comprehensive business plan
• the proponent’s financial capacity • a demonstration of the sustainability of the project
• detailed evidence of community benefits
• full risk analysis
In cases where the City has decided to participate and/or invest in a proponent-initiated
project, they will seek innovative solutions and/or partnerships (using a standardized partnership framework – see Appendix F) that enhance access to residents.
Recommendations – Other Indoor Spaces
21. Adopt a partnership framework to evaluate and respond to major capital proposals from community organizations, with consideration given to overall
municipal priorities and the City’s capacity to participate in such projects. A
sample framework and criteria are identified with this Ten Year Plan (see appendix).
- 77 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 59
- 78 -
60 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
6. Outdoor Recreation and Park Facilities
Pickering’s parks contain a wide variety of sport and community recreation amenities, from courts to sports fields, playgrounds to splash pads, and much more. Demand for
outdoor activities has been on the rise, underscoring the need to maintain and enhance outdoor amenities for current and future populations.
This section contains a needs assessment for outdoor recreation and park facilities, with recommendations supported by inventories, usage data, trends, public input, and related initiatives.
An inventory of outdoor recreation facilities can be found in Appendix D, along with comparisons to provision levels in other municipalities. Other supporting materials, such as facility-specific trends, community input summaries, and usage analyses are contained in Appendix E.
6.1 Soccer and Multi-Use Fields
Soccer and multi-use fields are a core element of the City’s parks system and come in a
wide variety of sizes. Fields are predominantly used for soccer, but some can also
accommodate other fields sports such as football, rugby, and field lacrosse.
The City of Pickering currently permits 46 soccer and multi-use fields to sport organizations, including some fields on school properties. The supply of permitted outdoor soccer and rectangular fields is well distributed throughout Pickering’s urban
area. This inventory consists of
• 2 lit artificial turf fields
• 4 lit full size fields
• 13 unlit full size fields
• 11 9v9 (intermediate) fields
• 16 7v7 (mini) fields
To account for extended playing capacity, lit artificial turf and lit grass fields are assumed to be equivalent to 3.0 and 1.5 unlit natural fields, respectively. As a result, Pickering has an effective supply of 52 unlit equivalent (ULE) soccer fields. The City is presently providing one field (ULE) per 2,000 residents, a higher rate than the comparator group (one field per 2,700 persons). These fields may be supplemented by
school fields, which are permitted through the school boards but tend to be of lower quality.
The indicators suggest that the number of rectangular sports fields is adequate at the present time, but demand is expected to increase as the City grows, generally in line with population growth.
- 79 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 61
A city-wide provision target of one soccer/multi-use field per 100 registered youth and adult participants is recommended, a slight adjustment from the one per 90 players identified in the previous Ten Year Plan. This target responds to contemporary
standards of play and considers appropriate usage/rest periods for fields.
The number of registrants in the two largest organizations (Pickering FC and Durham Dolphins Football Club) was approximately 2,750 in 2023, an increase of 20% since 2018. This growth has largely been driven by increases in the number of soccer players with Pickering FC. Beyond these two groups, the total number of players using
Pickering fields is not available. It is recommended that the City require reporting on
membership levels as part of the annual permitting process to improve tracking of demand and usage.
A population-based standard can be used in the interim until accurate data on the number of players using Pickering’s soccer and multi-use fields is known (future Ten
Year Plan update). Recognizing that most larger fields are well used, but that there is
some capacity within smaller or neighbourhood-based fields, a provision target of one field (unlit equivalent) per 3,000 persons is recommended to be applied to future growth.
Looking ahead, additional fields will be required to address growth-related needs. Applying the provision target to the forecast of 46,000 new residents by 2034 equates to
a growth-related need for 15.3 new fields over the next ten years.
Table 13: Projected Long-term Needs for Soccer and Multi-use Fields
Target: 1 field (ULE*) per 3,000 pop. Now (2024) In Ten Years (to 2034)
Current Supply / Facility Needs 52* 15.3* more
Potential Strategies n/a - new field development in Seaton
- expanding capacity within existing parks
- greater capacity through new
artificial turf fields
- working with partners
- multi-field potential at Greenwood Conservation lands and/or District Park (longer-term)
Demand derived by applying provision target to anticipated growth (46,000 new residents by 2034), plus any current shortfall in supply * Each lit soccer field is equivalent to 1.5 unlit fields (ULE) and each lit artificial field is equivalent to 3.0 unlit fields (ULE).
As the City intensifies, sports fields are less likely to be provided in mixed use areas due to their large size, requiring users to travel outside of their community to access these facilities. The greatest short-term opportunity for new fields will be through park development in new communities such as Seaton. To address the full range of future
needs, sports field development must focus on improving existing fields and parks (e.g.,
- 80 -
62 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
adding lights, installing artificial turf, expanding fields, etc.), acquiring land, and working in partnership with owners of other large sites to bring more fields online.
Full-size fields with artificial turf that can support competitive play are in particularly high
demand in Pickering, with several stakeholders seeking more as these fields can
support more hours of use throughout and at the beginning and end of the playing season. Artificial turf presents a viable option due to its greater capacity for use (e.g., multiple sports, extended seasons, inclement weather, etc.) and lower maintenance cost, therefore reducing the need for land acquisition and operational resources. The
needs of all field sports should be considered when designing new artificial turf fields.
At this time, planned soccer field development includes 8 fields (8.5 unlit equivalents), a little more than half of what is recommended by 2034. This includes:
• One (1) full lit field in Seaton (P-123).
• One (1) full unlit field in the proposed Hydro Corridor Park north of Kingston Road (pending approval from Hydro One).
• Six (6) 7v7 and/or 9v9 fields in Seaton (P-106, P-109, P-124, and P-131) and in
the proposed Hydro Corridor Park north of Kingston Road (pending approval
from Hydro One).
Potential for additional fields may be realized through park redevelopment (e.g., converting an underutilized diamond at Maple Ridge Park to a soccer field) and future development opportunities such as at the Greenwood Conservation lands and future
district park site – both of these sites would be good candidates to support a lit artificial
turf field and multiple additional fields. The provision of an artificial turf field may also be considered at Seaton Recreation Complex & Library (or the community facility planned for Thompson’s Corners) should there be sufficient land. A variety of field sizes are needed in order to comply with Ontario Soccer guidelines and additional artificial turf
fields will be necessary to accommodate growing needs.
Should demand exceed the number of planned fields, the City may consider working more formally with school boards to permit suitably-sized school fields as schools are developed in new communities such as Seaton. This may require Pickering to allocate additional operating funding toward field maintenance, in agreement with the respective
school boards.
The City may receive requests from sport organizations for fields and specialized amenities (e.g., scoreboards, on-site washrooms and dressing room facilities, spectator seating, etc.). to support competitive and high performance teams. Proposals that go beyond the City’s established levels of service will typically require an appropriate cost-
sharing agreement that maintains a level of public access to the site.
- 81 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 63
Recommendations – Soccer and Multi-use Fields
22. Provide approximately 15 additional soccer and multi-use fields (unlit equivalents) over the next ten years to address growth-related needs. New fields may be developed within community parks (with multiple fields per site) and
appropriate neighbourhood park sites, as well as in partnership with other land
providers such as schools. Where possible, a focus should be placed on full size fields (both lit and unlit) and artificial turf fields as these provide greater capacity for community use. In addition to new fields in the Seaton community, opportunities should be sought to enhance field supplies within existing parks
(e.g., conversion of under-utilized assets such as in Maple Ridge Park).
23. Through the annual permitting process, track the number of registrants using Pickering sports fields (soccer, football baseball, cricket, etc.). At a minimum, data to be collected should include age (youth, adult, etc.) and residency (Pickering, other, etc.). This data will enable trend tracking, support future
demand analysis, and inform allocation practices.
- 82 -
64 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
6.2 Ball Diamonds
The City of Pickering currently permits 27 ball diamonds to sport organizations. The diamonds are well distributed throughout Pickering’s urban area, with additional diamonds in rural areas. This inventory consists of
• 4 hardball diamonds (3 with lights)
• 23 softball diamonds (9 with lights)
To account for extended playing capacity, lit diamonds are assumed to be equivalent to 2.0 unlit diamonds. As a result, Pickering has an effective supply of 39 unlit equivalent
(ULE) ball diamonds. The City is presently providing one diamond (ULE) per 2,640 residents, a higher rate than the comparator group (one diamond per 3,900 persons).
The indicators suggest that the number of ball diamonds is adequate at the present time, with available capacity for more use and/or repurposing of under-utilized diamonds. Pickering’s increasing ethnic diversity may mean a slower growth trajectory
for baseball in the future, a sport that has more limited appeal amongst many newcomer groups. However, some demand can be anticipated as the City grows as there will be a need to enhance accessibility for those in the new Seaton community.
A city-wide provision target of one ball diamond per 100 registered youth and adult
participants is recommended. This target responds to contemporary standards of play.
Pickering Baseball Association (minor ball) is the largest user of diamonds in Pickering, responsible for over 40% of all booked hours. The minor ball club reported an overall membership of 493 youth in 2023, down from a peak of 811 in 2016 – a 39% decrease. In addition, there are approximately six adult slo-pitch leagues that use City diamonds;
current registration for these organizations is not known, but in 2016 was estimated to
be approximately 1,075. With some registrants potentially not returning since the pandemic, it is likely that the number of adult players is slightly less than it was eight years ago.
Beyond the minor baseball association, the total number of players using Pickering
diamonds is not available. It is recommended that the City require reporting on
membership levels as part of the annual permitting process to improve tracking of demand and usage.
A population-based standard can be used in the interim until accurate data on the number of players using Pickering’s ball diamonds is known (future Ten Year Plan
update). Recognizing that several diamonds are not currently used to capacity, a
provision target of one diamond (unlit equivalent) per 8,000 persons is recommended to be applied to future growth.
Looking ahead, additional diamonds will be required to address growth-related needs and improve geographic distribution with improved service to new communities.
Applying the provision target to the forecast of 46,000 new residents by 2034 equates to
a growth-related need for approximately six (6) new diamonds over the next ten years.
- 83 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 65
Table 14: Projected Long-term Needs for Ball Diamonds
Target: 1 diamond (ULE*) per 8,000 pop. Now (2024) In Ten Years (to 2034)
Current Supply / Facility Needs 36* 5.8* more
Potential Strategies n/a - new field development in Seaton
- optimizing existing diamonds
- multi-field potential at Greenwood Conservation lands and/or District Park (longer-term)
Demand derived by applying provision target to anticipated growth (46,000 new residents by 2034), plus any current shortfall in supply
* Each lit ball diamond is equivalent to 2.0 unlit diamonds (ULE).
New diamonds will be required to serve the Seaton community in particular and many of
these new fields will not be required until later in the ten-year cycle of this plan.
Currently the City has plans to develop a lit ball diamond in Dave Ryan Community Park (P-123) in Seaton (2.0 unlit equivalents). Two additional lit diamonds (or 1 lit and 2 unlit diamonds) would be required to satisfy the balance of needs by 2034. Adult-size diamonds are recommended for maximum flexibility, with one diamond suited for
hardball.
Due to their size and buffer requirements (especially hardball fields), ball diamonds can be challenging to fit within many parks and are best provided within community or district parks where clustered fields can better support league play and tournaments. Where appropriate, supporting amenities should be provided including, but not limited
to, parking and washrooms. The future Greenwood Conservation lands have potential
to serve as a destination for field sports with multiple ball diamonds.
Future demand should be addressed through a combination of strategies, including new field development, optimizing use of diamonds, and upgrading existing diamonds to fit with needs. As sports fields are less likely to be provided in strategic growth areas due
to their land-based requirements, upgrades to existing diamonds may be necessary to
address localized needs in some areas, including expanding under-sized fields where possible. Strategic diamond improvements may assist in dealing with potential shortfalls and should be further assessed through discussions with local baseball organizations.
Despite ten-year growth-related needs amounting to nearly six (6) new diamonds, the
City should also consider strategic opportunities to repurpose under-sized and under-
utilized diamonds in areas with needs for other park amenity types. Examples include the ball diamonds at Maple Ridge Park, Lookout Point Park, and Greenwood Park, which may be considered further through park-specific planning exercises for conversion to other community and/or sport amenities or even informal open play
spaces.
- 84 -
66 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Recommendations – Ball Diamonds
24. Provide approximately 6 additional ball diamonds (unlit equivalents) over the next ten years to address growth-related needs. New fields should be developed within community parks (with multiple fields per site where possible), as well as
in partnership with other land providers where appropriate. These needs can be
largely satisfied through planned development at Dave Ryan Community Park (1 lit diamond) and future development on the Greenwood Conservation lands (multiple lit diamonds), including consideration of both hardball and softball needs.
25. Evaluate opportunities to repurpose surplus ball diamonds and to align the
diamond supply and distribution with demand. Some candidates for conversion include under-utilized and/or under-sized diamonds at Maple Ridge Park, Lookout Point Park, and Greenwood Park.
- 85 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 67
6.3 Cricket Pitches
The City of Pickering provides one cricket pitch at Alex Robertson Park.
With Pickering’s diverse population, the City can expect pressure for cricket facilities to continue to increase. This growth will also be supported by the establishment of new
leagues for youth and shorter game formats that broaden the appeal of the sport.
Furthermore, cricket viewership is rapidly increasing in Canada (a recent report estimated that there are 5 million or more cricket fans across the nation7) and the sport is being reintroduced into the Olympics in 2028.
While the City’s current level of provision (one field per 103,000 residents) is slightly
better that the average of the comparator communities (one field per 136,300 persons),
the large land base associated with cricket fields is a deterrent to their broad provision in many municipalities. In Brampton, a community with a large South Asian and Black/West Indian population, this per capita ratio is closer to one field per 40,000 persons.
For the immediate ten year needs of this plan, a target of one cricket field per 75,000 is
recommended; this target reflects the growing appeal of the sport amongst Pickering’s diverse communities. By 2034, a total of 2 cricket fields are recommended, one more than is currently available.
Table 15: Projected Long-term Needs for Cricket Fields
Target: 1 cricket field per 75,000 pop. Now (2024) In Ten Years (to 2034)
Current Supply / Facility Needs 1 0.9 more
Potential Strategies n/a - new field development in Seaton
- working with partners
Demand derived by applying provision target to anticipated growth (46,000 new residents by 2034), plus any current shortfall in supply
The cricket field at Alex Robertson Park is somewhat under-sized, but is suitable for youth and most levels of adult play. This location – which is on leased land from Ontario
Power Generation – should be maintained for the time being but may not be a suitable long-term solution. While it is common to consider cricket as an interim use for lands with a longer-term purpose, this discourages investment and can be detrimental to the growth of the sport.
Additionally, another field is recommended for the Seaton area to improve accessibility
to new residents and to provide greater opportunities to support the sport in growing communities. Due to the amount of land required – it takes 2+ hectares to accommodate a cricket field that is up to 150 metres in diameter (plus buffers) – the
7 CulturalIQ. Cricket – The Fastest Growing Sport in Canada: A National Study. 2022.
- 86 -
68 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
only sites able to potentially accommodate the sport are the Greenwood Conservation lands to the east of Seaton or the future District Park north of Highway 407. The first of these parks to be developed (likely the Greenwood Conservation lands) should include
a regulation size cricket field. Some communities have had success overlaying a cricket
field across two soccer fields, with the pitch placed between them. An overlay allows for one sport to be played at a time; cricket demand is highest on weekends, while soccer groups have historically concentrated their programming on weekdays.
Recommendations – Cricket Fields
26. Include a regulation cricket field within the future Greenwood Conservation
lands or other suitable location capable of serving Seaton and surrounding area.
Consideration may be given to designing the pitch as an overlay across two full-size soccer fields.
6.4 Tennis Courts
Pickering provides 24 lit tennis courts at nine parks. With the exception of the tennis
courts at Claremont Memorial Park (2) and Village East Park (2), the City’s tennis courts are operated by neighbourhood clubs that provide tennis programming and leagues to members. Indoor courts are available at the CHDRC; however, summer usage of this facility is lower as many players prefer to play outdoors.
Due to its international appeal, strong gender and age balance, low injury risk, and high
profile Canadian professional athletes, tennis is a sport that should retain its popularity in Pickering for the next decade and beyond. The City has indicated that all of its tennis clubs have experienced an increase in membership participation over the past few years and entered into updated lease agreements with the clubs in 2023.
New tennis courts will be needed to address growth. Recognizing this, the City has
recently redeveloped the courts in Dunmoore Park, is planning to add 1 new tennis court at Shadybrook Park (shared with pickleball courts and accessible through the Amberlea Tennis Club), and has plans to construct 1 new public tennis court and 4 pickleball courts in the future Dave Ryan Community Park (P-123) in Seaton. Tennis
and/or pickleball courts are also planned for Titanium Green (P-107) in Seaton and
there may also be the potential for outdoor courts at the site of the planned recreation facility on Thompson’s Corners.
The City is providing tennis courts at a slightly greater rate (one per 4,300 persons) than the comparator communities; however, there are fewer public courts available in
Pickering (4 public courts, representing 17% of all courts) than most other similar
communities as the majority of courts (20 club courts) are operated by clubs with exclusive rights to operate tennis programming. A provision target of 1 tennis court per 4,500 residents (public and club-based courts) is recommended, with a focus on improving the distribution of unrestricted public courts. Application of this target finds a
need for 9 more courts to 2034, largely to serve growth in the Seaton area.
- 87 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 69
Table 16: Projected Long-term Needs for Tennis Courts
Target: 1 tennis court per 4,500 pop. Now (2024) In Ten Years (to 2034)
Current Supply / Facility Needs 24 9 more
Potential Strategies n/a - new court development in Seaton (public and club)
- strategic investments in existing parks (e.g., Shadybrook Park)
Demand derived by applying provision target to anticipated growth (46,000 new residents by 2034), plus any current shortfall in supply
The following strategies are recommended to address the need for 9 new courts, with consideration of equitable distribution and opportunities for casual/public play:
• add 1 new tennis court to the tennis complex at Shadybrook Park, in partnership
with the Amberlea Tennis Club;
• develop 2 public tennis courts at the future Dave Ryan Community Park (P-123) in Seaton;
• develop 2 public tennis courts at Titanium Green (P-107) in Seaton;
• develop 2 public tennis courts at P-086 in Duffins Heights; develop 4-5 club tennis courts at another site in Seaton (possibly at the community facility planned for Thompson’s Corners); and
• work with the Greenwood Tennis Club to confirm the long-term need for these courts (usage is not tracked but though to be low) and consider shifting use to the aforementioned new courts planned for Seaton, allowing this space to be converted to other uses as defined by a future design process for this park.
Within South Pickering, there is a good distribution of courts with several located near
growing mixed use areas. There are limited opportunities to establish new tennis courts in this area, aside from expansions at some locations. Should membership decline significantly at existing clubs, consideration should be given to converting the courts to public use (e.g., tennis, pickleball, etc.).
Due to its burgeoning popularity, the City added pickleball lines to its four public tennis
courts to allow for shared use. City courts managed by community clubs are not ideal candidates for shared pickleball use due to the level of use and expectation of tennis club members. As discussed in the next section, new dedicated pickleball courts are needed and the shared-use model is not appropriate for most sites. As such, new tennis courts should be developed for tennis-only use (but may be co-located with other sport
court uses) and be in groups of two or more.
- 88 -
70 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Recommendations – Tennis Courts
27. Expand the number of public tennis courts (lit where possible) in growing communities through new court development in Seaton (4 courts at 2 parks) and Duffins Heights (2 courts at 1 park). Courts should be designed for tennis only,
but may be co-located with other sport courts as part of a complex.
28. Consider the development of an outdoor tennis complex (4-5 courts) at the site of the community facility planned for Thompson’s Corners. The complex should be operated by a community-based club under agreement with the City, allowing for public access during specified hours and/or low use periods. The potential for
an air-supported dome to allow for year-round use of the courts (possibly as a
long-term replacement for the indoor courts at the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex) may be considered further through a business plan that examines demand, partnerships, financial performance, and related factors.
29. Work with the local tennis club to confirm the long-term need for the courts at
Greenwood Park and consider shifting use to new courts planned for Seaton,
allowing this space to be converted to other uses as defined by a future redesign process for this park.
6.5 Pickleball Courts
The City does not currently offer any dedicated outdoor pickleball courts, but does allow
for the sport on 11 shared courts. Six (6) courts are shared with tennis on a first-come first-served basis (Village East Park and Claremont Memorial Park) and five (5) courts are on multi-use pads requiring portable pickleball nets.
Plans are in place to expand this inventory by adding one new tennis court at
Shadybrook Park that be converted to use as four (4) pickleball courts; it will be
accessible to club members. In addition, the City has been working with the pickleball community to expand opportunities to play the sport indoors (see Section 2.4).
Strong interest has been expressed by pickleball enthusiasts for more courts in Pickering, both indoor and outdoor, with demand for court time exceeding the facilities
available within the City. In particular, the lack of dedicated outdoor courts for the sport
has been an issue as the playing experience on shared courts is not ideal. For example, many shared courts require users to bring and/or set up portable nets, do not have dedicated times for the sport, and lack other supporting amenities that are becoming standard with new court complexes (e.g., proper fencing, wind screens, permanent
lines, etc.). Dedicated courts are becoming commonplace in many municipalities and
should form the primary focus for Pickering’s future capital projects.
- 89 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 71
Looking ahead, the City currently has plans to construct:
• four (4) dedicated pickleball courts in the Dave Ryan Community Park (P-123) in
Seaton;
• six (6) dedicated pickleball courts at the south end of Diana, Princess of Wales Park in place of the southernmost soccer field (requires approval from Hydro One);
• four (4) pickleball courts shared with tennis at the Amberlea Tennis Club in Shadybrook Park (2024); and
• two (2) multi-use courts shared between pickleball and basketball at both
Beechlawn Park (P-019) and at a future park in Duffin Heights (P-087).
With the number of older adults expected to increase at a faster rate than the overall population, sustained demand for pickleball can be anticipated. Due to the smaller size of the courts, it is possible to fit two to four pickleball courts within the same footprint of one tennis court.
Due to the rapid rise of the sport, very few municipalities have yet to establish firm
targets for outdoor pickleball court provision. Many communities responded quickly through the provision of shared courts, but now dedicated courts are becoming more common due to the level of demonstrated demand and their ability to support organized play. A goal of providing one outdoor pickleball court (dedicated or shared) per 5,000
residents is similar to tennis and represents a reasonable target for future planning at
this time. This target suggests a need for 30 total outdoor courts by 2034 (dedicated and shared), 19 more than are currently provided.
Table 17: Projected Long-term Needs for Pickleball Courts
Target: 1 pickleball court per 5,000 pop. Now (2024) In Ten Years (to 2034)
Current Supply / Facility Needs 11
(shared/overlay)
19 more
(mostly dedicated)
Potential Strategies n/a - dedicated court development in community parks
- shared court development in neighbourhood parks
- one to two club court locations (Diana, Princess of Wales Park, Thompson’s Corners)
Demand derived by applying provision target to anticipated growth (46,000 new residents by 2034), plus any current shortfall in supply
Going forward, the primary focus of pickleball court provision should be on dedicated courts (generally 4 or more courts per site) within community park sites to
accommodate organized play. Although a lower priority, multi-lined shared courts can
be effective to support casual play and may continue to be provided on an equitable
- 90 -
72 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
basis through new construction and court rehabilitation/conversion projects within neighbourhood parks, being mindful of setback requirements to nearby houses.
Additionally, the City lacks an outdoor multi-court (4 or more courts) site for pickleball in
South Pickering. Working alongside Pickering Pickleball Club, the City has been
investigating possible options for the construction of outdoor and indoor courts. The preferred location for this activity is at a park that offers access to nearby parking and washrooms and that is adequately separated from nearby residential properties. Given the mixed ownership of several park sites (and related development restrictions), lack of
available open space, and the amount of buffer space required from adjacent uses,
there are very few sites that could adequately accommodate a larger outdoor pickleball venue in South Pickering. The City is currently pursuing the development of six courts in Diana, Princess of Wales Park on lands owned by Hydro One. Opportunities for this to become a club-managed location (similar to Pickering’s tennis clubs) should be
explored8.
To summarize, recommended provision strategies to accommodate approximately 19 new outdoor pickleball courts to 2034 include:
• four (4) courts shared with tennis at the Amberlea Tennis Club in Shadybrook
Park (2024);
• six (6) dedicated pickleball courts at the south end of Diana, Princess of Wales Park in place of the southernmost soccer field (requires approval from Hydro One), possibly operated in partnership with a club;
• four (4) dedicated courts at the planned recreation facility in Thompson’s Corners, possibly operated in partnership with a club;
• four (4) dedicated courts in the Dave Ryan Community Park (P-123) in Seaton;
and
• consideration of painting lines on selected multi-use basketball courts at locations such as Beechlawn Park (P-019) and selected neighbourhood parks in Duffins Heights and Seaton (e.g., P-086, etc.).
Should the project in Diana, Princess of Wales Park not proceed – or should a second site for pickleball be required in the longer-term – Petticoat Creek Conservation Park may be considered further. Not only does PCCP meets the general locational criteria, but pickleball was one possible option site identified in the City’s preliminary review. The City is currently investigating the possibility of entering into a long-term lease or
management agreement with TRCA for this property.
In confirming and establishing new locations and provision strategies, a site evaluation process should be undertaken with consideration of the following criteria:
8 One useful metric for more formalized play has been established by the City of Mississauga, which uses minimum membership thresholds for the creation of new tennis and/or pickleball clubs: 2 to 3 courts = 100 members; 4 to 5 courts = 200 members; and 6 to 8 courts = 300 members.
- 91 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 73
a) Pickleball courts may be established through conversion of under-utilized amenities or new construction. The City may establish minimum standards for court surfacing.
b) Courts should be developed in pairs (ideally oriented north-south), using fixed
pickleball net equipment and fencing to support dedicated use. Consolidating courts is more economically efficient, will help to leverage community partnerships, and can better support organized play.
c) Shared use courts (e.g., pickleball, tennis, basketball, etc.) are less desired and
will not typically be supported as long-term options.
d) Court locations must consider potential for noise impacts on adjacent properties9.
e) Nearby parking, washrooms, and/or lights for night play are desired, but will only be considered within appropriate park types.
f) Enhanced levels of service (such as winds screens, acrylic surfacing, and other
supporting amenities) may be considered through sponsorship or other partnership opportunities (e.g., community-based clubs).
Recommendations – Pickleball Courts
30. Target the development of up to 19 new outdoor pickleball courts by 2034, with a focus on dedicated courts in appropriate locations. Projects should have consideration to the site evaluation and design criteria identified in this plan. The
City should continue to work with pickleball organizations to monitor and assess
the need for additional dedicated court complexes over time. Potential capital projects include:
a. developing six (6) dedicated courts at the Diana, Princess of Wales, possibly operated in partnership with a club;
a. developing four (4) dedicated courts at the site of the planned recreation
facility in Thompson’s Corners, possibly operated in partnership with a club;
b. developing four (4) dedicated courts in the Dave Ryan Community Park (P-123) in Seaton; and
c. consideration of painting lines on selected multi-use basketball courts at
locations such as Beechlawn Park (P-019, future) and selected neighbourhood parks in Duffins Heights and Seaton (e.g., P-086, etc.).
9 For a 2-court complex with no noise mitigation, guidelines from Pickleball BC suggest a minimum setback is 50-metres. This increases to 85 to 115m in a typical community park setting depending on the number of courts and noise attenuation measures. These guidelines should be considered as the city establishes or reinvests in outdoor pickleball sites.
- 92 -
74 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
6.6 Basketball Courts
With several new half courts being added to new parks, the City’s supply of outdoor basketball courts has increased in recent years to 17 (10 full courts and 7 half courts). More courts are planned to be added to growing areas, particularly in the Seaton
community.
Due to community requests, outdoor basketball courts have become a typical level of service in most neighbourhood parks within Seaton, to the point where some have been added following the parks’ initial construction. The provision target established in the previous ten year plan would seem to have been insufficient to address the needs of
growing communities that have large youth populations and fewer opportunities for
driveway basketball.
To respond to growing demand, the City currently has plans to establish basketball courts in 11-12 park sites:
• Seaton: Half courts at P-105, P-106, P-108, P-112, P-125, P-127 and multi-use
courts at P-109 and P-124; there may also be the potential for one or more
courts at the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library.
• Duffins Heights: Full court at P-087.
• South Pickering: Full court at Beechlawn Park (P-019).
Court sizes are influenced by space availability; however, there is a general guideline of
providing half courts in neighbourhood parks (and appropriate village greens) and full courts in community parks. Additional features for consideration include, but are not limited to, seating, shade, paint markings for other hard surface activities, landscaping, and appropriate sound buffering.
In setting a reasonable target to guide court development, geographic distribution is a
key determinant as courts are viewed as neighbourhood-level amenities that are walkable for most residents. On this basis, an 800-metre radius can be used to identify potential gaps in distribution and for planning in new community areas. Using this measure, the Liverpool neighbourhood (west of Liverpool Road) is currently
underserved and additional courts will likely also be required along the Kingston Road
corridor to serve future residential development. The City should evaluate existing and future park sites to provide outdoor basketball courts in these areas.
A balanced distribution of courts should also be a goal for Seaton as this area develops. Currently, some proposed court sites (e.g., P-105, P-106, P-108, and P-109) are in
close proximity to one another. Consideration should be given to reallocating one or
more courts to parks in underserved areas (such as the southern portion of Lamoureax and/or the northern portion of the Wilson Meadows neighbourhood), subject to space availability.
To guide future provision, a target of one court (full or half) per 5,000 residents is
recommended. Application of this target suggests a need for 13 more courts by 2034.
- 93 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 75
Planned court development will account for 10-11 of these sites, while the gaps noted above – if addressed – will alleviate the balance of these needs.
Table 18: Projected Long-term Needs for Basketball Courts
Target: 1 basketball court per 5,000 pop. Now (2024) In Ten Years (to 2034)
Current Supply / Facility Needs 17 (10 full, 7 half) 13 more
Potential Strategies n/a - new court development in Seaton and mixed use areas
- address gaps in geographic distribution (Liverpool, Kingston Road corridor)
Demand derived by applying provision target to anticipated growth (46,000 new residents by 2034), plus
any current shortfall in supply
Recommendations – Basketball Courts
31. Develop approximately 13 additional outdoor basketball courts by 2034 within
growing communities (e.g., Seaton) and under-served areas (e.g., Liverpool, Kingston Road corridor) based on an 800-metre service radius. Half courts should generally be considered for neighbourhood parks (and appropriate village greens) and full courts for community parks.
- 94 -
76 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
6.7 Splash Pads and Outdoor Aquatics
Pickering offers three (3) splash pads located at Amberlea Park, Beachfront Park, and Foxtail Green. Each site contains a range of interactive features such as spray posts, spray creatures, waterfalls, and water jets. Facilities are unstaffed and available for
community use during the warmer months. The City does not have usage data for its
splash pads as they are casual use amenities.
Splash pads appeal to young children and families looking for a fun and affordable way to cool off during the warmer weather months. These facilities complement other recreation facilities at their respective parks including playgrounds, seating, shade
areas, and seasonal washrooms (amenities vary by location). With the increase number
of heat alerts, splash pads were also identified as an important consideration through the City’s Climate Change Adaptation Plan.
The City does not provide any additional outdoor aquatic facilities such as outdoor pools at this time. There is a splash pad and outdoor pool at TRCA-operated Petticoat Creek
Conservation Park; however, these facilities have been closed in recent years due to
needed repairs.
Several requests have been received for splash pads in recent years and they have become a standard level of service in many newer parks across Ontario. Pickering’s supply of three splash pads (one per 34,300 residents) is well below comparable
communities (one per 12,400 persons) and local residents have been seeking additional
investment in this area.
The previous Ten Year Plan recommended a provision target of one splash pad per 3,000 children ages 0 to 9 years. Based on 2021 Census data, this translates into a per capita target of one splash pad per 27,500 persons (all ages), a rate that lower than
comparable municipalities. For long-term planning purposes, it is recommended that
this target be adjusted to one per 20,000 persons (all ages) to account for the younger population anticipated to move into the Seaton community. Application of this provision target yields a need for five (5) additional splash pads within the next ten years.
Table 19: Projected Long-term Needs for Splash Pads
Target: 1 splash pad per 20,000 pop. Now (2024) In Ten Years (to 2034)
Current Supply / Facility Needs 3 5 more
Potential Strategies n/a - new park development in Seaton
- evaluation of existing parks in
South Pickering
Demand derived by applying provision target to anticipated growth (46,000 new residents by 2034), plus any current shortfall in supply
- 95 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 77
In providing Pickering’s children and families with suitable access to splash pads, two key factors should be considered:
• that splash pads are equitably distributed across the city so that they are within
reasonable proximity of all residential communities; a service radius of 1.0 km (within new community areas and mixed use areas) to 1.5 km (within established areas) may be used to measure this; and
• that splash pads are available within higher-order parks that serve as community destinations (busier parks can sustain larger splash pads with more features and have other necessary support amenities such as shade, seating, washrooms, parking, etc.), such as community parks.
On this basis, notable gaps in distribution can be found in the City Centre, Duffins
Heights, and Wilson Meadows neighbourhoods. The City is currently planning to install a splash pad in Stonepay Village Green (Duffin Heights, P-086), which will address one of these priority areas. Additionally, splash pads are proposed for several parks in Seaton, including the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library, P-123 (Dave Ryan Community Park), P-107 (Titanium Green), and P-131. Beyond 2034, it can be
anticipated that additional splash pad development will be required in the Mount Pleasant area at minimum.
Additional gaps may present themselves based on community growth and staging of development. Should the City remove the splash pad at Beachfront Park due to operational issues, another splash pad should be developed south of Highway 401,
ideally in proximity to growth areas. Furthermore, although there are no splash pads within Pickering’s rural communities, provision is a low priority in these areas due to their small and dispersed populations.
In consideration of parks south of Highway 401, the City will be working with the TRCA to advance the Petticoat Creek Conservation Park project. Currently operated by the
TRCA as a day use area, the park contains a number of recreational amenities, including a splash pad and outdoor pool that has been closed for several years due to mechanical and infrastructure challenges. A preliminary study identified the potential for enhanced park amenities within non-regulated areas (e.g., event spaces, sport courts, possible replacement of the outdoor pool, winterized washrooms, etc.) and year-round
programming.
A park-specific planning study is recommended to more fully define future uses and costs for Petticoat Creek Conservation Park, including a decision on whether to remove the outdoor pool or replace it with a modern facility. Although the pool has historically been a draw to the park, its shape and design make it very difficult and costly to operate
and lifeguard. With many outdoor pools across Ontario now reaching the end of their lifecycles, many communities are rationalizing pool replacement against issues such as rising costs, stagnant visitation, staffing challenges, and short operating seasons. As an outdoor pool would represent a new level of service for the City of Pickering and would potentially impact programming and staffing at its indoor pool facilities, the operation of
- 96 -
78 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
an outdoor pool at this or any other location would be viewed as a lower priority within the scope of this Ten Year Plan.
Recommendations – Splash Pads
32. Continue with plans to construct 5 new splash pads / water play areas in
Duffins Heights and the Seaton community by 2034; additional sites in Seaton
and possibly City Centre will be required longer-term. Should the City remove the splash pad at Beachfront Park, it should be replaced at another location south of Highway 401 in proximity to growth areas.
33. The provision of an outdoor pool would represent a new level of service for the
City and the reconstruction of the pool at Petticoat Creek Conservation Park is
not viewed as a priority within the scope of this Ten Year Plan.
- 97 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 79
6.8 Outdoor Ice Rinks
The City currently permits the creation of outdoor natural ice winter skating locations within three of its parks: Claremont Memorial Park (maintained by the City on a rink pad) and both Whitevale and Greenwood Parks (maintained by volunteers with support
from the City). All three of these locations are in Pickering’s rural areas.
These rinks support leisure skating (organized sports are prohibited) within cold weather months; however, due to changing weather patterns and volunteer commitments, not all rinks are operated every year. When not being used for skating, these amenities may serve other uses during the warmer months (e.g., unstructured play, open space, etc.).
During the pandemic, additional outdoor rinks were a popular request in many Ontario
municipalities. Unfortunately, climate change, unpredictable weather, and fluctuating volunteer commitments are having an impact on the viability of natural rinks.
Temperature is the primary determinant of whether outdoor skating is feasible. Refrigerated outdoor rinks offer a safer and more reliable skating surface, and are also
available for an extended season. Covering an artificial rink would provide for an
extended season (60+ days per year, depending on weather and temperature variation) and improved ice conditions (and shade in the summer). However, artificial rinks represent a significantly higher level of service both in terms of capital and operational resources. For example, artificial rinks require support buildings for washrooms, change
rooms, and mechanical systems; opportunities to co-locate them with other community
facilities (such as arenas) or in community parks should be considered to generate efficiencies and enhance geographic accessibility. Operationally, refrigerated rinks require a greater level of care and maintenance, with regular ice checks, flooding, and activity scheduling much like municipal arenas. Indoor arenas remain the preferred
venues for organized play and public skating opportunities.
While there are currently no designated sites for outdoor skating in South Pickering or Seaton, City Council has identified the development of a refrigerated skating rink/water feature at City Centre Park to be a key capital priority and has also identified a desire for one at the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library. Applying the recommended target of
one refrigerated rink per 100,000 persons, one location would be sufficient to meet
community-wide needs over the next ten years; however, a second location in Seaton can be supported on the basis of improved accessibility for this growing area of Pickering.
Note: At its meeting of June 24, 2024, City of Pickering Council resolved (#523/14) that a refrigerated outdoor ice pad be considered as an outdoor amenity (combined with the splash pad, if possible) for the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library site.
- 98 -
80 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Table 20: Projected Long-term Needs for Refrigerated Outdoor Skating Rinks
Target: 1 refrigerated outdoor rink per 100,000 pop. Now (2024) In Ten Years (to 2034)
Current Supply / Facility Needs 0 1 more
Potential Strategies n/a - 2 proposed for City Centre Park and Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
Demand derived by applying provision target to anticipated growth (46,000 new residents by 2034), plus any current shortfall in supply
A future phase of the concept plan for Claremont Memorial Park included consideration of a covered and/or artificial rink. This site is on well water and does not have the capacity for a significant water draw, though water can be brought in to support the setting of a rink. Additionally, this park is used for several area events and activities
during the summer months. There is an insufficient market to support the initial and ongoing investment associated with a refrigerated rink; however, consideration should be given to redeveloping the existing rink with a roof (but not enclosed) to provide an all-weather, four-season venue for ice skating, floor sports, camps, and events.
Support of the volunteer-based neighbourhood rink program may be continued for
current sites as long as they remain viable. New sites for natural ice rinks are not a priority at this time, but may be considered in appropriate parks that have access to water, lighting, and support buildings, as well as a suitable volunteer base.
Recommendations – Outdoor Ice Rinks
34. Continue with plans to include a refrigerated skating rink/water feature within City Centre Park and consider the feasibility of a refrigerated outdoor ice pad
(combined with the splash pad, if possible) at the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library.
35. Consider the development of an appropriately-sized covered multi-use pad in Claremont Memorial Park to support extended use for floor sports (ball hockey, skating, etc.), camps, and events. The ice pad should not be refrigerated.
6.9 Skateboard Parks
The City of Pickering recognizes the importance of skateboarding as a form of recreation for the physical and creative well-being of its citizens of all ages and skill sets. The City’s only full size skateboard park is at Diana, Princess of Wales Park,
located behind the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex. The park is at end of life and users are supportive of replacing it with a new park in a safer, more visible location.
- 99 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 81
In an effort to expand local offerings, the City recently opened its first skate spot, adjacent to the West Shore Community Centre in 2022. Pickering also offers a mobile skate park during the summer months, with financial support initially provided by the
Canadian Tire Jumpstart Foundation. Ramps, rails, banks, and other skate elements
are set up outside the trailer to create mobile skate spots throughout the City. In 2023, this service was offered at West Shore, St. Mary’s High School, and Dr. N. Tomlinson Community Centre in Claremont.
The City does not provide any dedicated BMX bike parks or pump tracks, which are
becoming more common in many municipalities. In Pickering, these uses are generally
accommodated within skateboard parks.
Usage of skateboard parks is not tracked as they are mainly casual use amenities. However, City staff have noted increasing demand for pre-registered skateboard programs, especially for those interested in learning to skateboard. With only two
designated outdoor permanent locations for skateboarding activities, a mobile skate
park was implemented to address needs as the City’s future network of skateboard parks takes share.
The planning and development of skateboard parks is led by the Skateboard Park Strategy 2017. This strategy examined current and forecasted participation rates in
action sports and made recommendations toward the development of a network of
skate park opportunities throughout the City to serve a variety of age groups and skill levels. Location criteria was established and evaluations of selected sites were completed.
The Skateboard Park Strategy describes four different park typologies, including:
• Skate Dots: these are generally less than 1,500 sf (the size of a street corner)
• Skate Spots: these are generally 1,500 sf to 6,000 sf (the size of a half basketball court)
• Neighbourhood Skate Parks: these are generally 6,000 sf to 12,000 sf (the size of a tennis court)
• Community Skate Parks: these are generally 12,000 sf to 25,000 sf (the size of
a hockey rink)
Recommendations outlined in the Skateboard Park Strategy (developed in consultation with the local skateboarding community) include adding approximately 24,000 square feet of skateable area within South Pickering (through 1 community skate park and 5 skate spots) and over 33,000 square feet of skateable area within Seaton (through 1
community skate park and 3 skate spots) by 2029. Sites should be equitably distributed
to maximize accessibility for area residents and be situated in visible locations.
- 100 -
82 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Table 21: Projected Long-term Needs for Skateboard Parks
Target: see Skateboard Park Strategy 2017 Now (2024) In Ten Years (to 2034)
Current Supply / Facility Needs 2 (1 skate park and 1 skate spot)
1 more skate park
Up to 7 skate spots
Potential Strategies n/a - new park development in Seaton
- evaluation of existing parks in South Pickering
- replacement of existing skate park
Demand derived by applying provision target to anticipated growth (46,000 new residents by 2034), plus any current shortfall in supply
On this basis, the City currently has plans to develop the following outdoor skateboard locations:
• A new skate spot in South Pickering at a location to be determined (community
consultation will be undertaken in 2024, with construction in 2025);
• A replacement skate park located along the proposed Hydro Corridor park north of Kingston Road (construction anticipated for 2026, pending approval from
Hydro One – this facility would replace the aging skate park at Diana, Princess of
Wales Park; and
• A skate spot located Dave Ryan Community Park in Seaton (construction anticipated closer to 2029).
• Skate parks/spots are also being considered for the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library site and other appropriate park sites in Seaton as they are developed.
In order to address the demand levels forecasted by the 2017 Strategy, additional sites beyond those identified above will be required to fully implement the planned network,
particularly in South Pickering where these features are more likely to be integrated into
existing parks. Geographic gaps exist in Amberlea, Liverpool, Duffins Heights, and Bay Ridges neighbourhoods. Among the highest rated potential sites evaluated within the Skateboard Park Strategy were Amberlea Park, Bay Ridges Kinsmen Park, Centennial Park, David Farr Memorial Park, and Shadybrook Park, although there may be other
candidates. City Council did not support the recommendation for a skate park to be
developed in front of the main entrance of the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex, and the City is now pursuing opportunities within the Hydro Corridor to the north.
Because they can be used for a wide range of wheeled sports – scootering which is
now a dominant use in many locations, in addition to skateboarding, BMX biking, and
inline skating – the term “all wheels parks” in place of “skateboard parks” is becoming more common.
- 101 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 83
It is also noted that bike parks and pump tracks are beginning to be introduced by many area municipalities (e.g., Whitchurch-Stouffville, Uxbridge, etc.). These are specially designed courses – often consisting of berms, rollers, ramps and/or similar features –
used by cyclists to enjoy off-road cycling and build skills. These parks provide safe
spaces for bikers to develop their skills and connect with others within a purpose-built environment, deterring property damage from illegal biking in environmental areas. Many are co-located with skate parks to create an “all wheels” environment. While not a high priority for Pickering at this time, a pump track may be considered through future
park renewal or development projects, ideally in proximity to growing residential
neighbourhoods.
Recommendations – Skateboard Parks
36. Reclassify skateboard parks as “all wheels parks” and integrate this term into the City’s signage and promotions.
37. Expand the network of all wheels parks by:
a. replacing the aging community-level skate park at Diana, Princess of Wales Park at the proposed hydro corridor park to the north (pending approval from Hydro One);
b. developing up to 4 new local skate spots in South Pickering;
c. developing a community-level skate park in Seaton, possibly at the Seaton
Recreation Complex & Library; and
d. developing up to 3 new local skate spots in Seaton, including one at Dave Ryan Community Park.
Determination of locations and designs will require additional community consultation and site evaluation, guided by the criteria and classifications
established in the City’s Skateboard Park Strategy 2017.
38. Explore the potential for installing a pump track through a future community or district park development project.
- 102 -
84 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
6.10 Playgrounds
The City provides playgrounds at 63 parks throughout Pickering. Most of the City’s playgrounds offer creative play structures and/or traditional play equipment; three sites provide swings only.
The provision of playgrounds relies on equitable geographic distribution to enable ease
of access within Pickering’s residential areas. The location of Pickering’s playgrounds has been assessed using an 800-metre radius; there are no significant gaps in playground provision based on this measure.
Many more playgrounds are planned for the Seaton community, including (but not
limited to) P-104, P-105, P-106, P-107, P-108, P-109, P-110, P-111, P-112, P-113, P-
121, P-124, P-125, P-126, P-127, P-131, P-132) and village greens in Duffins Heights (P-83 and P-87). Larger, destination playgrounds should be planned for prominent sites such as the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library, Dave Ryan Community Park (P-123), and Pickering Heritage & Community Centre (possibly at the adjacent Greenwood
Park). At the City’s discretion, additional playgrounds should be considered to enhance
geographic distribution and address equity, where appropriate.
As the City replaces older play structures, consideration is being given to components that are barrier-free for persons with disabilities. The City should be strategic in these replacements, ensuring that destination sites such as community parks offer highly
accessible playgrounds with rubber surfacing. Engineered wood fibre surfacing and
accessible components are suitable for most installations in neighbourhood parks. With over sixty playground sites and an average lifespan of around 20 years per structure, the City can be expected to average three (3) replacements each year. Future budgets for playground reconstruction should be reassessed to reflect recent inflationary factors.
Recommendations – Playgrounds
39. Continue to install playgrounds within appropriate park types in growth areas. At
minimum, playgrounds should be located within 800 metres of residential areas (less in intensified areas), unobstructed by major pedestrian barriers such as valleys, highways, and railways. Playground design should give consideration to play value, variety in design, accessible features (focusing on community park sites), and supporting amenities such as pathways, seating, and shade.
6.11 Outdoor Fitness Equipment
Outdoor fitness stations feature low-impact, joint-friendly equipment that use resistance created by a person’s own body weight; the equipment is stationary with no moving
parts. Pickering currently offers basic outdoor fitness equipment at one location – St.
Mary Park. The equipment is free to use and located adjacent to the playground.
- 103 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 85
Pickering has a slightly lower level of provision of outdoor fitness stations compared to benchmarked municipalities. As these amenities become more common, per capita ratios can be expected to drop.
Outdoor fitness equipment offers the community affordable opportunities to stay fit and
should be considered for locations that offer an improved distribution within growing communities and destination parks. The preferred design involves clustering of components in relaxed park settings that are connected to a trail system and close to residential areas, with good access to parking and shade.
Outdoor equipment is planned for several sites in Seaton, including a fitness circuit
across P-124, P-126, and P-127. The City may consider distributing these locations more equitably throughout the new community area by applying a minimum catchment radius of 1-kilometre per site. Approximately five (5) locations can be anticipated in Seaton based on this measure. Opportunities should also be sought to establish
designated outdoor open space exercise zones that can be used for permitted group
fitness activities that are supported by the City’s parks by-law.
Recommendations – Outdoor Fitness Equipment
40. Integrate outdoor fitness equipment into appropriate parks, focusing on destination parks (e.g., selected community and waterfront parks) and growing communities (using a 1-km radius to support equitable distribution).
41. Develop guidelines to support the design of designated open space exercise zones where the community can organize fitness classes (yoga, tai chi, etc.).
6.12 Community Gardens
The City has a large community garden site at the north end of Diana, Princess of
Wales Park with 107 rentable plots that is administered by the City of Pickering in
partnership with the Valley Plentiful Community Garden Committee. Additionally, the City runs a 55+ Plot to Plate program using 12 garden plots at the George Ashe Library & Community Centre site and has plans to extend this program to the Pickering Museum Village.
With a growing and more diverse population, it is anticipated that the demand for
community gardens in Pickering will rise. Smaller residential lots and more multi-storey buildings are also leading to fewer opportunities for backyard gardens, creating greater demand for community plots. These sites should be promoted as they bring residents together, offer improved food security and affordability, provide healthy food options,
and offer educational and stewardship opportunities. In 2022, the City developed a
Community Garden Policy to guide the establishment of new sites in partnership with community groups. Within the policy is a set of criteria that can be used to identify suitable locations for new community gardens.
- 104 -
86 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Building on the recommendations outlined in the 2017 Plan, the City has been monitoring the use and evaluating opportunities to expand the number of garden plots available at Diana, Princess of Wales Park. In 2024, the City aims to expand the
existing community garden east of Kingston Road in collaboration with the Valley
Plentiful Community Garden Committee, the Region of Durham, and Hydro One staff. This collaboration will enhance Valley Plentiful by increasing the number of raised garden plots and creating an accessible parking lot. Also, acting on a recommendation from the 2017 Plan, the City will be expanding their largest community garden site to the
north side of Kingston Road through the proposed Hydro Corridor Park (pending
approval from Hydro One). This site will help to address the current wait list and help to support longer-term needs as this area intensified, but additional locations should be considered to improve geographic equity.
As a newer amenity within the parks system, it can often be difficult to find appropriate
locations for community gardens, Ideally, these amenities are supported by access to
water, parking, fencing, shade, accessible features, and good visibility to improve safety and deter theft. It is understood that the City completed an assessment of potential locations, but that most existing parks are fully subscribed or not suitable for the placement of gardens. As the City builds new parks within new community areas, there
is an opportunity to design community gardens into selected locations.
- 105 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 87
Given the need for support amenities, locating a community garden on the same site as the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library or other higher-order park site in Seaton in partnership with community groups is recommended. Under-utilized lands can be used
for gardens if they have the necessary infrastructure (e.g., water source, nearby
parking, etc.) and community support. Preferred locations will be those in proximity to higher-density forms of housing as these residents will have more limited opportunities for “backyard gardening”. Consideration should be given to providing opportunities for raised garden beds to accommodate all abilities.
The City does not need to be the only provider of community gardens. Different
municipalities use various approaches in administering a community garden program based on considerations around management, access, cost, site suitability, partnerships, etc. Many communities have had success working with agencies in the management and expansion of community garden programs, and the City is
encouraged to continue working with the development community and other property
owners to promote the establishment of gardens on private lands. Additional direction was provided through the City’s Urban Agriculture Action Project, which is currently underway.
Recommendations – Community Gardens
42. Support the establishment of community gardens on appropriate municipal
lands and as an option in new and redeveloped parks able to meet the site
criteria contained in the City’s Community Gardens Policy. Leverage partnerships with agencies and private landowners to ensure an equitable distribution across Pickering (including one or more sites in Seaton).
6.13 Off-Leash Dog Areas
Leash-free areas are fully fenced areas that provide pet owners with an opportunity to legally exercise and socialize their dogs off-leash in a controlled area. The City of Pickering offers off-leash dog areas at three locations: Baldson Park, Dunmoore Park, and Grand Valley Park (2 separate areas). Additionally, there is an off-leash area within
the portion of the Greenwood Conservation Area that is within the Town of Ajax.
Off-leash areas are increasingly being provided by urban municipalities as one approach to reduce conflict within shared park spaces, as well as to offer a social opportunity for responsible dog owners. Pickering’s current level of provision (one location per 34,300 residents) is slightly lower than the comparator group. For long-term
planning purposes, a target of one off-leash area per 30,000 residents is recommended,
with consideration given to geographic accessibility. Application of the provision target indicates a need for two new off-leash dog areas over the next ten years. An equitable distribution of off-leash dog areas offers convenient access to residents, which is important as many users visit off-leash parks multiple times a week throughout the year.
- 106 -
88 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Table 22: Projected Long-term Needs for Off-Leash Dog Areas
Target: 1 off-leash location per 30,000 pop. Now (2024) In Ten Years (to 2034)
Current Supply / Facility Needs 3 5
Potential Strategies n/a - new park development in mixed use areas (City Centre) and new communities (Seaton)
Demand derived by applying provision target to anticipated growth (46,000 new residents by 2034), plus any current shortfall in supply
The City has plans to establish a new dog area in the proposed Hydro Corridor Park within the City Centre neighbourhood (pending approval from Hydro One), which will be ideally located to support future growth in this area. The City has done well to support off-leash sites within South Pickering – it can be difficult to identify appropriate sites
within a mature parks system due to concerns of conflicting uses, nuisance, and perceptions of safety.
Although the Grand Valley and Greenwood Conservation Area off-leash areas are centrally located for many, another location should be planned for the Seaton community. As Pickering grows, there may be opportunities to design off-leash areas
into parks from the onset, to the benefit of users and area residents alike. However, given the premium placed on parkland in new communities, sites for new off-leash areas should also be sought on under-utilized lands, including remnant park spaces, naturalized lands (excluding sensitive habitats), surplus municipal lands, hydro corridors (approval required), and other partnered or alternate spaces.
New sites should only be advanced in cases where location criteria can be met and in partnership with the volunteer working group that is responsible for general upkeep and safety of the sites. Some criteria that can be used to evaluate potential off-leash dog areas may include (but not be limited to):
• Ability to maintain public safety for users and non-users, including animals;
• Minimum size, appropriate configuration, and site characteristics;
• Land ownership and cost;
• Walkability and access;
• Compatible and non-compatible adjacent uses, such as buffering from highly populated residential areas, busy sports parks, and environmentally significant
areas;
• Consideration of fencing, on-site parking, water and shade;
• Community input and support from neighbours;
• Interest from a volunteer committee to act as park stewards; and/or
• Performance measures to monitor and evaluate facility conditions and operation.
The demand for off-leash areas is expected to continue into the future due to a recent
increase in pet ownership during the pandemic and greater residential densities that are
- 107 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 89
reducing lot sizes, thereby increasing the reliance upon public space for exercising and toileting dogs. Leash-free areas serving missed use areas may require different approaches due to competing interests for parkland. High rise developers should be
encouraged to provide pet-friendly spaces to support their residents (the City of
Toronto’s recently published Pet Friendly Design Guidelines and Best Practices for New Multi-use Buildings may be a helpful reference in this regard).
Recommendations – Off-Leash Dog Areas
43. Provide two (2) additional leash-free dog areas within the next ten years in response to community need and only in cases where location criteria can be
met. Evaluate options for establishing an off-leash dog area in Seaton and
continue with plans to develop an off-leash park in the proposed Hydro Corridor park (pending approval from Hydro One).
44. Prepare an off-leash dog area policy to address the dynamics of providing, designing, and maintaining leash free dog areas in higher density
neighbourhoods.
6.14 Outdoor Event Spaces
Community events contribute to Pickering’s vibrancy and livability and are important economic drivers. Pickering is well known for its community events and festivals, such
as Canada Day, Ribfest, Winter Nights City Lights, Cultural Fusion, Artfest, Dragon Boat
Festival, Food Truck Festival, Summer Concert Series, various heritage events at Pickering Museum Village, and more.
Many of these events occur within the parks system and are guided by the City’s Community Festival & Events Manual. Signature event parks in Pickering include:
• Alex Robertson Park (waterfront)
• Bruce Handscomb Park (waterfront)
• Esplanade Park (City Centre)
• Millennium Square (waterfront)
The City also hosts a seasonal outdoor farmers’ market at the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex.
Due to their location along the waterfront, many of the City’s signature event parks are
in mixed ownership, have limited parking, and do not have permanent infrastructure to support large gatherings on a regular basis. Despite this, these parks are well used and the City’s Community Festival & Events Manual is an effective tool for ensuring that events are well coordinated.
The City is witnessing greater demand for events, both large and small. Staff have
indicated a need for a large park site that is capable of accommodating crowds of 5,000 or more persons. Event parks require suitable adjacencies, including sufficient parking
- 108 -
90 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
and access to transit, as well as electrical connections, water and wastewater disposal connections, public washrooms, shade, etc. Flexibility and increased functionality are critical – when not programmed with animations or community events, these spaces
could be adapted for use as casual congregation and community space.
There is a growing case to be made for the development of flexible and multi-purpose outdoor community gathering areas and purpose-built event spaces in Pickering. Such spaces could host short-term and one-off events, as well as longer-term, ongoing, and larger-scale community events and activities (including cultural festivals, open-air
markets, food festivals, and community gatherings).
Through the ongoing discussions with the TRCA about a future operating model for Petticoat Creek Conservation Park, there may be an opportunity for the City to designate this park as a signature large event site within Pickering, supported by proper amenities and features. Strategies and additional resources will be needed to activate
this and other event spaces for community benefit.
Further, infrastructure projects capable of supporting smaller scale or pop-up events in a variety of locations should be considered, such as Greenwood Park which is adjacent to the Pickering Museum Village and new Heritage & Community Centre. The animation of parks and public spaces helps to make these venues more accessible and enjoyable
for residents of all ages and provides an affordable outlet that connects the community.
Recommendations – Outdoor Event Spaces
45. Work with the TRCA to enhance Petticoat Creek Conservation Park as a signature park site for large events and festivals.
46. As a general principle, consider and evaluate event hosting capabilities when developing and redeveloping community and district parks, including the
provision of support infrastructure (e.g., parking, electrical service, water and
wastewater services, washrooms, shade, etc.).
6.15 Beach and Waterfront Facilities
Pickering's waterfront is one of the city’s most prominent features and is host to a wide
range of recreational opportunities including a wide range of beach, water, and paddling
activities. The City works with other landowners such as Ontario Power Generation and TRCA to manage public access to waterfront lands, preserving the unique character of its waterfront.
The City has recently completed extensive renovations to Rotary Frenchman's Bay
West Park, including improvements to washrooms, trails and pathways, picnic areas,
shoreline restoration, and a new accessible canoe/kayak launch. The City is also moving forward with reconstruction of Beachfront Park following significant damage from high-water levels and intense storm events in 2017 and 2019.
- 109 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 91
Through focus group workshops, continued access to Pickering’s waterfront was voiced as a concern. Open input on the engagement boards identified waterfront
revitalization as a top five priority for recreation and
parks. Recently, the City announced its interest in purchasing Frenchman’s Bay from private interests in order to restrict development, maintain public access and recreational use, and enhance environmental
stewardship.
The City of Pickering is fortunate to have access to scenic beaches and waterfront lands, which are utilized for swimming, leisure activities, dragon boating, kayaking, and more. Given the popularity of beach and
waterfront activities, similar municipalities are
increasingly providing updated and accessible amenities such as changerooms, washrooms, pavilions, play areas, and accessible features (the AODA has specific regulations that apply to newly constructed and
redeveloped beach access routes). Beach and
waterfront facilities may also be used to support permitted gatherings and programs (such as yoga groups using pavilions).
Outdoor water sports, such as stand-up paddleboarding
and kayaking, have surged in popularity over the past
few years. With people unable to travel during the pandemic, water sports provided an opportunity to get outdoors and experience their local water bodies. Water sports can be enjoyed for much of the year if the right
equipment and wetsuits are provided. Additionally,
inflatable equipment has become very popular which makes it easier to travel with and more accessible for the casual user to set up and use in their leisure time. Inflatable options also make paddleboards easier to
store compared to the conventional paddleboard. In
short, water sports have become easier for people to get involved in, with many opportunities to purchase or rent equipment, and even participate in lessons to improve their water skills.
Through the consultation program, residents expressed
how important these waterfront spaces are to them and the broader community as they not only bring people together, but play an important role in preserving greenspace and habitat. Waterfront parks received
extremely high levels of use during the pandemic and
- 110 -
92 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
are an important part the City’s special events network. Continued investment in the development and maintenance of key waterfront sites (e.g., recreational amenities, trail connections, conservation initiatives, public art, support buildings, wayfinding, etc.)
should remain a top priority.
Recommendations – Beach and Waterfront Facilities
47. Continue to place a high priority on the preservation and restoration of waterfront parks and beaches that support public access for residents and visitors.
6.16 Other Outdoor Facilities
The demands being placed on parks are rising every year. Beyond those facilities
discussed above, there may be additional amenities provided within the parks system, such as (but not limited) to lawn bowling, bocce, disc golf, beach volleyball, kayak launches, running tracks, tobogganing hills, etc. Pickering has many of these facilities within its parks system at present. These amenities and features can add variety and
value when supported by sufficient and sustained demand, effective management and
maintenance, and successful partnerships.
Opportunities will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis with reference to the key principles and actions of this Ten Year Plan. Larger community and district park sites may have the greatest capacity to accommodate new facilities, but any investment
should be supported by demonstrated needs. The framework for evaluating capital
proposals from community organizations identified in Section 2.7 may also be applied to outdoor capital amenities.
Recommendations – Other Outdoor Facilities
48. Continue to monitor participation and trends in recreation and sport activities accommodated through the parks system (including those delivered in
partnership with others) to inform future capital needs and strategies.
- 111 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 93
- 112 -
94 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
7. Parkland
Access to outdoor space matters as parks are increasingly being seen as critical social, health, and environmental infrastructure. Green spaces offer places of respite and
improve air quality, provide venues for physical activity, and conserve natural and cultural heritage landscapes.
The City of Pickering wishes to position itself with a modernized policy framework to support its current and future system of parks. This section contains an assessment of current parkland service levels and future needs and provides recommendations to
assist the City in addressing its growth-related parkland needs and policy requirements.
While this plan will inform many aspects of the City’s future planning, the following items are excluded from the scope of this analysis:
• preparation of the Parkland Conveyance By-law;
• calculating or setting fees for cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication payments;
• financial or growth modelling, Official Plan policy development;
• technical parkland design or development standards;
• assessments of the natural heritage system or other lands not subject to parkland dedication under the Planning Act; and
• land acquisition strategies or the identification of specific parcels to acquire.
7.1 Planning Context
In November 2022, the Province of Ontario enacted the More Homes, Built Faster Act. This Act (also referred to as Bill 23) made significant adjustments to the parkland dedication requirements of the Planning Act, among amendments to several other regulations with this and other statutes.10
Bill 23 will result in considerably less parkland (and funding for land acquisition),
particularly within higher density areas. Municipalities may also have less discretion over the acceptability of lands through the development process, leading to smaller parkland parcels and less suitable lands for public spaces. The current planning regime and potential impacts are discussed in more detail later in this section.
New approaches to parkland dedication are needed to reflect current provincial policy
and to support complete communities. This Recreation & Parks Plan presents an opportunity to review and establish an appropriate provision level that will guide future acquisitions and leverage a wider variety of growth-related policy and financial tools.
This Ten Year Plan is intended to satisfy the provisions of the Planning Act – specifically the requirement for a Parks Plan identified in Section 42(4.1) – and to support the City’s
10 Note: As of writing, regulations are not currently in place for some of these legilslative changes.
- 113 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 95
next Official Plan review. The Ontario Planning Act now requires that a municipality prepare a parks plan prior to passing a parkland dedication by-law.
7.2 School Board Consultation
Schools can play an important role in bolstering public access to parkland. School
boards operating in urbanized communities share similar land-acquisition challenges as
their municipal counterparts which is leading to greater collaboration and coordination among these parties across Ontario. Strategic coordination with local school boards in Durham Region is particularly important as schools are often encouraged to be co-located with neighbourhood parks. As future population growth continues, opportunities
to continue working together will be paramount. At a minimum, consideration should be
given to:
• Understanding if/when surplus schools are identified where the City may benefit from purchasing them to meet outdoor parks and/or open space needs.
• Joint land use planning activities, particularly when there is an opportunity to situate parkland adjacent to a school block with the intent of maximizing the amount of publicly accessible greenspace.
Section 42 (4.2.a) of the Planning Act identifies that in preparing a parks plan,
municipalities shall consult with school boards within the jurisdiction.
School board representatives were engaged to understand any new schools or surplus school sites, how municipal parkland is currently used, capital priorities, and opportunities for partnerships and collaboration. Both the Durham District School Board and Durham Catholic District School Board participated in meetings in February 2024.
The MonAvenir Conseil Scolaire Catholique and Conseil Scolaire Viamonde were
invited but did not participate.
New and Surplus Schools
• The Durham District School Board (DDSB) has a total of nine sites in the Seaton
community, with the first elementary school under development and scheduled to
open in September 2025. The Board is working with the City to secure a location for the second school on a former public works site. As growth has slowed in Seaton, the board is able to accommodate most new students in nearby schools at this time.
• The Durham Catholic District School Board (DCDSB) has identified five sites in Seaton and are in the process of developing their first elementary school (adjacent to the Rick Johnson Memorial Park), to accommodate a capacity of 620 students and include an EarlyON hub.
• While most current student growth is occurring in the Seaton area, the boards are noticing increases in student enrollment in established areas as well. A future site for a new public elementary school has been identified on the City Centre
- 114 -
96 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Neighbourhood Map 18 in the Pickering Official Plan to serve growth in this intensifying community.
• Neither the DDSB nor the DCDSB have any surplus lands in Pickering and do
not have any planned closures.
• The boards expressed concern about the shrinking sizes and poor quality of new school sites, which creates challenges in offering sufficient outdoor green space
for students. It is understood that the Province is working on guidelines for urban school models (e.g., podiums), which may become more prevalent in the future.
Joint Use
• Both boards have several schools adjacent to a municipal park or green space
with agreements to support reciprocal use. The boards are keen to work with the
City to ensure that school blocks continue to be planned adjacent to park sites.
• Both school boards have joint use agreements with the City that enable them to use key City recreation facilities and parks and, in turn, facilitate public access to
school facilities such as gymnasiums and sports fields. The City programs
several gymnasiums (typically larger high school gyms; e.g., Dubarton, Pine Ridge, St. Mary’s, etc.) for use throughout the year. Both school boards spoke positively about these arrangements.
• The boards also directly administer a community use of schools program that allows community organizations to rent spaces. Gymnasiums and lit fields are in the highest demand, especially Monday to Friday evenings (excluding summer). The boards have seen considerable growth in demand for rental activities such as badminton, cricket (softball), volleyball, and pickleball.
Working Together
• In terms of facility partnerships, the DCDSB mentioned that they are open to discussions for developing artificial turf fields on their school sites. For the DDSB, a City indoor pool is co-located with Dunbarton High School; the board indicated
that, while there are no major capital improvements planned for the high school,
they anticipated it to remain in their inventory for years to come.
• Both school boards expressed a desire to collaborate with the City on park projects and future shared sites. DCDSB’s Father Fenelon elementary school
was discussed as an example of how it may be more optimal to maintain green
space rather than designating outdoor facilities (e.g., soccer fields), to allow for wider range of activities and uses. DCDSB also indicated that they are working toward creating more naturalized safety zone areas in playgrounds, outdoor classrooms, and social spaces.
- 115 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 97
7.3 Parkland Provision
Public parks are important places for building a sense of community, social belonging, and retaining and attracting residents and visitors. This section highlights the City’s parkland hierarchy and summarizes the parkland inventory based on park type. To
ensure that the City keeps pace with land-based demands, this section also examines
Pickering’s future parkland requirements.
Defining Parkland
Section 3.5 of Pickering’s Official Plan provides the basis for the “Open Space System”. This system includes a variety of key natural heritage and key hydrologic features,
much of which is not in public ownership. The Open Space System also includes major
parks, recreational, and conservation areas that are the focus on this Ten Year Plan.
For the purposes of this plan, the following definitions and examples are used:
“Parkland” refers to all lands owned, leased, and/or managed by the City and includes those lands that are classified in the City of Pickering Official Plan as
“Active Recreational Areas”. Parkland typically consists of tableland suitable for
the development or installation of built recreational or civic amenities (such as sports fields, playgrounds, courts, gardens, etc.) that may be used for both organized and unorganized activities, although these parks may also incorporate natural features11. In the context of this plan, the terms “park” and “parkland” are
used interchangeably.
“Open Space” refers to all lands owned, leased and/or managed by the City that are classified in the City of Pickering Official Plan as “Natural Areas”. These sites generally have no to low development potential and are primarily designated for purposes such as environmental conservation, stormwater management, buffers,
etc. While it is important to recognize the benefits of open space lands, they are
excluded from policies relating to parkland as they typically have limited opportunities for active recreation and have not traditionally been accepted as parkland through the development process.
The focus of the analysis in this Ten Year Plan is on “parkland” as these are the lands that accommodate the majority of active recreation amenities and are typically acquired through the land development process (through dedication or
cash-in-lieu).
Parkland and open space may be provided by a variety of agencies and take different forms. All parks owned by the City of Pickering are available for public use and the City
has supplemented this supply by entering into maintenance agreements for lands
11 Note: Bill 23 introduced changes to the Planning Act that will allow applicants the opportunity to identify the land they intend to convey to the municipality for parkland, including encumbered land. Clarification of these conditions will be provided by way of regulations (not yet released).
- 116 -
98 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
owned by public agencies, such as Hydro One and Ontario Power Generation. The degree of public access and functions of these and other parklands will vary and can be different from what the City delivers through the sites that it owns. Regardless of
ownership, all sites work together as key parts of the parkland and open space system
by promoting physical and mental wellbeing and preserving ecological benefits.
Table 23: Parkland and Open Space Providers in the City of Pickering
Provider Comments
City of Pickering City of Pickering parks vary in their size, design/configuration, and intended function(s). Some parks are co-located with community facilities and provide parking onsite, while others may simply have a playground, open play space, and/or seating, or may even be undeveloped.
School Boards School grounds may include play structures, sports fields, and hard surface courts. The City has a joint-use agreements to enable public
access to several school sites outside of school hours. School facilities are often designed and maintained to different standards than those of municipal parks and may not always be conducive to the needs of all residents or user groups. Consultations with local school boards were carried out as part of this plan.
Conservation Authorities The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) owns and manages several notable properties in Pickering focused largely on
conservation and protection of ecological systems. These lands provide a range of activities such as hiking and picnicking. Public access may be restricted or require an admission fee. Notable TRCA-managed
properties include: Petticoat Creek Conservation Park (70 hectares, located along the Lake Ontario shoreline), Greenwood Conservation Area (675 hectares, located in both Pickering and Ajax, separated by Fifth Concession Road), Claremont Nature Centre (160 hectares, located along Duffins Creek), and Altona Forest (53 hectares).
The City also maintains (under agreement) some TRCA-owned lands as municipal parks, such as Rotary Frenchman's Bay West Park, Bruce Handscomb Park, and Glen Ravine Park.
- 117 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 99
Provider Comments
Other Government Agencies Ontario Power Generation (OPG), which operates the Pickering
Nuclear Generating Station, owns and maintains lands predominantly on Pickering’s waterfront. Alex Robertson Park, Bayridges Kinsmen Park, and Beachfront Park are operated by the City of Pickering under
agreement with OPG.
Hydro One is responsible for the hydro transmission corridors, several of which are operated under agreement by the City of Pickering as
district and community parks (Diana, Princess of Wales Park and Beverley Morgan Park).
Additionally, Transport Canada owns the land upon which Don Beer Memorial Park is located, an arrangement that came about through the realignment of Highway 7.
Operated by Parks Canada, Rouge National Urban Park –one of the largest parks in an urban area in North America – is located along the entire westerly boundary of Pickering. Parts of the park are situated in
rural northwest Pickering and in 2018 the City transferred additional lands to Parks Canada to help complete the park. This park is a unique combination of woodlands, valleys, meadows, and farmlands. Parks Canada is planning to expand the park’s trail network and link up with trails in Pickering and adjacent municipalities.
Private Owners Parks held in private ownership are not typically considered part of the parkland inventory. Privately owned parks and any associated analyses of these lands generally fall outside of the scope of work for this plan. Although there are some privately owned lands within the open space designation, this is not to imply that these lands are publicly accessible or that the City or any other public agency is obligated to purchase the lands.
Park Hierarchy and Classification System
The parkland hierarchy is a core element of park planning, design, and development. The hierarchy system defines the range of characteristics found in municipal parks, such as their size, form, function, and/or level of amenity. Such definition encourages a
broad range of park types and facility combinations that enables a consistent management approach that can be tailored to respond to community needs. The identification of common elements also helps to ensure compatibility with neighbouring land uses, while providing the community, developers, and planners with an understanding of what new or redeveloped parks may include.
The City of Pickering Official Plan identifies the following parks hierarchy for the Seaton Urban Area (Section 11.13). While the classification system was developed for the Seaton community, it is understood that it is being applied in practice to parks in all areas of the City.
- 118 -
100 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
The current classification system12 consists of:
• District Park (also referred to as City-wide Parks)
• Community Parks
• Neighbourhoods Parks
• Village Greens (also referred to as Parkettes)
• Urban Squares
Each of the above-noted park types are described in Appendix G, in accordance with the City’s Official Plan policies for the Seaton Urban Area.
Pickering has historically grown through traditional suburban development forms and –
while it will continue to do so – there is also a significant shift toward higher density developments and infill projects in the City Centre area and along key corridors. This intensification is creating pressures on existing and proposed parkland as land is more expensive and availability is highly restricted. New, innovative, and collaborative
approaches are needed. A more nuanced parkland dedication regime that goes beyond
the traditional park types identified above is required to reflect this urban context and to ensure that the growing city is well-served by its public parkland system.
The proposed framework distinguishes the parkland hierarchy between Mixed Use Areas and Urban/Rural Residential Areas. Further, two new parkland classes are
introduced to the Mixed Use Area hierarchy: Urban Parks and Linear Parks. The new park types will be required as the City’s parks system evolves to include new forms that respond to the changing urban structure. Guidelines for these new park types are shown in the following tables, along with the existing framework.
It is also recommended that the City consider renaming its District Park designation to
“City-wide Parks” to better reflect the level of service within this park type and, further, to amend related guidelines to allow for the dedication and/or reclassification of large blocks of land (greater than 20 hectares) that also support environmental education, interpretation, and nature-related recreation, thus serving a broader audience. This change is intended to allow for the inclusion of larger properties (ideally combined with
parklands that support active recreation) that support linear and passive recreation, including events and amenities that would attract users from across the city.
12 Although the City’s Official Plan identifies “Trailheads” within the parkland classification system for the Seaton Urban Area, in practice this is a feature and not a park type.
- 119 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 101
Table 24: Proposed Parkland Classification System
Urban Residential Areas & Rural Settlements Mixed Use Areas
Areas Covered South Pickering, Seaton Urban Area, Northeast Pickering, Claremont, Brougham, etc. City Centre, Nodes and Corridors
Park Types District Park (City-wide Parks)
Community Parks
Neighbourhoods Parks
Village Greens (Parkettes)
Urban Park – proposed
Urban Squares (Parkettes)
Linear Park – proposed
Table 25: City of Pickering Parks Hierarchy, Proposed Additions
Park Type Proposed Guidelines
Urban Park (proposed)
Urban Parks are publicly-owned lands that are located in highly visible and accessible locations, typically in higher density residential and/or mixed use areas. They include a balance of active and passive uses and are intended to serve both the local community and city-wide needs.
More specifically, Urban Parks are:
• May be characterized by hardscaped areas for events and gatherings, fountains/waterplay, public art, seating areas, lighting, related civic uses, etc. They should also include soft surface elements for outdoor play, rest and shade, and outdoor urban life.
• As significant gathering places that provide a strong sense of place, they are designed to a very high standard to support more intensified use and to promote universal/barrier-free access and user safety.
• Generally 1ha or larger.
• Situated to meet the needs of the local community (generally within a 10-minute walking distance; approximately 800 metres) and in some
instances may accommodate City-wide facilities.
• Designed with frontage on at least one public street, but may be
surrounded by public streets where the scale of the park is appropriate. The adjacent built form should have active frontages facing the park, where appropriate.
- 120 -
102 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Park Type Proposed Guidelines
Linear Park (proposed)
Linear Parks are substantial corridor spaces that contribute to
placemaking, connectivity, safety, and enhanced streetscapes within higher density mixed use areas. They may be destinations unto themselves with outdoor seating, restaurant and retail frontages, and
public art.
More specifically, Linear Parks are:
• Typically located between adjacent building facades and the adjacent road right-of-way (but not within the right-of-way), running continuous along the length of the block. They may also be located along or near
boulevards, rail lines, watercourses, or other public open space corridors.
• Designed to accommodate an active pedestrian experience along with street-related activities such as vendor and exhibit space.
• Designed to enable pedestrians to safely travel through the urban community quickly and easily through the provision of facilities such as pedestrian links with adequate lighting, seating/tables, recycling
and waste receptacles, bike racks, and accessibility supports.
• Will generally have a minimum width of 15 metres.
• Typically publicly-owned spaces, but may be privately owned and publicly accessible in keeping with City policies.
Recommendations – Park Hierarchy and Classification System
49. Modify and update the City’s parkland hierarchy through the next Official Plan
update. This includes distinguishing between different types of parkland in Mixed
Use Areas and Urban/Rural Residential Areas and updating the policies for existing designations as appropriate. Additionally, it is recommended that two new park categories (Urban Parks and Linear Parks) be created to support the emerging Mixed Use Area hierarchy. Consideration may also be given to
renaming the District Park (to “City-wide Park”) and expanding the designation to
allow for the inclusion of larger properties that support linear and passive recreation, such as city-wide events, environmental education, interpretation, and nature-related recreation.
- 121 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 103
City-wide Park Supplies
The City of Pickering manages 180.9 hectares of parkland distributed across 70 sites, exclusive of open space lands13. Nearly half of this supply is owned by other public
agencies, but available for public access (through management agreements with the
City). This level of provision translates into a ratio of 1.76 hectares per 1,000 residents.
Public parkland and open space amounts owned and/or leased by the City of Pickering are identified in the following table. A full listing of existing and proposed parks is contained in Appendix D. Note: the City’s parkland database is maintained by the
Operations Department, which uses a slightly different classification system than what is
contained in the Official Plan; where possible, parkland categories have been blended to improve alignment.
Table 26: Current Supply of Municipal Parkland, City of Pickering
Park Type Number of Parks Lands Owned by City* (ha) Lands Owned by Others (ha) Total Land (ha)
Community Parks 21 54.8 76.3 131.1
Neighbourhood Parks 22 39.9 0.6 40.5
Parkettes (Village Green, Urban Square) 27 8.7 0.6 9.3
Total Parkland 70 103.4 77.5 180.9
* Note: some lands are in mixed ownership Other landowners include: Ontario Power Generation, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Hydro One, Frenchman’s Bay Ratepayers, Transport Canada, and/or Regional Municipality of Durham.
Due to changes in how the City categorizes its parks and open space, it is not possible to accurately compare changes in the supply from past planning cycles, although it is likely that the City’s parkland service ratio has decreased in recent years due to the declining sizes of parkland dedicated through development. It is recommended that a system be put into place to create a centralized database that will allow for tracking over
time.
Looking ahead, additional parkland will be dedicated to the City in the future as new development applications are approved, as well as through negotiated approvals for secondary plan areas.
The supply of parkland in the City’s new community areas (e.g., Seaton, Northeast
Pickering) will likely be less on a per capita basis than in South Pickering because of declining parkland dedication amounts through the Planning Act. While these new parks will be able to accommodate active and structured recreational amenities, smaller parks mean that there may be less space for unstructured or passive use, buffers and
13 Note: Significant open space portions of existing parks have been removed from the calculations to provide a more accurate depiction of the lands available for park purposes.
- 122 -
104 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
setbacks, parking, etc. It also means that the City will need to design parks to accommodate greater capacity than traditional parks, with considerations of robust materials and designs that allow for greater use (e.g., artificial turf fields, multi-use
courts, etc.). The community must also continue to rely on lands provided by other
public agencies (e.g., schools, Hydro One, OPG, TRCA, etc.) to serve residents over the planning period.
- 123 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 105
Table 27: Future Parkland Potential Across the City of Pickering
Community Comments
Seaton Urban Area Seaton has been planned as a sustainable urban community with a focus on walkable neighbourhoods and equitably distributed parks and recreational facilities. The majority of future parkland in Seaton has already been negotiated by way of the Neighbourhood Plans.
There is approximately 95 hectares of parkland anticipated within Seaton according to the City’s database; this includes a 36.4 hectare district park within the Innovation Corridor. Nearly all of this parkland has yet to be dedicated to the City, but will be transferred as the area is
developed. This translates into an average rate of provision of 1.36 ha/1000 residents.
Mixed Use Areas Considerable growth is anticipated for the City’s mixed use areas such as the City Centre and Kingston Road Corridor. Parkland dedication is required through development and redevelopment applications, as guided by the City’s Official Plan. Larger sites may yield land for urban parks, which may not be viable on smaller development sites. As
discussed later in this section, privately-owned public spaces and strata parks are becoming more common in intensification areas, with one currently being planned in Pickering’s Universal City development.
Established Areas Mature, established parts of Pickering are unlikely to yield much in the way of additional parkland. There may be low potential through infill development (which would yield small park blocks or cash-in-lieu) or through the strategic acquisition of lands for park purposes by Council (such as the recent acquisition of waterfront properties).
Northeast Pickering A secondary plan process is just getting underway for this new
community area and a land use structure (and parkland amounts) has yet to be developed. A series of community parks, neighbourhood parks, village greens, a connected trail system may be anticipated.
- 124 -
106 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Community Comments
Other The City has a history of working with other public agencies (e.g.,
schools, Hydro One, OPG, TRCA, etc.) to supplement municipal parkland supplies. These arrangements should continue to be pursued to serve residents over the planning period.
Notable non-municipal properties that may assist the City in meeting its long-term parkland and recreation goals include (but may not be limited to):
• Petticoat Creek Conservation Park: These lands are owned and managed by TRCA; they are located in South Pickering along the
Lake Ontario waterfront. The City has been studying the potential to introduce new activities and programming to turn this into a destination park for all residents. An agreement and detailed design
plan is required to more fully define future park uses and costs.
• Greenwood Conservation Area: These lands are a former City of
Toronto Landfill that are now owned and managed by TRCA. They are located in Central Pickering along the border with the Town of Ajax. There is a longer-term opportunity to develop a municipal sports field complex on approximately 20 hectares through agreement with TRCA.
• Future District Park north of Green River: A currently undeveloped and unserviced 36-hectare property has been secured for a future District Park north of Highway 7 near Green River access off Sideline 32. This is a long-term project.
• Durham Meadoway: This is a proposed pedestrian and cycling route and linear park that will connect people to destinations across more than 27 kilometres of Durham Region. In addition to providing a significant east-west recreational facility and active transportation spine, the Durham Meadoway also has the potential to become a multi-faceted space for people that includes ecological enhancements, public art and community amenities. This space is currently in the design phase, being led by the Region of Durham.
Recommendations – City-wide Park Supplies
50. Develop and maintain a comprehensive inventory database of parks and open spaces (linked to GIS and asset management databases) for the purposes of evaluation and planning.
- 125 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 107
Parkland Needs
An appropriate supply and equitable distribution of parkland is critical to ensuring a high quality of life and maximizing accessibility to services and amenities that achieve
community objectives. As the City grows, there will also be a growing need for more
parkland to serve the increasing number of residents.
Most municipalities use population-based targets to calculate and plan parkland supply. As it is becoming more complex and costly to secure quality parcels for parkland within new higher density forms of development, a parkland target can be a useful tool that
informs the City’s parkland acquisition program.
Parkland to population ratios are in common use throughout Ontario and beyond. The City’s current parkland provision rate is 1.76 hectares per 1,000 residents, excluding open space (e.g., natural areas); nearly half of this is not owned by the City of Pickering, but managed under agreement.
As shown in the following figure, municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area with
comparable characteristics to Pickering typically strive to achieve parkland provision rates around 2.0 hectares per 1,000 residents, with larger, more urbanized communities tending to have lower targets. It is notable that many of these targets have been set prior to recent changes to provincial legislation that place additional limits on parkland
dedication amounts. Even prior to these changes, parkland service levels have been
declining over time in most jurisdictions.
Figure 9: Parkland Provision Targets in Selected Ontario Municipalities (hectares per 1,000)
Source: Various Official Plans, Parks and Recreation Plans; compiled by Monteith Brown Planning Consultants
3.0
2.2
1.2
1.6
2.0 2.0 2.0
1.4 1.2
1.8 2.0 2.0
3.7
2.5 2.3
1.7 1.8
2.7
1.9
1.6 1.3 1.7 1.6 1.7
Parkland Target Actual Parkland Provision
City of Pickering Actual Parkland Provision = 1.76 ha/1000
- 126 -
108 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Understanding current parkland dedication tools and prospective ratios is important in establishing a target that is both realistic and achievable. Through the Bill 23 provisions now within the Planning Act, application of the standard and/or alternative rate will
generally result in parkland dedication ratios of between 0.2 to 1.0 hectares per 1,000 residents, well below current levels of supply in Pickering. The actual ratio will vary depending on the density of the development and the number of persons per unit. The following graph and tables in Appendix H provide several illustrations.
Figure 10: Parkland Dedication Scenarios (Bill 23)
Note: Parkland dedication is capped at 10% of the land or value of the land for development or redevelopment sites that are five hectares or less and at 15% of the land or value of the land for sites that are greater than five hectares.
The current provincial policy regime and land economics mean that per capita parkland
provision rates will continue to decline. Applying the City’s current parkland provision level to future growth is not attainable or realistic as all new residential development that occurs within Pickering will reduce the City’s overall ratios. It is common for current provision rates to be higher than established standards as this reflects historical land acquisition practices and the declining service levels anticipated for the future. Moving
forward, needs are more likely to be focused on neighbourhood and community parks in new communities and growth areas.
It is recommended that the City establish a municipal-wide provision target for parkland that is both attainable and that helps Pickering achieve its vision for a parks system that responds to resident needs. This means setting a target that will promote equitable
distribution, expand in step with the community (and its many new young families), encourage quality sites that support a range of park types, and that is financially achievable. A target should be seen as a benchmark to guide long-term goals and against which to measure progress.
0.33
0.23 0.17 0.11
0.98
0.52 0.45
0.33
0.22
0.56
0.68
0.5
0.33
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
15 30 50 100 150 250He
c
t
a
r
e
s
p
e
r
1
0
0
0
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
Density (units per hectare)
Standard Rate Alternative Rate (5ha site)Alternative rate (10ha)
- 127 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 109
On the basis of this analysis, it is recommended that the City set a target of achieving – at minimum – a parkland provision level of 1.5 hectares per 1,000 residents by 2034 (City owned and leased parkland). This target should not be
interpreted to be rigid and should be reviewed again in ten-years’ time.
As time goes on, the City-wide target may be greater than what can be achieved solely through the provisions of the Planning Act and will potentially require other means of securing parkland, such as acquisitions, lease agreements, etc. It is also important to recognize that this target is supplemented by other public lands that are not defined as
parkland, but that can provide valuable contributions to community life, such as open
spaces, schools, conservation areas, etc.
Further, it is recommended that this target be modified to address the specific needs and policy approaches within Pickering’s various urban, suburban, and rural contexts. With increasing intensification, more municipalities have been adopting different
parkland targets for different urban contexts and trying to avoid over-reliance on a single
measure. For Pickering, these recommended sub-targets (expressed as “minimums”) are as follows:
1) Mixed Use Areas: A minimum target of 0.5 hectares per 1,000 residents or 12% of total gross land area (whichever is greater) is recommended for mixed use
areas such as the City Centre and growth nodes and corridors. This standard is
50% of the target for new communities and reflects the complex land economics of developing in intensification areas where parkland opportunities will be severely limited.
2) New Communities: A minimum target of 1.2 hectares per 1,000 residents is
recommended for suburban areas such as the Seaton Urban Area and Northeast
Pickering. As new community areas are much larger in context and can be planned as a complete community, there is a greater likelihood of achieving this target. The development community should be encouraged to participate in achieving or exceeding this target as neighbourhood and community parks offer value to
prospective buyers and are vital in designing complete communities.
3) Established Areas: A minimum target of 1.5 hectares per 1,000 residents is recommended for mature residential areas in South Pickering and rural settlements. This largely reflects the current level of provision in these areas, which will see slower growth partially through infill developments over the next ten years.
Application of the City-wide provision target calculates a need for 69.1 additional
hectares of parkland by 2034 (to address population growth of approximately 46,079 residents). The following table illustrates minimum future parkland amounts required to achieve the recommended targets.
City databases identify 61.6 hectares of parkland that are anticipated to be dedicated
over time within the Seaton Urban Area (54.0 ha, much of which will be beyond 2034;
excluding the planned District Park in the Innovation Corridor) and approved plans of subdivision in other areas of Pickering (7.6 ha). Discounting for these known conveyances, it is estimated that 7.4 to 18.0 additional hectares of parkland (over
- 128 -
110 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
and above planned dedications) will need to be secured to meet the city-wide target. Of this, 11.8 hectares will be specifically intended to serve established areas and 6.3 hectares to serve mixed use areas (City Centre, Kingston Road Corridor, etc.).
At this time, no additional parkland needs have been identified within the Seaton Urban
Area beyond those that are currently planned.
Table 28: Approximate Parkland Dedication / Acquisition Targets to 2034
Community Types
Parkland Provision Target (minimum)
Population Growth (2024-2034)
Estimated Parkland Requirements (2024-2034)
Known Parkland Dedication Parkland Deficit
Mixed Use Areas (City Centre, Kingston Rd., etc.) 0.5 ha/1000 13,829 6.9 ha 0.6 ha 6.3 ha
New Communities (Seaton) 1.2 ha/1000 19,732 23.7 ha 54.0 ha* n/a
Established Areas (other
urban and rural neighbourhoods)
1.5 ha/1000 12,518 18.8 ha 7.0 ha 11.8 ha
City-wide 1.5 ha/1000 46,079 69.1 ha 61.6 ha* 7.6 ha to 18.0 ha
Note: Parkland supplies and targets include City-owned parklands and non-owned parkland that is managed under agreement. * a large portion of these lands will be conveyed post-2034; excluded from this figure is the planned
District Park in the Innovation Corridor (36.4 ha)
Achieving these targets will require a variety of approaches, including direct acquisition,
off-site conveyance, agreements with other landowners for public access (e.g., Petticoat Creek Conservation Park, Greenwood Conservation Area, etc.), etc. Beyond 2034, the City is planning a future District Park (36.4 ha) within the Innovation Corridor that will also offer significant opportunity to expand the supply of public parkland in the longer-
term. Approaches to land acquisition are discussed further later in this section.
Recommendations – Parkland Needs
51. Adopt a minimum City-wide parkland provision target of 1.5 hectares per 1,000 residents through to 2034. This target (as well as defined targets for mixed use areas, new community areas, and established areas) should be used to inform the review of development applications and secondary plans for the next
ten years. Where possible, parkland provision targets should be linked to
population and/or housing units.
- 129 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 111
Park Distribution and Priority Acquisition Areas
Equity is a foundational principle in assessing the adequacy of parkland provision. This can be measured by considering both access (e.g., gaps in geographic distribution) and
supply (e.g., areas with parkland shortfalls).
The City of Pickering Official Plan contains the following policy relating to a connected system of parks, trails, and greenspaces (Section 7.7):
“Recognizing the importance that parks and green space have in providing healthy settings and opportunity for healthy lifestyles for residents, employees
and visitors, City Council shall promote the establishment of an accessible,
publicly-owned, connected system of parks, trails and greenspaces, providing
within that system activities for people of different ages and different abilities.”
A distributional analysis was undertaken by applying this service area to Pickering’s parks to understand where residents are located within walking distance to a park or
where gaps exist. The City’s Official Plan identifies a measure of 400 to 800 metres to
ensure accessibility to neighbourhood parks (5 to 10-minute walk). The following map illustrates the current distribution of parks (all parkland types) based on a 400-metre radius, adjusted for highways and creeks. By using the lower end of this range, there is a greater likelihood that those with limited mobility would have access to the many
benefits that parks provide.
As shown on the following map, Pickering’s parks are equitably distributed across the city. Any visible gaps in park distribution are a result of natural areas (e.g., ravines, woodlots, etc.), golf courses, schools, commercial, or industrial areas. While park coverage is excellent overall, intensification will amplify the need for equitable
distribution and the constrained availability of land could challenge the City’s ability to
address localized gaps in the future. For example, there is a minor gap within southern parts of the Woodlands, Dunbarton, and Liverpool areas (generally along the north side of Kingston Road between Whites Road and Pickering City Centre). With residential intensification planned along this corridor, it will be important to secure appropriate land
for parks in this area to serve existing and future residents.
- 130 -
112 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Figure 11: Current and Future Parkland Distribution, City of Pickering (400-metre radii)
- 131 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 113
The City’s current (2024) and forecasted (2034) population was also assessed in relation to the parkland inventory using the City of Pickering’s neighborhood areas. This parkland to population ratio analysis provides another approach to determining areas of
under-supply and identifying priority areas for future parkland acquisition.
Specifically, this approach allows for:
• a geospatial analysis of current and known future parkland supplies (all parkland types) across the City’s various neighbourhoods using a 400-metre radius;
• identification of areas currently with low and high parkland supplies in comparison to the planning targets for their particular urban structure (e.g., mixed use areas, new communities, and established areas) and an illustration of how this may change over time (note: industrial areas are excluded from the
analysis);
• identification of areas of growth that will experience added pressure and demand for parkland;
• recognition of the differences in parkland supply, parkland needs, and population
within different urban contexts, such as rural, suburban urban and established communities; and
• a basis for considering different park provision targets or approaches across
different urban contexts.
The following tables and maps identify per capita parkland supplies by neighbourhood, both now (2024) and in the future (2034+). More than 50% of the City’s residential and rural neighbourhoods (11) currently have parkland provision ratios that are below the recommended targets. Some of this can be attributed to the pace of development in
Seaton, where ratios are likely to improve as new parks come online in the future. Notably, parkland ratios are currently forecasted to decline substantially in the City Centre unless sufficient new parklands are secured through planned growth.
- 132 -
114 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Figure 12: Parkland Provision by Neighbourhood, Existing (2024)
- 133 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 115
Figure 13: Parkland Provision by Neighbourhood, Planned (2034+)
- 134 -
116 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Table 29: Parkland Provision within Mixed Use Areas, Existing and Planned (Target = 0.5 ha/1000)
Neighbourhood 2024 Population 2034 Population
Population Change 2024-2034
Current Parkland (ha)
2024 Parkland Per 1,000
Future Parkland (ha)
2034 Parkland Per 1,000
8-City Centre 6,260 20,090 13,829 8.6 1.37 9.2 0.46
Mixed Use Area Total 6,260 20,090 13,829 8.6 1.37 9.2 0.46
Legend: Red = Below the parkland provision target for this type of community (priority acquisition area); Yellow = 0% to 100% above the target; Purple = more than 100% above the target
Table 30: Parkland Provision by New Communities, Existing and Planned (Target = 1.2 ha/1000)
Neighbourhoods
2024 Population 2034 Population
Population Change 2024-2034
Current Parkland (ha)
2024 Parkland Per 1,000
Future Parkland (ha)**
2034 Parkland Per 1,000
16-Lamoreaux 4,205 11,752 7,547 2.2 0.52 6.8 0.58
17-Brock - Taunton 38 37 -1 0 0.00 0.5 13.58
18-Mount Pleasant 46 2,219 2,172 0 0.00 18.3 8.25
19-Wilson Meadows 1,595 7,142 5,547 0.2 0.13 22.4 3.14
20-Thompson's Corners 38 4,504 4,467 0 0.00 8.4 1.86
21-Innovation Corridor* 32 32 0 0 0.00 0.0 0.00
New Communities Total 5,953 25,685 19,732 2.4 0.40 56.4 2.20
* industrial area, excluded from calculations
** a large portion of these lands will be conveyed post-2034; excluded from this figure is the planned District Park in the Innovation Corridor (36.4 ha)
Legend: Red = Below the parkland provision target for this type of community (priority acquisition area); Yellow = 0% to 100% above the target; Purple = more than 100% above the target
Table 31: Parkland Provision within Established Areas, Existing and Planned (Target = 1.5 ha/1000)
Neighbourhoods
2024
Population
2034
Population
Population Change 2024-2034
Current Parkland (ha)
2024 Parkland Per 1,000
Future Parkland (ha)
2034 Parkland Per 1,000
1-Rosebank 3,234 3,367 133 2.4 0.74 2.4 0.71
2-West Shore 6,893 6,830 -63 33.3 4.83 33.3 4.88
3-Bay Ridges 11,095 10,899 -196 45.1 4.07 45.1 4.14
4-Brock Industrial* 12 12 0 0 0.00 0.0 0.00
5-Rougemount 3,087 4,933 1,846 0.7 0.23 0.7 0.14
6-Woodlands 3,370 4,410 1,040 2.6 0.77 2.6 0.59
7-Dunbarton 2,699 2,908 209 0.6 0.22 0.6 0.21
9-Village East 5,641 6,844 1,202 10.2 1.81 10.2 1.49
10-Highbush 6,156 6,164 9 2.7 0.44 2.7 0.44
11-Amberlea 12,965 12,740 -225 15.4 1.19 15.4 1.21
12-Liverpool 17,415 17,163 -252 28.6 1.64 28.6 1.67
13-Brock Ridge 6,702 8,007 1,305 14.8 2.21 14.8 1.85
14-Rouge Park 1,494 2,324 830 0.1 0.07 0.1 0.04
- 135 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 117
Neighbourhoods 2024 Population 2034 Population
Population
Change 2024-2034
Current
Parkland (ha)
2024
Parkland Per 1,000
Future
Parkland (ha)
2034
Parkland Per 1,000
15-Duffin Heights 5,754 12,069 6,315 3.6 0.63 8.9 0.74
Claremont & Area 1,092 1,263 170 2.5 2.29 4.2 3.33
Greenwood, Kinsale &
Estate Clusters 621 699 77 2.7 4.35 2.7 3.86
Remaining Rural 2,477 2,593 117 4.6 1.86 4.6 1.77
Established Area Total 90,706 103,223 12,518 169.9 1.87 176.9 1.71
* industrial area, excluded from calculations Legend: Red = Below the parkland provision target for this type of community (priority acquisition area); Yellow = 0% to 100% above the target; Purple = more than 100% above the target
Table 32: Parkland Provision Area Totals, Existing and Planned
All of Pickering
2024 Population 2034 Population
Population Change 2024-2034
Current Parkland (ha)
2024 Parkland Per 1,000
Future Parkland (ha)
2034 Parkland Per 1,000
Mixed Use Areas 6,260 20,090 13,829 8.6 1.37 9.2 0.46
New Communities 5,953 25,685 19,732 2.4 0.40 56.4 2.20
Established Areas 90,706 103,223 12,518 169.9 1.87 176.9 1.71
City Total 102,919 148,998 46,079
Legend: Red = Below the parkland provision target for this type of community (priority acquisition area); Yellow = 0% to 100% above the target;
Based on the preceding analysis, the following table identifies areas of the city where parks and parkland are not as locally accessible. It is suggested that these areas be considered priority areas for parkland acquisition.
Table 33: Current and Future Parkland Shortfalls – Parkland Acquisition Areas
(ranked by population, with populations over 5,000 persons bolded for emphasis)
Current (2024) Future (2034))
1. Amberlea (pop. 12,965) 2. Duffin Heights (pop. 6,315) 3. New Community (Seaton) neighbourhoods (pop. 5,953)* 4. Highbush (pop. 5,754) 5. Woodlands (pop. 3,370)
6. Rosebank (pop. 3,234) 7. Rougemount (pop. 3,087) 8. Dunbarton (pop. 2,699) 9. Rouge Park (pop. 1,494)
1. City Centre (pop. 20,090) 2. Amberlea (pop. 12,740) 3. Duffin Heights (pop. 12,069) 4. Lamoureax (pop.11,752) 5. Highbush (pop. 6,164) 6. Rougemount (pop. 4,933)
7. Woodlands (pop. 4,410) 8. Rosebank (pop. 3,367) 9. Dunbarton (pop. 2,908) 10. Rouge Park (pop. 2,324)
*lower priority due to new parkland coming online
Many of the City’s mixed use areas have (or will have) below average supplies of parkland. As residential growth is anticipated within these locations, the pressure for
- 136 -
118 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
parkland will continue to increase over time. It will be important to ensure that an adequate supply of parkland is available within these areas, or within walking distance, to respond to an increase in population over the long-term. The City should be prepared
to acquire lands in these areas as they become available and to explore other strategies
(both capital and programmatic) to enhance recreation and community activities in these areas.
It is also noted that there are locations within Pickering’s urban area that are parkland deficient but are outside of the designated mixed use areas. These existing
communities are generally older and well established with limited development potential
that could generate parkland acquisition opportunities – these areas will generally be a lower priority for parkland acquisition.
Equitable distribution is a key principle for the city’s parks system. Growing areas with inadequate parkland supplies should be a priority for the City to address through both
the development process and direct acquisition via cash-in-lieu and other financial tools.
In this way, the City can work to maintain parkland provision standards, while also improving accessibility to those that are most in need.
The following strategies may be considered for addressing parkland gaps and shortfalls within Priority Acquisition Areas. These are generally listed in order of
priority.
1) On an ongoing basis, evaluate proposed development applications for future park dedication and connectivity opportunities (e.g., sidewalks, trails, etc.). While expansion to existing parks may not directly enhance overall accessibility, it can improve economies of scale and should generally be encouraged. For
development applications in other areas of the city, consider the potential for off-
site conveyance within priority acquisition areas (where appropriate and supported by policy).
2) Evaluate other municipal or public lands (not currently designated as parks) within these areas for their ability to be used as parkland or – at a minimum –
accommodate a public playground.
3) Consider improvements to parks (including park programming) to enhance active and passive recreational opportunities in the vicinity of the growth area.
4) Encourage voluntary conveyance, donations, gifts, and bequests from individuals or corporations.
5) Monitor real estate opportunities and seek to purchase (or swap) one or more
properties that could be developed as a municipal park. This may be the highest cost option and would require additional resources.
Recommendations – Park Distribution and Priority Acquisition Areas
52. Prepare a parkland acquisition strategy to enhance current and future community access to parks, with consideration of alternative acquisition tools.
- 137 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 119
Recommendations – Park Distribution and Priority Acquisition Areas
The strategy should confirm priorities for land acquisition (including opportunities to secure larger park blocks for community-serving amenities) and a budget for
the annual allocation of funds.
53. Use the priority mapping in this plan to inform land acquisition and work with other municipal departments to secure land and/or enhance programming in high priority areas (informed by the proposed parkland acquisition strategy).
54. Strengthen collaboration with public agencies (e.g., schools, local and other
levels of government, utility and infrastructure agencies, etc.) to facilitate community access to parks, trails, and recreation spaces on non-municipally owned sites. Consider developing a framework to improve connections to (and programming of) these spaces.
- 138 -
120 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
7.4 Parkland Policy
This section examines policy approaches to be considered through future updates to the City’s Official Plan and parkland dedication procedures. Additionally, a comparative analysis of three other Greater Toronto Area municipalities was undertaken to inform
the analysis of Pickering’s parkland policies and approaches (see Appendix H).
Legislative and Policy Scan
Summarized below are applicable provincial and local policies that have relevance to the analysis of parkland provision and policy.
Provincial Policy Statement
The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), issued under the authority of the Planning Act,
sets a vision for land use planning in Ontario. The PPS is a significant document since it provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest as it pertains to land use planning and development. Regional and local planning policies (including those prescribed through Official Plans) must be consistent with the PPS.
On April 6, 2023, the province released for comment the proposed 2023 Provincial
Planning Statement. It proposes to repeal “A Place to Growth – the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe” and the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement and replace both with an integrated policy statement.
Policy 3.9 of the proposed policy statement addresses Public Spaces, Recreation,
Parks, Trails and Open Space (see below).
Healthy, active, and inclusive communities should be promoted by:
a) planning public streets, spaces and facilities to be safe, meet the needs of
persons of all ages and abilities, including pedestrians, foster social interaction and facilitate active transportation and community connectivity;
b) planning and providing for the needs of persons of all ages and abilities in the
distribution of a full range of publicly-accessible built and natural settings for
recreation, including facilities, parklands, public spaces, open space areas, trails
and linkages, and, where practical, water-based resources;
c) providing opportunities for public access to shorelines; and
d) recognizing provincial parks, conservation reserves, and other protected areas,
and minimizing negative impacts on these areas.
Among other items, the PPS also outlines the importance of active transportation and green infrastructure, mitigating impacts of climate change, and a clean and healthy environment.
- 139 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 121
Ontario Planning Act
Parkland conveyance authority is established in the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990, c. P.13 and facilitated through the City’s Official Plan policies. Specifically, this includes
Planning Act Section 42 (which pertains to parkland conveyances associated with
development and redevelopment, to be imposed by by-law) and Sections 51.1 and 53 (which pertain to parkland requirements as a condition of plan of subdivision approval and consent).
Figure 14: Parkland Dedication Sections in the Ontario Planning Act
Under the Act, municipalities may levy a standard rate of 5% of developable residential lands (or cash-in-lieu) or 2% of commercial and industrial lands, or an alternative rate of up to one hectare of land for every 600 hundred residential units (this rate was 1
hectare per 300 units prior to November 28, 2022) or an equivalent to one hectare of land for every 1,000 units when requiring cash-in-lieu of land (this rate was 1 hectare per 500 units prior to November 28, 2022).
The alternative rate typically generates more parkland when densities exceed 30 units per hectare when accepting land and 50 units per hectare when accepting payment,
although recent changes to the Act have instituted caps on this (10% of land or its value for sites under 5 hectares, and 15% for sites greater than 5 hectares).
Figure 15: Residential Parkland Dedication Rates in the Ontario Planning Act
* no conveyance may exceed 10% of the land for sites under 5 hectares or 15% of the land for sites 5 hectares or larger.
Planning Act
Section 42 (applies to development and redevelopment)
Section 51.1 (applies to plans of subdivision)Section 53 (applies to consents)
Alternative Rate:land value (1 ha per 1,000 units) -capped*
Alternative Rate:land (1 ha per 600 units) -capped*
Standard Rate:land or land value (5% of site)
- 140 -
122 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
In recent years, significant changes have been proposed to the parkland dedication requirements established in the Planning Act:
• Bill 108 (More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019) proposed sweeping changes to
parkland dedication requirements, but these changes were not brought into force as they were ultimately further amended through Bill 197.
• Bill 197 (COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020) introduced a sunset clause
for existing parkland dedication by-laws that use the alternative rate (September 18, 2022); new by-laws are appealable to the Ontario Land Tribunal.
• Bill 109 (More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022) amended parkland requirements on lands designated as transit-oriented communities, including allowances for
encumbered lands; these changes would apply to planning in the Pickering GO
Station area as this is designated as a Protected Major Transit Station Area.
• Bill 23 (More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022) was introduced in October 2022 and came into effect on November 28, 2022. This Act introduced significant changes
to parkland dedication requirements (among many other aspects of the Planning
Act, Development Charges Act, etc.), including but not limited to reductions in the alternative parkland dedication requirement.
The recent changes introduced by the COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act (Bill 197) and the More Homes Built Faster Act (Bill 23) will result in at least a 50% reduction in parkland provision in areas of higher density – and allow for the conveyance of poorer quality lands – in approved developments moving forward.
A summary of some of these recent changes is provided below:
• The maximum alternative dedication rate has been reduced by 50% to 1
ha/600 units for parkland and 1 ha/1000 units for cash in lieu. Further, the legislation caps the maximum alternative dedication rates at 10% of the land for sites under 5 ha and at 15% for sites greater than 5 ha. This will dramatically reduce parkland dedication and cash-in-lieu to the City for applications under Section 42 (development and redevelopment outside of plans of subdivision).
Parkland requirements are not scaled to density.
• Affordable residential units14, attainable residential units, inclusionary zoning residential units, non-profit housing, and additional residential unit developments are exempt from parkland dedication and cash-in-lieu requirements.15 This
change will also reduce parkland dedication and cash-in-lieu to the City, possibly
increasing the financial burden on taxpayers and/or leading to reduced levels of park service.
14 Most recently, the Province introduced the Affordable Homes and Good Jobs Act, 2023 (Bill 134) which amended the definition of affordable residential units.
15 As of the date of writing, this statutory exemption is not in effect for affordable residential units, attainable residential units, and inclusionary zoning residential units pending release of a bulletin.
- 141 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 123
• Parkland rates are frozen as of the date that a zoning-by law or site plan application is filed. The freeze is effective for two years after approval. This will
reduce cash-in-lieu payments to the City.
• To take effect at a future date, developers will be able to identify the land they intend to convey to the municipality for parkland. These lands may include encumbered lands and privately-owned public space (POPs). If agreement
cannot be reached, the municipality or the landowner can appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal. This may result in less suitable lands being accepted as parkland dedication.
• There is a new requirement for municipalities to spend or allocate at least 60%
of the monies in their parkland reserve account at the beginning of each year. This will create challenges for long-term planning and implementation of park projects.
• Municipalities are required to develop a parks plan before adopting Official Plan
policies imposing the alternative rate and passing a parkland dedication by-law.
The Parks Plan must examine the need for parkland in the municipality, be made available to the public (including as part of the legislated consultation process in passing a parkland dedication by-law), and include consultation with every school board that has jurisdiction in the municipality.
Envision Durham Official Plan (2023)
The 2023 Envision Durham Official Plan establishes the land use structure (urban, rural, green lands, and transportation systems) for Pickering and other lower-tier municipalities in Durham. Recreation and parks are supported throughout the Plan, including objectives that support strengthening these offerings in strategic growth areas
and regional nodes.
Several policies of council include support for the development of healthy, sustainable and complete communities that incorporate safe and publicly accessible recreation areas, parks, open spaces, trails and other recreation facilities. These include an integrated and easily accessible open space network with active recreational facilities,
urban squares, green spaces, parks and informal gathering spaces generally within 500
metres of all residents.
City of Pickering Official Plan (Edition 9)
Section 16.29 of the City of Pickering’s Official Plan (Edition 9) provides policies for the conveyance, design, and development of parklands. These policies require the
conveyance of land or payment in lieu to the municipality for park or other public
recreational purposes in the following amounts:
• for residential development, an amount not exceeding 5% of the proposed land to be developed;
• for high density residential and mixed-use areas, a rate of up to one hectare for each 300 dwelling units proposed; and
- 142 -
124 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
• for commercial or industrial development, an amount not exceeding 2% of the proposed land to be developed.
The Official Plan states the following in relation to the acceptability of parkland:
“[the municipality] shall not accept as parkland conveyance lands required for
drainage; valley and stream corridor or shoreline protection purposes; lands
susceptible to flooding; steep valley slopes; hazard lands; lands required to be conveyed to a public agency other than the City of Pickering; and other lands
unsuitable for park development.”
These policies do not fully reflect the updated legislative changes made to the Planning
Act and will need to be updated and brought into compliance. The provisions of the
Planning Act override these policies and the provisions of the City’s current parkland conveyance by-law. The City is expected to review and update these policies during its
Official Plan Review.
Parkland Conveyance By-law (By-law Number 7955/22)
The City passed a new Parkland Conveyance By-law on June 11, 2022. This was following royal assent of the COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020 (Bill 197) but prior to the passing of the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 (Bill 23), both of which
created notable changes to parkland dedication requirements, allowances, exemptions,
administrative processes, etc. Like Pickering’s Official Plan, the Parkland Conveyance By-law should be brought into compliance with the current Planning Act; until such time, the provisions of the Planning Act will override the provisions of the City’s current by-law.
The current by-law implements the Official Plan policies for the conveyance of parkland (free and clear of all liens and encumbrances) or payment in lieu for residential (including high density and mixed use), commercial, and industrial development and redevelopment.
Not identified herein, but important to the administration of a new by-law, are
requirements related to exemptions, credits, land valuation (i.e., cost per residential unit), payment, reserve accounts, by-law administration and review, etc. These matters should be given appropriate consideration through the next by-law update and/or development of a parkland dedication procedure.
- 143 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 125
Recommendations – Parkland Policy
55. Update the parkland dedication requirements and related policies within the City of Pickering’s Official Plan and Parkland Conveyance By-law to reflect the changes enacted through the More Homes, Built Faster Act (Bill 23) and related
legislation, with further consideration of the recommendations within this Ten
Year Plan. Consideration may also be given to developing a procedure establishing the guidelines and process for administering the Parkland Conveyance By-law.
The Relationship between Density and Parkland
For many years, the parkland dedication tools within the Planning Act existed to respond primarily to the needs of communities that grew through lower density subdivision and greenfield site development, much like Pickering’s traditional
development patterns. The standard 5% parkland rate generally provided parkland amounts that addressed the needs for neighbourhood and – to some extent – community parks.
As communities began to grow inward and upward and densities rose, this 5% standard rate proved inadequate as it would not generate sufficiently-sized parkland parcels
given the smaller development sizes. The alternative rate was then devised to better align parkland requirements with service needs in higher density areas. This alternative rate (initially 1 hectare per 300 units) was typically applied to residential developments or redevelopments outside of the subdivision process, often when densities exceeded 15 units per hectare, such as infill townhouses or other low to medium-density
developments.
In November 2022, this alternative rate was reduced by 50% to one hectare per 600 units (or one hectare per 1,000 units for cash-in-lieu) due to the much higher residential densities being experienced in Ontario’s larger urban centres. One reason for these changes is that the resultant parkland requirement had the potential to consume most or
all of the development site (particularly for very high density developments), impacting the viability of the development. Furthermore, depending on the density of the development, the rates did not accurately reflect needs (keeping in mind that many apartments and condos have fewer persons per unit than traditional subdivisions), particularly for those in infill locations that were being promoted to achieve other city-
building objectives. However, these changes have had a dramatic impact on the ability for municipalities to secure sufficient parkland to serve growth areas and are requiring new approaches to building complete communities.
Striking an appropriate balance across Pickering’s various urban, suburban, and rural contexts is vital. While the standard 5% parkland rate remains an appropriate tool for
addressing needs in Pickering’s lower density greenfield areas, the alternative rate is a more appropriate tool for the City’s built-up areas, such as the City Centre and key nodes and corridors. However, planning, designing, and maintaining parks in
- 144 -
126 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
intensifying areas presents several new challenges, including smaller parkland blocks that are used more intensely and are thus more costly to construct and maintain. Given the scarcity and higher cost of land in these areas, new tools are required to acquire
suitable land for parks and to program these parks to meet the unique range of needs.
Encumbered Lands
Two options that are becoming more common in urbanizing communities include Privately-Owned Public Spaces (POPs) and Strata Parks. While fee simple (municipal ownership) will always be the City’s first option and priority, it is expected that
alternative options may be presented as potential opportunities to address a portion of
growth-related parkland needs within intensification areas over time.
Privately-Owned Public Spaces
• As the name states, POPs are spaces provided by private landowners that are
universally accessible and open to the public, such as plazas, courtyards, or
pedestrian walkways that create the opportunity for community-building and interaction. They are intended to be small “breathing spaces” that fit best in dense urban environments. They seldom have playgrounds or mature trees.
• To truly be accessible to the public, they must be in locations that complement and/or expand on existing or future parks. They have different levels of service from public parks and should not be considered replacements for functional parkland.
• POPs can be secured through a variety of means, including through Section 37
of the Planning Act and Site Plan Agreements. Historically, few municipalities accepted POPs toward the required public parkland dedication, but this has been changing with the new Bill 23 legislation.
• Some allowance for privately-owned public spaces is currently made for urban
squares in Seaton through Section 11.13(f) of Pickering’s Official Plan. The creation of POPs is also occurring as part of the Universal City development within the Pickering Major Transit Station Area.
• Although POPs will generally be discouraged, the City of Pickering may consider counting them toward the parkland dedication requirement only where appropriate legal agreements are established guaranteeing that the park space is designed, built, and maintained to City standards, and that it is open and accessible to the public at all times (or otherwise to the satisfaction of the City).
POPs are not appropriate in new community areas or any locations outside of mixed use areas.
- 145 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 127
Strata Parks
• Strata ownership is used where a parkland element is to be built over the top of
some underground structure or facility (such as a parking garage, stormwater
management facility, highway underpass, etc.).
• Strata parks can be owned by the City under agreements established through the Condominium Act and be fully accessible to the public. It is vital that they be
accompanied by a management agreement and consideration of long-term maintenance costs as strata parks have a more limited lifespan due to the waterproofing membrane over structures, requiring significant disruption to the park and park infrastructure above. These costs need to be captured in the financial valuation and long-term agreement.
• Stratified parks often have encumbrances that prohibit certain types of construction within the park due to weight limits or intrusions (e.g., tree roots, pilings, etc.) or other accessibility concerns. It is important that the municipality exercise control over the design and development of the site to ensure that it
contains necessary amenities and is designed to municipal standards (e.g.,
accessibility, maintenance, etc.). In recent years, strata parks have been accepted as partial parkland credits in some communities (at a discounted rate at the discretion of the City).
• Although strata parks will generally be discouraged, the City of Pickering may
consider counting them toward the parkland dedication requirement at a discounted rate at the discretion of the City and only where appropriate legal agreements are established to address park design and construction standards, public access, and maintenance costs.
Traditionally, encumbered lands (e.g., POPs, strata parks, natural/hazard lands, etc.)
were excluded from the required land dedication amounts by municipalities as they are not suitable replacements nor equivalent to community parkland. Through the Planning
Act regulations being developed in support of Bill 23, landowners will now be allowed to identify lands to meet parkland conveyance requirements, within regulatory criteria (not
yet developed). Municipalities may enter into agreements with the owners of the land to
enforce conditions and these agreements may be registered on title. The suitability of land for parks and recreational purposes will be appealable by the municipality to the Ontario Land Tribunal.
Encumbered lands are more expensive to maintain and harder to program. As a result,
there are concerns that developer-identified lands may not fully contribute to the overall
parks and open space as there is a greater potential for the lands to be in unsuitable locations, be under-sized, or not be functional to accommodate the required amenities. It is common for municipalities to have location and development criteria for parkland embedded within their Official Plans, including restrictions for encumbered lands,
hazards lands, steep slopes and unstable lands, environmentally protected lands,
rights-of-way and easements, contaminated lands, etc.
- 146 -
128 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Accepting encumbered land for parks is a more complex process and one that requires long-term maintenance, cost-sharing, and access agreements with developers to ensure that the municipality can continue to maintain POPs and strata parks to
municipal standards.
Recommendations – Encumbered Lands
56. Establish policies surrounding privately-owned public spaces (POPs) and strata parks. While these spaces will generally be discouraged, they may be counted toward the parkland dedication requirement at the discretion of the City (with strata parks being accepted at a discounted rate). Appropriate legal
agreements must be established to address park design and construction
standards, public access, maintenance, etc. POPs are not appropriate in locations outside of mixed use areas.
57. Establish clear location and development guidelines describing what constitutes acceptable parkland dedication from developers. These guidelines
should consider restrictions for encumbered lands, hazards lands, steep slopes
and unstable lands, environmentally protected lands, rights-of-way and easements, contaminated lands, etc. and be included within the Official Plan or parkland conveyance procedure.
Parkland Acquisition
There are several tools and options available to municipalities in Ontario as it relates to the acquisition and improvement of lands for parks purposes. Amongst these tools, the practice of requiring parkland dedications as a condition of subdivision or development
has long been the primary tool for the City of Pickering. Use of cash-in-lieu to purchase parkland as well as other acquisition tools are projected to become more prominent in the future, especially for acquiring parkland outside of mixed use areas.
Parkland dedication through the Planning Act (Bill 23) is likely to be insufficient to meet the full range of parkland needs. Furthermore, the ability to secure larger parcels for
parkland is reduced within time due to land scarcity and higher land values, especially in areas undergoing intensification. Land dedication must be supplemented by other measures such as land use agreements, purchase, etc. As a result, it is recommended that the City adopt a “parkland-first” approach that directs staff to prioritize the dedication of land in appropriate locations rather than cash-in-lieu of parkland during the
development review process. This means that:
• Policies and practices that support on-site parkland dedication and encourage front-end acquisition of parkland should be encouraged.
• Parkland will be required when development will result in a park block that: (i) meets or exceeds the minimum size established for the park class; or (ii) expands an existing park site.
- 147 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 129
• The City may still accept cash-in-lieu of parkland when it is determined to be more beneficial, especially for development projects that would not meet the
minimum requirements. For example, cash-in-lieu may be considered for higher
density development or redevelopment sites that cannot physically accommodate a typical park block. In addition, POPs may be permitted, subject to the execution of an agreement acceptable to the City and other criteria established by the City from time to time.
• Unless otherwise specified through the Planning Act, all lands to be dedicated for park purposes must be to the City’s satisfaction and will not include restricted lands such as Environmental Protection designated lands, hazard lands, steep slopes, contaminated lands, easements, stormwater ponds, etc.
The City is not expected to be able to maintain parkland service levels or achieve targets through parkland dedication alone. A greater focus will need to be placed on park quality and partnerships with other land owners to ensure that residents have access to a varied and robust parks and open space system.
Additionally, the City may need to utilize alternative financial tools and other parkland
acquisition approaches beyond traditional parkland conveyance mechanisms to meet the City’s parkland targets. Some supplemental parkland acquisition strategies that the City may pursue, include (but are not limited to):
a) Municipal land purchase or lease (ideally in priority parkland locations, expansion of existing park sites, or unserviced land as part of a future land banking
strategy), funded from cash-in-lieu reserves, Community Benefits Charges, general tax funding, grants, donors, etc.; b) Land exchanges or swaps; c) Off-site conveyance of parkland (ideally in priority parkland locations); d) Donations, gifts, and bequests;
e) Establishment of a Parks Foundation (e.g., community, corporate or municipal donations towards parkland acquisition); f) Reallocating surplus municipal lands to park use; and/or g) Partnership/joint provision of lands with local partners under agreement.
In addition to other services not provided by Development Charges, Community
Benefits Charges can be imposed to recover the costs for land for parks or other public recreational purposes in excess of lands conveyed or funded by cash-in-lieu of parkland payments under sections 42 and 51 of the Planning Act. Consideration may be given to updating the City’s Community Benefits Strategy and By-law to include the consideration of parkland acquisition beyond the amounts available under the
provisions of the Planning Act.
The following criteria may be used to assess the suitability of potential park sites on a case-by-case basis. As identified in the Official Plan, the location and configuration of land conveyed must be suitable for park development and shall not include: lands required for drainage; valley and stream corridor or shoreline protection purposes; lands
susceptible to flooding; steep valley slopes; hazard lands; lands required to be
- 148 -
130 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
conveyed to a public agency other than the City of Pickering. However, recent changes to the Planning Act (though not yet enacted through regulations) will allow developers to identify and dedicate encumbered lands. It is recommended that the City use this
criteria to more fully develop clear guidelines describing what constitutes acceptable
parkland dedication from developers.
Table 34: Potential Parkland Site Evaluation Criteria
Criteria Description
Site Conditions Consider topography (tableland is strongly preferred), parcel configuration (square or rectangular), drainage, and soil conditions (e.g., free of
environmental contaminants).
Size Should meet or exceed minimum standards established for park classification.
Centrality Proximity to the population to be served, in keeping with the service radius and population targets of the park type.
Land Use Impacts Compatibility of adjacent land uses; conformity with Official Plan or Secondary Plan (if applicable).
Connectivity Integration of trail and open space linkages or corridors (where applicable).
Accessibility Site has substantial frontage on a public road, reasonable access to public transit and/or sidewalks (in urban areas), etc.
Partnerships Potential joint use with school sites or other municipal assets.
Visibility Ability to create a local or city-wide focus.
Natural Features Park site is not encumbered by features of cultural or natural significance.
Added Value Access to the waterfront, viewpoints, or vistas (where applicable).
Constructability Active parks should generally not be built in floodplains, stormwater overflow
areas, valleylands, easements, encumbered lands, etc.
Services Active park sites have full municipal services (or the potential for full services, including water, storm sewers, and electrical services; sanitary servicing may be required for some higher-order parks) to the property line.
Availability Timing of parcel availability should coincide with preferred timing of park development.
Cost Reasonable land valuation (if applicable); publicly-owned lands offer the greatest potential.
Recommendations – Parkland Acquisition
58. Adopt a “Parkland First” approach that prioritizes parkland conveyance over cash-in-lieu of parkland and privately-owned public spaces in order to address
parkland requirements.
59. Consider updating the City’s Community Benefits Charges Strategy and By-law to include the consideration of parkland acquisition beyond the amounts available under the provisions of the Planning Act.
- 149 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 131
Recommendations – Parkland Acquisition
60. Utilize alternative financial tools and other parkland acquisition approaches beyond traditional land conveyance mechanisms as necessary to meet the City’s
parkland targets to 2034. The City is encouraged to actively pursue direct purchase of land in priority acquisition areas and unserviced land with future parkland potential.
Cash-in-lieu Considerations
Policies in the Official Plan provide the City with the discretion to take parkland or cash-in-lieu of parkland (or a blend of the two); however, there is little guidance to assist the City in making this determination. It is recommended that the City clearly articulate the
criteria that will be used to determine when to accept cash-in-lieu of parkland
dedication.
Some potential criteria include (but should not be limited to):
a) Where the area served by the development is determined (at the City’s discretion) to be have sufficient existing active public parkland to accommodate
existing residents and needs (as well as projected population growth)
b) Where the development would not result in a suitably-sized, shaped or functional park site;
c) Where it is preferable to use the cash-in-lieu to expand existing parks directly serving the area or where the City identifies land in a more appropriate or
accessible location that has been, or is to be, acquired by the City; and/or
d) Where the taking of parkland from the site may reduce the number of dwelling units such that it renders the development or redevelopment unfeasible (note: Bill 23 instituted alternative requirement caps of 10% to 15% to eliminate this possibility).
The City maintains a parkland dedication reserve fund with a balance of approximately
$2.7 million as of the end of 2023. Nearly $6.3 million was added to this account January 2017 and June 2023, with a portion of these funds going to purchase an extension to the waterfront portion of Rotary Frenchman’s Bay Park West. Future amounts will fluctuate from year-to-year subject to how the funds are planned to be
allocated and future levies collected by the City.
The Planning Act now requires municipalities to spend or allocate 60% of monies in parkland reserve funds each year. This provision was recently undated by regulations for Bill 185 (Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024) stipulating that these reports must include details on how the amounts spent addressed the need for parkland
identified within the parks plan. This raises the significance of both short- and long-term
planning for parkland and park assets. Frequent updates to this parks plan and recreation amenity needs assessments should be supported.
- 150 -
132 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Since 2014, about one-half of the parkland cash-in-lieu funds have been used for land acquisition, while one-half has been used to support capital renewal or construction projects within parks. Given the anticipated need to acquire
additional parkland to meet the targets established in this plan, the City is strongly advised to use cash-in-lieu of parkland for acquisition, rather than capital improvements in parks. The priority for acquisition of lands for public parkland should be in proximity to the development (generally within 400 metres).
The funds in this account are accrued through a fee in lieu of parkland dedication that
the City of Pickering charges for development and redevelopment when land is not
required. Municipalities may require independent land appraisals for each development application in order to establish the fee and/or have the option of establishing set fees for various classes of residential dwellings. The City should conduct an assessment of its parkland valuation processes and fees to determine an approach that is equitable,
transparent, consistent, and reflective of current land values. While the use of a per unit
rate may be appropriate for some lower density residential developments in infill situations16, given the variation of land values within intensification areas, a land appraisal approach may be most appropriate for establishing the charge in mixed use areas. Appraisals shall be prepared by an accredited appraiser for approval by the
City’s real estate division, with provisions established for disputes.
Recommendations – Cash-in-lieu Considerations
61. Clearly articulate the criteria that will be used to evaluate the acceptance of cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication.
62. Prioritize spending parkland cash-in-lieu funds on land acquisition, rather than capital improvements in parks.
63. Institute a program to track the annual spending and allocation of cash-in-lieu funds in keeping with Planning Act requirements (at least 60% of monies must be spent or allocated at the beginning of each year) and to evaluate the performance of this Ten Year Plan.
64. Conduct an assessment of cash-in-lieu of parkland valuation processes and fees, with the goal of ensuring that cash-in-lieu of parkland rates are reflective of local market conditions.
16 Note: additional residential units and non-profit housing are exempt from parkland dedication.
- 151 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 133
Open Space Planning
Open space lands and natural areas (e.g., wetlands, valleylands, woodlands, environmentally constrained areas, and a variety of other natural heritage landscapes) –
addressed under Section 3.5 of Pickering’s Official Plan – serve numerous functions:
they protect and conserve natural features; they preserve habitat for various species, including threatened and endangered species; they provide buffers to development (protecting people and property from damage); they provide visual breaks within an otherwise urban/suburban landscape; and they enhance air and water quality. They are
not counted toward parkland dedication requirements.
In Pickering, these lands are in a blend of public and private ownership. Conservation areas, school boards, other government agencies, and private landowners may also own and make lands available for public use from time to time. The City is encouraged to continue working with partners to support community access to parks and open
spaces. The City’s Official Plan recognizes the role of these open spaces in contributing
to opportunities available for the public to experience the outdoors and in supplementing municipal parkland supplies.
Where appropriate, open space lands may be conveyed to the City or other public authority at no cost (gratuitous conveyance). Additional options for the securement of
open space and environmentally significant lands include land exchange, donation/land
trusts, conservation easement/purchase of development rights, leasing, purchase, and partnerships. Conservation easements are particularly useful when protecting open space lands as they allow title to the land to remain in private ownership, but development rights to be restricted based on the specific conservation requirements.
However, not all lands need to be publicly owned in order to be permanently protected.
Environmental policies and practices at the municipal and provincial levels are in place to manage sensitive areas.
Within the context of this plan, a key priority for open space conservation are those lands that provide connections between parks and other public areas to allow for a
continuous parks and open space system, including active transportation opportunities.
Passive maintenance and development of these lands is anticipated, as directed by site-specific management plans (often in partnership with other agencies).
Initiatives that encourage residents to learn more about their parks and protected areas should also be supported. This can be achieved by establishing walking trails within or
surrounding key open space lands (while respecting policies relating to the protection of
sensitive wildlife and natural habitat). Open space lands can also offer tremendous opportunity for experiential learning and cultural interpretation, which in turn can assist with educating the public about the need for active conservation and restoration.
- 152 -
134 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Recommendations – Open Space Planning
65. As opportunities arise, evaluate the potential to secure and/or protect open space lands that are outside the parks system and that provide important connections between parks, trails, and other public areas, having regard to the
Official Plan and partner agency requirements.
- 153 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 135
7.5 Park Design, Maintenance, and Renewal
City of Pickering parks are well maintained and cared for. There is variety of design within the parks system, with different park types performing diverse functions, such as community gatherings, athletics, passive recreation, free play, open space buffers,
environmental appreciation and conservation, civic beautification, and more.
Notable observations include:
• The City regularly inspects its parks and playgrounds, addressing any issues in a prompt fashion.
• The lifecycle condition of park assets is monitored and addressed through capital projects on a priority-basis, although the amount of deferred maintenance (e.g., playground replacement) is growing.
• Many of the City’s parks contain mature trees, providing shade to park users and
contributing to environmental goals such as reducing heat and air pollution.
• Naturalization initiatives are supported by the City’s Sustainability Department. Community education remains important to the successful implementation of this
program.
• Public art is prevalent in destination parks, guided by a robust Public Art policy, procedure, and three-year plan.
• Winter maintenance occurs on park pathways that serve as local routes to
schools.
• Cameras are being added to high use park sites to bolster security.
• Park signage (both informational and regulatory) is extensive and generally
consistent (rollout of the signage program continues as resources allow).
• Support infrastructure – such as benches/picnic tables, washrooms, and off-street parking – varies by site, but is generally compatible with contemporary design and provision practices.
• Off-street parking is less common in newer communities due to smaller park sizes and more compact community development standards.
• The community survey found demand for additional park washrooms, which is a
common request in all communities, but is not typically feasible to provide in all park types.
• The City’s waterfront parks are well supported by the community, with requests for additional improvements that support the unique role of these parks as
destinations for both residents and visitors.
• A large portion of the City’s parkland is owned by outside agencies (e.g., Hydro One, Ontario Power Generation, etc.). Permission is required before the City
alters or invests in these properties (such as through the addition or renewal of
park amenities) and there are limitations on what will be allowed. For example,
- 154 -
136 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
development of lands within Hydro Corridors is restricted and it is becoming increasingly challenging to receive approvals, even for infrastructure replacement. These lands are encumbered and are not typically eligible for
senior government grants, thus they cannot be considered a complete
replacement for municipally-owned parkland.
• Many of the City’s newer parks are built by developers, allowing them to be provided earlier in the community development phase. The City has input into the
designs and retains control over approvals.
• Most of Pickering’s stormwater (SWM) ponds have perimeter fences due to mitigate safety concerns caused by their slopes and pond depths. Some municipalities have adopted landscape design guidelines (e.g., strategic planting
of thorn bearing trees and shrubs) that serve as effective barriers in place of fencing (where supported by SWM engineering standards), making the environment more appealing for walking and passive recreation around the perimeter.
The public consultation program and the evolution of the City’s parks system support a
continued broadening of the range of recreation opportunities within local parks. Although new parkland will be required to serve future residents, the focus should be on making the best use of existing park sites, keeping parks relevant considering changing demographics, and improving connectivity and accessibility. Examples include (but are not limited to): adding new elements such as pavilions, unique play experiences, sport
courts, and community gardens; piloting outdoor programming and educational initiatives; and expanding operational practices such as naturalization.
Designing and improving parks requires a strong understanding of community needs, contemporary design practices, operational requirements, and programmatic considerations. These elements require adequate forethought in the planning of the
park parcel itself, well in advance of conveyance and detailed design. Designing spaces to be multi-use or flexible – including spaces that are inclusive, open, and affordable for casual use – helps the City to adapt to shifting needs over time.
The following are best practices that the City of Pickering may use as guidelines in designing or redeveloping parks. Many of these are reflected in recent park designs, but
not formalized in writing.
a) incorporating a blend of active and passive spaces (multi-use) and amenities for people of all ages and backgrounds (multi-generational);
b) following accessibility legislation (AODA) and guidelines to accommodate persons with disabilities;
c) applying Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles for enhanced safety and security;
d) considering the needs of a diverse and aging population through washrooms and access to potable water, seating, shade (trees, shelters, shade sails, etc.),
- 155 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 137
pathways, picnic areas and pavilions, and bicycle racks (note: some amenities may not be appropriate for all park types);
e) enhancing connections to nature and preserving and emphasizing cultural and
heritage environments, including interpretive content;
f) considering four-season programming and applying design principles to encourage usage throughout the year;
g) promoting designs that encourage sustainable maintenance practices and climate resilience;
h) incorporating native and drought resistant vegetative features that are biologically
robust and increase the amount of park space that is dedicated to naturalized, bio-diverse pollinator areas;
i) designing parks adjacent to schools to withstand higher use and sustain healthy turf in order to withstand higher use (e.g., in-field drainage, irrigation, soil
specifications that lessen compaction and increase drainage, soil treatments that
stimulate plant growth, etc.);
j) recognizing, consulting with, and considering the needs of Indigenous Peoples in park design and programming;
k) utilizing materials that are robust, durable, and mindful of future maintenance
requirements;
l) applying consistent signage and information about park contents, accessibility, etc.;
m) seeking innovative and engaging initiatives that encourage naturalization and environmental stewardship, including opportunities for public education and
access;
n) encouraging public art and spaces for cultural expression; and,
o) promoting active transportation connections and a linked open space system.
With many of Pickering’s parks in latter stages of their life span, improvements and enhancements are necessary to address asset lifecycle requirements and to respond to
changing needs. Common triggers for park redevelopment include state of good repair
requirements (aging amenities), under-utilized and/or redundant facilities, emerging needs, partnership opportunities, nearby residential growth and increased demand for programable space, coordinated civic works projects, and more – usually multiple factors play into the decision to launch a major capital project. The possibilities for
parkland renewal are limitless, but typically include new and upgraded amenities and
accessibility enhancements.
Park renewal and development projects should be accompanied by public and stakeholder input, park-specific design plans, and business planning to obtain accurate costing associated with any capital works. Once a park is identified as a candidate for
redevelopment, the City develops a detailed park design plan with input from the
community and stakeholders. Concept plans are developed, with consideration of
- 156 -
138 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
phasing and impact on existing uses. Funding is then sought through the long-term capital budget and sometimes supplemented from other sources (e.g., grants, partners, etc.). This process can take several years and is often reflective of site-specific
circumstances and the availability of funding.
In recent years, the City has prepared park design plans for several sites such as:
• Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park – capital works completed in 2023
• Beachfront Park – capital works schedule to begin in 2024
• Claremont Memorial Park – phase one is complete (improvements to ball diamond, etc.) with phase two (improvements to outdoor rink and playground, and possibly a new skate spot) currently unfunded
• Hydro Corridor Park (north of Kingston) – draft design prepared (includes new skateboard park, community gardens, off-leash dog area, one senior and one junior soccer field, and off-street parking); development requires approval from Hydro One
• Seaton Parks – several park concepts (e.g., Dave Ryan Community Park, etc.) have been prepared or are in progress as this new community is developed
In the near term, park-specific planning is anticipated to begin for:
• Maple Ridge Park – site is adjacent to school with aging park amenities; potential
to convert under-used ball diamond to alternative uses
• Greenwood Community Park – the new Pickering Heritage & Community Centre will replace the aging Greenwood Community Centre, presenting an opportunity
rethink this park and its ability to complement programming at the adjacent
Pickering Museum Village
Partnership and growth opportunities may also necessitate the need for site-specific planning for other key park properties across Pickering. For example, the City is working with TRCA to examine the potential to introduce new activities and programming at the
Petticoat Creek Conservation Park. Additionally, sites in proximity to high density mixed
use centres (e.g., Ernie L. Stoud Park, Beechlawn Park, etc.) may also have the ability to serve a greater range of needs through improvements or partial redevelopment.
Recommendations – Park Design, Maintenance, and Renewal
66. Continue to maintain a commitment to universal accessibility, safety, and comfort within the City’s parks and trails system by:
a. Regularly consulting with the City’s Accessibility Advisory Committee and
ensuring compliance with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), recognizing that some parks and trails may include areas of natural terrain that are more difficult to access.
- 157 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 139
Recommendations – Park Design, Maintenance, and Renewal
b. Emphasizing the provision of amenities such as washrooms, benches/seating areas, bike racks, and shade (structures, tree canopy,
etc.) in appropriate park types to address the needs of all age groups.
c. Engaging qualified personnel to undertake a review of all parks and trails using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles to identify safety concerns relative to access, sightlines, etc.
67. Continue to provide a balance of active and passive spaces within the parks
system to support all-season recreation and sports, casual use and unstructured play, special events, and cultural activities.
68. Continue to support outdoor education, stewardship, and climate change mitigation initiatives through the open space system, such as tree plantings, naturalization efforts, community gardens, butterfly/pollinator parks, and adopt-a-
park/trail programs, in conjunction with community partners.
69. Continue to initiate park redevelopment projects at key sites requiring renewal and evaluate park sites within or adjacent to high density mixed use areas for longer-term redevelopment. Park redevelopment projects should be identified in the City’s long-term capital plan and include additional public and stakeholder
consultation.
7.6 Recreational Trails
With the Lake Ontario waterfront, Rouge River, Duffins Creek, and notable naturalized lands in north Pickering, the city boasts an impressive trails system that offers access to
local lands as well as trails systems in adjacent communities.
The City of Pickering owns and/or maintains over 40 kilometres of recreational trails – several of which are connected – including Waterfront Trail and West Duffins Trail. The Trans Canada Trail generally follows the Waterfront Trail (including some on-road segments) and portions of the Duffins Creek Trail, extending north through Greenwood
(Pickering Museum Village) into Uxbridge. Additionally, A volunteer group coordinates maintenance of the Seaton Trail and the Rouge National Urban Park maintains a significant trails system along the city’s western edge, with connections in the south and the north. Many local parks also offer internal trail systems, such as Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park, Grand Valley Park, Diana, Princess of Wales Park, and
properties managed by TRCA.
The City has made significant recent improvements along the Waterfront Trail, with more improvements planned for the short-term. There are also plans to expand the trail
- 158 -
140 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
system to create a more comprehensive network, such as through connected trails system in Seaton and region-wide initiatives like the Durham Meadoway17.
The trails are complemented by an extensive sidewalk network, cycling routes, and park
pathways that connect users to a variety of destinations within the city. For on-road
active transportation routes, reference should be made to the Integrated Transportation Master Plan (ITMP, 2021), which is Pickering’s long-term, strategic planning document that directs transportation policies, programs, and infrastructure.
Recreational trails are one of the most highly desirable amenities in any community.
They facilitate low-cost outdoor physical activity opportunities and can be used by
residents of all ages. The demand for trails has been growing in response to an aging but more active population, as well as outdoor recreation trends that began during the pandemic.
Research completed by Trans Canada Trail indicates that 72% of Canadian use trails,
with 89% stating that trails add value to the quality of life in their community.
Furthermore, 69% of Canadians say that easy access to trails and outdoor activities have an impact on where they choose to live.18 During the COVID-19 pandemic, communities across the Province experienced a strong increase in trail usage, highlighting the importance of providing a connected trail network that connects
residents within the city.
Trails also have an environmental benefit as they alleviate road congestion and minimize vehicular emissions, land consumption, and costs for road construction and maintenance. Active transportation can heighten community and social vibrancy by encouraging compact developments and more livable communities where individuals
are more likely to have personal contact with one another.
The popularity of recreational trails in Pickering was demonstrated throughout the consultation process as 52% of households responding to the community survey indicated that they use trails (while 27% reported cycling on trails), which ranked 2nd out of 41 listed activities. Four-fifths (79%) indicated they support the City spending
additional funds to provide more trails (off-road) in Pickering, which ranked 4th out of 36 facility types. Suggestions were received for more trail connections, improved trails (e.g., Seaton Trail, connections to Rouge National Urban Park), lighting, trash cans, and the introduction of programming. Safety and comfort are important components of a successful trail system, including natural landscaping, signage, shade, benches, rest
areas and parking.
17 The Durham Meadoway is a proposed pedestrian and cycling route and linear park that will connect
people to destinations across more than 27 kilometres of Durham Region. In addition to providing a significant east-west recreational facility and active transportation spine, the Durham Meadoway also has
the potential to become a multi-faceted space for people that includes ecological enhancements, public art and community amenities.
18 National Léger Survey Reveals Canadians’ Trail Use on the Rise in 2023. Trans Canada Trail, April 16, 2023. https://tctrail.ca/news/national-leger-survey-reveals-canadians-trail-use-on-the-rise-in-2023/
- 159 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 141
The key to developing an effective trail network is to create a connected system of routes that are safe, accessible, and conveniently link users to key destinations (e.g., parks, recreation facilities, schools, commercial areas, waterfront areas, regional trail
networks, etc.).
The opportunities for enhancing trail connectivity in Pickering are primarily through: (1) new community area development (e.g., Seaton, Northeast Pickering); (2) regional trail networks that connect to adjacent municipalities; and (3) new trail development along existing corridors (e.g., Meadoway). The latter will require collaboration with other public
agencies and landowners, but represents an important long-term opportunity for the City
and its residents. In terms of Northeast Pickering, trail connectivity with the open space system and adjacent neighbourhoods (e.g., Seaton, Ajax) will be important to optimizing access for future residents.
In relation to trails, the 2021 ITMP recommended:
• Completing a multi-use trail design and safety audit to identify recommended upgrades to existing multi-use trails to enhance safety for both cyclists and pedestrians;
• undertaking an active transportation wayfinding study and pilot project, focused on key trails and cycling corridors; and
• preparing a cycling and trails amenities plan to identify existing and future locations for amenities within the public right-of-way along major active
transportation corridors.
In 2019, TRCA developed a Trail Strategy for the Greater Toronto Region. Key strategies include working with partners to complete, expand, manage, and celebrate the Greater Toronto Region Trail Network, and developing a connected trail network within the regional greenspace system. The Strategy serves as a framework to protect
potential trail alignments and to guide the planning, development, and management of
these trails.
In addition to its several strategic objectives and initiatives for the region’s trail system, the Strategy acknowledges the City of Pickering as one of several municipal governments who collaborated with the federal and provincial governments to form
Rouge National Urban Park, the largest urban wilderness park in North America. The
Park’s historic Seaton Trail and the active transportation corridor of the Meadoway (an ongoing initiative with the Region and area municipalities) provide linkages to Pickering and its growing Seaton community. The Strategy also recognizes that growing and new communities in Pickering hold exciting prospects to acquire east-west greenway
corridors that would link the Rouge River and Duffins Creek systems to the Oak Ridges
Moraine.
- 160 -
142 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Figure 16: TRCA Trails Strategy (2019), North East Concept Plan
Recommendations – Recreational Trails
70. Continue to expand and connect the recreational trail network. This includes planning trails within new community areas and working with partners to leverage public sites (such as utility rights-of-ways and other linear corridors) for trail use as
appropriate. Improvements to the on-road cycling network should be guided by the
City’s Integrated Transportation Master Plan.
71. Continue to enhance the trail network by installing and maintaining safety and comfort features – such as lighting, signage, seating, etc. – in appropriate locations and addressing the recommendations for a multi-use trail design and
safety audit, wayfinding study and pilot project, and trails amenities plan within the
City’s Integrated Transportation Master Plan.
- 161 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 143
- 162 -
144 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
8. Recreation Service Delivery
8.1 Overview
The City of Pickering believes there is a significant return on investment in parks, recreation, and culture. Some benefits include active and engaged residents, positive
health and social outcomes, as well as pride and cohesion within the community. These
benefits inspire staff and community providers to deliver high quality, enjoyable, and safe opportunities for residents and visitors. Furthermore, continued efforts are being made to ensure that under-represented populations are being welcomed and included, in turn providing a full range of opportunities and equitable participation across
Pickering.
Efforts focus on increasing participation and improving service delivery to provide accessible, local, and enjoyable opportunities. The City has a strong commitment to the residents to promote City-wide opportunities, provide support to not-for-profit groups and coordinate a wide range of services through partnerships, and third-party providers.
The City of Pickering’s recreation delivery system has been strengthened over the years
through approaches that allow for adaptability to changing conditions, including an increasing number of additional residents, older adults, and newcomers to Canada. This includes volunteer efforts that offer expanded programs, increased capacity for events, and community engagement.
Pickering residents have come to enjoy a recreation delivery system that emphasizes:
• A wide range of choices for all residents delivered by the City and other providers, including leisure opportunities, sports, creative arts, STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics), general interest programs, etc.
• Quality assurance, safety, and legislative compliance in the delivery of service, regardless of who is providing the program or service.
• Collaboration with all providers to identify gaps in service, with the City directly
addressing gaps where there is no suitable community provider.
• Priority allocation and support to eligible not-for-profit volunteer groups, especially those activities serving children and youth. Volunteerism is recognized as the backbone of the sport and recreation delivery system.
• Intentional efforts to include under-represented communities and/or individuals through policy and intentional actions.
• A range of service price points, including free universal opportunities, low-cost opportunities, and enhanced service levels to best include all residents.
• Accountability to the public by open reporting on the number of residents participating, satisfaction levels, and efforts to improve service delivery.
- 163 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 145
This recreation service delivery review takes into consideration relevant trends, promising practices, the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, participation and utilization data, corporate and departmental initiatives, and input from the public, staff, and
Council. Specifically, the review includes direction on the service improvements
highlighted below.
Table 35: Suggested Focus for the Future of Recreation Services
Focus Objectives
Sustaining Service Delivery • Supporting recreation staff in leadership development
• Supporting volunteerism and assisting community groups
• Encouraging community development and partnerships
Expanding Programs and Services in a Growing Community
• Sustaining the Swim to Survive program
• Planning for aquatic, fitness, and recreation programs
• Quality assurance in the delivery of services
• Fill rate targets for programs and services
• Promoting physical activity
• Working inter-municipally in the allocation of facilities
Increasing Participation
of Diverse and Under-represented Residents
• Revising the Access to Recreation Policy
• Addressing gender equity in sport and recreation
• Creating an equity lens toolkit
• Providing safe and welcoming public spaces
Supporting a High-Performing Staff Team • Confirming levels of service
• Developing a ten-year staffing plan
• Supporting staff training and development
• Setting performance targets and measures
8.2 Sustaining Service Delivery
Sustaining the current quality of recreation services within Pickering will take some preparatory thoughts and actions for the future. Residents have come to expect a
variety of quality services and programs that meet the needs of all age groups. To be
prepared for increased participation due to growth and growing participation rates, staff will need to focus on increasing the number of part-time staff members, assisting community groups to attract and retain volunteers, fostering partnerships, and building capacity within the community (community development).
Supporting Part-Time Recreation Staff and Leadership Development
Some of the challenging post-pandemic aspects in delivering programs and services has been keeping pace with the need for part-time staff to deliver services. For example, aquatics requires specific certifications to teach and lifeguard. These certifications require years of training and were disrupted during this time. Leadership
- 164 -
146 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
courses for camp counsellors in training were also lessened and, therefore, the capacity to deliver on current participant needs cannot always be met.
The City of Pickering recognized these challenges and has developed plans to increase
leadership training opportunities and offering some training at a reduced or no cost. This
momentum will need to be maintained for the next few years as the population increases and more program leaders are needed. There have been some innovative approaches that have been taken place throughout Ontario that are also suggested for Pickering. Examples include targeting leadership training in neighbourhoods where
program opportunities are lacking, as well as working with school boards to promote
and support leadership training opportunities.
Supporting Volunteerism and Assisting Community Groups
A recent study19 found that 79% of Canadians over the age of 15 years volunteered in 2018 (prior to the pandemic). In 2022, 55% of Canadian not-for-profits and charities
identified a reduction in the number of volunteers. Many of Pickering’s community
groups echoed this observation, with several sport and recreation organizations experiencing difficulty in attracting and retaining volunteers.
This research study also identified that women from the Baby Boomer and millennial generations tend to volunteer at a greater rate than men, as do Canadians with higher
educational backgrounds. The “I-generation” (Internet-Generation born after 1996)
volunteer at a greater rate than most age cohorts, likely due to a secondary school graduation requirement.
The ability to recruit, train, supervise, retain, and recognize volunteers is an ongoing requirement for the success of all not-for-profit community stakeholder groups.
Operations depend on having a volunteer corps and local groups indicated that they are
currently having difficulty attracting and retaining volunteers. Pickering – through its role in assisting community groups in the delivery of their recreation and sports services – could play a vital role in promoting all volunteer postings, along with their volunteer opportunities. The City of Richmond Hill has had a system in place for many years and
has increased its volunteerism as a result.20 Other municipalities are also providing benefits for volunteers such as free or subsidized access to public swim and skate opportunities.
19 Made in Canada. Volunteer Work Statistics in Canada. 2024. https://madeinca.ca/volunteer-work-
statistics-canada/
20 The City of Richmond Hill publishes a list of all community sport, recreation, and cultural groups and
encourages potential volunteers to contact the groups directly. Not-for-profit community groups are encouraged to list volunteer opportunities and the City will post them on their volunteer site. Richmond Hill will also provide training to community groups on volunteer recruitment and retention. These efforts have assisted community groups in maintaining sustainable operations.
- 165 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 147
Encouraging Community Development and Partnerships
Community development is an approach to increase the capacity of programs and services whereby the municipality provides support to community groups that offer
aligned services. In an ideal scenario, all parties work to identify needs and groups are
established and supported in numerous ways depending on needs. A menu of supports offered by the municipality typically includes:
a) Identifying community needs;
b) Finding and allocating appropriate spaces;
c) Coordinating joint promotions and communications;
d) Sharing grant and funding opportunities;
e) Offering municipal grants to assist with start-ups and special projects;
f) Information sharing regarding legislative compliance, industry standards, quality assurance models, etc.;
g) Sharing and/or supporting virtual training content (access and equity training,
legislative compliance, quality assurance models, etc.);
h) Assisting with volunteer recruitment and retention; and
i) Providing governance assistance where needed.
The City of Pickering helps community groups on an ongoing basis and regularly
communicates to share upcoming events and facility allocation procedures. No staff are
explicitly dedicated to this function, but program and facility staff undertake these communications annually or on an as-needed basis. It is recommended that the Community Services Department study the potential to advance a community development model in order to increase the capacity of the entire recreation system.
Most recreation departments in Ontario have a focused goal to provide meaningful
programs and services to all residents cost-efficiently. These programs and services enhance user experiences and create a sense of accomplishment through skill development. There are often opportunities to work with other service providers and third parties to broaden choices and the number of services offered.
In terms of more formal types of collaboration, the City of Pickering has historically
collaborated with community partners to reduce duplication, share costs and physical assets, and maximize efforts to expand programs and services. For example, the City works with school boards to gain access to selected school gymnasiums and spaces to offer after-school programing to youth. The City has also invested in artificial turf fields
and all-weather track facilities at local schools in order to maximize the benefit of these
assets for the community. Seeking out partners can serve to share resources and reduce duplication.
In a growing community, the use of partnerships becomes more important as the demand for programs and services increases. The City should proactively seek
- 166 -
148 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
partnerships and determine when best to directly provide services or seek out an aligned partner organization to assist. Given the degree of pent-up demand for children’s summer camps, this may be an area that could benefit from the application of
a decision-making framework.
A general rule embraced by many municipalities is to provide core services internally and specialized services through third-party provision, particularly where the municipality lacks the expertise and/or resources. A key deciding factor is whether a financial gain (through cost avoidance or revenue enhancement) can be realized
without unduly affecting quality assurance, customer satisfaction, and legislative
compliance.
Table 36: Considerations for Third-party Program and Service Providers
Scenario Conditions
Continue to Provide Programs and Services Directly
1. The program or service is considered core to the Department, such as learn to swim lessons to prevent water incidents or older adult services where a relationship is critical to the success of the program and service.
2. The program meets a sustainable resourcing need such as youth leadership development to enable future skilled staffing in program and service delivery.
3. The program development and delivery meet strong priorities and
require municipal-centric coordination, such as better serving under-represented populations.
Consider Seeking a Third-party Provider
1. The program is specific to a unique population that would be most appropriately provided by a community partner where the expertise lies.
2. The program or service requires specialized knowledge, resources, and/or equipment that is not considered part of the municipality’s
introductory and developmental approach to program provision.
3. The program or service meets a required need of the residents and cost-sharing of space, and the partnership provides cost efficiency to both parties.
- 167 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 149
Scenario Conditions
Seeking Out & Implementing Strong Partnerships:
(see also Appendix F: Types of Partnerships and
Approaches to Evaluation)
1. There is an identified need for the service.
2. The terms and conditions are clear as to what service needs to be provided and when and how the service provider will intersect with the municipal staff.
3. There are labour conditions that allow open procurement of the service.
4. A comparison is developed as to which provider will deliver the
service most effectively – the municipality or the other provider(s).
5. A thorough investigation of past performance in partnership with other municipalities is undertaken.
6. The merits outweigh the current service delivery model. Public engagement is sought where appropriate.
7. A contract is developed with the successful third-party provider complete with detailed performance expectations, legislative compliance, quality assurance, levels of service, targets, and
performance.
A regularly scheduled evaluation of the third-party arrangements and other performance
metrics (e.g., participant satisfaction levels) is an essential element in continually providing quality programs and services through partnerships.
Recommendations – Sustaining Service Delivery
72. Provide targeted leadership courses in aquatics, programs, and camps until appropriate staffing levels are achieved. Reach out to area school boards to assist in this endeavour.
73. Establish strategies to assist not-for-profit community groups in the recruitment, training, and retention of volunteers to support community-led recreation and sport programming.
74. Create objectives and strategies to enhance community capacity and increase access to recreation and parks services for residents through an expanded community development model.
75. Regularly review agreements with partners to ensure an appropriate and sustainable distribution of operational and financial responsibilities.
76. Identify opportunities to enhance and grow community partnerships that increase the range of recreation, parks, sport, and community opportunities in
support of future population growth.
- 168 -
150 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
8.3 Expanding Programs and Services in a Growing Community
The City’s recent focus has been on recovering from the lower program, service, and staffing levels experienced during the pandemic. Staffing shortages in some areas have created challenges in offering a robust range of choices for all age groups. As a result,
the City has made targeted changes to schedules to ensure the efficient use of staff and
resources.
The following table illustrates a comparison of pre-pandemic (2019) and post-pandemic (2023) data for selected registered and drop-in opportunities.
Registration Levels of Selected Recreation Programs and Services 2019 and 2023
Year 2019 2019 2023 2023
Program Type Registration Fill Rate Registration Fill Rate
Recreation Programs:
Summer Camps 3,031 88% 3,168 97%
March Break 208 65% 250 99%
Active Programs 1,734 49% 2,138 74%
Creative 248 61% 370 77%
General Interest 1,613 43% 2,212 49%
Total - Recreation 6,834 60% 8,138 71%
Drop-in Activities:
Fitness Classes 774 65% 671 78%
Health Club 593 119% 776 182%
Youth 6,347 59% 5,041 46%
Older Adult N/A N/A 425 49%
Rouge Hill SC 110 55% 73 36%
South Pickering Seniors Club 784 52% 755 50%
Pickering Lawn Bowling 163 81% 145 72%
Total – Drop-in 8,608 61% 7,741 52%
Aquatics Programs:
Pre-School 3,177 93% 2,938 93%
Children 3,827 85% 4,515 89%
Youth 505 79% 354 79%
Adult 1,414 93% 742 93%
Total – Aquatics 8,923 89% 8,549 90%
Family/Public Swim 68,981 31% 77,890 42%
Source: City of Pickering, 2024
- 169 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 151
Overall, 2023 participation levels in registered programs have surpassed 2019 (pre-pandemic) levels by 19%. Camps have recovered to the pre-pandemic levels and have a high fill rate of 97% (percent of registrants as compared to the capacity); a high fill rate
would indicate that there is a waitlist for summer camps.
Participation in drop-in aquatic programs has increased by 11% since 2019, supporting a national trend in the popularity of casual use of facilities. The Health Club is particularly oversubscribed. Staff monitor the number of active members to ensure that there is not overcrowding of changerooms and fitness spaces during peak hours.
Sustaining the Swim to Survive Program
According to the Lifesaving Society (Ontario Branch), there was one fatal drowning for every four non-fatal drownings in 2023. There are typically 150 fatal drownings in Ontario each year; most occur in open water and are preventable. Children and youth under 20 years of age make up the highest number of emergency visits due to non-fatal
drownings, with males accounting for two-thirds of non-fatal drownings.
The most important preventative measure for drowning centres on education and learning to survive in and around water. The Lifesaving Society (Ontario Branch) oversees the Swim to Survive program along with grant funding to assist municipalities. Often the program is offered through the schools and some municipalities offer family-
oriented opportunities. Pickering has traditionally offered the Swim to Survive Program
but has recently declined due to the lack of sustainable funding. This program is critical in a diverse community that has its southern boundary as Lake Ontario. Going forward, it is important that the City play its part in drowning prevention by seeking out sustainable funding sources for this program, including sponsorships and/or tax-based
funding if necessary.
Planning for Aquatic, Fitness, and Programs
With anticipated population growth, the City should begin to plan for future program and service requirements in programs, aquatics, and fitness, all of which will be substantially expanded through the new Seaton Recreation Complex & Library. By identifying current
penetration rate (the number of unique clients in programs and services), the City can
establish a baseline figure of participants to measure against. Data should also indicate how many programs and services each unique client participates in each year. With this information, the City can anticipate future program and service needs within neighbourhoods and service areas and plan accordingly. Development of a program
plan will allow staff to recruit and train leaders, and anticipate budget and resourcing
requirements.
Quality Assurance in the Delivery of Services
The City of Pickering embraces industry standards and quality assurance programs in the delivery of programs and services. Programs that have been utilized to varying
degrees include HIGH FIVE in supporting children’s development in recreation, Youth
Friendly Communities (although the criteria are currently under review), and Active
- 170 -
152 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Aging through Parks and Recreation Ontario. Further, the Aquatic Safety Management Program is a worthwhile undertaking in ensuring that aquatic policies and operations meet the highest standard. These quality assurance tools should continue to be utilized
to ensure that the quality of recreation services is maintained and can be regularly
audited for improvements.
Fill Rate Targets for Programs and Services
Municipal recreation service providers are especially cognisant of maximizing the use of public spaces for appropriate purposes and ensuring that programs and services are
filled to near capacity. This work involves scheduling programs during times that each
age group can participate.
A common goal is to fill program spaces to 85% of capacity, which helps to ensure that programs remain financially sustainable. Admittedly, ensuring that a public swimming pool is used to capacity during a public swim makes swimming less enjoyable, thus the
capacity of program spaces should be designed to accommodate the respective activity.
An 85% fill rate in programs is appropriate and should be a benchmark for the department going forward.
Promoting Physical Activity
Canada’s Physical Activity Report produced by ParticipACTION continues to identify
Canadians as receiving a failing grade to sustain adequate health outcomes through
physical activity.
Canada’s 24-Hour Movement Guidelines have replaced Canada’s Physical Activity Guidelines. These guidelines were introduced in 2020 and depict the amount of time various age groups should “Sweat, Step, Sleep and Sit” in a 24-hour period. This is
viewed as more a helpful tool for Canadians as the new guidelines speak to the amount
of recreational screen time that is appropriate from a health perspective each day. The table below highlights daily movement guidelines for children and youth between the ages of 5 and 17. Posting these movement guidelines for each age group in appropriate community spaces will continue to remind residents to become more active and limit
sedentary behaviours.
Table 37: Canada's 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Children and Youth
Activity Time per Day
Sweat 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity
Step Several hours of moderate physical activity
Sleep 9 to 11 hours for 5 to 13-year-olds
Sit 8 to 10 hours for 14 to 17-year-olds
Source: Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology (csepguidelines.ca)
- 171 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 153
Working Inter-Municipally in the Allocation of Facilities
Many facilities and organizations in Pickering attract participants from outside the community, particularly the neighbouring town of Ajax which forms part of many regional
West Durham Region sport alliances. As a result, many groups rent fields and facilities
in both jurisdictions; this was a key finding of the City of Pickering 2024 Arena Strategy. Coordination is necessary to ensure that groups are afforded equitable and appropriate access and that municipal facilities are maximized. To this end, it is important that allocation formulas are similar and based on standard guiding principles, allowing
eligible groups to expand their services without being unduly impacted by historical
allocations; this concern was expressed by multiple groups during the consultation for this plan.
Recommendations – Expanding Programs and Services in a Growing Community
77. Seek sponsorships and sustainable funding to reintroduce the Swim to Survive
program for students and families (once staffing shortages are addressed). Place
additional emphasis on the need for children and families to be safe in and around water.
78. Develop an Aquatic, Fitness and Program Strategy that reflects current and future programming needs to identify the scope of future program needs and to
maximize community resources.
79. Implement quality assurance programs in the delivery of service in recreation to reflect the quality and safe programming for all age groups. Some examples include: HIGH FIVE (Principles of Healthy Child Development and Active Aging), Youth Friendly Communities, Lifesaving Society Aquatic Safety Management
program, etc.
80. Work to achieve an 85% fill rate in all recreation services and programs (calculated as participation divided by capacity).
81. Promote Canada’s 24-Hour Movement Guidelines to encourage greater physical activity levels (frequency, intensity, and duration) in Pickering residents.
82. Work with the Town of Ajax to develop common principles in the allocation of community facilities that are commonly used by organizations that operate across the West Durham area.
- 172 -
154 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
8.4 Increasing Participation of Diverse and Under-represented Residents
Confirming which populations are equity-deserving in Pickering is the first step in building an effective outreach initiative. The following table identifies key populations that are traditionally under-represented in recreational activities based on Statistics Canada and other leading research.
Table 38: Estimates of Equity-Deserving Groups in Pickering
Diverse Population Group
Percentage of Pickering’s Population
Approximate Population (out of 103,000)
2SLGBTQ+** 4% (estimated*) 4,800
Indigenous Identity 1% 1,400
Visible Minorities - Racialized Populations 44% 45,300
Girls and Women 51% 52,500
Persons Experiencing Low Income (Lower Income measure – After Tax) 5% 5,500
Persons with Disabilities 15 to 22% (estimated*) 15,500 to 22,700
*Estimates based on Statistics Canada data, various sources **Two-Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and additional people who
identify as part of sexual and gender diverse communities
The most important principle in developing meaningful programs and services in a
diverse community is to engage the people who may be participating. Practitioners cannot assume that they know what activity preferences exists nor current barriers for any equity-deserving population. The identification of equity-deserving populations allows the City to inventory and assess outreach and inclusionary policies and practices
that are in place and that many be missing. Outreach to these populations is critical in
enabling greater representation in recreation and sport activities.
Revising the Access to Recreation Policy
The Access to Recreation Policy in Pickering allows people experiencing low income to receive subsidies to participate in a program of their choice. Participants qualify by
being on income support through the government or living at the Lower Income Cut-off This policy provided over 600 Pickering residents with subsidized recreation in 2022. Pickering also provides many free and low-cost opportunities for residents to be active regardless of their income level. During an undertaking to develop a fair-minded use fee policy, residents receiving subsidies provided feedback as to how this policy might
improve, including suggestions for providing free programs close to where residents
- 173 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 155
live, ensuring sustainable funding levels, and ensuring equity throughout the subsidy application process.
Addressing Gender Equity in Sport and Recreation
Over 90% of girls and women believe that sport benefits their physical and mental
health, but less than 50% continue to participate once they have reached puberty21. The Federal government has declared that Canada will achieve gender equity in sport by 203522.
Canadian Women & Sport (CWS, a non-governmental organization) supports and
enables girls, women, and gender diverse people in pursuing sport and active lifestyles,
and keeps women actively engaged in building community capacity. CWS’ priority and focus is to develop and support welcoming environments and sustainable models where women are trained to lead and promote active opportunities in concert with community partners such as municipalities, universities, and not-for-profit organizations. They have
many resources that are readily available to audit policies and practices and help to
build capacity within community organizations (e.g., Gender Equity Temperature Check, Game On, etc.).
Female participation in community-driven sport and recreation should be identified as a priority in Pickering as it has the potential to engage one-half of the population and
include equity-deserving populations. Female and gender diverse participation in sport
and recreation warrants assessment and the development of a multi-year plan where inequities exist.
Pickering’s Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Strategy
The City of Pickering has developed its own Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI)
Strategy. Key advances are anticipated in education and awareness, structure and
resources, community engagement, integration into policies and practices, and measurement. Specific initiatives that are relevant to the delivery of recreation and parks include:
a) embedding the principles of EDI into the organizational culture;
b) ensuring that there is diverse representation at all levels of staff and within the
volunteer core; c) training on the EDI Strategy and the development of a training curriculum for full-time staff, part-time staff, and volunteers; d) developing a practical guide/handbook for staff to provide services with an equity
lens (see next subsection on creating and equity lens toolkit), including terms that
are acceptable;
21 Canadian Women & Sport and Canadian Tire Jumpstart Charities. Rally Report. 2022.
https://womenandsport.ca/rally-report-2022
22 Government of Canada. The Government of Canada Is Taking Concrete Steps to Achieve Gender Equity in All Levels of Sport. https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/news/2019/03/the-government-of-canada-is-taking-concrete-steps-to-achieve-gender-equity-in-all-levels-of-sport.html
- 174 -
156 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
e) creating dedicated spaces for prayer in community facilities; f) developing performance metrics to assist in evidenced-based decision-making surrounding EDI;
g) reviewing all policies, operating manuals, and standard operating procedures
with an EDI lens.
Creating an Equity Lens Toolkit
During the staff engagement in developing this plan, participants felt strongly that staffing and program offerings must reflect the diverse needs of the community. It was
indicated that many efforts have been made to discuss needs with diverse populations.
Modifications have been assessed and evaluated with participant's input and this process will continue to continually embrace service excellence. Staff identified the need for a toolkit to enable proactive action at the local level.
The municipalities of Oshawa, Oakville, and Brampton are examples of recreation
departments that have adopted and refined resources to assist staff and volunteers
provide equitable and inclusive programs and services. It is anticipated that Pickering’s Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Plan will set about to achieve developing equity and inclusion tools and a lens for staff and volunteers. The aforementioned communities have adopted Equity and Inclusion Lens Guidelines, the concept for which was
originally developed through the Non-Profit Association of Oregon. The goal of the
guidelines is to ensure that staff and volunteers are aware of promising practices and can act with the right tools and thought processes.
The guidelines prompt staff to:
• Consider their own diversity;
• Check their assumptions;
• Ask about inclusion;
• Apply this knowledge to their own work; and
• Be a change agent by taking action.
The Equity and Inclusion Lens Guidelines provide checklists as staff undertake planning
and policy work, plan projects, strengthen communications, and recruit and lead staff. This resource would be an excellent starting point for Pickering to develop a toolkit that meets the needs of staff and residents.
One area where this lens can be applied is through recognition of Indigenous Peoples and their stories. Several recent national-level reports speak to the role that Canadians
have in reconciling with Indigenous Peoples over our shared history. All communities have a role to play in recognizing the land that Indigenous Peoples previously lived on and in being inclusive of this population. In turn, many recreation, parks, and culture organizations are emphasizing the role of Indigenous Peoples through education, arts, sports, parks amenities and interpretation. Meaningful local supports can only be
determined through open discussions with local Indigenous Peoples and organizations.
- 175 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 157
Some resources that can be utilized at the local level to ensure that staff and volunteers are including the voice of Indigenous Peoples include:
• Aboriginal Sport Circle: The Aboriginal Sport Circle is a not-for-profit organization
that is designated as Canada's governing body and voice for Aboriginal sport throughout the country. Each Province and Territory is represented and is an excellent resource for recreation providers. It advocates for the Aboriginal community to engage in healthy and active lifestyles. The Regional Coordinators
in Ontario work to better engage the community and offer grants to fund
programs and activities through the Power to Play Program.
• IndigenACTION: The Assembly of First Nations is a national organization representing First Nations peoples in Canada. The group has developed an
IndigenACTION Strategy which serves to develop partnerships with community level sport and recreation leaders to ensure that First Nations youth can live healthier lifestyles and overall well-being through recreation and sport.
Providing Safe and Welcoming Public Spaces
The Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants developed the Positive Spaces
Initiative through Citizen and Immigration Canada to denote public spaces that are safe for and welcoming to the 2SLGBTQ+ community. Signage including the Pride flag in the graphic denotes that the space is positive for this population.
Recommendations – Increasing Participation of Diverse and Under-represented Residents
83. Refine and expand the Access to Recreation Policy to include stabilized funding
based on need, equity in the registration process, and other findings based on
input from recipients.
84. Conduct an audit of municipally-supported recreation and sport opportunities available to all genders and work to increase participation by girls, women, and persons identifying as female or gender diverse.
85. Consider the recommendations of the City’s Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Strategy through the implementation of recreation and parks services including those related to key principles, representation, training, space design, guide/handbook, and performance metrics.
86. Develop a Community Engagement Plan to welcome and involve all residents in
recreation and parks opportunities.
87. Work with the Aboriginal Sport Circle and IndigenACTION to discuss ways of collaborating with Indigenous People to reflect sport and recreation needs in Pickering.
88. Ensure that all public spaces are safe and welcoming spaces for staff and users
as outlined in the Safe Spaces Canada criteria.
- 176 -
158 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
8.5 Supporting a High-Performing Staff Team
There is a strong commitment in Pickering to innovate service delivery, expand community engagement, and enhance satisfaction levels. To this end, key initiatives that staff should undertake internally to heighten the ability of staff and volunteers to be
even better skilled and prepared to respond to changes within the community have
been identified below.
Confirming Levels of Service
In a community that is increasing in population and recreation and sport demands, it is important to confirm and document the levels of service that are provided to the public
and the resources that it takes to provide them. In this way, future requirements for
resourcing and staffing can be determined for Council approval well in advance of implementation. For instance, the operating impacts of capital projects can be determined by the services that will be provided within new or improved spaces and the operating impacts can be approved at the time that the capital allocation is approved.
Many levels of service standards are in place, but likely many are not articulated and
approved by Council. The process to articulate levels of service is shown below.
Figure 17: Framework for Establishing Levels of Service
Articulate what levels of service (LOS) exist for each program/ service and quantify the frequwncy per year they are completed
Identify the ideal conditions and efficiencies in which they are offered (new technologies, patnerships etc.)
Identify the current resources (staff and equipment) that are needed to produce the LOS
Identify the departmental and corproate supports that assist with offering the service.
Review LOS every other year to capture greater efficiencies and changes.
- 177 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 159
Developing a Ten-Year Staffing Plan
Once the levels of service have been developed and approved by Council, the process to develop a ten-year staffing plan can begin. This plan will serve to plan the number
and type of staff in the context of additional facilities and services to respond to a
growing population. The plan should also address average levels of staff turnover, pending and potential retirements, succession planning, and ensuring that the staff team reflects the community that they serve.
In the meantime, organizational structural guidelines can be used to determine if the
current organizational structure is designed with equity and consistency. Utilizing the
following guidelines, the City can assess its structure on an annual basis or as staff changes occur in order to seek opportunities for efficiencies.
Typical guidelines used in a municipal organizational system include:
a) Organizational levels – a maximum number of staff levels (ideally less than 5)
between the Director and the public should be established
b) Functions and customer focus – each staff unit should be designed around common customers and like functions
c) Equitable distribution of workloads – where possible, positions should be designed that have equitable accountabilities and responsibilities
d) Reduction of duplication of efforts – positions with overlapping responsibilities
(booking, allocating, etc.) should be reviewed for potential efficiencies.
e) Span of control – each management/supervisory level could have between four and seven direct reports
f) Sole contributors – there should be few if any one-on-one reporting
relationships unless the direct report is a sole contributor to the organization.
Supporting Training and Development
A standardized training and development plan ensures that all staff and volunteers have the skills and competencies to provide a high level of service. An inventory of skills needed per position type is a required undertaking. Common requirements such as
customer service standards, inclusion, diversity, equity and accessibility, and
sustainability in the delivery of services are all common competencies and can be packaged and offered online, in-person, or a combination thereof. More specialized training such as evacuation procedures per facility type, and emergency response measures can be offered through the various disciplines. Ensuring that each staff
person can provide an exceptional level of service and is aware of refined and
innovative approaches will enable the City to continue to effectively respond to needs.
Setting Performance Targets and Measures
Recreation staff collect participation, utilization, and service satisfaction data to analyze current service delivery levels and to measure performance against the previous year's
- 178 -
160 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
results. This is completed to demonstrate that there has been movement in addressing key goals and initiatives and that residents are well satisfied with service and program provision. Annual attendance and registration statistics are captured and shared with
staff to allow improved planning for the next session and accommodate pent-up
demands. Annual reporting establishes transparency in the operations and demonstrates to the public that there is excellent value in the investment of tax dollars.
Recommendations – Supporting a High-Performing Staff Team
89. Articulate and seek Council approval for all recreation and parks levels of service in preparation for the need for expanded growth-related services. This
work will entail working with a third-party to identify all services, how often and
the standards to which they are delivered, resources required, and potential efficiencies.
90. Develop a Ten-Year Staffing Plan that reflects the approved levels of service and changes in service requirements (e.g., staffing levels, office space, etc.) due
to the growth of the population.
91. Develop a Staff Training and Development Continuum that identifies the necessary knowledge, skills, and competencies for each job type. This exercise should document current trends and developments that will keep staff performing at a high level and improve readiness for succession planning.
92. Refine existing performance metrics and prepare a concise annual report card to reflect changes in participation rates, service delivery, volunteerism, utilization of public spaces, satisfaction levels, and other outcomes from recreation and parks participation.
- 179 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 161
- 180 -
162 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
9. Implementation
Active implementation of the Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan is fundamental to its success. This requires coordinated efforts and a commitment from Council, staff, user
groups, and the public, as well as a variety of funding options to implement certain aspects of the Plan. This section provides guidance on the Plan’s implementation, including a summary of all recommendations and their intended timing.
9.1 Plan Evaluation and Monitoring
The City should regularly review, assess, and update the recommendations of this Plan to ensure that they continue to reflect local conditions and that they are responsive to
the changing needs of the community. This will require monitoring population data and
growth patterns, tracking activity trends and user satisfaction levels, coordinating with community organizations and the public, reporting on progress, and undertaking a comprehensive ten-year update to the Plan. Through these strategies – or as a result of other internal or external factors – adjustment of resource allocations and priorities
identified in this plan may be required.
The Plan should be reviewed annually as part of the City’s budget cycle. The following steps may be used to conduct an annual review of the Ten Year Plan:
a) review of the past year (recommendations implemented, capital projects undertaken, consideration of new and existing initiatives, changes in participation
levels, emerging issues and needs, etc.);
b) identification of issues impacting the coming year (anticipated financial and operational constraints, emerging opportunities, etc.);
c) cursory review of the plan for direction regarding its recommendations;
d) preparation of a staff report to indicate prioritization of short-term projects and
determination of which projects should be implemented in the following year
based on criteria established by staff (e.g., financial limitations, community input, partnership/funding potential, etc.);
e) communication to staff and Council regarding the status of projects, criteria used to prioritize projects and projects to be implemented in the following year; and
f) budget requests/revisions as necessary.
Lastly, additional data collection and evaluation has been recommended to inform performance measures and targets. Monitoring the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery and facility management will be an important part of this plan moving forward, as will regular reports to the public on progress and implementation priorities.
- 181 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 163
Recommendations – Plan Evaluation and Monitoring
93. Regularly monitor progress of the Ten Year Plan, including tracking of growth and demographic characteristics, activity patterns, facility usage, participation levels, trends, and completed recommendations.
94. Ensure that planning for major capital projects includes meaningful community engagement and feasibility studies that validate building program and service requirements and are aligned with community needs, partnership opportunities, and financial capabilities.
95. Develop a communications plan following approval of the Ten Year Plan to
create awareness about its key messages and recommendations amongst
residents and stakeholders. Implement a system for the regular reporting of the plan, including an annual report card to the community.
96. Establish annual work plans to identify recommendations requiring implementation within the coming year. Work plans should identify departmental
leads, partners, funding requirements and sources, etc.
97. Undertake a comprehensive review and update of the Ten Year Plan to begin no later than 2033. Timing may be accelerated based on the pace of implementation and changes within the community.
9.2 Financial Considerations
The Ten Year Plan calls for continued financial investment and outlines a series of planning priorities for the provision of new and upgraded recreation and parks infrastructure for the next ten years. The amount of funding required to support some or all major capital recreation projects will place pressure on the City’s debt capacity. The
City has limited resources and cannot afford to do everything that the community
desires; underscoring the importance for undertaking the plan in the first place.
Although Pickering may experience various challenges in providing sufficient resources to achieve the plan’s recommendations, it is expected that the City will make every effort to implement these strategies through appropriate means. Pickering’s recreation
and parks capital projects are primarily funded from development charges, community
benefit charges, asset management levy (tax-base) and other capital reserves, special reserves (e.g., gaming revenues, municipal accommodation tax, etc.), debt, and outside sources such as senior government grants and third-party contributions.
The City’s annual budget and long-term forecast contains considerable detail regarding
capital projects to be undertaken during the next ten-year period (subject to change
based on needs/priorities, funding availability, etc.). This Ten Year Plan will have an influence on the projects that are included in the town’s long-term capital forecast and should be used as a resource in developing secondary plans and related studies. Through implementation of the plan, the City will take into consideration available
capital and operating funding via available sources to identify potential budget shortfalls
- 182 -
164 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
or overruns and areas for adjustment. On an annual basis, the City should reconcile the recommendations with its fiscal capacity and focus on the highest priority items.
The City will lean on its creativity and leadership to enable full implementation of this
plan. It is vital that growth-related funding sources are maximized. Financial processes
and practices will support the maximization of available funds and be supplemented by other approaches, where possible. Approaches that are financially sustainable will be encouraged, such as partnerships that leverage assets and resources to provide the best value to residents, building cost-effective multi-use facilities rather than those
designed for a single use, seeking senior government grants and fundraising, etc. The
City routinely seeks grants, sponsorships, naming rights and advertising revenue as a means to offset the costs of services.
Recommendations – Financial Considerations
98. Use this Ten Year Plan as a resource in establishing the City’s annual budget documents, capital forecasts, development and community benefits charges
studies, secondary plans, and other related studies.
99. Where appropriate and consistent with City policies and priorities, consider alternative funding and cost-sharing approaches such as (but not limited to) fundraising, grants, private-public partnerships, sponsorships, surcharges, capital reserve contributions, and various forms of collaboration to provide the best
value to residents.
100. Assess and ensure that operating budget implications are identified and appropriately resourced prior to approving major capital projects.
101. Foster effective partnerships and co-location opportunities with landowners and public agencies (e.g., public libraries, schools, etc.) that support the
improvement, provision, and expansion of recreation, parks, and community
facilities that address demonstrated needs.
- 183 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 165
9.3 Implementation Strategy
Throughout this Ten Year Plan, recommendations have been identified at the end of each section. This is not intended to be a definitive list of recommendations as ongoing capital projects/repairs, operating expenditures, and other initiatives outside the scope
of this plan may be identified and prioritized by the City on an ongoing basis. By
approving this Ten Year Plan as a guiding document, the City is not bound to implementing every recommendation; rather, this plan provides guidance on community priorities and sets a general course for meeting community needs as they are presently defined.
Priority is generally synonymous with timing – the higher the priority, the sooner the
recommendation should be implemented. All recommendations within this plan are important and, if properly implemented, will provide the community with enhanced recreation and parks services in Pickering. The priority/timing of recommendations is organized into the following three categories:
• Short Term priority (1-3 years)
• Medium Term priority (4-6 years)
• Long Term priority (7-10+ years)
The proposed priority/timing of each recommendation has been determined based on an assessment of need, as identified throughout the planning process (including public consultation, trends and demographic variables, assessment of parks, facilities, services, etc.), and is based on current and anticipated circumstances. Budget
pressures, changes in participation rates or demographics, availability of resources, and
other factors may impact the implementation of these recommendations. The pursuit of external funding opportunities and partnership opportunities may also assist in accelerating implementation.
The following tables contain the recommendations in the order in which they are
presented in the body of the plan. Where applicable, estimated capital costs are
articulated for each recommendation, which are based on published budget figures and/or industry norms. Costs are shown in 2024 dollar figures; however, inflation is at its highest level in decades, and all costs identified in this plan should be confirmed though further study.
- 184 -
166 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Table 39: Indoor Recreation Facilities Recommendations
# Recommendation 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-10+ years Costs / Implementation
1. As a high priority, continue to proceed with the timely development of the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library. At minimum, this facility should be designed to include a 25 metre 6-8 lane rectangular pool and separate warm water leisure pool, fitness centre and studios, full size gymnasium, walking track, multi-purpose spaces, two arena pads, and library.
Design and construction costs included in 2024 budget and long-term forecast ($243 million).
2. Prior to undertaking significant capital renewal projects, initiate planning for the major long-term revitalization of the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex as supported by the City’s Facility Renewal Study. The assessment should consider factors such as public input, asset management, facility and program needs, related initiatives, site and partnership opportunities, potential funding sources, and more.
Costs to be determined through future study.
3. Seek to construct the proposed Seniors & Youth Centre in Pickering’s City Centre within the ten-year
horizon of this plan (prior to 2034). Once open, the East Shore Community Centre should be closed and declared surplus, with programming transferred to the
new facility.
Design and construction
costs estimated at $56.3 million.
4. Prepare a business case for the expansion of youth programming and space within the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex. This should be
viewed as an interim measure prior to opening the Seniors & Youth Centre and should be implemented through the repurposing of tenant spaces and/or under-
utilized areas (not a physical expansion to the building).
Staff-led (business plan). Costs to be determined through future study.
- 185 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 167
# Recommendation 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-10+ years Costs / Implementation
5. As part of the next Ten Year Plan (around 2034), initiate
high-level planning for the development of a second recreation facility (Thompson’s Corners community centre) within the Seaton community on lands owned by
the City (east of Brock Road, south of Highway 407).
Consultant: $100,000 for needs and feasibility study.
6. Through the Northeast Secondary Plan process, designate land for community facilities suitable for the development of a future recreation complex and library. Secondary planning process is ongoing.
7. Prior to undertaking significant investment in existing community halls (e.g., West Shore Community Centre, Brougham Hall, etc.), prepare a study of options that examines local needs, capacity within area facilities, and long-term requirements. The assessment should be used to guide options, including sale, third-party-lease, and/or reinvestment. Closure and sale of underused halls that require significant investment is possible, particularly where these functions can be accommodated within a nearby facility. New community
halls should be discouraged.
Staff-led / best practice. Reports may be prepared on an as-needed basis.
8. As a general principle, design indoor recreation facilities to be flexible, accessible, multi-use (non-dedicated space, where possible), inclusive, and age-friendly community hubs. Locate these sites in highly visible locations with strong pedestrian, cycling, and transit connections for convenient access. Consider models co-located with libraries and other community uses. Involve the community and stakeholders in the facility design process.
Staff-led / best practice.
- 186 -
168 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
# Recommendation 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-10+ years Costs / Implementation
9. Utilize the findings and recommendations of the Arena Strategy to inform decision-making regarding arena investment, development, and operations. See 2024 Arena Strategy.
10. Provide multi-tank indoor aquatic centres within all new recreation complexes. A 25-metre tank with 6 to 8 lanes and a separate warm water leisure pool are recommended as part of the planned Seaton Recreation Complex & Library.
Costs included in facility-specific budgets.
11. Prioritize the revitalization of the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex indoor aquatic centre as part of the proposed facility revitalization strategy following the opening of the Seaton Recreation Complex and Library.
$5 million estimate contained within long-term capital forecast; to be confirmed through future study.
12. Undertake a study to examine future programming
needs and potential capital replacement of the Dunbarton Indoor Pool. This study should consider the need for this facility to remain operational during any extended shutdown of the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex and should be completed following a minimum of one year of the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library being fully operational.
May be staff-led or require outside services ($50,000).
13. Provide gymnasiums within all new and redeveloped recreation complexes (e.g., Seaton, etc.) and consider their provision within appropriate community centres
(e.g., Seniors & Youth Centre, etc.). A triple gymnasium (FIBA regulation) is recommended as part of the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library.
Costs included in facility-
specific budgets.
- 187 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 169
# Recommendation 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-10+ years Costs / Implementation
14. Provide one indoor pickleball court for every 10,000
residents, with a target of 15 indoor courts by 2034. The City will be able to meet its current target of 10 indoor courts through upgrades at the Pickering Soccer Centre
(up to 6 courts and 42 hours/court per week) and also its 2034 target (15 courts) through the development of the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library.
Costs included in facility-specific budgets.
15. Where additional access is required, expand agreements with local school boards to offer programming within school gymnasiums and other community spaces within Seaton and future growth
areas.
Staff-led / best practice.
16. Provide fitness centres and studios within all new and redeveloped recreation complexes (including the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library) to support the delivery of health and wellness programming. Consider the provision of indoor walking tracks (free public access) within new recreation facilities, where appropriate.
Costs included in facility-specific budgets.
17. Engage the local racquetball club to assess their future outlook and ways to increase usage of the courts prior to repurposing one racquetball court at the CHDRC. Staff-led.
18. Consideration may be given to relocating the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex indoor tennis courts to another accessible location within
Pickering in the longer-term, possibly through an air-supported dome and the joint provision of pickleball courts. This is a matter that may be more fully examined through the recommended recreation complex facility revitalization study, the City Centre project, and/or planning of the future parks and recreation facility sites.
Costs and implementation strategies to be determined through future study.
- 188 -
170 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
# Recommendation 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-10+ years Costs / Implementation
19. Encourage wider community access to the Pickering Soccer Centre field by working with Pickering FC to create an allocation framework and/or scheduling options that provide other youth-based organizations
with access to the turf field within prime, shoulder, and non-prime times.
Staff-led, in cooperation with Pickering FC.
20. Monitor the demand for indoor turf facilities and examine the potential to develop a second indoor turf facility beyond the timeframe of this Ten-Year Plan. Consider as part of Ten Year Plan update.
21. Adopt a partnership framework to evaluate and respond to major capital proposals from community organizations, with consideration given to overall municipal priorities and the City’s capacity to participate in such projects. A sample framework and criteria are identified with this Ten Year Plan (see appendix).
Staff-led. Example provided in Appendix.
- 189 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 171
Table 40: Outdoor Recreation and Park Facilities Recommendations
# Recommendation 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-10+ years Costs / Implementation
22. Provide approximately 15 additional soccer and multi-use fields (unlit equivalents) over the next ten years to address growth-related needs. New fields may be developed within community parks (with multiple fields per site) and appropriate neighbourhood park sites, as well as in partnership with other land providers such as schools. Where possible, a focus should be placed on full size fields (both lit and unlit) and artificial turf fields as
these provide greater capacity for community use. In addition to new fields in the Seaton community, opportunities should be sought to enhance field supplies
within existing parks (e.g., conversion of under-utilized assets such as in Maple Ridge Park).
Costs included within park development budgets. Construction benchmarks are $200,000 to $500,000+
for an unlit field, $100,000 to $250,000 to add lights, and $1.0 to $2.0+ million to add artificial turf.
23. Through the annual permitting process, track the number of registrants using Pickering sports fields
(soccer, football baseball, cricket, etc.). At a minimum, data to be collected should include age (youth, adult, etc.) and residency (Pickering, other, etc.). This data will enable trend tracking, support future demand analysis, and inform allocation practices.
Staff-led / best practice.
- 190 -
172 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
# Recommendation 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-10+ years Costs / Implementation
24. Provide approximately 6 additional ball diamonds (unlit
equivalents) over the next ten years to address growth-related needs. New fields should be developed within community parks (with multiple fields per site where
possible), as well as in partnership with other land providers where appropriate. These needs can be largely satisfied through planned development at Dave
Ryan Community Park (1 lit diamond) and future development on the Greenwood Conservation lands (multiple lit diamonds), including consideration of both hardball and softball needs.
Costs included within
park development budgets. Construction benchmarks are $200,000 to $500,000+ for an unlit field and $100,000 to $250,000 to
add lights.
25. Evaluate opportunities to repurpose surplus ball diamonds and to align the diamond supply and distribution with demand. Some candidates for
conversion include under-utilized and/or under-sized diamonds at Maple Ridge Park, Lookout Point Park, and Greenwood Park.
Staff-led / best practice. Costs to be determined
based on selected option(s).
26. Include a regulation cricket field within the future Greenwood Conservation lands or other suitable location capable of serving Seaton and surrounding area. Consideration may be given to designing the pitch
as an overlay across two full-size soccer fields.
Costs included within park development budget. Construction benchmarks are
$400,000 to $800,000 per field.
27. Expand the number of public tennis courts (lit where possible) in growing communities through new court development in Seaton (4 courts at 2 parks) and Duffins Heights (2 courts at 1 park). Courts should be designed for tennis only, but may be co-located with other sport
courts as part of a complex.
Costs included within park development budgets. Construction benchmarks are $400,000 for a 2-courts
complex.
- 191 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 173
# Recommendation 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-10+ years Costs / Implementation
28. Consider the development of an outdoor tennis complex (4-5 courts) at the site of the community facility planned for Thompson’s Corners. The complex should be operated by a community-based club under
agreement with the City, allowing for public access during specified hours and/or low use periods. The potential for an air-supported dome to allow for year-
round use of the courts (possibly as a long-term replacement for the indoor courts at the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex) may be considered further through a business plan that examines demand, partnerships, financial performance, and related factors.
Construction benchmarks are $750,000 for a 4-
courts complex. Additional costs for a dome to be defined
through future business plan, including partnership potential.
29. Work with the local tennis club to confirm the long-term need for the courts at Greenwood Park and consider
shifting use to new courts planned for Seaton, allowing this space to be converted to other uses as defined by a
future redesign process for this park.
Staff-led. Costs to be determined based on selected option(s).
- 192 -
174 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
# Recommendation 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-10+ years Costs / Implementation
30. Target the development of up to 19 new outdoor pickleball courts by 2034, with a focus on dedicated courts in appropriate locations. Projects should have consideration to the site evaluation and design criteria
identified in this plan. The City should continue to work with pickleball organizations to monitor and assess the need for additional dedicated court complexes over time.
Potential capital projects include:
a. developing six (6) dedicated courts at Diana, Princess of Wales Park, possibly operated in partnership with a club;
b. a. developing four (4) dedicated courts at the site of the planned recreation facility in Thompson’s Corners, possibly operated in partnership with a club;
c. developing four (4) dedicated courts in the Dave Ryan Community Park (P-123) in Seaton; and
d. consideration of painting lines on selected multi-use basketball courts at locations such as Beechlawn Park (P-019, future) and selected neighbourhood parks in Duffins Heights and Seaton (e.g., P-086,
etc.).
Costs included within
park development budgets. Construction benchmarks are $250,000 for two courts and $500,000 for six courts.
31. Develop approximately 13 additional outdoor basketball courts by 2034 within growing communities (e.g., Seaton) and under-served areas (e.g., Liverpool, Kingston Road corridor) based on an 800-metre service radius. Half courts should generally be considered for neighbourhood parks (and appropriate village greens)
and full courts for community parks.
Costs included within park development budgets. Construction benchmarks are $100,000 to $150,000 per court.
- 193 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 175
# Recommendation 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-10+ years Costs / Implementation
32. Continue with plans to construct 5 new splash pads / water play areas in Duffins Heights and the Seaton community by 2034; additional sites in Seaton and possibly City Centre will be required longer-term. Should
the City remove the splash pad at Beachfront Park, it should be replaced at another location south of Highway 401 in proximity to growth areas.
Costs included within park development
budgets. Construction benchmarks are $400,000 to $700,000 per location.
33. The provision of an outdoor pool would represent a new level of service for the City and the reconstruction of the pool at Petticoat Creek Conservation Park is not viewed as a priority within the scope of this Ten Year
Plan.
Although not recommended, the cost for pool design and construction is estimated
at $11.5 million (KPMG, 2023).
34. Continue with plans to include a refrigerated skating rink/water feature within City Centre Park and consider the feasibility of a refrigerated outdoor ice pad (combined with the splash pad, if possible) at the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library.
Costs included within park and facility development budgets.
35. Consider the development of an appropriately-sized covered multi-use pad in Claremont Memorial Park to support extended use for floor sports (ball hockey, skating, etc.), camps, and events. The ice pad should not be refrigerated.
Construction benchmarks are $1.0 to $1.25 million.
36. Reclassify skateboard parks as “all wheels parks” and
integrate this term into the City’s signage and promotions. Staff-led.
- 194 -
176 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
# Recommendation 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-10+ years Costs / Implementation
37. Expand the network of all wheels parks by:
a. replacing the aging community-level skate park at Diana, Princess of Wales Park at the proposed hydro corridor park to the north (pending approval
from Hydro One);
b. developing up to 4 new local skate spots in South Pickering;
c. developing a community-level skate park in Seaton, possibly at the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library; and
d. developing up to 3 new local skate spots in Seaton, including one at Dave Ryan Community Park.
Determination of locations and designs will require additional community consultation and site evaluation,
guided by the criteria and classifications established in the City’s Skateboard Park Strategy 2017.
Costs included within park development budgets. Construction
benchmarks are $350,000 to $750,000 per location.
38. Explore the potential for installing a pump track through a future community or district park development project.
Staff-led. Construction benchmarks are $200,000 to $400,000 per location.
39. Continue to install playgrounds within appropriate park types in growth areas. At minimum, playgrounds should be located within 800 metres of residential areas (less in
intensified areas), unobstructed by major pedestrian barriers such as valleys, highways, and railways. Playground design should give consideration to play value, variety in design, accessible features (focusing on community park sites), and supporting amenities such as pathways, seating, and shade.
Costs included within park development
budgets. Construction benchmarks are $150,000 to $500,000 per location, depending on scope of work.
- 195 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 177
# Recommendation 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-10+ years Costs / Implementation
40. Integrate outdoor fitness equipment into appropriate
parks, focusing on destination parks (e.g., selected community and waterfront parks) and growing communities (using a 1-km radius to support equitable
distribution).
Costs included within park development budgets. Construction benchmarks are $75,000
to $150,000 per location.
41. Develop guidelines to support the design of designated open space exercise zones where the community can organize fitness classes (yoga, tai chi, etc.). Staff-led.
42. Support the establishment of community gardens on appropriate municipal lands and as an option in new and redeveloped parks able to meet the site criteria contained in the City’s Community Gardens Policy. Leverage partnerships with agencies and private landowners to ensure an equitable distribution across Pickering (including one or more sites in Seaton).
Staff-led / best practice. Construction benchmarks are $100,000 to $250,000 per location.
43. Provide two (2) additional leash-free dog areas within the next ten years in response to community need and only in cases where location criteria can be met. Evaluate options for establishing an off-leash dog area in Seaton and continue with plans to develop an off-leash park in the proposed Hydro Corridor park (pending approval from Hydro One).
Costs included within park development budgets. Construction benchmarks are $100,000 to $200,000 per location.
44. Prepare an off-leash dog area policy to address the dynamics of providing, designing, and maintaining leash
free dog areas in higher density neighbourhoods.
Staff-led.
- 196 -
178 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
# Recommendation 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-10+ years Costs / Implementation
45. Work with the TRCA to enhance Petticoat Creek Conservation Park as a signature park site for large events and festivals.
Costs will be dependent
on agreement and scope of improvements. Preliminary capital cost
estimate is $35.8 million (KPMG, 2023).
46. As a general principle, consider and evaluate event hosting capabilities when developing and redeveloping community and district parks, including the provision of support infrastructure (e.g., parking, electrical service, water and wastewater services, washrooms, shade,
etc.).
Staff-led / best practice. Costs to be determined based on selected option(s).
47. Continue to place a high priority on the preservation and restoration of waterfront parks and beaches that support public access for residents and visitors.
Staff-led / best practice. Costs to be determined based on selected option(s).
48. Continue to monitor participation and trends in recreation and sport activities accommodated through the parks system (including those delivered in partnership with others) to inform future capital needs and strategies.
Staff-led / best practice.
- 197 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 179
Table 41: Parkland Recommendations
# Recommendation 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-10+ years Costs / Implementation
49. Modify and update the City’s parkland hierarchy through the next Official Plan update. This includes distinguishing between different types of parkland in Mixed Use Areas and Urban/Rural Residential Areas and updating the policies for existing designations as appropriate. Additionally, it is recommended that two new park categories (Urban Parks and Linear Parks) be created to support the emerging Mixed Use Area
hierarchy. Consideration may also be given to renaming the District Park (to “City-wide Park”) and expanding the designation to allow for the inclusion of larger properties
that support linear and passive recreation, such as city-wide events, environmental education, interpretation, and nature-related recreation.
To be considered through Official Plan Review.
50. Develop and maintain a comprehensive inventory
database of parks and open spaces (linked to GIS and asset management databases) for the purposes of evaluation and planning.
Staff-led.
51. Adopt a minimum City-wide parkland provision target of 1.5 hectares per 1,000 residents through to 2034. This target (as well as defined targets for mixed use areas, new community areas, and established areas) should be used to inform the review of development applications and secondary plans for the next ten years. Where possible, parkland provision targets should be linked to population and/or housing units.
To be considered through Official Plan Review and development review processes.
- 198 -
180 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
# Recommendation 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-10+ years Costs / Implementation
52. Prepare a parkland acquisition strategy to enhance
current and future community access to parks, with consideration of alternative acquisition tools. The strategy should confirm priorities for land acquisition
(including opportunities to secure larger park blocks for community-serving amenities) and a budget for the annual allocation of funds.
Consultant: $150,000 (may be combined with other corporate land
needs). Excludes cost for land acquisition.
53. Use the priority mapping in this plan to inform land acquisition and work with other municipal departments to secure land and/or enhance programming in high priority areas (informed by the proposed parkland acquisition
strategy).
Staff-led / best practice.
54. Strengthen collaboration with public agencies (e.g., schools, local and other levels of government, utility and infrastructure agencies, etc.) to facilitate community access to parks, trails, and recreation spaces on non-municipally owned sites. Consider developing a framework to improve connections to (and programming
of) these spaces.
Staff-led.
55. Update the parkland dedication requirements and related policies within the City of Pickering’s Official Plan and Parkland Conveyance By-law to reflect the changes enacted through the More Homes, Built Faster
Act (Bill 23) and related legislation, with further consideration of the recommendations within this Ten Year Plan. Consideration may also be given to developing a procedure establishing the guidelines and process for administering the Parkland Conveyance By-
law.
May be staff-led or require outside services. To be considered through Official Plan Review and related planning processes.
- 199 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 181
# Recommendation 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-10+ years Costs / Implementation
56. Establish policies surrounding privately-owned public spaces (POPs) and strata parks. While these spaces will generally be discouraged, they may be counted toward the parkland dedication requirement at the
discretion of the City (with strata parks being accepted at a discounted rate). Appropriate legal agreements must be established to address park design and construction
standards, public access, maintenance, etc. POPs are not appropriate in locations outside of mixed use areas.
May be staff-led or
require outside services. To be considered through Official Plan Review and development review processes.
57. Establish clear location and development guidelines describing what constitutes acceptable parkland
dedication from developers. These guidelines should consider restrictions for encumbered lands, hazards lands, steep slopes and unstable lands, environmentally
protected lands, rights-of-way and easements, contaminated lands, etc. and be included within the Official Plan or parkland conveyance procedure.
May be staff-led or
require outside services. To be considered through Official Plan Review and
development review processes.
58. Adopt a “Parkland First” approach that prioritizes
parkland conveyance over cash-in-lieu of parkland and privately-owned public spaces in order to address parkland requirements.
To be considered through Official Plan Review and development review processes.
59. Consider updating the City’s Community Benefits Charges Strategy and By-law to include the consideration of parkland acquisition beyond the amounts available under the provisions of the Planning Act.
Consultant-led through CBC Strategy Update.
- 200 -
182 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
# Recommendation 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-10+ years Costs / Implementation
60. Utilize alternative financial tools and other parkland acquisition approaches beyond traditional land conveyance mechanisms as necessary to meet the City’s parkland targets to 2034. The City is encouraged
to actively pursue direct purchase of land in priority acquisition areas and unserviced land with future parkland potential.
Staff-led / best practice.
Land costs to be determined on a site-specific basis.
61. Clearly articulate the criteria that will be used to evaluate the acceptance of cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication. To be considered through Official Plan Review.
62. Prioritize spending parkland cash-in-lieu funds on land acquisition, rather than capital improvements in parks. Staff-led / best practice.
63. Institute a program to track the annual spending and allocation of cash-in-lieu funds in keeping with Planning Act requirements (at least 60% of monies must
be spent or allocated at the beginning of each year) and to evaluate the performance of this Ten Year Plan.
Staff-led. Regulatory requirement.
64. Conduct an assessment of cash-in-lieu of parkland valuation processes and fees, with the goal of
ensuring that cash-in-lieu of parkland rates are reflective of local market conditions.
May be staff-led or require outside services ($50,000).
65. As opportunities arise, evaluate the potential to secure and/or protect open space lands that are outside the parks system and that provide important connections between parks, trails, and other public areas, having regard to the Official Plan and partner agency
requirements.
Staff-led / best practice. Land costs to be determined on a site-specific basis.
- 201 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 183
# Recommendation 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-10+ years Costs / Implementation
66. Continue to maintain a commitment to universal accessibility, safety, and comfort within the City’s parks and trails system by:
a. Regularly consulting with the City’s Accessibility
Advisory Committee and ensuring compliance with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), recognizing that some parks and trails
may include areas of natural terrain that are more difficult to access.
b. Emphasizing the provision of amenities such as washrooms, benches/seating areas, bike racks, and shade (structures, tree canopy, etc.) in appropriate park types to address the needs of all age groups.
c. Engaging qualified personnel to undertake a review
of all parks and trails using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles to identify safety concerns relative to access, sightlines, etc.
Staff-led / best practice. Additional costs can be
anticipated in order to implement AODA accessible public spaces standard, CPTED principles, and robust support amenities within parks.
67. Continue to provide a balance of active and passive spaces within the parks system to support all-season recreation and sports, casual use and unstructured play, special events, and cultural activities.
Staff-led / best practice.
68. Continue to support outdoor education, stewardship, and climate change mitigation initiatives through the open space system, such as tree plantings, naturalization efforts, community gardens, butterfly/pollinator parks, and adopt-a-park/trail programs, in conjunction with community partners.
Staff-led / best practice. Additional costs can be
anticipated (to be determined through program development).
- 202 -
184 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
# Recommendation 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-10+ years Costs / Implementation
69. Continue to initiate park redevelopment projects at key
sites requiring renewal and evaluate park sites within or adjacent to high density mixed use areas for longer-term redevelopment. Park redevelopment projects should be
identified in the City’s long-term capital plan and include additional public and stakeholder consultation.
May be staff-led or
require outside services for design (approximately $25,000 to $50,000 per
park for design, plus site-specific construction costs).
70. Continue to expand and connect the recreational trail network. This includes planning trails within new community areas and working with partners to leverage public sites (such as utility rights-of-ways and other
linear corridors) for trail use as appropriate. Improvements to the on-road cycling network should be guided by the City’s Integrated Transportation Master
Plan.
Staff-led. Additional costs can be anticipated (to be
identified on a project-specific basis).
71. Continue to enhance the trail network by installing and maintaining safety and comfort features – such as lighting, signage, seating, etc. – in appropriate locations
and addressing the recommendations for a multi-use trail design and safety audit, wayfinding study and pilot project, and trails amenities plan within the City’s
Integrated Transportation Master Plan.
Staff-led. Additional costs can be anticipated (to be identified by Engineering Services on a project-specific basis).
Table 42: Recreation Service Delivery Recommendations
# Recommendation 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-10+ years Costs / Implementation
72. Provide targeted leadership courses in aquatics,
programs, and camps until appropriate staffing levels are achieved. Reach out to area school boards to assist in this endeavour.
Staff-led. There will be a
defined fiscal impact on foregone revenue for leadership training.
- 203 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 185
# Recommendation 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-10+ years Costs / Implementation
73. Establish strategies to assist not-for-profit community
groups in the recruitment, training, and retention of volunteers to support community-led recreation and sport programming.
Staff-led. There may be added costs to develop
materials.
74. Create objectives and strategies to enhance community capacity and increase access to recreation and parks services for residents through an expanded community development model.
Staff-led. There may be added costs to develop materials and support groups.
75. Regularly review agreements with partners to ensure an appropriate and sustainable distribution of operational and financial responsibilities. Staff-led.
76. Identify opportunities to enhance and grow community partnerships that increase the range of recreation, parks, sport, and community opportunities in support of
future population growth.
Staff-led. There may be
added costs to support groups.
77. Seek sponsorships and sustainable funding to reintroduce the Swim to Survive program for students and families (once staffing shortages are addressed).
Place additional emphasis on the need for children and families to be safe in and around water.
Staff-led. Operating costs to be determined through
program development.
78. Develop an Aquatic, Fitness and Program Strategy that reflects current and future programming needs to identify the scope of future program needs and to maximize community resources.
Consultant: $50,000.
- 204 -
186 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
# Recommendation 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-10+ years Costs / Implementation
79. Implement quality assurance programs in the delivery
of service in recreation to reflect the quality and safe programming for all age groups. Some examples include: HIGH FIVE (Principles of Healthy Child
Development and Active Aging), Youth Friendly Communities, Lifesaving Society Aquatic Safety Management program, etc.
Staff-led. Operating costs to be determined through
program development.
80. Work to achieve an 85% fill rate in all recreation services and programs (calculated as participation divided by capacity). Staff-led.
81. Promote Canada’s 24-Hour Movement Guidelines to encourage greater physical activity levels (frequency, intensity, and duration) in Pickering residents. Staff-led. There may be added costs to promote.
82. Work with the Town of Ajax to develop common principles in the allocation of community facilities that are commonly used by organizations that operate across the West Durham area.
Staff-led.
83. Refine and expand the Access to Recreation Policy to
include stabilized funding based on need, equity in the registration process, and other findings based on input from recipients.
Staff-led. Fiscal impact to be determined.
84. Conduct an audit of municipally-supported recreation and sport opportunities available to all genders and work to increase participation by girls, women, and persons identifying as female or gender diverse.
Staff-led, with resources from the Canadian Women in Sport Organization.
- 205 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 187
# Recommendation 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-10+ years Costs / Implementation
85. Consider the recommendations of the City’s Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Strategy through the implementation of recreation and parks services including those related to key principles, representation,
training, space design, guide/handbook, and performance metrics.
Staff-led, with resources
from the Coalition of Inclusive Municipalities, the Canadian Centre for
Diversity & Inclusion, and other municipalities.
86. Develop a Community Engagement Plan to welcome and involve all residents in recreation and parks opportunities. Staff-led.
87. Work with the Aboriginal Sport Circle and IndigenACTION to discuss ways of collaborating with Indigenous People to reflect sport and recreation needs in Pickering.
Staff-led. There may be added costs to support groups.
88. Ensure that all public spaces are safe and welcoming spaces for staff and users as outlined in the Safer Spaces Canada criteria.
Staff-led. There may be
added costs for training (note: the Safe Zone Project is a free online resource).
89. Articulate and seek Council approval for all recreation and parks levels of service in preparation for the need for expanded growth-related services. This work will
entail working with a third-party to identify all services, how often and the standards to which they are delivered, resources required, and potential efficiencies.
Consultant: $80,000 to $100,000
90. Develop a Ten-Year Staffing Plan that reflects the
approved levels of service and changes in service requirements (e.g., staffing levels, office space, etc.) due to the growth of the population.
Staff-led or consultant: $75,000
- 206 -
188 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
# Recommendation 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-10+ years Costs / Implementation
91. Develop a Staff Training and Development Continuum that identifies the necessary knowledge, skills, and competencies for each job type. This exercise should document current trends and developments that
will keep staff performing at a high level and improve readiness for succession planning.
Staff-led (Human Resources). There may be added costs for
training.
92. Refine existing performance metrics and prepare a concise annual report card to reflect changes in participation rates, service delivery, volunteerism, utilization of public spaces, satisfaction levels, and other outcomes from recreation and parks participation.
Staff-led.
Table 43: Implementation Recommendations
# Recommendation 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-10+ years Costs / Implementation
93. Regularly monitor progress of the Ten Year Plan, including tracking of growth and demographic
characteristics, activity patterns, facility usage, participation levels, trends, and completed recommendations.
Staff-led. Coordinate with
all involved departments as appropriate.
94. Ensure that planning for major capital projects includes
meaningful community engagement and feasibility studies that validate building program and service requirements and are aligned with community needs,
partnership opportunities, and financial capabilities.
Project-specific. May be staff-led or require outside services.
- 207 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 189
# Recommendation 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-10+ years Costs / Implementation
95. Develop a communications plan following approval of
the Ten Year Plan to create awareness about its key messages and recommendations amongst residents and stakeholders. Implement a system for the regular
reporting of the plan, including an annual report card to the community.
Staff-led.
96. Establish annual work plans to identify recommendations requiring implementation within the coming year. Work plans should identify departmental leads, partners, funding requirements and sources, etc.
Staff-led through annual budget process.
97. Undertake a comprehensive review and update of the Ten Year Plan to begin no later than 2033. Timing may be accelerated based on the pace of implementation and changes within the community.
Consultant: $200,000
98. Use this Ten Year Plan as a resource in establishing the City’s annual budget documents, capital forecasts, development and community benefits charges studies, secondary plans, and other related studies.
Staff-led. Coordinate with
all involved departments as appropriate.
99. Where appropriate and consistent with City policies and priorities, consider alternative funding and cost-sharing approaches such as (but not limited to)
fundraising, grants, private-public partnerships, sponsorships, surcharges, capital reserve contributions, and various forms of collaboration to provide the best
value to residents.
Staff-led / best practice.
100. Assess and ensure that operating budget implications are identified and appropriately resourced prior to approving major capital projects. Staff-led / best practice.
- 208 -
190 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
# Recommendation 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-10+ years Costs / Implementation
101. Foster effective partnerships and co-location opportunities with landowners and public agencies (e.g., public libraries, schools, etc.) that support the improvement, provision, and expansion of recreation,
parks, and community facilities that address demonstrated needs.
Staff-led / best practice.
- 209 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 (Draft) 1
- 210 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Table of Contents
Appendix A: Project Alignment
Appendix B: Trend and Best Practice Review
Appendix C: Analysis of Public Input
Appendix D: Asset Inventory and Mapping
Appendix E: Supporting Materials for Facility Needs Assessments (Trends, Input, Usage)
Appendix F: Types of Partnerships and Approaches to Evaluation
Appendix G: Description of Existing Park Type
Appendix H: Parkland Policy Background
- 211 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 A-1
Appendix A: Project Alignment
The following documents and studies were reviewed and integrated as appropriate into the analysis within this Ten Year Plan.
Sector / Provincial Documents
• Framework for Recreation in Canada
• Parks for All
• Ontario Culture Strategy
• Ontario Planning Act
• Provincial Policy Statement
• Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act
City of Pickering Documents
• Corporate Strategic Plan (2023)
• Recreation and Parks Master Plan (2017)
• Skateboard Strategy (2017)
• Official Plan (Edition 9)
• Envision Durham Official Plan (2023)
• Development Charges Background Study (2022)
• Capital Budget (2023)
• Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan – Community Services and Facility Study (2023)
• Five-Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025
• Cultural Strategic Plan (2014)
• Age Friendly Community Plan (2019)
• Integrated Transportation Master Plan (2021)
• Asset Management Plan (AMP) (2020)
• Community Safety & Wellbeing Plan (2023-draft)
• Public Art Plan (2023/2026)
• Corporate Energy Management Plan (2019-2024)
• Recreation User Fee Study (ongoing)
• Facilities Renewal Study (2024)
• Digital Strategy (ongoing)
• Community Tourism Plan (ongoing)
• Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy (ongoing)
• Community Climate Adaptation Project (ongoing)
- 212 -
- 213 -
B-1 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Appendix B: Trend and Best Practice Review
Below are several trends that are influencing the demand for and delivery of recreation and parks services in Canadian municipalities. Some of these trends have emerged as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, while others have been affecting service provision for several years. These trends have been considered against other study inputs (such
as public consultation and local usage levels) to inform the Plan’s recommendations. Additional detail on each trend can be found in the Ten Year Plan’s supporting materials (Interim Report #2).
General Participation Trends, Behaviours, and Policy Responses
• Promoting Health and Wellness
• Engaging the Aging Population
• Combating High Levels of Physical Inactivity
• Participating in Sport
• Growing Concerns over Affordability
• Meeting the Demand for Unstructured, Self-Directed Activities
• Encouraging Outdoor and Free Play
• Accommodating Emerging Activities
• Focusing on Inclusion and Access
• Improving Gender Equity and Women’s Sports & Fitness
• Using Recreation and Parks to Support Indigenous Reconciliation
• Offering Safe Spaces for Marginalized Populations
• Sport Specialization and Long-term Player Development Models
Service Delivery Trends
• The Necessity of Partnerships
• Data, Technology and Digital Transformation
• Declining Volunteerism
Infrastructure Trends
• Rationalizing and Addressing Aging Infrastructure
• Designing Facilities to be Sport-Friendly
• Parks as Critical Outdoor Spaces
• Supporting Active Transportation
• Growing Emphasis on Neighbourhoods and Local Opportunities
• Increasing Focus on Environmental Design and Climate Change
Pandemic Impacts and Possible Future Implications
• Social Infrastructure is Vital to our Mental and Physical Health
• Parks Continue to be Appreciated and Well Used
• Virtual Programming has Emerged as an Option
• Many are Returning to Play, but Affordability is a Rising Concern
• Evolving Financial and Staffing Challenges
- 214 -
- 215 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 C-1
Appendix C: Analysis of Public Input
The following is a summary of public and stakeholder input received through the Ten Year Plan’s community engagement program.
A1. Public Open Houses
Broad community input was sought through drop-in
open houses, pop-up booths, and a community-wide survey (the latter is described in the next section).
Four public open house sessions (three in-
person and one virtual) were held to engage
interested residents, community partners, and user groups in the planning process. The open houses were available for all community members to attend. In total, over 210 participants attended
these sessions to discuss their ideas with the
Consulting Team and City staff.
1. November 14, 2023 (Morning), Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex 2. November 15, 2023 (Afternoon), Chestnut
Hill Developments Recreation Complex
3. November 15, 2023 (Evening), Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex 4. November 28, 2023 (Evening), Virtual Consultation
These sessions were promoted through the City’s
website, email networks, roadside signs, posters in City facilities, social media accounts, and traditional media. The in-person events consisted of information boards detailing the scope and process, sticky notes on display
boards, comment sheets, a priority polling station and
child’s voice drawing station to identify public priorities. The virtual session provided a presentation followed by a facilitated discussion and group chat for interactive feedback. In addition to these sessions, feedback
provided by residents via the activation boards also
contributed to public open house input.
- 216 -
C-2 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Additionally, City staff used smaller versions of the open house displays to create awareness about the community survey and to engage community members throughout Pickering. Pop-up sessions were held at:
• Don Beer Arena
• Delaney & O'Brien Arenas
• East Shore Community Centre
• George Ashe Library and Community Centre
• Pickering GO Station
• Pickering City Centre (shopping centre)
• Special events, including Fall Fling and Winter Nights City Lights
Key Themes from the Open Houses
Common themes that emerged from Public Open house discussions, emails, display
boards, comment sheets, and priority polling station are summarized below.
Summary of Feedback from Public Open House Display Boards
Requested Improvements or Additions
Indoor Recreation Outdoor Recreation and Parks
Swimming
• Additional, larger, warmer pool (4)
• Indoor slide, diving board (4)
• More swim times (classes, public) (4)
• Outdoor water play (i.e., splash pads)
Pickleball Courts
• Dedicated facility (indoor and /or outdoor) (6)
Additional Programming
• Parent classes, pottery and summer
youth (3)
• Evening and weekend options (2)
Improved changerooms and washrooms
• Better showers, hockey change rooms, working locks (3)
• Accessible washrooms
• Female only washrooms
Fees
• Better facility rental rates for residents
• Reduced personal trainer rates
• Free gymnastics
Basketball Courts
• Accessible and safe courts across the city
• Areas for teenagers to hangout
• New courts in Seaton area
Environment
• Supporting trail connections (3)
• Acknowledging conservation areas
and wildlife spaces amongst the City’s park locations
• Pursuing environmental partnerships, events, and protecting native plants
Playgrounds
• More and bigger playgrounds (2)
• Fun accessible playgrounds
Pickleball Courts
• Dedicated outdoor courts (3)
- 217 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 C-3
Requested Improvements or Additions
Indoor Recreation Outdoor Recreation and Parks
Sign-up
• More capacity for programs with large waitlists (2)
Outreach
• Advertise facilities in the community, cross promote with other community services
• Encourage more usage of high
schools
Basketball Court / Gymnasium
• New basketball court (2)
Community Centre
• Providing larger facility in the core
• Providing a new facility in Seaton
Racquetball Courts
• Maintaining existing courts (2)
Other Mentions
• Indoor playground, rock climbing wall (2), improving gym capacity, adding a concession to the recreation complex
Skateboarding
• Facility near Whitevale Road and Brock Road
• Facility in an allocated area to attract teenagers
Splash Pads
• Splash pads throughout Pickering (2)
Swimming
• Outdoor pool (2), possibly at Frenchman’s Bay
Other Mentions
• Cricket fields (2), Outdoor rinks (2),
Water park (2), Community gardens, Lawn bowling, Outdoor track
Sample Comments
Indoor Recreation Outdoor Recreation and Parks
“More options for swimming lessons to meet
demand”
“Dedicated indoor pickleball facility”
“Better options for recreation programs on the weekend and in the evening”
“Accessible washroom near sports clinic”
“Eliminate paid parking at Waterfront”
“Carry on with Century club program - to keep people motivated for exercise”
“Better playgrounds with splash pads”
“Allocate areas for facilities that would attract teenagers such as basketball and skate boarding, too many youth hanging out in the mall”
“We are fortunate to have some beautiful parks and open green areas in Pickering. These could be used to hosting city sponsored activities in the summer like yoga,
meditation, and regular talks by experts on how the seniors can promote their physical and mental health and well-being.”
- 218 -
C-4 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Furthermore, through the interactive voting stations, open house attendees were asked to select amongst a series of recreation and parks facility activities to indicate which ones they wanted to see more of. Top priorities included:
• Tennis (13%)
• Pickleball (11%)
• Playgrounds & Outdoor Play (9%)
• Walking & Cycling on Trails (9%)
• Special Events & Festivals (8%)
Figure 18: Public Open House Poll Results – What Activities do you Want More of in Pickering? (n = 668)
Respondents also provided the following suggestions: racquetball (2), badminton, cricket, disc golf, dog areas, handball, and ping pong.
Key Themes from Engagement Boards
Three engagement boards were displayed at the Chestnut Hill Developments
Recreation Complex (CHDRC) and made available at other area facilities to interact
with users and community members, asking the public questions about recreation and park strengths, potential improvements, and priorities. A total of 570 community members interacted with the engagement board about key priorities.
2%
4%
4%
5%
6%
6%
6%
7%
7%
8%
9%
9%
11%
13%
Skateboarding & BMX
Ice Sports
Gymnasium Sports
Arts & Cultural Spaces
Outdoor Field Sports
Fitness & Wellness Activities
Child & Youth Spaces
Swimming & Waterplay
Adult & Older Adult Spaces
Special Events & Festivals
Walking & Cycling on Trails
Playgrounds & Outdoor Play
Pickleball
Tennis
- 219 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 C-5
Summary of Feedback from Engagement Boards
What improvements would you like to see for recreation and parks in the city?
The themes presented for question one include improving facilities, courts (volleyball), arenas, park washrooms, and the city’s waterfront. There is a desire for more swimming lessons and art programming as well as the improvement of playgrounds and splash pads. Demand for new dog parks and improved bike lanes in the City are also
apparent. Lastly, there is a want for more year-round City events.
What do you like best about City recreation and parks (facility, programs, or services)?
The themes present for question two are similar to the improvements from question one. Although community members believe there is a need for improvement in recreational facilities, residents still enjoy participating in programming and events hosted by the City. The sense of community that the City of Pickering provides can be
seen through staff’s interaction with the public and recreation users.
What are your top five priorities for our recreation and parks?
From gathering community members’ priorities through a sticker-dot matrix, the graph on the following page illustrates that
community members placed a priority on new or improved outdoor skating rinks, playgrounds, art studios, gymnasiums, park
washrooms, children’s programming, splash pads, indoor swimming pools, waterfront revitalization, and parks and open space. Community members’ priorities generally align with their requests for improved recreation and parks amenities.
- 220 -
C-6 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Key Facility Priorities from Engagement Boards
In comparison with the open house voting station (which
focused on activities
that residents want to see more of), opportunities for playgrounds and
outdoor play were
also highly ranked through the engagement boards.
58
61
62
67
90
104
114
118
125
126
12
11
11
44
6
18
16
13
17
31
6
3
4
2
3
0
2
3
4
2
16
25
21
3
10
9
12
18
8
15
Park Washrooms
Parks and Open Space
Swimming Pools (Outdoor)
Arenas (Ice Sports)
Gymnasiums (Basketball, Volleyball, Pickleball,etc.)
Splash Pads
Art Studios
Playgrounds
Swimming Pools (Indoor)
Outdoor Skating Rinks
CHRDC Arenas East Shore Community Centre Pickering City Centre (Shopping Mall)
- 221 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 C-7
A2. Community Survey
To support the development of this Ten Year Plan, the City of Pickering hosted an online community survey that was available from October 25, 2023 to December 7, 2023. The survey was promoted through a variety of means (e.g., email blasts, social
media, traditional media, roadside signs, posters, etc.) and was available through the
project website. hard copies were also made available at City facilities.
A total of 1,374 responses (representing approximately an estimated 4,500 person residents) were received. The response rate is strong and – when combined with other consultation tactics and inputs – provides a solid basis for future planning. Being a
voluntary, self-directed survey, response rates varied by question; response levels have
been identified for each question (n=”x”) within the pages that follow.
The purpose of the community survey was to elicit information on the recreation and park preferences of Pickering residents. Specifically, the survey gathered information regarding: residency; participation rates in a variety of recreation and park activities and
facilities; programs / activity gaps; facility priorities; opinions on various statements;
preferred methods of communication; and demographics.
Participation
Participants identified the various types of recreational and park activities that they or members of their household have participated in the last 12 months. The most
common responses include passive activities such as walking or hiking on trails or outdoor tracks (82%), use of trails (52%), and picnicking or casual use of parks (42%). Following these responses were many more active recreational and park activities such as fitness programs and classes (36%), indoor leisure swimming (35%), and use of playground equipment (35%).
A chart showing the results of this question is contained in Section 3.2 of this report.
Participation profiles also resulted in the following observations:
• Respondents living in the rural areas north of Highway 407 (Claremont, etc.) are
less likely to participate in leisure swimming and picnicking;
• Respondents living between Highway 407 and Finch Avenue (Seaton, etc.) are
less likely to participate in pickleball;
• Respondents living south of Highway 401 are more likely to use trails (and cycle
on them) and participate in beach and paddling activities; and
• Respondents that speak a language other than English and French at home are
more likely to participate in leisure swimming and children’s programs (and
participate in swimming outside of Pickering).
- 222 -
C-8 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Over half (52%) of survey respondents identified that they are able to participate in recreational and park activities as often as they would like. Four-in-ten (43%) respondents identified that they are not able to participate as often as they would like.
Are you or members of your household able to participate in recreational and park activities as often as you would like? (n=1374)
For those that do not participate as often as desired, the most common reasons included poor or inadequate facilities (44%), inconvenient program times (39%),
too busy to participate (25%), cost to participate is too high (24%), and lack of programs that interest me (24%).
It was also found that respondents living in the rural areas north of Highway 407 (Claremont, etc.) are more likely to indicate that they cannot participate in recreation and park activities as often as they would like. Respondents identifying as a person with
a disability and those that speak a language other than English and French at home are
more likely to indicate that costs are a barrier to participation.
Yes52%
No43%
Don't Know5%
- 223 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 C-9
If not, what are the top reasons preventing you and your household from participating as often as you would like? (Multiple responses) (n=655)
Two-fifths (40%) of survey respondents indicated that “all” or “most” of their recreation and parks needs are met within Pickering. Conversely, 27% indicate that only “some” or “none” of their needs are met locally.
Generally, what percentage of your household's recreational and parks needs are met within Pickering? (n=963)
Most (88%) of survey respondents have a portion of their recreational and park activities met elsewhere outside of Pickering. Common responses for the types of needs met elsewhere include trail use (48%), park use (46%), swimming (31%), and special events (28%). Respondents living north of Finch Avenue (Claremont, Seaton, etc.) are more likely to participate in recreation and park activities outside of Pickering.
16%
2%
3%
3%
4%
6%
15%
18%
24%
24%
25%
39%
44%
Other
Don't Know
Poor health
Do not feel welcome or safe in facilities
Lack the confidence or knowledge to participate
Lack of child minding
Facility too far away (no transportation)
Unaware of opportunities
Lack of programs that interest me
Costs to participate is too high
Too busy to participate
Inconvenient program times
Poor or inadequate facilities
3%
2%
25%
30%
31%
9%
Don’t Know
None (0%)
Some (1-33%)
About Half (34-66%)
Most (67-99%)
All (100%)
- 224 -
C-10 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
If a portion of your needs are met elsewhere, what recreational and park activities do you or members of your household participate in outside of Pickering? (n=1218)
Half (47%) of survey respondents participate in recreation and parks activities outside of
Pickering due to their desired facility or program not being available in the City. Other common responses include the quality of facilities or programs being superior to what is available in Pickering (33%), facility or program is not available at their preferred time (23%), and the activity being less expensive elsewhere (17%). These indicate areas
where the City can focus improvements to encourage residents to use local facilities
rather than travelling to other municipalities.
Why does your household participate in these activities outside of Pickering? (Multiple responses) (n=1120)
17%
6%
15%
18%
21%
23%
23%
28%
31%
46%
48%
Other Activity (Not Listed Above)
None
Other Sports
Field Sports (Soccer, Baseball, etc.)
Court Sports (Tennis, Pickleball, etc.)
Ice Sports (Hockey, Skating, etc.)
Fitness
Special Events
Swimming
Park Use
Trail Use
17%
0%
7%
9%
11%
13%
17%
23%
33%
47%
Other
Don't Know
Closer to other activities or shopping
Tournaments / Special events/ Travel teams
“Connected” to the other community / Used to …
Closer to home, work or school
Less expensive
Facility/program not available at the preferred time
Quality of facility / program is superior
Facility/program is not available in Pickering
- 225 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 C-11
Programs/Activity Gaps
Participants were asked to rate their satisfaction with the available recreational programs and activities for different age groups. The age groups that generally had an
even distribution of satisfaction/dissatisfaction were families, adults, and children.
Seniors and older adults were generally more satisfied than dissatisfied with programs and activities. The age group that was more dissatisfied than satisfied were teens, suggesting that this may be an area of future focus for the City (the youth survey provides more information on this topic).
In general, please rate how satisfied you are with the recreational programs and activities available in Pickering to the following age groups (n=987-1068)
Note: “Don’t Know” responses not shown.
Respondents living north of Finch Avenue (Claremont, Seaton, etc.) and those that speak a language other than English and French at home are more likely to be dissatisfied with recreation program and activity options for children and youth, as well as festivals and events provided by the City. Respondents living north of Highway 407 (including Claremont) are more likely to be dissatisfied with options for older adults and
seniors.
Over half (57%) of survey respondents would like to see additional recreational and park activities or programs that are not currently available in Pickering. Nearly one-in-four (24%) suggested they would like to see more swimming offered in Pickering, followed by pickleball (15%), skating (15%), splash pads (8%), and cycling (7%).
31%
14%
34%
29%
28%
32%
28%
18%
32%
19%
15%
32%
Children (0-12 yrs)
Teens (13-19 yrs)
Adults (20-49 yrs)
Older Adults (50-64 yrs)
Seniors (65+)
Families
Satisfied Dissatisfied
- 226 -
C-12 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
What recreational and park activities or programs would you like to see offered in Pickering? (Open-ended) (n=704)
Facility Priorities
Survey respondents were asked whether they oppose or support the City spending additional funds to provide more of a variety of facility types in Pickering. The most
supported facilities for added investment include:
• Playgrounds (81%)
• Informal spaces in parks for picnics and free play (80%)
• Trails (79%)
• Indoor swimming pools (77%)
• Splash pads (76%)
• Outdoor skating rinks (75%)
• Dedicated youth space (73%)
• Dedicated seniors’ space (72%)
• Gymnasiums (72%)
The least amount of support was expressed for more specialized or niche facilities, such
as squash and racquetball courts, disc golf, BMX parks, and cricket, football and rugby fields.
Respondents living in the rural areas north of Highway 407 (Claremont, etc.) are more likely to support investment in outdoor pickleball courts and BMX bike parks.
Respondents that speak a language other than English and French at home are less
likely to support investment in ball diamonds, BMX bike parks, off-leash dog areas, and outdoor pickleball courts.
A chart showing the results of this question is contained in Section 3.2 of this report.
4%
5%
5%
6%
6%
7%
8%
15%
15%
24%
Accessible Programming
Basketball
Waterfront Activities
Senior Programming
Playgrounds
Cycling
Splash Pads
Skating
Pickleball
Swimming
- 227 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 C-13
Statements
A variety of statements were provided to survey respondents to determine their level of
agreement.
Please share your level of agreement with the following statements. (n=1163-1201)
Note: “Don’t Know” responses removed and remaining values recalculated.
57%
70%
71%
73%
78%
81%
83%
89%
89%
92%
97%
43%
30%
29%
27%
22%
19%
17%
11%
11%
8%
3%
I am satisfied with recreation programming providedby the City of Pickering, such as aquatics, camps,
fitness, seniors services, and more.
I feel that I am aware of the recreation and parkopportunities that are available in my area.
I am satisfied with the festivals and special eventsprovided by the City of Pickering.
Recreation programs offered by the City ofPickering are affordable for my household.
I am satisfied with the gardens and horticulturaldisplays in City parks and facilities.
I consider City parks to be accessible for people of
all abilities.
Building new recreation and parks facilities shouldbe a high priority for City Council.
I feel safe in City of Pickering parks and recreationspaces.
Upgrades to existing recreation and parks facilitiesshould be a high priority for City Council.
City of Pickering recreation facilities are important tomy quality of life.
City of Pickering parks are important to my qualityof life.
Agree Disagree
- 228 -
C-14 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
The most agreed upon statement (97%) was “City of Pickering parks are important to my quality of life”; similarly, 92% agreed that “City of Pickering recreation facilities are important to my quality of life”.
Conversely, over two-fifths (43%) of respondents disagreed with the statement “I am
satisfied with recreation programming provided by the City of Pickering, such as aquatics, camps, fitness, senior services, and more”. Also of note, 27% disagreed with the statement that “Recreation programs offered by the City of Pickering are affordable for my household”.
Communication
Preferred methods of communication to learn about City of Pickering events, programs, and activities include the City of Pickering website (69%), emails and digital newsletters (52%), roadside or digital signs (27%), and the City of Pickering Facebook page (25%).
What are your preferred methods of learning about City of Pickering events, programs, and activities? (Multiple responses) (n=1211)
6%
6%
7%
10%
11%
17%
18%
25%
27%
52%
69%
Other (specify)
Communications through Community or SportsOrganizations
City of Pickering Twitter / X Page
Newspapers
Word of Mouth
Other Social Media Channels
Posters or Paper Flyers
City of Pickering Facebook Page
Roadside or Digital Signs
Emails and Digital Newsletters
City of Pickering Website
- 229 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 C-15
Additional Comments
An open-ended response allowed for survey respondents to further share their ideas or comments. Common topics of discussion involved fees (10%), accessible/available
programs (9%), improved outdoor facilities (8%), pickleball (6%), and a new recreation
facility (6%).
Demographic Profile of Survey Respondents
Demographic information was collected from survey respondents to gain a better understanding of who participated. The survey represents an estimated 4,500 people in
responding households, for an average of 3.3 persons per household.
As is typical in surveys of this type, families with young children are somewhat over-represented in the survey, while young adults are somewhat under-represented. There was a very good response rate from older adults and seniors, indicating strong interest in the topics amongst these age groups. It should be noted that input from youth was
also specifically sought through a separate survey and related tactics.
Including yourself, what is the total number of persons within your household that fall into the following age categories? (n=1142)
The average age of survey respondents was 53 years (1970 birth year).
29%
20%
26%
38%
33%
26%
16%
11%
15%
24%
19%
15%
11%
12%
20%
19%
22%
17%
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%
Under 10 years
10-19 years
20-34 years
35-49 years
50-64 years
65 years and over
2021 Census (Pop) %% of People % of Households
- 230 -
C-16 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
In what year were you born? (n=1048)
The most commonly spoken language in responding households is English (99%), which is not a surprising finding given that the survey was provided in English only. Of interest, however, is that 18% of responding households also speak a language other
than English or French at home.
What languages are spoken in your household? (n=1171)
Prior to 1950 (74 yrs or older), 7%
1950 to 1959 (64 to 73 yrs), 19%
1960 to 1969
(54 to 63 yrs), 19%1970 to 1979 (44 to 53 yrs), 19%
1980 to 1989 34 to 43 yrs), 27%
1990 to 1999(24 to 33 yrs), 10%
7%
18%
99%
French
Other Language
English
- 231 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 C-17
8% of participants identified themselves as a person with a disability.
Do you identify as a person with a disability? (n=1168)
95% of respondents live in the City of Pickering. The remaining 5% who responded live outside the City of Pickering in adjacent areas including Ajax (2.4%), Scarborough
(0.8%), and Whitby (0.7%).
Almost half (49%) of survey respondents identified their postal code as beginning with L1V which is the area generally between Highway 401 and Finch Avenue. This is followed by 24% of survey respondents with the postal code L1X (North of Finch Avenue [Seaton, etc.]), and 19% with the postal code L1W (South of Highway 401). A
small number of residents in the L0H postal code area (Rural) were represented through the survey. Residents with the postal code L1Y (Claremont and area) were over-represented by 5% compared to Canada Post forward sortation areas.
Yes, 8%
No, 89%
Prefer not to answer, 4%
- 232 -
C-18 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
If living in Pickering, what are the first three characters of your postal code? (n=1305)
Forward Sortation Areas (FSAs) in Pickering
Source: Canada Post
Almost half (47%) of survey respondents living in Pickering have lived locally for more than 20 years. Conversely, one-fifth (18%) of survey respondents are generally newcomers to the area, having lived in Pickering for less than 5 years.
How long have you lived in Pickering? (n=1300)
L0H0%
L1V49%
L1W19%
L1X24%
L1Y8%
Don’t Know0%
Less than 5 years18%
5 to 10 years16%
11 to 20 years19%
More than 20 years47%
Don't Know0%
- 233 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 C-19
A3. Youth Engagement
Youth engagement is crucial in the development of the Ten Year Plan. As youth are one of the largest user populations for the City, it is essential to understand their priorities for improving recreation and parks for Pickering.
The City of Pickering conducted youth engagement consultations through several
classroom presentations and dot-mocracy exercises at Pine Ridge S.S., Dunbarton S.S., St. Mary C.S.S., and various elementary schools. Additionally, an online youth survey was promoted by the City to engage students. A focus group session was also held with members of PACT4Teens (Pickering Activity Council for Teens) and the City
of Pickering’s Central Library TAG (Teen Advisory Group).
The key findings from the survey are summarized below.
In-school Consultations
In-school Youth Consultation Methodology
Tactic Description
Student Leadership Team
City staff worked with student leadership teams at Pine Ridge S.S. to administer surveys to their peers during lunch hour and gain feedback for the plan. The leadership team also promoted participation in the priority dot-matrix exercise to students.
Classroom Presentations City staff designed presentations to focus on strategic planning and the importance of long-term planning in a community and personal
context. Students learned community engagement skills, strategic
planning, the importance of civic participation, and lastly, the decision-making process and how their input impacts the development of our community. Students completed the youth survey and participated in an interactive priority dot-mocracy
exercise as part of the presentation.
Elementary
School – Grades 7 & 8
Interactions with elementary schools consisted of presenting in
school classrooms with a brief overview of the project and
articulating the importance of their feedback in the planning process for their community. With City staff's guidance, students could complete a city-wide youth survey and participate in the interactive priority dot-matrix exercise.
Smaller versions of the engagement boards were taken to pop-ups at local Pickering elementary schools and secondary/high schools. Around 800 youth participated in this activity. The following graphs below show the top 10 priorities for both levels of
schooling. It is evident that youth community members' priorities are for recreational facilities and programming.
- 234 -
C-20 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Facility Priorities – Elementary School and Result (top ten)
Facility Priorities – Secondary/Highschool and Result (top ten)
Youth Survey
The youth survey was open to community members between 12 and 24 years of age, and achieved 827 online survey submissions. This survey was modelled off the
community survey, but included some youth-specific questions. By undertaking youth
16
18
5
13
14
15
41
7
20
34
1
1
7
4
1
2
7
8
2
4
1
4
10
9
3
6
15
8
6
22
9
2
20
8
35
26
23
Beach Activities
Indoor Sports Fields (Soccer, etc.)
Skateboard Parks
Swimming Pools (Indoor)
Soccer Fields (Outdoor)
Playgrounds
Arenas (Ice Sports)
Beach Volleyball Courts
Gymnasiums (Basketball, Volleyball, Pickleball,…
Basketball Courts (Outdoor)
E.B. Phin Public School Biidaasige Mandamin Public School
Glengrove Public School Bayview Heights Public School
25
12
24
26
21
23
19
31
16
30
5
15
21
21
32
27
22
18
34
32
21
26
16
17
11
23
35
29
30
23
Swimming Pools (Outdoor)
Arenas (Ice Sports)
Soccer Fields (Outdoor)
Playgrounds
Beach Volleyball Courts
Basketball Courts (Outdoor)
Parks & Open Space
Swimming Pools (Indoor)
Teen Programs
Gymnasiums (Basketball, Volleyball, Pickleball,…
Pine Ridge Secondary School St. Mary Catholic Secondary School Dunbarton High School
- 235 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 C-21
consultations at local schools in Pickering and promoting the survey across the community, City staff were able to engage youth and gain an immense amount of feedback for the plan.
Information regarding the grades of respondents and the schools they attend was
collected to gain a better understanding of who participated. The majority of the surveys’ respondents were in grades 7 to 12, with Grade 9 (28%) having the highest representation.
What Grade are you in? (n=827)
One-third (33%) of respondents attended Pine Ridge Secondary School, followed by St.
Mary’s Catholic School (24%), Dunbarton High School (15%), Elizabeth B Phin Public School (10%), and Bayview Heights Public School (8%).
1%
0%
2%
2%
13%
13%
17%
28%
13%
12%
Other (please specify)
Still Deciding
Working/Looking for Work
College/University
Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 10
Grade 9
Grade 8
Grade 7
- 236 -
C-22 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Which School do you attend? (n=783)
One-in-two (50%) indicated they identify as a female, whereas 44% indicated they identify as a male, 2% indicated they identify as transgender, and 1% indicated they identify as non-binary. Additionally, 21% indicated they identify as a Racialized Person
and 14% indicated they speak a first language other than English.
5%
1%
2%
4%
8%
10%
15%
24%
33%
Other (please specify)
St Elizabeth Seton Catholic School
Biidaasige Mandamin Public School
Glengrove Public School
Bayview Heights Public School
Elizabeth B Phin Public School
Dunbarton High School
St. Mary's Catholic School
Pine Ridge Secondary School
- 237 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 C-23
Tell us a bit about yourself (n=749)
Respondents identified the various types of recreational and park activities that they
have participated in the last 12 months. The most common responses include passive activities such as walking or hiking on trails or outdoor tracks (47%), hanging out at my school (38%), hanging out/casual use of parks (34%), and leisure swimming (indoor) (30%). Volleyball (33%) was also amongst the top five responses, representing a more
organized recreation activity.
Walking or hiking on trails or outdoor tracks was also the most common response on the community survey, as were passive and unstructured activities such as use of trails, and picnicking or casual use of parks. furthermore, participation rates for most active sports (aside from Pickleball) were higher on the youth survey.
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
3%
3%
4%
14%
21%
44%
50%
I identify as non-binary
I identify as an Indigenous person
I identify as a person with a disability
I am a parent/guardian of a child under 18 yearsof age
I identify as transgender
I immigrated to Canada within the last 5 years
I do not wish to answer this question
I identify as a member of the 2SLGBTQI+community
I speak a first language other than English
I identify as a Racialized Person
I identify as a male
I identify as a female
- 238 -
C-24 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
During the last 12 months, please indicate the types of recreational or park activities that you have participated in. (Select all that apply). (n=801)
5%
0%
1%
1%
1%
2%
3%
5%
7%
8%
8%
9%
9%
10%
10%
11%
11%
11%
12%
13%
13%
14%
14%
16%
17%
17%
17%
20%
22%
23%
23%
24%
26%
27%
28%
28%
30%
33%
34%
38%
47%
Other (please specify)
Racquetball
Curling
Squash
Bocce
Lawn Bowling
Pickleball (Outdoor)
Pickleball (Indoor)
Cricket
Lane Swimming
Baseball or Softball
Field Sports such as Rugby or Football
Kayaking/Canoeing/Dragon Boating
Beach Volleyball
Tennis
Splash Pads
Skateboarding or Scootering
Recreational Skating (Outdoor)
Fishing
Hockey or Figure Skating
Special Events in Parks
Beach Activities
Leisure Swimming (Outdoor)
Cycling on Trails
Recreational Skating (Indoor)
Fitness Programs and Classes
Soccer (Indoor)
Use of Trails
Basketball - Indoor
Basketball - Outdoor
Use of Playground Equipment
Cycling on Roads
Weight-training
Soccer (Outdoor)
Running or Jogging on Outdoor Tracks
Badminton
Leisure Swimming (Indoor)
Volleyball
Hanging Out/Casual Use of Parks
Hanging out at my school
Walking or Hiking on Trails or Outdoor Tracks
- 239 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 C-25
Over one-half (55%) of students identified that they are able to participate in recreational and park activities as often as they would like. One-in-five (21%) identified that they are not able to participate as often as they would like.
Are you able to participate in recreational and park activities as often as you would like? (n=809)
The top reasons identified to be preventing youth from participating as often they would like included too busy to participate (65%), unaware of opportunities (34%), lack of programs that interest me (32%), costs to participate is too high (29%), and facility too
far away (no transportation) (25%).
What are the top reasons preventing you from participating as often as you would like, if any? (Select up to three responses) (n=167)
55%
21%
24%
Yes
No
Don't know
1%
1%
4%
8%
11%
13%
17%
20%
25%
29%
32%
34%
65%
Lack of child minding
Poor health
Do not feel welcome or safe in facilities
Don’t know
Other (please specify)
Lack of confidence or knowledge to participate
Poor or inadequate facilities
Inconvenient program times
Facility too far away (no transportation)
Costs to participate is too high
Lack of programs that interest me
Unaware of opportunities
Too busy to participate
- 240 -
C-26 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Respondents identified what they like to do in their free time. Responses were led by less active types of activities such as chilling at home or a friend’s house (81%), watching tv/movies/streaming (74%), playing music (58%) and video games (56%),
proceeded by playing organized sports (soccer, basketball, hockey) (41%).
What do you like to do in your free time? (Select all that apply) (n=787)
5%
11%
12%
15%
22%
24%
28%
31%
33%
39%
41%
56%
58%
74%
81%
Other (please specify)
Participating in arts or cultural programs andevents (dance, theatre, art, choir)
Group/club activities (books, chess, graphicnovel, STEM, Glee)
Volunteer in the community
Participate in unstructured activities(skateboarding, swimming, pick-up ball)
Visit a library or community centre
Painting/drawing/designing
Reading/writing
Go to a restaurant or coffee shop
Hang out in a park
Play organized sports (soccer, basketball,hockey)
Play video games
Play music
Watch tv/movies/streaming
Chill at home or a friend’s house
- 241 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 C-27
Respondents identified when they prefer to attend activities and/or events during the school year. The leading response consisted of after school between 3-6pm (62%), followed by Saturday afternoon (28%), Monday to Thursday evenings after 6pm (27%),
Friday evenings after 6pm (25%), and Saturday evening (20%).
When do you prefer to attend activities and/or events during the school year? (n=782)
Respondents identified when do they prefer to attend activities and/or events during the summer. One-in-two (50%) respondents identified weekday afternoons, followed by
Weekday evenings (36%), Saturday afternoon (35%), Sunday afternoon (26%), and Saturday evening (24%).
When do you prefer to attend activities and/or events during the summer? (n=768)
8%
13%
15%
19%
19%
20%
25%
27%
28%
62%
Before school
Sunday morning
Saturday morning
Sunday afternoon
During lunch
Saturday evening
Friday evenings after 6pm
Monday to Thursday evenings after 6pm
Saturday afternoon
After school between 3-6pm
15%
16%
21%
24%
26%
35%
36%
50%
Sunday morning
Saturday morning
Weekday mornings
Saturday evening
Sunday afternoon
Saturday afternoon
Weekday evenings
Weekday afternoons
- 242 -
C-28 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Respondents identified what would make them want to use Pickering’s recreation programs and facilities more. Top responses were led by Public Wi-Fi (70%), followed by More drop-in/free gym time (41%), Youth or teen nights/events (36%),
Volunteer/work opportunities (35%), and Friendly and welcoming staff (32%).
What would make you want to use Pickering’s recreation programs and facilities more? (n=783)
Respondents identified what additional recreational and park activities or programs they would like to see offered in Pickering. In general, active sport amenities (e.g., gymnasiums, arenas, basketball courts, etc.) ranked higher for youth than they did on the broader community survey, though playgrounds, park washrooms, and swimming
pools rated highly on both surveys. Youth also rated arts studies much higher than the community survey.
Top facility priorities from the youth survey included:
• swimming pools (indoor) (32%) • playgrounds (30%) • gymnasiums (basketball, volleyball, pickleball, etc.) (30%) • arenas (ice sports) (29%) • arts studios (27%) • basketball courts (outdoor) (27%)
5%
7%
20%
27%
30%
32%
35%
36%
41%
70%
Other (please specify)
Partnerships with youth-serving organizations and
agencies (disability, Aboriginal, LGBTQ2S,…
Promotion of youth programs and activitiesthrough social media
Bright/comfortable spaces and furniture
Youth Spaces or Chill Zones
Friendly and welcoming staff
Volunteer/work opportunities
Youth or teen nights/events
More drop-in/free gym time
Public Wi-Fi
- 243 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 C-29
From the list below, what recreational and park activities or programs would you like to see offered in Pickering? (n=769)
1%
2%
2%
3%
4%
4%
6%
7%
8%
8%
9%
10%
11%
11%
11%
11%
12%
12%
13%
13%
13%
14%
16%
16%
17%
18%
18%
18%
22%
23%
26%
27%
27%
29%
30%
30%
32%
Racquetball Courts
Squash Courts
Parkland Acquisition
Pickleball Courts (Outdoor)
Dedicated Seniors’ Space
Disc (Frisbee) Golf Courses
Other (please specify)
Community Vegetable Gardens
Informal Spaces in Parks for Picnics and Free…
Cricket Fields
Baseball or Softball Diamonds
Outdoor Fitness Equipment or Exercise Areas
Tennis Courts (Outdoor)
Special Event Parks
Football or Rugby Fields
Community Halls or Banquet Rooms
Skateboard Parks
Dance/Fitness Studios
Splash Pads
Dedicated Youth Space
BMX Bike Parks
Off-Leash Dog Parks
Fitness Centres (equipment-based)
Bike Lanes (on-road)
Outdoor Skating Rinks
Trails (off-road)
Soccer Fields (Outdoor)
Indoor Sport Fields (Soccer, etc.)
Swimming Pools (Outdoor)
Beach Volleyball Courts
Park Washrooms
Basketball Courts (Outdoor)
Arts Studios
Arenas (Ice Sports)
Playgrounds
Gymnasiums (Basketball, Volleyball, Pickleball,…
Swimming Pools (Indoor)
- 244 -
C-30 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Respondents shared their level of agreement with a set of statements. Statements with the highest rates of agreement consisted of:
• 89% of respondents agree that upgrades to existing recreation and parks
facilities should be a high priority for City Council.
• 86% of respondents agree that building new recreation and parks facilities should be a high priority for City Council.
• 81% of respondents agree that I feel safe in City of Pickering parks and recreation spaces.
• 81% of respondents agree that City of Pickering parks are important to my
wellbeing.
• 80% of respondents agree that City of Pickering recreation facilities are important to my wellbeing.
Statements regarding affordability and promotion/awareness exhibited the highest
levels of disagreement, as they did on the community survey.
- 245 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 C-31
Please share your level of agreement with the following statements (n=772)
66%
64%
72%
73%
79%
80%
81%
81%
86%
89%
34%
36%
28%
27%
21%
20%
19%
19%
14%
11%
Recreation programs offered by the City ofPickering are affordable.
I feel that I am aware of the recreation andpark opportunities that are available in myarea.
I am satisfied with recreation programmingprovided by the City of Pickering, such asaquatics, camps, fitness, youth services, andmore.
I am satisfied with the festivals and specialevents provided by the City of Pickering.
I consider City parks to be accessible for
people of all abilities.
City of Pickering recreation facilities areimportant to my wellbeing.
City of Pickering parks are important to mywellbeing.
I feel safe in City of Pickering parks andrecreation spaces.
Building new recreation and parks facilitiesshould be a high priority for City Council.
Upgrades to existing recreation and parksfacilities should be a high priority for CityCouncil.
Agree Disagree
- 246 -
C-32 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Youth identified the best way to tell them about programs and services available in the City of Pickering. Top responses consisted of by Instagram (46%), the City of Pickering website (44%), TikTok (42%), posters or messages at school (38%), and email (34%).
What is the best way to tell you about programs and services available in the City of Pickering? (n=760)
Youth were asked “How can recreation and parks facilities be designed to be more youth-friendly?” The leading responses are detailed below.
How can recreation and parks facilities be designed to be more youth-friendly? (n = 501)
1. Free Wi-Fi 5. Affordability
2. Inclusivity 6. Friendly Staff
3. Accessibility 7. Volunteer Opportunities
4. Safety 8. Engaging/Colourful
2%
2%
12%
16%
18%
20%
20%
21%
31%
34%
38%
42%
44%
46%
Other (please specify)
From my settlement worker
Facebook (@cityofpickering)
X/Twitter (@cityofpickering)
Text
Paper flyer
From my parents
Snapchat
From my teachers
Email
Poster or messages at my school
Tiktok
City of Pickering website
Instagram (@cityofpickering)
- 247 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 C-33
Students were also asked “Do you have other ideas to share or any additional comments that are important for the Recreation and Parks Plan? For example, are there any new programs or activities you would like to see?" The leading responses are
detailed below.
“Do you have other ideas to share or any additional comments that are important for the Recreation and Parks Plan? For example, are there any new programs or activities you would like to see?" (n = 578)
1. Swimming Pools 5. Basketball Courts
2. Art Programs 6. Badminton Courts
3. Volunteer Opportunities 7. Skating Rink (Outdoor/Indoor)
4. Volleyball Courts (Beach/Indoor) 8. Fitness
Youth Focus Group Session
A focus group session was held on November 15th at the Chestnut Hill Developments
Recreation Complex with four (4) Pickering youth, including members of the TAG Public
Library Group. Discussion was guided by the following questions and resulted in these key themes.
Participation – What recreation, sport, and cultural activities do you and other youth participate in? How do these benefit you?
• Fitness Centre – A healthy body improves mental health and sleep quality
• Public Skating – Is a fun way to meet new people (i.e., indoor and outdoor rinks)
• Soccer Club – Drills, practices, and scrimmages boost motivation
Improvements – What recreation facilities and parks do you use the most? What improvements would make them more youth-friendly?
• Fitness Centre – Needs to be expanded and provide more equipment
• Basketball Courts – More open courts are needed in Pickering as it is currently difficult for friends from different schools to find a spot to meet and play; outdoor locations with forests behind them should be fenced
• Gymnasiums / Fitness Centre – Would like to see one to two hours of space
designated exclusively for young girls
• Pools – More open swim times
Barriers – Are recreation facilities, programs and services for youth inclusive, safe, accessible and affordable? What barriers prevent you from participating as often as you would like?
• Lighting – All public spaces require sufficient lighting for safety and use during months when it gets dark outside earlier in the evening
• Park Monitoring – Locations in more isolated areas can feel unsafe
- 248 -
C-34 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
• Language/Culture – New immigrant residents may not be aware of recreation and park services and community events.
• Affordability and Availability – Various programs may be more difficult to participate in and spaces for school events may be difficult to secure.
• Security at Facilities – Concern about safety at public facility spaces (i.e.,
library study rooms, washrooms).
• Public Transportation – Isn’t always dependable
Working together – How can we work together to provide youth in Pickering with more opportunities in the future?
• Niche Sports – Support less popular or thriving activities to keep participants engaged (i.e., Rugby)
• Youth Outreach – Introduce programs to elementary school students
• Female Participation – Provide an encouraging environment that is judgement free.
• Volunteering – More opportunities for youth.
A4. Stakeholder Input
A series of workshops and interviews were held to engage community user groups
and key stakeholders and to solicit their input on a range of topics such as participation trends, facility utilization, satisfaction levels, current and future facility and programming needs, opportunities to partner, and more. The community user groups and stakeholders participating in the sessions consisted of those serving various sectors such as sports, arts and culture, seniors, youth, special interests, and government
agencies.
The distribution list included approximately 75 user groups, community organizations, service providers, and partners involved in the delivery of recreation and parks services across Pickering. Over 25 organizations participated, representing approximately 6,300 members.
Sessions were held virtually on the following dates:
• Sports User Groups - November 6, 2023, from 6:30 pm to 8:00 pm
• Special Interest User Groups - November 7, 2023, from 6:30 pm to 8:00 pm
• Seniors User Groups - November 8, 2023, from 1:30 pm to 3:00 pm
• Arts and Cultural User Groups - November 9, 2023, from 6:30 pm to 8:00 pm
• Key Informant / Agency Interviews – February 2024 (various)
- 249 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 C-35
Stakeholder Organizations Participating in the Workshops and Interviews
Organization Type Reported Membership
Affiliation for Inspiring Youth Upliftment (AFIYU) Community Sport 30 members
Amberlea Tennis Club Community Sport 40 members
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority Government Agency N/A
Cricket Club Community Sport 50 members
CSWB Committee Cultural/Community N/A
Durham Catholic District School Board Government Agency N/A
Durham Champions Cricket Club Community Sport 90 members
Durham District School Board Government Agency N/A
Durham Recreational Sports League Community Sport N/A
Ontario Handball Association Community Sport N/A
Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee Cultural/Community 7 members
Pickering Club Community Sport 500 members
Pickering Dragon Boat Club Community Sport N/A
Pickering FC / Pickering Soccer Centre Community Sport 3500 members
Pickering Men’s Slow Pitch Community Sport 675 members
Pickering Public Library Government Agency N/A
Pickering Rouge Canoe Club Community Sport N/A
Pickering Squash Club Community Sport 120 members
Pickering Swim Club Community Sport 400 members
Pine Ridge Art Council Cultural/Community N/A
Racquetball Community Sport 50 members
Rouge National Urban Park Government Agency N/A
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Government Agency N/A
Waterfront Visionary Advisory Committee Cultural/Community N/A
Westshore Slo-Pitch Community Sport 180 members
55+ Program Committee Cultural/Community N/A
Additional workshop sessions were held with youth and arena user groups. Input from the youth session is summarized in the previous section, input from the school boards is summarized in Interim Report #4, and input from the arena session is contained in the Arena Strategy (under separate cover).
- 250 -
C-36 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Strengths
Stakeholders suggested the following as being core strengths of the City’s recreation and parks facilities and services:
• groups expressed satisfaction with the facilities they use, including Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex (great location), with reasonably priced services
• groups expressed satisfaction with the resourcefulness of City Staff and their openness to collaborate with local organizations
• parking at green spaces was identified as an asset for outdoor recreation facilities
• the City’s skateparks are used consistently and cleared off in the winter
• the sport courts at the Pickering Soccer Centre are well used for futsal (the
Provincial championships are being hosted here), as well as sports such as
volleyball
• the City’s trails were highlighted as a strength (though improvements were also suggested) and have been well used since the pandemic
• there may be potential to leverage sites such as Petticoat Creek Conservation
Park (TRCA) to support recreation programing and events
Trends
Organizations are influenced by many trends. Stakeholders indicated the following:
• tennis, skateboarding, and soccer have seen notable increases in participation
since the pandemic
• Pickering FC (soccer) has seen growth since the pandemic (especially in younger ages and high performance streams) and the club is projecting its membership to grow by 19% by over the next three years, generating greater usage of outdoor fields and indoor turf time;
• demand for cricket is growing, including for youth and women’s teams
• concern was expressed that sports and activities are going to be stretched with
Pickering’s future growth over the next 10 years, including impacts of rising costs
of living
• several groups sought clarification around permitting and fees (the City’s permit process is being revised for the coming year)
• some groups noted a drop off in participation amongst young women in sports around the ages of 15 and 16 years
• waitlists for meeting spaces, pre-competitive swim programming were noted
• some suggested that there is sustained demand for virtual programming, especially for seniors
Barriers and Challenges
Many of Pickering’s organizations experience challenges. Stakeholders suggested the following:
- 251 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 C-37
• improved accessibility between facilities (e.g., soccer dome) and public transportation was identified as a suggestion to address barriers
• there is a shortage of locations to support aquatic program demand
• difficulty accessing the waterfront was noted as a barrier
• advertising programs and gaining new members (e.g., squash – requested
access to CHDRC digital screens)
• communicating with the City prior to weekend tournaments to ensure proper coordination
• lack of accessibility in Frenchman’s Bay poses safety concerns and requires the Pickering Dragon Boat Club to hire an external truck to launch their boats
• TRCA has noted challenges with state of good repair at sites such as Petticoat
Creek Conservation Park and encourages partnerships to assist with funding of
major capital projects
• there was concern that water-based activities in Frenchman’s Bay may be impacted by pending land sales
• parking capacity at the CHDRC during peak times
• Millennium Square washrooms have no access during early spring for the Pickering Dragon Boat Club; parking can also be a challenge at this location
• programming is limited with only two courts for racquetball and handball
• skateparks do not have a reputable public perception and older facilities are not designed well
• the cricket field and clubhouse at Alex Robertson Park has electricity but no running water to support the group’s growing demand
• some trails do not have enough lighting and trash cans
• there are currently no plans to develop new trailheads on the Pickering side of
the Rouge National Urban Park at this time; however, a visitor’s centre will soon
be built in the Park that will offer new opportunities to learn about the Park and
the broader ecosystem
• transit access to trails and greenspaces in rural or peripheral locations was noted
as a barrier by local conservation authorities
Facility Needs
Organizations identified a wide range of facility and service needs. Stakeholders suggested the following:
• a new multi-use recreation facility in Seaton
• completion of the Youth/Seniors Centre project
• several groups are seeking affordable rental space for meetings and activities
• new indoor pool facility to support demand (minimum 25 metres, competition-
ready)
• more indoor and outdoor pickleball courts; o operators of the Soccer Centre are currently working with the City to
improve the flooring so that it can be used for pickleball
o preference for outdoor courts to be dedicated (not shared with other uses)
• continued expansion of the skatepark network:
- 252 -
C-38 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
o want to see quicker action for a new skatepark as they already have a budget for a smaller facility and need to choose a location o add pump tracks at David Farr Memorial Park, the Hydro Corridor, and on
Liverpool Rd. North
o add a skate spot at Kinsmen Bay Ridges Park and consider St. Mary’s Park as a location for a skatepark with a sculptural skate dot o consider skate dots for older park renovations (simple ledges or sculptures) that can be skated on in the shared public space, and skateparks and spots
at new parks in North Pickering (without murals, gravel parking lots, or Honey
Locust trees – which create challenging conditions)
• another cricket pitch for adult games; could consider a cricket/soccer field overlay
• soccer fields in neighbourhood parks and shared fields could be opportunities to support soccer and other sports moving forward, in addition to lit rectangular fields being developed in Seaton (many young families and diverse populations); a variety of field sizes are needed in order to comply with Ontario Soccer guidelines and additional turf fields (or even a stadium field) are desired in order
to accommodate growing needs
• soccer fields in Beverly Morgan Park are in need of revitalization
• Pickering FC cited a lack of indoor space as the club uses 98% of available
hours at the Pickering Soccer Centre’s; there is very little capacity on the indoor
turf field for non-soccer community rentals
• improvements to ball diamonds at Forestbrook Park
• the City is lacking an accessible water facility at Frenchman’s Bay for the canoe club
• bigger event spaces (indoor and outdoor), like Esplanade Park, Millennium Square, Kinsmen Park, Dunmore Park
• enhanced trails, including north/south connecting trails within the city, improving
the Seaton Trail connection, and connecting to the hydro corridor and Rouge National Park
• the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is implementing a trails
strategy in cooperation with several other partners; the Gatineau portion of the
Meadoway corridor trail is currently a focus.
• public washrooms that coincide with the times that parks are open
• clubhouse improvements and providing storage space for equipment at Alex Robertson Park
• adding a canteen for athletes and a snack shop facility in the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex
• improving squash court lighting and general maintenance (i.e., floor gaps,
cleaning walls)
• partnering with the City to use waterfront for programming
- 253 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 C-39
Implementation
Organizations were asked about their future plans, including threats and opportunities to their sustainability. Stakeholders suggested the following:
• having groups work together in Pickering to improve outdoor facilities, rather than competing against each other for permits
• concern over registration fees being impacted by facility rate changes (i.e., would
the City consider 1.5-hour permits?); it was requested that the City review its permitting process to optimize access for local groups
• Accessibility Committee could be involved in more public meetings to contribute accessibility insight when designing new facilities
• providing soft infrastructure in parks to serve as community hubs (e.g., bake ovens, bbq’s, seating, etc.)
• pursuing partnership opportunities for park space to leverage keystone properties
such as Petticoat Creek Conservation Park, Rouge National Urban Park,
Greenwood Conservation Lands, Meadoway corridor, etc.
o the TRCA specifically highlighted the potential withing the Petticoat Creek
Conservation Area and is about to enter into discussions with the City
about broader uses (e.g., community events, recreation, sports, etc.) and
management
o the Greenwood Conservation Lands also have potential to serve as a
district park with several sports fields when the City moves forward with
this initiative
• local conservation authorities and Rouge National Urban Park expressed a desire to work with the City to improve trail routes, looped trails, and connections of greenspace across Pickering, including the new Seaton community
• the aforementioned agencies also deliver a wide range of nature-based and
educational programming and expressed an interest in working more closely with
the City on events and programming
• providing more centralized facilities in Pickering
• swimming programs should be assessed as demand is significant and growing
• more creative senior programming (for younger seniors), including use of trails
• time sharing on shared tennis and pickleball courts (designated times)
• maintaining affordability was noted as a key objective by several groups
• tap payment technology at all recreation centres
- 254 -
C-40 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
A4. Feedback on Draft Plan
Following its receipt by City Council in June 2024, the full draft Ten Year Plan was posted on the Let’s Talk Pickering public engagement site. Feedback on the plan was sought through:
•Open House sessions that were held at the CHDRC on July 9 (evening), July 10(morning), and July 17 (evening) – approximately 60 persons attended thesethree sessions.
•The draft plan was circulated to all involved stakeholders – 3 organizations
provided formal submissions (Rouge National Urban Park, BILD, skateparkadvocate).
•An online questionnaire that was available from June 28 to July 24, 2024.
Approximately 96 persons submitted their input on the following questions:
o What do you like best about the new Recreation & Parks - Ten Year Plan?
o What do you feel is missing from the Plan that we should consider addingor what do you feel should be revised in the Plan?
o Any additional comments/feedback?
Key themes from the input are summarized below:
•The Pickering Swim Club and its members are seeking 8 to 10 lanes in the 25m pool proposed for the Seaton Recreation Complex in order to support competitive swimming. A 50m pool was also requested.
•The Pickering Swim Club expressed concern about the timing of the proposed CHDRC pool shutdown (longer-term). The Club is supportive of improvements to pool (e.g., improved air quality, deck space and configuration, etc.), but is concerned about the impact of a shutdown on its events and operations.
•The Racquetball Club is not supportive of repurposing any of the two existing indoor courts as these are the only courts in the area. The Club indicates that they require two courts for annual events (3) and are starting up new programming.
•Pickleball players requested more dedicated indoor pickleball courts, as well as shared use gymnasiums. The group noted that tennis has dedicated indoor and outdoor courts, but that pickleball has more players.
•Comments appeared supportive of a third-party partnership for more indoor
pickleball courts, use of school gyms, use of the indoor tennis centre, etc. The Pickering Pickleball Club requested dedicated pickleball courts for club use.
•Pickleball players take issue with the quality of existing outdoor pickleball courts
–they are shared use and substandard and not well used as a result.
- 255 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 C-41
• There were also requests for more dedicated outdoor pickleball courts. There were suggestions that the City be fully converting outdoor tennis courts,
developing courts at Petticoat Creek Conservation Park, using outdoor courts at
schools, etc.
• There were a variety of comments supporting planned and recommended improvements to the trail network, ball diamonds, playgrounds, outdoor rinks,
splash pads, off-leash dog parks, etc.
• There were suggestions for expanded health and wellness, fitness, and aquatic programming.
• Some responses expressed frustration with the pace of capital construction, with
residents seeking new community infrastructure to be delivered in step with population growth.
- 256 -
- 257 -
D-1 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Appendix D: Asset Inventory and Mapping
Listing of Existing Indoor Recreation Facilities
Facility Supply Locations
Recreation Complexes 1 Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex
Community Centres 3 Dr. Nelson F. Tomlinson Community Centre*; East Shore Community Centre, George Ashe Library & Community Centre
Community Halls (stand-alone) 6 Brougham Hall*; Greenwood Community Centre*; Mt. Zion Community Centre*; West Shore Community Centre; Whitevale Arts and Cultural Centre*; Whitevale Community Centre*
Cultural Venues 1 Pickering Museum Village
Ice Pads 5 Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex (2), Don Beer Arena (3)
Indoor Pools 2 Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex (25m), Dunbarton Indoor Pool (25m)
Fitness Spaces 1 Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex (health club and 3 fitness studios)
Indoor Tennis Courts 4 Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex (4)
Indoor Turf Fields 1 Pickering Soccer Centre*
Squash Courts 8 Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex (6 international, 2 doubles)
Racquetball Courts 2 Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex (2)
Gymnasiums (municipal) 2
Dr. Nelson F. Tomlinson Community Centre*; East Shore Community Centre (plus school board gymnasiums through the
Community Use of Schools agreement)
Note: City gymnasiums are undersized/non-regulation
Multi-Purpose Rooms 18 Various locations
Older Adult Space 1 East Shore Community Centre
* operated by third-party
- 258 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 D-2
Listing of Existing Outdoor Recreation Facilities
Facility Supply Locations
Soccer & Multi-Use Fields 46 (52 ULE)
Artificial Full (Lit) 2 Bay Ridges Kinsmen Park, Beverley Morgan Park
Full (Lit) 4 Bay Ridges Kinsmen Park (3), Dunmoore Park
Full (Unlit) 13
Amberlea Park, Bay Ridges Kinsmen Park, Beverley Morgan Park (4), Creekside Park, Diana, Princess of Wales Park, Glengrove Park, J. McPherson Park, Rick Johnson Memorial
Park, St. Mary Park (2)
9v9 (Unlit) 11 Bay Ridges Kinsmen Park (2), Brockridge Community Park (2), Douglas Park, Maple Ridge Park, Shadybrook Park (2),
Village East Park (3)
7v7 (Unlit) 16 Diana, Princess of Wales Park (3), Dunbarton High School (9), Glengrove Park, Rick Hull Memorial Park (2), Whitevale Park
Ball Diamonds 27 (39 ULE)
Hardball (Lit) 3 Amberlea Park, Brockridge Community Park, Don Beer Memorial Park
Hardball (Unlit) 1 S.M. Woodsmere Park
Softball (Lit) 9 Bay Ridges Kinsmen Park (4), Centennial Park, Claremont
Memorial Park, Dunmoore Park (2), Greenwood Park
Softball (Unlit) 14
Amberlea Park, Beverley Morgan Park, Brockridge Community Park (2), Forestbrook Park (2), Glengrove Park, J. McPherson Park, Lookout Point Park, Major Oaks Park (2), Maple Ridge Park, Southcott Park, Valleyview Park
Cricket Fields 1 Alex Robertson Park
Tennis Courts
Club (Lit) 24
Bay Ridges Kinsmen Park (4), Claremont Memorial Park (2), David Farr Memorial Park (4), Dunmoore Park (4), Greenwood Park (2), Maple Ridge Park (2), Rick Hull Memorial Park (2), Shadybrook Park (2), Village East Park (2)
Pickleball Courts 11
Overlaid 5 Amberlea Park, Diana, Princess of Wales Park (3), Rick Hull Memorial Park
Overlaid with Tennis 6 Claremont Memorial Park (4), Village East Park (2)
- 259 -
D-3 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Facility Supply Locations
Basketball Courts 17 (13.5 FCE)
Full 10
Beverley Morgan Park, Diana, Princess of Wales Park, Don Beer Memorial Park, East Woodlands Park, Frenchman's Bay
Rate Payers Memorial Park, Glengrove Park (2), Rick Hull Memorial Park, St. Mary Park, Valleyview Park
Half 6
Beverley Morgan Park, Canadian Green, Creekside Park,
Major Oaks Park, Rouge Valley Park, St. Mary Park, Usman Green
Outdoor Ice Rinks 3 Claremont Memorial Park, Greenwood Park, Whitevale Park
Skateboard Parks 2
Skate Park 1 Diana, Princess of Wales Park
Skate Spot 1 West Shore Community Centre
Splash Pads 3 Amberlea Park, Beachfront Park, Foxtail Green
Playgrounds
(locations) 63
Amaretto Park, Amberlea Park, Balsdon Park, Bay Ridges Kinsmen Park, Bayshore Tot Lot, Beechlawn Park, Beverley
Morgan Park, Bidwell Tot Lot, Bonita Park, Brockridge Community Park, Bruce Hanscomb Memorial Park, Canadian Green, Centennial Park, Chickadee Park, Claremont
Memorial Park, Clearside Park, Creekside Park, David Farr Memorial Park, Denmar Park, Diana, Princess of Wales Park, Don Beer Memorial Park, Douglas Park, Dunmoore Park,
East Woodlands Park, Erin Gate Park, Ernie L. Stroud Park, Forestbrook Park, Foxtail Green, Frenchman's Bay Rate Payers Memorial Park, Glen Ravine Park, Glendale Park, Glengrove Park, Green River Park, Greenwood Park, Hollyberry Green, J. McPherson Park, Lookout Point Park, Lynn Heights Park, Major Oaks Park, Maple Ridge Park, Martin's Tot Lot, Mitchell Park, Mulmer Tot Lot, Nature Haven Park, Pinegrove Park, Progress Frenchman's Bay East Park, Rick Hull Memorial Park, Rick Johnson Memorial Park, Rosebank South Park, Rouge Valley Park, S.M. Woodsmere Park, Shadybrook Park, Shadybrook Tot Lot, Southcott Park,
St. Mary Park, Summer Park, Sunbird Trail Park, Usman Green, Valleyview Park, Village East Park, Whitevale Park, William Jackson Green, Woodview Tot Lot
Outdoor Fitness Locations 1 St. Mary Park
Community Gardens 2 Diana, Princess of Wales Park – 107 plots (plus future phase
proposed to the north), George Ashe Library & Community Centre – 12 plots (55+ Plot to Plate Program)
- 260 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 D-4
Facility Supply Locations
Off-Leash Dog Areas 3 Balsdon Park, Dunmoore Park, Grand Valley Park (2)
Bocce Courts 4 Centennial Park (4)
Beach Volleyball Courts 5 Diana, Princess of Wales Park (5)
Lawn Bowling Greens 2 East Shore Community Centre (2)
Running Tracks 2 Beverley Morgan Park, St. Mary Park
Note: The inventory excludes sports fields permitted by school boards.
*Each lit soccer field is equivalent to 1.5 unlit fields; each lit artificial turf field is equivalent to 3.0 unlit
fields (unlit turf is equivalent to 1.5 fields) (ULE). Each lit ball diamond is equivalent to 2.0 unlit diamonds
(ULE). Each half court is equivalent to 0.5 of a full basketball court (FCE).
Benchmarking Against Comparator Municipalities
Facility City of Pickering Municipal Benchmarking Provision Ratio
Indoor Facilities 1 facility per “x” residents
Community Centres 25,800 32,900
Ice Pads 20,600 20,000
Indoor Pools 51,500 45,400
Fitness Spaces 103,000 47,700
Indoor Tennis Courts 25,750 212,000
Gymnasiums (municipal) 51,500 38,200
Older Adult Spaces 103,000 63,600
Youth Spaces None 73,400
Outdoor Facilities 1 facility per “x” residents
Soccer & Multi-Use Fields 2,200 2,700
Ball Diamonds 3,800 3,900
Basketball Courts 7,600 6,700
Beach Volleyball Courts 20,600 190,800
Cricket Fields 103,000 136,300
Lawn Bowling Greens 51,500 190,800
Off-leash Dog Parks 33,340 22,700
Outdoor Fitness Locations 103,000 86,700
- 261 -
D-5 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Facility City of Pickering Municipal Benchmarking Provision Ratio
Playgrounds 1,600 1,700
Skateboard Parks 51,500 46,200
Splash Pads 34,300 12,400
Tennis Courts 4,300 4,700
Pickleball Courts (shared/dedicated) 9,400 21,900
Community Gardens (plots) 900 2,100
Parkland
Active Parkland 1.8 ha/1000 2.0 ha/1000
Notes: The comparator group includes eleven regional and/or large urban municipalities in Ontario: Ajax, Barrie, Burlington, Clarington, Guelph, Markham, Milton, Oakville, Oshawa, Richmond Hill, and Whitby. Unless otherwise noted, the data includes facilities that are owned and/or permitted for public use by the
municipality, including facilities that are leased or under agreement (such as school board fields and facilities for which the City of Pickering has an agreement for public use).
Per capita provision rates for City of Pickering based on 2024 estimated population of 103,000 persons. The City of Pickering does not currently have any dedicated outdoor Pickleball Courts.
Listing of Existing Parks
Park # Existing Park Park Type Ownership Neighbourhood Parkland Area (ha) Open Space Area (ha)
P-001 Pinegrove Park Neighbourhood City Highbush 0.6 1.7
P-002 Balsdon Park Neighbourhood City Bay Ridges 1.2 --
P-003 Frenchman's Bay Rate Payers
Memorial Park
Neighbourhood Frenchman’s Bay Ratepayers Bay Ridges 0.6 --
P-004 Douglas Park Neighbourhood City Bay Ridges 1.6 2.9
P-005 Mitchell Park Parkette City Bay Ridges 1.3 --
P-006 Lookout Point Park Neighbourhood City West Shore 1.9 --
P-007 Rick Hull Memorial Park Neighbourhood City Rosebank 2 --
P-008 Centennial Park Community City Brock Ridge 3.5 0.2
P-009 Glengrove Park Neighbourhood City Liverpool 4 --
P-010 Maple Ridge Park Neighbourhood City Liverpool 2.4 --
P-011 David Farr
Memorial Park Community City Liverpool 4.9 --
P-012 Major Oaks Park Community City Brock Ridge 3.5 1.2
P-013 J. McPherson Park Neighbourhood City Amberlea 2.1 --
P-014 Shadybrook Park Neighbourhood City Amberlea 2.8 --
P-015 Forestbrook Park Community City Liverpool 3.2 6.9
- 262 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 D-6
Park # Existing Park Park Type Ownership Neighbourhood Parkland Area (ha) Open Space Area (ha)
P-016 East Woodlands Park Parkette City Woodlands 0.4 --
P-017 Valleyview Park Neighbourhood City Highbush 1.6 --
P-018 Village East Park Neighbourhood City Village East 2.1 --
P-019 Beechlawn Park Neighbourhood City Village East 1.5 --
P-020 Denmar Park Neighbourhood City Village East 0.6 --
P-021 Southcott Park Neighbourhood City Brock Ridge 1.4 --
P-022 Ernie L. Stroud Park Neighbourhood City Woodlands 2.2 --
P-023 Woodview Tot Lot Parkette City Highbush 0.3 --
P-024 Bay Ridges Kinsmen Park City OPG Bay Ridges 13.6 1.6
P-025 Dunmoore Park Community City/TRCA West Shore 6.3 --
P-026 Brockridge Community Park Community City Brock Ridge 5.9 3.2
P-027 Amberlea Park Community City/Region Amberlea 3.7 --
P-028 St. Mary Park Community City Amberlea 3.4 --
P-029 Beverley Morgan
Park Community City/Hydro One Liverpool 10.6 3.4
P-030 Diana Princess of Wales Park Community Hydro One City Centre / Village East 12.1 --
P-031 Alex Robertson Park City OPG Bay Ridges 21.8 --
P-032 Beachfront Park City OPG Bay Ridges 3.6 3.2
P-033 Shadybrook Tot Lot Parkette City Amberlea 0.4 --
P-035 Bayshore Tot Lot Parkette City Bay Ridges 0.4 --
P-037 Bidwell Tot Lot Parkette City West Shore 0.4 --
P-038 Bonita Park Parkette City Dunbarton 0.4 --
P-039 Bruce Handscomb Memorial Park Neighbourhood City/TRCA West Shore 3.4 0.7
P-040 Chickadee Park Parkette City Highbush 0.2 --
P-041 Clearside Park Parkette City Brock Ridge 0.2 --
P-043 Esplanade Park City City City Centre 2.5 --
P-044 Amaretto Park Parkette City Amberlea 0.1 --
P-045 Progress Frenchman's Bay East Park Community City Bay Ridges 1 --
P-046 Glendale Park Neighbourhood City Liverpool 1.1 --
P-048 Erin Gate Park Parkette City Dunbarton 0.2 --
P-049 Nature Haven
Park Parkette City Rouge Park 0.1 --
P-050 Lynn Heights Park Neighbourhood City Liverpool 1.3 3.1
P-051 Martin's Tot Lot Parkette City Remaining
Rural 0.2 --
- 263 -
D-7 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Park # Existing Park Park Type Ownership Neighbourhood Parkland Area (ha) Open Space Area (ha)
P-052 Mulmer Tot Lot Parkette City Liverpool 0.3 --
P-057 Sunbird Trail Park Parkette City Amberlea 0.2 --
P-058 Creekside Park Neighbourhood City Duffin Heights 1.9 --
P-061 Rotary Frenchman's Bay West Park City TRCA West Shore 20.8 --
P-064 Rosebank South Park Parkette City Rosebank 0.4 --
P-065 Rouge Valley Park Parkette City Rougemont 0.7 2.2
P-066 Bicentennial Arboretum Parkette City Amberlea 0.1 --
P-067 Summer Park Parkette City Amberlea 0.2 --
P-070 Glen Ravine Park Parkette TRCA West Shore 0.5 2.6
P-072 S.M. Woodsmere
Park Neighbourhood City Amberlea 2.4 --
P-073 Grand Valley Park City TRCA Duffin Heights / Liverpool 1.7 40
P-074 Green River Park Parkette City Remaining
Rural 0.5 --
P-075 Whitevale Park Community City Remaining Rural 1.1 0.5
P-076 Greenwood Park Community City
Greenwood,
Kinsale & Estate Clusters 2.7 1.6
P-077 Claremont
Memorial Park Community City Claremont &
Area 2.5 --
P-078 Town Hall Park Parkette Public Works Canada Remaining Rural 0.1 --
P-080 Don Beer
Memorial Park Community Public Works
Canada
Remaining
Rural 2.7 --
P-081 William Jackson Green Parkette City Duffin Heights 0.4 --
P-082 Canadian Green Parkette City Duffin Heights 0.4 --
P-085 Usman Green Parkette City Brock Ridge 0.3 --
P-101 Foxtail Green Parkette City Lamoureax 0.4 --
P-102 Rick Johnson Memorial Park Neighbourhood City Lamoureax 1.8 --
P-114 Hollyberry Green Parkette City Wilson Meadows 0.2 --
Source: City of Pickering, 2024 Note: open space parcels excluded
- 264 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 D-8
Listing of Future Parks
Park # Future Park Park Type Ownership Neighbourhood Area (ha)
P-083 Carousel Green Village Green City Duffin Heights 0.5
P-086 unnamed Neighbourhood City Duffin Heights 2.7
P-087 Stoneypay Village Green Neighbourhood City Duffin Heights 0.6
P-088 City Centre Park Urban Park City City Centre 0.6
P-103 unnamed Parkette City Lamoureax 0.1
P-104 unnamed Parkette City Lamoureax 0.3
P-105 Hawkridge Green Parkette City Lamoureax 0.3
P-106 Smoothwater Green Parkette City Lamoureax 0.4
P-107 Titanium Park Neighbourhood City Lamoureax 1.3
P-108 Zircon Green Parkette City Lamoureax 0.3
P-109 Sea Mist Park Neighbourhood City Lamoureax 1.4
P-110 Winding Woods Green Parkette City Lamoureax 0.3
P-111 Virgo Green Parkette City Lamoureax 0.2
P-112 Heartwood Green Parkette City Wilson Meadows 0.4
P-113 Scarlett Green Parkette City Wilson Meadows 0.2
P-115 unnamed Community City Wilson Meadows 11.1
P-116 unnamed Parkette City Mount Pleasant 0.3
P-117 unnamed Community City Mount Pleasant 1.4
P-118 unnamed Parkette City Mount Pleasant 0.3
P-119 unnamed Parkette City Mount Pleasant 0.7
P-120 unnamed Neighbourhood City Mount Pleasant 1.3
P-121 unnamed Parkette City Mount Pleasant 0.6
P-122 unnamed Community City Mount Pleasant 1.6
P-123 Dave Ryan Community Park Community City Wilson Meadows 4.7
P-124 Brickyard Park Neighbourhood City Thompson's Corners 1.5
P-125 Joshua Tree Green Parkette City Thompson's Corners 0.3
P-126 Passionfruit Green Parkette City Thompson's Corners 0.3
P-127 Blazing Star Green Parkette City Thompson's Corners 0.5
P-128 unnamed Neighbourhood City Thompson's Corners 1.5
P-129 unnamed Community City Thompson's Corners 4.2
P-130 unnamed Community City Brock Taunton 0.5
P-131 unnamed Neighbourhood City Wilson Meadows 1.7
P-132 unnamed Parkette City Wilson Meadows 0.3
P-133 unnamed Parkette City Wilson Meadows 0.3
P-134 unnamed Neighbourhood City Wilson Meadows 1.7
P-135 unnamed Neighbourhood City Wilson Meadows 1.5
P-136 unnamed Parkette City Wilson Meadows 0.3
P-137 unnamed Parkette City Mount Pleasant 0.3
P-138 unnamed Parkette City Mount Pleasant 0.3
- 265 -
D-9 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Park # Future Park Park Type Ownership Neighbourhood Area (ha)
P-139 unnamed Parkette City Mount Pleasant 0.4
P-140 unnamed Parkette City Mount Pleasant 0.4
P-141 unnamed Open Space City Mount Pleasant 8.0
P-142 unnamed Open Space City Mount Pleasant 2.4
P-143 unnamed Parkette City Mount Pleasant 0.3
P-144 unnamed District Park City Innovation Corridor 36.4
P-145 Scenic Lane Park Neighbourhood City Duffin Heights 1.4
P-146 Forsythe Farm Park Neighbourhood City Claremont 1.7
Source: City of Pickering, 2024
- 266 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 D-10
Mapping of City Recreation Facilities and Park Amenities
City of Pickering Municipal Indoor Recreation Facilities
- 267 -
D-11 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
City of Pickering Soccer and Multi-use Fields (including permitted non-municipal fields)
- 268 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 D-12
City of Pickering Ball Diamonds
- 269 -
D-13 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
City of Pickering Outdoor Tenns and Pickleball Courts
- 270 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 D-14
City of Pickering Outdoor Basketball Courts
- 271 -
D-15 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
City of Pickering Playgrounds, with 800-metre catchment
- 272 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 D-16
City of Pickering Splash Pads
- 273 -
D-17 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
City of Pickering Other Outdoor Recreation Facilities
- 274 -
- 275 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 E-1
Appendix E: Supporting Materials for
Facility Needs Assessments (Trends, Input,
Usage)
1) Recreation and Community Centres
Market Trends
In this era of user convenience and cost recovery, most municipalities are centralizing multiple recreational and cultural facilities under one roof to offer a “one-stop-shop” experience – a key feature of the CHDRC. Best practices in facility design consider safety, comfort, connectivity with active and public transportation systems, and
opportunities for community gathering and socialization. This may include strategic
placement of seating areas, proximity to washroom facilities, and open concept design features.
Increasingly, these facilities are being designed as “community hubs” that provide a central access point for a range of needed health and social services – along with
cultural, recreational and greenspaces – to nourish community life. Partnerships with
service providers can help municipalities leverage resources and reach new audiences. This may include partnering with public libraries, school boards, service clubs, or other emerging activities. A future multi-use recreation complex in the Seaton community will fill many of these roles.
Community Engagement
The public expressed a high degree of satisfaction with the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex, including its location and range of reasonably-priced services. Among the top priorities expressed by residents was the need for a new multi-use recreation facility (with indoor pool, gymnasiums, etc.) in Seaton. Many stakeholders
also highlighted a desire for additional affordable rental space for meetings and
activities.
In addition, public input indicates that older adult and seniors’ services are highly valued. Through focus group workshops, a permanent hub for youth was suggested and the youth survey also found significant support for extended teen programming. Nearly
three-quarters (73%) of survey respondents support additional spending on space for
youth in Pickering and 72% support additional spending on space for seniors.
Usage Profile
Recreation complexes and community centres contain a wide variety of spaces, from meeting and activity rooms to specialized spaces such as pools and fitness centres.
The City tracks the utilization of spaces that are rentable and/or programmable.
- 276 -
E-2 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
On average, the usage rate for municipal meeting and activity rooms in 2023 was 38%. As this figure includes all open hours, including non-prime time, this level of usage is strong and shows that larger, more flexible spaces within multi-use facilities are in
highest demand. Usage data is not available for stand-alone community halls, but
anecdotal information suggests that hall usage would be substantially lower.
Table 44 : Recreation/Community Space Usage (2023)
Facility Hours of Usage per Room (2023) Usage Rate
CHDRC Banquet Halls 3,260 71%
CHDRC Meeting Rooms (2) 358 8%
CHDRC O’Brien Room 1,757 38%
Don Beer Arena Hall 1,483 32%
East Shore CC Gymnasium 1,591 35%
East Shore CC Meeting Rooms (3) 1,804 39%
George Ashe CC 2,513 55%
West Shore CC* 2,239 49%
Total Utilization 18,971 38%
*Leased to nursery school provider
Usage of other spaces within recreation and community facilities is captured under the analysis of activity-specific components in subsequent sections.
2) Indoor Pools
Market Trends
Swimming is the most popular organized recreation activity and pools are used to
deliver aquatic programs for a wide range of age groups, interests, and abilities. While
municipal outdoor pools provide a similar range of recreation experiences in the summer, indoor pools deliver year-round aquatic programming in a controlled environment. With that said, indoor aquatic centres are among the most intensive and expensive recreation facilities to operate, and their provision must be carefully
evaluated. Further, the pandemic reduced opportunities for many municipalities to offer
certification programs for lifeguards, which – coupled with the elimination of swim and lifeguard training from the Canadian Red Cross in 2022 – has created additional challenges in attracting and retaining sufficient qualified lifeguards and aquatic instructors.
The most common minimum design template for a publicly operated indoor pool is a 25-
metre rectangular tank with six swimming lanes. Trends in pool construction and retrofitting have seen an evolution in public pool design that offers more variety and that accommodates a growing diversity of users, thereby raising the bar in facility quality.
- 277 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 E-3
Facility providers including the City of Pickering are responding to user demands for modern amenities including, but not limited to, family or universal change rooms, warmer pool temperatures, spray features, updated viewing galleries, and universal
design elements. Smaller secondary pool tanks (like at CHDRC) are sometimes
incorporated into facility design to support warm water therapy, training, and lessons for young children, older adults, or persons with disabilities. Indoor pools are frequently co-located with other recreation facilities such as gymnasiums, fitness space, and/or seniors recreation space in order to bolster overall usage, provide opportunities for
cross-programming cross-subsidization among facility operating units, and create a
holistic and convenient experience at a single destination.
Community Engagement
The community engagement program yielded very strong interest in expanding indoor swimming activities, with 77% of survey respondents supporting additional spending on
more indoor swimming pools, ranking 5th out of 36 facility types. Indoor pools were also highlighted through the youth engagement, where they were ranked by secondary/high schools as the 3rd highest facility priority. Specific requests were received for new, larger, and/or warmer pool in the Seaton community with accessible features (the CHDRC pools do not offer ramped or beach entry, creating challenges for some users).
Furthermore, swimming is a top activity amongst many age groups. The community survey found that more than one-third (35%) of Pickering households participate in indoor leisure swimming. While many residents use the pools in Pickering, swimming was noted as one of the main activities that they travel outside of the City to participate in (e.g., Audley Recreation Centre in Ajax).
Usage Profile
The City provides a broad range of registered swim programs from learn to swim to aquatic leadership. Programs are structured to appeal to all ages of the community. The pandemic had a significant impact on the City’s ability to maintain aquatic programming across all levels due to a shortfall of lifeguards and instructors. However, Pickering has
worked hard to address service levels and, as shown in the chart below, the City exceeded pre-pandemic registration figures for children’s lessons in 2023 and largely regained pre-pandemic registration levels overall. The City’s aquatics programming is running around a 90% fill rate at this time and many programs and time slots have wait lists. Additional direction on staffing levels and programming is contained in Section 5.
- 278 -
E-4 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Figure 19: Aquatic Program Registrants, 2014-2023 (not all years shown)
Pickering also offers public swim programs to accommodate residents and users that prefer swimming on their own schedule. Public swimming is a popular activity, aligning with broader national trends that suggest that there is a strong desire for unstructured,
drop-in programs for people with increasingly busy lifestyles. In 2023, the City reported nearly 78,000 drop-in participants, an increase of 13% over 2019 figures (69,000 visits). These statistics suggest growing demand for aquatic services in line with population growth.
3) Gymnasiums
Market Trends
Gymnasiums facilitate a variety of indoor sports and recreation opportunities that
require a hard surface, a large open space, and high ceilings, such as basketball, volleyball, badminton, pickleball, group fitness, and other active programs. While many other activities may take place in these facilities (e.g., special events), non-sport related rentals are sometimes discouraged to ensure that gymnasiums are used for high
demand recreation uses and to protect floor finishes from damage.
Gymnasiums are designed with adaptability and flexibility to accommodate a wide range of activities. While there is no standard template, gymnasiums are typically influenced by community needs, although the minimum gymnasium size should be large enough to accommodate a school-sized basketball court with high ceilings. It is common for larger
communities to provide gymnasiums large enough for multiple basketball courts, with
dividing walls to facilitate simultaneous activities, and various painted lines that delineate several indoor sports. Gymnasium amenities may also include storage, change rooms, seating areas, a stage, and/or kitchen.
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
2014 2016 2019 2023
Pre-school Children Youth Adult/Older Adult
- 279 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 E-5
The supply of municipal gyms is typically bolstered by school boards that provide after school access to their gyms through the Province’s Community Use of Schools initiative. This approach has strong merits in principle as it reduces the need for
municipalities to construct their own facilities and avoid tax-funded duplications in
service, while maximizing geographic distribution. The City of Pickering has a long history of working with school boards to maximize public access to these facilities (and will continue to do so through new school developments) and is also striving to include gymnasiums as part of all new recreation complexes.
Community Engagement
Through the community survey, 72% of residents support additional spending on gymnasiums in Pickering, ranking 9th out of 36 facility types. Approximately 14% of households indicated that they play indoor pickleball, 11% play basketball, 8% participate in badminton, and 7% play volleyball.
Youth are especially interested in more gymnasiums that can support basketball,
volleyball, badminton, etc. – gyms were the highest priority identified by high school students and the 2nd priority by elementary school students (behind indoor pools).
Engagement board feedback also identified new or improved gymnasiums as a high priority and there were similar requests from community organizations through the focus
group workshops.
4) Indoor Fitness Spaces
Market Trends
The growing emphasis on personal health and wellbeing is translating into increasing demand for private and public sector fitness services, including active living programming centred on general health and wellness, weight-training, cardiovascular
training, and stretching activities.
The provision of fitness space varies by municipality due to the robust nature of private-sector fitness centres. The private sector can often expend greater resources to provide an enhanced level of service to their members. For municipalities such as Pickering that operate their own fitness centres, the rationale is usually to promote overall community
health and to offer members a high-quality fitness experience as an affordable
alternative to the private sector.
Group fitness programming has become one of the fastest growing segments of the fitness sector, requiring additional spaces within many facilities to accommodate the various requirements. Indoor walking tracks are also more commonly being provided
within municipal facilities as they offer a safe and controlled year-round environment for
walking.
- 280 -
E-6 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Community Engagement
Users indicated a high level of satisfaction with the fitness centre at the CHDRC, among a few suggestions to improve the overall experience. Interest was also expressed for
expanding fitness and wellness activities to the Seaton community through a future
recreation complex.
The community survey found that fitness programs and classes are among the top activities that Pickering residents participate in, ranking 4th out of 41 options (this activity ranked 9th on the youth survey). Nearly two-third (65%) of respondents support
additional spending on more equipment-based fitness centres in Pickering, ranking 11th out of 36 facility types (fitness centres ranked 15th on the youth survey).
Usage Profile
The City offers a membership system that residents may purchase to access an unlimited number of fitness programs and services, including cardio workouts, yoga,
stretching and strength training, cycling, and more. Different membership packages are available. Non-members may drop-in to access the fitness centre or to participate in a fitness class on a pay-as-you-go basis.
Figure 20: Fitness Memberships Sold (selected categories)
Overall fitness and health club memberships grew by 13% between 2014 and 2019, illustrating steady growth prior to the pandemic. In 2023, total memberships have nearly reached pre-pandemic levels, with health club packages actually exceeding 2019 figures.
Additionally, the City offers registered active fitness programs, which are general
recreation activities aimed at promoting and encouraging physical activity. Due to the variety of active fitness programs that are offered, these activities take place in several locations.
1,
8
5
3
29
6
11
9 21
9
1,
8
7
9
28
7
25
2
26
4
1,
9
9
3
34
8
55
40
6
2,
0
3
0
32
5
58
26
2
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
Health Club Basic Fitness &Specialty Fitness Combination &Golden Special / Promotional
2014 2016
2019 2023
- 281 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 E-7
5) Indoor Sport Facilities
Market Trends
Indoor artificial turf facilities provide enhanced recreation experiences that complement outdoor fields and respond to increasing demand for year-round play. While the primary
use of artificial turf fields is for soccer, these facilities can also accommodate other field
sports such as rugby, lacrosse, football, baseball, team conditioning and training, and fitness pursuits.
Indoor fields are typically provided by a municipality, the private sector, a community group, or a combination of the three to share financial and operating responsibility.
Many municipalities that have constructed permanent structures have tended to do so
by integrating them with other municipal recreation facilities and usually operate such facilities autonomously given that there are already municipal staff onsite to schedule, maintain, and provide access to the fields while overhead costs are usually built into the entire facility budget.
The size of indoor fields varies considerably. Some municipalities have designed fields
around the dimensions of an ice pad (including some that have converted surplus ice pads) while templates employed by other communities take the shape of a rectangular field. Even the size of an indoor rectangular field differs by community as some provide a full-size field that can be divisible into smaller fields while others provide fields that are
divisible in two (or are not divided at all).
Squash courts in Ontario are primarily provided by the private sector, although some municipalities like Pickering offer courts. The sport was at its peak in the 1970s and 1980s, with many jurisdictions reporting declines since the mid-1990s. Squash was recently approved as an Olympic sport for the 2028 Los Angeles Games, which may
help raise its profile.
From our experience, there are fewer municipal racquetball courts in Ontario than squash courts, due to racquetball having lower appeal. Courts are often provided by private sector fitness and racquet clubs. Racquetball Ontario recognizes the sport as both a stand-alone sport and a complementary “off season” activity, capable of
improving one’s athletic abilities23.
Most municipal squash and racquetball courts are legacy facilities; there are very few new courts being developed within municipal recreation facilities. Some municipalities are converting their courts to allow for other activities such as group fitness, golf simulators, rock climbing walls, etc.
23 Racquetball Ontario. (2024). https://racquetballontario.ca/clubs-with-programs/
- 282 -
E-8 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Community Engagement
Indoor court and field sports do not have the same broad appeal as the other community-serving facilities covered above. For example, through the survey, it is
estimated that 14% of households participate in tennis (indoor or outdoor), 9% in indoor
soccer (more popular amongst youth), 5% in squash, and 2% in racquetball. While there was moderate support for additional spending on indoor sports fields (ranking 16th out of 36 facility types), support was lowest for spending on squash and racquetball courts (ranking 34th and 35th, respectively).
Stakeholders expressed interest in additional indoor handball courts and improvements
to squash courts (i.e., lighting, general maintenance – addressed in 2024). The importance of continuing to have two handball / racquetball courts was also mentioned as this helps to support training, leagues, and tournaments.
Usage Profile
The City offers racquet court memberships (tennis, squash, racquetball), which provide
unlimited access to the courts and benefits including discounts on supporting and access to restricted fitness areas. Non-members may also purchase court time on a pay-as-you-go basis. Data provided by the City indicates that over the past three years, membership purchases for racquetball and squash have declined, while indoor tennis
memberships have grown. As a regional destination for racquet sports, the courts at the
CHDRC attract both residents and members from outside Pickering.
Figure 21: Court Memberships Sold (selected years)
57 49 45 29
188 187 183 167
86 73 69
117
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
2014 2016 2019 2023
Racquetball Squash Tennis
- 283 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 E-9
6) Soccer and Multi-Use Fields
Market Trends
Registration in Ontario Soccer’s affiliated organizations has been declining for well over a decade. In 2018, Ontario Soccer reported approximately 287,000 players which is
25% below registrations from 10 years prior.24 This decline is driven by factors such as
demographic trends, growing competition from other sports and activities, and the emergence of elite soccer clubs and academies that are not affiliated with the provincial governing body. Despite this, soccer continues to be a popular sport due to its worldwide appeal, high fitness quotient, and relatively low cost to participate. With
Pickering being a high-growth municipality, additional demand for soccer can be
anticipated.
Since Ontario Soccer adopted its LTPD model, organizations have been evolving the delivery of their programs. With less emphasis on scoring and winning, LTPD focuses on improved coaching, fewer games, more ball time, and skill development throughout
the year. Some of these new standards have a direct impact on the provision of fields,
particularly with respect to standards for field sizes and the number of players per team. This has impacted the demand for field time as there can be fewer players per team, more practices, and a need for smaller field templates.
Participation in youth football is cyclical in nature, with many regional differences across
the province. Greater concerns over head injuries have been a limiting growth factor,
although some groups have introduced flag football (non-contact) with good success. Some organizations have difficulty securing field access due to the large field dimensions and potential for turf damage. Artificial turf fields help to mitigate field damage by shifting use away from grass fields. Football groups tend to appreciate the
quality of artificial surfaces and value these fields’ resilience to inclement weather that
can occur in the spring and fall.
Community Engagement
Through focus group workshops, soccer was identified to have seen a notable increase in participation since the pandemic. Sport organizations suggested that new fields in
Seaton be a priority, that existing fields be revitalized where necessary, and that the
City offer additional support and coordination for weekend tournaments. Pickering FC is projecting its membership to increase by 19% by over the next three years, generating greater demand for both outdoor fields and indoor turf time.
The following findings were gleaned from the community survey:
• One out of six (17%) of responding households participated in outdoor soccer and 2% participated in field sports such as rugby or football, which ranked 16 and 38 out of 41 activities, respectively.
24 Ontario Soccer Association. Annual General Meeting Reports.
- 284 -
E-10 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
• Three out of five (60%) respondents support the City spending additional funds to provide more outdoor soccer fields and two out of five (40%) support spending
for more football or rugby fields in Pickering, which ranked 15 and 30 out of 36
facility types, respectively.
The following findings were gleaned from the youth survey:
• One out of four (27%) indicated they participate in outdoor soccer, which ranked
8 out of 41 activities.
• One out of ten (9%) indicated they participate in field sports such as rugby or football, which ranked 30 out of 41 facility types.
• One out of five (18%) indicated they would like to see outdoor soccer fields
offered in Pickering, which ranked 11 out of 36 facility types.
• One out of ten (11%) indicated they would like to see football or rugby fields offered in Pickering, which ranked 23 out of 36 facility types.
Usage Profile
Pickering’s natural grass fields are generally available for booking between the third Monday of May until the last Sunday of September while artificial turf fields are available for rent from March to the end of October.
Until 2024, the City did not charge for field rentals and many were blanket booked. This
created challenges in assessing field utilization rates and did not generate revenue to
reinvest in field maintenance or upgrades.
To help bridge the gap, the City conducted a review of club websites to determine when fields may have been used in 2023. It was estimated that Pickering’s fields were used for approximately 13,575 hours in 2023, representing a total utilization rate of 377 hours
per field across 36 fields. Higher quality fields are used the most, with the artificial turf fields at Bay Ridges Kinsmen Park and Beverley Morgan Park leading the way (about 883 hours annually per field). With the City now beginning to levy a charge for field rentals, improved tracking of utilization can be anticipated.
Table 45: Estimated Soccer and Multi-Use Field Usage by Field Type (2023)
Field Type Estimated Hours of Use Number of Fields Hours per Field
Artificial Turf Field (Lit) 1,766 2 883
Full Size Soccer Field (Lit) 1,952 4 488
Full Size Soccer Field (Unlit) 3,485 13 268
Intermediate Size Soccer Field 2,460 11 224
Mini/Micro Soccer Field 3,912 16 245
Totals 13,575 46 295
- 285 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 E-11
Source: City of Pickering, 2023
Pickering’s estimated field usage rates (an average of about 300 hours per field
annually) are in-line with field capacities and contemporary turf management guidelines. While some additional usage could likely be accommodated on existing grass fields, care must be taken not to overuse the fields or allow usage during wet conditions to as to maintain appropriate turf quality.
Pickering FC (soccer) is the largest user of rectangular fields in Pickering, responsible
for nearly 90% of all booked hours. Other notable users include the Durham Dolphins Football Club, adult soccer leagues, recreational users, and various other clubs.
7) Ball Diamonds
Market Trends
Baseball and its variations (including softball, fastball, etc.) have been experiencing a slight resurgence in recent years, particularly youth hardball. Baseball Ontario reported
over 15,000 competitive participants in 2019, which was a growth of 36% compared to
2009, though that figure excludes recreational/house leagues and non-affiliated ball groups (thus actual participation figures are greater).25 The renewed interest is driven by several factors such as a greater focus on skill development, and grassroots programs to engage children and youth at a young age to participate in the sport.
Suitable competition formats and facility types are core components of baseball’s Long-Term Player Development model. Full size diamonds with lights are in the greatest demand in most municipalities; many diamonds-built decades ago are too small to accommodate adult sports and may require expansion or fencing.
Community Engagement
Interest and demand for ball diamonds were generally found to be a low priority through the consultation program. Through the community survey, it was found that 9% of households participate in baseball or softball (ranking 27 out of 41 activities) and 49% support the additional spending on baseball or softball diamonds (ranking 27 out of 36 facility types).
From the youth engagement conducted by in school consultations, ball diamonds were not identified as a top ten facility priority by students. Findings from the youth survey indicated that 8% of youth participate in baseball or softball (ranking 31 out of 36 activities) and 9% of youth would like to see more baseball or softball diamonds offered in Pickering (ranking 27 out of 36 facility types).
25 Baseball Ontario. Annual General Meeting Reports.
- 286 -
E-12 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Usage Profile
Ball diamonds are generally available for booking between early-May and mid-October. Until 2024, the City did not charge for field rentals and many were blanket booked. This
created challenges in assessing field utilization rates and did not generate revenue to
reinvest in diamond maintenance or upgrades.
To help bridge the gap, the City conducted a review of league websites to determine when diamonds may have been used in 2023. It was estimated that Pickering’s diamonds were used for approximately 5,186 hours in 2023, representing a total
utilization rate of 192 hours per diamond across 27 fields. Lit diamonds are used the
most given their additional capacity for evening play. With the City now beginning to levy a charge for diamond rentals, improved tracking of utilization can be anticipated.
Table 46: Estimated Ball Diamond Usage by Field Type (2023)
Field Type Estimated Hours of Use Number of Fields Hours per Field
Hardball (Lit) 848 3 283
Hardball (Unlit) 171 1 171
Softball (Lit) 2,626 9 292
Softball (Unlit) 1,542 14 110
Totals 5,186 27 192
Source: City of Pickering, 2023
Pickering’s estimated diamond usage rates (an average of nearly 200 hours per diamond annually) indicate additional capacity for use. There were a small number of
diamonds that did not receive any formal use in 2023. While there is value in keeping
some diamonds in the inventory for casual use, the usage data suggests that there is a surplus of fields at this time.
8) Cricket Pitches
Market Trends
Cricket is experiencing strong growth in Canada due to immigration from cricket-playing countries (largely from South Asia and the Caribbean). Cricket Canada estimates that
there are approximately 130,000 players and 820 clubs across the country, with the largest concentration of players residing in Southern Ontario.
Due to its fast growth and large land requirement, there is generally a shortage of cricket fields across the province. At the community level, many groups have adapted the sport to make it more accessible, such as short-format cricket (e.g., T20/T25 which
can be played within a one-to-four-hour period) and tape-ball cricket (which uses a wrapped tennis ball for added safety). A field overlay consisting of a wicket between two soccer fields is a common practice for municipalities that are looking to balance field
- 287 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 E-13
demands. Games are popular social events for non-participating family members and should be supported by picnic areas and other recreational amenities.
Community Engagement
Two area cricket clubs attended the stakeholder workshops and indicated that the sport
is growing, including amongst youth and women. These groups currently use the field at Alex Robertson Park, but noted that the lack of running water limits their ability to use it and their clubhouse more often. There were suggestions for creating a regulation cricket field to host adult games, either as a dedicated pitch or through a cricket/soccer field
overlay.
Interest in cricket was not evident though the surveying, with only 4% of households playing the sport (ranking 35 out of 41) and 40% supporting additional facilities (ranking 30 out of 36 facility types). However, it is likely that South Asian and other cultures closely associated with cricket were under-represented within the survey.
Usage Profile
Two clubs offer organized cricket in Pickering; the Pickering Cricket Club, which reported 50 members in 2003; and the Durham Champions Cricket Club, which reported 90 members in 2023 but primarily uses a field in Ajax. Additionally, many residents may play the sport casually or as part of clubs in other communities. Between
the two clubs, the field at Alex Roberston Park was used for an estimated 371 hours in
2023.
9) Tennis Courts
Market Trends
Research suggests that tennis is experiencing a resurgence over the past several years. This has also been confirmed through strong growth in local tennis clubs. Tennis
Canada reported that 6.5 million Canadians played tennis at least once in 2018 (45% of
these are considered frequent players), translating to growth of more than 32% since 2012. The study also found that over 50% of Canadians have played tennis in their lifetime and 61% of Canada’s tennis players utilize outdoor courts. The sport’s popularity carried forward through the pandemic as it was deemed one of the safer
sports to play at the time.
The popularity of tennis can be attributed to a number of factors such as the growing segment of baby boomers that seek social, lower impact activities (tennis has the second fewest injuries after baseball), and its appeal to diverse populations (23% of Canadian tennis players were born outside of the country). There is also a focus on
promoting the sport at the grassroots level. Tennis Canada reported that in 2018, over 2
- 288 -
E-14 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
million children and youth aged 17 years and under played tennis in the past year.26 Part of this growth can also be linked to the success of Canadian men and women currently competing on the professional tours.
However, many municipal tennis courts were built in the 1970s and 1980s during a
wave of popularity and are deteriorating. Some are being repurposed to other uses (e.g., pickleball courts, ball hockey, etc.), while others are being redeveloped to today’s standards. Furthermore, most tennis players want to play year-round. In 2019, Tennis Canada prepared a Municipal Tennis Facilities Strategy and Partnership Framework to
advocate for more covered courts and to get more people playing tennis more often.
Community Engagement
Input from the public open houses indicated strong support for continued investment in both indoor and outdoor tennis courts. Comments were received that tennis participation has increased in Pickering since the pandemic and that sharing of court
with other sports has been challenging for many users.
The community survey found that 14% of households participate in tennis (ranking 20 out of 41 activities) and that 57% support the provision of more outdoor tennis courts in Pickering (ranking 18 out of 36 facility types). About 10% of youth indicated playing tennis and 11% would like to see more courts.
10) Pickleball Courts
Market Trends
Pickleball is experiencing a popularity boom across North America. Older adults wishing to remain physically active and have fun are driving participation growth in pickleball to levels where it is now the fastest growing recreational sport in Canada. Pickleball is a lower intensity sport that can be played on a modified tennis court (pickleball courts are
smaller in size with a slightly lower net height) and in gymnasiums. It is an accessible,
affordable, and social sport, able to be played by newcomers and more seasoned players alike. Due to its primary demographic, daytime usage is currently more frequent than evening use.
As the sport of pickleball matures in Canada, participation is becoming broader and
more diverse. This includes more competitive leagues (leading to the establishment of
sport organizations and advocates for higher-quality facilities) and instructional programs for youth (it is beginning to be taught in schools). Additionally, exposure to the sport is growing and there are now three North American professional tours and hopes of the sport qualifying for the Olympics as soon as 2032.
26 Tennis Canada. 2019. Let’s Play Year-Round. Retrieved from https://www.tenniscanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/02.-Executive-Summary.pdf
- 289 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 E-15
A survey completed in January 2022 by Pickleball Canada showed that 8% of Canadian households report at least one household member plays pickleball once per month. This suggests that there are now one million Canadians playing pickleball at least once a
month, a near tripling of the number of pickleball players in Canada in two years.
As an emerging sport, Ontario municipalities are gradually adopting strategies to address needs, although many responses would appear to be ad hoc, testing demand along the way. For example, it has now become common for pickleball lines to be painted on outdoor public tennis courts, sometimes at the time of court resurfacing. This
may be supported by designated times or court booking systems for the two sports to
avoid conflict. Some communities have provided storage boxes to provide for the use of portable pickleball nets that can run cross-court, creating multiple pickleball courts on one tennis court. This approach of creating shared courts is often seen in communities where there is capacity for added use due to lower demand for tennis. Where tennis
demand is significantly lower, some courts are permanently converted to pickleball.
Compared to tennis, which is generally played with two or four players, a group of 16 pickleball players can occupy the same amount of court space.
The provision of purpose-built dedicated pickleball courts is also becoming more common, either through new construction or the permanent conversion of tennis courts.
Multi-court complexes of 4 to 16 courts (accompanied by access to parking,
washrooms, and shade) are becoming commonplace, often in partnership with local pickleball clubs.
Increasingly, municipalities have cited problems with pickleball courts being located too close to residential areas due to both the racquet noise and the social nature of the
game. There have been successful court challenges in Ontario that have resulted in
pickleball activity being eliminated from various locations. A recent acoustics study evaluated potential setbacks and noise attenuation measures for pickleball (e.g., earth berms, engineered barriers, etc.). Recommendations for residential setbacks ranged from 30 to 160 metres depending on the use of noise barriers and the nature of terrain
between the courts and residences.27 The lower end of this range represents a location that consists of a small number of courts, noise barriers, and intervening terrain that is acoustically soft (e.g., grass).
Lastly, the private sector has generally been responsive to pickleball, recognizing that it is an emerging market and potential revenue stream. Many tennis clubs have begun
offering pickleball and most are having difficulty keeping up with demand. Operators are also starting to convert warehouses and under-utilized retail spaces into pickleball hubs offering professional instruction and leagues.
27 Pickleball BC. A Guide to Pickleball Court Planning and Operation. (2023) https://www.pickleballbc.ca/uploads/1/4/2/5/142597665/pbc_court_guidelines__r1[1]_sept_30_2023.pdf
- 290 -
E-16 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Community Engagement
Interest in more pickleball courts – especially dedicated times and/or dedicated courts – was expressed through all facets of the public consultation program
The community survey found that 14% of responding households participate in
pickleball (ranking 25 out of 41 activities) and 53% indicated support for more outdoor pickleball courts in Pickering (ranking 24 out of 36 facility types). Pickleball was amongst the most common responses when asked what programs or activities residents wanted to see more of in the city. Interest was lower from students, with 3%
indicating that they have played the sport in the last 12 months and 3% seeking more
outdoor courts.
11) Basketball Courts
Market Trends
The popularity of basketball is on the rise due to its affordability and growing appeal, with courts becoming a standard element of park design. Compared to some other
sports, basketball is easy to learn, safe, affordable, and can be played individually or in
small groups.
Outdoor basketball courts range from simple asphalt to high quality acrylic surfaces with lights for evening play. Some municipalities have had success with multi-use court templates that are designed to accommodate a variety of activities throughout the year
(e.g., ball hockey, futsal, ice skating, etc.).
Community Engagement
The community survey found that 11% of responding households participate in basketball (ranking 23 out of 41 activities) and 57% support more outdoor courts in Pickering (ranking 18 out of 36 facility types). Suggestions were received for basketball
courts that are safe and accessible for youth across the city, particularly for teenagers in
the Seaton area.
From the in-school youth engagement, outdoor basketball courts were the highest priority for elementary school students and the fifth highest priority for high school students. Through the youth survey, it was found that nearly one-quarter (23%) of youth
play basketball outdoors (ranking 12 out of 41 activities) and 27% would like to see
more courts (ranking 6 out of 36).
12) Splash Pads and Outdoor Aquatics
Market Trends
Splash pads have gained popularity in recent years, sought after by young families seeking affordable and accessible opportunities to cool down on a hot day. They
- 291 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 E-17
provide opportunities for unstructured, spontaneous play, and are an ideal way to activate public spaces. Splash pads are best located at community parks as they serve multiple neighbourhoods and are complementary to other on-site amenities such as
parking, playgrounds, seating, and washrooms, although consideration is also given to
geographic accessibility.
Splash pads can vary with different components and spray functions to create unique and engaging experiences. There are three types of splash pads – freshwater (or flow through) systems that drain directly to municipal sewers (all of Pickering’s are flow
through systems); recirculating systems that filters, collects, treats, and re-uses the
splash pad water; and greywater systems that collects splash pad water for other public uses such as irrigating greenspaces and landscapes, as well as and watering gardens.
Community Engagement
Input from surveys, engagement boards, and open houses indicates that the community
is supportive of new or improved splash pads. Three-quarters (76%) of community
survey respondent support additional spending on more splash pads in Pickering, ranking 6 out of 36 facility types.
13) Outdoor Ice Rinks
Market Trends
Recreational skating outdoors is a Canadian tradition although the ability to maintain
outdoor rinks has become increasingly difficult due to warming climates. Natural ice
rinks are the most affordable method to build and maintain given that expenses are largely relegated to water and staff time. Consistently cold temperatures are required to provide a safe and level skating surface. However, municipalities across Ontario are experiencing increasingly warmer winters which is not suitable for outdoor skating since
maintenance is cumbersome when temperatures are near or above the freezing mark
during the winter. As a result of milder winters, municipalities are forced to shorten skating seasons and, in some cases, outdoor rinks are closed completely. For example, local outdoor rinks were operational for only three days in 2023 due to above-average winter temperatures and thus were not able to deliver value in relation to the operational
costs of setting up and maintaining the rinks.
Alternatively, municipalities can construct refrigerated outdoor rinks or skating trails although this approach requires a greater upfront capital expenditure due to the mechanical infrastructure along with associated operating costs. In addition to cost challenges, there are other limiting factors specific to outdoor ice rinks including safety
and liability concerns, proximity to residences, less daylight in the winter, having
electrical and water services in place, etc. However, outdoor skating opportunities can enhance social connections among individuals during the winter months when people tend to spend more time indoors, thereby allowing the community to come together and provide passive recreation activities in a convenient, drop-in manner.
- 292 -
E-18 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Community Engagement
Despite only 16% of households responding to the community survey indicating that they participate in ice sports and recreational skating (ranking 17 out of 41 activities),
75% of all respondents support the City spending additional funds to provide more
outdoor skating rinks in Pickering (ranked 7 out of 36 facility types). Lower support was expressed through the youth survey, with 17% of respondents wanting to see more outdoor rinks provided.
14) Skateboard Parks
Market Trends
All-wheels parks (skateboarding, scootering, BMX biking, inline skating), skateboard
parks, and pump tracks are now a standard level of service in most municipalities. They respond to increasing interest in unstructured, low-cost activities and support physical activity. Participation in these sports has a broad appeal to both youth and young adults, as well as an emerging market for young families. For many youth, action sports are an
outlet for self-expression and an opportunity to find a sense of belonging that they
cannot get elsewhere. By their very nature, action sports build independence and resilience.
Skateboard parks take many forms and formats depending upon their intended type of use, skill level, and fit within a park and its surrounding land uses. Many parks are
designed to accommodate not only skateboards, but a growing number of two-wheel
scooters, in-line skaters, BMX users, etc. Scooters are now the predominant type of equipment seen at many skate parks.
Community Engagement
The youth survey found moderate support for expanded skate park opportunities:
• 11% indicated they participate in skateboarding or scootering, which ranked 25 out of 41 activities (compared to 8% of households, ranking 31st on the community-wide survey).
• 12% indicated they would like to see more skateboard parks offered in Pickering,
which ranked 21 out of 36 facility types (compared to 45% of households, ranking 29th on the community-wide survey).
• Amongst elementary school students, skateboard parks were the eighth most
supported facility type.
Through focus group workshops, skateboarding was identified to have seen a notable increase in participation since the pandemic. Facility needs addressed by user groups included continued expansion of the skatepark network through new locations, as well as consideration of pump tracks and skate dots at existing parks.
- 293 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 E-19
15) Playgrounds
Market Trends
Playgrounds can be found in nearly all park types. They provide amenities that benefit childhood development, foster cognitive development and social skills, and encourage
physical activity. Playgrounds are typically provided within walking distance of major
residential areas (5-to-10-minute walk), without having to cross major barriers such as arterial roads, highways, railways, and waterbodies. Traditional playground equipment generally consists of swings, slides, and an array of climbing structures designed to offer creative and unique play experiences. Accessible playgrounds and playground
components are also becoming standard elements in locations such as community
parks – the City has recently converted several playgrounds over to rubber tile surfacing to improve accessibility.
Additionally, natural and adventure playgrounds are becoming more popular around the world. Using the existing landscape and materials such as wood, logs, ropes, stones,
and boulders, these playgrounds create more daring opportunities and are proven to
stimulate greater sensory and imaginative play compared to traditional plastic structures. Natural playgrounds are designed in compliance with provincial standards but appear more precarious, which aligns to the concept of “risky play” to encourage imagination, decision-making, and resiliency amongst children. These installations
typically require less maintenance and receive less vandalism than traditional play
structures. The City is considering the installation of a natural playground at Whitevale Park in 2024.
Community Engagement
There is strong public support for enhancing the supply and quality of Pickering’s
playgrounds. The community survey found that 35% of responding households use
playground equipment (ranking 5 out of 41 activities) and 81% support the City spending additional funds to provide more playgrounds in Pickering (ranking 2 out of 36 facility types). High usage rates and priorities were also found amongst elementary school and secondary school students. Suggestions from the open houses included
providing more unique, larger, and accessible playgrounds.
16) Outdoor Fitness Equipment
Market Trends
Popular throughout the United States and Europe, Canadian municipalities have begun introducing outdoor fitness equipment that allow people to participate in free outdoor activities and engage more people in the public realm. During the pandemic, interest in outdoor unstructured recreation activities soared, making outdoor fitness an important
option for many.
- 294 -
E-20 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Outdoor fitness stations can be used by teenagers, adults, and seniors. Experience in other area municipalities suggests that their appeal is strongest with active older adults and seniors (particularly new Canadians), an age group that will increase over the study
period. These stations can provide several benefits, from improved balance, speed, and
coordination to reduced isolation and associated mood ills like depression.
Community Engagement
While interest in more fitness and wellness activities was expressed through the public open houses, demand was higher for indoor opportunities than outdoor. The community
survey found that 57% of respondents support more outdoor fitness equipment or
exercise areas in Pickering, which ranked 18 out of 36 facility types.
17) Community Gardens
Market Trends
Community gardens are sites located on City-owned or leased/licensed lands that are approved to be divided into plots and operated by a community garden committee for a
community garden group to grow produce, herbs, and flowers for not-for-profit use.
Interest is rising for improved food security, affordability, and healthy food options. Community gardens are integral to building a healthy, sustainable city with a strong, resilient food system.
Community food gardens play a valuable role in the City. These unique spaces have
many benefits for participants including:
• allowing residents to grow fresh, healthy produce;
• reducing family grocery bills;
• creating pride and knowledge of where the organic produce came from;
• increasing local food security;
• growing food for the local food bank;
• providing opportunities for gardeners to interact with people from their community they may have otherwise not met; and
• providing locations where residents of all ages and cultures can come together to
enhance spaces in their community.
Smaller residential lots (and more multi-use buildings) are leading to fewer opportunities for backyard gardens, creating greater demand for community plots. Under-utilized portions of City parks or other lands can be used for gardens if they have the necessary
infrastructure and community support. Raised garden beds for greater accessibility are
one of the key elements to consider in their design.
The City has long recognized the importance of urban agriculture in addressing food supply, food security, and sustainable urban development, which reduces carbon emissions and provides opportunities for social interaction and community cohesion.
- 295 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 E-21
The City has implemented initiatives tailored to support urban agriculture, including (but not limited to):
• Supporting Official Plan policies and zoning provisions that encourage community gardens in all land use categories and zones.
• Approving a Community Garden Policy (ADM 240) to provide a framework for the
City to work with Community Groups on future community garden sites on municipally owned, leased/licensed land.
• Coordinating annual in-person and virtual educational workshops and webinars. These sessions increase awareness about the benefits of growing food and teach residents how to grow food regardless of the size of their space, e.g., plot
gardens, container and balcony gardening.
• Hosting an award-winning City Centre Farmers’ Market, through which the City
provides access to locally grown fresh produce, as well as supports local small businesses.
• Providing funds through the City’s Environmental School Grant and Community Grant. These grants provide funds that have helped schools, Valley Plentiful Community Garden (VPCG) and not-for-profit groups implement urban
agriculture initiatives.
• Working with the VPCG committee to facilitate the operation of a large-scale community garden (over 100 plots).
• Working with builders for new development in the City to encourage community gardens on private lands. • Advocating for community gardens within the City’s draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law and the Region of Durham Meadoway Study.
Community Engagement
Of the community survey’s respondents, 65% indicated they support the City spending additional funds to provide more community vegetable gardens in Pickering, which ranked 11 out of 36 facility types. The addition of community gardens including orchards, herb gardens, and nut trees was suggested at the public open houses.
18) Off-Leash Dog Areas
Market Trends
With by-laws regulating the use of leashes, off-leash dog areas provide owners an
opportunity to exercise and socialize with their dogs in a controlled area. Off-leash dog areas should not be viewed strictly for pets as best practices suggest that they are also beneficial for residents and community interaction among those who share a common interest. Off-leash dog areas have proven to be very successful, particularly in highly
urbanized communities that tend to have several such facilities as opportunities for dogs
to run freely may be limited.
For many municipalities, off-leash dog areas can be opportunities for community organizations or the private sector to get involved through assisting with operations,
- 296 -
E-22 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
fundraising or partnerships. While off-leash dog areas are popular amenities for pet owners, finding the right site for the development of new locations can be a challenge due to noise concerns. Careful consideration, planning and consultation is a best
practice when identifying new off-leash locations with consideration given to a range of
factors. As a best practice, municipalities should evaluate factors, including, but not limited to, setback and layout requirements, accessibility, site buffers, impact on the natural environment, future development potential, compatibility with other users, and more.
Community Engagement
Nearly one-half (46%) of community survey respondents support more off-leash dog areas in Pickering, which ranked 28 out of 36 facility types. Suggestions were also received on the engagement boards for additional dog parks.
19) Outdoor Event Spaces
Market Trends
Outdoor and unstructured activities have grown in popularity since the pandemic.
Communities are responding to this demand by enhancing locations (or partnering with other landowners) to provide festival and outdoor event space oriented to community-based event organizers.
Smaller-scale, locally-organized outdoor events are another effective approach for
communities to stay engaged. These events are inclusive and often express the culture
of a community. Locations can be created through tactical urbanism approaches, a typically low-cost model involving temporary pop-up initiatives to help test out concepts or projects. Another option is the creation of a community events hub, such as The Exchange in the City of Niagara Falls, which is a multi-purpose event space that
provides shared spaces for local artists, businesses, musicians, food vendors and
patrons. Interest in indoor space that can be used in the event of inclement weather is a common request.
Community Engagement
The consultation program for the Ten Year Plan found strong interest in outdoor spaces
and amenities, including open space to support events. At least one of four (28%)
community survey respondents indicated they participate in special events outside of Pickering. Year-round special events and festivals in Pickering were identified as a top priority amongst public open house and engagement board participants.
Stakeholder groups suggested there may be an opportunity for the City to leverage sites
that deliver a wide range of nature-based and educational programming. Groups such
as Petticoat Creek Conservation Park and other TRCA lands were identified as having significant capacity to host more events and programming.
- 297 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 E-23
20) Parkland Provision and Use Trends
Access to outdoor space matters as parks are increasingly being seen as critical social, health, and environmental infrastructure. Green spaces in urbanized areas often offer places of respite and improve air quality, provide venues for physical activity, and
conserve natural and cultural heritage landscapes.
This section identifies several trends that are influencing the demand for and delivery of parks in Canadian municipalities. These trends should be considered alongside other study inputs to inform future strategies.
Parks Support Physical and Mental Wellness
For many, municipal parks services provide critical supports to maintain personal health
and physical activity by addressing inactivity levels, social isolation, stress and anxiety. Access to outdoor spaces, physical literacy, and affordable, accessible leisure activities are key determinants in engaging people in active recreation.
The large majority (82%) of Canadians said that parks and outdoor spaces have
become more important to their mental health during COVID-19 and 70% indicated that
their appreciation for parks and green spaces had increased during the pandemic28.
There is evidence that larger parks have a more direct impact on physical activity as they have the space to accommodate a wider variety of amenities and experiences. Proximity to parks and facilities is also correlated with higher levels of physical activity.29
Dog ownership is often linked to higher levels of activity and social engagement,
providing support to pet-friendly public spaces.
Parks Support Active Transportation
Active transportation offers many personal health and wellness benefits and is a core element of complete communities. During the pandemic, municipalities observed a
surge in recreational trail use as residents participated close-to-home and sought
connections with nature. Expanded use of these networks can be expected to continue – interest in bike lanes, off-road trails and cycling infrastructure are common requests in most communities. Active transportation is environmentally-friendly as it reduces road congestion and vehicle-related greenhouse gas emissions.
Parks Build Resilience to Climate Change
The many environmental benefits of parks and public spaces – such as reducing the urban heat island effect, mitigating flooding, and improving air quality – illustrate the critical importance of their role as public infrastructure and lend support for further
28 Park People. COVID-19 and Parks Survey. July 2020. https://parkpeople.ca/2020/07/16/covid-19-and-parks-highlights-from-our-national-surveys
29 Urban Institute. The Health Benefits of Parks and their Economic Impacts: A Review of Literature. February 2022.
- 298 -
E-24 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
investment. Parks are increasingly helping communities achieve their environmental goals by offering more naturalized spaces close to where people live, and contributing to climate resilience and urban biodiversity.
Already thought of as “green infrastructure”, parks are being positioned to be more
environmentally sustainable through reducing grass cutting and naturalization initiatives, planting of native species, tree canopy targets, and programs that educate about local natural heritage features (e.g., outdoor classrooms or interpretive signage). More communities are also experimenting by piloting new approaches in parks, such as
bioswales, rain gardens, pollinator gardens, habitat restoration, and biodiversity
initiatives.
Parks and Outdoor Recreation were Rediscovered During the Pandemic
Communities witnessed increased park use and demand for unstructured outdoor recreation activities within parks and trails during the COVID-19 pandemic as people
found or rediscovered new ways to remain active and connected. Parks were
increasingly used as “outdoor living rooms” across all four seasons, strengthening connections with nature and introducing many people to new activities within their neighbourhood. Access to public spaces and programs is a fundamental service for Canadians and we are living in a time where we need more public space, not less.
Resident Expectations are Rising and Needs are Becoming more Sophisticated
As interest rises, residents are expecting more from their parks in terms of amenities and quality. Many communities are reimagining existing spaces in creative ways, such as car-free streets (or temporary street closures), outdoor workout areas, and open space enhancements that allow for creative programming and community interaction
(e.g., Wi-Fi in parks, increased seating options, creation of new activity zones, etc.).
Public demand is especially strong for year-round washrooms in parks and natural areas. Further, there continues to be great potential to animate unused or non-traditional outdoor spaces for community activities and nature-based programming. Municipalities must also consider higher standards for accessibility and inclusion.
Recent surveys have found that 87% of Canadians support more investment in parks,
including more places to experience nature close to home.30
Park Use is Changing
The variety of activities and sports available today is much broader than in the past and the popularity of recreation and sport activities are affected by a variety of socio-
demographic and lifestyle trends. Many of these new recreational pursuits have emerged in the past few decades that were never contemplated in the design of older parks.
30 Park People. https://parkpeople.ca/blog/park-people-parks-platform-2023-toronto-parks-as-core-urban-infrastructure
- 299 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 E-25
In general, there has been a shift toward multi-use, multi-purpose experiences within parks. People are choosing more informal and individual recreation activities that are more convenient and affordable. Activities and spaces such as pickleball, cricket, off-
leash dog areas, splash pads, sport courts, disc golf, skateboarding and BMX biking,
outdoor skating, public fitness, challenge courses and adventure play, community gardens, and trails are increasing in demand. Casual group spaces for diverse exercise and recreation experiences are growing in popularity (e.g., tai chi, BBQ pits, picnic spaces, etc.), as are demands for more special events (both small and large).
Park Activation and Year-Round Programming
Municipalities across Canada are experiencing increased demand for “activation” and programming in parks, such as social gatherings, community events, art displays, movie nights and more. During the pandemic, many indoor events were moved outdoors, helping to expand the scope of use and engaging a broader range of residents and
visitors, leading to experiential learning, participation, and community mobilization. Non-
programmed facilities oriented to social interaction and gathering can also draw people from their homes and into the park setting.
Land Assembly Challenges
As municipalities continue to grow inwards and upwards, it has become more
challenging to assemble parkland in mixed use areas due to land scarcity and land cost.
Specifically, areas of residential intensification generate less parkland per capita than greenfield development – and smaller park blocks – making it difficult to accommodate the desired recreational activities that residents have come to expect from the City’s parks system. The challenges have become more acute through recent changes to the
Planning Act as municipalities have lost significant potential revenue that could have
been dedicated to purchasing and/or developing quality parks.
Rising Costs of Land and Park Development
Land values have exploded in recent years, making it more difficult for municipalities to purchase land for parks using reserve funds. Considerable purchasing power can be
lost as municipalities accrue these funds to use on strategic acquisitions. The cost of
park construction and materials are also rising, leading to project deferrals and delays as municipalities bolster funding or seek alternative approaches. These factors are also impacted by provincial changes to funding formulas (e.g., Development Charges, Community Benefits Charges, caps on cash-in-lieu of parkland, etc.) that are leading to
reductions in growth-related funding mechanisms.
Urban Park Types are Emerging
Urbanization generally means that parks are becoming smaller and non-traditional park-like spaces are beginning to emerge, often supported by partnerships and agreements. The increasing focus on the integration of “places” and “destinations” through urban
design practices seeks to create comfortable, connected, flexible, and sustainable
streetscapes. High quality park development can increase the attractiveness and
- 300 -
E-26 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
marketability of new development areas, while redevelopment of parkland can similarly act as a catalyst for revitalizing established neighbourhoods. Additionally, investments in urban parks can also result in positive economic impacts, although it is noted that
construction costs of urban/hardscape parks are quite significantly greater than
traditional neighbourhood parks.
- 301 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 F-1
Appendix F: Types of Partnerships and
Approaches to Evaluation
Many forms of partnerships may be considered by the City of Pickering for managing services and providing facilities. The most prevalent is partnerships that advance specific social issues and broader goals, such as capital arrangement regarding facility
development. Using the appropriate partnership arrangement or combination of options
should be an informed choice.
Partnership examples in a recreation and parks context include:
a) Public/Public Partnerships – Service delivery and/or the joint work to address social issues with other publicly funded organizations.
b) Public/Not for Profit Partnerships – Joint arrangements with non-profit
organizations.
c) Public/Private Partnerships – Joint arrangement where costs and risks are shared.
d) Joint Service Delivery – A service provided by two parties, each contributing
some resources.
e) Service Contracts – The service provider manages a particular aspect of a municipal services. The requirements are specific and service levels are articulated in a service contract often predicated through a competitive process.
f) Management Contract – The provider is accountable to manage all aspects of a
municipal services. This may or may not include capital investment and is
administered through a competitive process and a contract arrangement.
g) Lease / License – A lease or license arrangement turns the responsibility and accountability for a municipal asset to one or more service providers. A rental agreement is put in place with deliverables and compliance issues in exchange
for payment to the municipality.
To be effective, partnerships must be strategic and work toward specific goals in the delivery of service. Specific to recreation and parks, partnerships are a way of including more residents in active and outdoor pursuits and expanding service delivery affordably.
Partnerships are currently assessed on a case-by-case basis and projects that increase
access to public services and space for all are encouraged. Guidance is needed to
establish a consistent and uniform municipal response to potential relationships with those wishing to partner with the City on facility development or program delivery.
A standardized partnership framework could set out why and how the City plans to work with others in fulfilling its mandate and the parameters for these relationships. The
standardized partnership framework on the following page may be adapted by the City
to evaluate potential partnerships and/or unsolicited proposals.
- 302 -
F-2 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Standardized Partnership Framework
Criteria Yes No Response
Is the initiative consistent with the municipal mandate and service
philosophy?
Do not consider municipal involvement in the project.
Is there a municipal role to play in providing the program or service? Do not consider municipal involvement in the project.
Is there a demonstrated need for the proposed service or program? Do not consider municipal involvement in the project.
Does the proposed service or initiative conform to municipal priorities and is it in operating and capital budget forecasts?
Either do not consider municipal involvement in the project or consider
alternate forms of capital financing or ongoing funding sources.
Can requirements ensure compliance with the department’s vision, mandate, values, strategic priorities and service standards?
Consider providing the service using a
traditional municipal self-managed approach (direct delivery).
Can financial risks be reasonably mitigated through an arrangement with the group(s)? Consider providing the service using a traditional municipal self managed approach (direct delivery).
Are there suitably equipped and properly qualified organizations who can contribute or provide the
service or program?
Consider providing the service using a traditional municipal self managed approach (direct delivery).
Can responsibility of the delivery of
the service or program be assigned to another organization while mitigating all risks to the organization?
Issue a request for proposal or other
procurement process specified by purchasing policies.
Is there consensus regarding the terms, conditions, standards of delivery and accountabilities? Negotiate a mutually acceptable operating agreement and monitoring of performance standards.
Establish a relationship with an outside entity to develop the facility or delivery the program or service and adopt a mutually agreeable monitoring system.
Source: Adapted from various municipal recreation plans
- 303 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 G-1
Appendix G: Description of Existing Park
Types
City of Pickering Parks Hierarchy, Existing (Source: Picketing Official Plan, Edition 9)
Park Type Relevant Policy – Official Plan
District Park
District Parks are intended to provide for a range of illuminated recreational facilities.
Note: These are the largest active recreational park type (generally 50
hectares or greater). The City’s Official Plan currently only identifies one such site as a District Park (north of Green River), which is designated for future development.
Community Parks
Community parks are intended to provide for a range of illuminated
recreational facilities as well as some non-illuminated mini-baseball and soccer fields servicing the adjacent residents.
Community parks and recreation centres shall be located near frequent
transit services.
Adjacent natural heritage system lands are intended to be an integral part of each community park providing for passive recreational areas and buffer areas adjacent to the recreational fields.
Note: The Official Plan does not define a minimum size for these parks, but it is recommended that they generally be a minimum of 4 hectares.
Neighbourhoods Parks
Neighbourhood Parks are intended to perform an array of functions and
accommodate play structures as well as one non-illuminated mini-recreational field and possibly tennis or bocce courts, and passive areas.
Neighbourhood Plans shall:
(i) be easily accessible and generally centrally located for residents within a 400 to 800 metre radius (5 to 10 minute walk);
(ii) have a size of approximately 1.5 hectares to 1.8 hectares;
(iii) have road frontage on a minimum of two sides, where possible; and
(iv) be supported by on-street parking.
- 304 -
G-2 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Park Type Relevant Policy – Official Plan
Village Greens
Village Greens are intended to provide greenspace for each neighbourhood and accommodate play structures and open informal play areas.
Village Greens are smaller components of the open space system and
shall:
(i) have a size of approximately 0.3 to 0.6 hectares subject to demonstration of the functionality of the village green configuration;
(ii) be easily accessible for residents within a 200 to 400 metre radius (3 to 5 minute walk) without the need to cross arterial roads; and
(iii) have road frontage on three sides, but may be less where other design alternatives are used to achieve public view and access;
Urban Squares
Urban Squares are intended as formal pedestrian spaces, in support of the adjacent higher density, mixed use development.
Urban Squares shall be provided within the commercial and mixed use
components of the Community Nodes and Mixed Corridors and shall:
(i) be located to provide easy access and multiple opportunities for rest, relaxation and visual interest;
(ii) be provided in a location determined in consultation with City staff at site plan approval;
(iii) generally have a minimum frontage on the abutting sidewalk of 5.0 metres, and a minimum depth of 5.0 metres; (ed. note: these sizes are
quite small and may be reconsidered through the Official Plan Review)
(iv) on large development parcels include a single, large-scale urban square and/or a series of smaller urban squares;
(v) count as part of the block face in calculating the minimum block face requirement as per Section 11.8(e) of the Official Plan;
(vi) contribute to the required parkland dedication, whether or not the land is dedicated to the City, provided an agreement is executed between the City and landowner which ensures that:
(1) the urban square is designed and built by the landowner to the satisfaction of the City;
(2) the urban square is maintained by the landowner to the satisfaction of the City; and
(3) the owner(s) and/or the condominium corporation is made aware that
the urban square is to be considered as a public space and is to be open and accessible to the public at all times.
- 305 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 H-1
Appendix H: Parkland Policy Background
Parkland Policy Jurisdictional Scan
A comparative analysis of three other Greater Toronto Area municipalities was undertaken to inform the analysis of Pickering’s parkland policies and approaches.
Municipalities included the Town of Oakville, City of Vaughan, and Town of Markham –
all three of these communities have recently completed a series of comprehensive parkland assessments that have supported updated planning policies and approaches.
The exercise included research into the following items, with information culled from official plans, parks plans, and parkland by-laws or procedures:
• parkland hierarchy;
• parkland targets;
• parkland acceptability;
• encumbered parkland and ownership; and
• parkland cash-in-lieu policies.
Note: The summaries below are paraphrased. For additional information, specific reference should be made to the applicable by-laws, procedures, or studies.
Jurisdictional Scan – Parkland Hierarchy
Municipality Summary of Parkland Hierarchy
Town of Oakville The Town has adopted a two tier parkland hierarchy. Sizes, catchment areas, uses/functions, and general design guidelines are identified for each.
Traditional Hierarchy – Established Neighbourhoods and Greenfields:
• Community Parks
• Neighbourhood Parks
• Parkettes
• Eco Parks (new)
Urban Hierarchy – Strategic Growth Areas:
• Public Commons
• Urban Squares
• Promenades
• Other Urban Parks (Connecting Links, Pocket Parks, Sliver Parks)
Additional classifications are identified for passive parkland and open space.
- 306 -
H-2 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Municipality Summary of Parkland Hierarchy
City of Vaughan The City has adopted a two tier parkland hierarchy. Sizes, catchment areas,
uses/functions, and general design guidelines are identified for each.
Traditional Residential Communities and Delineated Greenfield Residential Communities:
• Regional Parks
• District Parks
• Neighbourhood Parks
Strategic Growth Areas
• Urban Parks
• Public Squares
• Public Commons (new)
• Promenades (active transportation component; not accepted as parkland dedication)
New park typologies to be considered, subject to further review and criteria, include:
• Eco-Parks that support environmental education and nature-related recreation
• Parkettes to support the social fabric within traditional greenfield residential communities by providing parkland within a 5-minute walk from home
City of Markham City Park Classifications:
• Community Parks
• Neighbourhood Parks
o Active Parks o Urban Squares o Parkettes
o Urban Parkettes
• Open Space Lands (not accepted as parkland dedication)
Sizes, catchment areas, uses/functions, and general design guidelines are identified in the Official Plan for each park type.
- 307 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 H-3
Jurisdictional Scan – Parkland Targets
Municipality Summary of Parkland Targets
Town of Oakville Townwide target of 2.2 ha/1000 persons to the horizon year of 2031. Note: The definition of parkland has recently been broadened to include unconstrained lands in the natural heritage system.
Minimum of 12% of the Gross Land Area within Strategic Growth Area, such that all residents are within a 2.5 minute walk (200 metres) from a defined Public Common, Urban Square or Promenade.
City of Vaughan Citywide target of 2.0 ha/1000 persons. Note: The definition of parkland has
recently been broadened to include unconstrained lands in the natural heritage system.
Prior to the introduction of Bill 23, the City gave consideration to designating a 20% Gross Land Area parkland requirement within a comprehensively planned intensification area.
City of Markham Citywide target of 1.2 ha/1000 persons.
A target of 0.4 ha/1000 persons has been established for intensification areas,
with the balance of needs being accommodated outside of the area.
Note: The City has adopted a reduced alternative rate of 0.55 ha/500 units for medium and high density residential apartments.
- 308 -
H-4 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Jurisdictional Scan – Parkland Acceptability
Municipality Summary of Parkland Acceptability
Town of Oakville Lands must be in a condition satisfactory to the town and in accordance with the requirements of the town’s Official Plan…Lands shall be free of any/all title encumbrances.
Potentially acceptable lands for parkland dedication (accepted at a reduced rate) include:
• Lands that are subject to a Strata Park arrangement;
• Privately Owned Public Spaces (POPs) where located within a SGA
subject to required legal agreements;
• Lands that are within the designated Natural Heritage System, but are not
specifically identified as a core natural feature;
• Lands that include slopes between 5 percent and 15 percent, that are not
included within the Natural Heritage System; and/or,
• Lands that include designated cultural heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes.
Unacceptable lands for parkland dedication include:
• Lands that are an identified core natural heritage feature as defined in the Official Plan, or an applicable Secondary Plan, or as identified in an Environmental Impact Study accepted by the town;
• Lands that are identified as Hazard Lands, have poor drainage, erosion issues, extreme slopes (greater than 15 per cent) or other environmental
or physical conditions that would interfere with the lands potential development or use as a public park;
• Lands that are required to accommodate storm water management facilities. And, where lands for parks purposes include stormwater management facilities, that portion of the land that includes a stormwater
management facility shall not be included in the area calculation for parkland conveyance;
• Lands that are deemed to be contaminated in any way;
• Lands used for utility corridors or any other infrastructure; and/or,
• Lands that are encumbered by easements or similar legal instruments that prohibit public use.
City of Vaughan Lands must be permit-ready for public programming, designed and developable to City standards, open and accessible to the public at all times,
and meet requirements of applicable legislation and polices.
Council may accept off-site land dedication.
Unacceptable lands include lands:
• with poor drainage, erosion issues, extreme slopes and other adverse physical conditions;
• with open storm water management facilities;
• deemed by the City to be contaminated in any way; and
• that prohibit or restrict public programming.
- 309 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 H-5
Municipality Summary of Parkland Acceptability
City of Markham Parks shall generally:
• have frontage on one or more public streets or publicly accessible private streets;
• serve park users within a 2 to 10 minute walk from residential and mixed-use neighbourhoods;
• not be encumbered by driveways, access lanes, garbage storage areas, utility vaults or other such uses that would take away from the enjoyment or use of the park; and
• be recognizable by the park user as a public and publicly accessible park.
Table 47: Jurisdictional Scan – Encumbered Parkland & Ownership
Municipality Summary of Encumbered Parkland Policies
Town of Oakville Within all areas, the town will consider Strata Ownership under the Ontario Condominium Act for Neighbourhood Parks and Parkettes, subject to a land area discount, in recognition of lifecycle cost issues, to the satisfaction of the town.
Within Strategic Growth Areas, the town may augment the urban parkland
system with Privately Owned Public Spaces (POPs). The town may consider providing parkland dedication credit, where the following criteria are met, to the satisfaction of the town:
• It is an integral element, and is directly connected to the broader urban parkland system and the adjacent public sidewalk system;
• It can be defined only as an Other Urban Park element, and is not a Public Common, Urban Square, or Promenade;
• An appropriate legal agreement has been established between the owner and the town that guarantees that the space is designed, built and maintained to town standards, and is open and accessible to the public at all times (or as otherwise to the satisfaction of the town); and,
• The land area of the POPs is appropriately discounted, in recognition of the town’s lack of programming control, to the satisfaction of the town. The actual amount of the land area discount shall be determined on a case-by-case basis, at the sole discretion of, and to the satisfaction of the town.
City of Vaughan The City’s 2022 By-law allows for the dedication for land for passive recreation uses. Acceptable lands (full credit) for parkland dedication include: strata parks; land encumbered by underground storm water facilities, utility corridors, and other publicly owned infrastructure; land that forms part of the Natural
Heritage Network and associated buffers; land encumbered by floodplains or sustainability features; and land within the Greenbelt or Oak Ridges Moraine. Agreements may be required for such lands.
The By-law also allows Council the discretion to accept privately owned public space (POPs) at full credit, subject to an agreement with the City.
- 310 -
H-6 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Municipality Summary of Encumbered Parkland Policies
City of Markham The City may accept parkland where the ownership of the land is stratified or
where the parkland is encumbered, including by underground structures. Typically, strata parks are located in mixed-use neighbourhoods in the form of a Neighbourhood Park such as an Urban Square or Urban Parkette. The value
of the contribution to the parkland conveyance of any strata park shall be discounted at the discretion of the City.
Table 48: Jurisdictional Scan – Parkland Cash in Lieu Policies
Municipality Summary of Parkland Cash in Lieu Policies
Town of Oakville First priority is fee simple (municipal ownership).
The town anticipates that approximately 25% of the land or cash in lieu within Strategic Growth Areas will be acquired within the area where it was generated. The remaining 75% generated through parkland dedication will be allocated elsewhere within the town in accordance with its parkland dedication procedure.
Within the established neighbourhoods and Greenfield communities, land dedication shall always be the first priority.
The Town does not use a per unit fee for calculating parkland dedication amounts, rather bases the amount off land appraisals coordinated through Realty Services, at the cost of the owner.
Cash in lieu funds are allocated as follows:
• First priority is the acquisition of parkland on the subject site.
• Second priority is the acquisition of parkland within 400 metres of the subject site.
• Third priority is the acquisition of parkland anywhere in the town.
• Fourth priority is the acquisition of lands for pathways, trails and
associated infrastructure throughout the town (with a focus on missing links), the erection, improvement, or repair of buildings used for park or other public recreational purposes, and/or the acquisition of vehicles and equipment used for parks maintenance or other public recreational purposes.
- 311 -
City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024 H-7
Municipality Summary of Parkland Cash in Lieu Policies
City of Vaughan First priority is fee simple (municipal ownership).
At its discretion, the City may allow for payment in lieu where no reasonable prospect for land dedication exists, including
• where land conveyance would render the remaining portion of the subject lands unsuitable or impractical for development or redevelopment;
• where the amount of land conveyance does not meet the City’s Official Plan definitions of parklands or provide a parkland configuration acceptable to the City; or
• where existing parks and other recreational spaces are available and deemed sufficient by the City
Per unit cash in lieu fees for stand-alone residential additions and multi-unit residential buildings are established within the by-law, with increases phased in annually until 2025. For multi-unit buildings, these fees will increase from
$11,300 per unit in 2022 to $27,994 per unit in March 2025.
The use of cash-in-lieu funding is prioritized at the City’s discretion to support the acquisition of additional land and/or the completion of park enhancements
or park redevelopment to meet the City’s parkland objectives.
City of Markham Instances where payment in lieu of parkland are not identified within the City’s Parkland By-law.
The citywide average per unit charge for all residential types is approximately $33,200.
- 312 -
H-8 City of Pickering: Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan | August 2024
Parkland Dedication Scenarios under the Planning Act
Parkland Dedication Scenarios under the Planning Act, 5-hectare development site
Units per Hectare
Total Units (5-hectare site)
Estimated Persons per Unit Total Persons Dedication Rate Applied
Parkland Dedication or Cash-in-Lieu
Hectares per 1,000 residents
15 75 3.4 255 Standard Rate
0.25 ha (land or CIL) 0.98 ha/1000
30 150 3.2 480 (5% of site) 0.25 ha (land
or CIL)
0.52 ha/1000
50 250 3.0 750
Alternative
0.42 ha (land) or
0.25 ha (CIL)
0.56 ha/1000
100 500 2.2 1,100
Rate 0.5 ha (land – capped) or 0.5
ha (CIL)
0.45 ha/1000
150 750 2.0 1,500 (1ha:600 units
or 1ha:1000
0.5 ha (land – capped) or 0.5
ha (CIL)
0.33 ha/1000
250 1,250 1.8 2,250
units CIL) 0.5 ha (land – capped) or 0.5
ha (CIL)
0.22 ha/1000
Note: Parkland dedication is capped at 10% of the land or value of the land for development or redevelopment sites that are five hectares or less.
Parkland Dedication Scenarios under the Planning Act, 10-hectare development site
Units per Hectare
Total Units (10-hectare site)
Estimated Persons per Unit Total Persons Dedication Rate Applied
Parkland Dedication or Cash-in-Lieu
Hectares per 1,000 residents
15 150 3.4 510 Standard Rate
0.5 ha (land or CIL) 0.98 ha/1000
30 300 3.2 960 (5% of site) 0.5 ha (land or CIL) 0.52 ha/1000
50 500 3.0 1,500
Alternative
0.83 ha (land) or 0.5 ha (CIL)
0.56 ha/1000
100 1,000 2.2 2,200
Rate 1.5 ha (land – capped) or 1.0 ha (CIL)
0.68 ha/1000
150 1,500 2.0 3,000 (1ha:600 units or 1ha:1000
1.5 ha (land – capped) or 1.5 ha (CIL)
0.50 ha/1000
250 2.500 1.8 4,500
units CIL) 1.5 ha (land – capped) or 1.5 ha (CIL)
0.33 ha/1000
Note: Parkland dedication is capped at 15% of the land or value of the land for development or redevelopment sites that are greater than five hectares.
- 313 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: CS 28-24 Date: September 3, 2024
From: Laura Gibbs Director, Community Services
Subject: Post Manor Feasibility Study -File: A-1440-001
Recommendation:
1.That Report CS 28-24 regarding the Post Manor Feasibility Study by received;
2.That staff be directed to continue discussions with Brock and Kingston Holdings Inc. onacquiring the Post Manor building, for lease or purchase for use as a public art gallery,anticipating an occupancy date in 2029, and report back with an update to Council by Q4,
2025; and
3.That the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as outlined
in this report.
Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to present a feasibility study regarding
the use of the Post Manor as a public art gallery.
At the Council Meeting on September 25, 2023, Council directed staff to enter into discussions with Brock and Kingston Holdings Inc. to conduct a Feasibility Study for an art gallery/studio in
the heritage building Post Manor, located at 1970 Brock Road, and to consult with relevant cultural organizations as part of the Feasibility Study; and that staff report back to Council with recommendations no later than Q3, 2024 (Resolution #280/23).
Staff contracted consulting group, Nordicity, specializing in cultural planning, in April 2024 to
undertake the Feasibility Study (Attachment 1). Through the feasibility study it is identified that, based on existing preliminary understanding of the current state of the Post Manor building,
there is significant appetite from the creative community for Post Manor to be used as a community creative hub and art gallery space. The Post Manor development could be feasible
provided continued engagement with the community, a clear commitment and vision for the space, and eventual initiation of start-up and operations.
Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report
respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priorities of Champion Economic Leadership & Innovation; Advocate for an Inclusive, Welcoming, Safe & Healthy Community; Advance
Innovation & Responsible Planning to Support a Connected, Well-Serviced Community; and Strengthen Existing & Build New Partnerships.
- 314 -
CS 28-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Post Manor Feasibility Study Page 2
Financial Implications: The feasibility study identified that the cost of fit-out is estimated, at a minimum, approximately between $285,000 and $380,000. If more extensive capital repairs
and upgrades are required on the building, the capital costs are estimated to be as high as $800,000. The annual net operating cost for the facility is estimated to be between $250,000
and $340,000. The annual operating cost does not include lease costs.
Since the development at 1970 Brock Road is not expected to be completed until at least 2029, there are no financial impacts associated with the recommendations in this report at this time.
Further discussions are required with Brock and Kingston Holdings Inc. to refine the full scope of financial implications.
Discussion: The purpose of this report is to provide an update on Resolution #280/24 regarding the feasibility of an art gallery/studio in the designated heritage building Post Manor, located at 1970 Brock Road.
Brock and Kingston Holdings Inc. submitted applications for an Official Plan (OPA 20-008/P)
and Zoning By-law Amendment (A 13-20), proposing a high density, mixed-use development on the lands municipally known as 1970 Brock Road. This development includes the retention of a designated heritage building, known as the Post Manor, which is intended to be used for non-residential use.
On March 27, 2023, Council approved site-specific Official Plan Amendment 47 and Zoning By-law Amendment 8005/23, to facilitate the proposed development, which includes an ‘art gallery/studio’ as a permitted use on the subject lands.
1. There is interest from Kingston Holdings Inc. in the City leasing or purchasing the
Post Manor building for use as an art gallery
The City contracted consulting group, Nordicity in April 2024, to undertake the Feasibility
Report. Shortly after contracting, staff coordinated a meeting with Nordicity, Brock and Kingston Holdings Inc., and their associates: The Biglieri Group Inc. and ERA Architects Inc.,
on May 10, 2024 to review the designated heritage building Post Manor site plans, dimensions, and determine how the space could be used. At this meeting it was confirmed that current plans including moving the Post Manor on the site and setting it on a new foundation, which will include a full basement.
Currently the lease tenants extend into 2029, after such lease agreements end, there are construction activities such as relocation of the house, basement upgrade and excavation of the parking garage and other construction activities.
While meetings with Brock and Kingston Holdings Inc. demonstrated interest in the City
operating the Post Manor as an Art Gallery, further discussions are required to determine the
following:
- 315 -
CS 28-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Post Manor Feasibility Study Page 3
a)The conditions of the possession of the building. This includes further discussion oflease costs and conditions, and a purchase price for the building. In recent discussions
with Brock and Kingston Holdings Inc. it was determined to be too early in the processto determine the conditions of possession.
b)The state of the building for occupancy. Further discussion is required to ascertain ifthe Post Manor would be available to the City in good condition, and if the process tomove the building would result in any enhancements that would support its use as an
art gallery. This includes the provision for moving the building to a new, full basement,upgraded electrical, and capital repairs to the building (like accessibility improvementsetc.).
c)The consideration of adjacent outdoor grounds. The feasibility study explored
options to use adjacent grounds and gardens surrounding the Post Manor in providingpublic space or outdoor programs. The adjacent outdoor space should be included infurther discussions with Brock and Kingston Holdings Inc.
2.Community Consultation demonstrated support for use of the Post Manor as an ArtGallery and community hub
Nordicity met with 22 stakeholders and relevant cultural organizations in one-on-one and small
group meetings to conduct outreach and consultations. These stakeholders included local artists and creators, Pine Ridge Arts Council, members of the Indigenous Relationship Building
Circle, the Cultural Advisory Committee, and school boards. In addition to outreach consultations, Nordicity compared 24 similar facilities for operation information, features and
offerings.
Information gathered from the feasibility study (based on existing preliminary understanding of the Post Manor building) identified there is significant appetite from the creative community for this space to be used as a “community hub and art gallery space”.
Based on community input, Nordicity has recommended the following vision for this space, “a community-based, local space for artists to create, network and exhibit their work. In this vision, The Post Manor evolves beyond ‘just a gallery’ – it would be a place to create and
exhibit art, to teach or participate in workshops, to host events and engage with the community
(both fellow artists and the public).”
The consensus from the community is that such a space would respond to the priority needs of emerging and established artists in Durham Region. Nordicity reporting that they repeatedly heard that residents ‘don’t have a space like this in Pickering.’ Some interviewees described
the ease with which they could imagine telling their friends and fellow artists, ‘see you at the Manor’ or ‘meet me at the Manor’, as it could become a go to spot for engagement and interaction.
- 316 -
CS 28-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Post Manor Feasibility Study Page 4
3. The feasibility study identified some challenges to operating an art gallery in the space a. The Post Manor is constrained by an approximately 3,600 square foot size. As the
building was originally designed as a residential facility, it is relatively small for use as a public community space. b. The City is constructing the first public gallery space at the Pickering Heritage &
Community Centre. Distinguishing the Post Manor from this space will require clear communication of its unique mandate and operations.
c. The long planning timeline for the construction of the site and anticipated occupancy of
the space may result in decreased buy-in from the local arts community. Operation of
this space as an art gallery is not expected before 2029. d. Capital and fit-out costs require further research and discussions with Brock and
Kingston Holdings Inc. to determine the state of the building on commencement of a lease or purchase. As this is an historic building, dating from 1842-1843, there are additional considerations, including preserving the heritage value of the building, which may add costs to the fit-out and ongoing operations of the facility.
4. Further consideration and consultation in the operation of the space is recommended
The intent of the feasibility study was to assess whether the Post Manor is an appropriate or
feasible community art gallery. Based on consultations, the greatest enthusiasm from the local arts and culture community is for re-invigorating the Post Manor as a community arts hub. This hub would include the capacity for a community gallery and exhibition space.
The Study recommends the following next steps:
• At this preliminary stage, it is recommended that the City undertake further consultations to build a stronger vision, governance model and more concrete assumptions for costs and demand or usage.
• Some stakeholders were not able to fully engage with the study and should be engaged
in future consultations. This includes the 55+ population, the post-secondary institutions, and deeper engagement with cultural communities.
• Further discussions with regard to ownership model, for example investigating whether a long-term lease at below market rates would be feasible, or whether the City could
purchase the facility for a nominal figure.
• More detailed costing is required on the capital and fit-out expenses for this facility. As
part of this feasibility study, Brock and Kingston Holdings Inc. confirmed that they are open to further discussions about upgrading mechanical systems, moving the building
and constructing new foundations/basement; however, the details of at what point the fit-out expenses would be carried by the next owner or operator need to be clarified.
- 317 -
CS 28-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Post Manor Feasibility Study Page 5
Attachment:
1.Feasibility Study: Post Manor
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Original Signed By Original Signed By
Krystal Roberts Laura Gibbs, MBA, MSc.
Manager, Cultural Services Director, Community Services
LG:kr
Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council
Original Signed By
Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer
- 318 -
Attachment 1 to Report CS 28-24
- 319 -
- 320 -
'Nordicity
Executive Summary
Background and Objectives
The City of Pickering engaged Nordicity to undertake a Feasibility Study for the Post Manor Building to
explore the suitability of the building as an art gallery space. This report represents the findings,
modelling, and recommendations as to next steps based on the research, consultations, and analysis
conducted between April to August 2024. The purpose of the study was to 1) understand current Post
Manor property and how it fits into the proposed development, 2) assess potential demand for a
gallery by holding preliminary consultations with local arts, culture and creative sector stakeholders,
3)scan similar spaces and galleries to examine what facilities and programs they offer and how they
are funded, 4) define the emerging vision for the future Post Manor, based on the consultations and
analysis, and 5) perform preliminary research into how the Post Manor could be run and its
approximate costs.
The term "feasibility study" can represent a wide range of expected activities and outcomes. Nordicity
understood that the City's decision to undertake this study was driven by a proposed major
redevelopment where the Post Manor building sits and a previous heritage impact assessment
conducted for the site, with many details of the overall redevelopment and how the Post Manor
building will fit into the overall completion of the site still yet to be known. Therefore, this report
represents the initial first step in exploring future use of the Post Manor building.
Considering factors such as the capacity and location of the Post Manor building, it was found that
certain scenarios align with the City's objectives. Therefore, feasibility depends on certain conditions
being met, namely: continued engagement with the community as the redevelopment of the site
progresses, a clear vision and sound execution, and successful marketing and communications to
foster and retain community users.
On this basis, this study found that based on existing preliminary understanding of the current
state of the Post Manor building, there is significant appetite from the creative community for
Post Manor to be used as a community creative hub and art gallery space. The Post Manor
development could be feasible provided continued engagement with the local community, a
clear vision for the space, and further commitments towards start-up and operational
responsibilities.
Approach
Nordicity's approach to the work centred on being pragmatic, flexible, and collaborative. A review of
background materials leading up to this project highlighted the significant role of arts and culture in
the City and underscored the City's commitment to supporting this sector. From this rationale, the
project team undertook the following steps in our approach: an analysis of property meeting with the
City of Pickering, Biglieri Group, Brock and Kingston Holdings Inc., CMV Group and ERA Architect Inc.
representatives; an environmental scan of over 20 local and regional facilities and focus on 3 major
case studies; stakeholder outreach and consultations engaging some 22 local stakeholders; and
development of one core operating model.
In the analysis, the project team adopted a conservative and exploratory lens based on research
(desk research and group discussions), analysis of comparatives, operating and business model
considerations, and capital cost and revenue estimates. At the same time, we acknowledge the energy
and enthusiasm within the arts community for the appetite to see more arts facilities in Pickering.
Emerging Vision for the Post Manor Building
It was found that in preliminary, pulse-check consultations with the creative community in Pickering,
enthusiasm for a "pure" art gallery at the Post Manor site was only moderate. The excitement of the
Post Manor Feasibility Study Final Report 2 of 31 - 321 -
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
- 322 -
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
- 323 -
▪
- 324 -
▪
▪
▪
▪
- 325 -
'Nordicity
1.Context for this Report
The Post Manor is a Greek revival-style farmhouse in Pickering that was built in 1842-1843 for Jordan
and Matilda Post. The house served as a residence and passed through different owners until 1985,
when the house and surrounding site were redeveloped as a low-rise commercial plaza. Today, the
Post Manor is designated under the Ontario Heritage Act and is recognized as a landmark by the local
community.
In 2022, ERA Architects (ERA) conducted and presented a Heritage Impact Assessment to the
Pickering Heritage Advisory Committee. The motivation for this assessment is a proposed major new
development at the location of the Post Manor. ERA were tasked to assess the impact of the proposed
development on The Post Manor. ERA proposed that the Post Manor be retained, relocated and rehabilitated. The relocation takes the Post Manor slightly northeastwards on the site. The suggested
rehabilitation would make the Post Manor fit for public-facing, commercial use -including
accessibility and other upgrades in keeping with today's demands.
[>
Figure 11970 Brock Road, Pickering- Landscape Concept, by ERA Architects (2022)
The Post Manor space itself is approximately 3,800 sq. ft., with 2,335 sq. ft. on the main floor and 1,500
sq. ft. on the second floor and a future planned basement of aproximately 2,000 sq ft. Notably, this
measurement excludes a potential basement, which could be constructed upon relocation of the
building. Regarding its placement on the property, the plan is to move the building slightly northeast
of its current location, closer to the street, to maintain visibility. If acquired, the building will largely
remain as is, with some potential for various upgrades in the longterm. While minor alterations may
be made to adapt the space for public use, there are no plans for major extensions or revitalization
efforts. For example, the mechanical system will be updated during the move. Accessibility is also a
key consideration for the study, and there are plans to make the building accessible, such as adding a
ramp. However, details about these accessibility measures are currently limited.
Post Manor Feasibility Study Final Report 7 of 31 - 326 -
- 327 -
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
- 328 -
▪
▪
▪
▪
- 329 -
- 330 -
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
- 331 -
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
- 332 -
▪
▪
- 333 -
- 334 -
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
- 335 -
- 336 -
- 337 -
- 338 -
▪
o
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
- 339 -
▪
▪
▪
- 340 -
- 341 -
▪
▪
▪
- 342 -
- 343 -
- 344 -
▪
▪
▪
▪
- 345 -
- 346 -
- 347 -
- 348 -
- 349 -
- 350 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: CLK 04-24 Date: September 3, 2024
From: Paul Bigioni
Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor
Subject: Review and Updates to ADM 100, Public Notice Policy
File: A-1440
Recommendation:
1.That Report CLK 04-24, regarding the Review and Updates to ADM 100 Public Notice
Policy, be received;
2.That the draft ADM 100 Public Notice Policy, as set out in Attachment 1 to this report, beapproved;
3.That going forward, the City Clerk be authorized to update Appendix 1 of Policy ADM 100
to accommodate for any legislated changes pertaining to the provision of notice to the
public;
4.That the draft By-law, appended as Attachment 3 to this report, to repeal By-law No.6166/03 be approved; and,
5.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take such actions as are
necessary to give effect to the recommendations in this report.
Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to present a revised Public Notice
Policy outlining the various methods of distributing information to the broader public in order to
meet both legislated public notice requirements and to provide residents with information pertaining to the various initiatives undertaken by the City. Notice to the public provides opportunities for engagement, and fosters accountability and transparency to the public.
Section 270(1)(4) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, requires a municipality to adopt
and maintain a policy with respect to the circumstances in which the municipality shall provide
notice to the public, and, if notice is to be provided, the form, manner, and times notice shall be given.
Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priority of Fostering an Engaged & Informed Community.
Financial Implications: There are no financial implications that result from adopting the recommendations in this report. Any costs associated with the posting of notices will be accommodated within departmental budgets.
- 351 -
CLK 04-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Review and Updates to ADM 100, Public Notice Policy Page 2
Discussion: The purpose of this report is to present a revised Public Notice Policy outlining the various methods of distributing information to the broader public in order to meet both
legislated public notice requirements and to provide residents with information pertaining to the
various initiatives undertaken by the City. Notice to the public provides opportunities for engagement, and fosters accountability and transparency to the public.
The City of Pickering’s Current Notice Policy, ADM 100, was originally adopted on July 28, 2003, through By-law #6166/03 and was subsequently updated in December 2007. The
original Policy was adopted in accordance with Section 251 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O.
2001, c. 25 (the “Act”) which required municipalities to give notice in a form and manner that Council considered adequate. Section 251 of the Act has since been repealed and replaced by Section 270, which requires a municipality to adopt and maintain policies with respect to several matters. Section 270(1)(4) of the Act states that a municipality must adopt and
maintain a policy regarding the circumstances in which the municipality shall provide notice to
the public, and if notice is to be provided, the form, manner and times notice shall be given. Several instances where notice is no longer required under the Act have been removed from the new proposed Policy which has been updated to include the requirements under current legislation.
As noted in Appendix 1 of the proposed new Policy, some statutory public notices are
prescribed to be published or distributed in specific ways, while others require that notice be given, but the method of delivery is determined by the municipality. There are some legislated requirements to publish the statutory notice in a newspaper, however, that requirement was further reduced with the recent adoption of Bill 185 which provides municipalities with the
ability to provide notice for certain matters on a municipal website if in the Clerk’s opinion there
is no local print newspaper with sufficient circulation available. Where notice is not prescribed to be given in a specific format, the provisions of the Policy and the various mediums available will be used to give notice. The Policy focuses on notice to the public generally, not on notices that are provided directly to residents or a defined group of individuals with the exception of
matters under the Planning Act. Notice given for development matters is typically given by
personal service to individuals within a defined area, or those who have notified the municipality that they wish to be notified of the matter. The need to post on the City’s website would be only for those matters that had a large or city-wide impact that would make it unfeasible to provide notice by personal service. Examples of these instances include Official
Plan and Zoning By-law amendments and Community Benefit and Parkland By-laws that
would have City-wide or large community impacts.
Currently, there are three instances where it is a legislated requirement to publish public notice in a newspaper.
1.Notice of the City’s audited financial statements (Municipal Act);
2.Notice of vacancies on the Public Library Board (Public Libraries Act); and
3.Notice of intention to expropriate (Expropriations Act).
Under the Legislation Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 21, Sched. F, newspaper is defined as:
- 352 -
CLK 04-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Review and Updates to ADM 100, Public Notice Policy Page 3
A document that,
a)is printed in sheet form, published at regular intervals of a week or less and circulated to
the general public, and
b)consists primarily of news of current events of general interest.
On September 15, 2023, Metroland Media Group, previously the publisher of more than 70 community newspapers in Southern Ontario, filed for bankruptcy protection and ceased production of all printed, weekly community newspapers, and moved to an online-only model.
As a result, the Pickering News Advertiser is no longer a viable option for the City to use for
legislated public notices. Since the demise of Metroland, any statutory public notices have been published in the Toronto Star.
On June 24, 2024, ADM 280, Advertising Standards Policy, was adopted by Council. Under that Policy, criteria have been established to determine which advertising mediums may be
used, including newspapers. This process is coordinated through Corporate Communications,
who will advise City departments which newspaper meets the provisions of the Advertising Standards Policy and should be utilized if a public notice is required to be posted in that form under statute.
It should be noted that the definition of Newspaper under the Legislation Act is antiquated and
there are efforts underway to advocate that the Province provide for more modern, digital
mediums when providing legislated notice. Should there be a change to the Legislation Act in this regard, there will be more flexibility for the City in the various mediums that may be used to give legislated public notice.
Overview of the Policy Amendments:
ADM 100 underwent an extensive review and due to substantial revisions to the Policy, it was
not feasible to show all the tracked changes and still have the document in a readable format. Attachment 1 provides the newly drafted Policy for Council’s consideration, and a copy of the existing Policy is appended as Attachment 2 to this report for reference.
The following provides a summary of the substantial revisions in the proposed draft Policy:
•The definitions for City Clerk, Newspaper, Public Notice, and Social Media have beenupdated/added to provide clarity and consistency with other City Policies and applicablelegislation.
•In accordance with the Municipal Act, and with the addition of Public Notice being
defined as notice given to the public generally, matters that are legislated to providenotice to specified persons have been removed from the Policy. Those specific noticesthat are provided to a select group of individuals, will continue to be provided by directmail or email in accordance with the applicable legislation by the department
responsible.
•The revised Policy provides guidance to determine whether a matter is of sufficientpublic interest to warrant public notice, and if warranted, the manner in which Notice isto be given.
- 353 -
CLK 04-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Review and Updates to ADM 100, Public Notice Policy Page 4
•An exception has been provided for any non-statutory requirements that may be
contained in any other City Policy to post notice in a newspaper. Advertising within a
newspaper is costly and with the community Metroland newspaper being no longeravailable, where it is not mandated by legislation that the notice has to be given in anewspaper, it is proposed that more effective and prudent methods of communicationbe utilized.
•A provision has been included to provide an alternative to posting in a newspaper forthe Ontario Heritage Act under Parts IV and V, as Section 26(4) of the Ontario Heritage
Act states notice given in accordance with a policy adopted by the municipality undersection 270 of the Municipal Act, 2001 is deemed to satisfy the requirement of this Partto publish notice in a newspaper.
In researching and reviewing the Public Notice Policy, staff reviewed public notice policies from 13 Ontario municipalities:
•The Town of Bracebridge
•The Township of Brock
•The City of Burlington
•The Municipality of Chatham-Kent
•The Municipality of Clarington
•The City of Guelph
•The City of Hamilton
•The City of Kingston
•The City of London
•The Town of Oakville
•The City of Oshawa
•The Region of Waterloo
•The Town of Whitby
Thorough research was conducted to compare how these municipalities have addressed the changing media landscape and to determine their best practices. Through this research it was
found that municipalities have implemented similar processes and procedures, providing Public Notices on a digital platform unless otherwise prescribed by legislation.
The most notable difference was how each municipality detailed a list of matters for which notice is required. Many municipalities included a detailed list including legislated as well as non-statutory matters, others did not provide a list of the various notices at all. It is
recommended that the City of Pickering’s Public Notice Policy provide legislated notice requirements, in a table format, that can be used by staff as a reference tool to easily identify when statutory notice to the public is required.
To ensure the requirements of this Policy were attainable, and that notice to the public was in compliance with various statutes, consultation with all affected departments was undertaken
and their feedback has been incorporated into the revised Policy. As part of the staff recommendation, authorization is being requested to allow the City Clerk to update Appendix 1 of the new Policy to accommodate for any legislated changes that may come forward in the
- 354 -
CLK 04-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Review and Updates to ADM 100, Public Notice Policy Page 5
future. Any changes to the Policy itself, would come back before Council for approval as needed.
To fulfill the requirements of Section 270 of the Act, and to ensure that the methods for public
notice are transparent and consistent with current statutes, staff are recommending that the revised Public Notice Policy, ADM 100, included as Attachment 1 to this report, be approved by Council.
Attachments:
1.Draft Revised Public Notice Policy (ADM 100)2.Existing Notice Policy (ADM 100) (December 2007)3.Draft By-law to repeal By-law #6166/03
4.By-law 6166/03 and the original Notice Policy (ADM 100) (July 28, 2003)
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Janean Currie Susan Cassel
Legislative Coordinator (Acting) Director, Corporate Services
SC:jc
Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council
Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer
Original Signed By:Original Signed By:
Original Signed By:
- 355 -
Policy
Policy Title: Public Notice Policy Policy Number
ADM 100
Reference ADM 280 Advertising Standards Policy Resolution #106/02
Resolution #XXX/24
Date Originated (m/d/y) July 28, 2003 Date Revised (m/d/y) December 2007 September 2024
Pages 15
Approval: Chief Administrative Officer Point of Contact Legislative Coordinator/City Clerk
Policy Objective
Section 270(1)(4) of the Municipal Act, 2001 (the “Act”), requires a municipality to adopt and maintain a policy with respect to the circumstances in which the municipality shall provide
Notice to the Public, and, if Notice is to be provided, the form, manner, and times Notice shall be given.
This policy is to establish Public Notice provisions for matters directly affecting the Public that are prescribed by legislation or deemed by the City of Pickering to warrant Public Notice.
The objective of this policy is to:
1.Ensure transparent government communications which promote public participation.2.Ensure citizens are aware of what, when and where the business of the municipality isbeing discussed.3.Provide accurate and timely Notice to the public in general.4. Ensure the notification process is consistent.
5.Ensure all Notices Published by the City are issued in an effective and relevant medium.
Index
01 Definitions
02 Circumstances
03 Notice Content
04 Process for Providing Notice
05 Exceptions
06 Statutory Notice - Matters under Parts IV and V of the Ontario Heritage Act
07 Responsibilities
Attachment 1 to Report CLK 04-24
- 356 -
Policy Title: Public Notice Policy Page 2 of 13
Policy Number: ADM 100
08 General
09 Emergency Provisions
01 Definitions
01.01 City Clerk – means the City Clerk of the City of Pickering or their designate.
01.02 Emergency – means an unexpected matter that may arise which is considered to be of an urgent or time sensitive nature or which could affect the health or well-being of the residents and may prevent the City of Pickering from providing the standard Public Notice. Emergency does not mean an Emergency as defined
in and governed by the Emergency Management Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.E.9.
01.03 Newspaper – means a document that is printed in sheet form, Published at regular intervals of a week or less and circulated to the general public, and consists primarily of news of current events of general interest as defined in the Legislation Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 21, Sched. F.
01.04 Notice – means a written, printed, Published, or posted notification or
announcement.
01.05 Published – to make generally known and released for public distribution in a manner that, in the opinion of the City Clerk, has such circulation within the City of Pickering as to provide reasonable Notice to those affected, and “Publication”
has a corresponding meaning.
01.06 Public Notice or Notice to the Public – means Notice given to the Public generally but does not include Notice given only to specified individuals.
01.07 Website – City of Pickering corporate Website, pickering.ca, and the dedicated section that provides links to Public Notices.
01.08 Social Media – means a category of online spaces that are based on user
participation and user-generated content including but not limited to social networking sites such as LinkedIn, Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram.
02 Circumstances
02.01 The Municipality shall give Public Notice under the following circumstances:
a) Where the giving of Public Notice is required by a provincial or federal
statute, or regulation as outlined in Appendix 1; or,
b) Where, in the opinion of staff, the matter is of sufficient public interest to warrant the giving of Public Notice.
02.02 When determining whether a matter is of sufficient public interest to warrant the
giving of Public Notice, staff shall consider:
- 357 -
Policy Title: Public Notice Policy Page 3 of 13
Policy Number: ADM 100
a) The number of people affected by the matter;
b) The financial implications of the matter for the municipality;
c) The time-period, or duration, for which the matter is applicable; and,
d) The extent of any geographic area within the municipality that may be
affected.
03 Notice Content
03.01 Where Notice is required to be given, the Notice shall include, at a minimum, the following information:
a) The authority and/or purpose for the Notice;
b) The subject matter, and any decision to be made in relation to it;
c) The date, time, and location of any meeting at which the matter may be considered;
d) If applicable, a key map or other description of the lands affected by the
matter under consideration;
e) How to exercise any rights of appeal; and,
f) How, where, and when comments/objections can be made.
04 Process for Providing Notice
04.01 Where Notice to the Public is to be given in accordance with this Policy, and is
not otherwise prescribed by legislation, it may be provided by one or more of the
following methods and in accordance with the following parameters:
a) Posted electronically to the City of Pickering’s Website, and/or through its Social Media channels, and/or through other digital mediums available to the City of Pickering.
b) Provided by regular letter mail or email to every party that has requested in
writing to be updated with respect to the matter, and who has provided contact information to receive such Notice.
c) Published in additional print, online media, or by static or digital signage.
d) Public Notices shall be posted and/or distributed a minimum of 14 calendar
days prior to the matter being considered, or prior to any referenced action
coming into effect (whichever is applicable in the circumstances). Exception: Any other more expansive timelines for giving Public Notice that are set out in a statute, shall prevail over the minimum timeframes set out in this Policy.
- 358 -
Policy Title: Public Notice Policy Page 4 of 13
Policy Number: ADM 100
04.02 Notice of all matters deemed to be of sufficient public interest shall be given to Registered Ratepayer Associations in accordance with Policy ADM 270, Ratepayer Association Policy, and any other Community Group on City record
as determined by the Department responsible for the Notice.
04.03 Wherever possible, Notices shall be written in plain language and feature an accessible layout and design.
05 Exceptions
05.01 Any non-statutory requirements to post a Notice in a Newspaper, that may be
contained in any other City Policy, is superseded by the provisions of this Policy
and such Notice shall be given in accordance with Section 04 of this Policy.
06 Statutory Notice – Matters under Parts IV and V of the Ontario Heritage Act
06.01 In accordance with section 26(4) and 39.1(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, where the City of Pickering is required to Publish Notice under
Parts IV and V, the process for providing Notice to the Public shall be satisfied
in accordance with Section 04 of this Policy and shall be posted electronically to the City’s Website and/or Publication on a digital news platform.
07 Responsibilities
07.01 Council:
• Approve and support the Public Notice Policy; and,
• Approve amendments to the Public Notice Policy as needed and as recommended by staff.
07.02 Chief Administrative Officer:
• Support the Public Notice Policy;
• Approve amendments to the Public Notice Policy for Council’s consideration;
and,
• Waive the provisions of the Public Notice Policy when required in accordance with Section 09 – Emergency.
07.03 Director/Division Head:
• Support the Public Notice Policy; and,
• Ensure staff prepare Notices within the parameters outlined in the Policy.
- 359 -
Policy Title: Public Notice Policy Page 5 of 13
Policy Number: ADM 100
07.04 Supervisor, Public Affairs & Corporate Communications:
• Support the Public Notice Policy; and,
• Act as a City representative and resource to assist City staff with the mediums available to give Public Notice.
07.05 Website Coordinator:
• Support the Public Notice Policy; and,
• Add, maintain, and remove Public Notices from the Website as requested by departments responsible for giving the Public Notice.
07.06 City Clerk:
• Recommend and prepare any necessary amendments to the Public Notice Policy; and,
• Amend and update Appendix 1 of this Policy to reflect any legislated
changes that impact the delivery of Notice to the Public.
08 General
08.01 Nothing in this Policy shall prevent staff from using more comprehensive methods of Notice or providing for a longer Notice period.
08.02 Any legislated requirement to post Notice in a Newspaper, shall be posted in a
Newspaper determined by Corporate Communications, in keeping with the
provisions of Policy ADM 280, Advertising Standards Policy.
08.03 In accordance with Resolution #106/02, adopted by City Council on July 29, 2002, despite the minimum circulation requirements under the Planning Act, radius circulation shall be increased to 150 m in the urban and hamlet areas
and 500 m in rural areas for giving Notice of official plan, zoning and subdivision
applications.
09 Emergency Provision
09.01 If a matter arises, which in the opinion of the Chief Administrative Officer, in consultation with the Mayor, is considered to be an Emergency (as defined in
this Policy), best efforts shall be made to provide as much prior Notice as is
reasonable under the circumstances.
Please refer to all associated Procedures and Standard Operating Procedures, if applicable, for
detailed processes regarding this Policy.
- 360 -
Policy Title: Public Notice Policy Page 6 of 13
Policy Number: ADM 100
Appendix
Appendix 1 Legislated Public Notice and the Method for Providing such Notice
Appendix 1 – Legislated Public Notice and the Method for Providing such Notice
The Municipal Act, 2001
Section of the Act Description Requirement Method of Notice
s.173 Proposal to Restructure Public Notice is required to advise of the holding of a public meeting before Council votes on whether to support or oppose a
restructuring proposal to restructure municipalities and unorganized territory in the geographic area.
Satisfied by Section 04 of this
Policy
s.222 Establishment of Wards Public Notice of the passing of the by-law is required within 15 days of the by-law enactment, specifying the last date for filing
a notice of appeal.
Satisfied by Section 04 of this
Policy
s.295 Publication of Financial Statements
Within 60 days after receiving the audited financial statements of the municipality for the previous year, the Treasurer,
(a) shall publish in a Newspaper having
general circulation in the municipality
(i) a copy of the audited financial statements, the notes to the financial statements, the auditor’s report and the tax
rate information for the current
and previous year as contained in the financial review, or (ii) a Notice that the information
described in subclause (i) will
be made available at no cost to any taxpayer or resident of the municipality upon request.
Newspaper; and
Section 04 of this Policy
- 361 -
Policy Title: Public Notice Policy Page 7 of 13
Policy Number: ADM 100
Section of the Act Description Requirement Method of Notice
s.299(4) Information re:
Municipal Operations
Public Notice is provided when the
municipality is required to provide information to the Minister regarding the efficiency and effectiveness of the municipality’s operations.
Satisfied by
Section 04 of this Policy
s.351(7)(8) Seizure – Sale by Public Auction (due to
unpaid taxes)
Public Notice is required, giving Notice of the time and place of public auction and of the name of the person whose personal
property is to be sold.
Satisfied by Section 04 of this
Policy
s.379(2)(b) and O. Reg.
181/03
Public Sale by Public Tender
(for tax arrears)
Public Notice is required to advertise the land for sale in accordance with the
regulations.
Once in The Ontario
Gazette; and,
Section 04 of this Policy
Development Charges Act, 1997
Section of the Act Description Requirement Method of Notice
s.12 and O. Reg. 82/98 Public meeting before development charges by-law
passed
Public Notice is required at least 20 days prior to public meeting, and the proposed by-law and the background study shall be made available to the public at least 2
weeks prior to the meeting.
By personal service, fax or mail to every owner
of land in
the area to which the proposed by-law
would
apply;
Or
Posting on
the City’s Website
- 362 -
Policy Title: Public Notice Policy Page 8 of 13
Policy Number: ADM 100
Section of the Act Description Requirement Method of Notice
s.13 and O.
Reg. 82/98
Notice of passing
of development charges by-law
Public Notice of the passing of the by-law
is required no later than 20 days after the by-law is passed and the Notice shall include the last day to appeal the by-law, which shall be the day that is 40 days after the by-law is passed.
By personal
service, fax or mail to prescribed persons;
Or
Posting on the City’s Website
s.46 Notice of front-ending
agreement and
deadline for filing an objection
Public Notice of the front-ending agreement is required no later than 20
days after the agreement is made, and the
Notice shall include the last day for filing an objection which shall be 40 days after the day the agreement is made.
By mail to every owner
of land in
the area defined in the front-ending
agreement;
Or
Newspaper
where there
are large or City-wide impacts
Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18
Section of the Act Description Requirement Method of Notice
PART IV
s.26
Conservation of
Property of
Cultural Heritage Value or Interest
Publication of Notice
(4) Where a municipality is required by this Part to publish a Notice in a Newspaper having general circulation in the municipality, Notice given in
accordance with a policy adopted by the
municipality under section 270 of the Municipal Act, 2001 is deemed to
Satisfied by
Section 06 of
this Policy
- 363 -
Policy Title: Public Notice Policy Page 9 of 13
Policy Number: ADM 100
Section of the Act Description Requirement Method of Notice
satisfy the requirement of this Part to
publish Notice in a Newspaper.
PART V
s.39.1(3)
Heritage
Conservation
Districts
Publication of Notice
(4) Where a municipality is required by this Part to publish a Notice in a Newspaper having general circulation in the municipality, Notice given in
accordance with a policy adopted by the
municipality under section 270 of the Municipal Act, 2001 is deemed to satisfy the requirement of this Part to publish Notice in a Newspaper.
Satisfied by
Section 06 of
this Policy
Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13
Section of the Act Description Requirement Method of Notice
s.17(17) and O. Reg. 543/06
Notice of Public Meeting and Open House Pertaining to approval of an
Official Plan and/or approval of an amendment to an Official Plan
Notice of Public meeting and open
house at least 20 days prior to the date of the meeting.
By personal
service or mail to landowners within 150 m
of the subject
property (urban and hamlet areas) or 500 m
(rural areas)
and prescribed persons; and,
Posted on the
property or a nearby location visible by the public,
Or
For City-wide or large community
- 364 -
Policy Title: Public Notice Policy Page 10 of 13
Policy Number: ADM 100
Section of the Act Description Requirement Method of Notice
impacts,
posted on the City’s Website; and,
Posted on the property or a nearby location visible by the
public
s.17(23) Giving Notice of
the adoption of an
Official Plan
Public Notice is required in the
prescribed manner, no later than 15
days after the day the by-law is passed, and the plan is adopted.
By personal
service, fax,
mail or email, to the prescribed persons; and,
For City-wide or large community impacts,
posted on the
City’s Website
s.26(4) Updating Official Plan Before revising the official plan, Council shall hold a special meeting open to the public.
Public Notice of every special meeting to
be held under clause 26(3)(b) shall be
Published at least 30 days before the date of the meeting.
Satisfied by Section 04 of this Policy with the exception
that Notice be Published at least 30 days prior to the meeting.
s.34(12)(13) and O. Reg
545/06
Notice of Public Meeting and
Open House
Pertaining to the enactment of a Zoning By-law
Information and material must be made available to the public describing,
generally, the zoning proposal.
At least one public meeting must be held.
By personal service or
mail to landowners within 150 m of the subject property
- 365 -
Policy Title: Public Notice Policy Page 11 of 13
Policy Number: ADM 100
Section of the Act Description Requirement Method of Notice
and Zoning By-
law Amendments
Notice of the public meeting and the
open house (if any) is required at least 20 days prior to the meeting.
(urban and
hamlet areas) or 500 m (rural areas) and prescribed
persons, and,
Posted on the property or a nearby location
visible by the public,
Or
For City-wide or large
community impacts, posted on the City’s Website; and,
Posted on the property or a nearby location
visible by the public
s.34(18) and
O. Reg 545/06
Passing of Zoning
By-laws
Public Notice is required in the
prescribed manner, no later than 15 days after the day the by-law is passed
By personal
service, fax, mail or email, to the prescribed
persons; and,
For City-wide or large community
impacts,
posted on the City’s Website
- 366 -
Policy Title: Public Notice Policy Page 12 of 13
Policy Number: ADM 100
Section of the Act Description Requirement Method of Notice
s.37(13) and
O. Reg 509/20
Passing of a
Community Benefits By-law
Public Notice is required in the
prescribed manner, no later than 20 days after the day the by-law is passed
By personal
service, fax, mail or email to prescribed persons; and,
For City-wide or large community impacts, posted on the
City’s Website
s.42(4.5)
and O. Reg. 509/20
Passing of a
Parkland By-law
Public Notice is required in the
prescribed manner, no later than 20 days after the day the by-law is passed
By personal
service, fax, mail or email to prescribed persons; and,
For City-wide or large community impacts,
posted on the
City’s Website
Municipal Elections Act, 1996
Section of
the Act
Description Requirement Method of
Notice
s.13 Notice by clerk All Public Notice requirements in the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 are
carried out at the discretion of the City Clerk.
In accordance with Section
04 of this
Policy
Public Libraries Act, R.S.O. 1990
Section of the Act Description Requirement Method of Notice
s.11 Notice of Vacancies Public Notice is required to advertise vacancies on the Public Library Board. Newspaper; and,
- 367 -
Policy Title: Public Notice Policy Page 13 of 13
Policy Number: ADM 100
Section of the Act Description Requirement Method of Notice
In accordance
with Section 04 of this Policy
Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E26
Section of
the Act
Description Requirement Method of
Notice
s.6(1) Notice of
intention to
expropriate
Public Notice of an application for
approval to expropriate lands is
required to be Published once a week for three consecutive weeks in the locality in which the lands are situate.
Newspaper; and,
In accordance with Section 04 of this Policy.
- 368 -
Attachment 2 to Report CLK 04-24
- 369 -
- 370 -
- 371 -
- 372 -
- 373 -
- 374 -
- 375 -
- 376 -
- 377 -
- 378 -
- 379 -
- 380 -
Attachment 3 to Report CLK 04-24
The Corporation of the City of Pickering
By-law No. XXXX/24
Being a by-law to repeal By-law #6166/03, a by-law for
establishing policies regarding public notification requirements under the Municipal Act, 2001
Whereas By-law #6166/03 to establish policies regarding public notification requirements under the Municipal Act was enacted on July 28, 2003;
And Whereas, the Public Notification Policy enacted through By-law #6166/03 is no longer
relevant due to amendments made to the Municipal Act;
And Whereas, it is recommended that Council adopt a new revised Public Notice Policy to comply with the provisions of the Municipal Act, with such Policy being recommended through Report CLK 04-24;
And Whereas, By-law #6166/03 is no longer necessary or relevant;
Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows:
1. That By-law #6166/03 be repealed in its entirety; and,
2. That this By-law shall come into effect upon the date of the final passing thereof.
By-law passed this 23rd day of September, 2024.
________________________________
Kevin Ashe, Mayor
________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk
- 381 -
Attachment 4 to Report CLK 04-24
- 382 -
- 383 -
- 384 -
- 385 -
- 386 -
- 387 -
- 388 -
- 389 -
- 390 -
- 391 -
- 392 -
- 393 -
- 394 -
- 395 -
- 396 -
- 397 -
- 398 -
- 399 -
- 400 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: CLK 05-24 Date: September 3, 2024
From: Paul Bigioni
Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor
Subject: 2025 Committee and Council Meeting Schedule
-File: A-1440
Recommendation:
1.That the 2025 Committee and Council Meeting Schedule, appended as Attachment 1 to
Report CLK 05-24, be approved; and,
2.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessaryactions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to present the 2025 Committee and Council Meeting Schedule to Council for approval. In accordance with Section 238(2) of the
Municipal Act, 2001, S.O 2001, c.25, every municipality shall pass a procedure by-law for governing the calling, place and proceedings of meetings and the procedure by-law shall
provide for public notice of meetings.
Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond
to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priority of Fostering an Engaged & Informed Community.
Financial Implications: There are no financial implications associated with this report or the
adoption of the 2025 Committee and Council Meeting Schedule.
Discussion: The purpose of this report is to present the 2025 Committee and Council
Meeting Schedule to Council for approval. In accordance with Section 238(2) of the Municipal
Act, 2001, S.O 2001, c.25, every municipality shall pass a procedure by-law for governing the calling, place and proceedings of meetings and the procedure by-law shall provide for public notice of meetings. In the spirit of openness, transparency, and accountability, the adoption and posting of the annual Committee and Council Meeting Schedule is an important exercise
to ensure as much advance notice is provided to the public for upcoming Standing Committee and Council Meetings.
Section 05.02 of the Procedure By-law provides for all regular meetings of Council to be held on the fourth Monday of each month at 7:00 pm unless otherwise provided by resolution of
Council. If a Council Meeting falls on a public or civic holiday, Council shall meet at the same
hour on the next following day, which is not a public or civic holiday.
- 401 -
CLK 05-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: 2025 Committee and Council Meeting Schedule Page 2
Section 05.03 states the Executive Committee shall meet on the first Monday of each month at 2:00 pm, and the Planning & Development Committee shall meet on the first Monday of each
month at 7:00 pm, unless otherwise provided by resolution of Council. If an Executive
Committee and Planning & Development Committee Meeting falls on a public or civic holiday, the Committee shall meet at the same hour on the next following day, which is not a public or civic holiday.
Every effort has been made to adhere to the above noted provisions of the Procedure By-law
and any variances or adjustments are due to statutory holidays and/or significant events or
dates that impact Members. Variances of note include pushing out the January Standing Committee Meetings to January 13, 2025, to allow additional time following the 2024 Christmas and New Year holidays and changing the September Council Meeting to September 29, 2025, to avoid holding the meeting during the observance of Rosh Hashanah, which will be
observed from September 22 to September 24, 2025. Statutory holidays have been included
on the Meeting Schedule for reference and the only meetings impacted by a statutory holiday in 2025 are the September Executive and Planning & Development Committee Meetings which have been moved to September 2, 2025.
Education and Training Sessions, In-Camera Meetings, and other Special Council Meetings
are not included in the Meeting Schedule. If required, these meetings can be called by the
Mayor, or by petition of a majority of Members of Council in accordance with the provisions of the Procedure By-law.
It should be noted that no date has been included on the 2025 Meeting Calendar for the Civic
Awards Event. The Civic Awards do not meet the definition of a Meeting under the Procedure
By-law and therefore have been removed from the Schedule. Staff in Community Services who are responsible for coordinating the Civic Awards Event will provide separate communication to Members of Council with the particulars of the event, including “save the date” particulars so that the event can be entered into Members’ calendars.
Similar to the 2024 Committee and Council Meeting Schedule, no dates have been included on the Meeting Schedule for an Executive Committee Budget Meeting. Through Mayoral Direction 03-2024, Mayor Ashe has directed staff to prepare the draft 2025 Current and Capital Budgets in accordance with his Strong Mayor Powers. The budget process will follow the
Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act, and Council will receive the budget materials in
accordance with the timelines set out by the Mayor in the Mayoral Direction being no later than November 29, 2024. Any meetings that are required to consider amendments to the Mayor’s budget will be scheduled as special meetings of Council in accordance with the Procedure By-law.
In conclusion, staff are seeking Council approval of the 2025 Committee and Council Meeting Schedule included as Attachment 1 to this report. Once approved by Council, the meeting dates will be posted on the City’s Event Calendar and circulated to Members of Council and Staff in accordance with Standard Operating Procedures.
- 402 -
CLK 05-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: 2025 Committee and Council Meeting Schedule Page 3
Attachment:
1. 2025 Committee and Council Meeting Schedule
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Andy MacGillivray Susan Cassel Council & Committee Coordinator (Acting) Director, Corporate Services
SC:am
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer
Original Signed By:Original Signed By:
Original Signed By:
- 403 -
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 1 1 1 2 3 4 5
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
26 27 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 29 30
30 31
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 1 2
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 29 30 27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 1 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 26 27 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 28 29 30 31
September October November
Committee Meetings Council Meetings
December
May June July August
Statutory Holidays
January February March April
Committee & Council
Meeting Schedule
DRAFT2025
Attachment 1 to Report CLK 05-24
- 404 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: CS 23-24 Date: September 3, 2024
From: Laura Gibbs Director, Community Services
Subject: Celebration of Gordon Lightfoot Public Art – Artist Selection -Commission of Public Art-File: A-1440-001
Recommendation:
1.That Council endorse the commission of the public art, entitled “Gordon’s Guitar” to beinstalled in Ernie L. Stroud Park, Steeple Hill and be awarded to Geordie Lishman;
2.That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the net project cost of
$53,933.00 to be funded by a transfer from the Public Art Reserve as approved in the
2024 Current Budget;
3.That the Mayor and the City Clerk be authorized to execute the Letter of Understanding,between Geordie Lishman and the City of Pickering, set out in Attachment 1, subject to
minor revisions acceptable to the Director, Community Services and the Director,Corporate Services & City Solicitor; and
4.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary
actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s endorsement for the
commission of public art to be installed in Ernie L. Stroud Park, Steeple Hill in Pickering, and to be awarded to Geordie Lishman. As per section 09.10 of the Purchasing Policy (PUR 010),
Public Art Project purchases with costs that exceed $25,000.00 are subject to Council approval.
Based on Resolution #282/23 from September 29, 2023, staff have consulted with the Steeple Hill Neighborhood and the community at large on the suitability, design, and material to be used for permanent public artwork which is to be funded from the Public Art Reserve.
As per the Public Art Policy (CUL 130), this purchase of artwork is being recommended following a publicly promoted Call to Artists with pre-qualification of artists based on submitted
artwork concepts. The proposal by artist Geordie Lishman received the highest juried and
community score and was recommended and endorsed by the Public Art Jury and Cultural
Advisory Committee.
- 405 -
CS 23-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Celebration of Gordon Lightfoot Public Art – Artist Selection Page 2
Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priority of Advocate for an Inclusive, Welcoming,
Safe & Healthy Community.
Financial Implications: The Celebration of Gordon Lightfoot public art is reflected in the
approved 2024 Current Budget (Cultural Services 10207) in the amount of $60,000.00. The net purchase cost is to be funded from the Public Art Reserve in the amount of $53,933.00.
1.Estimated Project Costing Summary
Fees set out in the Letter of Understanding $53,000.00
HST (13%) 6,890.00 Total Gross Project Costs $59,890.00
HST Rebate (11.24%) (5,957.00)
Total Net Project Costs $53,933.00
2.Approve Source of Funds
Approved Code Source of Funds Budget Funds Required
10207.502520.9710 Public Art Reserve $60,000.00 $53,933.00
Project Cost under (over) approved funds by $6,067.00
The remaining funds of $6,067.00 will be used for signage, lighting, communications and an
unveiling event.
Discussion: The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s endorsement for the commission of public art to be installed in Ernie L. Stroud Park, Steeple Hill in Pickering, be
awarded to artist Geordie Lishman. As per section 09.10 of the Purchasing Policy (PUR 010), Public Art purchases with costs that exceed $25,000.00 are subject to Council approval.
As per Section 10.01 of the Public Art Policy (CUL 130), an Open Call was selected as the
Method of Acquisition. A two-stage process was selected in which Stage one pre-qualified a short list of three artists. The three selected artists were invited to participate in Phase two in
which they submitted a detailed project proposal.
- 406 -
CS 23-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Celebration of Gordon Lightfoot Public Art – Artist Selection Page 3
A Call to Artists – Expression of Interest was issued on December 8, 2023. The Call to Artists was advertised through the City of Pickering website as well as Akimbo, PineRidge Arts
Council (PRAC) newsletter, Community Services Distribution List, Creative Cities Network of Canada, DurhamRegion.com, and through social media.
As per Section 09.01 of the Public Art Policy, a Public Art Jury was formed. The Public Art Jury evaluates the artist proposals in accordance with the Selection Considerations in Section 11 of the Policy.
A total of 19 artists responded to the Call to Artists with an expression of interest. The Public Art Jury met on January 11, 2024, to confirm the results of the scoring and selected the top
three artists to move to Phase two as per the information set forth in the Call to Artists. The
Cultural Advisory Committee endorsed the top three artists as selected by the Public Art Jury
at their meeting on January 16, 2024. On Thursday, April 4, 2024, the Curator, Public Art held an Open House at the George Ashe
Library. This session introduced residents to the project, and helped shape the vision of what the sculpture will look like. The collected information was used to generate Phase two, Call to Artists – Request for Proposals, which was issued to the top three shortlisted artists.
The Phase Two proposals were received on May 20, 2024. Each artist presented their concept to the community and Public Art Jury during Artfest, May 25 and 26, 2024. Community
members were also able to vote for their favorite art concept both in person and online until May 31, 2024. Following this, the Public Art Jury reviewed the judging criteria, scored each
proposal and ranked the top three finalists. Based on the community vote and the Jury’s decision, it was recommended that Geordie Lishman be awarded the commission of public art “Gordon’s Guitar” to be installed in Ernie L.
Stroud Park, Steeple Hill in Pickering. The recommendation was endorsed by the Cultural Advisory Committee on June 18, 2024.
The conceptual design proposal is set out in Schedule A of the Letter of Understanding. The
Artist made the following statement: “Gordon’s Guitar, an interactive musical sculpture, was
conceived and created by local Artist Geordie Lishman. The sculpture celebrates Canadian Singer-Songwriter Gordon Lightfoot. The 12-string guitar represents Lightfoot's musicality and was used by him during live performances. The butterfly is a symbol of his relationship to the
Mariposa Folk Festival and his commitment to the community. Gordon’s Guitar allows community to gather and play together using multiple senses.” The Letter of Understanding defines the relationship and responsibilities between the City and
the Artist. Staff are requesting Council to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Letter of Understanding with Geordie Lishman. Subject to Council’s endorsement, the artists will begin fabrication with an estimated installation date of September 2025.
- 407 -
CS 23-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Celebration of Gordon Lightfoot Public Art – Artist Selection Page 4
Attachment:
1.Letter of Understanding (Agreement)
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Original Signed By Original Signed By
Krystal Roberts Laura Gibbs, MBA, MSc.
Manager, Cultural Services Director, Community Services
LG:sb
Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council
Original Signed By
Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer
- 408 -
Attachment 1 to Report CS 23-24
Letter of Understanding
Public Artwork Agreement
This agreement made the Day/Month/Year
BETWEEN: Geordie Lishman (hereinafter called “the Artist”) AND
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING (hereinafter called “the City)
1. Introduction
This Letter of Understanding pertains to the artwork creation and installation of the artworks for the
Celebration of Gordon Lightfoot to be installed in Ernie L. Stroud Park, Steeple Hill Pickering. This
document defines the relationship and responsibilities between the City and the Artist. The final artwork is to be unveiled September 2025.
This Letter of Understanding conforms to the City of Pickering Public Art Policy (CUL 130) and the City Of Pickering Standard Quotation Terms & Conditions.
2. Background
The City administered the Celebration of Gordon Lightfoot public art project, issuing a call for Expressions of Interest (Attachment 1), on December 8, 2023. By the January 5, 2024 deadline, 19 artist submissions were received and reviewed by the Public Art Jury based on the outlined criteria.
The top three artists were selected to advance to Phase 2, with the Cultural Advisory Committee
endorsing the selection on January 16, 2024.
On April 4, 2024, the Curator, Public Art hosted an Open House at the George Ash Library to gather
community input, which informed the Phase 2 Call to Artists – Request for Proposals (Attachment 2), issued to the shortlisted artists. Proposals were submitted by May 20, 2024, and the artists presented their concepts during ArtFest on May 25 and 26. Community members voted on their favorite concept until May 31, 2024.
After considering the community vote and jury scores, Geordie Lishman was recommended for the
commission. This recommendation was endorsed by the Cultural Advisory Committee on June 18, 2024.
The Artist submitted a proposal titled Gordon's Guitar dated 05, 20, 2024, (“the Proposal”), a copy of which is attached as Schedule “A” to this Agreement.
The Artist has been selected by the City to create, manufacture, install and deliver to the site, as required for the different components, the Artwork titled Gordon's Guitar in accordance with the Conceptual Design, the Terms of Reference and the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
3. Definitions
Artwork - The “Artwork” means the final piece of artwork developed from the design, model, and specifications provided by the Artist and approved by the City, which Artwork is more particularly specified in Schedule “A” attached hereto.
The Work - The “Work” means designing, producing and fabricating the Artwork as well as delivering and installing it at the Place of Installation. - 409 -
Letter of Understanding
Public Artwork Agreement Place of Installation - The “Place of Installation” is in Ernie L. Stroud Park, Steeple Hill
Pickering, more specifically located as shown on the attached drawing Schedule “B” attached hereto.
4.Artist Fee: Compensation and Payment Schedule
a) The all-inclusive price to be paid by the City for the Artwork, completed and installed shall be$59,890.00 CAD, inclusive of all applicable federal and provincial taxes including HST.b) Each stage of the payment shall be accompanied by a detailed summary of work completed bythe Artist to date that includes updated drawings and images that states that the Work has
progressed and is proceeding according to schedule C and will be installed by the Delivery Date(as defined below).
c)H.S.T. shall be enumerated as a separate item on each staged and scheduled paymentpursuant to this Article.
Payment shall be structured in a payment schedule to the Artist as follows:
I.Phase 2: $19,963.33 inclusive of HST– after completion of Phase 2 which includes executingthe Letter of Understanding, site visit, fabrication schedule and submission of an invoice from
the Artist;II.Phase 4: $19,963.33 inclusive of HST– after completion of Phase 4 which includes the
delivery of final drawings of all art work components and submission of an invoice from theArtist; andIII.Phase 6: $19,963.33 inclusive of HST– after completion of Phase 6 which includes installationof the artwork at the Place of Installation and upon submission of an invoice from the Artist.
The City agrees:
a)to pay the Artist all funds due and as provided for herein.
5. Payments of Sub-Contractors
The Artist agrees:
a)to ensure that payments will be made to all suppliers and subcontractors that may be engagedby the Artist in regard to the design, fabrication, storage, delivery and installation of the Artwork.At the City’s request, the Artist shall provide evidence of such payment.
6. Performance
The Artist agrees:
a)to provide all work and materials necessary to create the Artwork and to fulfill all its obligationsas set out in this Agreement;b)that the materials, methods and processes used to produce the Artwork shall be of first-classquality and expressive of the approved design as detailed in Schedule “A” attached hereto;c)to use firstclass skills, diligence and workmanship as are normally found in the artistic profession,and ensure that all materials incorporated into the Artwork are of the utmost quality and design
in accordance with Schedule “A”;
- 410 -
Letter of Understanding
Public Artwork Agreement
7.Timelines and Completion of Deliverables
The Artist agrees:
a)to complete the installation of the Artwork to the satisfaction of the City no later than September25, 2025 “the Delivery Date”) or such later date as may be agreed upon by the Artist and theCity in writing. The installation will include a maintenance/conservation plan submitted by the
Artist;b)during the design and production of the Artwork, to keep the City advised of the status of theproduction of the Artwork. If required by the City, the Artist shall allow representatives of the City
to view the Artwork during its various stages of production or provide progress photographs;c)to submit a progress report and invoice, with supporting receipts and invoices from sub- contractors, in the form specified by the City, prior to each payment date set out in Schedule “C”.d)to provide a conservation and maintenance plan which must be approved by the City;
e)to provide to the City photographs of the Artwork during and after installation in accordance withSchedule “C”.
The City agrees:
a)to ensure that should the Artist require direction in any regard to the design, fabrication orinstallation of the Artwork, the City shall provide such direction in a prompt and timely fashion.
8. Detailed Design
The Artist agrees:
a)to evaluate all material and data relevant to the Artwork as provided by the City and shall facilitateproduction of the final design, working with the Cultural Services Unit and other City departments
and design team members, as needed and, in order to finalize the detailed design and the exactlocation of the Artwork within the Installation Site, to the satisfaction of the City.
9.Specifications
The Artist agrees:
a)to provide detailed drawings and specifications to the satisfaction of the City and shall advisethe City, in writing, through the Curator, Public Art, of all factors relating to the Artwork’stheme, budget, critical path, location, size, materials, structural, mechanical and technologicalrequirements, installation methods, and future maintenance requirements, to be determined by
the Artist in consultation with the Curator, Public Art;
b) Substantive changes to the Artwork may be undertaken by the Artist only upon receipt of prior
written authorization by the Manager, Cultural Services provided however, that the City’sobjection to any feature of the Artwork which is reasonably attributable to the exercise of the
Artist’s aesthetic judgment during the progress of the development of the Artwork shall not beconsidered a substantive change and shall not be a basis for withholding acceptance or paymentfor the Artwork.
- 411 -
Letter of Understanding
Public Artwork Agreement
10. Permits and Engineers Stamp
The Artist agrees:
a) to obtain at the Artist's sole cost and expense, all permits necessary for the delivery and installation of the Artwork and prepare all materials, documents, reports, plans and drawings, required in order to obtain any Structural Engineers' stamps required in connection with the manufacture and installation of the Artwork at the Installation Site.
11. Delivery, Installation and Protective Measures
The Artist agrees:
a) to be solely responsible for all costs and supervision of the actual fabrication, production and installation of the Artwork including the cost of any site preparations or safety precautions that are required for the installation of the Artwork in its final location unless otherwise specified by the City. If protection during installation is required, then the Artist is to provide it.
b) to deliver the Artwork to the specific site as set out in Place of Installation, free from all defects
and in compliance with the specifications as outlined in Schedule “A” attached hereto;
c) The Artist shall coordinate the installation of the Artwork with the Curator, Public Art and permit such inspections of the installation as the City may require. If any costs result from the
Artist failing to coordinate the Artist's work with that of [City divisions and contractors], all such
costs shall be borne by the Artist. d) upon installation of the Artwork, to clean the Artwork to ensure that all dirt, imperfections and extraneous materials are removed from the Artwork;
e) that installation shall have been deemed to be complete when acceptance by the City or by its designated agent.
The City agrees:
a) to provide, at its expense, a permanent marker in keeping with the quality and type of the Artwork which will identify the name of the Artist, the name of the Artwork and the year of the Artwork.
12. Damage to Artwork and Artist’s Property
The Artist agrees:
a) that in the event of physical loss or damage to the Artwork prior to completion of installation and acceptance of the Artwork by the City, the Artist shall immediately take all necessary steps to
rectify the loss or damage by repair, restoration, replacement or other appropriate means as soon as is reasonably possible at no additional expense to the City. Where necessary, the Artist
may collect insurance proceeds before rectifying the loss or damage and shall rectify the loss or damage as soon as is reasonably possible after receipt of said funds. b) to be responsible for any loss or damage whatsoever to any of the Artist's materials, goods, equipment or supplies and will maintain all-risk coverage as required by this Agreement and as any prudent owner of such materials, goods, supplies and equipment would maintain. The Artist
shall have no claim against the City or the City’s insurers for any damage or loss to the Artist's property and shall require his insurers to waive any right of subrogation against the City. - 412 -
Letter of Understanding
Public Artwork Agreement
The City agrees:
a) that following acceptance of the Artwork, the City will use its best efforts to maintain and repair any damage done to the Artwork by vandalism or other means substantially in accordance with the conservation and maintenance plan to be provided by the Artist. The City will make reasonable efforts to inform the Artist of such damage and to offer the Artist the opportunity to
consult with the City on the proposed repairs.
13. Warranty, Repair and Maintenance
The Artist agrees:
a) that upon receipt of the Artwork, should the City find any deficiencies in the Artwork, it will advise the Artist in writing and the Artist must rectify such deficiency within ten (10) days of receipt of such notice. Should it not be possible to complete rectifying the deficiencies within ten (10) days, the Artist shall provide a Schedule to the City that is acceptable to the City
indicating when completion will occur.
b) in the event that the Artwork shall require repairs subsequent to the date of completion arising
from normal weathering and “wear and tear”; then in such event the City shall advise the Artist in writing as to the nature of such repair and offer the Artist first right of refusal to carry out such repair within times and consideration as mutually agreed upon by the City and the Artist.
Should the Artist fail to advise the City within thirty (30) days of receipt by the Artist of the written offer, or should the Artist and the City fail to agree on times and consideration, then in any such event the City, or a third party hired by the City, shall be at liberty to carry out any and all repairs. In determining the time and consideration for such repairs, both parties agree
to act reasonably. c) notwithstanding the foregoing and with the exclusion of the maintenance criteria set out in the
conservation and maintenance plan submitted by the Artist, during the first three (3) years after installation and acceptance by the City, the Artist agrees to repair any defects or deficiencies
(normal weathering and “wear and tear” excepted) in the Artwork without any charge to the City.
The City agrees:
a) to keep the Artwork in a clean condition, free of debris or banners or signage which defaces the Artwork, all to the level which the City considers to be appropriate and in accordance with the conservation and maintenance plan to be approved by the City and that will be provided by the
Artist.
14. Removal and Relocation of Artwork
The City agrees:
a) to endeavor to exhibit the Artwork in the original location and in its original and complete format subject to the City’s right to decommission or remove the Artwork or a particular piece thereof for reasons which may include, but are not limited to, the structural integrity of the Artwork, expiry of the expected lifespan of the Artwork, extensive or irreparable damage or vandalism or by
reason of the necessity to accommodate the effective operation of the site. - 413 -
Letter of Understanding
Public Artwork Agreement
b) to consult, where possible, on the restoration or removal of public art, but shall retain the right to
restore, relocate, or archive a work of public art without the artist's and/or donor's consent.
15. Insurance
The Artist agrees:
a) that upon request by the City, the Artist shall take out and keep in force a policy of liability insurance in the amount of $2,000,000 inclusive each occurrence (or such larger amount as may be required), and not less than two million ($2,000,000.00) automotive liability insuranc e
coverage for the duration of the Artist’s work. Certificate(s) of insurance shall be provided upon
request by the City.
i. The policy shall include The Corporation of the City of Pickering, as additional named insured without subrogation in respect of all work performed by or on behalf of the Artist,
a certificate of insurance shall be completed by the Artist’s agent, broker or insurer. ii. The policy shall not be altered, cancelled or allowed to expire or lapse, without thirty
(30) days prior written notice to the City. iii. If the City is not provided with a renewal of the policy at least thirty (30) days prior to its
expiration date, then the City may arrange a public liability policy insuring the City in the amount of $2,000,000.00 and an automotive liability policy insuring the City in the amount of two million ($2,000,000) at the expense of the Artist, which may be recovered from amounts owed to the Artist or from any form of security still in the City's possession.
16. Indemnification
The Artist agrees:
a) to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its Mayor and Councillors, employees and agents for any and all losses, claims, demands, suits, actions, judgments, or costs which may arise from
any physical deficiencies or deformities or structural failures of the Work which render the Artwork inconsistent with the approved design. The Artist agrees that this indemnity shall survive
the period of time required to fulfill this contract and extend to the useful life of the Artwork and shall be binding upon the Artists’ personal representatives, administrators, executors and
assigns. b) to indemnify the City, its Mayor and Councillors, employees and agents from and against all liens, all builders liens, claims, actions, costs and damages which may arise during installation of the Work on the Place of Installation. No finding of negligence, whether joint or several, as
against the City in favour of any third party shall operate to relieve or shall be deemed to relieve the Artist in any manner from any liability to the City, whether such liability arises under this Agreement or otherwise.
c) to warrant that the Artwork is original to the Artist and does not violate any copyright of any other person. The Artist shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its Mayor and Councillors, employees and agents for any and all losses, claims, demands, suits, actions, judgements or
costs that may arise from the allegation that the Artwork is not original to the Artist.
- 414 -
Letter of Understanding
Public Artwork Agreement
17. Occupational Health and Safety Act
The Artist agrees:
a) to conform to and enforce strict compliance with the requirements of the Occupational Health
and Safety Act, R.S.O., 1990 c.0.1 and all regulations thereunder, as amended from time to time (collectively the "OHSA").
b) that nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as making the City the "employer" (as defined in the OHSA) of any workers employed or engaged by the Artist either instead of or jointly with the Artist.
c) that it will ensure that all subcontractors engaged by it are qualified to perform the services and that the employees of the Artist and of all subcontractors are trained in the health and safety hazards expected to be encountered in the Services.
18. Workplace Safety & Insurance
The Artist agrees:
a) that all of the Company’s personnel must be covered by the Workplace Safety & Insurance Board at the Company’s expense. The Company shall provide the City with a Clearance Certificate
from the Workplace Safety & Insurance Board prior to the commencement of work, certifying that all assessments and liabilities payable to the Board have been paid, and that the bidder is in good standing with the Board. b) to provide the City with a Clearance Certificate prior to final payment certifying all payments by
the Company to the Board in conjunction with the subject Contract have been made and that the City will not be liable to the Board for future payments in connection with the Company’s completion of the project.
c) That a Company deemed to be an Independent Operator by the Workplace Safety & Insuranc e
Board will provide a copy of such letter to the City containing the Independent Operator
identification number issued by the Board. An Independent Operator must be covered by WSIB optional insurance and provide proof of this coverage upon request.
19. Delays
The Artist and the City agree that:
a) neither party shall be responsible for any failure to comply with or for any delay in performance of the terms of this Agreement including but not limited to delays in delivery, where such failure or delay is directly or indirectly caused by or results from events of force majeure beyond the control of the party sought to be charged. These events shall include, but not be limited to fire,
earthquake, accident, civil disturbances, war, rationing, allocation of embargoes, strikes or labour problems or delays in transportation, inability to secure necessary materials, parts or components, delay or failure of performance of any supplier or subcontractor, acts of Nature or acts of Government.
- 415 -
Letter of Understanding
Public Artwork Agreement
20. Early Termination
The Artist and the City agree that:
a) notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the City may, at any time and without cause, prior to completion of the Artwork, terminate this Agreement by providing sixty (60) days'
notice in writing to the Artist. In the event of such termination, the City shall not incur any liability to the Artist other than work completed to the date of termination in accordance with the payment schedule and reimburse the Artist for the demonstrable, reasonable actual costs to the Artist
incurred in connection with the Artwork, to the date of termination, as well as any demonstrable, reasonable outstanding liability owed by the Artist to the Artist's contractors, subcontractors, or employees incurred in connection with such termination; b) failure of the Artist to perform its obligations under the Agreement shall entitle the City to
terminate the Agreement upon ten (10) calendar days’ written notice to the Artist if a breach which is remediable is not rectified by the Artist to the City's satisfaction and within the timeframe
set out in the City's notice of breach. In the event of such termination, the City shall not incur any liability to the Artist other than work completed to the date of termination in accordance with
the payment schedule and reimburse the Artist for the demonstrable, reasonable actual costs to the Artist incurred in connection with the Artwork, to the date of termination, as well as any demonstrable, reasonable outstanding liability owed by the Artist to the Artist's contractors, subcontractors, or employees incurred in connection with such termination;
c) all rights and remedies of the City for any breach of the Artist's obligations under the Agreement shall be cumulative and not exclusive or mutually exclusive alternatives and may be exercised singularly, jointly or in combination and shall not be deemed to be in exclusion of any other
rights or remedies available to the City under the Agreement or otherwise at law; d) no delay or omission by the City in exercising any right or remedy shall operate as a waiver of
them or of any other right or remedy, and no single or partial exercise of a right or remedy shall
preclude any other or further exercise of them or the exercise of any other right or remedy; and
e) upon termination, all work and material of the Artist pertaining to the Artwork shall be delivered to or retained by the City at no further cost or liability to the City.
21. Ownership
The Artist and the City agree:
a) ownership of the Artwork, the model/maquette and all documentation supplied to the City in connection with the Artwork, will vest in the City upon final payment for same.
22. Copyright
The Artist and the City agree that:
a) copyright in the Artwork shall remain with the Artist.
The Artist agrees:
a) to hereby grant the sole, perpetual and royalty free license to exhibit the Artwork in public and to use photographs, drawings, film, video, and other mechanical reproductions of the Artwork throughout the world to the City for publicity purposes only.
- 416 -
Letter of Understanding
Public Artwork Agreement
b) to authorize the City to use the Artist’s name in connection with the Artwork and in the promotion and advertising of the City. c) not to replicate the Artwork for any other client or purchaser. d) to use best efforts to give credit to the City as the owner of the Artwork.
The City agrees:
a) to use its best efforts to have the Artist’s name associated with the Artwork in photographs,
drawings or other reproductions of the Artwork except where the Artwork is not the primary subject of the said reproduction. 23. Death or Incapacity of Artist
The Artist and the City agree that:
a) in the event of a death or incapacity of the Artist before the complete installation of the Artwork, the City shall be vested with title to the unfinished Artwork upon paying the Artist, their personal
representatives, administrators, executors or executrix a sum in the direct proportion of the percent of the Artwork completed to that date as determined by the City and shall be permitted to complete the Artwork in a manner generally consistent with the original design of the
Artist.
24. Mediation
The Artist and the City agree:
a) that all disputes pertaining to the interpretation or implementation of this Agreement shall be resolved first by good faith negotiation between the parties. In the event that a dispute cannot
be resolved by negotiation between the parties, the parties agree to use the services of a mediator to attempt to resolve their differences and failing agreement on the procedure to be
followed, it shall be conducted in accordance with the “Rules of Procedure for the Conduct of Mediation” of the ADR Institute of Ontario. In the event that the mediation does not result in a
settlement of the dispute, any unresolved issues may be taken to any other appropriate dispute resolution process agreed to by the parties, including arbitration or an appropriate court process. Should arbitration be chosen, it will be conducted in accordance with the “Rules of Procedures for the Conduct of Arbitration” of the ADR Institute of Ontario pursuant to the Arbitrations Act.
Any claim or action brought pursuant to this Agreement shall only be brought in the courts of the
Province of Ontario.
This Agreement forms the entire agreement between parties and no other representations either oral or written shall form part of this Agreement.
The rights and remedies of the City under this Agreement are cumulative and in addition to any rights and remedies provided by law or equity.
- 417 -
Letter of Understanding
Public Artwork Agreement
To the City at:
The City of Pickering
One the Esplanade
Pickering , Ontario
The City’s Representative for the purpose of this Agreement will be
Krystal Roberts
kroberts@pickering.ca
To the Artist at:
Geordie Lishman
geordielishman@gmail.com
geordielishman.com
Or to such other address or person as the parties may designate to each other in writing.
- 418 -
Letter of Understanding
Public Artwork Agreement
It is deemed that notice is received five (5) days after the mailing of any notice or upon delivery, if personally delivered.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have had this Letter of Understanding executed.
Geordie Lishman Date
Kevin Ashe, Mayor Date City of Pickering
Susan Cassel, City Clerk Date City of Pickering
- 419 -
Letter of Understanding
Public Artwork Agreement
GENERAL
Schedule A: The Artwork (Artist’s Concept proposal document attached)
Schedule B: Place of Installation
Schedule C: Detailed Fabrication Schedule
Attachment 1: Call to Artists (EOI)
Attachment 2: Terms of Reference (RFP)
- 420 -
Design Proposal
SCHEDULE A
The Artwork
- 421 -
Pause
Unique Moments
Community Engagement
Joy, Imagination & Beauty
Radiate Celebration
- 422 -
IMAGE 1
- 423 -
IMAGE 2
- 424 -
IMAGE 3
- 425 -
IMAGE 4
- 426 -
IMAGE 5
- 427 -
Artist comments and proposal -please wait for video to begin- 428 -
Gordon’s
Guitar
An interactive musical sculpture
- 429 -
Gordon’s Guitar, an interactive musical
sculpture, was conceived and created by local
Artist Geordie Lishman. The sculpture
celebrates Canadian Singer-Songwriter Gordon
Lightfoot. The 12-string guitar represents
Lightfoot's musicality and was used by him,
during live performances. The butterfly is a
symbol of his relationship to the Mariposa Folk
Festival and his commitment to community.
Gordon’s Guitar allows community to gather
and play together using multiple senses.
- 430 -
Gordon’s Guitar
Hand crafted
Some laser cut elements
Stainless steel
Interactive musical elements
No sharp edges
Longevity, 100+ years
Minimal care required
power wash if needed
Accessible concrete / raised base
6-12 months for installation
Optional lighting elements - 431 -
Approximate location of sculpture
Facing the road on a 45 degree angle
- 432 -
City of Pickering -Gordon Lightfoot, Preliminary Budget, *incl. tx.
Materials 9,000.00
Production/Fabrication 39,740.00
Transportation 1,250.00
Installation 1,500.00
Insurance 1,800.00
Shop Fees 1,750.00
Community Engagement 2,300.00
Administrative Costs 2,590.00
59,930.00
Payment
Timeline: 1st payment (1/3 of total cost) on signed agreement
2nd payment (1/3) on completion of works
3rd payment (1/3) on installation - 433 -
Gordon’s
Guitar
An interactive musical sculpture
- 434 -
Letter of Understanding
Public Artwork Agreement
SCHEDULE B
Place of Installation
- 435 -
Letter of Understanding
Public Artwork Agreement
SCHEDULE D
Detailed Fabrication Schedule
WORK PLAN
The completion dates for each phase of the project as set out below shall be finalized upon final determination of the construction commencement date and prior to commencement of the Phase 2 services.
Phase 1 – October 7, 2024
• Agreement signed by all parties
• Proof of insurance and WSIB provided to the satisfaction of the City
Phase 2 - To be completed by October 28, 2024 to the satisfaction the
City (PAYMENT)
• Preliminary Drawings of all components and connections
• Preliminary fabrication schedule and Pricing
Phase 3 - To be completed by November 11, 2024 to the satisfaction of the City
• Final design and pricing
This phase will include the following approvals by the client: • Preliminary engineer review
• Design drawings, including all components and connections.
Phase 4 - To be completed by November 29, 2024 to the satisfaction of the City
(PAYMENT)
• Completion of detail design.
This phase will include the following approvals by the client:
• Final sign-off of shop drawings for production
• Shipping & installation plan completed, in cooperation with stakeholders and other
relevant contractors, and to the satisfaction of the City.
- 436 -
Letter of Understanding
Public Artwork Agreement
Phase 5 - To be completed by September 8, 2025 to the satisfaction of the City
• Complete off-site fabrication of Artwork and all its components, to the satisfaction of the City. All permits and approvals acquired.
Phase 6 – To be completed by September 25, 2025 to the satisfaction of the City
(PAYMENT)
• Complete on-site installation of the Artwork and all its components, to the satisfaction of the City.
• Delivery of maintenance manual, including Photographic documentation, Artist statement,
Biography
• Attendance at the unveiling event in October, 2024.
• Final acceptance of Artwork to the satisfaction of the City.
- 437 -
1
Call to Artists – Expression of Interest (EOI)
Public Art Commission, Celebration of Gordon Lightfoot Deadline: January 8, 2024, at 4 pm EDT.
Photo of Ernie L. Stroud Park located in the Steeple Hill Community in Pickering where the artwork will be located. Artist Opportunity
The City of Pickering invites artists or artist teams to respond to this Call for Artists to create permanent outdoor public artwork in celebration of Gordon Lightfoot. The work is to be installed to be installed inside the Ernie L. Stroud Park located in the Steeple Hill Community in Pickering. Exact location to be determined through consultation between
City Staff and community residents. As per the City of Pickering’s Public Art Policy (CUL 130) an artist is defined as the designer/creator of an artistic work and can include, but is not limited to, a professional artist, graphic designer, collaborative team, architect, or landscape designer. The total budget for the project, including artist fees, materials, and installation is $60,000 (including HST). The successful artist/ artist team will be selected through a two-stage process. One (1) artist/ artist team will be awarded the opportunity.* *This project and budget is subject to Council approval in 2024.
- 438 -
2
Site Background The City of Pickering resides on land within the Treaty and traditional territory of the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation and Williams Treaties signatories of the Mississauga and Chippewa Nations. Gordon Lightfoot was an icon for Canadian music. Gordon Meredith Lightfoot Jr. (November 17, 1938 – May 1, 2023) was a Canadian singer-songwriter and guitarist who achieved international success in folk, folk-rock, and country music. He is credited with helping to define the folk-pop sound of the 1960s and 1970s. He has been referred to as Canada's greatest songwriter and his songs have been recorded by some of the world's most renowned musical artists. The Steeple Hill Community in Pickering was built in the late 1980’s and has streets named after Gordon Lightfoot songs in recognition of his talent. Project Brief The City of Pickering’s Cultural Strategic Plan (2014) outlines the City’s commitment to collaborate with the community to celebrate our cultural diversity, heritage, and the arts; to sustain our natural environment; to foster a creative economy; and to strengthen our vibrant neighborhoods. The artwork will be located inside the Ernie L. Stroud Park located in the Steeple Hill Community in Pickering. The exact location of the work as well as the chosen artist will be selected by the community through consultation. The City, Community Services will facilitate the introduction between the artist/team and the community as well as other project stakeholders. Detailed Terms of Reference will be provided to the shortlisted artist/ artists teams to help them prepare their concept. Budget $60,000 CAD including HST (maximum)*. This is the total amount available for all related expenses of this public art project including, but not limited to: artist fees, all applicable taxes, detailed renderings, materials, technical consultations, community consultation, and approvals or other expertise as required, fabrication, installation, insurance, equipment, travel to meetings and to the site, and an artist statement for completed work. *Subject to Council approval.
- 439 -
3
The selected artist will enter into a written agreement with the City of Pickering following the approval of the acquisition of the public art outlined in the City’s Public Art Policy. This agreement will address the artist's obligations, which include, but are not limited to: • Materials • Timelines • Installation • Maintenance and/or conservation plans • Warranty • Copyright, Intellectual Property and Moral Rights • Payments to sub-contractors Selection Process Stage 1: Call to Artists – Expression of Interest (EOI) A public art jury comprised of practicing arts professionals and community members will be established for the evaluation of the Stage 1 submissions. EXPRESSION OF INTEREST (EOI) SUBMISSIONS Artists/ Artist teams are invited to respond to this EOI by submitting a single pdf document including:
• CV: Professional resume (3-pages max). If submitting as a team, an individual
resume should be submitted for each team member.
• Artist statement: describe your interest in this project and share your
experience in the field. You can submit a written document (1-page max) or
record an audio or video message (MP3 or MP4 file, max 20 MB).
• Portfolio of past work: Examples of relevant work. You may include multiple
images per project on 1 page of a maximum to 10 projects (10-pages). Add tittle, year, scope, budget and a short description.
• References: A list of at least two professional references familiar with your
work and working methods. The list must include name, title, complete e-mail addresses and telephone numbers. Submissions must be sent by email to: sbarakov@pickering.ca Subject: LastName_EOI:Lightfoot Deadline: January 5, 2023 at 4 pm EDT. If the submissions exceed 20 MB, artists should contact Stoyan Barakov, Coordinator, Public Art who will provide a link to an external file share program. Incomplete submissions or submissions received after the deadline will not be juried.
- 440 -
4
Stage 2: Request for Proposal (RFP) The Public Art Jury will review all submissions and identify a short-list based on artistic excellence and demonstrated or perceived ability to create and execute an innovative, engaging public artwork that is complementary to the overall design scheme and community context. The Jury will select a short-list of three (3) artists/artist teams for Stage 2 – Request for Proposal (RFP). Each of the three (3) artists/artist teams will be compensated $1,500 CAD plus HST for their time and the creation of concept for Stage 2. The short-listed artists will be notified by Week of January 8, 2024 and invited to participate to a community open house with the Steeple Hill Community. This alongside a detailed Terms of Reference will allow the shortlisted artists to submit a conceptual design proposal to the Public Art Jury and City of Pickering staff. As part of the process, short-listed artists must attend an in-person interview and present their proposals (online presentations may be accommodated) to the public art jury during the Month of February 2024. When evaluating specific artwork proposals, the Public Art Jury will consider the vision, mandate and objectives of the Public Art Program and the objectives listed in the Public
Art Opportunity outlined on Page 1 of this Call to Artists. The Public Art Jury (as per section 07.02 of the City of Pickering Public Art Policy (CUL 130) will also consider the artist's:
• Artistic excellence of previous work;
• Ability to achieve the highest quality of contemporary artistic excellence and innovation;
• Professional qualifications and relevant working experience as related to the public art project brief; • Ability to manage a project and experience working with a design team, project team and/or community group, as appropriate;
• Potential to comprehend, access and interpret relevant technical requirements; and, • Interest in and understanding of the public art opportunity and the context. The proposals may be used by the city of Pickering in meetings with community groups, stakeholders and staff.
- 441 -
5
Anticipated Schedule It is expected that the commissioned artist(s) will comply with the project’s general timeline
dates, as stated below:
Date* Project Phase
December 8 , 2023 Issue Call to Artists: EOI
January 8, 2024 Call to Artists: EOI Submissions due
Week of January 8, 2024 Shortlisted Artists notified
Week of January 15, 2024 Community Open House
Week of February 12, 2024 Conceptual Proposals due
Week of February 19, 2024 Artist’s presentations
March, 2024 Deadline to notify selected Artist
April, 2024
Technical Review with project staff. This meeting
will provide the selected Artist with further technical specifications and feedback on the
submitted conceptual artwork from lead project staff from the City
May, 2024 Project Contract signed and executed for project deliverables*. *Subject to Council approval of the project
September 2024 Anticipated installation date
*Schedule is subject to change
- 442 -
6
Accessibility The City will provide accommodations throughout the selection process to applicants with disabilities. Please notify Stoyan Barakov, Coordinator, Public Art at 289.200.7829 or sbarakov@pickering.ca of the nature of any accommodation(s) that you may require in respect of any materials or processes used to ensure your equal participation. Reserved Rights of the City of Pickering The City of Pickering, at its sole discretion, may request clarification or request additional information, as deemed necessary to evaluate the submissions. The City retains the sole discretion to determine whether a submission is responsive and if the prospective Artist or Artist Team is capable of performing the Work. The City reserves the right, at it sole discretion, to determine the number of pre-qualified Artists or Artist Teams. The City reserve the right to not proceed with awarding a contract. Publication of Information The City of Pickering shall have the exclusive rights to issue all public announcements regarding the competition. Additional Information For any additional information or questions please contact: Stoyan Barakov, Coordinator, Public Art at 289.200.7829 or sbarakov@pickering.ca.
- 443 -
Terms of Reference Celebration of Gordon Lightfoot
1
April 18, 2024
Land Acknowledgment The City of Pickering resides on land within the Treaty and traditional territory of the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation and Williams Treaties signatories of the
Mississauga and Chippewa Nations. Pickering is also home to many Indigenous persons and communities who represent other diverse, distinct, and autonomous Indigenous nations.
This acknowledgement reminds us of our responsibilities to our relationships with the First Peoples of Canada, and to the ancestral lands on which we learn, share, work, and live.
Public Art in the City of Pickering
The City of Pickering is committed to and supportive of the benefits of public art and recognizes that art in public spaces is a valuable asset that enhances the social/cultural, built
heritage and natural environments. Through public art, we beautify our environment; engage the community in Creative Place-Making; and, celebrate our values, stories, culture, heritage, and diversity while defining our unique identity. Public Art enhances quality of life for citizens and visitors; and, strengthens community pride, tourism and economic growth.
Project Description: Public Art Commission, Celebration of Gordon Lightfoot The City of Pickering’s Cultural Strategic Plan (2014) outlines the City’s commitment to
collaborate with the community to celebrate our cultural diversity, heritage and the arts; to
sustain our natural environment; to foster a creative economy; and to strengthen our vibrant
neighbourhoods.
The artwork will be situated within Ernie L. Stroud Park, located in the Steeple Hill Community in Pickering. The City will collaborate with the awarded artist or artist team to
determine the precise location of the artwork and the necessary foundation. The current plan is to install the artwork in the grass area, surface-mounted on a concrete pad
specifically constructed by the City for this purpose. Please refer to the photo below for reference:
- 444 -
Terms of Reference Celebration of Gordon Lightfoot
2
This permanent public art piece is to be created by a professional artist/team. The work is to be
highly durable and vandal resistant. Avoid using elements such as exposed lights or glass that can be easily damaged. When creating your proposal consider your dimensions carefully as the
work should not act as a barrier to visibility and ensure there are no potential obstructions to the site and/or traffic. Please refrain from incorporating images and text that are vulgar, aligned with controversial themes, religious themes etc.
About Gordon Lightfoot:
Gordon Lightfoot was an icon for Canadian music.
Gordon Meredith Lightfoot Jr. (November 17, 1938 – May 1, 2023) was a Canadian singer-songwriter and guitarist who achieved international success in folk, folk-rock, and country music. He is credited with helping to define the folk-pop sound of the 1960s and 1970s. He has been referred to as Canada's greatest songwriter and his songs have been recorded by some of the
world's most renowned musical artists.
Site History and Neighbourhood Context:
The Steeple Hill Community in Pickering was built in the late 1980’s and has streets named after Gordon Lightfoot songs in recognition of his talent. These streets were created by Sandbury
Building Corporation/Dekkema Developments.
The Steeple Hill Neighborhood is located in the West end of Pickering. Specifically, it is situated
between Kingston Road (South) and Sheppard Avenue (North), and Rosebank Road (West) and Whites Road (East). There are 3 plans of subdivisions in this area, and they were all developed and built between 1986-1988.
Within the neighbourhood are six streets named after Gordon Lightfoot and his music:
- 445 -
Terms of Reference Celebration of Gordon Lightfoot
3
1. Sundown Crescent is a reference to the song Sundown, the title track for Gordon Lightfoot’s 1974 Album, Sundown.
2. Cattail Court is a reference to the song Pussywillows, Cat-Tails from the 1968 album, Did She Mention My Name?
3. Daylight Court is a reference to the song Daylight Katy, track 1 from Lightfoot’s 1978 album, Endless Wire.
4. Edmund Drive is a reference to the song The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald off Lightfoot’s 1976 album, Summertime Dream.
5. Rainy Day Drive is a reference to the song Rainy Day People off Lightfoot’s 1975 album, Cold on the Shoulder.
6. Lightfoot Place is named after Gordon Lightfoot himself.
Steeple Hill Dr
Lightfoot Place
Edmund Drive
Rainy Day Drive
Cattail Court
Sundown Crescent
Daylight Court
- 446 -
Terms of Reference Celebration of Gordon Lightfoot
4
Artist Selection Process: Commission Per the City of Pickering Public Art Policy (CUL 130) section 09.01, a Public Art Jury must be
established to evaluate artist proposals and artwork donations in accordance with the Artist Evaluation Criteria in Section 9.04 and Acquisition Criteria in Section 10.0 of this Policy. Additionally, as per the Purchasing Policy (PUR 010) Public Art Project purchases or Public
Art projects with costs that exceed $25,000 are subject to Council approval.
While the ultimate objective of the Public Art Jury is to reach an unanimous decision, members
may be divided in their evaluations and as such, a Public Art Jury will consist of uneven numbers to enable a majority vote. The community will also have an opportunity to vote. Their vote will
count as one and be added to the overall score. Appointees to a Public Art Jury may consist of:
• A minimum of two resident members from the Cultural Advisory Committee.
• A minimum of one professional artist or curator.
• Stakeholders of the project. This may include program participants that are related to the project, architects, designers or consultants associated with a project, community group representation, or other relevant representatives.
• A minimum of 5 and maximum of 9 people on the Jury. These members can be
stakeholders in the project and are not required to be residents.
City Staff will not be voting members of the Jury. The
Public Art Jury will:
• Evaluate and select artwork, in accordance with the Artist Evaluation Criteria in Section 9.04 and Acquisition Criteria in Section 10.0 of this Policy. • Advise on the development and implementation of selection, acquisition, maintenance, and deaccession of artistic works to which this Policy applies. • Advise and or review to the City, on proposed gifts, donations and bequests to the City in accordance with established guidelines.
• Review and put forward a recommendation to acquire for endorsement of the
Cultural Advisory Committee to acquire the proposal with the best marks, or put forward for community consultation.
The Jury will be subject to City policies to ensure fair and equitable treatment of all participants in
the process and to ensure their recommendations are without bias.
All decisions made by the Public Art Jury shall be endorsed by the Cultural Advisory Committee.
- 447 -
Terms of Reference Celebration of Gordon Lightfoot
5
Artist Evaluation Criteria
When evaluating specific artwork proposals, the Public Art Jury will consider the vision, mandate
and objectives of the Public Art Policy and the specific aims in the project brief. The Public Art Jury (as per section 09.01) will also consider the artist’s: • artistic excellence of previous work;
• ability to achieve the highest quality of contemporary artistic excellence and
innovation;
• professional qualifications and relevant working experience as related to the public art project brief;
• ability to manage a project and experience working with a design team, project team and/or community group, as appropriate;
• potential to comprehend, access and interpret relevant technical requirements; and, • interest in and understanding of the public art opportunity and the context.
Selection Considerations
Artwork being considered for acquisition regardless of the acquisition method should take into
account the following:
Community Relevance and Impact • Suitability for display in a public space
• Reflects the City’s heritage, and/or history, culture and diversity, and/or natural elements
and landscapes
• Builds appreciation for public art
Overall Quality and Authenticity • Originality of design
• Intrigues viewers and stimulates imagination • Artist reputation, demonstrated and related experience
• Condition of the artwork
Location
• Site suitability • Response to or complements the location’s uses and users
Economic Value
• Short and long term costs • Tourism potential
- 448 -
Terms of Reference Celebration of Gordon Lightfoot
6
Installation Maintenance & Conservation
• City’s ability to accommodate installation requirements • City’s ability to safely display, maintain and conserve the work
• Long-term maintenance cost
• Longevity of the artwork
• Environmental impact
Submission
• Compliance with guidelines outline in the Public Art Policy and accompanying “Call to Artist” • Quality of the approach/work plan and methodology
• Ability to meet budgetary estimates and timelines
Additionally, the City will not purchase or display art that: • Violates any City policy;
• Conveys a negative message that might be deemed prejudicial; • Promotes alcohol and other addictive substances;
• Presents demeaning or derogatory portrayals of individuals or groups or contains anything, which in light of generally prevailing community standards, is likely to cause deep or widespread offence; and,
• Is in direct competition with City of Pickering services, programs or initiatives.
The finalist artist (artist team) will work closely with City Staff to refine their concept proposal to the requirements of the site and other conditions for project realization.
- 449 -
Terms of Reference Celebration of Gordon Lightfoot
7
Overall Project Timeline
Date* Project Phase
December 8 , 2023 Issue Call to Artists: EOI
January 8, 2024 Call to Artists: EOI Submissions due
Week of January 18, 2024 Shortlisted Artists notified
April 4, 2024 Community Meeting
Week of April 15, 2024 Issue of Terms of References (RFP)
May 20, 2024 Final Conceptual Presentation Proposals due
May 25 and May 26, 2024 from 12
noon to 1 pm
Artists presentations as part of Artfest
Week of June 24, 2024 Deadline to notify selected Artist
Week of June 24, 2024
Project Contract signed and executed for project
deliverables*. *Subject to Council approval of the project
July 2024
Technical Review with project staff. This meeting
will provide the selected Artist with further
technical specifications and feedback on the submitted conceptual artwork from lead project staff from the City
July 2024 to April 2025 Fabrication of artwork
May 2025 Anticipated installation date
*Schedule is subject to change
- 450 -
Terms of Reference Celebration of Gordon Lightfoot
8
Budget
Budget: $60,000 CAD (maximum) including HST. This is the total amount available for all related expenses of this public art project including, but not limited to: artist fees, all applicable taxes, detailed renderings, materials, technical consultations and approvals or other expertise
as required, fabrication, installation, insurance, equipment, travel to meetings and to the site, and an artist statement for completed work.
The selected artist will enter into a written agreement with the City of Pickering following the approval of the acquisition of the public art. This agreement will address the artist's obligations, which include, but are not limited to:
• Materials
• Timelines • Installation • Maintenance and/or conservation plans • Warranty • Copyright, Intellectual Property and Moral Rights
• Payments to sub-contractors
Conceptual Design Considerations Please consider the following in developing your concept proposal: Feedback from Community Meeting: On April 4th, the Community Services department hosted a Community Meeting to introduce the
overall project to residents and solicit input on the vision of the public art piece. The Curator, Public
Art provided three boards showcasing examples of various types of public art: interactive, kinetic,
and seating elements. Participants were asked to place a dot on the type of public art they would like to see as the project. The community expressed that while the project is named after Gordon Lightfoot, the artwork should not be a literal depiction of Gordon Lightfoot. The following findings should be considered by the
artists when creating their artistic concept:
• The community showed a higher interest in the kinetic artwork examples presented. o Key themes: movement, sound, natural elements, appeal to all ages, permanent art. • Interactive art came in a close second.
o Key themes: musical instruments, playable art, appeal to all ages, permanent art. • Seating elements ranked third.
o Key themes: rest, sitting, seat, appeal to all ages, permanent installation.
Site Specific Parameters: The space allocated for the artwork is as shared above.
• The work is to be highly durable. The material used to be resistant to damage caused by rocks, branches, and other vandalism.
- 451 -
Terms of Reference Celebration of Gordon Lightfoot
9
• This is a public park so the above are readily available and could encourage vandals. For example, steering clear of an installation that utilizes exposed lights or glass will be important. When creating your proposal consider your dimensions carefully as the work should not act as a barrier to visibility and ensure there are no potential obstructions to the site and/or traffic. • Please refrain from incorporating images and text that are vulgar, aligned with controversial themes, religious themes etc.
If the artwork has an overhead element, it should have a minimum clear height of 3m to permit people to pass underneath.
• The work is envisioned to be installed, surface-mount, on a concrete base which
is to be poured by the City.
• The artist as part of their artwork submission is welcome to provide a design of
the base for consideration to the City.
Artwork Materials, Maintenance and Public Safety
• Digital, multi-media and 2 dimensional artworks are not being considered for this project. • Artwork materials should be suitable for a lasting public, outdoor sculptural artwork. • Artwork that incorporates live plants, water source or fountain will not be considered. • Artwork that relies on digital projections or light fixtures will not be considered.
• Materials selected can make a significant difference regarding the life span of a permanent artwork in an outdoor environment. However, material selection alone is not the only determining factor, quality of workmanship, fabrication, and design details all play a significant role in an artwork’s durability. • Materials recommended must be available locally and adhere to safety standards.
• Artwork construction of any freestanding sculptural artwork must conform to the Ontario Building Code. Municipal codes and by-laws are available on the City of Pickering’s webpage: https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/zoning-by-laws.aspx
• All artwork components must be able to shed water (avoiding problems of water build up and infiltration), be durable and constructed of materials resistant to oxidation and corrosion. • Wintertime salt spray should be taken into account.
• The artwork should be designed to minimize the potential for defacement, graffiti, vandalism, skateboarding, etc. Most materials will require an anti-graffiti coating.
• The artwork must not have components that are sharp, easily climbable or encourage climbing.
• The artwork must not interfere with site maintenance, including snow removal during
winter months. • The artwork should not create a situation where a lack of visibility creates a security risk or perceived security risk.
- 452 -
Terms of Reference Celebration of Gordon Lightfoot
10
Access and Views
• The artwork must be designed to be barrier-free and accessible to maintenance staff, in all seasons. • The artwork shall be designed to be viewed from all sides and not be one sided.
• The artwork should not interfere with pedestrian flow and traffic.
• Artists (artist teams) should take into account that the site is a public space frequented by people of all ages. • Viewers of the artwork will be primarily users use the park, as well as passing pedestrians and residents of the area.
All public art submissions must include a detailed manual from the artist outlining the maintenance and/or conservation plan.
The selected artist will be required to submit drawings certified by a structural engineer licensed to operate in Ontario, at their own expense.
Artist Proposal Requirements The shortlisted artists are invited to submit their conceptual design proposals, which they must present either virtually or in person. This presentation will take place during Artfest on Saturday, May 25th and Sunday, May 26th, from noon to 1 pm. Further details will be provided by the Curator, Public Art via email to each shortlisted artist or artist team. Shortlisted artists will receive a fee of
$1,500.00 CAD (including HST) for their submission for a complete conceptual design proposal.
Design proposals must include: • Written Project Description and Artist Statement.
• Proposal concept sketches, renderings, design details, and a plan to show location.
• Details on proposed materials and any other relevant information to explain the proposed project.
• A preliminary budget outlining critical costs such as production/fabrication, professional fees, such as engineering drawings, etc., transportation and installation including proposed payment timeline. • Preliminary list of sub-contractors, fabricators, collaborators for the project
• Preliminary Conservation or Maintenance Plan and projected maintenance costs for 25 years
Deadline for submissions is May 20, 2024 at 4 pm, EDT.
Email submissions to: sbarakov@pickering.ca
- 453 -
Terms of Reference Celebration of Gordon Lightfoot
11
Post Competition Procedure
Final Recommendation and Awarding of the Commission • Following the Artist’s presentation, the community will be able to vote on the concept they like best. This will happen during Artfest, May 25 and May 26. • The community vote will count as one and will be added when the Public Art Jury votes.
• In addition, the Public Art Jury will also select one finalist artist (artist team) and make its recommendation to the City. • No appeals from artists (artist teams) are permitted.
• The Public Art Jury may offer suggestions as to ways the design concept could be refined.
• The Public Art Jury may elect not to choose a finalist artist (artist team).
• No official winner of the competition may be made public until the agreement between the City of Pickering and the finalist artist (artist team) has been determined.
Ownership, Use of the Artwork by the Finalist Artist (Artist Team) and Copyright Artwork acquired for the Public Art Collection shall become the property of the City of Pickering
except those artworks subject to the parameters for Temporary Public Art as outlined in CUL 130 Public Art Policy.
The City will respect the artist's right of authorship and the integrity of the public art. Except in very rare circumstances, the Artist(s) shall own all Intellectual Property in the work developed. Following best practice in North American Public Art Programs, they will not be asked to waive their Artist Moral Rights or assign their copyrights.
Artist(s) will be asked to provide a royalty-free non-commercial license to the City of Pickering for
images of their work in perpetuity.
Artist(s) must attend the unveiling event and give a short speech regarding their work.
Basic Conditions – Future Agreement(s) between the Finalist Artist (Artist Team) and City of Pickering The finalist artist (artist team) and the City of Pickering will enter into an Agreement, which will include the identification of the scope of work to be performed by the artist, payments and performance schedules to be followed.
- 454 -
Terms of Reference Celebration of Gordon Lightfoot
12
Questions & Contact
Artists may submit questions about any aspect of this competition by email to the following address: sbarakov@pickering.ca
Stoyan Barakov Curator, Public Art
Community Services M: 289.200.7829 T: 905.420.4660 ext.1097 sbarakov@pickering.ca
- 455 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: CS 24-24 Date: September 3, 2024
From: Laura Gibbs Director, Community Services
Subject: Volunteer Program 2023 Activities Update and Volunteer Policy Revisions - File: A-1440-001
Recommendation:
1. That Report CS 24-24, regarding the City of Pickering Volunteer Program 2023 Activities
Update, be received;
2. That Council endorse the revisions in CUL 080 The Volunteer Policy, as set out in Attachment 2 to this report, subject to minor revisions acceptable to the Director,
Community Services; and
3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary
actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update on
volunteer activities for 2023 and seek endorsement for revisions made to the Volunteer Policy.
On September 23, 2019, as per Council Resolution #131/19, the City’s first Volunteer Policy (CUL 080) was approved to establish rules and guidelines governing the recruitment, training,
retention, management and recognition of volunteers. The Policy ensures that volunteers have work that is safe, significant, fulfilling and appreciated. The City of Pickering relies on the unpaid work, talent and skills of volunteers and values their contributions.
In February 2020, the Volunteer Procedure (CUL 080-001) was approved. The procedure
requires that staff report annually on City volunteerism with recommendations, highlights, opportunities, and risks.
As per the Volunteer Policy (CUL 080), the Policy is to be reviewed every three years. Attached as Attachment 1 is the revised policy.
Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priorities of Advocate for an Inclusive, Welcoming, Safe & Healthy Community; and, Lead & Advocate for Environmental Stewardship, Innovation
& Resiliency.
- 456 -
CS 24-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Volunteer Program 2023 Activities Update and Volunteer Policy Revisions Page 2
Financial Implications: There is no financial impact resulting from the adoption of the recommendations in this report.
Discussion: The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update on volunteer activities for 2023 and seek endorsement of the revised Volunteer Policy (CUL 080).
Volunteerism plays a vital role in the development of healthy, sustainable communities. Volunteerism is a requirement for all secondary school students and is often considered a priority of older adults. The development of skilled volunteers benefits both the corporation and
the community. In 2023, the City worked with a total of 289 volunteers who provided
approximately 10,802 volunteer hours in a variety of roles that supported City-run programs,
events and services. The City welcomed 58 new volunteers in 2023. 1. 2023 Volunteer Program Review
In 2023, a volunteer database was procured to centralize volunteer applications and store all volunteer-related data, including hours served. The volunteer database is available to all City departments that manage volunteer programs. Evaluation and training for all staff leads on
effective use of software took place between November 2023 – March 2024.
The City of Pickering continues to value and encourage the involvement of volunteers within a wide range of programs, events, and services. In 2023, a total of 289 volunteers provided
10,802 hours of volunteer service.
The following is a summary of volunteer activities in 2023 (January-December):
• Recreation Services
o PAC4Teens – was active throughout 2023. The group of 16 youth volunteers ran
their own booth at Artfest and Hip Hop in the Park, participated in the Easter Parade and Santa Claus Parade by wearing character costumes, and created hygiene kits for those using the shower program at the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex. They also ran the annual food drive in
September 2023 with St. Paul’s on the Hill. o Leisure Buddies – Youth volunteers assisted Program Instructors with children’s
recreation programs in the summer and fall sessions of 2023. Volunteers
assisted in art, sports, skating, and preschool programs. A total of three
volunteers contributed 32 hours over the summer session, and eight volunteers contributed 133 hours over the fall session.
o Counsellor in Training – Two sessions were offered, the first with 15 participants, the second with 14 participants. In the second week of each program, participants volunteered within the Camp program setting, with all 29 participants acquiring 35 hours of community service. All participants received
emergency first aid and CPR training through St John’s Ambulance. The YMCA provided job preparation training and The Youth Centre provided leadership and
- 457 -
CS 24-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Volunteer Program 2023 Activities Update and Volunteer Policy Revisions Page 3
team building concepts. The City of Pickering provided a summary of High Five Principles of Healthy Child Development, communication and various hands-on
activities.
o Assistant Counsellor Program – Two training and orientation sessions were offered, with 45 Assistant Counsellors who signed up for this program. Participants learned what it is like to work in a Summer Camp Environment. Training focused on developing leadership, communication, professionalism and
program planning skills. Participants were evaluated weekly, learning how to become a successful camp counsellor. At the end of the summer, participants received a letter with their total hours volunteered that can be used toward
community service hours for high school graduation.
o Snow Removal Program – 23 inquiries from community members regarding volunteer snow removal were received. Seven volunteers indicated they were available, and six driveways were serviced. In 2024, the City’s Snow Clearing
Program was expanded and can accommodate 750 residents that qualify. The Snow Clearing Program is not at capacity and provides a more consistent and reliable service to seniors and those with permanent disabilities that participate in the program. As such, the volunteer Snow Removal program will be
discontinued.
• Cultural Services
o Pickering Community Events – Volunteers were engaged for six community
events: Artfest, Cultural Fusion, Fall Fling, Food Truck Festival, Santa Claus Parade and Winter Nights, City Lights. Artfest had 11 volunteers working three
hours each (33 volunteer hours). o Cultural Fusion had 15 volunteers working six hours each (60 volunteer hours).
o Fall Fling had 14 volunteers working four hours each (56 volunteer hours). o Food Truck Festival had nine volunteers working four hours each (36 volunteer hours).
o Santa Claus Parade had six volunteers working three hours each (15 volunteer
hours).
o Winter Nights City Lights had 39 volunteers working seven hours each (246 volunteer hours). Winter Nights, City Lights was a two-day event that also
included volunteer orientation.
o The total hours of service was 446 hours. Some of the volunteer tasks at each of
these events included: greeting attendants, facilitating event activations, assisting with photo taking, and administering the food and toy donations tent. Volunteers have provided important contributions to City of Pickering Events.
o Pickering Museum Village (PMV) – Over 60 volunteers contributed over 1,500 hours to the efficient operation of PMV programs. Behind the scenes, volunteers tended the gardens, baked scones for programs, made a variety of items for the
gift shop, including jams, knitted and crocheted items, and wood crafted kitchen gifts, to name a few. Volunteers repaired and built reproduction items for the
- 458 -
CS 24-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Volunteer Program 2023 Activities Update and Volunteer Policy Revisions Page 4
buildings, sewed, cleaned and packed collection items, created décor to support the programs, served as program greeters, and supported programs. Youth
volunteers also participated in an online focus group providing feedback on the ForgingON website design.
• Animal Services
o The 2023 Animal Services Volunteer Program consisted of 70 Volunteers (28
Animal Service Satellite Adoption Centre Volunteers and 42 Volunteer Foster Families, 22 of which were new for 2023). o Animal Services Satellite Adoption Centre Volunteers are responsible for the feeding, cleaning, and socializing of our animals while at our satellite adoption
site at PetSmart in Pickering. Volunteers play an integral part of our adoption program and contribute to the success of our program. o In 2023, the Animal Services Satellite Adoption Centre Volunteers collectively
contributed 1,364 hours of volunteer work. Volunteers were scheduled for a
minimum two-hour shift in the PetSmart stores daily.
o Animal Services volunteers also helped at many animal services related events including Petapolooza. o Animal Services Fosters collectively fostered 43 animals prior to being placed up
for adoption.
• Sustainability
o Over 200 volunteers participated in various earth month activities including tree planting, compost giveaway, event and community outreach.
o Volunteers received training on pollinator gardens and how to maintain them. Volunteers also assisted with garden maintenance.
2. Volunteer Policy (CUL 080) Updates
As per the Volunteer Policy (CUL 080), the Volunteer Policy is to be reviewed every three
years. A summary of the revisions are as follows:
• References to Volunteer Canada, the National Centre for Volunteering, Volunteer Calgary, and Volunteerism Australia were removed as they do not directly relate to this
policy.
• Staff titles have been updated throughout the Policy.
• Section 04.01 was updated to remove a mandatory interview and replaced with an application process. The interview process is no longer required to volunteer.
• Section 04.03 was updated to clarify that volunteers are required to complete and submit a Vulnerable Sector Check, not a Criminal Reference Check.
• Section 04.04 was updated to remove the definition of Responsible Person. The volunteer program is administered by the Volunteer Coordinator and Staff Leads from
various departments. The staff that oversee aspects of the volunteer program participate in a staff working group and receive updates and training in regard to the
- 459 -
CS 24-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Volunteer Program 2023 Activities Update and Volunteer Policy Revisions Page 5
volunteer program from the Volunteer Coordinator. Language through the Policy has been clarified to reference staff positions rather than the term Responsible Person.
•Section 04.07 was updated to add a definition of the Volunteer Coordinator position.
•Section 04.08 was updated to remove the requirement that active volunteers are
required to sign and return a position description for each position they volunteer in.
•Sections 06.02, 06.03, 06.05, 07.03 (d), 07.05, and 07.06 were updated to reflect thecurrent roles and responsibilities of the Volunteer Coordinator and staff in administeringthe volunteer program.
Attachments:
1.Volunteer Policy (CUL 080) – Revisions with Track Changes
2.Volunteer Policy (CUL 080) – Clean Copy
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Original Signed By Original Signed By
Amber Cockburn Laura Gibbs, MBA, MSc.
Volunteer Coordinator Director, Community Services
LG:ac
Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council
Original Signed By
Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer
- 460 -
Attachment 1 to Report CS 24-24
Policy
Policy Title: Volunteer Policy Policy Number
CUL 080
Reference Date Originated (m/d/y) Date Revised (m/d/y) Pages
Volunteer Canada September 23, 2019 April 2024August, 5
National Centre for Volunteering 2024September 23,
Volunteer Calgary 2024
Volunteerism Australia
Resolution # 131/19
Resolution # XXX/24
Approval: Chief Administrative Officer Point of Contact
Supervisor, Cultural ServicesManager,
Community Services Administration and&
Strategic Initiatives
Policy Objective
The Corporation of the City of Pickering (the “City”) values and encourages the involvement of
volunteers within a wide range of programs, events, and services. The purpose of this policy is
to establish rules and guidelines governing the recruitment, training, retention, management and
recognition of volunteers, in order that the City ensures that volunteers have work that is safe,
significant, fulfilling and appreciated. The City of Pickering relies on the unpaid work, talent and
skills of volunteers and values their contributions.
Index
01 Purpose
02 Scope
03 Application
04 Definitions
05 Principals and Conditions
06 Volunteer Management
07 Delegation of AuthorityRoles & Responsibilities
08 Policy Review
- 461 -
01 Purpose Formatted: Don't keep with next
The purpose of this policy is to establish a consistent management of City volunteers; to
encourage and develop volunteerism in the City, and safeguarding the health and
wellness of volunteers, as well as the City’s Ccorporate image, assets and interests.
02 Scope
This policy applies to all relationships between the City, Volunteers and Volunteer
applicants inclusive of: recruitment, hiring, training, management, service, recognition, and
termination. This policy does not apply to registered program participants providing unpaid
work to the City, as part of their program commitment.
03 Application
This policy applies to all City employees. This policy does not apply to the City’s elected
officials, or Advisory Boards.
04 Definitions
04.01 Active Volunteer – a volunteer Volunteer who meets mandatory interview
application and training requirements; attends mandatory training as required;
and participates in a minimum of one special event, program or activity each
year.
04.02 Inactive Volunteer – a volunteer Volunteer who has not met, in the course of
one calendar year, the minimum requirements to maintain active status.
04.03 Registered Volunteer – a volunteer Volunteer who has submitted an
application, required references, proof of health and safety training, proof of
online Accessible Customer Service training, an acceptable Criminal Reference
Check and/or Vulnerable Sector Screening Check (if 16 years of age or older),
and has been interviewed and accepted into the Volunteer Program; but has
not completed the position-specific trainingvVolunteer Oorientation to become
an Aactive Vvolunteer.
04.04 Responsible Person – a City staff person assigned the responsibility to
supervise volunteers in their duties. Responsible Persons have passed all
required training, including successful completion of the provincial health and
safety training for supervisors and has demonstrated the knowledge and ability
required for the role.
04.0504.04 Staff – an individual paid by Tthe Corporation of the City of Pickering, Formatted: Font: Not Bold
and scheduled to work.
04.0604.05 Staff Lead – refers to a qualified City staff person who leads the Formatted: Font: Not Bold
activities of a specific group of volunteersVolunteers. A Staff Lead will have
Supervisor’s Health and Safety training, the necessary skills to be the
Policy Title: Volunteer Policy Page 2 of 7
Policy Number: CUL 080
- 462 -
Responsible Person, and will develop/collect the required materials to lead and
oversee volunteers Volunteers within their area, i.e.,: position description,
training documents, etc..
04.06 Volunteer – a person who voluntarily undertakes an assigned task or service
without expectation of payment.
04.07 Volunteer Coordinator –- refers to a staff position that oversees the corporate
volunteer program. The Volunteer Coordinator is responsible for accepting and
onboarding all new vVolunteers. The Volunteer Coordinator works with Staff
Leads and assists them in overseeing vVolunteers within their area.
04.08 Volunteer Position Description – refers to a document outlining the roles and
responsibilities assigned to a particular group of volunteersVolunteers. The
document includes the positions descriptions, required skills and training, as
well as the list of duties and responsibilities assigned. Active volunteers will
sign a position description for each role they take on.
05 Principles and Conditions
05.01 Volunteer positions are offered to:
i. assist the City’s ability to deliver quality programs and events to the public
in a sustainable manner;
ii. foster relationship building and community connectivity;Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.13"
iii. encourage community development and citizenship; and,
iv.build leadership, knowledge, and skills within the community.
06 Volunteer Management
06.01 06.01 The City of Pickering will dedicate staff and program resources to the Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.19", Hanging: 0.81", Outline
management, recruitment, recognition, and training of Vvolunteers. numbered + Level: 2 + Numbering Style: 01, 02, 03, … +Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.38" + Indent at: 0.63"06.02 The City will assign a Volunteer Coordinator to oversee the volunteer program.
The Volunteer Coordinator will manage volunteer activities in accordance with
this policy and supporting volunteer procedures.
06.032 The City will assign a Staff Lead to each area utilizing volunteer resources. The
staff Staff Llead will manage volunteer activities in accordance with this policy
and supporting volunteer procedures. supervise vVolunteers assigned to their
area and support vVolunteer activities in accordance with this policy and
supporting volunteer procedures.
06.043 A report on City volunteerism will be prepared annually, with recommendations,
highlights, opportunities and risks for ongoing program development.
06.054 Staff Leads managing volunteersThe Volunteer Coordinator will work
collaboratively with other municipal and City staff, and other professional
Policy Title: Volunteer Policy Page 3 of 7
Policy Number: CUL 080
- 463 -
Policy Title: Volunteer Policy Page 4 of 7
Policy Number: CUL 080
associations in order to encourage, and sustain the effectiveness of the City
Vvolunteer Pprogram.
06.06 Volunteer positions will be actively promoted through social media, recruitment
fairs, in-person outreach and online.
06.07 All City volunteers Volunteers must be registered with the City.
06.08 The City of Pickering will maintain adequate general liability insurance
coverage to ensure that volunteers are protected in the event of bodily injury,
death and/or property damage to third parties during the course of their
volunteer duties.
06.09 City volunteers Volunteers do not handle monies or spend monies on behalf of Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.2", Hanging: 0.8"
the City.
- 464 -
Policy Title: Volunteer Policy Page 5 of 7
Policy Number: CUL 080
06.10 A City volunteer Volunteer will be terminated without prejudice, under the
following circumstances:
i. failure to comply with the policies and procedures of the City of Pickering;
ii. failure to adhere to the volunteer Volunteer position Position Ddescription,
assigned tasks and/or work plan;
iii. failure to provide notice of absence, or arrive for assigned shifts and Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.13", Hanging: 0.25"
commitments on 3 three occasions within one calendar year; and,
iv. theft, devaluing, defacing, misuse or destruction of City property.
07 Delegation of AuthorityRoles and Responsibilities
07.01 The Mayor and Members of Council to:
a) direct inquiries related to volunteerism to the City web portalwebpage for
volunteersVolunteers, or to the appropriate City staffVolunteer Coordinator;
b) consider and approve, as appropriate City staff reports to Council
recommending changes or budget monies to support the Volunteer Policy.
07.02 Chief Administrative Officer to:
a) support the allocation of staff resources to coordinate the Volunteer Policy.
07.03 Directors and Division Heads to: Formatted: Tab stops: 0.81", Left
a) consider and approve, as appropriate the allocation of staff resources and
budget monies to develop and manage volunteer Volunteer positions;
b) ensure their department meets the obligations related to volunteer Volunteer
management;
c) consider and approve/deny applications made by terminated or resigned
volunteers Volunteers for reinstatement;
d) consider and approve, as appropriate Staff Lead decisionsVolunteer
Coordinator recommendations to terminate Vvolunteers; and
e) consider and approve, as appropriate staff recommendations to accept
volunteer Volunteer applicants whose Criminal ReferenceVulnerable Sector
Check includes a record of charges; and,
f) consider, and where appropriate approve Volunteer position descriptions.
07.04 Managers and Supervisors to:
- 465 -
Policy Title: Volunteer Policy Page 6 of 7
Policy Number: CUL 080
a) assign staff resources to manage volunteer Volunteer activities; and,
b) oversee Staff Leads to ensure policy and procedures are being followed.
07.05 Staff Leads to:
a) attend Volunteer Committee meetings;
b) create opportunities for volunteer participation within their
departments/division/section;
c) promote available positions and opportunities;
d)screen applications and provide timely responses;
e) approve, or accept volunteer applicants;
f)d) collect and track required documentation;
g) keep an up-to-date listing of training: offered, available and completed;
h)e) manage and supervise volunteer Volunteer activities as appropriate;
i)f) collect feedback from volunteers Volunteers and community partners; and,
j) complete an annual report on volunteers; and,
g)Iin conjunction with the Volunteer Coordinator, recognize volunteers
Volunteers equitably where appropriate. Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.25", No bullets or numbering
07.06 Volunteer Coordinator to: Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.19"
facilitate vVolunteer cCommittee meetings; Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.94", Hanging: 0.31", SpaceAfter: 12 pt, Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: a, b,
a) c, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.5" +Indent at: 0.75"
liaise with staff leads to create and promote available positions and
opportunities;
b)
screen applicants and provide timely responses;
c)
approve, or accept vVolunteer applicants;
d)
collect and track all required documentation;
- 466 -
Policy Title: Volunteer Policy Page 7 of 7
Policy Number: CUL 080
e)
f) develop and facilitate Vvolunteer orientations;
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.94", Hanging: 0.31"
g) keep an up-to-date listing of training;: offered, available and completed;Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.94", Hanging: 0.31", SpaceAfter: 12 pt, Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: a, b,c, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.5" +
Indent at: 0.75"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.94", Hanging: 0.31"h) complete an annual report on Vvolunteers; and,Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.94", Hanging: 0.31", SpaceAfter: 12 pt, Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: a, b,c, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.5" +
Indent at: 0.75"
k)i) in conjunction with Staff Leads, recognize Vvolunteers equitably where Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.94", Hanging: 0.31"
appropriate.Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.94", Hanging: 0.31", SpaceAfter: 12 pt, Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: a, b,c, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.5" +Indent at: 0.75"08 Policy Review Formatted: Font: Not Bold
This policy will be reviewed every three years.
Please refer to all associated Policies and Standard Operating Procedures, if applicable, for
detailed processes regarding this Policy.
- 467 -
Policy
Policy Title: Volunteer Policy Policy Number CUL 080
Reference Resolution # 131/19
Resolution # XXX/24
Date Originated (m/d/y) September 23, 2019 Date Revised (m/d/y) September 23, 2024 Pages 5
Approval: Chief Administrative Officer Point of Contact
Manager, Community Services Administration & Strategic Initiatives
Policy Objective
The Corporation of the City of Pickering (the “City”) values and encourages the involvement of
volunteers within a wide range of programs, events, and services. The purpose of this policy is
to establish rules and guidelines governing the recruitment, training, retention, management and
recognition of volunteers, in order that the City ensures that volunteers have work that is safe, significant, fulfilling and appreciated. The City relies on the unpaid work, talent and skills of volunteers and values their contributions.
Index
01 Purpose
02 Scope
03 Application
04 Definitions
05 Principals and Conditions
06 Volunteer Management
07 Roles & Responsibilities
08 Policy Review
01 Purpose
The purpose of this policy is to establish a consistent management of City volunteers; to encourage and develop volunteerism in the City, and safeguarding the health and wellness of volunteers, as well as the City’s Corporate image, assets and interests.
Attachment 2 to Report CS 24-24
- 468 -
Policy Title: Volunteer Policy Page 2 of 5
Policy Number: CUL 080
02 Scope
This policy applies to all relationships between the City, Volunteers and Volunteer applicants inclusive of recruitment, hiring, training, management, service, recognition, and termination. This policy does not apply to registered program participants providing unpaid work to the City, as part of their program commitment.
03 Application
This policy applies to all City employees. This policy does not apply to the City’s elected
officials or Advisory Boards.
04 Definitions
04.01 Active Volunteer – a Volunteer who meets mandatory application and training requirements; attends mandatory training as required; and participates in a
minimum of one special event, program or activity each year.
04.02 Inactive Volunteer – a Volunteer who has not met, in the course of one calendar year, the minimum requirements to maintain active status.
04.03 Registered Volunteer – a Volunteer who has submitted an application,
required references, proof of health and safety training, proof of online Accessible Customer Service training, an acceptable Vulnerable Sector Check
(if 16 years of age or older), and has been accepted into the Volunteer Program but has not completed the Volunteer Orientation to become an Active
Volunteer.
04.04 Staff – an individual paid by The Corporation of the City of Pickering and scheduled to work.
04.05 Staff Lead – refers to a qualified City staff person who leads the activities of a
specific group of Volunteers. A Staff Lead will have Supervisor’s Health and Safety training, and will develop/collect the required materials to lead and oversee Volunteers within their area, i.e., position description, training
documents, etc.
04.06 Volunteer – a person who voluntarily undertakes an assigned task or service
without expectation of payment.
04.07 Volunteer Coordinator – refers to a staff position that oversees the corporate volunteer program. The Volunteer Coordinator is responsible for accepting and
onboarding all new Volunteers. The Volunteer Coordinator works with Staff Leads and assists them in overseeing Volunteers within their area.
04.08 Volunteer Position Description – refers to a document outlining the roles and responsibilities assigned to a particular group of Volunteers. The document
includes the positions descriptions, required skills and training, as well as the list of duties and responsibilities assigned.
- 469 -
Policy Title: Volunteer Policy Page 3 of 5
Policy Number: CUL 080
05 Principles and Conditions
05.01 Volunteer positions are offered to:
i. assist the City’s ability to deliver quality programs and events to the public in a sustainable manner; ii. foster relationship building and community connectivity;
iii. encourage community development and citizenship; and, iv. build leadership, knowledge, and skills within the community.
06 Volunteer Management
06.01 The City will dedicate staff and program resources to the management, recruitment, recognition, and training of Volunteers.
06.02 The City will assign a Volunteer Coordinator to oversee the Volunteer Program. The Volunteer Coordinator will manage volunteer activities in accordance with
this policy and supporting volunteer procedures.
06.03 The City will assign a Staff Lead to each area utilizing volunteer resources. The Staff Lead will supervise Volunteers assigned to their area and support
Volunteer activities in accordance with this policy and supporting volunteer
procedures.
06.04 A report on City volunteerism will be prepared annually, with recommendations, highlights, opportunities and risks for ongoing program development.
06.05 The Volunteer Coordinator will work collaboratively with other municipal and
City staff, and other professional associations in order to encourage and sustain the effectiveness of the City Volunteer Program.
06.06 Volunteer positions will be actively promoted through social media, recruitment fairs, in-person outreach and online.
06.07 All City Volunteers must be registered with the City.
06.08 The City will maintain adequate general liability insurance coverage to ensure
that Volunteers are protected in the event of bodily injury, death and/or property damage to third parties during the course of their volunteer duties.
06.09 City Volunteers do not handle monies or spend monies on behalf of the City.
- 470 -
Policy Title: Volunteer Policy Page 4 of 5
Policy Number: CUL 080
06.10 A City Volunteer will be terminated without prejudice, under the following circumstances:
i. failure to comply with the policies and procedures of the City; ii. failure to adhere to the Volunteer Position Description, assigned tasks and/or work plan;
iii. failure to provide notice of absence, or arrive for assigned shifts and commitments on three occasions within one calendar year; and,
iv. theft, devaluing, defacing, misuse or destruction of City property.
07 Roles and Responsibilities
07.01 The Mayor and Members of Council to:
a) direct inquiries related to volunteerism to the City webpage for Volunteers, or
to the Volunteer Coordinator;
b) consider and approve, as appropriate City staff reports to Council recommending changes or budget monies to support the Volunteer Policy.
07.02 Chief Administrative Officer to:
a) support the allocation of staff resources to coordinate the Volunteer Policy.
07.03 Directors and Division Heads to:
a) consider and approve, as appropriate the allocation of staff resources and budget monies to develop and manage Volunteer positions;
b) ensure their department meets the obligations related to Volunteer management;
c) consider and approve/deny applications made by terminated or resigned Volunteers for reinstatement;
d) consider and approve, as appropriate Volunteer Coordinator recommendations to terminate Volunteers;
e) consider and approve, as appropriate staff recommendations to accept
Volunteer applicants whose Vulnerable Sector Check includes a record of
charges; and,
f) consider, and where appropriate approve Volunteer position descriptions.
07.04 Managers and Supervisors to:
a) assign staff resources to manage Volunteer activities; and,
b) oversee Staff Leads to ensure policy and procedures are being followed.
- 471 -
Policy Title: Volunteer Policy Page 5 of 5
Policy Number: CUL 080
07.05 Staff Leads to:
a) attend Volunteer Committee meetings;
b) create opportunities for volunteer participation within their departments/division/section;
c) promote available positions and opportunities;
d) collect and track required documentation;
e) manage and supervise Volunteer activities as appropriate;
f) collect feedback from Volunteers and community partners; and,
g) in conjunction with the Volunteer Coordinator, recognize Volunteers
equitably where appropriate.
07.06 Volunteer Coordinator to:
a) facilitate Volunteer Committee meetings;
b) liaise with staff leads to create and promote available positions and
opportunities;
c) screen applicants and provide timely responses;
d) approve, or accept Volunteer applicants;
e) collect and track all required documentation;
f) develop and facilitate Volunteer orientations;
g) keep an up-to-date listing of training; offered, available and completed;
h) complete an annual report on Volunteers; and,
i) in conjunction with Staff Leads, recognize Volunteers equitably where
appropriate.
08 Policy Review
This policy will be reviewed every three years.
Please refer to all associated Policies and Standard Operating Procedures, if applicable, for detailed processes regarding this Policy.
- 472 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: CS 25-24 Date: September 3, 2024
From: Laura Gibbs Director, Community Services
Subject: City Property Naming - John E. Anderson - File: A-1440-001
Recommendation:
1. That Report CS 25-24 regarding the City Property Naming in honour of John E. Anderson be received;
2. That staff be directed to explore the naming of the Exhibit Gallery in the Pickering
Heritage & Community Centre as the John E. Anderson Exhibit Gallery subject to
undertaking the work outlined in the City Property Naming Procedure (ADM 110-006) and
report back with the final recommendations in Q4 2024;
3. That Council grant staff the authority to solicit public comment on the proposed name, as set out in Section 03.02 of City Property Naming Procedure (ADM 110-006); and
4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to recommend an option of a new or unnamed City Property to be officially named in honour of former Pickering Mayor, John E. Anderson.
As per Resolution #472/24, staff were directed to bring back to Council in Q3 2024, a report
that recommends an option of new or unnamed City Property to be officially named in honour of John E. Anderson.
After a thorough review of Mayor John E. Anderson’s significant contributions to the municipality, staff recommend the unnamed Exhibit Gallery at the future Pickering Heritage &
Community Centre (PHCC), as the City Property to be named in his honour.
Should Council endorse this option, staff will fulfill the requirements set out in section 03.01.05 and section 03.02 of the City Property Naming Procedure and report back to Council in Q4 2024.
- 473 -
CS 25-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Facility Naming – John E. Anderson Page 2
Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priorities of Advocate for an Inclusive, Welcoming,
Safe & Healthy community; and, Foster an Engaged & Informed Community.
Financial Implications: Installation of signage will be less than $3,000 and will be
expensed through the Current Budget.
The opportunity to secure sponsorships or naming rights of the amenity in question will no
longer be available.
Discussion: The purpose of this report is to recommend an option of a new or unnamed City Property to be officially named in honour of former Pickering Mayor John E. Anderson. The recommended option of staff to name the Exhibit Gallery at the future PHCC is in
compliance with the criteria of Section 05.03 in City Property Naming Procedure ADM 110-006.
John E. Anderson was first elected to Pickering Council as Ward 1 Local Councillor in 1972. At that time, he and his wife, Muriel lived in a home on the Pickering-Uxbridge Townline, when
there were still long-distance fees to make phone calls. Muriel would come south to call prospective voters.
He was an employee of the Canadian Pacific Railway for more than 40 years, working as a locomotive fireman and an engineer. During that time, he would work for constituents during
the day and on the trains at night.
John E. Anderson was appointed Mayor of the Town of Pickering in 1977 and was re-elected each term, serving for the next 11 years until his retirement in 1988. As described in Resolution #472/24, Mayor John E. Anderson led the town during explosive suburban growth
and was instrumental in laying the foundation for the Town Centre as a commercial, institutional, recreational and residential precinct, he saw the Pickering Recreation Complex from concept to completion and the Civic Complex was under construction at the time of his
retirement.
Mayor John E. Anderson has a forged legacy that is defined by vision and was known as a
family man with a great sense of humour who worked hard. His influence and leadership saw Pickering evolve and grow as a suburban, residential community.
Construction is currently underway for the new PHCC that is scheduled to open in Spring
2026. The 44,000 square- foot facility will offer year-round access to arts, heritage and culture programming and services in a multi-use space. Among the many amenities is a dedicated space, approximately 1,500 square feet for an Exhibit Gallery that will feature changing artwork, installations and displays, including those that showcase the cultural heritage of our
community. All visitors will have access to the Exhibit Gallery as part of the PHCC experience.
- 474 -
CS 25-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Facility Naming – John E. Anderson Page 3
For his significant contributions to the City of Pickering and for shaping the history and development of the community, staff recommend the unnamed Exhibit Gallery at the future
PHCC be named in honour of former Mayor John E. Anderson.
Should Council endorse this option, staff will fulfill the requirements set out in section 03.01.05
and section 03.02 of the City Property Naming Procedure and report back to Council with final recommendations in Q4 2024.
Attachment: None.
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Original Signed By Original Signed By
Karen Coleman Laura Gibbs, MBA MSc. Manager, Recreation Services Director, Community Services
LG:kc
Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council
Original Signed By
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Chief Administrative Officer
- 475 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: CS 26-24 Date: September 3, 2024
From: Laura Gibbs Director, Community Services
Subject: City Property Naming - Wayne Arthurs - File: A-1440-001
Recommendation:
1. That Report CS 26-24 regarding the City Property Naming in honour of Wayne Arthurs be received;
2. That staff be directed to explore the naming of the gymnasium in the future Seaton
Recreation Complex & Library as the Wayne Arthurs Gymnasium subject to undertaking
the work outlined in City Property Naming Procedure (ADM 110-006) and report back
with the final recommendations in Q2 2025;
3. That Council grant staff the authority to solicit public comment on the proposed name, as set out in Section 03.02 of City Property Naming Procedure (ADM 110-006); and
4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to recommend an option of a new or unnamed City Property to be officially named in honour of former Pickering Mayor Wayne Arthurs.
As per Resolution #473/24, staff were directed to bring back to Council in Q3 2024, a report
that recommends an option of new or unnamed City Property to be officially named in honour of Wayne Arthurs.
After a thorough review of Mayor Wayne Arthurs’ significant contributions to the municipality, staff recommend the multipurpose gymnasium at the future Seaton Recreation Complex &
Library, as the City Property to be named in his honour.
Should Council endorse this option, staff will undertake the work set out in section 03.02 of the City Property Naming Procedure and report back to Council with final recommendations in Q2 2025.
Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report
respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priorities of Advocate for an Inclusive, Welcoming, Safe & Healthy Community; and, Foster an Engaged & Informed Community. - 476 -
CS 26-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Facility Naming – Wayne Arthurs Page 2
Financial Implications: Naming an amenity at the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library will require an expense of less than $5,000 to install signage that will be covered by the City’s
Current Budget.
The opportunity to secure sponsorships or naming rights of the amenity in question will no longer be available.
Discussion: The purpose of this report is to recommend an option of a new or unnamed
City Property to be officially named in honour of former Pickering Mayor Wayne Arthurs. The
recommended option is in compliance with the criteria of Section 05.03 in City Property
Naming Procedure ADM 110-006.
Wayne Arthurs was first elected to Pickering Council as Local Councillor for Ward 3 in 1982. During his time as Local Councilor, Wayne Arthurs continued to work as a high school physical
education teacher and guidance counsellor. He served two consecutive terms before he first ran and was elected Mayor of the Town of Pickering in 1988, a position he held for 15 years.
In 2003, Wayne Arthurs continued to represent Pickering when he was elected as a Member of the Provincial Parliament for Pickering - Ajax/Uxbridge and again in 2007 for Pickering -
Scarborough East. After 29 years of dedicated public service on behalf of the Pickering residents, Mayor Arthurs retired from political life in 2011, and now enjoys his family time with
wife Susan, his children and grandchildren.
As described in Resolution #473/24, Mayor Wayne Arthurs had many key and transformational
projects come to fruition including, but not limited to improving the workings of City Hall and Customer Service, a new municipal civic complex, including City Hall, the Central Library and Esplanade Park, revolutionizing Pickering’s waterfront, including the Mayor’s Taskforce on the waterfront and significant community infrastructure projects including the Puterbaugh
Schoolhouse and the Ajax-Pickering Hospital. His influence and leadership has seen Pickering evolve from a town to a City in 2000, the expansion of the new Seaton community and into an evolving community in which to live, work and play. His vision, hard work and planning set the
stage for Pickering’s emerging presence in Durham Region and the Greater Toronto Area.
The new Seaton Recreation Complex & Library will be the first new multipurpose recreation
complex in the City since 1983. The final design will be guided by the City's Recreation &
Parks - Ten Year Plan, the Pickering Public Library's Strategic Plan, and community
consultation. Included in the amenities will be a multi-purpose gymnasium that will provide
residents with shared basketball, volleyball, pickleball and badminton courts. In addition, the
gymnasium space will allow for the delivery of other recreation programs for all ages. The
Seaton Recreation Complex & Library is expected to be complete in 2029.
For his significant contributions to the City of Pickering, including his vision for the Seaton
community, staff recommend the multipurpose gymnasium at the future Seaton Recreation Complex & Library, as a City Property to be named in honour of Wayne Arthurs.
- 477 -
CS 26-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Facility Naming – Wayne Arthurs Page 3
Should staff be directed to explore the naming of the gymnasium in the future Seaton Recreation Complex & Library in honour of former Mayor Wayne Arthurs, staff will undertake
the work outlined in section 03.02 of the City Property Naming Procedure (ADM 110-006) and report back with the final recommendations in Q2 2025.
Attachment: None.
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Original Signed By Original Signed By
Karen Coleman Laura Gibbs, MBA, MSc. Manager, Recreation Services Director, Community Services
LG:kc
Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council
Original Signed By
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Chief Administrative Officer
- 478 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: CS 27-24 Date: September 3, 2024
From: Laura Gibbs Director, Community Services
Subject: Indoor Pickleball Facility – Update - File: A-1440-001
Recommendation:
1. That Report CS 27-24 regarding an update on Indoor Pickleball facilities be received for
information.
Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to provide an update on a leased facility to meet the demand for indoor pickleball facilities until the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library is built.
As per Resolution #278/23, staff were directed to: 1) Explore opportunities to lease warehouse space that can be retrofitted to accommodate the construction of Indoor Pickleball Courts; 2) Consult with the Pickering Pickleball Club (PPC) in this review; and 3) Report back to Council
for budget consideration no later than Q1, 2024.
Staff brought Report CS 01-24 to Council on February 5, 2024, with an update on interim
solutions for indoor pickleball facilities. Analysis of current demand for pickleball and availability of indoor pickleball courts resulted in the following findings:
1) Demand for pickleball exceeds available court facilities. There were 10,506 drop in pickleball players at CHDRC in 2023. In the first half of 2024, there have been 6,100 players. During busy sessions, there are upwards of 20 players waiting for court time.
2) The City continues to add new pickleball programs in community facilities. In 2023, the City accommodated 500 registered participants in 32 pickleball programs. Of the programs offered, 27 were for the 55+ age group.
3) There are indoor warehouse spaces available for lease. However, most warehouse spaces
range from 30,000 to 100,000 square feet, which is significantly larger than what is required for an indoor pickleball facility, estimated to be around 16,500 square feet. Additionally, warehouses require significant retrofitting to be safe, accessible and functional recreational
spaces. Insufficient parking and washroom facilities are also common challenges, as industrial buildings are typically designed for much lower occupant counts. The estimated cost for a warehouse retrofit is between $50 to $250 per square foot, depending on the condition of the existing space (ie. $50 x 30,000 sq. ft. = $1,500,000).
- 479 -
CS 27-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Indoor Pickleball Facility – Update Page 2
Resolution #415/24 directed staff to further investigate indoor warehouse spaces suitable to accommodate pickleball courts, including a detailed retrofit and operating budget.
At the June 2024 Council meeting, staff brought Report CS 15-24 to Council presenting the draft Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan. Comparative analysis of other Ontario
municipalities demonstrated that there is an average provision of one pickleball court per 10,000 residents. Applying this measure to Pickering, the City will be able to meet the target of ten indoor courts by 2024 through the Pickering Soccer Centre with six courts, and 53 hours of pickleball offered weekly in community centres and school gymnasiums. The City will meet the
target of 15 pickleball courts by year 2034 as early as 2029 with the construction of the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library.
Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond
to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priority of Advocate for an Inclusive, Welcoming, Safe & Healthy Community.
Financial Implications: 1. Estimated Costs for Options 1, 2 & 3
Option 1
The Shops at Pickering City Ctr. (Commercial)
18,000 ft²
Option 2
953 Dillingham Rd. (Warehouse)
19,832 ft²
Option 3
585 Granite Crt. (Warehouse)
29,378 ft²
Annual Lease Costs $630,000 $422,000 $616,900
Staffing (7-day operations 7:00 am – 9:00 pm)
358,000 358,000 358,000
Safety Systems &
Insurance
12,000 12,000 12,000
Information
Technology
1,500 1,500 1,500
Utilities 25,000 25,000 25,000
Program Support 20,000 20,000 20,000
Janitorial 15,000 15,000 15,000
Total Annual Expenses $ 1,061,500 $ 853,500 $ 1,048,400
Less:
Annual Program Admissions
(160,000)
(160,000)
(160,000)
- 480 -
CS 27-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Indoor Pickleball Facility – Update Page 3
Option 1 The Shops at
Pickering City Ctr. (Commercial)
18,000 ft²
Option 2 953 Dillingham
Rd. (Warehouse)
19,832 ft²
Option 3 585 Granite Crt.
(Warehouse)
29,378 ft²
Net Annual Cost $ 901,500 $ 693,500 $ 888,400
One Time Capital Costs (Debt Financing 10-Year Term)
(est. $100/ft2) $1,980,000
(est. $120/ft2) $2,380,000 (est. $110/ft2) $3,231,600
Option 1: The Shops at Pickering City Centre has an estimated annual operating net
cost of $901,500 which translates into an additional levy increase of 1.0 per cent, and $1,980,000 in capital expenses for leasehold improvements which would result in annual debt charges of $256,500 based on a 10-year debenture and results in additional levy increase of 0.282 per cent, for a total levy increase of 1.282 per cent that
is above the Mayor’s 2025 Budget target.
Option 2: The Dillingham Road Warehouse has an estimated annual operating net cost
of $693,500 which translates into an additional levy increase of 0.763 per cent, and $2,380,000 in capital expenses for leasehold improvements which would result in
annual debt charges of $308,200 based on a 10-year debenture that results in additional levy increase of 0.339 per cent for a total levy increase of 1.102 per cent that is above the Mayor’s 2025 Budget target.
Option 3: The Granite Court Warehouse has an estimated annual operating net cost of
$888,400 which translates into an additional levy increase of 0.890 per cent, and $3,231,600 in capital expenses for leasehold improvements which would result in annual debt charges of $418,500 based on a 10-year debenture that results in
additional levy increase of 0.461 per cent for a total levy increase of 1.351 per cent that
is above the Mayor’s 2025 Budget target.
Senior staff are currently developing the draft 2025 Current and Capital Budgets with the goal of meeting the Mayor’s budget levy target. The draft 2025 Current Budget is proving to be challenging due to the fact there are several uncontrollable cost pressures
such as expired labour contracts, above average construction cost inflation and the need to invest in infrastructure renewal. Senior staff are working towards accommodating these budget pressures by drawing on all reserves and prioritizing spending.
Council may recall the Capital Priorities Report FIN 01-24 included the Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Report that showed the City drawing on its reserves to a
low level until 2028 to meet capital and operating needs. This study did not include additional investments for indoor pickleball. Therefore, to fund Options 1, 2 or 3, the
- 481 -
CS 27-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Indoor Pickleball Facility – Update Page 4
only choice is to increase the levy above the Mayor’s target to accommodate the operating and debt financing costs associated with the leasehold improvements.
Discussion: The purpose of this report is to provide an update on an interim solution to meet the demand for indoor pickleball facilities until the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
is built.
1. Staff have investigated several facilities for indoor pickleball courts:
a) Industrial Warehouse at 935 Sandy Beach Road. This property is 30,000 square feet,
with existing washrooms and a reception area. Transit stops are available at Bayly and
Sandy Beach Road. The warehouse is considered by staff to be in poor condition. There is a current tenant in this space so a site visit could not be conducted by City staff and PPC. This facility is no longer available.
b) Industrial Warehouse at 915 Sandy Beach Road. In January 2024, staff and members of the PPC visited a 100,000 square foot warehouse at 915 Sandy Beach Road that included studio space and an office. Due to the size of this facility, it was
determined to be too large for the intended use.
c) Unit 503 in The Shops at Pickering City Centre (Option 1 above). In February, June and August 2024, staff and members of the PPC visited unit 503, an approximately
18,000 square foot facility. While this is not a warehouse space, as specified in the Council directive, this space in the mall benefits from ample parking, high foot traffic, and proximity to shops, restaurants and amenities. This space could accommodate five to six pickleball courts. This facility has 15-to-16-foot clearance from floor to ceiling,
which is slightly lower than recommended clearances for pickleball. Unit 503 requires the addition of public washrooms and reception/office space. Court flooring and lighting would need to be added to the space and HVAC and electrical upgrades must be done
as part of the fit out. The lessor continues to accept offers from interested parties.
d) Industrial Warehouse at 953 Dillingham Road (Option 2 above). In July 2024, staff and a member of the PPC visited a 19,832 square foot facility. This facility has an 18-foot clearance from floor to ceiling. There are 20 tightly packed, angled parking spots
that create poor conditions for driving through the parking lot, which is considered to be insufficient for the proposed use. The facility could accommodate five to six pickleball courts. The building is considered by staff to be in poor condition and requires significant repairs to the foundation, floor slabs, and lighting. The lessor continues to
accept offers from interested parties.
e) Industrial Warehouse at 585 Granite Court (Option 3 above). In July 2024, staff and a member of the PPC visited a 29,378 square foot facility. This facility has an 18-foot
clearance from floor to ceiling and could accommodate eight or more pickleball courts. There are 16 dedicated parking spaces. An additional 30 shared spaces are available on the opposing side of the building. Parking is currently via gate access, with no access past 4:30 pm, and would require the facility to maintain two separate entrances,
- 482 -
CS 27-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Indoor Pickleball Facility – Update Page 5
neither of which could be easily made accessible. Insufficient parking capacity would also be an ongoing operational challenge. This facility does not have washrooms or
office space which would need to be added as a fit-out cost. This facility is in good condition. The lessor continues to accept offers from interested parties. 2. The following requirements are needed in a leased space:
A standard pickleball court is 44 feet long and 20 feet wide, inclusive of lines. Each court requires clearance of six feet around it to accommodate players’ access to the
courts, and off-court play (i.e. balls hit out of court). Additional space as safety allowance and for circulation is always preferred. Courts require a ceiling height allowance of 18 feet to 20 feet. The minimum space requirement to introduce eight
indoor pickleball courts, for example, is approximately 16,500 square feet.
In addition to unencumbered court spaces, the facility (i.e. warehouse) will also need to
include the following amenities:
• At least 60 parking spaces including accessible parking.
• Public washrooms, including an accessible washroom.
• Storage space for equipment and nets.
• Health and safety equipment including a defibrillator.
• Security provisions like outdoor lighting, alarms and cameras.
• A seating area for players to wait or spectate.
• A small office space with internet, phone, computer and printer.
• Janitorial storage space.
• Potable water source.
The minimum space requirement for indoor facility amenities is 3,500 square feet. Added to the 16,500 square feet court requirement makes the total square foot requirement for a suitable indoor interim space approximately 20,000 square feet.
Operating hours for the pickleball facility are expected to be seven days a week, from
7:00 am to 9:00 pm.
3. The need for Indoor Pickleball facilities will be met in 2024:
The draft Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan (2024) recommends a provision of one pickleball court per 10,000 residents. Applying this measure to Pickering, the City will
be able to meet the 2024 target of ten indoor pickleball courts at the Pickering Soccer Centre (up to six courts and 42 hours per week), and existing pickleball program offerings in community facilities. The City is also on track to meet the target of 15
indoor courts by the year 2034 as early as 2029 through the construction and opening
of the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library, as pickleball will be offered in the
gymnasium.
Community Services continues to add new pickleball programs in community facilities. In 2023, the City offered pre-registered pickleball programs on a sessional basis at
- 483 -
CS 27-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Indoor Pickleball Facility – Update Page 6
three facilities. 500 participants registered in the 32 programs. Of these programs, 27 were for the 55+ age group and prove to be the most popular. In 2024, the City
expanded pickleball to Dunbarton High School and offered indoor summer drop-in at Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex (CHDRC). Combined with planned
programs and drop-in at community centres and CHDRC, the City is offering 53 hours weekly of pickleball programs.
4. Community feedback on pickleball through the Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan.
As part of community engagement for the Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan,
Pickering residents were asked what recreational and park activities or programs they would like to see offered in Pickering. From 704 respondents, the top five activities that
people wanted to see offered more included: 1) swimming (24%); 2) pickleball (15%); 3) skating (15%); 4) splash pads (8%); 5) cycling (7%).
The community survey found that 14% of responding households participate in pickleball (ranking 25 out of 41 activities) and 53% indicated support for more outdoor pickleball courts (ranking 24 out of 26 facility types). Interest was lower from students,
with 5% indicating that they have played the sport in the last 12 months and 3% seeking more outdoor courts.
While pickleball is popular and growing in Pickering, the City has been enhancing facilities like the Pickering Soccer Centre and adding hours of pickleball programming to community facilities and in local schools. The City will meet the target of ten
indoor pickleball courts by 2024 (identified in the Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan) through the Pickering Soccer Centre with six new pickleball courts, and 53 hours of pickleball offered weekly in community centres and school gymnasiums. The City will meet the 2034 target of 15 pickleball courts as early as 2029 with the
construction and opening of the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library.
Attachment: None.
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Karen Coleman Laura Gibbs, MBA, MSc. Manager, Recreation Services Director, Community Services
LG:kc
- 484 -
CS 27-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Indoor Pickleball Facility – Update Page 7
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer
- 485 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: ENG 13-24 Date: September 3, 2024
From: Richard Holborn
Director, Engineering Services
Subject: Pine Creek Erosion Assessment
-Municipal Class Environmental Assessment-File: A-1440
Recommendation:
1.That Report ENG 13-24 regarding the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment Municipal Class Environmental Assessment be received;
2.That Council endorse the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment Municipal Class Environmental Assessment prepared by Aquafor Beech Limited, dated May 10, 2024, to
be used by staff as a resource document for identifying and planning projects for Pine
Creek rehabilitation in areas under the jurisdiction of the City of Pickering;
3.That the recommendations within the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment Municipal Class Environmental Assessment be implemented in a phased approach, subject to budget and further Council approval for the individual projects; and,
4.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary
actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to seek Council endorsement of the
Pine Creek Erosion Assessment Municipal Class Environmental Assessment. The Pine Creek Erosion Assessment Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) dated May 10, 2024, prepared by Aquafor Beech Limited, provides a comprehensive geomorphic assessment and rehabilitation works plan for the Pine Creek channel corridors.
Implementation of the recommended solutions from Pine Creek Erosion Assessment MCEA
will result in the long-term stability of the Pine Creek channel corridors, the reduction of suspended sediments in the channel, and ultimately the improvement of water quality in Frenchman’s Bay. The Study satisfied the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) requirements, and the recommended works plan includes a priority list of channel rehabilitation projects. All projects can proceed directly to detailed design and construction
stages in accordance with the priority plan specified in the Study.
It is recommended that the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment MCEA be endorsed by Council as a resource document to be used by staff.
- 486 -
ENG 13-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Pine Creek Erosion Assessment Page 2
Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priorities of Lead & Advocate for Environmental
Stewardship, Innovation & Resiliency; and Advocate for an Inclusive, Welcoming, Safe and
Healthy Community.
Financial Implications: Council endorsement of the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) is a commitment, in principle, to
implement rehabilitation projects to address ongoing erosion issues within the Pine Creek channel corridor and to improve water quality in Frenchman’s Bay. The recommended projects in the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment MCEA, estimated to have a total cost of $13.22 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 a fifteen (15) year period in
accordance with the prioritization and phasing plan provided in the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment MCEA. Opportunities for grant funding to offset municipal costs will be sought out
Discussion: The purpose of this report is to seek Council endorsement of the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment Municipal Class Environmental Assessment.
In 2015, the City completed the Pine Creek Outfall Channel Restoration project following recommendations of the Frenchman’s Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan (Master
Plan) endorsed by Council in April 19, 2010.
Since the completion of the outfall channel restoration works, some property owners whose properties are adjacent to the main tributary of the Pine Creek valley located upstream of the outfall channel, have contacted City staff with their concerns related to the erosion along the creek banks. Through site visits, the City staff observed the undermining and erosion of the
creek channel, upstream and downstream of the restored channel. It appears that the stability
and erosion conditions of the creek banks has declined since the initial erosion assessment, completed in 2009 as a part of the Master Plan.
To address the erosion issues within the Pine Creek corridor (Attachment 1), the City of Pickering retained Aquafor Beach Limited to complete the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment
MCEA. The Pine Creek Erosion Assessment MCEA was conducted as a Schedule B project
in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment document (Municipal Engineers Association, October 2000, as amended in 2007, 2011, 2015 and 2023), under the
Ontario Environmental Assessment Act. The process included indigenous, public and review agency consultation.
The purpose of the study was to complete a comprehensive geomorphic assessment of the Pine
Creek channel corridor, evaluate alternatives, assess potential environmental impacts of the proposed improvements, and identify reasonable measures to mitigate any adverse impacts. The Pine Creek Erosion Assessment MCEA identified preferred alternatives to be constructed at eleven (11) select locations.
- 487 -
ENG 13-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Pine Creek Erosion Assessment Page 3
Public consultation consisted of a Notice of Study Commencement issued July 28, 2022, a Public Information Centre (PIC) in May 2023, which allowed for public and stakeholder input
throughout the project, and a Notice of Study Completion issued May 10, 2024.
The PIC was held in person in the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex on May 18, 2023. The comments received included input on the Pine Creek channel existing conditions and localized erosion issues within the study area.
All of the rehabilitation projects identified in the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment MCEA are
categorized as Schedule A undertakings under the Municipal Class EA, which means they can
proceed directly to detailed design and construction. A summary of the prioritized projects is outlined in the table below.
Priority Location Risk Description Preferred Alternative
1 Site #22
Culvert at Lynn Heights
Drive
Erosion Risk to Culvert and
Lynn Heights Drive
Local Restoration
Works and Culvert
Replacement
2 Site #25
Kitley Avenue Ravine
Erosion Risk to Private
Properties
Targeted Corridor
Rehabilitation
3 Sites #13/14/15/16
Pine Creek Downstream of
Finch Avenue
Erosion Risk to Private
Property and Storm Sewer
Outfall
Extended
Restoration Works
4 Sites #9/10
Pine Creek Downstream of Kitley Avenue
Erosion Risk to Multi-Use Trail
and Private Property
Extended
Restoration Works
5 Site #12
Pine Creek Upstream of Dixie Road
Erosion Risk to Dixie Road Local Restoration
Works
6 Sites #23/24 Pine Creek Upstream of Finch Avenue - East Branch
Erosion Risk to Private Property Extended Restoration Works
7 Sites #17/18 Pine Creek Upstream of Finch Avenue - West
Branch
Erosion Risk to Private Property and Finch Avenue Local Restoration Works
8 Sites #20/21 Pine Creek Downstream of
Fairport Road
Erosion Risk to Private Property and Storm Sewer
Outfall
Local Restoration Works
- 488 -
ENG 13-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Pine Creek Erosion Assessment Page 4
Priority Location Risk Description Preferred Alternative
9 Sites #1/2/3/4
Pine Creek Upstream of
Kingston Road
Erosion Risk to Kingston Road,
Storm Sewer Infrastructure,
Private Property and Pedestrian Bridge
Local Restoration
Works
10 Site #11 Downstream of Dixie Road Erosion Risk to Culvert Local Restoration Works
11 Sites #5/6/7/8
Pine Creek Upstream of Glenanna Road
Erosion Risk to Glenanna
Culvert Crossing and Parkland
Local Restoration
Works
Staff recommend that the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment MCEA prepared by Aquafor Beech
Limited, dated May 10, 2024, to be used by staff as a resource document for identifying and planning projects for Pine Creek rehabilitation in areas under the jurisdiction of the City of Pickering.
Attachments:
1.Study Area Map2.Pine Creek Erosion Assessment Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Report
(Appendices are available upon request)
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Irina Marouchko, P.Eng. Richard Holborn, P.Eng.
Manager, Water Resources 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:
- 489 -
Study Area Map
Attachment 1 to Report ENG 13-24
- 490 -
Prepared for:
City of Pickering
Water Resources and Development Services
Tel: 905-420-4660
Schedule B Municipal Class Environmental Assessment –
Project File
Pine Creek Erosion Assessment
Submitted by:
Aquafor Beech Ltd.
in association with
AMICK Consultants Ltd.
Published: May 10th, 2024
Contact:
Rob Amos, MASc, P. Eng
Aquafor Beech Ltd.
Amos.R@aquaforbeech.com
2600 Skymark Avenue
Building 6, Unit 202
Mississauga, ON L4W 5B2
T.416.705.2367;
Aquafor Beech Reference: 67114
Alternate formats are available as per the Accessibility for Ontarians with
Disabilities Act by contacting Rob Amos at 416-705-2367
Attachment 2 to Report ENG 13-24
- 491 -
i
Executive Summary
Introduction
In 2009, the City of Pickering completed the Frenchman’s Bay Stormwater Management
Master Plan (FBSMMP), which included geomorphic risk assessments for all of
Frenchman’s Bay’s major tributaries. The assessment of the Pine Creek tributary
identified signs of degradation within the ravine corridor as a result of urbanization
induced stressors on watershed hydrology. As part of the FBSMMP study, the Mountcastle
Crescent Outfall Tributary of Pine Creek was identified as a mass erosion site in needed
of restoration to protect municipal infrastructure and private property. A detailed erosion
control and channel rehabilitation design was later undertaken, with construction of the
restoration works completed in 2017.
Following the completion of the Master Plan, the geomorphic stability of Pine Creek has
continued to deteriorate overtime with City staff and the public reporting a series of
erosion related risks and concerns. The City has therefore elected to complete an erosion
assessment of Pine Creek between Kingston Road/Regional Road Highway 2 and Fairport
Road to identify high priority erosion sites where there are risks to infrastructure or
private property, and develop conceptual designs to mitigate erosion and protect the
natural heritage of the surrounding areas. The study area includes the riparian corridor
predominantly located within lands owned by the City of Pickering.
The Pine Creek Erosion Assessment was completed under the Municipal Class
Environment Assessment framework as a Schedule B project, following Phases 1 and 2 of
the planning and design process. Aquafor Beech Limited were retained to led the
completion of technical assessments and the development of the Project File report on
the City’s behalf.
Study Objectives
The intent of the study was to assess the existing conditions within the study area and
develop alternatives to address the erosion hazards at identified risk sites. In developing
these alternatives, the study team took into consideration the following objectives
1.Develop long-term erosion protection strategies that are compatible with the
natural tendencies of the creek;
2.Maintain or improve the hydraulic capacity of the creek;
3.Provide environmental enhancements wherever possible;
4.Realize opportunities to improve fish habitat and fish passage;
5.Decrease property and infrastructure loss; and
6.Implement high-value solutions that will minimize costs (both capital and
maintenance)
Phase I: Identification of Problems and Opportunities
Urbanization within the watershed has altered the natural hydrologic regime, inducing
erosion and creating risks to private property and infrastructure located within, or
adjacent to, the channel corridor. In considering the constraints related to the physical
extents of the study areas, several opportunities have been investigated, including:
- 492 -
ii
•Replacement of failing bank protection treatments with new enhanced bank
protection treatments;
•Channel realignment and use of natural channel materials (bioengineering) where
property constraints allow;
•Natural channel design;
•Enhancement of aquatic habitat;
•Improvement of riparian cover through planting of native trees and shrubs.
Phase II: Evaluation of Alternative Solutions
A total of twenty-five (25) erosion risk sites were identified. Three (3) alternatives were
developed to address the erosion concerns at each of the identified erosion sites,
including:
•Alternative 1: Do Nothing – This alternative involves leaving the site as it is and
allowing erosional processes to continue within the watercourse corridor. Under
this alternative, it should be expected that maintenance, or possibly emergency
works, may have to be undertaken to address damage to property or
infrastructure caused by the continued erosion. Damage from erosion may occur
gradually over time or suddenly due to a high magnitude flood event.
•Alternative 2: Local Restoration Works – This alternative consists of localized
channel bank and/or bed work to address erosion issues at the site. While it is
understood that local erosion protection works may require ongoing maintenance,
occasional repairs, or eventual replacement, this alternative is often still preferred
to limit the economic cost and the environmental impact of large-scale channel
engineering and stream restoration works.
•Alternative 3: Extended Works – This alternative consists of a comprehensive
approach, which is typically completed on a reach or sub-reach scale, to address
erosion issues at the site. Reach-scale engineering focuses on minimizing the risks
of erosion and flooding in highly constrained urban watercourses. This alternative
will apply a combination of “hard” channel engineering approaches for erosion
control and natural channel techniques to mimic natural channel features such as
riffles and pools to enhance the riparian environment.
A set of criteria were then developed to evaluate the alternatives:
•Physical / Natural Environment
o Mitigation of existing erosion risks;
o Impacts to aquatic habitat;
o Impacts to terrestrial habitat and vegetation
o Impacts to Species at Risk
o Resiliency to Climate Chage
•Social / Cultural Environment
o Impacts to Public Safety
o Landowner / Community Disruption
o Benefit to the Community and Expected Public Acceptance
o Archaeological Impacts
- 493 -
iii
o Aesthetic Value
•Economic Environment
o Capital costs;
o Operation and maintenance costs;
o Life cycle costs;
o Overall cost effectiveness.
•Technical and Engineering
o Regulatory agency acceptance
o Impact on Existing Infrastructure
o Flooding impacts
o Technical feasibility;
o Expected lifespan of the proposed works;
Public Consultation
An in-person Public Information Centre (PIC) was held on May 18th, 2023. A series of
presentation slides were presented which outlined the study background, problems,
opportunities, alternatives, and the preliminary alternative evaluation. In general,
attendees were in support of the preliminary preferred alternatives for each erosion site.
The Region of Durham, TRCA and local First Nations were also consulted throughout the
study and their comments and inputs are considered and incorporated into the EA.
Selection of Preferred Alternatives
Based on the results of the alternative evaluation and consultation with the City and the
public, the twenty-five erosion (25) sites were bundled into eleven (11) groups based on
their spatial proximity. The preferred alternatives for the eleven (11) site groupings are
listed below:
•Erosion Sites 1 - 4: Alternative 2 – Local Works
•Erosion Sites 5 - 8: Alternative 2 – Local Works
•Erosion Sites 9 - 10: Alternative 3 – Extended Works
•Erosion Site 11: Alternative 2 – Local Works
•Erosion Site 12: Alternative 2 – Local Works
•Erosion Sites 13 - 16: Alternative 3 – Extended Works
•Erosion Sites 17 - 18: Alternative 2 – Local Works
•Erosion Site 19: Excluded from further assessment as the site is located entirely
on Private Property
•Erosion Sites 20 – 21: Alternative 2 – Local Works
•Erosion Site 22: Alternative 2 – Local Works
•Erosion Sites 23 – 24: Alternative 3 – Extended Works
•Erosion Site 25: Alternative 2 – Targeted Corridor Rehabilitation
Priority Ranking and Estimated Costs
The preferred alternatives have been prioritized into eleven (11) capital works projects
and the estimated costs are summarized in the table below. While the project cost
estimates and time horizon are to provide the City with direction on project priorities,
decisions on the actual order and implementation of projects should also give
consideration to overall City priorities, budgets, and stakeholder interests.
- 494 -
iv
Project Priority Ranking for the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment EA
Priority
Number Project Name Priority Sites - Risk
Description
Preferred
Alternative
Cost
Estimate
(Design and
Construction)
Recommended
Planning
Horizon
1
Culvert
Replacement at
Lynn Heights
Drive
Site #22 - Erosion Risk to
Culvert and Lynn Heights
Drive
Local Works $2,505,600.00 0 - 5 Years
2 Restoration of
Kitley Ravine
Site #25 - Erosion Risk to
Private Properties
Targeted
Corridor
Rehab
$1,944,000.00 0 - 5 Years
3
Restoration of
Pine Creek
Downstream of
Finch Avenue
Site #13 - Erosion Risk to
Private Property
Site #14 - Erosion Risk to
Private Property
Site #15 - Erosion Risk to
Storm Sewer Outfall
Site #16 - Erosion Risk to
Private Property and Finch
Avenue
Extended
Works $1,296,000.00 0 - 5 Years
4
Restoration of
Pine Creek
Downstream of
Kitley Avenue
Site #9 - Erosion Risk to
Multi-Use Trail and Private
Property
Site #10 - Erosion Risk to
Multi-Use Trail and Private
Property
Extended
Works $1,008,000.00 0 - 5 Years
5
Restoration of
Pine Creek
Upstream of
Dixie Road
Site #12 - Erosion Risk to
Dixie Road Local Works $604,800.00 0 - 5 Years
6
Restoration of
Pine Creek
Upstream of
Finch Avenue -
East Branch
Site #23 - Erosion Risk to
Private Property
Site #24 - Erosion Risk to
Private Property
Extended
Works $2,160,000.00 5 - 10 Years
7
Restoration of
Pine Creek
Upstream of
Finch Avenue -
West Branch
Site #17 - Erosion Risk to
Private Property
Site #18 - Risk to Finch
Avenue
Local Works $921,600.00 5 - 10 Years
8
Restoration of
Pine Creek
Downstream of
Fairport Road
Site #20 - Erosion Risk to
Private Property
Site #21 - Erosion Risk to
Storm Sewer Outfall
Local Works $1,036,800.00 5 - 10 Years
- 495 -
v
Priority
Number Project Name Priority Sites - Risk
Description
Preferred
Alternative
Cost
Estimate
(Design and
Construction)
Recommended
Planning
Horizon
9
Localized
Restoration of
Pine Creek
Upstream of
Kingston Road
Site #1 - Erosion Risk to
Kingston Road and Storm
Sewer Infrastructure
Site #2 - Erosion Risk to
Private Property
Site #3 - Erosion Risk to
Storm Sewer Infrastructure
Site #4 - Erosion Risk to
Pedestrian Bridge
Local Works $878,400.00 5 - 10 Years
10
Erosion Control
Works
Downstream of
Dixie Road to
Protect at Risk
Culvert Crossing
Site #11 - Erosion Risk to
Culvert Local Works $345,600.00 5 - 10 Years
11
Localized
Restoration of
Pine Creek
Upstream of
Glenanna Road
Site #5 - Erosion Risk to
Glenanna Culvert Crossing
Site #6 - Erosion Risk to
Parkland
Site #7 - Erosion Risk to
Parkland
Site #8 - Erosion Risk to
Parkland
Local Works $518,400.00 10 - 15 Years
Conclusions and Recommendations
The eleven (11) proposed capital works projects achieve the study goals to reduce
erosion and preserve/enhance the natural environment. Following completion of this
report, detailed design and construction will be undertaken to implement the preferred
alternatives and remedy the identified problems.
Recommendations for site investigations and implementation measures should be taken
into consideration during the detailed design and include the following items:
• Obtain Permission to Enter Agreements where temporary access through privately
owned property is required.
• For projects 1, 5 & 6, where works are proposed on private property, the property
owner will be advised of the ongoing erosion issues and associated risks on their
property. Each individual property owner will ultimately be responsible for
undertaking the necessary measures to mitigate the identified erosion related risks
on their property using the concepts outlined in this EA or alternative methods
(subject to all associated regulatory approvals at the detailed design stage).
- 496 -
vi
Alternatively, the City may give future consideration to an easement acquisition in
order to complete creek restoration works on select private properties.
•Undertake a geotechnical investigation and chemical soil testing for each proposed
restoration project;
•Undertake higher level SUE investigations as needed to confirm possible utility
conflicts;
•Undertake a detailed topographic survey at each project site to reflect the current
site conditions;
•Complete a detailed tree inventory for each proposed project site;
•Facilitate permitting with TRCA, DFO and MECP as part of the detailed design
process;
•Undertake Stage 2 Archaeological Assessments for projects 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10 and
11.For projects 1 & 5, where works are proposed on private property it will be the
private property owner’s responsibility to address identified erosion risks. This will
include undertaking additional archaeological assessment work where required.
Alternatively, should the City elect to secure an easement from the private
property to undertake the erosion control works themselves, the City may then
give consideration to coordinating select archaeological works themselves as
required.
•Engage First Nations for their field liaison representation during the Stage 2
Archaeological Assessment;
•Complete a geomorphic analysis of channel hydraulics and tractive forces to size
erosion control materials;
•Confirm appropriate construction staging, access and erosion and sediment
controls;
•Completion of a post-construction monitoring program and preparation of as-built
construction drawings.
- 497 -
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ i
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1
1.1 Project Overview ................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Class Environmental Assessment Process ................................................................. 3
2 IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEMS & OPPORTUNITIES .......................... 6
2.1 Problem Identification & Background ....................................................................... 6
2.2 Study Objective .................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Erosion Sites #1 – 4 .............................................................................................. 8
2.4 Erosion Sites #5 – 8 ............................................................................................. 11
2.5 Erosion Sites #9 – 10 ........................................................................................... 13
2.6 Erosion Sites #11 - 12 .......................................................................................... 15
2.7 Erosion Sites #13-16 ............................................................................................ 17
2.8 Erosion Sites #17-21 ............................................................................................ 19
2.9 Erosion Site #22 .................................................................................................. 21
2.10 Erosion Sites #23-24 ............................................................................................ 23
2.11 Erosion Site #25 .................................................................................................. 25
2.12 Site Summaries and Restoration Opportunities ........................................................ 27
2.12.1 Opportunities ................................................................................................. 27
3 EXISTING CONDITIONS & SITE-SPECIFIC INVENTORIES ................. 29
3.1 Geomorphic Assessments ...................................................................................... 29
3.1.1 Reach PC3a – Kingston Road to Glenanna Road ................................................. 31
3.1.2 Reach PC3b – Glenanna Road to Confluence Upstream of Kitley Avenue ................ 33
3.1.3 Reach PC3c – Confluence Upstream of Kitley Avenue to Confluence Downstream of
Finch Avenue ............................................................................................................. 35
3.1.4 Reach PC3d – Kitley Ravine Corridor ................................................................. 37
3.1.5 Reach PC4a – Confluence downstream of Finch Avenue to Fairport Road ............... 39
3.1.6 Reach PC4b – Lynn Heights Drive to Confluence Downstream of Finch Avenue ....... 41
3.1.7 Geomorphic Stability Assessment ..................................................................... 43
3.2 Storm Sewer Outfall Inventory ............................................................................... 45
3.3 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Assessment ..................................................................... 51
3.3.1 Overview of Pine Creek Hydrology .................................................................... 51
3.3.2 Overview of Pine Creek Hydraulics ................................................................... 51
3.4 Source Water Protection ........................................................................................ 54
3.5 Geology, Physiology, and Soils ............................................................................... 55
3.6 Terrestrial Natural Heritage Assessment .................................................................. 56
3.6.1 Vegetation Communities ................................................................................. 56
- 498 -
viii
3.6.2 Trees ............................................................................................................ 66
3.6.3 Terrestrial and Wildlife Habitat ......................................................................... 66
3.6.4 Habitat and Connectivity ................................................................................. 67
3.7 Significant Species, Features, and Areas ................................................................. 68
3.7.1 Species at Risk Screening................................................................................ 68
3.7.2 Species of Conservation Concern and Regionally Rare Species Review .................. 72
3.7.3 Significant Natural Heritage Feature Consideration ............................................. 73
3.7.3.1 Provincially Significant Features ................................................................. 73
3.7.3.2 City of Pickering Official Plan ..................................................................... 73
3.7.3.3 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Regulations and Guidelines .......... 74
3.8 Aquatic Natural Heritage Assessment ...................................................................... 74
3.8.1 Aquatic Habitat Assessment ............................................................................ 75
3.8.2 Fish Community Assessment ........................................................................... 81
3.8.2.1 In-Water Timing Window .......................................................................... 81
3.8.2.2 DFO Self-Assessment ............................................................................... 81
3.9 Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Assessment ..................................................... 87
3.10 Utilities ............................................................................................................... 88
3.11 Social-Economic Environment ................................................................................ 88
3.11.1.1 Land Use ................................................................................................. 88
3.11.1.2 Transportation ......................................................................................... 89
3.11.1.3 Ownership ............................................................................................... 89
3.12 Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Assessment ............................................. 91
3.12.1.1 Climate Change Mitigation ......................................................................... 91
3.12.1.2 Climate Change Adaptation ....................................................................... 92
4 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS ..................................... 93
4.1 Description of Alternatives ..................................................................................... 93
4.1.1 Erosion Sites #1 - #4 ..................................................................................... 93
4.1.2 Erosion Sites #5 - #8 ..................................................................................... 94
4.1.3 Erosion Sites #9 - #10 ................................................................................... 95
4.1.4 Erosion Sites #11 - #12.................................................................................. 95
4.1.5 Erosion Sites #13 - #16.................................................................................. 96
4.1.6 Erosion Sites #17 - #21.................................................................................. 96
4.1.7 Erosion Site #22 ............................................................................................ 97
4.1.8 Erosion Sites #23 - #24.................................................................................. 98
4.1.9 Erosion Site #25 ............................................................................................ 98
4.2 Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................ 99
4.3 Evaluation of Alternatives .................................................................................... 101
4.4 Selection and Description of the Preferred Alternative ............................................. 102
5 PRIORITIZATION AND PROJECT PHASING ..................................... 120
- 499 -
ix
6 PUBLIC CONSULTATION ................................................................. 124
6.1 Notice of Commencement ................................................................................... 124
6.2 Online Engagement ............................................................................................ 124
6.3 Online Engagement ............................................................................................ 124
6.4 Public Information Centre .................................................................................... 125
6.5 Summary of Public & Stakeholder Comments and Responses ................................... 126
6.6 Region of Durham .............................................................................................. 127
6.7 Impact of Public Consultation on Selection of the Preferred Alternative ..................... 127
7 INDIGENOUS ENGAGEMENT ............................................................ 137
7.1 Project Notification Letters .................................................................................. 137
7.2 Notice of Public Information Centre ...................................................................... 137
7.3 Sharing of the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report ....................................... 138
8 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ................................................................. 146
8.1 Detailed Design and Investigations ....................................................................... 146
8.1.1 Hydraulic Assessment ................................................................................... 146
8.1.2 Geomorphic Assessment ............................................................................... 147
8.1.3 Geotechnical Investigation ............................................................................ 147
8.1.4 Utilities Confirmation .................................................................................... 147
8.1.5 Tree Inventory ............................................................................................. 148
8.1.6 Natural Heritage System ............................................................................... 148
8.1.6.1 General Mitigation Measures .................................................................... 148
8.1.7 Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment ................................................................ 149
8.1.8 Permissions to Enter ..................................................................................... 149
8.2 Permits ............................................................................................................. 149
8.3 Construction Services ......................................................................................... 151
8.4 Monitoring Program ............................................................................................ 152
8.5 As-Constructed Drawings and Analysis .................................................................. 152
9 REFERENCES ................................................................................... 153
- 500 -
x
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Study Area Extents from Kingston Road to Fairport Road ........................................ 2
Figure 1-2: Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Planning and Design Process .................. 5
Figure 2-1: Spatial Distribution of Erosion Sites within the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment EA Study
Area ................................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 2-2: Erosion Site #1 – Undermined Gabion Baskets Upstream of Kingston Rd. ................. 8
Figure 2-3: Erosion Site #2 – Bank Erosion Risk to Private Properties ....................................... 8
Figure 2-4: Erosion Site #3 – Outflanking of Concrete Wingwalls due to Erosion......................... 8
Figure 2-5: Erosion Site #4 – Scouring & Erosion around Bridge Footings .................................. 8
Figure 2-6: Erosion Site #1-4: Existing Site Conditions ......................................................... 10
Figure 2-7: Erosion Site #5 – Minor Bank Erosion Downstream of the Glenanna Road Culvert
Crossing. ......................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 2-8: Erosion Site #6 – Minor Bank Erosion Creating Risk to Parkland. ........................... 11
Figure 2-9: Erosion Site #7 – Over Encroachment into the Riparian Corridor Leading to Bank Erosion
and a Risk to Parkland. ..................................................................................................... 11
Figure 2-10: Failure of Rip-Rap Bank Treatment Intended to Prevent a Loss of Parkland due to Active
Erosion Processes. ............................................................................................................ 11
Figure 2-11: Erosion Site #5-8: Existing Site Conditions ....................................................... 12
Figure 2-12: Erosion Site #9 – Active Bank Erosion Adjacent to a Multi-Use Trail System .......... 13
Figure 2-13: Erosion Site #10 – Major Erosion Scar Adjacent to a Multi-Use Trail ..................... 13
Figure 2-14: Erosion Site #9 – Minimal Offset from the Edge of Trail and Top of Erosion Scar .... 13
Figure 2-15: Erosion Site #10 – Bank Erosion Actively Encroaching Towards the Existing Multi-Use
Trail ................................................................................................................................ 13
Figure 2-16: Erosion Site #9-10: Existing Site Conditions ...................................................... 14
Figure 2-17: Erosion Site #11 – Gabion Baskets Downstream of Dixie Road ............................ 15
Figure 2-18: Erosion Site #11 – Observed Gabion Basket Failure ........................................... 15
Figure 2-19: Erosion Site #12 – Mass Debris Jams Forcing Channel to Erode Eastward ............. 15
Figure 2-20: Erosion Site #12 – Minimal Offset (<10 m) between Dixie Road Sidewalk and Top of
Erosion Scar. ................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 2-21: Erosion Site #11-12: Existing Site Conditions .................................................... 16
Figure 2-22: Erosion Site #13 – Toe Erosion Creating Risk to Private Property. ........................ 17
Figure 2-23: Erosion Site #14 – Observed Debris Jams and Bank Erosion. ............................... 17
Figure 2-24: Erosion Site #15 – Eroding Outfall Channel ....................................................... 17
Figure 2-25: Erosion Site #16 – Undercutting of Deformed CSP Culvert .................................. 17
Figure 2-26: Erosion Site #13-16: Existing Site Conditions .................................................... 18
Figure 2-27: Erosion Site #17 – Toe Erosion Creating Risk to Private Property on Grafton Court. 19
Figure 2-28: Erosion Site #18 – Observed Debris Accumulation and Bank Erosion Adjacent to Finch
Avenue. .......................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 2-29: Erosion Site #20 – Toe Erosion Creating Risk to Private Property on Duncannon Drive.
...................................................................................................................................... 19
- 501 -
xi
Figure 2-30: Erosion Site #21 – Significant Scouring Observed Downstream of Fairport Road Outfall.
...................................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 2-31: Erosion Site #17-21: Existing Site Conditions .................................................... 20
Figure 2-32: Erosion Site #22 – Debris Jam Downstream of the Lynn Heights Drive Culvert. ..... 21
Figure 2-33: Erosion Site #22 – Observed Scouring Downstream of the Lynn Heights Culvert. ... 21
Figure 2-34: Erosion Site #22 – Observed Structural Degradation at the Culvert Outlet. ........... 21
Figure 2-35: Erosion Site #22 – Wooden Support Posts Observed within the Lynn Heights Drive
Culvert. ........................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 2-36: Erosion Site #22: Existing Site Conditions ......................................................... 22
Figure 2-37: Observed Channel Widening and Bank Erosion within Lynn Heights Park. .............. 23
Figure 2-38: Observed Uprooted Fallen Trees Creating a Debris Jam in Lynn Heights Park. ........ 23
Figure 2-39: Erosion Site #23 – Observed Toe Erosion Creating Risk to Private Property on
Duncannon Drive .............................................................................................................. 23
Figure 2-40: Erosion Site #24 – Actively Eroding Bank behind Duncannon Drive Properties. ...... 23
Figure 2-41: Erosion Site #23-24: Existing Site Conditions .................................................... 24
Figure 2-42: Erosion Site #25 – Observed Bank Erosion and Undercutting of Trees in the Kitley
Ravine Corridor. ............................................................................................................... 25
Figure 2-43: Erosion Site #25 – Observed Debris Jams within the Kitley Ravine Corridor. .......... 25
Figure 2-44: Erosion Site #25 – Ponding within the Kitley Ravine Corridor ............................... 25
Figure 2-45: Erosion Site #25 – Encroachment of the Kitley Ravine Drainage Ditch towards Private
Property. ......................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 2-46: Erosion Site #25: Existing Site Conditions ......................................................... 26
Figure 3-1: Delineated Management Reaches within the Pine Creek Study Area ....................... 30
Figure 3-2: Riprap Lined Channel with Dense Riparian Overbank near Kingston Road Culvert. .... 32
Figure 3-3: Beaver Dam Upstream of Kingston Road Culvert Causing Backwatering of the Reach
Upstream. ....................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 3-4: Backwater Effects from Beaver Dam Affecting Storm Outfall and Pedestrian Bridge
Abutments Upstream. ....................................................................................................... 32
Figure 3-5: Unlined Channel with Sandy Banks Eroding at Meander less than 5m from Private
Property. ......................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 3-6: Looking Downstream at a Meander Bend with Dense Riparian Overbank Visible and
Small to Medium Boulders Present within the Channel Bed. ................................................... 34
Figure 3-7: Looking Upstream at the Straight Channel where Bank Erosion Present Throughout the
Reach can be Seen on Either Bank of the Channel ................................................................ 34
Figure 3-8: Looking Upstream at the Steep Slope Adjacent to City Owned Trail on the North Easterly
Bank ............................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 3-9: Looking Downstream from Trail Which is Within 2.0 m of Channel. Erosion Taking Place
at the Toe of the Over Steepened Bank. .............................................................................. 34
Figure 3-10: Looking Upstream at Wetland Through Which the Channel Passes. ....................... 36
Figure 3-11: Looking Upstream at the Densely Vegetated Banks Where Erosion at the Toe of Bank
can be Observed on the Left Bank ...................................................................................... 36
Figure 3-12: Sediment Accumulation Occurring Downstream of Energy Dissipation Blocks at the
Dixie Road Culvert Causing Aggradation of the Bed and Active Channel Widening. .................... 36
- 502 -
xii
Figure 3-13: Looking Upstream at Natural Riparian Corridor Filled with Dense Trees and Shrubs.
Bank Erosion Taking Place and Large Woody Debris Fallen into the Channel Obstructing Flow. ... 36
Figure 3-14: Looking Upstream Near the Midpoint of the Reach. Note bed materials consisting of
fine to medium sand and sandy loam. ................................................................................. 38
Figure 3-15: Looking Upstream at a Segment of the Kitley Ravine where the Channel Corridor is
Poorly Defined. ................................................................................................................ 38
Figure 3-16: Looking Downstream Towards Accumulated Debris. ........................................... 38
Figure 3-17: Looking Upstream near the Midpoint of the Reach. Note Encroachment of the Channel
Towards Private Property. .................................................................................................. 38
Figure 3-18: Looking Upstream at Channel with Shallow Banks Where Channel has Access to a Wide
Floodplain ........................................................................................................................ 40
Figure 3-19: Looking Downstream at Steep Valley Slope where Cutbank Erosion Scars are Notable
as well as Leaning and Fallen Trees within the Channel ......................................................... 40
Figure 3-20: Looking Downstream at Channel Where Bank Erosion is Occurring on Meander Bends
and Steep Valley Slopes .................................................................................................... 40
Figure 3-21: Looking Upstream at Large Woody Debris Obstructing Flow. Island Formation Taken
Place Due to the Resulting Sediment Accumulation. .............................................................. 40
Figure 3-22: Looking Downstream at Heavily Vegetated Channel. Multiple debris jams throughout
the reach. ........................................................................................................................ 42
Figure 3-23: Looking Downstream at Channel where 1.2 m Deep Cutbank Erosion Scar can be Seen
on the Right Bank and Another on the Left Bank in the Background. ....................................... 42
Figure 3-24: Looking Upstream of Channel Where Exposed Tree Roots Through the Banks are
Visible. ............................................................................................................................ 42
Figure 3-25: Erosion on the Outside of the Meander Bend Looking at the North Easterly Bank.
Leaning Trees and Exposed Tree Roots Visible...................................................................... 42
Figure 3-26: Existing HEC-RAS Schematic Showing Regional Floodline Extents and Model Cross-
Section Locations ............................................................................................................. 52
Figure 3-27: Box and Whisker Plot Illustrating Variations in Channel Velocity by Design Storm for
the Main Branch of Pine Creek. Permissible Minimum Velocities for Varying Materials as per
Fischenich (2001) Shown on the Right. ............................................................................... 53
Figure 3-28: CTC Intake Protection Zones (CTC Source Protection Plan, 2022) ......................... 54
Figure 3-29: Geological Cross-Section of the Frenchman’s Bay Watershed in the North-South
Direction (Eyles et al., 2003) ............................................................................................. 55
Figure 3-30: Surficial Geology of the Frenchman’s Bay Sub watershed (Marshall, Macklin, Monaghan
& City of Pickering, 2009) .................................................................................................. 56
Figure 3-31: ELC Mapping – Reaches PC4-a & PC4-b ............................................................ 63
Figure 3-32: ELC Mapping – Reaches PC3-c & PC3-d ............................................................. 64
Figure 3-33: ELC Mapping – Reaches PC3-a & PC3-b ............................................................ 65
Figure 3-34: Aquatic Monitoring Locations ........................................................................... 75
Figure 3-35: TRCA Land use Mapping .................................................................................. 76
Figure 3-36: DS Extent of PC1, Looking DS ......................................................................... 82
Figure 3-37: US Extent of PC1, looking US .......................................................................... 82
Figure 3-38: Beaver Activity Signage at PC1 ........................................................................ 82
Figure 3-39: OF DS of Pedestrian Bridge at PC1, Right Bank .................................................. 82
- 503 -
xiii
Figure 3-40: DS Extent of PC2, Looking DS ......................................................................... 83
Figure 3-41: US Extent of PC2, Looking US .......................................................................... 83
Figure 3-42: Pool Habitat and Undercut Bank at PC2 ............................................................. 83
Figure 3-43: Typical Habitat at PC2 .................................................................................... 83
Figure 3-44: DS Extent of KR1 at Pine Creek ....................................................................... 84
Figure 3-45: Typical Habitat in KR1 .................................................................................... 84
Figure 3-46: Pool at Confluence with Duncannon Ravine (LB) ................................................ 84
Figure 3-47: DS Extent of PC3, Looking DS ......................................................................... 84
Figure 3-48: US Extent of PC3 at Finch Ave ROW ................................................................. 85
Figure 3-49: Typical Habitat in PC3 ..................................................................................... 85
Figure 3-50: Typical Habitat at DR1, Looking US .................................................................. 85
Figure 3-51: Typical habitat at DR1, Looking DS .................................................................. 85
Figure 3-52: Typical Habitat at PC4, Looking US ................................................................... 86
Figure 3-53: Typical habitat at PC4, Looking DS ................................................................... 86
Figure 3-54: Typical Habitat at PC4, Looking US ................................................................... 86
Figure 3-55: Typical habitat at PC4, Looking DS ................................................................... 86
Figure 3-56: Aerial Map of the Study Area Illustrating the Spatial Distribution of Sites with Stage 2
Archaeological Potential..................................................................................................... 88
Figure 3-57: Land Use within the City of Pickering (City of Pickering, 2022) ............................. 90
Figure 3-58: Transportation System Network within the City of Pickering (City of Pickering, 2022)
...................................................................................................................................... 91
Figure 4-1: Conceptual Drawing of Preferred Alternative for Erosion Sites #1 - #4 - Local Works
.................................................................................................................................... 103
Figure 4-2: Conceptual Drawing of Preferred Alternative for Erosion Sites #5 - #8 - Local Works
.................................................................................................................................... 105
Figure 4-3. Conceptual Drawing of Preferred Alternative for Erosion Sites #9 - #10 - Extended
Works ........................................................................................................................... 107
Figure 4-4: Conceptual Drawing of Preferred Alternative for Erosion Sites #11 - #12 - Local Works
.................................................................................................................................... 109
Figure 4-5: Conceptual Drawing of Preferred Alternative for Erosion Sites #13 - #16 - Extended
Works ........................................................................................................................... 111
Figure 4-6: Conceptual Drawing of Preferred Alternative for Erosion Sites #17 - #18, #20 - #21 –
Local Works ................................................................................................................... 113
Figure 4-7: Conceptual Drawing of Preferred Alternative for Erosion Site #22 – Local Works .... 115
Figure 4-8: Conceptual Drawing of Preferred Alternative for Erosion Sites #23 - #24 – Extended
Works ........................................................................................................................... 117
Figure 4-9: Conceptual Drawing of Preferred Alternative for Erosion Site #25 – Targeted Corridor
Restoration .................................................................................................................... 119
- 504 -
xiv
List of Tables
Table 2-1: Summary of Risks at Identified Erosion Sites ........................................................ 28
Table 3-1: Rapid Geomorphic Assessment Descriptions Based on Index Value .......................... 43
Table 3-2: RGA Values for the Six Reaches Associated with the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment EA
...................................................................................................................................... 43
Table 3-3: Storm Sewer Outfall Inventory Results ................................................................ 46
Table 3-4: Overview of Pine Creek Hydrology within the EA Study Area ................................... 51
Table 3-5: Erosion Thresholds for Stream Bed and Bank Materials (Fischenich, 2001) ............... 52
Table 3-6: Vegetation Community Descriptions .................................................................... 57
Table 3-7: Wildlife Species List ........................................................................................... 66
Table 3-8: Species at Risk Screening Results ....................................................................... 69
Table 3-9: Aquatic Habitat Characteristics ........................................................................... 78
Table 4-1. Alternative Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................. 99
Table 4-2: Criteria Weighting Factors ................................................................................ 101
Table 4-3: Ranking Scheme for Criteria Evaluation of Each Alternative .................................. 101
Table 4-4. Evaluation Scoring Summary ............................................................................ 101
Table 5-1: Proposed Prioritization and Phasing of Pine Creek Erosion Restoration Projects ....... 121
Table 6-1: Stakeholder List Summary ............................................................................... 125
Table 6-2: Public Consultation Summary ........................................................................... 128
Table 7-1: First Nations Consultation Summary .................................................................. 139
- 505 -
xv
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Existing Conditions Drawings
Appendix B: RGA Sheets
Appendix C: Storm Sewer Outfall Inventory Sheets
Appendix D: HEC-RAS Model Results
Appendix E: Plant List
Appendix F: SAR Screening
Appendix G: OSAP Field Sheets
Appendix H: Conceptual Design Drawings for the EA Alternatives
Appendix I: Detailed Evaluation Matrices
Appendix J: Public Consultation Records
Appendix K: Public Information Centre Boards
Appendix L: Indigenous Consultation Records
Appendix M : Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report
- 506 -
1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Overview
Aquafor Beech Limited (Aquafor), with subconsultant AMICK Consultants Ltd., were
retained by the City of Pickering to complete the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment under
the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) framework. The Municipal Class EA
study was conducted as a Schedule B project, including consultation with the public to
evaluate alternative solutions.
In 2009, the City of Pickering completed the Frenchman’s Bay Stormwater Management
Master Plan (FBSMMP), which included geomorphic risk assessments for all of
Frenchman’s Bay’s major tributaries. The assessment of the Pine Creek tributary
identified signs of degradation within the ravine corridor as a result of urbanization
induced stressors on watershed hydrology. As part of the FBSMMP study, the Mountcastle
Crescent Outfall Tributary of Pine Creek was identified as a mass erosion site in needed
of restoration to protect municipal infrastructure and private property. A detailed erosion
control and channel rehabilitation design was later undertaken, with construction of the
restoration works completed in 2017.
Following the completion of the Master Plan, the geomorphic stability of Pine Creek has
continued to deteriorate overtime with City staff and the public reporting a series of
erosion related risks and concerns. The City has therefore undertaken this EA to define
the existing environmental conditions of Pine Creek, identify high priority erosion sites
where there are risks to infrastructure or private property, and develop conceptual
designs to mitigate erosion and protect the natural heritage of the surrounding areas.
Key objectives of the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment EA include:
1. Develop long-term erosion protection strategies that are compatible with the
natural tendencies of the creek;
2. Maintain or improve the hydraulic capacity of the creek;
3. Provide environmental enhancements wherever possible;
4. Realize opportunities to improve fish habitat and fish passage;
5. Decrease property and infrastructure loss; and
6. Implement high-value solutions that will minimize costs (both capital and
maintenance)
This Project File is intended to document the Municipal Class EA process, including
delineating how a preferred restoration strategy was selected for each of the identified
high priority erosion risk sites. The project study area is approximately three (3)
kilometers in length, extending from Kingston Road (downstream extent) upstream to
Fairport Road. While parts of Pine Creek do extend further upstream, and downstream, of
the study area, these segments of the ravine corridor were excluded from this EA study
as these portions of the creek are situated on privately owned lands. The general study
area extents are illustrated below in Figure 1-1.
- 507 -
2
Figure 1-1: Study Area Extents from Kingston Road to Fairport Road
Pine Creek
Study Area
- 508 -
3
1.2 Class Environmental Assessment Process
This study will examine a series of design alternatives through the Municipal Class EA
process (schedule B) to identify a solution to mitigate erosion related risks to private
properties as well as municipal (Pickering) and regional (Durham) managed
infrastructure within the project study area. Consideration will also be given to
naturalization and minor realignment of the existing watercourse system. These solutions
may involve localized protection works at critical areas by retrofitting existing measures,
as well as a complete reach-scale rehabilitation using a combination of traditional
engineered solutions in conjunction with more natural approaches.
The Environmental Assessment Act was legislated by the Province of Ontario in 1975 to
ensure that an Environmental Assessment (EA) is conducted prior to the onset of
development and development-related (servicing) projects. The “environment” as
defined by the EA Act is understood broadly to include the biophysical, socio-cultural,
built and economic environments and the interrelationships between them. The EA Act
applies primarily to public sector undertakings and extends to private sector projects
where designated under the regulation. Depending on the individual project to be
completed, there are different processes that municipalities must follow to meet Ontario’s
Environmental Assessment requirements.
The EA Act draws a distinction between “Individual” and “Class” environmental
assessments. Individual EAs are prepared for large, complex projects in which significant
environmental impacts are foreseeable. A “Terms of Reference” are devised which outline
the EA process, and the final EA document is submitted to the Ministry of the
Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) for approval. Alternatively, a Class EA is a
streamlined approval process for a group of routine undertakings with predictable
environmental impacts. Once a Class EA planning document is approved by the MECP, all
projects of this type are pre-approved provided that they adhere to its design. In this
fashion, the Class EA process expedites approval for smaller, recurring projects.
The Municipal Class EA, which is followed here, outlines how municipal infrastructure
projects are planned in accordance with the EA Act. The Municipal Class EA is consistent
with the EA Act’s five key principles for successful planning:
• Consultation with affected parties early on and throughout the process, such that
the planning process is a cooperative venture;
• Consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives, both the functionally different
“alternatives to” and the “alternative methods” of implementing the solution;
• Identification and consideration of the effects of each alternative on all aspects of
the environment;
• Systematic evaluation of alternatives in terms of their advantages and
disadvantages, to determine their net environmental effects; and,
• Provision of clear and complete documentation of the planning process followed, to
allow “traceability” of decision-making with respect to the project.
As the project being undertaken is defined as an Erosion Control project, the Schedule B
process as defined in the Municipal EA (2015) document is applicable.
A summary of the Class EA process and phases is provided below, with the
accompanying flow chart (Figure 1-2) illustrating the process followed in the planning
and design of projects covered by this Class Environmental Assessment:
- 509 -
4
Phase 1: Identify the problem or deficiency.
Phase 2: Identify alternative solutions to the problem by taking into consideration the
existing environment, and establish the preferred solution taking into account public and
agency review and input. At this point, determine the appropriate Schedule for the
undertaking and documenting decisions in a Project File for Schedule B projects, or
proceed through the following phases for Schedule C projects.
Phase 3: Examine alternative methods of implementing the preferred solution, based
upon the existing environment, public and government agency input, anticipated
environmental effects and methods of minimizing negative effects and maximizing
positive effects.
Phase 4: Document, in an Environmental Study Report, a summary of the rationale
and the planning, design, and consultation process of the project as established
throughout the above phases, and make such documentation available for scrutiny by
review agencies and the public.
Phase 5: Complete contract drawings and documents, and proceed to construction and
operation; monitor construction for adherence to environmental provisions and
commitments. Where special conditions dictate, also monitor the operation of the
completed facilities. Public and agency consultation is also an important and necessary
component of the five phases.
The Municipal Engineers Association’s Class EA document also classifies projects as
Schedule A, A+, B or C depending on their level of environmental impact and public
concern.
•Schedule ‘A’ projects are limited in scale, have minimal adverse environmental
effects and generally include routine maintenance and operational activities. These
projects are pre-approved and may proceed to implementation without following
the full Class EA planning process.
•Schedule ‘A+’ projects have minimal adverse environmental effects and are pre-
approved, however the public is to be advised prior to project implementation.”
•Schedule ‘B’ projects have the potential for some adverse environment effects.
Projects generally include improvements and minor expansions to existing
facilities. These projects require completion of Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA
process, before proceeding to Phase 5 Implementation.
•Schedule ‘C’ projects have the potential for significant environment effects.
Projects generally include the construction of new facilities and major expansions
to existing facilities. These projects require completion of Phases 1 through 4 of
the Class EA process, before proceeding to Phase 5 Implementation.”
The Pine Creek Erosion Control Assessment is classified as a Schedule B project and
follows Phases 1 and 2 of the planning and design process with Phase 5 to follow at a
subsequent stage. This report outlines Phases 1 and 2 of the EA process.
- 510 -
5
Figure 1-2: Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Planning and Design Process
- 511 -
6
2 IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEMS &
OPPORTUNITIES
2.1 Problem Identification & Background
The Pine Creek sub watershed has a drainage area of approximately 8.1 km2 and is
located entirely within the City of Pickering. The watershed drains from North to South,
ultimately discharging to Frenchman’s Bay just south of Highway 401. While the
headwaters of the creek are located in agricultural areas, the majority of the watershed,
in particular everything downstream of Fairport Road, is highly urbanized. Rapid
urbanization, starting in mid-late 1980’s, has increased watershed imperviousness,
decreased opportunities for infiltration and retention of runoff by natural processes and
ultimately redefined the watershed’s hydrologic regime. In the present day, the rainfall-
runoff response within the watershed if characterized by frequent, intense, peak flows
resulting in accelerated erosion processes as the channel enlarges it’s cross-sectional
area to accommodate higher peak flow rates. The consequences of this accelerated
erosion are readily apparent throughout the EA study area, where ongoing channel
widening and incision has created a series of erosion related risks to private property as
well as municipal and regional infrastructure.
To accommodate urban growth various aspects of the watercourse has been
anthropogenically altered including the installation of uncontrolled storm sewer outfalls
contributing to local scour and erosion, channel straightening, installation of intermittent
engineered treatments in various states of repair (i.e., gabion baskets, Armourstone
retaining walls, etc.), and channelization and confinement of the watercourse at major
road crossings. Aquafor has performed a series of detailed site investigations to
document key issues observed within the watershed. These keys issue include:
•Channel incision and lowering of the channel bed;
•Widespread bank erosion contributing to the formation of unstable slopes;
•Degradation of existing erosion control structures;
•Uncontrolled watercourse enlargement and widening;
•Unmanaged accumulation of channel debris;
•Loss of vegetation within the riparian corridor;
•Deterioration of aquatic and terrestrial habitat conditions; and
•Creation of barriers to fish migration.
These issues represent risks to municipal and regional infrastructure, roadway
embankments, private properties, as well as the natural environment.
In total, twenty-five (25) areas of risk were identified within the study area based on the
completed field investigations, with the general spatial distribution of these risk sites
illustrated in Figure 2-1. Descriptions and photos of each erosion site are included in the
sub-sections below. For reporting purposes, risk sites have been grouped together based
on their spatial proximity and associated levels of risk. While the erosion sites denoted
below include identified risks to both Regional and Privately owned Infrastructure, the
development of restoration alternatives associated with this EA have been generally
scoped to limit planned restoration works to municipally owned lands, such that all
projects align with the City of Pickering’s mandate for the implementation of capital
works projects.
- 512 -
7
Figure 2-1: Spatial Distribution of Erosion Sites within the Pine Creek Erosion
Assessment EA Study Area
2.2 Study Objective
This study is being carried out to assess the erosion related risks to private property and
public infrastructure within the Pine Creek valley corridor, with the intent of providing
recommendations to reduce erosion and protect the natural heritage of the area.
Forestbrook
Park
Erskine Church
Cemetery
Lynn
Heights
Park
David Farr
Memorial Park
Maple Ridge
Park
ES25
- 513 -
8
2.3 Erosion Sites #1 – 4
Erosion Sites #1-4, are located at the downstream extent of the project study area, in
municipally owned parks lands immediately north of Kingston Road/Regional Road HWY2.
There is significant beaver activity in this area contributing to the loss of mature riparian
vegetation and the formation of a small beaver dam upstream of Kingston Road.
A number of erosion related risks to municipal and regional infrastructure are present
including undermining of the gabion basket retaining wall that adjoins Kingston Road
(Erosion Site #1 – Figure 2-2), outflanking of a 1,700 mm diameter storm sewer outfall
headwall (Erosion Site #3 – Figure 2-4), and active bank erosion beneath a pedestrian
bridge crossing leading to exposure of the bridge footings (Erosion Site #4 – Figure
2-5). Backwatering upstream of the beaver dam has also contributed to saturation and
sloughing of the upstream channel banks creating an erosion risk to the private
properties that border the channel corridor (Erosion Site #2 – Figure 2-3). It should be
noted that proposed rehabilitation works to address the risks identified at Site #1 are
included in the detailed design of the BRT project, which is currently being undertaken by
the Region of Durham. These works will be coordinated between the City of Pickering and
the Region to ensure that improvements effectively mitigate long-term erosion.
Any future works completed by the City of Pickering will be limited to channel restoration
and erosion protection works on City owned lands.
Figure 2-2: Erosion Site #1 – Undermined
Gabion Baskets Upstream of Kingston Rd.
Figure 2-3: Erosion Site #2 – Bank
Erosion Risk to Private Properties
Figure 2-4: Erosion Site #3 – Outflanking
of Concrete Wingwalls due to Erosion.
Figure 2-5: Erosion Site #4 – Scouring &
Erosion around Bridge Footings
- 514 -
9
Figure 2-6 provides an overview of the existing site conditions at Erosion Sites #1-4.
High quality renderings of the existing conditions drawings for all erosion sites are
provided in Appendix A.
- 515 -
10
Figure 2-6: Erosion Site #1-4: Existing Site Conditions
- 516 -
11
2.4 Erosion Sites #5 – 8
Erosion Sites #5-8, are primarily located in the downstream extents of David Farr Park,
where mowing of vegetation within the riparian corridor up to top of bank line has
contributed to widespread bank erosion and the formation of a series of minor debris
jams. With respect to specific erosion risks, active erosion within this segment of Pine
Creek has resulted in minor bank erosion along the face of the Glenanna Road Culvert
crossing at it’s upstream and downstream extents (Erosion Site 5 – Figure 2-7).
Moreover, widening of the channel has also created unmitigated risks to public parkland
at a several locations including Erosion Site #6 (Figure 2-8) and Erosion Site #7
(Figure 2-9). In some locations attempts to limit bank erosion through the placement of
rip-rap bank treatments have failed and are in need of future repair (Erosion Site #8 –
Figure 2-10).
Figure 2-7: Erosion Site #5 – Minor Bank
Erosion Downstream of the Glenanna
Road Culvert Crossing.
Figure 2-8: Erosion Site #6 – Minor Bank
Erosion Creating Risk to Parkland.
Figure 2-9: Erosion Site #7 – Over
Encroachment into the Riparian Corridor
Leading to Bank Erosion and a Risk to
Parkland.
Figure 2-10: Failure of Rip-Rap Bank
Treatment Intended to Prevent a Loss of
Parkland due to Active Erosion Processes.
Figure 2-11 provides an overview of the existing site conditions at Erosion Sites #5-8.
- 517 -
12
Figure 2-11: Erosion Site #5-8: Existing Site Conditions
- 518 -
13
2.5 Erosion Sites #9 – 10
Erosion Sites #9-10, are situated immediately downstream of Kitley Avenue at the
upstream most extents of David Farr Park. The confluence of flows from the Kitley
Avenue culvert and a 2,400 mm diameter storm sewer outfall have contributed to active
channel widening downstream. Continued erosion of the western channel bank
represents a risk to the multi-use trail system that connects David Farr Park to Kitley
Avenue, the associated municipal trail lighting infrastructure and, to a less immediate
effect, the private properties on the east side of Pinecreek Court. There are two locations
(Erosion Site #9 – Figure 2-12 & Erosion Site #10 – Figure 2-13) where large erosion
scars have formed. The crest of these scars is offset only a few meters from the edge of
trail (Figure 2-14 and Figure 2-15). There is potential for future undermining of the
trail system and the creation of a significant public safety hazard. It is therefore highly
recommended that erosion mitigation works be applied in the near future to mitigate
risks to both public safety and trail infrastructure.
Figure 2-12: Erosion Site #9 – Active
Bank Erosion Adjacent to a Multi-Use Trail
System
Figure 2-13: Erosion Site #10 – Major
Erosion Scar Adjacent to a Multi-Use Trail
Figure 2-14: Erosion Site #9 – Minimal
Offset from the Edge of Trail and Top of
Erosion Scar
Figure 2-15: Erosion Site #10 – Bank
Erosion Actively Encroaching Towards the
Existing Multi-Use Trail
Figure 2-16 provides an overview of the existing site conditions at Erosion Sites #9-10.
- 519 -
14
Figure 2-16: Erosion Site #9-10: Existing Site Conditions
- 520 -
15
2.6 Erosion Sites #11 - 12
The contraction and expansion of flows through the Dixie Road Culvert Crossing creates a
risk of downstream scour and erosion. This penchant for erosion has been historically
mitigated through the application of energy dissipation blocks downstream of the culvert,
coupled with gabion basket retaining walls along the downstream channel banks.
However, overtime age and exposure to hydrodynamic forces have led to the failure of
the aforementioned gabion baskets (Erosion Site #11 – Figure 2-17 & Figure 2-18).
Upstream of Dixie Road, the main branch of Pine Creek runs north through a large parcel
of undeveloped municipally owned lands. In general, this segment of Pine Creek is
sufficiently setback from adjacent private properties and infrastructure resulting in
minimal erosion risks. The one exception occurs approximately 75-100 m upstream of
the Dixie Road culvert where a debris jam has formed forcing the channel to erode to the
east. The creek is now setback less than 10 m from the Dixie Road sidewalk (Erosion Site
#12 – Figure 2-19 and Figure 2-20). Future restoration works are required to protect
the sidewalk and Dixie Road from potential undermining.
Figure 2-17: Erosion Site #11 – Gabion
Baskets Downstream of Dixie Road
Figure 2-18: Erosion Site #11 – Observed
Gabion Basket Failure
Figure 2-19: Erosion Site #12 – Mass
Debris Jams Forcing Channel to Erode
Eastward
Figure 2-20: Erosion Site #12 – Minimal
Offset (<10 m) between Dixie Road
Sidewalk and Top of Erosion Scar.
Figure 2-21 provides an overview of the site conditions at Erosion Sites #11-12.
- 521 -
16
Figure 2-21: Erosion Site #11-12: Existing Site Conditions
- 522 -
17
2.7 Erosion Sites #13-16
Erosion Sites #13-16, are located downstream of Finch Avenue along the western branch
of Pine Creek. Significant widening and downcutting of the channel have undercut a
series of mature trees leading to their failure and the formation of several large debris
jams. The presence of these debris jams has forced the creek to cut into the valley walls,
causing toe erosion and creating potential risks to private properties on Mountcastle
Crescent as a result of potential slope instability (Erosion Site #13 – Figure 2-22 &
Erosion Site #14 – Figure 2-23). A series of erosion risks to municipal and regional
infrastructure were also observed along this segment of Pine Creek, including an eroding
outfall channel downstream of a municipal storm sewer outfall (Erosion Site #15 –
Figure 2-24) and an undermined deformed CSP culvert underneath Finch
Avenue(Erosion Site #16 – Figure 2-25). There is also a heavily eroded outfall channel
running parallel to Finch Avenue that conveys drainage from the roadside ditch down into
the valley corridor. It should be noted that as Finch Avenue is Regional Road 37,
restoration of the CSP culvert and roadside ditch outlet channel, while recommended, is
outside the purview of the City of Pickering. The Region of Durham may give
consideration to completing these works at a future date.
Figure 2-22: Erosion Site #13 – Toe
Erosion Creating Risk to Private Property.
Figure 2-23: Erosion Site #14 – Observed
Debris Jams and Bank Erosion.
Figure 2-24: Erosion Site #15 – Eroding
Outfall Channel
Figure 2-25: Erosion Site #16 –
Undercutting of Deformed CSP Culvert
Figure 2-26 provides an overview of the site conditions at Erosion Sites #13-16.
- 523 -
18
Figure 2-26: Erosion Site #13-16: Existing Site Conditions
- 524 -
19
2.8 Erosion Sites #17-21
Erosion Sites #17-21 are situated along the western branch of Pine Creek between
Fairport Road and Finch Avenue. Immediately upstream of Finch Avenue, widening of the
channel corridor has led to erosion at the toe of the valley slope creating a risk to private
properties on Grafton Court (Erosion Site #17 – Figure 2-27) as well as the Finch
Avenue right-of-way (Erosion Site #18 – Figure 2-28). During Aquafor’s field
investigation, scouring on either side of a privately owned culvert was observed and
identified as Erosion Site #19. Since this erosion site is located entirely on Private
Property, further assessment of the site and the development of candidate erosion
mitigation alternatives was excluded from the scope of this EA study. Further upstream
of the private crossing, additional toe erosion at the base of the valley corridor was
observed behind private properties on Duncannon Drive (Erosion Site #20 – Figure
2-29). Lastly significant scouring was observed downstream of the Fairport road outfall,
creating a risk of future undermining of the headwall structure (Erosion Site #21 –
Figure 2-30).
Figure 2-27: Erosion Site #17 – Toe
Erosion Creating Risk to Private Property
on Grafton Court.
Figure 2-28: Erosion Site #18 – Observed
Debris Accumulation and Bank Erosion
Adjacent to Finch Avenue.
Figure 2-29: Erosion Site #20 – Toe
Erosion Creating Risk to Private Property
on Duncannon Drive.
Figure 2-30: Erosion Site #21 –
Significant Scouring Observed
Downstream of Fairport Road Outfall.
Figure 2-31 provides an overview of the site conditions at Erosion Sites #17-21.
- 525 -
20
Figure 2-31: Erosion Site #17-21: Existing Site Conditions
- 526 -
21
2.9 Erosion Site #22
Hydrodynamic forces associated with the contraction and expansion of flows passing
through the Lynn Heights Drive Culvert crossing have contributed to significant scouring
and erosion on either side of the existing Corrugated Steel Pipe (CSP) culvert structure.
Several large debris jams have formed downstream of the culvert (Figure 2-32), which
have in turn further accelerated upstream scouring at the culvert outlet. The existing
culvert structure is undercut (Figure 2-33) and is also exhibiting signs of structural
degradation due to corrosion of the CSP material (Figure 2-34). Wooden support posts
have been placed inside the structure (Figure 2-35), potentially to provide vertical
support against possible buckling. Factoring in the degraded condition of the existing
culvert as well as the upstream and downstream channel conditions, full replacement of
the culvert is recommended in conjunction with channel restoration / erosion mitigation
works on either side of the new replacement structure.
Figure 2-32: Erosion Site #22 – Debris
Jam Downstream of the Lynn Heights
Drive Culvert.
Figure 2-33: Erosion Site #22 – Observed
Scouring Downstream of the Lynn Heights
Culvert.
Figure 2-34: Erosion Site #22 – Observed
Structural Degradation at the Culvert
Outlet.
Figure 2-35: Erosion Site #22 – Wooden
Support Posts Observed within the Lynn
Heights Drive Culvert.
Figure 2-36 provides an overview of the site conditions at Erosion Site #22.
- 527 -
22
Figure 2-36: Erosion Site #22: Existing Site Conditions
- 528 -
23
2.10 Erosion Sites #23-24
Erosion Sites #23-24 are located along the eastern branch of Pine Creek, upstream of
Finch Avenue within Lynn Heights Park. At these locations, unmitigated widening of the
channel, in response to urbanization induced pressures on watershed hydrology, has
eroded the toe of the valley slope (Figure 2-37). Several large trees have been
undercut and uprooted leading to the formation of a series of debris jams (Figure 2-38),
further accelerating erosion within the valley corridor. Two instances of significant toe
erosion were observed creating risks to private properties on Duncannon Drive (Erosion
Site #23 – Figure 2-39 and Erosion Site #24 – Figure 2-40). Future restoration works
are recommended to remove the accumulated debris and implement toe erosion control
measures to enhance slope stability and protect private property.
Figure 2-37: Observed Channel Widening
and Bank Erosion within Lynn Heights
Park.
Figure 2-38: Observed Uprooted Fallen
Trees Creating a Debris Jam in Lynn
Heights Park.
Figure 2-39: Erosion Site #23 – Observed
Toe Erosion Creating Risk to Private
Property on Duncannon Drive
Figure 2-40: Erosion Site #24 – Actively
Eroding Bank behind Duncannon Drive
Properties.
Figure 2-41 provides an overview of the site conditions at Erosion Sites #23-24.
- 529 -
24
Figure 2-41: Erosion Site #23-24: Existing Site Conditions
- 530 -
25
2.11 Erosion Site #25
Taking into account public feedback received through the EA process, a twenty fifth
erosion site was added encompassing the whole of the Kitley Ravine corridor. The Kitley
Ravine is an approximately 500 m long storm sewer outfall channel that conveys flows
from a source outfall behind Pickering Fire Station #6 downstream to the main branch of
Pine Creek. The corridor is confined by private residential properties on either side as
well as an informal multi-use trail. A central drainage ditch is poorly defined leading to
areas of erosion (Figure 2-42), the accumulation of debris (Figure 2-43), ponding
(Figure 2-44) and encroachment into private property (Figure 2-45). Through the EA
process several residents noted concerns regarding the degraded state of the corridor
and expressed interest in restoration works being undertaken to improve drainage
conditions; provided that measures are taken to limit vegetation removals and
disturbances to the existing natural environment.
Figure 2-42: Erosion Site #25 – Observed
Bank Erosion and Undercutting of Trees in
the Kitley Ravine Corridor.
Figure 2-43: Erosion Site #25 – Observed
Debris Jams within the Kitley Ravine
Corridor.
Figure 2-44: Erosion Site #25 – Ponding
within the Kitley Ravine Corridor
Figure 2-45: Erosion Site #25 –
Encroachment of the Kitley Ravine
Drainage Ditch towards Private Property.
Figure 2-46 provides an overview of the site conditions at Erosion Site #25.
- 531 -
26
Figure 2-46: Erosion Site #25: Existing Site Conditions
- 532 -
27
2.12 Site Summaries and Restoration Opportunities
As outlined above, twenty-five (25) erosion sites were identified through the Pine Creek
Erosion Assessment EA. At each of these sites, there is an identifiable erosion related risk
to one of the following assets:
• Private property;
• Municipal infrastructure;
• Region of Durham infrastructure;
• Public parklands; and/or
• The city maintained multi-use trail system.
Table 2-1 below, summarizes the identified project sites and the risks currently presented
by ongoing erosion. A general level of risk (i.e., Low, Medium, High) is also reported for
each site based on the results of the field erosion assessment.
2.12.1 Opportunities
In light of the existing conditions observed within the study area, there are several
opportunities to mitigate the identified erosion risks, protect infrastructure and private
properties, and also improve terrestrial and aquatic habitat conditions. These opportunities
include:
• Replacement of failing erosion control structures with alternative bank treatments
including armourstone, vegetated buttresses, rock toe protection, and/or vegetated
banks;
• Protection of municipal infrastructure assets and private properties through minor
channel realignment and erosion control measures;
• Restoration of floodplain access by cutting back channel banks where feasible;
• Restoring the channel banks and bed with softer soil bioengineering approaches and
minimizing the application of harder engineering methods;
• Enhancement of aquatic and terrestrial habitat through removal of fish barriers and
placement of rounded substrate, rib structures, and riparian plantings;
• Removal of accumulated channel debris; and
• Replanting of the riparian corridor with native species.
In considering the possible alternatives for the stabilization and rehabilitation of Pine Creek
within the study area, each of the above-listed opportunities were considered on a site-by-
site basis.
- 533 -
28
Table 2-1: Summary of Risks at Identified Erosion Sites
Site # Private
Property Risk
Municipal
Infrastructure
Risk
Regional
Infrastructure
Risk
Public
Parklands Risk
Multi-Use
Trail Risk Comments Level of Risk
1 X
Risk to Kingston Road/HWY2 Box Culvert and a CSP Storm Sewer Outfall. Both
Assets are Located on Region of Durham Property.
All Future Restoration Works, if any, to be Coordinated by the Region of Durham.
Medium
2 X Risk to Private Properties on Charlotte Circle Medium
3 X X Minor Risk to Municipal Storm Sewer Outfall and Adjacent Parklands Low
4 X X X Minor Risk to Municipal Pedestrian Bridge, Adjacent Trail and Adjacent Parklands Low
5 X X X Minor Risk to Glenanna Road Box Culvert, Public Parklands and the Adjacent Multi-
Use Trail Low
6 X Minor Risk to Parklands in David Farr Park Low
7 X Minor Risk to Parklands in David Farr Park Low
8 X Minor Risk to Parklands in David Farr Park Low
9 X X Risk to Multi Use Trail and Parklands in David Farr Park High
10 X X Risk to Multi Use Trail and Parklands in David Farr Park High
11 X Minor Risk to Dixie Road Culvert Medium
12 X Risk to Dixie Road Medium
13 X Risk to Private Properties on Mountcastle Crescent High
14 X Risk to Private Properties on Mountcastle Crescent High
15 X Risk to Municipal Storm Sewer Outfall Medium
16 X
Risk to Regional CSP Culvert Crossing and Finch Avenue/Regional Road 37 Roadside
Ditch. Both Assets are Located on Region of Durham Property.
All Future Restoration Works, if any, to be Coordinated by the Region of Durham.
High
17 X Risk to Private Properties on Grafton Court Medium
18 X Risk to Finch Avenue/Regional Road 37 Medium
19 X
Risk to Private Culvert and Access Road.
All Future Restoration Works, if any, to be Coordinated by Private Property Owner.
Low
20 X Risk to Private Properties on Duncannon Drive Medium
21 X Risk to Municipal Outfall Culvert Medium
22 X Risk to Lynn Heights Drive Culvert Crossing High
23 X Risk to Private Properties on Duncannon Drive Medium
24 X Risk to Private Properties on Duncannon Drive Medium
25 X X Risk to Private Properties on Ridgewood Court, Lydia Crescent, Gloucester Square
and Monteagle Lane as well as loss of Parkland in the Kitley Ravine. Medium
- 534 -
29
3 EXISTING CONDITIONS & SITE-SPECIFIC
INVENTORIES
Site-specific studies were conducted to support the selection and design of the
preferred alternative for each set of erosion sites. A summary of the site-specific
inventories that were conducted in support of the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment EA
is provided below.
3.1 Geomorphic Assessments
Geomorphic stream reaches are relatively uniform lengths of channel in terms of
surface geology, hydrology, channel slope, boundary materials, and vegetation that
control dominant geomorphic processes and sediment transport dynamics. In other
words, the physical channel processes and resulting river morphology are relatively
consistent over the length of the reach as compared to the differences between
adjacent reaches. As such, the watercourse within the study area has been
categorized into different reaches to better understand the factors taking place. As
part of the stream erosion inventory and assessment for Pine Creek within the City
of Pickering, about 4 kilometers of the creek were walked to visually assess the
channel and the surrounding area. The reach delineation was confirmed and refined
in the field during creek walks to fully account for geomorphically significant changes
in channel conditions.
A synoptic level fluvial geomorphic field assessment was completed in Fall 2022.
During the field walk, existing conditions within Pine Creek were noted, and erosion
site identification and photographic inventory for watercourse reach conditions were
collected. The extent of the assessed watercourse reaches is shown in Figure 3-1.
In order to maintain consistency from previous studies conducted within the same
study area, particularly, the Frenchman’s Bay Storm Water Management Master Plan
(2009), the same reach names have been assumed (PC3 and PC4) where the reaches
are further divided into subsections (PC3a, PC3b, PC3c, PC3d, PC4a, and PC4b) so as
to provide a higher level of detail. Erosion is present throughout the study area. While
inherent erosion processes are expected in a natural watercourse; erosion can be
exacerbated by urbanization within a catchment area through alteration of the
watercourse and changes in the rainfall-runoff response due to decreased infiltration.
The existing fluvial conditions for each reach have been summarized in the sections
below, accompanied by representative photographs.
- 535 -
30
Figure 3-1: Delineated Management Reaches within the Pine Creek Study Area
Pine Creek
Study Area
PC3-a
PC3-b
PC3-dPC3-c
PC4-a
PC4-b
- 536 -
31
3.1.1 Reach PC3a – Kingston Road to Glenanna Road
Reach PC3a is approximately 560 m in length and extends from the Kingston Road
bridge crossing to the Glenanna Road crossing. The bank material predominantly
ranges from very fine and fine sand with some areas containing very fine pebbles
throughout the reach. The bed material consists of cobble sized stones downstream,
however, transitions to fine sand increasing in clay content with the clay bed of the
channel exposed towards the upstream extent of the reach. The bankfull width ranges
from 6 – 8 m and the average bankfull depth is 1.5 m. This reach has low to moderate
sinuosity with a sinuosity index of 1.15.
This reach of Pine Creek is surrounded by city owned riparian corridor and residential
land use on either side where residential properties line the top of the slope in some
areas. The reach is channelized with a narrow floodplain and the channel exhibits
pool – riffle morphology. Figure 3-2 shows a part of the straightened channel looking
upstream towards the Kingston Road culvert with dense vegetation lining the banks
of the channel. Recent beaver activity has resulted in a beaver dam located
approximately 50 m upstream of the Kingston Road culvert as seen in Figure 3-3.
This barrier has significantly backwatered the channel immediately upstream and is
having an impact on the function of storm water outfalls within the reach and is
resulting in channel widening as seen in Figure 3-4. Fracture lines along the bank
are also present immediately downstream of the storm outfall and pedestrian bridge
where channel widening and erosion is evident. The channel widening poses a risk to
private properties lining the top of the slope as cutbanks are forming on the sandy
banks as shown in Figure 3-5.
- 537 -
32
Figure 3-2: Riprap Lined Channel with
Dense Riparian Overbank near
Kingston Road Culvert.
Figure 3-3: Beaver Dam Upstream of
Kingston Road Culvert Causing
Backwatering of the Reach Upstream.
Figure 3-4: Backwater Effects from
Beaver Dam Affecting Storm Outfall
and Pedestrian Bridge Abutments
Upstream.
Figure 3-5: Unlined Channel with
Sandy Banks Eroding at Meander less
than 5m from Private Property.
- 538 -
33
3.1.2 Reach PC3b – Glenanna Road to Confluence Upstream of
Kitley Avenue
Reach PC3b extends from the Glenanna Road culvert to the confluence upstream of
Kitley Avenue. This reach has been channelized and confined to a narrow corridor
where it borders residential land use upstream and the channel extends through an
open parkland downstream towards Glenanna Road. The channel exhibits pool – riffle
morphology throughout the reach. The bankfull width ranges from 4 – 8 m and the
average bankfull depth is 1.2 m. The bank material is made of very fine to fine sand
and the bed material ranges from medium silt to fine sand. The channel has been
lined with small cobbles which have been washing out downstream. Also present are
small to medium boulders in riffles throughout the reach. Clay material is exposed
on the channel bed and banks towards the upstream extent of the reach. This straight
reach has a sinuosity index of 1.03.
This reach of Pine Creek is also surrounded by city owned riparian corridor and
residential land use on either side. The channel has pool – riffle morphology with
small to medium boulders present within the channel bed as shown in Figure 3-6.
Bank erosion is present throughout the reach and can be seen on either bank of the
straight channel in Figure 3-7. This reach has over steepened banks extending from
the middle of the reach to the upstream end at Kitley Avenue (Figure 3-8) where
erosion is taking place at the toe of the bank. These over steepened banks pose a
risk to city infrastructure such as the multi-use trail which lines the top of the slope
at the upstream extent shown in Figure 3-9. The surrounding city property has
varying ground conditions ranging from manicured grasses to thickly wooded areas.
Throughout the reach, the landscaping extends towards the banks decreasing the
riparian corridor and promoting bank erosion. Some of these segments have been
protected by channel treatment and stabilization measures. Most notable is the
limited riprap application allowing for a more natural bedform, which is primarily
composed of medium sized cobbles. The channel is moderately incised and degraded
exposing the clay bed as a result of urbanization in the watershed.
- 539 -
34
Figure 3-6: Looking Downstream at a
Meander Bend with Dense Riparian
Overbank Visible and Small to Medium
Boulders Present within the Channel
Bed.
Figure 3-7: Looking Upstream at the
Straight Channel where Bank Erosion
Present Throughout the Reach can be
Seen on Either Bank of the Channel
Figure 3-8: Looking Upstream at the
Steep Slope Adjacent to City Owned
Trail on the North Easterly Bank
Figure 3-9: Looking Downstream from
Trail Which is Within 2.0 m of Channel.
Erosion Taking Place at the Toe of the
Over Steepened Bank.
- 540 -
35
3.1.3 Reach PC3c – Confluence Upstream of Kitley Avenue to
Confluence Downstream of Finch Avenue
This reach extends from the confluence upstream of Kitley Avenue to the confluence
downstream of Finch Avenue. The reach, towards the downstream extent, is
characterized by shallow banks however, transitions into a deeply incised channel
with pool – riffle morphology at the upstream extent. This reach is surrounded by
different types of land use including a wide riparian corridor with limited erosion
hazard risks, as well as segments in which the channel passes through a wetland
(Figure 3-10). The average bankfull width is 3.4 m and the average bankfull depth
is 0.9 m. The bed material ranges from silt to coarse sand with fine pebbles and the
bank material ranges from clay to very fine upper sand, coarsening downstream to
fine to medium sand. This reach has low to moderate sinuosity with a sinuosity index
of 1.1.
Within this section of the creek, the riparian corridor is unmaintained and filled with
dense trees and shrubs which provide some resistance to erosion and increased
boundary roughness to the channel during high discharge events (Figure 3-11). The
energy dissipation block structures located downstream of the Dixie Road culvert are
causing sediment accumulation to occur which is resulting in aggradation of the bed
and active channel widening with bank erosion taking place on both sides of the
channel as seen in Figure 3-12. Large woody debris jams are observed at many
locations within the reach. Along the upstream extent of this reach, erosion on the
outside of the meander bend from lateral channel migration is notable. Exposed tree
roots are prevalent within the eroded cutbanks and many fallen trees are visible as
seen in Figure 3-13. Geomorphic adjustment is occurring as a result of urban
hydromodification which drives channel widening and downcutting in response to
higher peak flows, greater runoff volumes, and more frequent flow events.
- 541 -
36
Figure 3-10: Looking Upstream at
Wetland Through Which the Channel
Passes.
Figure 3-11: Looking Upstream at the
Densely Vegetated Banks Where
Erosion at the Toe of Bank can be
Observed on the Left Bank
Figure 3-12: Sediment Accumulation
Occurring Downstream of Energy
Dissipation Blocks at the Dixie Road
Culvert Causing Aggradation of the Bed
and Active Channel Widening.
Figure 3-13: Looking Upstream at
Natural Riparian Corridor Filled with
Dense Trees and Shrubs. Bank Erosion
Taking Place and Large Woody Debris
Fallen into the Channel Obstructing
Flow.
- 542 -
37
3.1.4 Reach PC3d – Kitley Ravine Corridor
Reach PC3d is approximately 570 m in length and extends from the confluence
upstream of Kitley Avenue to the Finch Avenue crossing, encompassing the entirety
of the Kitley Ravine Corridor. The bank material consists of clay loam and the bed
material consists of fine to medium sand and sandy loam (Figure 3-14). The bankfull
width ranges from 3 – 6 m and the average bankfull depth is 0.5 m. This reach has
moderate to high sinuosity with a sinuosity index of 1.25.
This reach lacks pool – riffle morphology and consists of low-lying areas where the
watercourse transitions between channelized and un-channelized forms (Figure
3-15). Overall, the reach is characteristic of a poorly defined urban drainage ditch,
with a heterogenous cross-sectional area along its length and intermittent access to
the adjacent floodplain. There has been a significant accumulation of debris within
the ravine corridor (Figure 3-16) as a result of local dumping and the failure of
mature vegetation due to active erosion processes. The aforementioned debris jams
are contributing to increased erosion and migration of the channel centerline, which
has in turn caused encroachment towards private property (Figure 3-17) leading to
a series of residential complaints related to erosion and flooding issues.
- 543 -
38
Figure 3-14: Looking Upstream Near
the Midpoint of the Reach. Note bed
materials consisting of fine to medium
sand and sandy loam.
Figure 3-15: Looking Upstream at a
Segment of the Kitley Ravine where
the Channel Corridor is Poorly Defined.
Figure 3-16: Looking Downstream
Towards Accumulated Debris.
Figure 3-17: Looking Upstream near
the Midpoint of the Reach. Note
Encroachment of the Channel Towards
Private Property.
- 544 -
39
3.1.5 Reach PC4a – Confluence downstream of Finch Avenue to
Fairport Road
Reach PC4a extends from the confluence downstream of Finch Avenue northeast to
Fairport Road upstream. The reach is surrounded by open grassland on one side and
residential land use on the other. This reach transitions between the watercourse
being in contact with the steep valley walls to the channel having access to a wide
floodplain (Figure 3-18). Throughout the extent of the reach, the bed material
consists of fine gravel to small cobbles with a higher concentration of medium to
coarse sand towards the downstream extent, and an increase in clay content towards
the upstream extent. The bank material is composed of silt to fine upper sand with
very little clay. The bankfull width ranges from 3 – 6 m and the average bankfull
depth is 0.5 m. This reach is considered to be moderately sinuous with a sinuosity
index of 1.16.
Along this reach, several cutbank erosion scars are notable, exposed tree roots are
prevalent within the eroded banks, and large woody jams are observed as seen in
Figure 3-19. This photo also shows that severe undermining of the toe of slope is
present throughout the extent of the reach. Also present are areas of extensive bank
slumping where channel planform migration and erosion has occurred (Figure 3-20).
Island formation has taken place due to the large woody debris in the channel
obstructing flow and causing sediment accumulation (Figure 3-21). The watercourse
has full access to its floodplain through most of the reach, however; the channel is
partially confined with steep valley walls through some areas. Geomorphic
adjustment is taking place as a result of urban hydromodification which drives
processes of channel widening, planform adjustment, and degradation in response to
higher peak flows, greater runoff volumes, and more frequent flow events.
- 545 -
40
Figure 3-18: Looking Upstream at
Channel with Shallow Banks Where
Channel has Access to a Wide
Floodplain
Figure 3-19: Looking Downstream at
Steep Valley Slope where Cutbank
Erosion Scars are Notable as well as
Leaning and Fallen Trees within the
Channel
Figure 3-20: Looking Downstream at
Channel Where Bank Erosion is
Occurring on Meander Bends and Steep
Valley Slopes
Figure 3-21: Looking Upstream at
Large Woody Debris Obstructing Flow.
Island Formation Taken Place Due to
the Resulting Sediment Accumulation.
- 546 -
41
3.1.6 Reach PC4b – Lynn Heights Drive to Confluence
Downstream of Finch Avenue
Reach PC4b extends from Lynn Heights Drive to the confluence downstream of Finch
Avenue. The reach consists of a heavily vegetated channel where the riparian corridor
is unmaintained, filled with dense trees and shrubs, and has multiple debris jams
throughout the extent of the reach (Figure 3-22). The bed material ranges from of
silt to fine sand and coarse gravel to small boulders. The bank material consists of
silt to fine upper sand. The bankfull width ranges from 3 – 6 m and the bankfull depth
ranges from 0.5 – 1.5 m. The reach has moderate to high sinuosity with a sinuosity
index of 1.21.
Along this reach, severe cutbank erosion scars are notable (Figure 3-23). There are
several areas with extensive bank slumping occurring due to the steep slopes where
channel planform migration and erosion is evident (Figure 3-24). Exposed tree roots
are prevalent within the eroded banks and many fallen trees are present (Figure
3-25). Through this reach, the channel has varying access to the floodplain. Due to
the densely vegetated banks towards the upstream extent of the reach, the channel
has become intensely entrenched and does not have access to its floodplain. The
watercourse towards the middle of the reach and sparsely throughout the
downstream extent however, has access to a wide floodplain where the banks are
shallow.
Geomorphic adjustment is occurring throughout the reach where channel widening
and severe downcutting is evident. The watercourse is attempting to meander which
is resulting in channel widening and severe bank erosion that is causing trees to fall
in creating woody debris jams at many locations within the reach.
- 547 -
42
Figure 3-22: Looking Downstream at
Heavily Vegetated Channel. Multiple
debris jams throughout the reach.
Figure 3-23: Looking Downstream at
Channel where 1.2 m Deep Cutbank
Erosion Scar can be Seen on the Right
Bank and Another on the Left Bank in
the Background.
Figure 3-24: Looking Upstream of
Channel Where Exposed Tree Roots
Through the Banks are Visible.
Figure 3-25: Erosion on the Outside of
the Meander Bend Looking at the North
Easterly Bank. Leaning Trees and
Exposed Tree Roots Visible.
- 548 -
43
3.1.7 Geomorphic Stability Assessment
The Rapid Geomorphic Assessment (RGA) tool was used during field walks to assess
the fluvial conditions of the watercourses. The RGA protocol uses visual indicators to
determine whether a given stream is stable, in transition, or in adjustment. Stability
of the channel is determined by adjustments in slope; the bed elevation may be
increasing due to sediment deposition (aggradation) or decreasing due to bed erosion
(degradation). Consideration of increases in bank-to-bank width (widening) and
indicators suggesting a change in the planform regime (planimetric form adjustment)
are also part of the assessment. Based on the results of the RGAs, reaches were
classified as “in regime”, “in transition”, or “in adjustment” depending on the stability
index value as described in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1: Rapid Geomorphic Assessment Descriptions Based on Index Value
Stability Index
Value Stability Class Description
0 - 0.20 In Regime
Channel morphology is within the expected
range of variance for stable channels of similar
type. Channels are in good condition with
minor adjustments that do not impact the
function of the watercourse.
0.25 – 0.40 In Transition
Channel morphology is within the expected
range of variance but with evidence of stress.
Significant channel adjustments have occurred
and additional adjustment may occur.
0.40 – 1.0 In Adjustment
Metrics are outside of the expected range of
variance for channels of similar type.
Significant channel adjustments have occurred
and are expected to continue.
RGA stability results for the six reaches described above are listed in Table 3-2,
while the actual RGA evaluation sheets are contained in Appendix B.
Table 3-2: RGA Values for the Six Reaches Associated with the Pine Creek Erosion
Assessment EA
Reach RGA Stability
Index RGA Stability RGA Dominant
Process
Number of
Erosion Sites
PC3a 0.49 In Adjustment Widening 4
PC3b 0.36 In Transition Widening 6
PC3c 0.34 In Transition Aggradation 2
PC3d Not Assessed 1
PC4a 0.36 In Transition Widening 9
PC4b 0.51 In Adjustment Aggradation 3
The RGA scores highlighted in Table 3-2 reveal that reaches PC3a and PC4b are in
adjustment and are undergoing widening and aggradation respectively, whereas,
PC3b, PC3c, and PC4a are in transition but are dominated by widening and
aggradation, respectively.
- 549 -
44
Reach PC3a has a stability index of 0.49 and although it is dominated by the process
of widening, the process of aggradation is also influencing the channel as there is
ample evidence of siltation in the pools. Evidence of the widening is very prominent
as, along with the pedestrian bridge footings being outflanked, the presence of basal
scour can be observed through more than 50% of the reach.
Reach PC3b, having a stability index of 0.36, is also being influenced by both factors,
however, widening is the dominating process as evidence of exposed tree roots,
fracture lines along top of bank, and basal scour is present through the extent of the
reach.
Reach PC3c has a stability index of 0.34 and comprises a single thread channel with
pool – riffle channel morphology. The dominant process taking place within this reach
is aggradation but the channel is also undergoing widening. The process of
aggradation is evidenced from the formation of lobate bars, accretion on point bars,
and severe siltation of the bed whereas extensive leaning and fallen trees, and
exposed tree roots are evident indicating channel widening.
Reach PC3d was not assessed using the RGA tool, at this reach is a poorly defined
engineered drainage ditch that does not receive consistent base flow contributions or
exhibit typical creek morphology.
Reach PC4a has a stability index of 0.36 and is in transition with widening being the
dominating process. This reach is characterized by steep valley walls where the
channel is incising into the banks. Occurrence of large organic debris, exposed tree
roots, and fallen or leaning trees is present all throughout the reach evidencing the
process of widening is taking place. The channel through this reach is also impacted
by some degradation as scour pools are forming downstream of storm sewers.
Reach PC4b, having a stability index of 0.51, is undergoing channel adjustment.
This reach is dominated by the process of aggradation, however, evidence of channel
widening and the process of degradation is also significant within this reach. The
reach is characterized by steep valley walls where the channel is incising into the
banks on both sides of the channel. Steep cut banks are present on the meander
bends throughout the channel. Along with severe debris jams, the channel is incising
and occurrence of basal scour on inside the meander bends is prevalent throughout
the extent of the reach.
None of the six (6) reaches are in regime or “stable” but instead, are in transition or
adjustment indicating significant geomorphic instability, likely due to the effects of
urbanization and the reduction of infiltration throughout the watershed which has
caused considerable change to the hydraulic regime of Pine Creek.
- 550 -
45
3.2 Storm Sewer Outfall Inventory
As part of the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment EA, stormwater outfalls that discharge
directly into the creek were identified and inventoried in the field. Key outfall parameters
were recorded including size, material, and condition. A total of fifteen (15) outfalls were
inventoried through the EA assessment, with key results reported in Table 3-3 below.
Each outfall was assigned an overall condition score according to the following ratings:
• Good: The outfall is reasonably well maintained and in good overall condition. No
significant signs of structural degradation or risk of failure due to channel erosion
processes were identified.
• Fair: The outfall is still generally functioning as intended but is starting to exhibit
notable signs of structural degradation or is at moderate risk of failure due to
ongoing erosion processes.
• Poor: The outfall is approaching the end of its service life and is exhibiting significant
signs of deterioration. The outfall is at risk of complete failure due to structural
degradation or ongoing channel erosion processes. It is expected that within the
relatively near term that the outfall will no longer be able to perform it’s intended
function.
• Failure: The outfall is no longer functioning as intended. This ranking is typically
reserved for outfalls that have become fully detached from their inletting storm
sewers or are buried and are no longer able to provide sufficient drainage.
Overall, nine (9) of the fifteen (15) assessed outfalls were found to be in relatively good
condition, with the condition of remaining outfalls assessed as either fair (3 outfalls) or
poor (3 outfalls). Of the outfalls rated as poor, two (2) can be considered to be in a failed
condition as a result of significant sedimentation (Outfall #9) or complete detachment from
the upstream storm sewer pipe (Outfall #13).
Copies of the field sheets used for the Storm Sewer Outfall Inventory are included in
Appendix C.
- 551 -
46
Table 3-3: Storm Sewer Outfall Inventory Results
Outfall # Reach Asset ID Diameter
(mm) Material Construction
Year Condition Headwall
Erosion
Protection
Works
Comments Photo
1 PC3-a Unknown 800 CSP Unknown Poor
Mitered to
Gabion Basket
Retaining Wall
Gabion Baskets
on Either Side
The CSP is located directly upstream of
Kingston Road.
CSP exhibits signs of corrosion and
structural degradation.
Restoration of this CSP pipe is accounted
for the Region of Durham planned BRT
project.
The outfall channel is heavily vegetated
and poorly defined.
No grate.
2 PC3-a SIO-53-
0002 600 Concrete 1978 Good
Concrete
Headwall with
Flared Wingwalls
and Steel Railing
None
Some minor cracking near the pipe invert
connection
Sedimentation on the concrete apron
~100 mm backwatering at low flow due
to downstream beaver dam.
Steel Grate in good condition.
3 PC3-a SIO-53-
0001 1,700 Concrete 1976 Good
Concrete
Headwall with
Flared Wingwalls
and Steel Railing
None
Minor Outflanking of Outfall Wingwalls
(Erosion Site #3)
Visible degradation of the Steel Grate
~560 mm backwatering at low flow due
to downstream beaver dam
- 552 -
47
Outfall # Reach Asset ID Diameter
(mm) Material Construction
Year Condition Headwall
Erosion
Protection
Works
Comments Photo
4 PC3-a SIO-53-
0003 900 Concrete 1976 Fair
Concrete
Headwall with
Flared Wingwalls
and Steel Railing
None
Significant Sedimentation observed
within the Outfall Channel
~350 mm backwatering at low flow due
to the downstream beaver dam
Steel grate in good condition.
5 PC3-a /
PC3-b
SIO-63-
0003 1,200 Concrete 1976 Good
None – Outlets
inside the
Glenanna Road
Culvert
None
~100 mm backwatering at low flow
Steel grate in good condition
6 PC3-a /
PC3-b
SIO-63-
0002 1,350 Concrete 1976 Good
None – Outlets
inside the
Glenanna Road
Culvert
None
~100 mm backwatering at low flow
Steel grate in good condition
- 553 -
48
Outfall # Reach Asset ID Diameter
(mm) Material Construction
Year Condition Headwall
Erosion
Protection
Works
Comments Photo
7 PC3-b SIO-63-
0001 2,400 Concrete 1977 Good
Mitered to
Downstream
Face of the
Kitley Road
Culvert
None
~100 mm backwatering at low flow
Steel grate in good condition
Minor Sediment Accumulation inside the
Outfall Pipe
Some Minor Cracking Observed around
the Pipe Invert
8 PC3-c SIO-72-
0006 600 Concrete 1986 Good
Concrete
Headwall with
Flared Wingwalls
and Steel Railing
None
Moderate Sediment Accumulation and
Vegetation Observed in the Outfall
Channel.
Steel grate in good condition.
9 PC3-c SIO-72-
0004 1,650 Concrete 1984 Poor /
Failed
Concrete
Headwall with
Flared Wingwalls
and Steel Railing
None
Major sediment accumulation / debris
blockage. Approximately 80-90% of the
opening area is blocked.
- 554 -
49
Outfall # Reach Asset ID Diameter
(mm) Material Construction
Year Condition Headwall
Erosion
Protection
Works
Comments Photo
10 Mountcastle
Tributary
SIO-71-
0001 1,050 Concrete 1987 Good
Concrete
Headwall with
Flared Wingwalls
and Steel Railing
Energy
Dissipation
Blocks
Downstream of
Outfall
Engineered
Armourstone
Plunge Pool
Outfall protected through previous
channel restoration works identified as
part of the Frenchman’s Bay Stormwater
Management Master Plan
11 PC3-c Unknown 900 CSP Unknown Fair
None – CSP Pipe
Projecting from
Slope
None
Appears to be a private outfall servicing
the Plaza at the Intersection of Finch
Avenue and Dixie Road
Signs of Corrosion observed within the
CSP Pipe
Outfall is significantly setback from the
main channel
12 PC4-a Unknown 450 Concrete Unknown Good
Concrete
Headwall with
Flared Wingwalls
Energy
Dissipation
Blocks
Downstream of
Outfall
Rip-rap lined
outfall channel
Outfall is not included on City base-
mapping and is setback from the main
channel
Downstream erosion protection works are
starting to fail (Erosion Site #15)
- 555 -
50
Outfall # Reach Asset ID Diameter
(mm) Material Construction
Year Condition Headwall
Erosion
Protection
Works
Comments Photo
13 PC4-a Unknown 600 CSP Unknown Poor /
Failed None None
Failed CSP culvert that Conveys Flows
from the Roadside Ditch Along Finch into
the Ravine Corridor.
Downstream is heavily eroded and is
starting to outflank the main CSP culvert
that conveys the west branch of Pine
Creek under Finch Avenue (Erosion Site
#16).
14 PC4-a Unknown
1,250
900
CSP
Concrete
Unknown Fair
Concrete
Headwall with
Flared Wingwalls
and Steel Railing
None
Concrete Headwall with Two Pipes (One
CSP and One Concrete)
Steel Grate has Failed
Significant Corrosion Observed within the
CSP Pipe
Scouring and Erosion Observed
Downstream of the Headwall (Erosion
Site #21)
15 PC4-b Unknown 500 Concrete Unknown Good
Concrete
Headwall with
Flared Wingwalls
Engineered
Energy
Dissipation
Blocks
This outfall is located in Lynn Heights
Park, immediately Southeast of 923
Alanbury Crescent
Steel Grate in Good Condition
Outfall is setback from the Main Channel
Minor Erosion Observed Around the
Concrete Wingwalls
- 556 -
51
3.3 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Assessment
A review of the study area hydrological and hydraulic conditions was undertaken to
determine the existing flood levels / flood lines of Pine Creek within the project study area,
as well as to gain an understanding of the hydraulic parameters observed under the range
of flood flow conditions which attribute to erosion and channel alteration.
3.3.1 Overview of Pine Creek Hydrology
At the onset of the study, a hydraulic (HEC-RAS) model was obtained from TRCA which
addresses a range of hydrologic conditions (i.e., flood flow scenarios), including the
regional event and return period events for the 2-year, 5-year, 10-year, 25-year, 50-year,
and 100-year storms, under existing land use conditions. Flows under the various storm
scenarios are summarized in Table 3-4, below.
Table 3-4: Overview of Pine Creek Hydrology within the EA Study Area
Profile
Reach PC4-a
Flow Rate
(m3/s)
Reach PC4-b
Flow Rate
(m3/s)
Reach PC4-c
Flow Rate
(m3/s)
Reach PC3-b
Flow Rate
(m3/s)
Reach
PC3-a
Flow Rate
(m3/s)
2-Year 0.73 0.72 4.36 11.36 12.33
5-Year 1.09 1.49 6.56 17.07 19.77
10-Year 1.39 2.12 8.18 21.34 24.34
25-Year 1.76 3.00 10.76 27.86 31.76
50-Year 2.09 3.74 12.65 33.88 38.35
100-Year 2.6 4.51 14.80 39.65 45.27
Regional 9.53 16.24 39.8 67.35 73.80
3.3.2 Overview of Pine Creek Hydraulics
For the purposes of this EA, the Pine Creek HEC-RAS model obtained from TRCA was used
to define the existing hydraulic conditions within the study area. The schematics and cross-
section arrangement of the existing HEC-RAS model within the study area boundary are
depicted in Figure 3-26, along with the regional flood line. The model was run under a
subcritical flow regime, with a summary of the key hydraulic modeling results for each of
the various flood flow events provided in Appendix D.
The results of the hydraulic assessment demonstrate that Pine Creek experiences
moderately high velocities, shearing forces, and channel power under the range of flood
flow conditions, which can contribute to continuous erosion and increased levels of channel
activity under extreme wet-weather flow events. These conditions have been considered
in the process of defining the types of restoration options, the sizing and resistance
thresholds for materials, and appropriate channel planform configurations.
In order to provide further insight into the impact of the hydraulics parameters, Aquafor
reviewed the published data on the critical erosional thresholds for river bed and bank
materials as presented in Table 3-5. These threshold values were then compared to the
range of velocities modelled within the Pine Creek sub watershed, a visual summary of
which is provided in Figure 3-27 as a box plot. A comparison between the values reported
in Table 3-5 and the box plot presented in Figure 3-27 suggests shearing and velocity
conditions will surpass the permissible thresholds for natural materials, and in turn, careful
attention to stone sizing and placement of material will be required to mitigate failure of
- 557 -
52
the reconstructed channel banks. It is worth noting however, that the modelled velocities
within Pine Creek are generally within the permissible range of velocities that
bioengineering bank treatments, such as a vegetated buttress, are designed for and that
consequently there are likely opportunities to limit the use of harder engineering solutions
(i.e., Armourstone or concrete retaining walls) in the development of the proposed
restoration alternatives.
Figure 3-26: Existing HEC-RAS Schematic Showing Regional Floodline Extents and Model
Cross-Section Locations
Table 3-5: Erosion Thresholds for Stream Bed and Bank Materials (Fischenich, 2001)
Material
Permissible
Shear
Stress
Minimum
(N/m2)
Permissible
Shear
Stress
Maximum
(N/m2)
Permissible
Velocity
Minimum
(m/s)
Permissible
Velocity
Maximum
(m/s)
Fine Gravels 3.6 0.76
Stiff Clay 12.4 0.91 1.37
Alluvial Silt 12.4 1.14
Graded Silt to Cobble 18.2 1.14
Shales and Hardpan 32.1 1.83
Non-Uniform Gravel / Cobble
2-inch 32.1 0.91 1.83
6-inch 95.8 1.22 2.29
Regulatory
Floodline
Discharge (m3/s)Profile
12.332-Year
19.775-Year
24.3410-Year
31.7625-Year
38.3550-Year
45.27100-Year
73.8Regional
- 558 -
53
Material
Permissible
Shear
Stress
Minimum
(N/m2)
Permissible
Shear
Stress
Maximum
(N/m2)
Permissible
Velocity
Minimum
(m/s)
Permissible
Velocity
Maximum
(m/s)
12-inch 191.5 1.68 3.66
Long native grasses 57.5 81.4 1.22 1.83
Short native and bunch grass 33.5 45.5 0.91 1.22
Reed plantings 4.8 28.7
Hardwood tree plantings 19.2 119.7
Wattles 9.6 47.9 0.91
Reed fascine 28.7 59.8 1.52
Coir roll 143.6 239.4 2.44
Vegetated coir mat 191.5 383.0 2.90
Live brush mattress (initial) 19.2 196.3 1.22
Live brush mattress (grown) 186.7 392.6 3.66
Brush layering
(initial/grown) 19.2 299.2 3.66
Live fascine 59.8 148.4 1.83 2.44
Live willow stakes 100.5 148.4 0.91 3.05
Gabions 478.8 4.27 5.79
Concrete / Armourstone 598.5 5.49
Figure 3-27: Box and Whisker Plot Illustrating Variations in Channel Velocity by Design
Storm for the Main Branch of Pine Creek. Permissible Minimum Velocities for Varying
Materials as per Fischenich (2001) Shown on the Right.
- 559 -
54
3.4 Source Water Protection
In compliance with the Clean Water Act (2006), the Credit Valley Conservation Authority,
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Central Lake Ontario Conservation
Authority have collaborated on the CTC (Credit Valley-Toronto and Region-Central Lake
Ontario) Source Protection Plan (2022). The CTC source protection plan outlines the
policies and procedures developed to protect existing and future municipal drinking water
sources within the CTC region.
As per the CTC source protection plan, the EA project study area is not located within an
intake protection zone (Figure 3-28) or wellhead protection area. As such, it is generally
expected that the implementation of the stream restoration projects associated with this
EA will be of low risk to source water resources. Nevertheless, the prescribed drinking
water threats listed in the CTC source protection plan were also reviewed. It is expected
that the activities associated with the implementation of the proposed projects may involve
at least one potential threat to drinking water sources, which is the handling and storage
of fuel. To mitigate this risk to source water, at the construction phase of the project,
contractors will be required to handle and store all fuel at least thirty (30) meters from
Pine Creek or any other natural waterbodies. Contractors will also be responsible for
developing, and implementing as needed, a Spill response plan to address any potential
spills of deleterious substances into the natural environment.
Figure 3-28: CTC Intake Protection Zones (CTC Source Protection Plan, 2022)
- 560 -
55
3.5 Geology, Physiology, and Soils
A geological cross-section of the Frenchman’s Bay Watershed, in the North-South direction,
is presented below as Figure 3-29. As per Figure 3-29, the project study area is underlain
by the Halton Till and Newmarket Till geological formations, which are comprised of glacial
sediment laid down between 12,000 and 70,000 years ago. Both till formations are founded
on top of gently sloped shale bedrock, known as the Whitby Formation with an estimated
age of 440 million years.
Figure 3-29: Geological Cross-Section of the Frenchman’s Bay Watershed in the North-
South Direction (Eyles et al., 2003)
Groundwater flows in the watershed originate in the Oak Ridges Moraine, draining south
towards Lake Ontario. With respect to the subject study area, groundwater flow from the
foot of the Iroquois Bluffs plays a key role in providing baseflow to Pine Creek. With regards
to surficial geology, the lower half of the study area is dominated by a mixture of clay and
silt material with the upper reaches characterised by till overburden material as illustrated
in Figure 3-30.
- 561 -
56
Figure 3-30: Surficial Geology of the Frenchman’s Bay Sub watershed (Marshall,
Macklin, Monaghan & City of Pickering, 2009)
3.6 Terrestrial Natural Heritage Assessment
Aquafor completed field investigations on September 8th and 9th, 2022, to review site
conditions and characterize habitat that may be impacted by the proposed works. The
following subsections provide the results of those investigations combined with relevant
information gained from a comprehensive review of background resources.
3.6.1 Vegetation Communities
The entirety of the river valley corridor contains naturalized vegetation that ranges from
forest/woodland to wetland type habitats with varying amounts of anthropogenic
influence. The surrounding lands are mainly residential and recreational facilities.
Vegetation communities were assessed according to Ecological Land Classification (ELC)
for Southern Ontario, First Approximation (Lee et al., 1998). Where a suitable community
description was not available per the First Approximation, classification was supplemented
from the 2008 Draft version for Southern ELC, or a suitable vegetation community code in
the TRCA jurisdiction (TRCA, 2017) - most equivalent 1998 code is provided in brackets
where this applies. Communities are illustrated in Figure 3-31 – Figure 3-33 and
described in Table 3-6, below. A botanical inventory was conducted concurrent with the
ELC assessment; a total of 144 vascular plants were identified within the study area, 11 of
which were only identified to genus due to a lack of diagnostic features at the time of
survey. A complete annotated list of plant species is provided in Appendix E.
- 562 -
57
Table 3-6: Vegetation Community Descriptions
Polygon
#
Community Code Rank
(S-rank/
TRCA-
rank)
Description Representative Photos
1 CUW1-A3 (CUW1)
Native Deciduous
Successional Woodland
(Mineral Cultural Woodland)
-/ L5 A strip of this semi-open community surrounds Pine Creek south of Kitley Avenue. The
canopy and subcanopy contain a mixture of species, although Silver Maple and Manitoba
Maple (Acer negundo and A. saccharinum) compete for overall dominance. A wide variety
of other trees are also present, examples including Norway Maple (Acer platanoides),
American Elm (Ulmus americana), Willows (Salix spp.), Basswood (Tilia americana), White
Mulberry (Morus alba), plus many others. The understory contained an abundance of
regenerating White and Green Ash (Fraxinus americana and F. pennsylvanica), along with
invasive European Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) and other common cultural woodland
species such as Multiflora Rose (Rosa multiflora), Dogwoods (Cornus spp.), Tatarian
Honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica), European Privet (Ligustrum vulgare), etc. The ground
layer was a variable mix, but often had patches of dense Dog-strangling Vine
(Vincetoxicum rossicum), Honewort (Cryptotaenia canadensis), Avens (Geum sp.), or
other disturbance tolerance forbs and grasses. Some area showed evidence that they had
previously undergone restoration, indicated by the presence of common planted species
or species often included in seed mixes that would unlikely be present otherwise, such as
the presence of the provincially rare Cup Plant (Silphium perfoliatum – S2).
2 FOM3-2
Dry – Fresh Sugar Maple –
Hemlock Mixed Forest Type
S4S5 / L4 This community is located within Forestbrook Park and contains mainly Eastern Hemlock
(Tsuga canadensis) with a high content of Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum) in the canopy.
The subcanopy by contrast contains primarily Sugar Maple. Shrubs and groundcover are
almost absent here, with the exception of the area directly along the Pine Creek system –
this area receives a higher amount of sunlight and moisture, and therefore features some
common riparian woodland species such as Dogwoods, Red Raspberry (Rubus idaeus),
European Buckthorn, Dog-strangling Vine, Common Ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia),
Dame’s Rocket (Hesperis matronalis), Avens, Spotted Jewelweed (Impatiens capensis),
etc. The community overall likely experiences a fair amount of anthropogenic disturbance
due to a network of trails observed throughout.
- 563 -
58
Polygon
#
Community Code Rank
(S-rank/
TRCA-
rank)
Description Representative Photos
3 FOD5-1
Dry – Fresh Sugar Maple
Deciduous Forest Type
S5 / L5 A small patch of forest almost exclusively dominated by Sugar Maple is found in
Forestbrook Park, directly north of the FOM3-2 Hemlock community. Alternate-leaved
Dogwood (Conrus alternifolia), Red-Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) and Maple-leaved
Viburnum (Viburnum acerifolium) are examples of shrubs found in this area. The ground
layer was moderately dense, and contained common upland species such as Zig-zag
Goldenrod (Solidago flexicaulis), False Solomon’s Seal (Maianthemum racemosum), Herb
Robert (Geranium robertianum), Blue-stemmed Goldenrod (Solidago caesia), Spinulose
Wood Fern (Dryopteris carthusiana), White Baneberry (Actaea pachypoda) and Sedges
(Carex spp.).
- 564 -
59
Polygon
#
Community Code Rank
(S-rank/
TRCA-
rank)
Description Representative Photos
4 MAM2-10
Mixed Forb Mineral Meadow
Marsh Type
S4S5 / L5 A large, open low patch at the northeast end of Forestbrook Park contains a mixture of
common wetland forbs, mainly Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) and Spotted
Jewelweed. Other common species include True Forget-me-not (Myosotis scorpioides),
Devil’s Beggar-ticks (Bidens frondosa), Coltsfoot (Tussilago farfara), Reed-canary Grass
(Phalaris arundinacea), Spotted Joe-Pyeweed (Eutrochium maculatum), Broad-leaved
Cattail (Typha latifolia) and Swamp Aster (Symphyotrichum puniceum). Trees and shrubs
were common around the perimeter, including Red-osier Dogwood (Cornus sericea), Wild
Black Currant (Ribes americanum), European Buckthorn, Eastern White Cedar (Thuja
occidentalis), Balsam Poplar (Populus balsamifera) and American Elm.
A substantial patch of Common Reed (Phragmites australis spp. australis) was noted at
the southern tip of the community, as shown as a MASM1-12 (Common Reed Mineral
Shallow Marsh Type) inclusion.
- 565 -
60
Polygon
#
Community Code Rank
(S-rank/
TRCA-
rank)
Description Representative Photos
5 WOMM4-1/CUW1-A3
(CUW1)
Fresh - Moist White Cedar -
Hardwood Mixed Woodland
Type/ Native Deciduous
Successional Woodland
(Mineral Cultural Woodland)
-/ L5 A large area in the northeast of Forestbrook Park, carrying on across to the east side of
Dixie Road, is characterized by a mixed woodland with no clear dominance. Canopy
coverage is variable but ultimately averages out at about 60%, the majority being made
up of either Maples, Pines, or Eastern White Cedar depending on location. Common
examples include Sugar, Norway, Manitoba and Red (Acer rubrum) Maples, White Pine
(Pinus strobus), Black Walnut (Juglans nigra), White Spruce (Picea glauca), Black Cherry
(Prunus serotina), Trembling Aspen (Populus tremuloides), Crack Willow (Salix x fragilis)
and Paper Birch (Betula papyrifera). Some areas containing old dead Ash and Elm were
also noted scattered throughout the community. The understory is generally thick, and
often contains a mix of regenerating Ash, European Buckthorn and Chokecherry (Prunus
virginiana). Dog-strangling Vine is common in the ground layer, as is Canada Goldenrod
(Solidago canadensis). Wetland plants were also observed at lower elevations as the
community transitioned into Mineral Meadow Marsh.
One Species at Risk – Butternut (Juglans cinerea - Endangered), was observed in this
community, just south of Finch Avenue.
6 FOM2-2a
Dry – Fresh White Pine –
Sugar Maple Mixed Forest
Type
S5 / L4 North of Finch Avenue the watercourse flows through Duncannon Ravine, adjacent to
Erskine Cemetery. A mixed forest dominates the riparian area here, characterized by
Sugar Maple, followed by White Pine and Eastern Hemlock in the canopy. Other common
associates such as American Elm, White and Yellow Birch (Betula alleghaniensis), Red Oak
(Quercus rubra) and American Beech (Fagus grandifolia) were noted throughout. The
subcanopy contains mainly Sugar Maple. The subcanopy contained mainly young White
Ash and Sugar Maple, as well as Chokecherry. The ground layer was a variable mixture,
often containing patches of Dog-strangling Vine, English Ivy (Hedera helix), Periwinkle
(Vinca minor) and Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata). Other species such as Poison Ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), Dame’s Rocket, Broad-leaved Enchanter’s Nightshade (Circaea
canadensis) and other woodland species were common.
- 566 -
61
Polygon
#
Community Code Rank
(S-rank/
TRCA-
rank)
Description Representative Photos
7 FOM2-2b
Dry – Fresh White Pine –
Sugar Maple Mixed Forest
Type
S5 / L4 Similar to Duncannon Ravine, the adjacent branch of the Pine Creek watercourse (abutting
Lynn Heights Park) also contains Sugar Maple mixed with White Pine and Eastern Hemlock.
Although this community is generally consistent with the aforementioned FOM2-2a
community, a higher conifer content was noted here, with White Pine and Eastern White
Cedar in particular being more abundant generally throughout the canopy and subcanopy.
8 WOMM4-1/CUW1-A1
(CUW1)
Fresh - Moist White Cedar -
Hardwood Mixed Woodland
Type/
White Cedar Successional
Woodland
(Mineral Cultural Woodland)
-/ L4 This community is a mixed jumble of both deciduous and coniferous species. Poplars
account for approximately 30 % of the cover above the main canopy. The main canopy
by contrast is somewhat patchy and contains mainly young to mid-aged Eastern White
Cedar with some younger Poplar, and an abundance of vines (e.g. Riverbank Grape - Vitis
riparia, and Thicket Creeper - Parthenocissus vitacea). A thick layer of Young Ash and
European Buckthorn dominate the shrub layer, along with vines. Where present, ground
cover comprises mainly Dog-strangling vine with occasional patches of Sensitive Fern
(Onoclea sensibilis) and sporadic woodland forbs such as Baneberry, Broad-leaved
Enchanter’s Nightshade, Sarsaparilla (Aralia nudicaulis), Panicled Aster (Symphyotrichum
lanceolatum) and Garlic Mustard. A small patch of planted Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris) is
present in the northeast corner of the community. Overall, this community is heavily
disturbed, as indicated by the high content of invasives (e.g. European Buckthorn and
Garlic Mustard), and abundance of garbage dumping noted along the edges.
- 567 -
62
Polygon
#
Community Code Rank
(S-rank/
TRCA-
rank)
Description Representative Photos
9 FOC1-2
Dry – Fresh White Pine – Red
Pine Coniferous Forest Type
S4 / L3 A small chunk of White Pine dominated forest was observed adjacent to the WOMM4-1
and FOM2-2 communities associated with Lynn Heights Park. As indicated, this community
contained mainly White Pine, with some Trembling Aspen and Paper Birch in the canopy,
and some White Cedar in the subcanopy. White Ash was prevalent in the shrub layer, with
some young deciduous trees (e.g. Sugar Maple) and Alternate-leaved Dogwood. The
ground layer contained large patches of Dog-strangling Vine, with some other sporadic
woodland species such as Jack-in-the-Pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), Broad-leaved
Enchanter’s Nightshade, Canada Mayflower (Maianthemum canadense), Garlic Muster,
White Baneberry and others.
One Species at Risk – Butternut (Endangered), was observed in this community, just west
of the Alanbury Crescent cul-de-sac.
- ANTH
Anthropogenic
- Lands used for anthropogenic purposes (e.g., roadways and paths, mown areas, parking
lots).
- 568 -
63
Figure 3-31: ELC Mapping – Reaches PC4-a & PC4-b
- 569 -
64
Figure 3-32: ELC Mapping – Reaches PC3-c & PC3-d
- 570 -
65
Figure 3-33: ELC Mapping – Reaches PC3-a & PC3-b
- 571 -
66
3.6.2 Trees
A tree inventory, arborist report, and tree preservation plan will need to be completed
as part of the detailed design process to support permitting efforts with MECP and
TRCA. Impacts to existing trees and any implications under the City’s by-law
(including any associated protection or replanting requirements related to those
impacts) should be detailed upon the completion of the tree inventory and leveraged
to prepare site restoration plans that satisfy the requirements of all regulatory review
agencies.
3.6.3 Terrestrial and Wildlife Habitat
Aquafor’s wildlife biologist attended the site in September of 2022 and documented
all wildlife species that were seen or heard during those site visits (either via direct
observation, or indirectly via tracks, dens, etc.). Opportunistic surveying for wildlife
(i.e., basking surveys for turtles on the creek banks and other perches, reviewing
beneath cover materials for reptiles and amphibians) was also carried out where
possible. Due to the timing of site visits, the bird species assemblage that was
documented mostly includes urban birds commonly seen throughout the year and is
not representative of breeding diversity expected in the spring and summer months.
Insects, as well as reptile and amphibian activity is also reduced in the fall, as many
species are preparing for winter hibernation.
Table 3-7, below, provides an overview of Aquafor’s site observations.
Table 3-7: Wildlife Species List
Species Observed
S Rank L Rank
SAR
Designation
(ESA) Common Name Scientific Name
Birds
American Crow Corvus
brachyrhynchos
S5 L5
-
American Goldfinch Spinus tristis S5 L5 -
American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla S5B L4 -
American Robin Turdus migratorius S5 L5 -
Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus S5 L5 -
Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata S5 L5 -
Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula S5 L5 -
Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens S5 L5 -
Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis S5B,S3N L4 -
House Sparrow Passer domesticus SNA L+ -
Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis S5 L5 -
Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus S5 L4 -
White Breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis S5 L4 -
Mammals
American Beaver Castor canadensis S5 L4 -
- 572 -
67
Species Observed
S Rank L Rank
SAR
Designation
(ESA) Common Name Scientific Name
Eastern Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis S5 L5 -
Northern Raccoon Procyon lotor S5 L5 -
Red Fox Vulpes vulpes S5 L4 -
Red Squirrel Tamiasciurus
hudsonicus
S5 L4
-
Insects
Asian Lady Beetle Harmonia axyridis SNA L+ -
Cabbage White Pieris rapae SNA L+ -
Eastern Tailed-blue Cupido comyntas S5 - -
Monarch Danaus plexippus S2N,S4B - Special
Concern
Several species listed above are considered to be of regional concern within the
TRCA’s urban matrix – i.e., ranked L4; they inhabit forests and other such habitats
which are much reduced or absent in urban landscapes. These include American
Redstart, Gray Catbird, Northern Flicker, White Breasted Nuthatch, American Beaver,
Red Fox and Red Squirrel. The majority of these species do not require habitats
specific to those found in the study area, and may be found an any similar habitat up
or downstream of the study area, or neighboring river corridors. Specific to beaver
activity, beaver dams have been noted frequently by Public Works Staff in the Pine
Creek corridor, particularly between Storrington Street and Bronte Square. Dam and
debris removal activities have been on-going to protect private property in the
adjacent areas and reduce tree damage.
One Species at Risk (SAR) insect; Monarch was observed incidentally within the study
area. No other SAR or Species of Conservation Concern (SOCC) wildlife were
observed. Notwithstanding, potential exists for additional SAR (discussed in further
detail below), or numerous other common wildlife species to use the habitats types
found here.
Based on the diversity of habitat in the corridor, the timing of field investigations,
and high connectivity to other natural features, the study area and surrounding
habitat likely supports a wider range of wildlife than could be confirmed during
Aquafor’s field investigations.
3.6.4 Habitat and Connectivity
The species diversity described in the previous sections indicates that the Pine Creek
corridor at this location supports a healthy, diverse wildlife community. Local wildlife
movement along the river corridor is expected to occur, and the overall corridor could
provide habitat connectivity on the larger landscape as it functions as a direct corridor
between Frenchman’s Bay and undeveloped rural habitat to the north of the City.
Provided natural features are restored to the disturbance area post constriction,
impacts to wildlife movement through the corridor is likely to be temporary.
- 573 -
68
3.7 Significant Species, Features, and Areas
3.7.1 Species at Risk Screening
For the purposes of this study, SAR are defined as species designated Endangered,
Threatened, or Special Concern under either the provincial Endangered Species Act
(ESA) or federal Species at Risk Act (SARA).
Aquafor reviewed background sources (e.g.: prior occurrence records from the
provincial Natural Heritage Information Center [NHIC] database; community science
databases such as the eBird and iNaturalist websites; provincial species atlases; and
the Fisheries and Oceans Canada online SAR mapping) to identify SAR that have
previously been or could potentially be found in or adjacent to the study area. The
Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) was also
contacted to confirm whether they had additional species concerns for the area on
August 22, 2022.
The resulting list of species was subsequently screened by comparing the habitat
requirements of each species to the habitat that is available in the study area, and
species determined to be presented or have some potential to be present are
discussed in Table 3-8 below. A complete screening of all SAR or Species of
Conservation Concern (SOCC) with records in the vicinity of the study area is detailed
in Appendix F.
- 574 -
69
Table 3-8: Species at Risk Screening Results
Species
Common
Name
Species
Scientific
Name
Status Data
Source Habitat Requirements Discussion
Plants
Butternut Juglans
cinerea Endangered NHIC
Generally grows in rich, moist, and well-drained soils often
found along streams. It may also be found on well-drained
gravel sites, especially those made up of limestone. It is also
found, though seldomly, on dry, rocky and sterile soils. In
Ontario, the Butternut generally grows alone or in small
groups in deciduous forests as well as in hedgerows.
Species was confirmed in two locations within the study area (Polygon 2 and
Polygon 9), and additional specimens may be present.
Protected habitat may extend up to a radius of up to 50 m from a pure, retainable
Butternut and any trees that are found within 50 m of the proposed works should
be subject to a Butternut Health Evaluation to determine their status. Works
affecting retainable Butternut will require registration through a Notice of
Activity prior to commencing construction.
Birds
Barn Swallow Hirundo
rustica
Special
Concern NHIC
Prefers farmland, lake/river shorelines, wooded clearings,
urban populated areas, rocky cliffs and wetlands. They nest
inside or outside buildings, under bridges and in road
culverts, or on rock faces and caves.
No Barn Swallow nests or signs of Barn Swallow were observed during field
investigations. However, several box culverts at road crossings were noted
throughout the Pine Creek corridor. Although there were no nests present at the
time, these structures have potential to be used in the future.
As the proposed works will not involve any modifications to the aforementioned
structures, any impacts to this species associated with the works are expected to
be temporary sensory disturbance.
Eastern
Wood-pewee
Contopus
virens
Special
Concern NHIC
Associated with deciduous and mixed forests. Within mature
and intermediate age stands it prefers areas with little
understory vegetation as well as forest clearings and edges.
Habitat for this species is abundant throughout the creek corridor.
Since edge habitat is not limiting in the study area, the proposed works is not
expected to have a significant effect on breeding opportunity for this species
provided mitigation measures are followed. Destruction or damage of active nests
can be avoided by limiting vegetation clearing to outside of the breeding bird
window in any given year (April 1st to August 31st).
Wood Thrush Hylocichla
mustelina
Special
Concern NHIC
Nests mainly in second-growth and mature deciduous and
mixed forests, with saplings and well-developed understory
layers. Prefers large forest mosaics, but may also nest in
small forest fragments.
Although not detected during field investigations, suitable habitat is present in the
mature deciduous and mixed forest types (e.g. Polygon 6 and 7 - FOM2-2) at the
northern end of the study area.
Destruction or damage to active nests can be avoided by limiting vegetation
clearing to outside of the breeding bird window in any given year (April 1st to
August 31st).
Yellow-
breasted Chat Icteria virens Endangered OBAA
Breeds in early successional, shrub-thicket habitats including
woodland edges, regenerating old fields, railway and hydro
right-of-ways, young coniferous reforestations, and wet
thickets bordering wetlands. Tangles of grape (Vitis spp.)
and raspberry (Rubus spp.) vines are features of most
breeding sites.
Although not detected during field investigations, several thicket-type habitats are
present in the study area, particularly around the perimeter of Polygon 4 wetland
(MAM2-10) and in the vine heavy WOMM4-1 habitat at the north end of the study
area (Polygon 8).
Destruction or damage to active nests can be avoided by limiting vegetation
clearing to outside of the breeding bird window in any given year (April 1st to
August 31st). If this species is confirmed to be using any of the
aforementioned habitats, works affecting those habitats will require
registration through a Notice of Activity prior to commencing construction.
Reptiles and
Amphibians
Eastern
Milksnake
Lampropeltis
Triangulum
Special
Concern
(federal)
ORAA
This habitat generalist may utilize a variety of different
habitats including open or forested natural areas, but shows
preference to sites that can provide hibernation
No specific hibernacula habitat was identified during field investigation, but due to
the generalist nature of this species, any natural areas within the Pine Creek
corridor may function for other life-history processes such as foraging.
- 575 -
70
Species
Common
Name
Species
Scientific
Name
Status Data
Source Habitat Requirements Discussion
opportunities (old foundations, mammal burrows, old logs,
etc.) and are in close proximity to water.
• Potential impacts can be mitigated through awareness and monitoring to avoid injury
or mortality of snakes during construction.
Midland
Painted Turtle
Chrysemys
picta
marginata
Special
Concern
(federal)
General
Screening
Quiet, warm, shallow water with abundant aquatic
vegetation such as ponds, large pools, streams, ditches,
swamps, marshy meadows; eggs are laid in sandy places,
usually in a bank or hillside, or in fields; basks in groups;
not territorial.
This species may make use of the Pine Creek for various life cycle processes such
as foraging, hibernation, basking and/or nesting activities.
Potential impacts to this species can be mitigated through awareness and
monitoring to avoid injury or mortality of turtles during construction, and by
avoiding the creation of soil stockpiles or other features which may attract nesting
turtles in the spring and early summer.
Snapping
Turtle
Chelydra
serpentina
Special
Concern NHIC
Generally inhabit shallow waters where they can hide under
the soft mud and leaf litter. Nesting sites usually occur on
gravely or sandy areas along streams. Snapping turtles
often take advantage of man-made structures for nest sites,
including roads (especially gravel shoulders), dams and
aggregate pits.
This species may make use of the Pine Creek for various life cycle processes such
as foraging, hibernation, basking and/or nesting activities.
Potential impacts to this species can be mitigated through awareness and
monitoring to avoid injury or mortality of turtles during construction, and by
avoiding the creation of soil stockpiles or other features which may attract nesting
turtles in the spring and early summer.
Western
Chorus Frog
Pseudacris
triseriata
Threatened
(federal) ORAA
Habitat typically consists of marshes or wooded wetlands,
particularly those with dense shrub layers and grasses.
Prefers fishless ponds with at least 10 cm of standing water
for breeding. This species hibernates in terrestrial habitats
under rocks, dead trees or leaves, in loose soil or in animal
burrows.
Standing water in wetland areas (e.g. Polygon 4 – MAM2-10) provides the most
suitable habitat for this species.
A wildlife rescue should be completed in any closed off areas associated with
wetland habitat, prior to construction. Potential impacts can be mitigated through
awareness and monitoring to avoid injury or mortality of frogs during construction.
Disturbed wetland habitat should be restored post-construction to provide similar
pooled habitat to what was removed.
Insects
Monarch Danaus
plexippus
Special
Concern iNaturalist
Exist primarily where it’s obligate larval host plant -
milkweed (Asclepias spp.) and other wildflowers exist. This
includes abandoned farmland, roadsides and other open
spaces.
This species was confirmed within the study area. Habitat is present in any open,
sunny areas that contain wildflowers for foraging, or milkweed for breeding.
Impact to this species can be reduced by avoiding vegetation clearing during the
growing season (April and October of any given year), including a variety of native,
pollinator friendly flowering flora in the restoration seed mix, and avoiding the use
of pesticides.
Mammals
Little Brown
Myotis
Myotis
lucifugus Endangered General
Screening
Overwintering habitat: Caves and mines that remain above
freezing.
Maternal roosts: Often associated with buildings (attics,
barns, etc.). Occasionally found in trees (25-44 cm DBH).
Numerous large DBH trees were present throughout the study area, with a high
likelihood that cavities, peeling bark and other suitable sheltering features are
present. Leaf-off surveys would be required to document the full extent of Myotis
habitat throughout the study area.
Any proposed tree removals containing features suitable for roosting SAR
bats require registration through a Notice of Activity prior to commencing
construction. Tree removals should be timed to avoid the bat maternity season
which generally runs April 1 – October 1 of any given year.
Northern
Myotis
Myotis
septentrionalis Endangered General
Screening
Overwintering habitat: Caves and mines that remain above
0°C.
Maternal Roosts: Often associated with cavities of large
diameter trees (25-44 cm DBH). Occasionally found in
structures (attics, barns etc.)
Numerous large DBH trees were present throughout the study area, with a high
likelihood that cavities, peeling bark and other suitable sheltering features are
present. Leaf-off surveys would be required to document the full extent of Myotis
habitat throughout the study area.
Any proposed tree removals containing features suitable for roosting SAR
bats require registration through a Notice of Activity prior to commencing
- 576 -
71
Species
Common
Name
Species
Scientific
Name
Status Data
Source Habitat Requirements Discussion
construction. Tree removals should be timed to avoid the bat maternity season
which generally runs April 1 – October 1 of any given year.
Tricoloured
Bat
Perimyotis
subflavus Endangered General
Screening
Overwintering habitat: Caves and mines that remain above
0°C.
Maternal Roosts: Can be in trees or dead clusters of leaves
or arboreal lichens on trees; oaks and maples preferred.
May also use barns or similar structures.
Large-diameter maples and oaks with potential for Tricolored Bat habitat were
present in wooded portions of the study area.
Any proposed tree removals containing features suitable for roosting SAR
bats require registration through a Notice of Activity prior to commencing
construction. Tree removals should be timed to avoid the bat maternity season
which generally runs April 1 – October 1 of any given year.
- 577 -
72
3.7.2 Species of Conservation Concern and Regionally Rare
Species Review
Additional species which were reviewed as Species of Conservation Concern include
those with Global Ranks of G1-G3 and/or Sub-National/Provincial ranks of S1-S3,
and species considered rare within the TRCA watershed (L-Ranks 2017) or in Eco-
region 7E-4 (Oldham, 2017), where those species were not already considered under
the SAR assessment noted above.
One provincially significant plant species was confirmed in association with the study
area – Cup Plant (Silphium perfoliatum – S2). Within the TRCA jurisdiction, this
species is common (L5), and is considered secure in the region. Aquafor documented
it in a narrow section of woodland corridor in the southern extent of the study area
(Polygon 1 – CUW1). Several multi-stemmed pockets of this species were observed
throughout this community, particularly is association with David Farr Park. There is
some evidence that previous restoration efforts may have occurred in that stretch of
the Pine Creek corridor, which suggests it may have been part of a planting plan.
Both TRCA’s Annual Local Occurrence Score and Local Rank Update (2017) and
Oldham’s Vascular Plan List of Ontario’s Carolinian Zone (2017) were referenced for
regional rarity. All species with L-ranks of L1 through L3 are considered regionally
rare in TRCA’s jurisdiction, and species ranked L4 are considered rare in an urban
setting. Similarly, Oldham (2017) lists species listed as Uncommon (U) or Rare (R)
in Ecoregion 7E-4. The following 9 locally rare plant species were found within the
study area:
•Canada Honewort - Cryptotaenia canadensis (U)
•Wood Nettle - Laportea canadensis (U)
•Tamarack – Larix laricina (R; L3)
•Great Blue Lobelia – Lobelia siphilitica (R; L3)
•Lopseed – Phryma leptostachya (R)
•White Spruce – Picea glauca (U; L3)
•Dwarf Clearweed – pilea pumila (U)
•White Oak - Quercus alba (L3)
•Maple-leaved Viburnum – Vibernum acerifolium (L3)
In instances where the proposed works will involve the destruction or removal of any
of the above species, relocation efforts may be considered where feasible.
Alternatively, inclusion of these species in the proposed planting plan will increase
the likelihood that these species remain present locally post-construction.
No other SOCC with known records are thought likely to occur in the study area based
on the habitat. A complete screening of all SAR or Species of Conservation Concern
(SOCC) with records in the vicinity of the study area is detailed in Appendix F.
- 578 -
73
3.7.3 Significant Natural Heritage Feature Consideration
Significant Natural Heritage features include any natural feature formally identified
as having policy or regulatory implications for proposed site alteration or
development. These features may require additional ecological impact assessment or
permitting to proceed with proposed works. The study area contains the following:
3.7.3.1 Provincially Significant Features
The study area does contain one mapped wetland according to the mapping layers
maintained by the MNRF (as viewed through the “Make A Map: Natural Heritage
Areas” website, December 2022). This wetland was confirmed during Aquafor’s field
investigations as MAM2-10 (Forb Mineral Meadow Marsh) with a MASM1-12 (Common
Reed) inclusion. However, this wetland is not considered either provincially or locally
significant.
There are no Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest within the study area, and it is
not located within the provincial Greenbelt or the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation
Plan area.
3.7.3.2 City of Pickering Official Plan
Under the City of Pickering Official Plan (CPOP), the “Natural Areas” subcategory falls
under the “Open Spaces” policy of the CPOP. Lands designated as part of the Open
Space System (Schedule I) are intended to be used primarily for conservation,
restoration, environmental education, recreation, and ancillary purposes and may
include Key Natural Heritage and Key Hydrologic Features which have related
minimum areas of influence and minimum vegetation protection zones. The study
area contains several natural heritage features under this designation afforded
protection under the Plan, including “Natural Heritage System” (Schedule IIIA)
comprising Significant Woodland (Schedule IIIB), and Shorelines, Significant Valley
Lands and Stream Corridors (Schedule IIIC).
Under the CPOP, works falling into Ontario’s Natural Heritage System are subject to
the stipulations of Durham Region Official Plan (DROP, 2020) in accordance with the
Ontario’s Provincial Policy Statement (2020). Under the DROP, the natural heritage
features of the study area fall within Key Natural Heritage and Key Hydrologic
Features (Schedule B - Map B1). Specific to the proposed works, Table 3 of the CPOP
states the following with regards to permissible uses and site alteration within these
Natural Areas, reflective of equivalent policy in the DROP (Policy 2.3.15):
Conservation, environmental protection, restoration, education, passive recreation,
and similar uses, subject to the provisions of the Regional Official Plan related to non-
agricultural uses, and provided that development or site alteration may only be
permitted in key natural heritage and/or key hydrologic features for the following
purposes:
- 579 -
74
(ii) conservation and flood and erosion control and other similar environmental
protection and restoration projects demonstrated to be necessary in the public
interest and after all alternatives have been considered.
As the proposed works are intended to address erosion control issues and intend to
restore natural habitat post-construction, works within these features are permitted
as per the CPOP (Table 3) and DROP (Policy 2.3.15). An Environmental Impact Study,
in accordance with DROP Policy 2.3.43, is be required for any development or site
alteration within 120 metres of a key natural heritage or hydrologic feature to
demonstrate that there will be no negative impacts to these features or their
ecological functions. The contents of this document serves to fulfill this requirement.
3.7.3.3 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Regulations and
Guidelines
Under the Conservation Authorities Act, Section 28.1 grants the TRCA the authority
to regulate development, interference with wetlands, and alteration of shorelines and
watercourses within the TRCA watershed. Given that the site includes Lake Ontario
and associated coastal wetlands and is located within regulated lands, it is anticipated
that a permit from TRCA will be required for the completion of the proposed works.
In addition to permitting within TRCA regulated lands, it is anticipated that restoration
and/or compensation within any disturbed portions of the Frenchman’s Bay PSW and
surrounding lands will be required. The mitigation hierarchy (avoid, minimize,
mitigate) must be applied before considering compensation for wetlands. If
compensation if required, a 1:1 compensation ratio for marshes and meadows is
required by the TRCA under their Ecosystem Compensation Guideline (TRCA, 2023).
For swamp habitats, if present, the compensation ratio will be determined using the
basal area method. Compensation within wooded areas is dependent on basal area
or equivalent calculation as agreed upon by the TRCA based on these guidelines.
3.8 Aquatic Natural Heritage Assessment
Fish community and aquatic habitat within the Pine Creek study area was reported
on in the 2009 Stormwater Management Master Plan for the Frenchman’s Bay
Watersheds, City of Pickering (MMM Group, 2009), with TRCA monitoring results
provided in the Regional Watershed Monitoring Program Progress Report (TRCA,
2012). Site conditions along the Pine Creek corridor were confirmed as a part of this
study September 14, 2022 by Aquafor Beech aquatic biology staff in accordance with
Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (OSAP), Section 4, Module 1: Rapid Assessment
Methodology for Channel Structure (Stanfield, 2017). The aquatic components of the
study area are described in the following subsections. Photographs from Aquafor’s
site visits are included.
- 580 -
75
3.8.1 Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Aquatic habitat characteristics, as described hereafter, are major determinants for
biotic composition, which is an indicator of aquatic ecosystem health. The habitat
characteristics investigated within the constructed corridor and study area include:
• Bank characteristics;
• Stream width and depth (wetted and bankfull);
• Instream cover (e.g., substrate type, woody material, undercut banks,
boulders, vegetation);
• Riparian cover (vegetation composition, quality and width); and
• Physical barriers to fish movement (e.g., woody or debris jams, knickpoints,
etc.)
Monitoring locations are depicted below in Figure 3-34 with results provided
thereafter.
Figure 3-34: Aquatic Monitoring Locations
The study area for the Pine Creek aquatic habitat assessment, located within the
Frenchman’s Bay watershed, extended from Kingston Road upstream to the Lynn
Heights Drive and Fairport Road, including the main branch of Pine Creek as well as
- 581 -
76
any other contributing features identified through aerial imagery and field work.
Contributing features identified were the Kitley Ravine bound by Kitley Ave and the
Duncannon Ravine bound by Duncannon Drive. Throughout the study reach, multiple
crossings intersected the watercourse, Kingston Road, Glenanna Road, Kitley Ave,
Dixie Road, Finch Ave, and the upstream Fairport Road and Lynn Heights Drive. These
crossings will be referenced throughout the following description for site context. This
assessment area was selected to provide a representative view of the watercourse
and the general study area. Where possible, monitoring and assessment information
as provided in background information from the Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA) was used to offer insights into long-term monitoring results and
habitat considerations. One TRCA monitoring site (FB003WM) was noted within Pine
Creek, although downstream of the study area. The study area relative to the TRCA
background information, in particular aquatic and fisheries monitoring, is shown in
Figure 3-35.
Figure 3-35: TRCA Land use Mapping
Pine Creek is a part of the Frenchman’s Bay watershed within the TRCA jurisdiction.
This section of the Pine Creek subwatershed falls within the Pickering city centre, with
much of the watercourse representative of an urban-impacted watercourse. The
Master Plan noted that Pine Creek and its associated riparian habitat within the study
area has been largely developed, with the urban landuse resulting in fragmented
open riverine habitat (MMM Group, 2009). The Master Plan also noted that the Pine
- 582 -
77
Creek subwatershed demonstrated degradation in aquatic habitat evidence of active
erosion and downcutting, with the TRCA citing a regularly anoxic water with high
temperatures and turbidity, water quality parameters in exceedance of the Provincial
Water Quality Objectives for the Protection of Aquatic Life, and “Very Poor” water
quality based on the Hilsenhoff Index of benthic macroinvertebrates with “Likely
severe organic pollution present” (MMM Group, 2009). Through the reach examined
as a part of this study, Pine Creek is bordered by a very narrow, fragmented swath
of natural heritage cover. OSAP findings and habitat characteristics for the study area
are detailed in Table 3-9. OSAP photos are provided below and field sheets in
Appendix G.
- 583 -
78
Table 3-9: Aquatic Habitat Characteristics
Assessment
Location
General
UTM
Coordinates
Site Location Site Characteristics Habitat Description Substrate
Composition Bank Stability
Instream and
Riparian
Vegetation
Fish Barriers and Other
Disturbances
Pine Creek
1
(PC1)
17 T
653179 m E
4855237 m N
Site 1 (PC1) was
the furthest, most
downstream site
within the main
Pine Creek
branch, located
adjacent to
Bronte Square
and
approximately
140 m upstream
of Kingston Road
and 1.35 km to
where the creek
empties into
Frenchman’s Bay.
This site is the
closest to the
TRCA monitoring
site (FB003WM).
Site length was ~40 m.
Average wetted width was
~6 m. The average depth
at crossovers was 500 mm
with the maximum depth
observed over 1 m due to
downstream beaver
activity and backwatering.
The site observed
engineered features with
evidence of past
restoration efforts, such as
historic straightening to
accommodate adjacent
outfalls, a well-used
pedestrian crossing with
concrete abutments
extending into the creek,
and encroaching
residences. The site fell
adjacent to a busy public
walking trail.
This site was dominated by
medium depth glides (Figure
3-36), with habitat largely
limited due to downstream
beaver activity and
backwatering (
Figure 3-37). Cover was
provided upstream of the
pedestrian crossing by
moderate canopy cover, as
well as some large woody
material and rooted
macrophytes. Sedimentation
was evident, with turbid water
and little evidence of larger
cobbles to contribute to
instream cover.
This site was largely
contributed by fines,
with some gravels
observed. Areas of
sedimentation were
observed adjacent to
multiple outfalls
downstream of the
pedestrian crossing.
Little to no instream
cover was provided
by substrate.
Erosion and
downcutting was
observed on both
banks throughout the
entire length of the
site, with reaches
upstream of the
pedestrian crossing
exacerbated by
manicured lawn
encroaching onto the
creek banks.
Instream vegetation
was moderate
throughout this site,
limited to some
rooted macrophytes.
Riparian vegetation
was limited, with
both of the left and
right bank consisting
scrubland for ~5-10
m before
transitioning to
maintained parkland
and residential lawn.
A small buffer
adjacent to the creek
was observed
downstream of the
pedestrian crossing
before transitioning
to manicured park
lawn.
No crossings outside of the
pedestrian crossing existed
within the immediate area,
although multiple residential
areas and residential
developments bordered the
site with maintained lawns
encroaching on the
watercourse. Multiple signs
of beaver activity, including
posted signage (
Figure 3-38) and wiring
were observed. Discussions
with locals pointed to
downstream beaver activity
which led to the apparent
backwatering in the creek.
Multiple outfalls were
observed downstream of the
pedestrian crossing (
Figure 3-39). A well-used
park and trail existed on the
right bank with maintained
lawn beyond the narrow
riparian zone. No fish
barriers were observed.
Pine Creek
2
(PC2)
17 T
652988 m E
4855642 m N
Site 2 (PC2) was
approximately 0.5
km upstream of
PC1, within the
David Farr
Parklands, and
within the main
Pine Creek
branch.
Site length was ~90 m.
Average wetted width at
the time of sampling was
~3 m. The average depth
at crossovers was 100 mm
and the maximum depth
sampled was ~800 mm.
The site observed signs of
past engineering and
channel restoration, with
large substrate introduced
and active riparian
plantings to buffer from the
adjacent, busy public park
(David Farr Park).
This site was delimited by two
riffles (
Figure 3-40 &
Figure 3-41), with the
remainder of the habitat
throughout represented by
well-distributed pools (
Figure 3-42) and glides (
Figure 3-43). Cover was
contributed by round cobbles
introduced during past channel
restoration works, with in-
stream vegetation very limited.
Cover was largely contributed
by overhanging canopy cover
immediately adjacent to the
bank(s).
This site largely
consisted of sands
and gravels, with
cobbles observed in
riffle structures and
areas of consolidated
clay where flows had
stripped the top layer
of substrate. The
maximum particle
size was greater than
1 m in size and was
contributed by
engineered materials.
The banks consisted
almost entirely of silt
with some larger
cobbles and boulders
observed throughout,
likely introduced by
past engineering
efforts. Both the right
and left bank had
erosion contributed by
encroaching park land
and foot traffic, with
fines held stable by
well-established mixed
scrubland.
Instream vegetation
was moderate,
consisting of moss,
filamentous and
attached algae, and
some rooted
macrophytes.
Riparian vegetation
consisted of narrow
mixed deciduous
scrubland up to 10
m. Manicured
parkland and lawn
was beyond the
narrow riparian
buffer.
The site was adjacent to a
well-used park with
pedestrian trails and
unofficial crossings
throughout, which likely
contributed to nutrients and
pollutant loading within the
site and system. Other
contributions were likely
adjacent lawns, as well as
upstream residential areas
and residential
developments. No barriers to
fish were observed, with fish
observed in pools and
adjacent to undercut banks.
- 584 -
79
Assessment
Location
General
UTM
Coordinates
Site Location Site Characteristics Habitat Description Substrate
Composition Bank Stability
Instream and
Riparian
Vegetation
Fish Barriers and Other
Disturbances
Kitley
Ravine 1
(KR1)
17 T
652547 m E
4855826 m N
The Kitley Ravine site (KR1), located within a contributing feature to the main Pine Creek, was approximately 30 m upstream of Kitley Ave (
Figure 3-44). The site was on municipal property bound by private residential property surrounded by a thin riparian corridor. The site was dry at the time of assessment with no indication
of ground water contribution (
Figure 3-45). OSAP could not be performed due to the intermittent flow regime. No fish were observed within the feature; however, the watercourse was fairly well-defined within the
mixed deciduous forest block and appeared to contribute to downstream catchments. Although no fish were observed within the feature, the Kitley Ravine should still be considered fish
habitat despite the intermittent nature as it would convey sediment and food supply as well as flow during runoff events, indirectly contributing to the downstream catchments.
Pine Creek
3
(PC3)
17 T
652064 m E
4856075 m N
Pine Creek 3
(PC3) was
approximately 40
m downstream of
the Finch Ave
right of way and
at the confluence
of Duncannon
Ravine, within the
main Pine Creek
branch.
Site length was ~40 m.
Average wetted width was
~3 m. The average depth
at crossovers was 80 mm
and the maximum depth
sampled was observed at
the confluence with
Duncannon Ravine (
Figure 3-46). The site fell
downstream of a busy
municipal right of way
serviced by a large CSP
culvert (
Figure 3-48). A well-
established riparian buffer
contributed by mixed-
deciduous and cedar forest
provided ample habitat
and protection against
pedestrian traffic.
This site varied in form and
function, largely contributed by
shallow glides and slow riffles,
with a moderate depth pool
found at the confluence with
the Duncannon Ravine feature.
Woody material and was
abundant throughout (
Figure 3-47), with areas of
deposition observed
contributing to a braided
composition (
Figure 3-49). The site was
consistent with a cedar swamp
watercourse, with ample cover
provided by overhanging
canopy as well as large woody
material.
Substrate was poorly
sorted, consisting of
fines, gravels and
cobbles. Some
cobbles contributed
to instream cover
throughout. Evidence
of sedimentation was
observed throughout
with aggradation and
island forms. Fine
substrate was
observed in
abundance at the
Finch ROW. The
maximum particle
size was observed at
~100 mm.
Evidence of bank
instability was
observed throughout
the site, with steep
angles observed on
both banks and a
riverbed elevation well
below the top of bank
indicating
downcutting.
Undercuts were
observed on both
banks, although the
well-established cedar
and mixed deciduous
forest provided some
stability.
Aquatic vegetation
was minimal at the
time of observation.
Canopy cover was
abundant
throughout, with
100% of the stream
shaded from mixed
deciduous and cedar
swamp riparian
cover.
The site was approximately
immediately downstream of
Finch Ave, a well-travelled
regional road which likely
contributed to nutrients and
pollutant loading within the
site and system. Other
contributions, such as the
adjacent residential
development on the left
bank beyond the ~45 m
riparian zone were observed
with debris and garbage
accumulating in the channel.
Upstream residential areas
were also likely contributors
as well as an upstream
cemetery and parks. No
barriers to fish were
observed, although the Finch
Ave ROW may contribute to
a barrier.
- 585 -
80
Assessment
Location
General
UTM
Coordinates
Site Location Site Characteristics Habitat Description Substrate
Composition Bank Stability
Instream and
Riparian
Vegetation
Fish Barriers and Other
Disturbances
Duncannon
Ravine 1
(DR1)
17 T
651796 m E
4856084 m N
The Duncannon
Ravine site was
immediately
upstream of the
Finch Ave right-
of-way within a
contributing
feature to the
main Pine Creek
branch,
approximately
270 m upstream
of the confluence
and PC3.
Site length was ~45 m.
Average wetted width was
~1.5 m. The average
depth at crossovers was
20 mm and the maximum
depth sampled was ~50
mm, downstream of a
knickpoint created by
woody material and
substrate changes (
Figure 3-50). The site fell
within a natural area
ravine with a residential
area ~40 m beyond the
channel on the right bank
and a cemetery on the left
bank. Another, larger
natural area and ravine
(Bylawn Drive Ravine) was
upstream of the Fairport
Rd ROW.
This site was largely
contributed by slow riffles and
pool habitat. Aquatic
vegetation cover was non-
existent at the time of
observation, with all instream
cover provided by round
cobbles and woody material.
Substrate was
moderately sorted
contributed mainly by
gravels and cobbles,
with some areas of
fine sediments in
deposition zones. The
maximum particle
size was observed at
~850 mm.
Some evidence of
bank instability was
observed throughout
the site, with steep
angles observed on
both banks and fines
observed in deposition
zones (
Figure 3-51). No
undercuts were
observed despite this
evidence likely due to
the well-established
riparian habitat.
Instream vegetation
was non-existent.
Riparian vegetation
consisted of mixed
deciduous forest on
both banks, with
abundant forest
canopy cover
provided on both
banks.
The site was located within a
well-buffered natural area,
upstream of the last major
ROW (Finch Ave) in the City.
The site observed little to no
foot traffic, however,
dumping was observed
adjacent to abutting resident
fences on the right bank. No
barriers to fish were
observed within the site,
however the Finch Ave ROW,
serviced by a CSP culvert,
could contribute as a barrier.
No fish were observed within
the site.
Pine Creek
4
(PC4)
17 T
651600 m E
4856332 m N
Pine Creek 4
(PC4) was the
furthest most
upstream site in
the study area
and was
approximately
620 m upstream
of PC3, and
approximately
240 m
downstream of
the Lynn Heights
Dr right-of-way
within the main
Pine Creek
branch.
Site length was ~45 m.
Average wetted width was
~0.8 m. The average
depth at crossovers was
~20 mm and the
maximum depth sampled
was ~50 mm. The site fell
within a natural area
bound by residential areas
on both banks outside of
the well-established
riparian area. Little
development was observed
upstream of the site.
This site was contributed by
slow riffles, glides and a deep
pool between the extents (
Figure 3-52). Cover was
provided by large woody debris
throughout and instream
cobbles throughout (
Figure 3-53 &
Figure 3-54). Aquatic
vegetation cover was non-
existent at the time of
observation.
Substrate
demonstrated poor
sorting, consistent
with downstream
sites. Similar to
downstream sites,
cobbles represented
up to the D50 for
point substrate, with
observed throughout
and areas of
deposition on both
banks and in pool
habitat. The
maximum particle
size was ~850 mm
observed near the
upstream extent.
Evidence of bank
instability was
observed throughout
the site, with steep
angles observed on
both banks throughout
the site and areas of
deposition likely
contributed by fines
entering the system
from erosion.
Instream vegetation
was non-existent.
Riparian vegetation
consisted of mixed
deciduous forest on
both banks, with
abundant forest
canopy cover
provided on both
banks.
The site was located within a
well-buffered natural area
and near the urban boundary
of the City. The site had a
small, unofficial trail leading
to the channel, however little
signs of foot traffic was
observed along the channel
itself. No barriers to fish were
observed within the site,
however the upstream extent
was observed with very little
water contributing to the
downstream habitat (
Figure 3-55). Fish were
observed within the pool
habitat throughout the site.
- 586 -
81
3.8.2 Fish Community Assessment
The TRCA data provided by MMM Group in the Master Plan (MMM Group, 2009) notes that
Pine Creek provides habitat to Blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus) and Creek chub
(Semotilus atroomaculatus), both of which are common, secure in status and moderately
to highly tolerant to disturbance typical of cool-warmwater thermal regimes. Contributing
features to the Pine Creek subwatershed, such as Kitley Ravine and Duncannon Ravine did
not have fish community studies, although it can be assumed that these channels would
provide habitat to similar species outside of limitations from low baseflow and habitat
fragmentation. MNRF data confirms the presence of these species and suggests that
additional species, such as Central Mudminnow (Umbra limi), Common Shiner (Luxilus
cornutus), Logperch (Percina caprodes) and White Sucker (Catostomus commersonii), may
also exist where habitat is present (MNRF, 2015).
3.8.2.1 In-Water Timing Window
Based on the observations discussed above and on recommendations made by the MNRF
In-water Work Timing Window Guidelines (MNRF, 2013) for Ontario’s Southern Region, no
in-water works should take place between March 15th and July 15th of any given year.
This restriction is aimed to protect the species listed above during their vulnerable life
stages of spawning and rearing and should be implemented to avoid contravention to the
Federal Fisheries Act, among other mitigation measures.
3.8.2.2 DFO Self-Assessment
The Federal Fisheries Act requires that projects avoid causing the death of fish and the
harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat unless authorized by the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). This applies to work being conducted in or
near waterbodies that support fish at any time during any given year or are connected to
waterbodies that support fish at any time during any given year. As noted above, the study
area does contain fish at any time during any given year. Therefore, the Fisheries Act
applies to works conducted in or near water at the site.
Upon completion of the detailed design for the channel works at the study site, the works
should be cross-referenced with the DFO “Projects Near Water” online service to determine
if a request for regulatory review under the federal Fisheries Act is required (Department
of Fisheries and Oceans, 2019). Based on field investigations conducted by Aquafor staff
and background information provided by the TRCA, the study area does contain fish at any
time during any given year. It is therefore the opinion of Aquafor Beech Limited that a
request for regulatory review by Fisheries and Oceans Canada will be required. It is
recommended that the proponent exercise the measures listed by Fisheries and Oceans
Canada to avoid contravention with the Federal Fisheries Act and exercise due diligence by
further mitigating accidental death of fish and the harmful alteration, disruption or
- 587 -
82
destruction of fish habitat.
Figure 3-36: DS Extent of PC1, Looking
DS
Figure 3-37: US Extent of PC1, looking
US
Figure 3-38: Beaver Activity Signage at
PC1
Figure 3-39: OF DS of Pedestrian Bridge
at PC1, Right Bank
- 588 -
83
Figure 3-40: DS Extent of PC2, Looking
DS
Figure 3-41: US Extent of PC2, Looking
US
Figure 3-42: Pool Habitat and Undercut
Bank at PC2
Figure 3-43: Typical Habitat at PC2
- 589 -
84
Figure 3-44: DS Extent of KR1 at Pine
Creek
Figure 3-45: Typical Habitat in KR1
Figure 3-46: Pool at Confluence with
Duncannon Ravine (LB)
Figure 3-47: DS Extent of PC3, Looking
DS
- 590 -
85
Figure 3-48: US Extent of PC3 at Finch
Ave ROW
Figure 3-49: Typical Habitat in PC3
Figure 3-50: Typical Habitat at DR1,
Looking US
Figure 3-51: Typical habitat at DR1,
Looking DS
- 591 -
86
Figure 3-52: Typical Habitat at PC4,
Looking US
Figure 3-53: Typical habitat at PC4,
Looking DS
Figure 3-54: Typical Habitat at PC4,
Looking US
Figure 3-55: Typical habitat at PC4,
Looking DS
- 592 -
87
3.9 Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Assessment
Amick Consultants Limited completed a Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment of the project
study area from 2022 – 2023. All archaeological assessment works were completed in
conformity with the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC) Standards and
Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTC 2011) and the Ontario Heritage Act (RSO
1990a).
The entirety of the study area was subject to a desktop Stage 1 Archaeological Background
Study, completed November 11th, 2022. A property inspection and photographic
documentation of the study area was completed on December 2nd, 2022. Based on the
results of these assessments, some areas within the study area have been identified as
exhibiting major landscape alterations and subsurface disturbances which include major
grading to mitigate flooding, fill to facilitate road construction, pathways and underground
electrical infrastructure and retaining walls to mitigate erosion. Other parts of the study
area are made up of steep slopes in excess of 30 degrees, and seasonally flooded areas,
limiting their archaeological potential. All of these areas are considered to have no potential
to yield archaeological deposits of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI).
However, select areas within the study area do have high potential to yield archaeological
deposits of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest based largely on their proximity to Pine
Creek or the previous discovery of archaeological sites nearby. The spatial distribution of
these areas is illustrated below in Figure 3-56. Completion of a Stage 2 archaeological
assessment is recommended at the detailed design stage for any proposed projects where
the proposed area of disturbance overlaps with an identified area of high CHVI.
- 593 -
88
Figure 3-56: Aerial Map of the Study Area Illustrating the Spatial Distribution of Sites
with Stage 2 Archaeological Potential
3.10 Utilities
Aquafor undertook a Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE) Quality Level D investigation,
including a review of Municipal and Regional Base mapping, as-built drawings and
completion of an Ontario One Call Planning Level assessment. The identified utilities within
the general proximity of the project study area include: municipal storm sewers and storm
sewer outfalls; Region of Durham sanitary sewers; York Region sanitary sewer
infrastructure; municipal lighting infrastructure; Bell and Rogers telecommunication lines;
Hydro One and Elexicon Energy Hydro Infrastructure; and Enbridge Gas Lines.
Utility base mapping is included in the Existing Conditions Drawings appended to
Appendix A of this report. Additional subsurface utility investigations (Level C, B or A)
should be completed at the detailed design stage as needed to identify potential utility
conflicts and ensure appropriate utility protection measures are implemented at the
construction phase.
3.11 Social-Economic Environment
3.11.1.1 Land Use
As defined in the City of Pickering’s official plan, land use within the project study area is
delineated as a natural corridor surrounded by low density urban residential development
(Figure 3-57). There are three (3) major parks located within the EA project area: David
Farr Memorial Park, Forestbrook Park and Lynn Heights Park, along with two natural areas
- 594 -
89
denoted as the Duncannon Ravine and the Kitley Ravine corridors. The proposed projects
associated with this EA are not expected to result in any change in land use designations.
3.11.1.2 Transportation
As per the City of Pickering’s Official Plan, the road crossings within the project study area
include Type B Arterial Roads (Kingston Road and Finch Avenue), Type C Arterial Roads
(Glenanna Road, Dixie Road and Fairport Road), and Collector Roads (Kitley Avenue, and
Lynn Heights Drive). Through the EA erosion risks to Finch Avenue (a Region of Durham
owned Type B Arterial Road), Dixie Road (a Municipally owned Type C Arterial Road) and
Lynn Heights Drive (a Municipally Owned Collector Road) were identified. There are no
significant utility corridors within the project study area. A map showing the City’s
Transportation System with the EA study area extents overlain is provided below as Figure
3-58.
3.11.1.3 Ownership
Within the EA study area, the majority of the Pine Creek Corridor is contained within City
owned lands. Some of the identified erosion sites are located on, either entirely or partially,
lands owned by the Region of Durham or Private Landowners. Furthermore, there are some
proposed projects associated with the EA where the recommend solutions extend onto
privately owned lands. In these instances, property owners will be advised of the ongoing
erosion issues and associated risks on their property. Each individual property owner will
ultimately be responsible for undertaking the necessary measures to mitigate the identified
erosion related risks on their property using the concepts outlined in this EA or alternative
methods (subject to all associated regulatory approvals at the detailed design stage).
Alternatively, the City may give future consideration to an easement acquisition in order
to complete creek restoration works on select private properties.
- 595 -
90
Figure 3-57: Land Use within the City of Pickering (City of Pickering, 2022)
Study Area
- 596 -
91
Figure 3-58: Transportation System Network within the City of Pickering (City of
Pickering, 2022)
3.12 Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Assessment
3.12.1.1 Climate Change Mitigation
Mitigation refers to actions that reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate
change, such as switching to clean energy and being energy efficient.
Study Area
- 597 -
92
A qualitative approach has been taken to assess climate change mitigation noting that
the primary impact of the proposed EA restoration, from a climate change perspective,
will be the generation of greenhouse gas emissions during the detailed design,
construction and post-construction monitoring phases. It is recommended that at the
detailed design stage a Climate Lens GHG Mitigation assessment report be completed for
each project, consistent with the requirement’s defined in Infrastructure Canada’s
Climate Lens – General Guidance Document (Infrastructure Canada, 2019). Preparation
of this report will allow for an assessment of candidate mitigation measures to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions during each phase of the project. At this stage the following
mitigation measures are recommended for future consideration:
• Detailed Design and Post-Construction Monitoring Phase: Car-pooling to
site, wherever feasible, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with onsite
field investigations.
• Construction Phase: Exploring opportunities to reuse materials onsite wherever
feasible to reduce emissions associated with the transport of materials to and from
site. As a secondary mitigation measure, consideration may be given to requiring
contractor’s to use fuel efficient construction equipment to further reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
3.12.1.2 Climate Change Adaptation
Climate change adaptation refers to actions that manage and reduce the risk of climate
change impacts such as infrastructure upgrades, flood protection, disaster management,
and business continuity planning. All of the proposed restoration alternatives will improve
the watershed’s resiliency to climate change by helping to mitigate erosion, reduce
flooding and protect at-risk infrastructure and private property. Moreover, this EA has
given specific consideration to climate change resiliency through the evaluation of
alternatives process as outlined in Section 4.2 below.
Further consideration should also be given at the detailed design stage to account for
climate change in the design of the proposed restoration works. This should include
accounting for climate change related impacts to watershed hydrology and hydraulics to
ensure all proposed erosion control materials are appropriately sized and adequate flood
mitigation measures are established.
- 598 -
93
4 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS
A series of alternatives were developed to specifically address the erosion concerns
documented in the twenty-five (25) erosion sites identified in Section 2. Factoring in the
relative spatial proximity and risk level associated with the twenty-five identified erosion
sites, sites have been grouped into nine (9) interest areas for the purposes of developing
and evaluating conceptual design alternatives. These alternatives are described in general
below with specifics related to each particular grouping of sites following thereafter.
•Alternative 1: Do Nothing – This alternative involves leaving the site as it is and
allowing erosional processes to continue within the watercourse corridor. Under this
alternative, it should be expected that maintenance, or possibly emergency works,
may have to be undertaken to address damage to property or infrastructure caused
by continued erosion. Damage from erosion may occur gradually over time or
suddenly due to a high magnitude flood event.
•Alternative 2: Local Restoration Works – This alternative consists of localized
channel bank and/or bed work to address erosion issues at the site. While it is
understood that local erosion protection works may require ongoing maintenance,
occasional repairs, or eventual replacement, this alternative is often still preferred
to limit the economic cost and the environmental damage of large-scale channel
engineering and stream restoration works.
•Alternative 3: Extended Works – This alternative consists of a comprehensive
approach, which is typically completed on a reach or sub-reach scale, to address
erosion issues at the site. Reach-scale engineering focuses on minimizing the risks
of erosion and flooding in highly constrained urban watercourses. This alternative
will apply a combination of “hard” channel engineering approaches for erosion
control and natural channel techniques to mimic natural channel features such as
riffles and pools to enhance the riparian environment.
High-resolution drawings of the alternatives for each interest area can be found in
Appendix H.
4.1 Description of Alternatives
4.1.1 Erosion Sites #1 - #4
Alternative 1: Do Nothing – Erosional process will continue to pose a risk to city
property, municipal and regional infrastructure, and private properties. Specifically,
ongoing risks include destabilization of the roadway embankment along the upstream side
of Kingston Road (Site #1), loss of private property along Charlotte Circle (Site #2),
outflanking of the Storrington Street outfall structure (Site #3), and further exposure of
the pedestrian bridge footings (Site #4).
Alternative 2: Local Restoration Works – This alternative will consist of localized
channel bank and minor repair works to address erosion issues at each of these four sites,
including; The use of vegetated buttresses for bank protection directly upstream of
Kingston Road (Site #1) , repairs to an outfall pipe and headwall structure combined with
installation of a buried Armourstone retaining wall bank upstream to protect private
- 599 -
94
properties on Charlotte Circle (Site #2); patchwork repairs to outfall pipe and headwall
structure combined with vegetated buttress bank treatments for the Storrington Street
outfall (Site #3); and repairs to the bridge supports combined with vegetated buttress
bank treatments to protect the pedestrian bridge (Site #4). Furthermore, with respect to
Site #1, it should be noted that the proposed culvert rehabilitation works are included in
the detailed design of the BRT project, which is currently being undertaken by the Region
of Durham. Any works completed by the City of Pickering will be limited to channel
restoration and erosion protection works on City owned lands. Lastly, implementation of
the proposed works for Site #2 may require a Permission to Enter Agreement be obtained
from the Region of Durham for the area outlined in the Proposed Alternatives Figure. This
temporary Permission to Enter agreement may be needed to allow for construction of the
buried Armourstone retaining wall behind the Charlotte Circle properties.
Alternative 3: Extended Works – Apply comprehensive reach-based natural channel
design using riffle-pool morphology, including; installation of vegetated buttresses to
mitigate channel erosion upstream of Kingston Road (Site #1), repairs to an outfall pipe
and headwall structure combined with installation of a buried Armourstone retaining wall
to provide protection for the private properties at risk behind Charlotte Circle (Site #2),
repairs to outfall pipe and headwall structure combined with vegetated buttress bank
treatments for the Storrington Street outfall (Site #3), and protection of pedestrian bridge
abutments using vegetated buttresses (Site #4). Additionally, the alternative includes the
establishment of a pocket wetland to promote floodplain connectivity and plant
biodiversity, and the staged removal of the beaver dam. Furthermore, with respect to Site
#1, it should be noted that the proposed rehabilitation works are included in the detailed
design of the BRT project, which is currently being undertaken by the Region of Durham.
Any works completed by the City of Pickering will be limited to channel restoration and
erosion protection works on City owned lands.
4.1.2 Erosion Sites #5 - #8
Alternative 1: Do Nothing – City property, municipal infrastructure, private property and
public safety will continue to be at risk from erosion and the failure of existing erosion
control structures. Ongoing risks include the outflanking of the Glennana Road culvert
headwall (Site #5), loss of parkland within David Farr Park (Sites #6, #7, #8).
Alternative 2: Local Restoration Works – This alternative will consist of localized
channel bank and minor repair works to address erosion issues at each of these four sites,
including; Regrading and restoring eroded slopes directly upstream and downstream of
Glennana Road (Site #5), and regrading and revegetation of the riparian corridor in select
areas (Sites #6, #7, #8).
Alternative 3: Extended Works – Apply comprehensive reach-based natural channel
design using riffle-pool morphology, including; restoration and regrading of slopes directly
upstream and downstream of Glennana Road (Site #5), regrading and revegetation of the
riparian corridor along study area, combined with boulder toe protection in select areas
(Sites #6, #7, #8). This design is intended to tie into the downstream extent of the
proposed extended works for Sites #9 and #10.
- 600 -
95
4.1.3 Erosion Sites #9 - #10
Alternative 1: Do Nothing – City property, private property, municipal infrastructure,
and public safety will continue to be at risk from erosion and the failure of existing erosion
control structures. Ongoing risks include erosion risks to multi-use trail infrastructure,
lighting infrastructure, and private property (Sites #9, #10). Additionally, sediment
accumulation and cracking of the headwall will continue to prevail within the Kitley Avenue
outfall structure.
Alternative 2: Local Restoration Works – This alternative will consist of the localized
application of vegetated buttresses bank protection at each site (Sites #9, #10).
Alternative 3: Extended Works – Apply comprehensive reach-based natural channel
design using riffle-pool morphology, including; regrading and revegetation of the entire
riparian corridor (Site #9), a minor channel realignment to protect multi-use trail, lighting
infrastructure and private properties (Site #10), patchwork repairs to and removal of
sediment from the Kitley Avenue outfall structure, and an engineered scour pool
downstream of the Kitley Avenue culvert.
4.1.4 Erosion Sites #11 - #12
Alternative 1: Do Nothing – City property, private property, municipal infrastructure,
and public safety will continue to be at risk from erosion and the failure of existing erosion
control structures. Ongoing risks include deterioration of the Dixie Road culvert crossing
through outflanking of the headwall apron and failing gabion baskets (Site #11), as well
as active bank erosion encroaching towards Dixie Road (Site #12). Additionally, sediment
will continue to accumulate within the two identified Dixie Road outfall structures and
corresponding outfall channels.
Alternative 2: Local Restoration Works – This alternative will consist of patchwork
repairs to the Dixie Road culvert crossing (Site #11), and the localized application of
vegetated buttresses bank protection reinforced with a buried Armourstone wall (Site
#12). Additionally, sediment will be removed from both of the Dixie Road outfall structures
and channels.
The restoration work proposed at Site #12 includes work on Private Property. Property
owners will be advised of the ongoing erosion issues and associated risks on their property.
Each individual property owner will ultimately be responsible for undertaking the necessary
measures to mitigate the identified erosion related risks on their property using the
concepts outlined in this EA or alternative methods (subject to all associated regulatory
approvals at the detailed design stage). Alternatively, the City may give future
consideration to an easement acquisition in order to complete creek restoration works on
select private properties.
Alternative 3: Extended Works – Apply comprehensive reach-based natural channel
design using riffle-pool morphology, including; repairs to the Dixie Road culvert crossing
complete with the removal of accumulated sediment and the replacement of failed gabion
baskets with vegetated buttresses (Site #11), as well as a minor channel realignment away
from Dixie Road combined with a vegetated buttresses bank protection reinforced with a
buried Armourstone wall (Site #12). Additionally, accumulated debris from failed erosion
- 601 -
96
control structures will be removed along the length of the restoration works. Furthermore,
the upstream extent of the works will tie into the existing wetland area.
The restoration work proposed at Site #12 includes work on Private Property. Property
owners will be advised of the ongoing erosion issues and associated risks on their property.
Each individual property owner will ultimately be responsible for undertaking the necessary
measures to mitigate the identified erosion related risks on their property using the
concepts outlined in this EA or alternative methods (subject to all associated regulatory
approvals at the detailed design stage). Alternatively, the City may give future
consideration to an easement acquisition in order to complete creek restoration works on
select private properties.
4.1.5 Erosion Sites #13 - #16
Alternative 1: Do Nothing - City property, municipal infrastructure, private property and
public safety will continue to be at risk from erosion and the failure of existing erosion
control structures. Ongoing risks include active toe erosion placing private properties along
Moutcastle Crescent at risk (Sites #13, #14), outfall channel erosion from the Finch Avenue
outfall (Site #15), and active erosion along the Finch Avenue roadway embankment (Site
#16).
Alternative 2: Local Restoration Works – This alternative will consist of localized
channel bank and minor repair works to address erosion issues at each of these four sites,
including; Apply vegetated buttress toe protection and regrade and re-vegetate slopes
(Sites #13, #14), repair concrete headwall and apply rip-rap lined swale for the Finch
Avenue outfall (Site #15), and potentially replace the Finch Avenue culvert and apply an
engineered sour pool downstream coupled with restoration of the Finch Avenue roadway
swale (Site #16). It should be noted that the Site #16 proposed works are to be considered
by the Region of Durham pending further review, and that any works completed by the
City of Pickering will be limited to channel restoration and erosion protection works on City
owned lands.
Alternative 3: Extended Works - Apply a comprehensive reach-based natural channel
design using riffle-pool morphology, including; Apply vegetated buttress toe protection and
regrade and re-vegetate slopes (Sites #13, #14), repair concrete headwall and apply rip-
rap lined swale with an engineered scour pool for the Finch Avenue outfall (Site #15), and
potentially replace the Finch Avenue culvert and apply an engineered sour pool
downstream coupled with restoration of the Finch Avenue roadway swale (Site #16).
Additionally, the proposed works will transition into the confluence with the east branch of
Pine Creek at the downstream extent. Accumulated channel debris will also be removed
from the corridor along the length of the proposed restoration works. It should be noted
that the Site #16 proposed works are to be considered by the Region of Durham pending
further review, and that any works completed by the City of Pickering will be limited to
channel restoration and erosion protection works on City owned lands.
4.1.6 Erosion Sites #17 - #21
Alternative 1: Do Nothing - City property, municipal infrastructure, private property and
public safety will continue to be at risk from erosion and the failure of existing erosion
control structures. Ongoing risks include active bank erosion towards private properties on
Grafton Court (Site #17), undercutting of the toe of bank adjacent to Finch Avenue (Site
- 602 -
97
#18), active bank erosion towards private properties on Duncannon Drive (Site #20), and
deterioration of the Fairport Road outfall structure (Site #21).
Alternative 2: Local Restoration Works - This alternative will consist of localized
channel bank and minor repair works to address erosion issues at each of these four sites,
including; minor channel realignment and vegetated buttress bank protection (Site #17),
vegetated buttress toe protection in addition to regrading and re-vegetation of adjacent
slopes (Sites #18, #20), and patchwork repairs to an at-risk headwall structure combined
with vegetated buttress bank protection (Site #21). Additionally, CCTV inspection of the
CSP pipe crossing under Fairport Road is recommended as part of the Site #21 works to
determine if a full replacement or CIPP lining of the pipe is required. Furthermore, it should
be noted that implementation of the proposed solution for Site #17 may require a potential
Permission to Enter Agreement from the Region of Durham to facilitate construction access
and staging.
Alternative 3: Extended Works - Apply comprehensive reach-based natural channel
design using riffle-pool morphology, including; An engineered scour pool with vegetated
buttresses combined with minor channel realignment (Site #17), vegetated buttress toe
protection in addition to regrading and re-vegetation of adjacent slopes (Sites #18, #20),
patchwork repairs to an at-risk headwall structure combined with vegetated buttress bank
protection (Site #21). Additionally, CCTV inspection of the CSP pipe crossing under Fairport
Road is recommended as part of the Site #21 works to determine if a full replacement is
required. Furthermore, it should be noted that implementation of the proposed solution for
Site #17 may require a potential Permission to Enter Agreement from the Region of
Durham to facilitate construction access and staging.
4.1.7 Erosion Site #22
Alternative 1: Do Nothing - City property, municipal infrastructure, and public safety
will continue to be at risk from erosion and failed erosion protection measures. Ongoing
risks include undermining of the pipe arch culvert at Lynn Heights Drive and washed out
erosion protection measures directly downstream.
Alternative 2: Local Restoration Works - This alternative will consist of a scour pool on
either side of the Lynn Heights Drive culvert. In addition, the downstream channel debris
will be removed, and a culvert replacement or relining will be considered pending the
results of the structural assessment at the detailed design stage. A potential Permission to
Enter Agreement may be required on private property as part of these works.
Alternative 3: Extended Works - Apply comprehensive reach-based natural channel
design using riffle-pool morphology downstream of the Lynn Heights Drive culvert,
transitioning into the existing channel conditions. In addition to the extended channel
rehabilitation works, a scour pool will be constructed on either side of the Lynn Heights
Drive culvert. Furthermore, the downstream channel debris will be removed, and a culvert
replacement or relining will be considered pending the results of a structural assessment
at the detailed design stage. Lastly, a potential Permission to Enter Agreement may be
required on private property as part of these works.
- 603 -
98
4.1.8 Erosion Sites #23 - #24
Alternative 1: Do Nothing - City property, municipal infrastructure, private property,
and public safety will continue to be at risk from erosion and failed erosion protection
measures. Ongoing risks include slope stability concerns to private properties on
Duncannon Drive (Sites #23, #24).
Alternative 2: Local Restoration Works - This alternative will consist of vegetated
buttress toe protection combined with regrading and re-vegetation of eroded slopes (Sites
#23, #24).
The restoration work proposed at Site #23 includes work on Private Property. Property
owners will be advised of the ongoing erosion issues and associated risks on their property.
Each individual property owner will ultimately be responsible for undertaking the necessary
measures to mitigate the identified erosion related risks on their property using the
concepts outlined in this EA or alternative methods (subject to all associated regulatory
approvals at the detailed design stage). Alternatively, the City may give future
consideration to an easement acquisition in order to complete creek restoration works on
select private properties.
Alternative 3: Extended Works - Apply comprehensive reach-based natural channel
design using riffle-pool morphology, including vegetated buttress toe protection and re-
vegetation of eroded slopes (Sites #23, #24), removal of accumulated channel debris, and
the rehabilitation of an outfall structure. The proposed works will tie into existing conditions
upstream and downstream of the study area.
The restoration work proposed at Site #23 includes work on Private Property. Property
owners will be advised of the ongoing erosion issues and associated risks on their property.
Each individual property owner will ultimately be responsible for undertaking the necessary
measures to mitigate the identified erosion related risks on their property using the
concepts outlined in this EA or alternative methods (subject to all associated regulatory
approvals at the detailed design stage). Alternatively, the City may give future
consideration to an easement acquisition in order to complete creek restoration works on
select private properties.
4.1.9 Erosion Site #25
Alternative 1: Do Nothing - City property, municipal infrastructure, private property,
and public safety will continue to be at risk from erosion and failed erosion protection
measures. Ongoing risks include debris accumulation and erosion within the Kitley Ravine
corridor which is creating flooding and erosion risks to the surrounding private properties
on Ridgewood Court.
Alternative 2: Targeted Corridor Rehabilitation - This alternative will consist of
recentering the drainage swale within the city owned parcel to reduce erosion and flooding
risks to private properties. Efforts will be made to reduce the amount of tree removals and
overall disturbances to the surrounding properties. Works will be scoped to targeted areas
of the channel to achieve the desired alignment. Erosion control will be provided through
the use of plantings and bioengineering measures. Work will be done with small equipment
to reduce the disturbance area and minimize vegetation removals. Material from required
vegetation removals will be reused on-site to provide erosion control where feasible.
- 604 -
99
Alternative 3: Full Corridor Rehabilitation – This alternative will consist of recentering
the drainage swale within the city owned parcel to reduce erosion and flooding risks to
private properties. These works would include the use of angular stone to line the channel,
and would include significant tree removals. The intent of this solution is to establish a
fixed drainage channel lined with angular stone material to prevent channel migration.
4.2 Evaluation Criteria
As a part of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process, each alternative must
be evaluated based on a set of physical, natural, social, cultural, and economic
environmental criteria, as well as technical and engineering considerations. These set of
criteria were developed by Aquafor and reviewed by the City of Pickering. The list of criteria
and the associated description of the scoring rationale is presented in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1. Alternative Evaluation Criteria
Criteria
Category Criteria Description
Mitigation of
Existing Erosion
Risks
Alternatives are evaluated on their ability to mitigate
erosion. Alternatives with the greatest erosion
mitigation potential score highest.
Aquatic Habitat
Alternatives are evaluated on their impact on fish
passage and the overall quantity/quality of Aquatic
habitat. Alternatives that improve aquatic habitat
conditions score highest.
Terrestrial Habitat
Alternatives are evaluated on their impact on
connectivity, diversity and quantity/quality of
terrestrial habitat. Alternatives that offer the greatest
long-term benefit to terrestrial habitat conditions score
highest.
Physical/
Natural
Environment
Terrestrial
Vegetation
Alternatives are evaluated on their impact on existing
woodlots; removals & restoration scheme. Typically,
alternatives will a smaller disturbance area are
preferred as they minimize vegetation removals.
Impacts to
Species at Risk
Alternatives are evaluated on their impact on
terrestrial and aquatic habitat for Species at Risk,
potentially affected temporarily or permanently.
Alternatives that minimize disturbances to Species at
Risk are favoured.
Climate Change
Alternatives are evaluated on their ability to adapt to,
and be resilient to, climate change. More resilient
alternatives score higher.
Public Safety
Alternatives are evaluated on their impact on public
safety. Alternatives that best mitigate risks to public
safety in the short and long-term score highest.
Social/
Cultural
Environment
Landowner
Impacts /
Community
Disruption
Alternatives are evaluated on their impact on private
property, this includes giving consideration to both
short-term disturbances (i.e., construction) as well as
long-term benefits (i.e., erosion protection).
- 605 -
100
Criteria
Category Criteria Description
Benefit to
Community and
Public Acceptance
Alternatives that improve access to trails, enjoyment
of surrounding lands are preferred.
Archaeological
Impacts
Less disturbance of areas with archaeological potential
and cultural heritage resources scores higher
Aesthetic Value
Alternatives are evaluated on their impact on existing
and proposed aesthetic value. Alternatives that help
increase the aesthetic value of the study area are
favoured.
Capital Costs One time cost to City. Alternatives with a lower capital
cost are favoured.
Operations &
Maintenance Costs
Requirement for regular, irregular or no maintenance
activities and ensure effectiveness of implemented
measures. Alternatives with lower Operation and
Maintenance costs score highest.
Economic
Environment Life Cycle Costs Lower life cycle costs relative to the other alternatives
scores higher
Cost Effectiveness
Ability to provide multiple improvements, at a cost less
then the total of completing all the works separately.
Accounts for the ability of the City to partner and share
costs with other agencies (i.e., Region of Durham,
TRCA, etc.)
Regulatory Agency
Acceptance
Alternatives are evaluated on their ability to satisfy
City, TRCA, DFO and MNR mandates. Alternatives that
are more likely to achieve regulatory agency
acceptance score highest.
Impact on Existing
Infrastructure
Alternatives are evaluated on how they provide
protection for the potential exposure of infrastructure
(buildings, bridges, properties, sewers). Alternatives
that provide a higher level of protection are preferred.
Technical/
Engineering
Consideration
Flooding Impacts Greater reduction of flooding risks to public and/or
private lands for longer time score higher
Technical
Feasibility
Alternatives are evaluated regarding their associated
complexity of implementing the Project, including
constructability and need to manage construction
related disturbances to other infrastructure / property.
Alternatives that are more technically feasible score
highest.
Lifespan of Works
Expected lifespan / years of works before intervention
needs to be repeated. Alternatives with a longer
lifespan are preferred.
A weighting factor was assigned to each category, which ensured that each category was
valued appropriately, regardless of the number of sub-criteria presented within the larger
category. The maximum points for each category are shown in Table 4-2.
- 606 -
101
Table 4-2: Criteria Weighting Factors
Category Maximum Points
for Category
Physical and Natural Environment Criteria 25
Social/Cultural Environment 25
Economic Environment 25
Technical/Engineering Considerations 25
TOTAL 100
For all the criteria, a score was applied ranging from 0 to 5 (Table 4-3), where:
• 0 = Unfavourable, no improvement or negative impact
• 3 = Acceptable
• 5 = Favourable, most improvement or most positive impact
Table 4-3: Ranking Scheme for Criteria Evaluation of Each Alternative
Ranking Scale
No /
Negative Impact 0 1 2 3 4 5
Ideal /
Most Positive
Impact
4.3 Evaluation of Alternatives
For each alternative and each grouping of erosions sites, the criteria were evaluated, where
higher scores relate to varying degrees of positive effect that an alternative, for the defined
criterion, would have on the outcome. The sum of the criterion scores was determined for
each alternative and the alternative with the highest score was deemed to be preferred.
A summary of scores for each grouping of erosion sites is presented in Table 4-4. A
detailed evaluation matrix for each grouping of Erosion Sites can be found in Appendix I.
Table 4-4. Evaluation Scoring Summary
Erosion Site(s) Alternative 1 –
Do Nothing
Alternative 2 –
Local
Restoration
Works
Alternative 3 –
Extended Works
Erosion Sites #1 - #4 54 83 76
Erosion Sites #5 - #8 55 82 77
Erosion Sites #9 - #10 49 70 84
Erosion Site #11 54 80 75
Erosion Site #12 54 80 75
Erosion Sites #13 - #16 48 63 83
Erosion Sites #17 - #18 48 78 75
Erosion Sites #20 - #21 48 78 74
Erosion Site #22 48 83 73
Erosion Sites #23 - #24 48 68 83
Erosion Site #25 56 81 (Targeted
Corridor Rehab)
74 (Full Corridor
Rehab)
- 607 -
102
4.4 Selection and Description of the Preferred Alternative
The preferred alternatives were selected based on the evaluation criteria, and were then
further refined and confirmed through consultation with the City and the public. The
preferred alternatives are as follows:
Erosion Sites #1 - #4: Alternative 2 – Local Restoration Works
For Site #1, use vegetated buttresses to restore and revegetate channel banks directly
upstream of Kingston Road. Works within the Kingston Road corridor, such as any
Kingston Road culvert repairs, corrugated steel pipe outfall removal, and gabion basket
replacement are to be completed by Region of Durham through a separate project. These
Site #1 works, in combination with Region of Durham works, will provide protection and
stability to the adjacent roadway embankment and upstream channel. The erosion
control works proposed within the Kingston Road corridor may differ from the works
shown within the preferred alternative, depending on the results of the Region of
Durham’s detailed design work for the planned Kingston Road improvements.
With regard to Site #2, repair the Charlotte Circle outfall pipe and headwall structure,
and construct an armourstone retaining wall buried behind a vegetated buttresses to
provide bank protection directly upstream of the outfall. This solution will improve the
lifespan of the Charlotte Circle outfall, as well as protect numerous private properties on
Charlotte Circle.
For Site #3 works, repair the Storrington Street outfall pipe and headwall structure and
provide vegetated buttress bank treatments directly upstream and downstream of the
outfall. This solution will improve the lifespan of the Storrington Street outfall, in addition
to providing erosion protection to the upstream pedestrian bridge.
Lastly, for Site #4, minor repairs to the pedestrian bridge supports and protect
abutments with vegetated buttress bank treatments. These proposed works will extend
the lifespan of the pedestrian bridge and ensure the safety of its users.
Access and Staging: The pedestrian walkways from Bronte Square or Storrington
Street are the most likely points of access to all four sites. Staging is readily available
within the City owned parklands adjacent to the Pine Creek Corridor. Smaller equipment
will need to be used to allow for access through the walkways and care should be taken
to protect the walkway and sidewalks from damage during construction.
There is also Region of Durham sanitary sewer & storm sewer infrastructure that runs
through this part of the Pine Creek Corridor. Should work be required in close proximity
to regional sewer infrastructure, appropriate protection measures (i.e., steel plates) must
be put in place to protect the sewer infrastructure. At the detailed design stage an SUE
investigation should be completed to confirm the location all buried infrastructure onsite.
Any proposed protection measures will need to be approved by the Region of Durham, or
the corresponding utility authority, prior to implementation onsite.
Figure 4-1 illustrates the preferred alternative for Erosion Sites #1 - #4.
- 608 -
103
Figure 4-1: Conceptual Drawing of Preferred Alternative for Erosion Sites #1 - #4 - Local Works
- 609 -
104
Erosion Sites #5 - #8: Alternative 2 – Local Restoration Works
For Site #5, apply engineered scour pools directly upstream and downstream of Glenanna
Road to provide scour protection. A hydraulic analysis will be required to ensure
appropriate stone sizing is achieved. Along the edge of both scour pools, vegetated
buttresses are proposed to provide bank protection. These proposed works will help
provide long-term protection and stability to Glenanna road.
With regard to Sites #6, #7, and #8, regrade the channel banks and revegetate the
riparian corridor. Boulder toe protection at select areas is also proposed to mitigate bank
erosion processes. For Site #8 the failed rip-rap swale should be re-establish and
integrated into the proposed vegetated bank restoration works to provide long-term
stability. The implementation of these works will help prevent loss of parklands within
David Farr Park. The City should also give consideration to the removal of accumulated
channel debris and changing their park mowing strategy to prevent over encroachment
into the riparian corridor.
Access and Staging: Site #5 can be accessed directly from Glenanna Road, whereas
Sites #6, #7, and #8 can be accessed via David Farr Park. Care should be taken to limit
impact to Park infrastructure and operations, with appropriate safety barricades and
fencing put in place to protect the public from construction operations.
Figure 4-2 illustrates the preferred alternative for Erosion Sites #5 - #8.
- 610 -
105
Figure 4-2: Conceptual Drawing of Preferred Alternative for Erosion Sites #5 - #8 - Local Works
- 611 -
106
Erosion Sites #9 - #10: Alternative 3 – Extended Works
The proposed extended works solution consists of a comprehensive reach-based natural
channel design using riffle-pool morphology extending from the Kitley Avenue culvert to
approximately 150 m downstream. The channel will be realigned to increase the erosion
buffer between the edge of the channel and the existing multi-use trail that runs parallel
to private properties on Pinecreek Court. Vegetated buttresses will be installed along the
western channel bank to provide enhanced erosion control and to prevent the channel from
migrating back towards the at-risk multi-use trail.
An engineered scour pool will also be constructed downstream of Kitley Avenue to provide
energy dissipation, while sediment and debris is removed from the Kitley Avenue Culvert
and Storm Sewer Outfall to improve flow conveyance.
Access and Staging: The recommended access for this project is via the asphalt
pedestrian trail connecting to Kitley Avenue where it intersects Pinecreek Court. A
temporary trail closure at this location will likely be required to facilitate construction.
Staging is available either on the Kitley Avenue right-of-way or within David Farr Park.
Figure 4-3 illustrates the preferred alternative for Erosion Sites #9 - #10.
- 612 -
107
Figure 4-3. Conceptual Drawing of Preferred Alternative for Erosion Sites #9 - #10 - Extended Works
- 613 -
108
Erosion Site #11: Alternative 2 – Local Restoration Works
This local works solution will consist of patchwork repairs to the downstream side of the
Dixie Road culvert crossing. Failed gabion baskets lining the banks downstream of the Dixie
Road culvert will also be removed and replaced with vegetated buttresses. Additionally,
sediment will be removed from both of the Dixie Road outfall structures and channels to
improve flow conveyance.
Access and Staging: Site #11 can be accessed directly from Dixie Road, with staging
available on the Dixie Road Right-of-Way.
Figure 4-4 illustrates the preferred alternative for Erosion Site #11.
Erosion Site #12: Alternative 2 – Local Restoration Works
These proposed works consist of constructing a vegetated buttress, combined with a buried
armourstone wall, designed to protect Dixie Road. The implementation of these proposed
works may require a Permission to Enter Agreement with the commercial shopping plaza
at 1900 Dixie Road for temporary access to City’s infrastructure. Additionally, the large
debris jam and other accumulated channel debris at this erosion site will be removed as
part of the planned site restoration works.
The restoration work proposed at Site #12 includes work on Private Property. Property
owners will be advised of the ongoing erosion issues and associated risks on their property.
Each individual property owner will ultimately be responsible for undertaking the necessary
measures to mitigate the identified erosion related risks on their property using the
concepts outlined in this EA or alternative methods (subject to all associated regulatory
approvals at the detailed design stage). Alternatively, the City may give future
consideration to an easement acquisition in order to complete creek restoration works on
select private properties.
It should be noted that this site is located in close proximity to a potential TRCA mapped
wetland feature. At the detailed design stage, a site meeting should be held with TRCA to
stake out the boundaries of the wetland feature west of Dixie Road. The staked out wetland
boundary will then act as a constraint to guide the detailed design of the proposed local
restoration works solution.
Access and Staging: Site #12 can be accessed directly from Dixie Road through City
owned lands. The results of the tree inventory for this site should be referenced to
develop an access and staging plan that limits the removal of mature trees and the
overall area of environmental disturbance.
Figure 4-4 illustrates the preferred alternative for Erosion Site #12.
- 614 -
109
Figure 4-4: Conceptual Drawing of Preferred Alternative for Erosion Sites #11 - #12 - Local Works
- 615 -
110
Erosion Sites #13 - #16: Alternative 3 – Extended Works
This proposed solution consists of a comprehensive reach-based natural channel design
using riffle-pool morphology. The proposed channel works will extend from the northern
boundary of the city owned property parcel south of Finch Avenue, downstream
approximately 200 m to the confluence between the east and west branches of Pine Creek.
Additional site specific restoration will be undertaken along the length of the proposed
channel rehabilitation works to provide enhanced erosion control at select priority sites.
For sites #13 and #14, vegetated buttresses integrated into the regraded and revegetated
slopes will provide toe of slope protection for private properties on Mountcastle Cresent.
For Site #15, the Finch Avenue concrete headwall will be repaired, and the outfall channel
will be rehabilitated through the placement of angular stone substrate.
With regard to Site #16, the proposed works will potentially involve the replacement of
the degraded Finch Avenue CSP culvert, restoration of the Finch Avenue Swale and
installation of an engineered sour pool to provide erosion mitigation where flows from the
culvert and swale discharge to Pine Creek. These Site #16 works are to be considered by
the Region of Durham pending further review. Restoration of the CSP culvert and
roadside ditch outlet channel, while recommended, is outside the purview of the City of
Pickering. Any channel restoration works completed by the City will be limited to City
owned property.
Access and Staging: The proposed project site can be accessed from Finch Avenue.
Access towards the downstream extent of the proposed restoration area is likely
preferred given the topography of the area and the grade constraints associated with
accessing the site near the Finch Avenue Culvert. The results of the tree inventory for
this site should be referenced to develop an access and staging plan that limits the
removal of mature trees and the overall area of environmental disturbance.
There is also Region of Durham sanitary sewer and storm sewer infrastructure that runs
through this part of the Pine Creek Corridor. Should work be required in close proximity
to regional sewer infrastructure, appropriate protection measures (i.e., steel plates) must
be put in place to protect the sewer infrastructure. At the detailed design stage an SUE
investigation should be completed to confirm the location all buried infrastructure onsite.
Any proposed protection measures will need to be approved by the Region of Durham, or
the corresponding utility authority, prior to implementation onsite.
Figure 4-5 illustrates the preferred alternative for Erosion Sites #13 - #16.
- 616 -
111
Figure 4-5: Conceptual Drawing of Preferred Alternative for Erosion Sites #13 - #16 - Extended Works
- 617 -
112
Erosion Sites #17 - #18: Alternative 2 – Local Restoration Works
For Site #17, the proposed solution consists of a minor channel realignment and vegetated
buttress bank protection to ensure the protection of private properties on Grafton Court.
This work may require a Permission to Enter Agreement from the Region of Durham for
the construction of the downstream most portion of the proposed restoration works. Any
channel restoration works completed by the City will be limited to City owned property.
With regard to Site #18, vegetated buttress toe of slope protection is recommended to
ensure the stability of the Finch Avenue Roadway embankment. Both of these proposed
works involve the removal of debris and accumulated organic material from the channel
area, to promote flow conveyance.
Access and Staging: Sites #17 and #18 can be accessed directly from Finch Avenue.
The results of the tree inventory for this site should be referenced to develop an access
and staging plan that limits the removal of mature trees and the overall area of
environmental disturbance.
Figure 4-6 illustrates the preferred alternative for Erosion Sites #17 - #18.
Erosion Sites #20 - #21: Alternative 2 – Local Restoration Works
For Site #20, the proposed solution consists of vegetated buttress toe protection to provide
slope stability for private properties on Duncannon Drive. Furthermore, this solution
involves the removal of debris and accumulated organic material from the channel area,
to promote flow conveyance.
With regard to Site #21, patchwork repairs to the Fairport Road headwall structure are
recommended, to be combined with vegetated buttress bank protection and an engineered
scour pool downstream of the outfall. At the detailed design stage, a CCTV inspection of
the Fairport Road CSP outfall pipe is recommended to determine if pipe rehabilitation works
are needed either in the form of CIPP lining or full pipe replacement.
Access and Staging: Site #20 can be accessed directly from Fairport Road. Access to
Site #21 will be more challenging, requiring access along a steep valley corridor with a
potential channel crossing. The initial point of access for Site #20 is likely either from the
Fairport Road Right of Way or through the Erskine Church and Cemetery at which point a
permission to enter agreement would be required. Lastly, the results of the tree inventory
for these sites should be referenced to develop an access and staging plan that limits the
removal of mature trees and the overall area of environmental disturbance.
Figure 4-6 illustrates the preferred alternative for Erosion Sites #20 - #21.
- 618 -
113
Figure 4-6: Conceptual Drawing of Preferred Alternative for Erosion Sites #17 - #18, #20 - #21 – Local Works
- 619 -
114
Erosion Site #22: Alternative 2 – Local Restoration Works
At the detailed design stage, a comprehensive structural assessment of the Lynn Heights
Drive culvert should be completed to determine if a full culvert replacement is required or
if the culvert can be rehabilitated through CIPP lining or alternative means. Should a culvert
replacement be required an SUE Level A investigation will be needed to identify potential
utility conflicts. A detailed hydraulic analysis is also recommended to determine if the
culvert needs to be upsized to meet current design standards for flow conveyance. A
geotechnical investigation will also need to be completed to provide foundation
recommendations for any proposed replacement structure. It is suggested that any
potential culvert replacement look to improve fish and wildlife passage potential through
the integration of nature substrate along the interior culvert bed.
The proposed local works solution also includes the construction of an engineered scour
pool of either side of the Lynn Heights Drive culvert for erosion mitigation and removal of
channel debris. While it may be possible to limit the extent of the proposed work area to
the Municipally owned Right-of-way, if it is determined at the detailed design stage that
extending the upstream and downstream channel works is required to achieve a
geomorphically stable solution, then a Permission to Enter Agreement may need to be
obtained from the upstream and downstream private property owners.
Access and Staging: Site #22 can be accessed directly from Lynn Heights Drive, with
potential for staging within the Lynn Heights Drive Right of Way. Should a full culvert
replacement be required, consideration should be given to constructing the culvert in two
phases to avoid a full road closure and allow for half of the road to remain open to local
traffic at a time.
Figure 4-7 illustrates the preferred alternative for Erosion Site #22.
- 620 -
115
Figure 4-7: Conceptual Drawing of Preferred Alternative for Erosion Site #22 – Local Works
- 621 -
116
Erosion Site #23 - #24: Alternative 2 – Extended Restoration Works
This proposed solution applies a comprehensive reach-based natural channel design using
riffle-pool morphology, including vegetated buttress toe protection and re-vegetation of
eroded slopes at key risk areas (i.e., Erosion Sites #23 and #24). The total length of the
proposed channel restoration works is approximately 550 m. The primary focus of this
work is to protect private properties on Duncannon Drive and to a lesser extent properties
on Alanbury Crescent and Lynn Heights Drive. Accumulated channel debris will be removed
at numerous locations throughout the study area, to improve flow conveyance and mitigate
lateral bank erosion. Where feasible the channel should be realigned towards the center of
the municipally owned parcel to increase the erosion buffer between the channel and at-
risk private properties.
Where sufficient offsets from private properties exist, natural channel design principles can
be applied to allow for future controlled rates of erosion and migration that mimic natural
channel processes. In areas where the channel is more heavily constrained and risks to
private property and infrastructure are greater, additional bioengineering or hardened
erosion control approaches should be applied to establish a more fixed channel corridor.
As part of the proposed restoration works a storm sewer outfall off of Alanbury Crescent
will be restored along with it’s associated outfall channel.
The restoration work proposed at Site #23 includes work on Private Property. Property
owners will be advised of the ongoing erosion issues and associated risks on their property.
Each individual property owner will ultimately be responsible for undertaking the necessary
measures to mitigate the identified erosion related risks on their property using the
concepts outlined in this EA or alternative methods (subject to all associated regulatory
approvals at the detailed design stage). Alternatively, the City may give future
consideration to an easement acquisition in order to complete creek restoration works on
select private properties.
Access and Staging: Sites #23 and #24 can be accessed from Lynn Heights Drive
through Lynn Heights Park. Care should be taken to limit impact to Park infrastructure and
operations, with appropriate safety barricades and fencing put in place to protect the public
from construction operations. Lastly, the results of the tree inventory for these sites should
be referenced to develop an access and staging plan that limits the removal of mature
trees and the overall area of environmental disturbance.
Figure 4-8 illustrates the preferred alternative for Erosion Sites #23 - #24.
- 622 -
117
Figure 4-8: Conceptual Drawing of Preferred Alternative for Erosion Sites #23 - #24 – Extended Works
- 623 -
118
Erosion Site #25: Alternative 2 – Targeted Corridor Rehabilitation
The proposed solution consists of recentering the drainage swale within the city owned
parcel to reduce erosion and flooding risks to private properties. Taking into account
feedback received from the public through the public information centre event, efforts will
be made to reduce the amount of tree removals and overall disturbances to the natural
environment.
Targeted areas of the channel with be realigned and regraded to achieve the desired
alignment. A combination of plantings and bioengineering measures will be applied to
provide erosion control, with the intent of maintaining and enhancing the natural aesthetic
of the area. Work will be done with small equipment to reduce the disturbance area and
minimize vegetation removals. Where feasible, material from required vegetation removals
will be reused on-site to provide erosion control.
Access and Staging: Site #25 can be accessed from Kitley Avenue using the informal
trail that runs through the Kitley Ravine. The park / open space area at the southern extent
of the ravine can be used for staging.
Figure 4-9 illustrates the preferred alternative for Erosion Site #25.
- 624 -
119
Figure 4-9: Conceptual Drawing of Preferred Alternative for Erosion Site #25 – Targeted Corridor Restoration
- 625 -
120
5 PRIORITIZATION AND PROJECT PHASING
Taking into account the dominant erosion processes and geomorphic trends observed
within the Pine Creek sub watershed, and the relative levels of risk to infrastructure and
private property, the preferred restoration alternatives presented above have been
bundled and prioritized into a series of proposed capital works projects.
Table 5-1 below, summarizes the key information associated with each project including
the project name, erosion site number(s), a risk summary and risk rating on a scale of 1-
5, reach ID, preferred alternative, property ownership impacts, cost estimates for
engineering design and construction, and a recommended time horizon for
implementation. While the project costs estimates and recommended time horizons are
provided to assist the City with project prioritization, final decisions on the actual order
and implementation of projects should give due consideration to overall City priorities,
budgets and stakeholder interests.
For tentative planning and budgeting purposes only, a feasible implementation plan for the
recommended erosion mitigation projects is organized into 0-5 years, 5-10 years and 10-
15 years planning horizons.
The cost estimates provided below are preliminary and include a 20% contingency
(rounded to the nearest $1,000). All cost estimates are exclusive of HST and do not account
for any potential land or easement acquisition costs that may be required in some
instances.
- 626 -
121
Table 5-1: Proposed Prioritization and Phasing of Pine Creek Erosion Restoration Projects
Project
Number Project Name Priority Sites - Risk
Description
Risk
Rating
(1-5)
Reach
ID
Preferred
Alternative Property Ownership
Construction
Cost Estimate
($), including
20%
Contingency
Consulting
Cost Estimate
($), including
20%
Contingency
Planning
Horizon Comments
1 Culvert Replacement at
Lynn Heights Drive
Site #22 - Erosion Risk
to Culvert and Lynn
Heights Drive
5 PC4-b Local Works City and Private $2,088,000.00 $417,600.00 0 - 5 Years
Cost Estimate assumes a full
like for like culvert
replacement and that no
utility relocations will be
required, only stabilization
during construction
2 Restoration of Kitley
Ravine
Site #25 - Erosion Risk
to Private Properties 5 PC3-d Extended
Works City $1,620,000.00 $324,000.00 0 - 5 Years Area of Significant Public
Concern
3
Restoration of Pine Creek
Downstream of Finch
Avenue
Site #13 - Erosion Risk
to Private Property
Site #14 - Erosion Risk
to Private Property
Site #15 - Erosion Risk
to Storm Sewer Outfall
Site #16 - Erosion Risk
to Private Property and
Finch Avenue
5 PC4-a Extended
Works City $1,080,000.00 $216,000.00 0 - 5 Years
Cost Estimate is inclusive of
City Works only and does not
account for possible future
works by the Region of
Durham to protect their
infrastructure in this area.
4
Restoration of Pine Creek
Downstream of Kitley
Avenue
Site #9 - Erosion Risk to
Multi-Use Trail and
Private Property
Site #10 - Erosion Risk
to Multi-Use Trail and
Private Property
5 PC3-b Extended
Works City $840,000.00 $168,000.00 0 - 5 Years
Area of Significant Public
Concern
Interim monitoring at this
site is recommended to
document the rate of erosion.
Should the bank erode faster
than expected increasing the
prioritization of this site is
recommended.
5 Restoration of Pine Creek
Upstream of Dixie Road
Site #12 - Erosion Risk
to Dixie Road 5 PC3-c Local Works City and Private (1900 Dixie
Road) $504,000.00 $100,800.00 0 - 5 Years
Interim monitoring at this
site is recommended to
document the rate of erosion.
Should the bank erode faster
than expected increasing the
prioritization of this site is
recommended.
- 627 -
122
Project
Number Project Name Priority Sites - Risk
Description
Risk
Rating
(1-5)
Reach
ID
Preferred
Alternative Property Ownership
Construction
Cost Estimate
($), including
20%
Contingency
Consulting
Cost Estimate
($), including
20%
Contingency
Planning
Horizon Comments
6
Restoration of Pine Creek
Upstream of Finch
Avenue - East Branch
Site #23 - Erosion Risk
to Private Property
Site #24 - Erosion Risk
to Private Property
4 PC4-b Extended
Works City and Private $1,800,000.00 $360,000.00 5 - 10 Years
Intended to provide long-
term protection to private
properties on Duncannon
Drive and Alanbury Crescent.
May be opportunities to
explore enhancements to
Lynn Heights Park and the
Communities Integration with
the Creek System.
Comprehensive corridor
maintenance, with local
realignment and erosion
mitigation at slope contacts.
7
Restoration of Pine Creek
Upstream of Finch
Avenue - West Branch
Site #17 - Erosion Risk
to Private Property
Site #18 - Risk to Finch
Avenue
4 PC4-a Local Works City $768,000.00 $153,600.00 5 - 10 Years
Cost Estimate is inclusive of
City Works only and does not
account for possible future
works by the Region of
Durham to protect their
infrastructure in this area.
8
Restoration of Pine Creek
Downstream of Fairport
Road
Site #20 - Erosion Risk
to Private Property
Site #21 - Erosion Risk
to Storm Sewer Outfall
4 PC4-a Local Works City $864,000.00 $172,800.00 5 - 10 Years
If the budget allows it, could
be bundled with Project #7
as one larger capital works
project.
The cost estimate does not
include for lining or
replacement of the CSP
culvert beneath Fairport
Road.
9
Localized Restoration of
Pine Creek Upstream of
Kingston Road
Site #1 - Erosion Risk to
Kingston Road and
Storm Sewer
Infrastructure
Site #2 - Erosion Risk to
Private Property
Site #3 - Erosion Risk to
Storm Sewer
Infrastructure
Site #4 - Erosion Risk to
Pedestrian Bridge
4 PC3-a Local Works City $732,000.00 $146,400.00 5 - 10 Years
Cost Estimate is inclusive of
City Works only and does not
account for possible future
works by the Region of
Durham to protect their
infrastructure in this area.
- 628 -
123
Project
Number Project Name Priority Sites - Risk
Description
Risk
Rating
(1-5)
Reach
ID
Preferred
Alternative Property Ownership
Construction
Cost Estimate
($), including
20%
Contingency
Consulting
Cost Estimate
($), including
20%
Contingency
Planning
Horizon Comments
10
Erosion Control Works
Downstream of Dixie
Road to Protect at Risk
Culvert Crossing
Site #11 - Erosion Risk
to Culvert 4 PC3-c Local Works City $288,000.00 $57,600.00 5 - 10 Years
If the budget allows it, could
be bundled with any of
Projects #1, #3 or #4 as one
larger capital works project
11
Localized Restoration of
Pine Creek Upstream of
Glenanna Road
Site #5 - Erosion Risk to
Glenanna Culvert
Crossing
Site #6 - Erosion Risk to
Parkland
Site #7 - Erosion Risk to
Parkland
Site #8 - Erosion Risk to
Parkland
2 PC3-b Local Works City $432,000.00 $86,400.00 10 - 15 Years
To be completed in
conjunction with a change to
Park Operations to limit
excess mowing of riparian
vegetation in David Farr Park
- 629 -
124
6 PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Consultation is an essential requirement of the Municipal Class EA process. Consultation is
the process of identifying interested and potentially affected parties and informing them
about the project, soliciting knowledge of the local environment, and receiving input about
key project decisions before those decisions are finalized. Consultation and outreach
activities have included providing project information to, and requesting
comments/feedback from members of the public, public agencies and other stakeholders.
Public engagement activities completed in support of the EA include the following:
• Notice of Commencement
• Online Engagement
• Public Information Centre
• Public and Stakeholder Correspondence
• Notice of Completion
A comprehensive communications log summarizing the public consultation process is
provided at the end of this section in Table 6-2. Detailed descriptions of the key public
consultation activities and milestones are provided below.
6.1 Notice of Commencement
A Notice of Commencement was prepared and distributed to residents and stakeholders
on July 28th, 2022 by the consulting team and the City of Pickering. A copy of the Notice
of Commencement is included in Appendix J. The purpose of the Notice of
Commencement was to inform the public and stakeholders about the Pine Creek Erosion
Assessment being undertaken to address erosion risks to infrastructure and public property
within the Pine Creek corridor between Kingston Road and Fairport Road. Interested parties
were given the opportunity to learn more about the study and engage directly with the
City of Pickering and Aquafor Beech Limited through the contact information provided in
the notice.
6.2 Online Engagement
A project webpage was hosted on the City of Pickering’s website. Information related to
the Class EA study was posted on this webpage, including a study overview, an overview
of the Class EA process, study notices, Public Information Centre Materials, and contact
information for questions or comments.
The link to the project webpage is provided below:
https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/pine-creek-erosion-assessment-mcea-study.aspx
6.3 Online Engagement
A Stakeholder List was developed at the commencement of the Class EA Study, and
updated throughout the study based on requests received. The list included Indigenous
Communities identified by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
(MECP), provincial government ministries, the Region of Durham, City of Pickering, Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority, landowners adjacent to the study area, interest
groups, and residents. A summary of the Stakeholder List is provided in Table 6-1. - 630 -
125
Residents added to the list included those living adjacent to the study area and additional
residents who requested to be included on the list. Resident names have not been included
in this Project File report for privacy reasons.
Table 6-1: Stakeholder List Summary
Stakeholder Group Name
Indigenous Communities Curve Lake First Nation
Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation
Alderville First Nation
Hiawatha First Nation
Rama First Nation
Chippewas of Georgina Island
Beausoleil
Huron-Wendat
Provincial Government Ministries Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and
Parks
Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry
Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport
Region of Durham Works Department
Emergency Medical Services
Paramedic Service
Planning and Economic Development Dept.
Regional Transit / Transportation Infrastructure
City of Pickering Various Staff
Conservation Authority Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
(TRCA)
Utility Operators Bell Canada
Rogers Telecommunications
Trans Canada Pipelines
Enbridge Gas
MTS Allstream
Hydro One
Interest Groups / Other Stakeholders Ontario Provincial Police
Durham District School Board
Claremont and District Community Association
Claremont Public School
Residents Residents adjacent to the study area
Residents who submitted a request to be added
to the contract list
6.4 Public Information Centre
An in-person Public Information Centre was arranged to allow local residents and interested
members of the public an opportunity to review and comment on the project findings to
date, the alternative solutions being considered, the evaluation process, and the
preliminary preferred alternatives. The Notice of Public Information Centre was delivered
by Mail to local residents and posted on the City Website on May 4th, 2023. A copy of the
Notice of Public Information Centre is provided in Appendix J. The in-person PIC was later
held on May 18th, 2023 from 6:00 – 8:00 pm at the Chestnut Hills Developments Recreation
Complex. Copies of the PIC materials, including boards and comment sheets, were made
available on the City’s Webpage, with a comment submission window provided from May
18th, 2023 to June 2nd, 2023. Copies of the PIC comments sheets are provided in Appendix
J.
- 631 -
126
The presented PIC boards outlined the study purpose, background, findings as well as next
steps. A copy of the PIC boards is appended to Appendix K. The PIC boards outline the
following items:
•The study area extents;
•The objectives of the study and the purpose of the PIC;
•The Municipal Class EA – Schedule B process;
•Natural heritage assessment and Species at Risk;
•Vegetation communities;
•Fisheries and aquatic habitat;
•The hydrology and existing conditions of Pine Creek within the study area;
•Erosion site inventory;
•The evaluation criteria for proposed alternatives;
•The evaluation approach;
•Alternative solutions;
•Problems and opportunities;
•Site-specific findings and proposed preliminary preferred alternatives;
•The next steps in the process.
A significant number of comments were received from the public during and after the PIC
event. Three major areas of concern were identified by the public as noted below:
1.The public expressed significant concern regarding the erosion observed at priority
sites #9 and #10, where active bank erosion is encroaching towards the multi-use
trail downstream of Kitley Avenue creating a potential public safety hazard. The
public generally supported the preliminary preferred alternative which
recommended extended works be implemented to realign the channel and protect
the eroded bank from failure.
2.Several members of the public also expressed concerns regarding the erosion
observed at priority sites #13 – 16, where channel widening downstream of Finch
Avenue is creating risks to private properties on Mountcastle Crescent. The public
generally supported the preliminary preferred alternative which recommended
extended works be implemented to rehabilitate this degraded section of Pine Creek.
3.The area of greatest public interest was the degraded state of the Kitley Ravine,
identified through the EA as priority site #25. While the public supported
rehabilitation of the ravine corridor, there were significant concerns about tree
removals, potential disturbances to the natural environment and impacts to the
informal trail system that runs through the ravine corridor. Taking into account
public feedback, a new alternative, targeted corridor rehabilitation, was proposed
to allow for a less intrusive restoration of the creek corridor.
6.5 Summary of Public & Stakeholder Comments and
Responses
The public and all project stakeholders were given an opportunity to contact the project
team with their comments by either email or phone call for the duration of the study.
Several emails were received following the issuance of the Notice of Commencement and
the PIC event. The public identified a number of erosion related risks to private property
and municipal infrastructure, all of which were generally well captured through the Erosion
Sites identified as part of the EA study. There is general public support towards the planned
rehabilitation of Pine Creek to address erosion risks, although suggested areas of
prioritization varied from stakeholder to stakeholder. The public also raised concerns about
- 632 -
127
construction related disturbances to the natural environment, particularly with respect to
tree removals. Table 6-2 below provides a summary of all public and stakeholder
communications, with a detailed record of all correspondence provided in Appendix J.
6.6 Region of Durham
The Region of Durham operates and maintains significant infrastructure within the EA
project study area, including the Kingston Road culvert crossing, the Finch Avenue culvert
crossings, and a regional sanitary sewer that runs intermittingly through the valley
corridor. Erosion Risks to Regional Infrastructure were identified through the EA process
(Erosion Sites #1 and #16), and shared with the Region of Durham engineering team for
information purposes. The Region of Durham has acknowledged receipt of these findings
and noted that they may look to address these risks through their future capital works
program. Ultimately, the projects proposed through this EA are scoped to address risks to
City infrastructure and private property only. Any identified erosion related risks to
Regional Infrastructure are to be addressed by the Region at their discretion.
6.7 Impact of Public Consultation on Selection of the
Preferred Alternative
Based on the feedback received through the public consultation process described above,
a new alternative was introduced for erosion site #25 (degradation of the Kitley Ravine
Corridor). The new alternative is defined as “Targeted Corridor Rehabilitation” and
encompasses a less intrusive restoration of the Kitley Ravine than the originally proposed
“Full Corridor Rehabilitation” alternative. Under the targeted rehabilitation approach, less
intrusive construction equipment will be used, tree removals will be minimized, areas of
restoration will be scoped to only the highest priority areas to diminish the overall area of
disturbance, and bioengineering measures will be used for erosion control in-lieu of the
placement of angular stone substrate. “Targeted Corridor Rehabilitation” was ultimately
selected as the preferred alternative taking into consideration the feedback received from
the public. While this alternative was not presented to the public at the PIC, it most
effectively addresses their concerns related to environmental disturbances, tree removals
and a desire to maintain a natural channel aesthetic.
- 633 -
128
Table 6-2: Public Consultation Summary
Public Consultation - Communications Log
Date
(dd/mm/yy)
From To Medium (e.g.,
email, letter,
call)
Communication Description - Nature of Concern(s)
or Interest(s)
Response/Follow Up
02-08-2022 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Residents and Stakeholders as
Defined in the Project Stakeholder
List.
Email, posting on
City website, and
posting in local
newspapers
Notice of Study Commencement – Introduction to the
Project
Follow-up: City of Pickering to invite residents and
stakeholders to an open house to discuss the EA.
02-08-2022 Antony Manoharan
Project Manager –
Stormwater
Management
Regional Municipality
of Durham
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email Request to have Doug Robertson replaced with Antony
Manoharan as the Region of Durham point of Contact for
the EA Study.
Follow-up: Project stakeholder list updated as per
the Region’s Request.
08-08-2022 Adam Kennedy
Regional Planner
Ministry of Natural
Resources and
Forestry
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email Provided MNRF Comments on the EA Circulation Follow-up: Proponent and their agents to ensure
MNRF comments are addressed / taken into account
through the EA process.
Adam Kennedy added to Stakeholder List.
Consultant requested clarification from MNRF on their
protocol for preventing conflicts with Beavers.
09-08-2022 Adam Kennedy
Regional Planner
Ministry of Natural
Resources and
Forestry
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email Provided clarification on MNRF’s protocol for preventing
conflicts with Beavers.
Follow-up: Proponent and their agents to follow the
appropriate protocol for dealing with Beavers.
- 634 -
129
Public Consultation - Communications Log
Date
(dd/mm/yy)
From To Medium (e.g.,
email, letter,
call)
Communication Description - Nature of Concern(s)
or Interest(s)
Response/Follow Up
12-08-2022 Anthony Pigaidoulis
Local Resident
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email Notify the Proponent and their agents of ongoing erosion
issues within the Kitley Ravine.
Follow-up: Noted erosion issues to be assessed and
report on through the EA process.
12-08-2022 Caroline Mugo
Senior Planner
TRCA
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email Request that Nathan Jenkins be added to the Stakeholder
list as the primary point of contact for TRCA
Follow-up: Stakeholder list updated accordingly.
16-09-2022 Mimi Santano
Carrasco
Regional
Environmental Planner
MECP
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email Provided MECP Comments on the EA Circulation Follow-up: Proponent and their agents to ensure
MECP comments are addressed / taken into account
through the EA process.
Mimi Santano Carrasco added to Stakeholder List
16-09-2022 Nathan Jenkins
Planner,
TRCA
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email Provided TRCA Comments on the EA Circulation Follow-up: Proponent and their agents to ensure
TRCA comments are addressed / taken into account
through the EA process.
- 635 -
130
Public Consultation - Communications Log
Date
(dd/mm/yy)
From To Medium (e.g.,
email, letter,
call)
Communication Description - Nature of Concern(s)
or Interest(s)
Response/Follow Up
18-10-2022 Dan Minkin
Heritage Planner
Ministry of Citizenship
and Multiculturalism
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email Provided MCM Comments on the EA Circulation. Follow-up: Proponent and their agents to ensure
MCM comments are addressed / taken into account
through the EA process.
04-05-2023 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Residents as Defined in the Project
Stakeholder List.
Email, Mail-out Issue a Notice of Public Information Centre. PIC to be held
in person Thursday May 18th, 2023 from 6:00 pm – 8:00
pm.
05-05-2023 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Non-Residential Stakeholders as
Defined in the Project Stakeholder
List.
Email Issue a Notice of Public Information Centre. PIC to be held
in person Thursday May 18th, 2023 from 6:00 pm – 8:00
pm.
08-05-2023 Antony Manoharan
Project Manager
Region of Durham
Works Department
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email Responded to Notice of PIC, asking to receive a copy of
the PIC boards once they are posted for review. The
Region with then review the boards and provide
comments.
Follow-up: Project team to send the Region of
Durham a copy of the PIC boards once they are
posted for review.
- 636 -
131
Public Consultation - Communications Log
Date
(dd/mm/yy)
From To Medium (e.g.,
email, letter,
call)
Communication Description - Nature of Concern(s)
or Interest(s)
Response/Follow Up
08-05-2023 Suzanne Harding
Resident
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email Acknowledged receipt of the PIC notice and requested
that more information be provided on the project’s
environmental impacts.
Follow-up: Proponent/Agent provided a response
with a copy of the PIC boards.
09-05-2023 Paul Darby
Resident
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Email Sharing of concerns regarding observed erosion and
flooding issues between Glenanna Road and Kingston
Road.
Follow-up: Proponent/Agent provided a response
with a copy of the PIC boards.
18-05-2023 Jeannette Anderson
Resident
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
PIC Comment
Response Form
Made note of observed erosion downstream of Finch
Street behind Mountcastle Crescent.
Made note of a natural spring located downstream of the
western Finch Culvert.
Inquired who is responsible for addressing erosion in this
area as part of the lands are owned by the City and the
other part of the lands are owned by the Region?
Follow-up: Proponent/Agent to document PIC
comment responses and take into account public
input in the preparation of the project file report.
18-05-2023 Suzanne Harding
Resident
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
PIC Comment
Response Form
Made note that debris in the channel needs to be removed
to help mitigate erosion.
Reported that they support some erosion restoration
work, but do not want to see a complete stripping of the
natural environment. Very concerned about tree lose.
Follow-up: Proponent/Agent to document PIC
comment responses and take into account public
input in the preparation of the project file report.
- 637 -
132
Public Consultation - Communications Log
Date
(dd/mm/yy)
From To Medium (e.g.,
email, letter,
call)
Communication Description - Nature of Concern(s)
or Interest(s)
Response/Follow Up
18-05-2023 Anonymous
Resident
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
PIC Comment
Response Form
Made note of concerns regarding beaver activity in Pine
Creek and voiced support for the proposed EA
alternatives.
Follow-up: Proponent/Agent to document PIC
comment responses and take into account public
input in the preparation of the project file report.
23-05-2023 Adrian Bhagwandin
Resident
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Email Request to be added to EA Contact List and inquiry
regarding alternatives that are being proposed near
Silverthorn Square.
Follow-up: Proponent/Agent provided a copy of the
PIC boards and added the Resident to the EA contact
list.
23-05-2023 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Dale
Resident
Email Shared photos of the Mountcastle outfall restoration
project (pre and post restoration).
29-05-2023 Chris Coniam
Resident
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email Shared information regarding ongoing Erosion behind
Lydia Crescent. Requested to be added to the project
mailing list, and asked who they need to speak to about
getting permission to build a private retaining wall
structure.
Follow-up: Proponent/Agent added the Resident to
the EA contact list and provided TRCA contact
information to allow the resident to follow-up with
TRCA about the process for getting a permit to
construct a retaining wall.
- 638 -
133
Public Consultation - Communications Log
Date
(dd/mm/yy)
From To Medium (e.g.,
email, letter,
call)
Communication Description - Nature of Concern(s)
or Interest(s)
Response/Follow Up
31-05-2023 Martin Herzog
Resident
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email / Letter Provided background on the history of erosion in Pine
Creek and recent proliferation of erosion downstream of
Kitley Avenue.
Provided recommendations for implementation of
extended erosion control and stream rehabilitation works
at sites 9, 10, & 12 as well as the Kitley Ravine.
Made note that the EA should specify smaller equipment
be used during construction to limit tree removals.
Follow-up: Proponent/Agent to document PIC
comment responses and take into account public
input in the preparation of the project file report.
31-05-2023 Paul Dalton
Resident
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email Shared questions about the preferred restoration
alternative for Erosion Site #25 and asked to be added to
the stakeholder list.
Follow-up: Proponent/Agent added the Resident to
the EA contact list and provided answers to the
Resident’s questions regarding the nature of the
proposed restoration alternatives.
02-06-2023 Jeannette Anderson
Resident
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email Shared a description of erosion concerns behind
Mountcastle Crescent. Inquired about TRCA planting
program.
Follow-up: Proponent/Agent to document PIC
comment responses and take into account public
input in the preparation of the project file report.
02-06-2023 Anthony Pigaidoulis
Resident
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Online Form
Submission
Response to PIC comment form comments, with an
emphasis on discussing erosion along the Kitley Ravine.
Follow-up: Proponent/Agent to document PIC
comment responses and take into account public
input in the preparation of the project file report.
- 639 -
134
Public Consultation - Communications Log
Date
(dd/mm/yy)
From To Medium (e.g.,
email, letter,
call)
Communication Description - Nature of Concern(s)
or Interest(s)
Response/Follow Up
05-06-2023 Janet Mosher
Sr. Project Manager
Region of Durham
Works Department
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Email Asked that moving forward the Region be given a copy of
materials presented to the public for their review and
approval prior to publication, if any of the materials
involve Region of Durham Infrastructure.
Follow-up: Proponent clarified that the EA
alternatives will be revised and scoped to only include
for works to protect city infrastructure and private
property.
07-06-2023 Antony Manoharan
Project Manager
Region of Durham
Works Department
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email Provided the Region of Durham’s comments on the PIC
boards.
Follow-up: Proponent and their agents to ensure
Region of Durham comments are addressed / taken
into account through the EA process.
12-06-2023 Paul Leithwood
Planner
TRCA
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email TRCA provided their comments on the PIC Boards. Follow-up: Proponent and their agents to ensure
TRCA comments are addressed / taken into account
through the EA process.
01-02-2024 Jacob Ursulak
Water Resources
Analyst
Aquafor Beech Limited
Antony Manoharan
Project Manager
Region of Durham
Works Department
Email Provided a copy of the Draft Project File Report for Region
of Durham Review
Follow-up: Region of Durham to review the draft
project file report and provide any comments before
the report is published.
- 640 -
135
Public Consultation - Communications Log
Date
(dd/mm/yy)
From To Medium (e.g.,
email, letter,
call)
Communication Description - Nature of Concern(s)
or Interest(s)
Response/Follow Up
01-02-2024 Jacob Ursulak
Water Resources
Analyst
Aquafor Beech Limited
Paul Leithwood
Planner
TRCA
Email Provided a copy of the Draft Project File Report for TRCA
Review
Follow-up: TRCA to review the draft project file
report and provide any comments before the report
is published.
08-02-2024 Jacob Ursulak
Water Resources
Analyst
Aquafor Beech Limited
Gavin Battarino
A/Supervisor
Project Review Unit,
Environmental Assessment
Services Section
Environmental Assessment
Branch
Ministry of the Environment,
Conservation and Parks
Email Provided a copy of the Draft Project File Report for MECP
Review
Follow-up: MECP to review the draft project file
report and provide any comments.
14-02-2024 Chunmei Liu
Regional
Environmental Planner
Ministry of the
Environment,
Conservation and
Parks
Jacob Ursulak
Water Resources Analyst
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email MECP noted they had reviewed the draft Project File report
and also noted they had no comments.
22-02-2024 Antony Manoharan
Project Manager
Region of Durham
Works Department
Jacob Ursulak
Water Resources Analyst
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email Region of Durham provided their comments on the draft
project file report.
Follow-up: Project team to update the draft project
file report to address Region of Durham comments
prior to publishing the final report for public review.
- 641 -
136
Public Consultation - Communications Log
Date
(dd/mm/yy)
From To Medium (e.g.,
email, letter,
call)
Communication Description - Nature of Concern(s)
or Interest(s)
Response/Follow Up
19-04-2024 Paul Leithwood
Planner
TRCA
Irina Marouchko
Manager, Water Resources
City of Pickering
Email / Letter TRCA provided their comments on the draft project file
report.
Follow-up: Project team to update the draft project
file report to address TRCA comments prior to
publishing the final report for public review.
08-05-2024 Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Antony Manoharan
Project Manager
Region of Durham
Works Department
Email / Letter Provided comments responses to the Region of Durham
addressing their comments on the draft project file report.
08-05-2024 Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Paul Leithwood
Planner
TRCA
Email / Letter Provided comments responses to the TRCA addressing
their comments on the draft project file report.
10-05-2024 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Residents and Stakeholders as
Defined in the Project Stakeholder
List.
Email, posting on
City website, and
posting in local
newspapers
Notice of Study Completion Follow-up: Comments on the Project File Report to
be provided to the City’s Project Manager, Irina
Marouchko, by Monday June 10th, 2024.
- 642 -
137
7 INDIGENOUS ENGAGEMENT
Based on consultation with the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
(MECP) it was determined that the City of Pickering should notify and consult with
indigenous communities about the proposed project and any potential impacts on
existing land or credibly-asserted Aboriginal and treaty rights. As per the MECP’s
direction the following Indigenous Communities were engaged:
1.Curve Lake First Nation
2.Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation
3.Alderville First Nation
4.Hiawatha First Nation
5.Rama First Nation
6.Chippewas of Georgina Island
7.Beausoleil
8.Huron-Wendat
An engagement summary log is provided in Table 7-1 below, with detailed correspondence
records appended to Appendix L. A summary of key consultation milestones is provided
below.
7.1 Project Notification Letters
Letters addressed to each First Nations community with a copy of the project Notice of
Commencement appended to the end were distributed on December 8th, 2022 by the
consulting team and the City of Pickering. The purpose of these project introduction letters
was to inform the Indigenous Communities about the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment being
undertaken to address erosion risks to infrastructure and public property within the Pine
Creek corridor between Kingston Road and Fairport Road. Each First Nations was given the
opportunity to learn more about the study and engage directly with the City of Pickering
and Aquafor Beech Limited through the contact information provided in the project
notification letter. Copies of the project notifications letters are included in Appendix L.
Responses to the Notification Letters were received from the Alderville First Nation and the
Chippewas of Rama First Nation. Both groups acknowledged the study, and asked to be
kept informed as the EA process moves forward.
7.2 Notice of Public Information Centre
The Notice of Public Information Centre was emailed to each First Nation Community on
May 5th, 2023. A copy of the Notice of Public Information Centre is provided in Appendix
L. A response to the Notice of PIC was provided by the Hiawatha First Nation correcting
the incorrect Salutation used in the notification email. The Hiawatha First Nation asserted
that they are not stakeholders but rather inherent rights and treaty holders. They also
noted they would review the PIC materials and provided any comments if they had any
concerns with the study. Since the completion of the PIC event on May 18th, 2023 no
further comments were received from the Hiawatha First Nation or any of the other First
Nations Communities.
- 643 -
138
7.3 Sharing of the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment
Report
As a third point of contact, the project team shared a copy of the finalized Stage 1
Archaeological Assessment report with each of the eight First Nations. A copy of the Stage
1 Archaeological Assessment Report is provided in Appendix M.
- 644 -
139
Table 7-1: First Nations Consultation Summary
First Nations Consultation - Communications
Log
Date
(dd/mm/yy)
From To Medium (e.g.,
email, letter,
call)
Communication Description - Nature of Concern(s)
or Interest(s)
Response/Follow Up
08-12-2022 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Alderville First Nation Email Notice of Study Commencement – Introduction to the
Project
Follow-up: City of Pickering provide an invitation to
an open house to discuss the EA.
08-12-2022 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Beausoleil First Nation Email Notice of Study Commencement – Introduction to the
Project
Follow-up: City of Pickering provide an invitation to
an open house to discuss the EA.
08-12-2022 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Chippewas of Georgina Island First
Nation
Email Notice of Study Commencement – Introduction to the
Project
Follow-up: City of Pickering provide an invitation to
an open house to discuss the EA.
08-12-2022 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Chippewas of Rama First Nation Email Notice of Study Commencement – Introduction to the
Project
Follow-up: City of Pickering provide an invitation to
an open house to discuss the EA.
- 645 -
140
First Nations Consultation - Communications
Log
Date
(dd/mm/yy)
From To Medium (e.g.,
email, letter,
call)
Communication Description - Nature of Concern(s)
or Interest(s)
Response/Follow Up
08-12-2022 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Curve Lake First Nation Email Notice of Study Commencement – Introduction to the
Project
Follow-up: City of Pickering provide an invitation to
an open house to discuss the EA.
08-12-2022 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Hiawatha First Nation Email Notice of Study Commencement – Introduction to the
Project
Follow-up: City of Pickering provide an invitation to
an open house to discuss the EA.
08-12-2022 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Huron-Wendat First Nation Email Notice of Study Commencement – Introduction to the
Project
Follow-up: City of Pickering provide an invitation to
an open house to discuss the EA.
08-12-2022 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Mississaugas of Scugog Island
First Nation
Email Notice of Study Commencement – Introduction to the
Project
Follow-up: City of Pickering provide an invitation to
an open house to discuss the EA.
- 646 -
141
First Nations Consultation - Communications
Log
Date
(dd/mm/yy)
From To Medium (e.g.,
email, letter,
call)
Communication Description - Nature of Concern(s)
or Interest(s)
Response/Follow Up
08-12-2022 Dave Simpson
Alderville First Nation
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email Acknowledged receipt of the Notice of Commencement
and asked to be kept posted of progress as the project
moves forward.
19-12-2022 Samantha Craig-
Currow
Associate General
Counsel, Legal
Chippewas of Rama
First Nation
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email Provided an updated email address to use for consultation
purposes.
Follow-up: First Nations contact listed updated to
reflect the updated email address for consultation
purposes.
05-05-2023 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Alderville First Nation Email Notice of Public Information Centre (PIC)
05-05-2023 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Beausoleil First Nation Email Notice of Public Information Centre (PIC)
- 647 -
142
First Nations Consultation - Communications
Log
Date
(dd/mm/yy)
From To Medium (e.g.,
email, letter,
call)
Communication Description - Nature of Concern(s)
or Interest(s)
Response/Follow Up
05-05-2023 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Chippewas of Georgina Island First
Nation
Email Notice of Public Information Centre (PIC)
05-05-2023 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Chippewas of Rama First Nation Email Notice of Public Information Centre (PIC)
05-05-2023 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Curve Lake First Nation Email Notice of Public Information Centre (PIC)
05-05-2023 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Hiawatha First Nation Email Notice of Public Information Centre (PIC)
- 648 -
143
First Nations Consultation - Communications
Log
Date
(dd/mm/yy)
From To Medium (e.g.,
email, letter,
call)
Communication Description - Nature of Concern(s)
or Interest(s)
Response/Follow Up
05-05-2023 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Huron-Wendat First Nation Email Notice of Public Information Centre (PIC)
05-05-2023 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Mississaugas of Scugog Island
First Nation
Email Notice of Public Information Centre (PIC)
05-05-2023 Tom Cowie
Lands/Resources
Consultation
Hiawatha First Nation
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email Corrected the Salutation used in the Notice of PIC email,
noting that the Hiawatha First Nation are not
stakeholders, and are instead inherent rights and treaty
holders.
It was noted the Hiawatha Nation is reviewing the
information provided and that they will provide comments
if they have any concerns.
Follow-up: Rob Amos responded noting appreciation
for the correction on the incorrectly applied salutation
while also noting that the project team looks forward
to receiving and incorporating any input the Hiawatha
First Nation may have.
10-05-2024 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Alderville First Nation Email / Letter Notice of Study Completion Follow-up: Comments on the Project File Report to
be provided to the City’s Project Manager, Irina
Marouchko, by Monday June 10th, 2024.
- 649 -
144
First Nations Consultation - Communications
Log
Date
(dd/mm/yy)
From To Medium (e.g.,
email, letter,
call)
Communication Description - Nature of Concern(s)
or Interest(s)
Response/Follow Up
10-05-2024 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Beausoleil First Nation Email / Letter Notice of Study Completion Follow-up: Comments on the Project File Report to
be provided to the City’s Project Manager, Irina
Marouchko, by Monday June 10th, 2024.
10-05-2024 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Chippewas of Georgina Island First
Nation
Email / Letter Notice of Study Completion Follow-up: Comments on the Project File Report to
be provided to the City’s Project Manager, Irina
Marouchko, by Monday June 10th, 2024.
10-05-2024 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Chippewas of Rama First Nation Email / Letter Notice of Study Completion Follow-up: Comments on the Project File Report to
be provided to the City’s Project Manager, Irina
Marouchko, by Monday June 10th, 2024.
10-05-2024 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Curve Lake First Nation Email / Letter Notice of Study Completion Follow-up: Comments on the Project File Report to
be provided to the City’s Project Manager, Irina
Marouchko, by Monday June 10th, 2024.
- 650 -
145
First Nations Consultation - Communications
Log
Date
(dd/mm/yy)
From To Medium (e.g.,
email, letter,
call)
Communication Description - Nature of Concern(s)
or Interest(s)
Response/Follow Up
10-05-2024 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Hiawatha First Nation Email / Letter Notice of Study Completion Follow-up: Comments on the Project File Report to
be provided to the City’s Project Manager, Irina
Marouchko, by Monday June 10th, 2024.
10-05-2024 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Huron-Wendat First Nation Email / Letter Notice of Study Completion Follow-up: Comments on the Project File Report to
be provided to the City’s Project Manager, Irina
Marouchko, by Monday June 10th, 2024.
10-05-2024 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Mississaugas of Scugog Island
First Nation
Email / Letter Notice of Study Completion Follow-up: Comments on the Project File Report to
be provided to the City’s Project Manager, Irina
Marouchko, by Monday June 10th, 2024.
- 651 -
146
8 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
8.1 Detailed Design and Investigations
Upon completion of the EA, each recommended capital works project will require a detailed
design process prior to construction. The detailed design will include additional technical
investigations and inventories, with the primary deliverable to be a design package used
for construction. This package will be subject to regulatory review and permitting. A brief
overview of the additional inventories and deliverables to be completed in support of each
detailed design package is summarized below.
For each project a detail design package will include the preparation of 60%, 90% and final
design drawings for review by the City, TRCA and relevant stakeholders. Each detailed
design package will include the following components:
•General plan - Existing Conditions and Removals: Outlines project extents,
property ownership and proposed site removals;
•General plan - Proposed Conditions: Delineates the proposed restoration designs
including the proposed length of channel rehabilitation works and any proposed
erosion control structures;
•Plan and profile drawings: Defines alterations to the planimetric alignment and
longitudinal profile of Pine Creek;
•Cross-Sections: Outlines proposed changes to the cross-sectional configuration of
Pine Creek;
•Site Access and Staging Plan: Delineates the recommended site access, staging
and stockpile areas;
•Erosion and sediment control plan: Defines ESC requirements as per the Erosion
and Sediment Guidelines for Urban Construction, GGHACA, as well as applicable
TRCA standards and guidelines. Should also include proposed flow management
solutions to establish a dry working condition. Flow management solutions may
include such measures as bypass pumping, implementation of a bypass flume or
installation of longitudinal coffer dams.
•Landscape restoration plans: Includes tree removal, preservation and planting
plans. The development of restoration plans should take into account impacts areas
associated with different Ecological Land Classifications as well as TRCA guidelines;
•Construction details: Outlines the construction requirements for key design
components; and
•Associated design brief: Provides supplementary design information to support
the permitting and construction process.
As part of the design process, additional inventories and plans will be required to further
inform the design.
8.1.1 Hydraulic Assessment
A hydraulic assessment of the proposed conditions will need to be undertaken for each
project to facilitate permitting with the TRCA. The results of each assessment will be
included in the various project design briefs. Computation of peak velocities, shear stresses
and stream powers for bank full and peak floods (i.e., 2–100-year events and Regional
Storm) shall be included and incorporated into evaluation of the proposed remedial
measures. The assessment will be used to confirm that no negative flooding or erosion
- 652 -
147
impacts will result from the proposed works, a condition of TRCA permits, and to size the
material for the channel bed and bank restoration works. To facilitate permitting, an
existing and proposed conditions model will need to be prepared to allow for a comparison
of the proposed designs impacts on water surface elevations as well as channel velocities,
shear stresses and stream power values.
When using the results from the hydraulic modelling assessment to adjust the cross-
sectional design of the channel, efforts should be made to promote floodplain connectivity.
Ideally, the bankfull depth of the channel should be exceeded for all storms events greater
than the 2-year return period flow. In instances where this is infeasible due to site
constraints, best efforts should be made such that the level of floodplain connectivity is
either maintained or enhanced through implementation of the proposed design solution.
As a TRCA permitting requirement, incremental and cumulative riparian storage volumes
may need to be assessed at 0.3 m increments for both existing and proposed model
conditions. The results of this assessment should confirm that there is no loss in riparian
storage volumes as a result of the implementation of the proposed works.
Consideration should also be given on a project-by-project basis to explore opportunities
for the installation of wetland pockets to help attenuate flows, create new habitat and
reduce erosion. Pocket wetlands may be constructed adjacent to channel rehabilitation
works or in line with storm sewer outfall channels.
8.1.2 Geomorphic Assessment
A detailed geomorphic assessment should be undertaken at the detailed stage to build on
the findings of this report and ensure all proposed channel restoration works are designed
accounting for dominant geomorphic trends and key fluvial geomorphology principles.
Particular care should be taken at transition regions between proposed works and existing
conditions to ensure these vulnerable areas remain geomorphically stable in the long-term.
8.1.3 Geotechnical Investigation
A geotechnical investigation should be undertaken to determine the engineering properties
of the existing soils for bank protection works. The details of the geotechnical investigation
are to be determined by a qualified geotechnical engineer in consultation with the stream
restoration consultant.
Borehole logs containing appropriate and sufficient data should be prepared. Information
from the boreholes is to be used for assessments of slope stability, soil properties for
channel design, soil contamination, and any other geotechnical recommendations for
engineered structures. Furthermore, soil chemical testing should be undertaken to provide
recommendations for the disposal of excess material offsite in accordance with O.Reg.
406/19.
8.1.4 Utilities Confirmation
Further SUE investigations will be required to confirm the impact of each proposed
restoration design on the utilities and underground services within the proposed restoration
areas. The utilities may include, but are not limited to, electricity, natural gas, cable
television, telephone, water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer.
- 653 -
148
SUE investigations should be completed in sufficient detail to identify all above ground and
buried infrastructure within each project site. Prior to the start of construction, utility
protection measures will need to be confirmed with each corresponding utility authority.
8.1.5 Tree Inventory
A tree inventory, arborist report, and tree preservation plan will need to be completed as
part of the detailed design process for each project to support permitting efforts with MECP
and TRCA. Impacts to existing trees and any implications under the City’s by-law (including
any associated protection or replanting requirements related to those impacts) should be
detailed upon the completion of the tree inventory and leveraged to prepare site restoration
plans that satisfy the requirements of all regulatory review agencies. Tree inventories
should include the full expected area of construction related disturbance, including
proposed access and staging areas. Every effort should be made to design access and
staging areas that will minimize tree removals and environmental impacts.
8.1.6 Natural Heritage System
The mitigation measures discussed above in Section 3.6 - 3.8 should be reviewed and
further developed for implementation as part of the detailed design and construction
tender. Agency consultation and related approvals should be pursued including, as
required, the DFO Request for Review and MECP consultation regarding Endangered
Species via the submission of an IGF.
8.1.6.1 General Mitigation Measures
Erosion and Sediment Control
Erosion and sedimentation control techniques are necessary precautions to minimize
sediment entry into surrounding creeks and/or storm sewer pipes. Installation of
construction fencing and erosion & control silt fence are required well in advance of
construction activities. Construction fencing and access routes shall be clearly delineated
and appropriate setbacks maintained from private property for the duration of construction
works. Sediment and erosion control measures should remain in place until vegetation has
become established.
Sediment and erosion control measures should also act as wildlife exclusion fencing to
prevent small mammals and herpetofauna from entering disturbance areas.
Public lands should be restored with woody vegetation as a part of bank stabilization
efforts.
Potential sources for sedimentation related to construction activities include sediments
disturbed and deposited by construction vehicles and blowing sand and dust. The following
mitigating measures are proposed:
•Place sediment traps to receive storm runoff during construction;
•Provide tire washing facilities for construction vehicles that exit the site;
•Install silt fencing along the perimeters of the work sites where appropriate to
prevent migration of sediment-laden storm runoff;
•Cover exposed excavated material to prevent erosion by rain and wind; and
•Water or other dust suppressants to be employed during construction to control
release of dust particles to the air.
- 654 -
149
An erosion and sediment control plan will be prepared and the selection of appropriate
measures will be addressed during the detailed design stage. The erosion and sediment
controls indicated are the minimum that are required. It is necessary to ensure that all
erosion and sediment control measures are functional prior to and throughout the duration
of construction.
Fuel Spills
Fuel spills may occur during the onsite refueling of construction equipment, and may
potentially contaminate surface and groundwater as well as soils. Recommended mitigation
measures include the following:
• Refueling in designated areas outside of the NHS;
• Spill containment for on-site storage tanks; and
• Develop and Implement as needed a spill clean-up contingency plan.
8.1.7 Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment
Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment work is required for Projects 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10 and 11.
The Stage 1 report (AMICK, 2023) recommends the following with respect to the Stage 2
archaeological assessment:
1. A portion of the Study Area exhibits archaeological potential. These lands require
Stage 2 archaeological assessment by test pit survey at five-meter intervals, prior
to any proposed impacts;
2. The remainder of the Study Area does not retain archaeological potential on account
of deep and extensive land disturbance, slopes in excess of 20 degrees or being
previously assessed. These lands do not require further archaeological assessment;
and,
3. Should the proposed work extend beyond the current Study Area, further Stage 1
archaeological assessment should be conducted to determine the archaeological
potential of the surrounding lands.
Engagement with the First Nations is recommended via field liaison representation during
the Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment;
8.1.8 Permissions to Enter
Within the study area, Pine Creek is located on both public and private property. For select
projects, Permission to Enter Agreements are required for a temporary construction access
/ staging.
Where works are proposed on private property, the property owner will be advised of the
ongoing erosion issues and associated risks on their property. Each individual property
owner will ultimately be responsible for undertaking the necessary measures to mitigate
the identified erosion related risks on their property using the concepts outlined in this
EA or alternative methods (subject to all associated regulatory approvals at the detailed
design stage). Alternatively, the City may give future consideration to an easement
acquisition in order to complete creek restoration works on select private properties.
8.2 Permits
Prior to construction it will be necessary to coordinate the environmental approvals and
permits necessary to complete the intended works. At this time, it is Aquafor’s
- 655 -
150
understanding that reviews or approvals from TRCA, MECP, and DFO may be required. A
brief summary of permits and approvals is included below:
TRCA – Section 28.1 Permit - TRCA permits will be required at the detailed design stage
under Section 28.1 of the Conservation Authorities Act. This typically involves two
submissions (60% & 90% design), and will include supporting design brief information.
DFO – Assessment under the Federal Fisheries Act – A certified fisheries biologist will
complete a Self-Assessment based on the detailed design for the proposed works. Based
on similar experiences, at minimum a Letter of Advice may will be required from DFO.
MECP Species at Risk Permit – Under the evolving MECP policy regarding SAR Habitat, a
regulatory exemption clause has been published for “non-imminent threats to health and
safety” under O.Reg. 242/08 (23.18) to the Endangered Species Act, which allows certain
works to proceed without a permit regardless of their potential impacts, including:
- Work to maintain, repair, remove or replace an existing structure or any
infrastructure [specifically: a communications system; an electric power system,
oil or gas pipeline, alternative energy system or renewable energy system; a road
or railway system; water works, wastewater works, stormwater works and
associated facilities; or drainage works designed to control surface water runoff,
other than a drainage work to which section 23.9 applies], including the
decommissioning of a mine, or to upgrade an existing structure or any of the
aforementioned infrastructure to meet a safety standard, if:
o i. the maintenance, repair, removal, replacement, decommissioning
or upgrade does not require:
▪ a temporary or permanent change to the location of the
structure or infrastructure, or
▪ a temporary or permanent extension of the area the structure
or infrastructure occupies, except in the case of the replacement
of an existing culvert with a new culvert that is larger than the one it
replaces,
o ii. in the case of work to maintain, repair, replace or upgrade a structure or
infrastructure, the work does not alter the way in which the structure or
infrastructure is used or operated.
- Work to protect against drought, flooding, forest fires, unstable slopes and
erosion as long as the protection does not include the building of new
infrastructure.”
As part of the proposed works, one culvert replacement is planned at the north end of the
study area (replacing an existing structure with a new structure of a similar size). New
erosion control works (armourstone walls, buttresses) will be installed at all sites to protect
existing infrastructure. No new sewer or road infrastructure is planned at this time. As
such, the proposed works qualify for this exemption, as they are emergency measures
intended to prevent against unstable slope and erosion and do not involve the building of
new infrastructure.
As part of the exemption, a Notice of Activity must be submitted through the provincial
website (ONe-key) to register the project prior to commencing the proposed works.
Although there are no associated additional approval application or review as part of this
process, the proposed works are still obligated to minimize their effects on SAR (e.g.,
- 656 -
151
providing mitigation such as timing restriction on vegetation removal, following in-water
works timing windows and standard DFO mitigation measures to prevent harm to fish, as
well as providing habitat restoration/compensation as appropriate). A mitigation plan
should be prepared, and records of the activity maintained, should the MECP request a
review at a later date.
8.3 Construction Services
All tender documentation will be completed applicable to the City of Pickering or TRCA
standards, with Special Provisions and Schedule of Quantities with refined engineering cost
estimates provided. The package will include Project Descriptions, Special Provisions,
Specifications, Form of Tender and a Schedule of Prices. The final detailed design drawings
will be issued as a set of contract drawings with the completed tender package. The
contract drawings will be stamped by a professional engineer, signed, and labeled “Issued
for Tender” complete with all necessary material and performance specifications. The
consulting engineer will typically assist the City during the tendering and procurement
period as required, providing responses and clarification to bidders during the procurement
process.
Inspection and administration services during construction under the guidance of a
professional engineer (or geomorphologist) who has been integrated in the design and is
well versed in similar construction projects is required. Tasks undertaken as part of the
supervision role will include:
•Attend regular (bi-weekly) progress meetings, including pre-construction meeting,
prepare and distribute meeting minutes within 5 days of the meeting;
•Respond to inquiries and request for information from external agencies, public
stakeholders;
•Preparation of progress payment certificates and recording material quantities as
they arrive to site;
•Overseeing the day-to-day construction and providing interpretation of the
drawings;
•Ensuring that contractor’s methodology complies with requirements of design;
•Monitor the traffic control measures to ensure they are consistent with traffic control
plans;
•Inspect all layout and construction work to ensure compliance with the contract
specifications and drawings;
•Provide advice to the contractor regarding the interpretation of the contract
drawings and specifications and the preparation of supplemental details, instruction
and clarifications as required;
•Notify the contractor of any deficiencies in the construction of the work, instructing
the contractor to take appropriate corrective measures, confirm and report results
of the corrective measures during construction. The deficiency list will be maintained
and coordination of rectification throughout the 2-year maintenance period;
•Review, monitor and ensure compliance with contractor environmental conditions
(i.e., Erosion and Sediment Control Plan).
•Preparation and issuance of substantial Performance certificate and
recommendations; and
•Undertake a complete and thorough inspection of the contractor’s work and prepare
a report which lists all outstanding deficiencies at the end of the warranty period
and coordinate and ensure that contractor corrects all warranty deficiencies
expeditiously and to the satisfaction of the City.
- 657 -
152
8.4 Monitoring Program
A 2-year annual monitoring plan is recommended following completion of construction,
which will include Warranty Period engineering review, as well as assessment of the
efficacy of restoration plantings. The program should include time for inspection of both
the channel works and vegetation plantings by the project geomorphologist/engineer, as
well as the project ecologist. Both the monitoring and warranty will be defined to suit the
detailed design, and satisfy City, TRCA and other agency requirements.
8.5 As-Constructed Drawings and Analysis
This task will set baseline conditions following construction, which will enable future
monitoring and comparative analysis. Specifically, an as-built survey of completed
channel works (plan, profile, and cross sections) to verify implementation of design
within reasonable tolerances should be undertaken. As-constructed drawings, together
with a report summarizing pre- and post-construction conditions should be provided. The
report should comment on significant deficiencies found with recommendations for
correction or adaptive management as required.
The HEC-RAS model should be updated to match as-built conditions (should the
comparative analysis to the design highlight differential conditions), and the updated
HEC-RAS model should be applied accordingly to confirm no negative impacts to flooding.
- 658 -
153
9 REFERENCES
City of Pickering. (2022, March). Pickering Official Plan.
CLOCA, CVC & TRCA. (2022, March). Source Protection Plan: CTC Source Protection
Region.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans. (2019, August). Projects Near Water.
Eyles et al. (2003, September). Geophysical and Sedimentological Assessment of Urban
Impacts in a Lake Ontario Watershed and Lagoon: Frenchman’s Bay, Pickering, Ontario.
Fischenich, Craig. (2001, May). Stability Thresholds for Stream Restoration Materials.
Infrastructure Canda. (2019, October). Climate Lens – General Guidance Document
Lee at al. (1998, January). Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First
Approximation and Its Application.
MMM Group. (2009, April). Stormwater Management Master Plan: Frenchman’s Bay
Watersheds.
MNRF. (2013, March). In-water Work Timing Window Guidelines.
MNRF. (2015, October). Aquatic Resources Areas.
Ministry of Tourism and Culture. (2011). Standards and Guidelines for Consultant
Archaeologists.
Oldham, Michael. (2017, March). List of Vascular Plants of Ontario’s Carolinian Zone
(Ecoregion 7E)
Region of Durham. (2020, May). Durham Regional Official Plan.
Stanfield, L. (2017). OSAP Version 10.
TRCA. (2012, January). Regional Watershed Monitoring Program Progress Report 2011.
TRCA. (2017, July). Annual Local Occurrence Score and Local Rank Update.
TRCA. (2023, June). Guideline for Determining Ecosystem Compensation
- 659 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: ENG 14-24 Date: September 3, 2024
From: Richard Holborn
Director, Engineering Services
Subject: Detailed Design for Radom Street Culverts Replacement
- Request for Proposal No. RFP2024-8 - File: A-1440
Recommendation:
1. That Request for Proposal No. RFP2024-8 submitted by Aquafor Beech Limited for Consulting and Professional Services for the Detailed Design for Radom Street Culverts Replacement in the amount of $140,261.25 (HST included) be accepted;
2. That the total gross project cost of $172,913.00 (HST included), including the fee amount
and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $155,714.00 (net of HST
rebate) be approved;
3. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the total net project cost of $155,714.00 as approved in the 2021 Roads Capital Budget to be funded by a transfer from the Road and Bridges Reserve Fund; and,
4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary
actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to obtain approval to award Request
for Proposal No. RFP2024-8 to Aquafor Beech Limited to undertake the detailed design for the Radom Street Culverts replacement. The Radom Street crossing of Pine Creek consists of two 3.1m diameter corrugated steel pipe culverts. The culverts are located approximately 0.2 km west of Liverpool Road. The 2022 Culvert Inspection Report documents a significant level of deterioration of the structures and indicates that both culverts are urgently in need of
replacement.
Request for Proposal No. RFP2024-8 was advertised on Bids & Tenders on May 31, 2024, and closed on July 12, 2024. The Evaluation Committee consisting of staff from the Engineering Services Department, reviewed and evaluated the six proposals received using
criteria outlined in the bid document. The highest scoring proposal, submitted by Aquafor
Beech Limited, in the amount of $140,261.25 (HST included) is recommended for approval. The total net project cost is $155,714.00 (net of HST rebate).
Staff recommend approval of the fee proposal submitted by Aquafor Beech Limited for Consulting and Professional Services for the Detailed Design for Radom Street Culverts
Replacement in the amount $140,261.25 (HST included). It is also recommended that a net
project cost of $155,714.00 (net of HST) be approved.
- 660 -
ENG 14-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Detailed Design for Radom Street Culverts Replacement Page 2
Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priority of Lead & Advocate for Environmental
Stewardship, Innovation & Resiliency.
Financial Implications:
1. Quoted Amount
Aquafor Beech Limited
Fee Proposal
$124,125.00
HST (13%) 16,136.25
Total Gross Quoted Amount $140,261.25
2. Estimated Project Cost Summary
Aquafor Beech Limited Fee Proposal $124,125.00 Associated Costs TRCA Fees and Miscellaneous cost 14,000.00 Contingency 14,895.00 Sub Total – Costs $153,020.00 HST (13%) 19,893.00 Total Gross Project Cost $172,913.00 HST Rebate (11.24%) (17,199.00) Total Net Project Costs $155,714.00
3. Approved Source of Funds Account Source of Funds Budget Required C10570.2105 RF Roads & Bridges $250,000.00 $155,714.00
Net Project Cost under (over) Approved Funds $94,286.00
- 661 -
ENG 14-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Detailed Design for Radom Street Culverts Replacement Page 3
Discussion: The purpose of this report is to obtain approval to award Request for Proposal No. RFP2024-8 to Aquafor Beech Limited to undertake the detailed design for the Radom
Street Culverts replacement.
The existing crossing on Radom Street crossing of Pine Creek consists of two 3.1m diameter corrugated steel pipe culverts. The culverts are located approximately 0.2 km west of Liverpool Road. The original CSP culvert was installed in 1970 and a second culvert was installed in 1980 as an overflow culvert just east of the original culvert.
The 2022 Culvert Inspection Report documents a significant level of deterioration of the
structures and indicates that both culverts are urgently in need of replacement. The road structure around the existing culverts is being compromised, and road repair work in the vicinity of the culverts has recently been required.
A hydrologic and hydraulic study for Pine Creek was completed in early 2006, decades after
the existing culverts were installed. The initial floodplain map shows that several commercial
and residential properties located upstream of Highway 401 are at risk of flooding during the Regional Storm event. In 2007, the City retained a consulting firm to complete a hydrologic/hydraulic analysis for the creek crossing options that potentially can reduce the extent of the floodplain within the area of concern. Potential improvement to the creek
crossings were investigated at Kingston Road, Highway 401, Bayly Street and Radom Street.
The results of the analysis show that replacing the existing culverts at Radom Street with a larger structure can potentially improve the floodplain conditions upstream. Based on the available information, the scope of this project includes a detailed design to replace the culverts due to the existing culverts’ state of repair, and incorporating a potential improvement
to the floodplain upstream of Radom Street.
Request for Proposal No. RFP 2024-8 was advertised on Bids & Tenders on May 31, 2024, and closed on July 9, 2024. The Evaluation Committee, consisting of staff from the Engineering Services Department, reviewed and evaluated the six proposals received using criteria outlined in the bid document. The highest scoring proposal, submitted by Aquafor
Beech Limited, in the amount of $140,261.25 (HST included) is recommended for approval. It
is also recommended that a total net project cost of $155,714.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved.
Attachment:
1. Location Map
- 662 -
ENG 14-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Detailed Design for Radom Street Culverts Replacement Page 4
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Irina Marouchko, P.Eng. Richard Holborn, P.Eng.
Manager, Water Resources Director, Engineering Services
Cathy Bazinet, CPPB, NIGP-CPP Stan Karwowski, MBA, CPA, CMA Manager, Procurement Director, Finance & Treasurer
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:Original signed by:
Original signed by:
- 663 -
Attachment 1 to Report ENG 14-24
- 664 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: ENG 16-24 Date: September 3, 2024
From: Richard Holborn
Director, Engineering Services
Subject: Pickering City Centre Park
- Request for Proposal RFP2024-1 - File: A-1440
Recommendation:
1. That Request for Proposal No. RFP2024-1 for the Pickering City Centre Park - Design as submitted by MacLennan Jaunkalns Miller Architects Ltd., in the amount of $744,105.00 (HST included) be accepted;
2. That the total gross project cost of $862,778.00 (HST included), including the tendered
amount, a contingency and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of
$776,958.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved;
3. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the total net project cost of $776,958.00 as follows:
a) The sum of $388,479.00 available budget in capital project C10572.2409 as approved
in the 2024 Parks Projects Capital Budget to be funded by a transfer of funds from the
Casino Reserve;
b) The sum of $388,479.00 available budget in capital project C10572.2409 as approved in the 2024 Parks Projects Capital Budget to be funded by a transfer of funds from the Development Charges Parks & Recreation Reserve Fund; and,
4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary
actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council approval to retain
MacLennan Jaunkalns Miller Architects Ltd. to provide design and construction administration services for the new Pickering City Centre Park. This project was confirmed to be Council’s second capital budget priority, as the first phase of the City Centre redevelopment, at a Special Meeting of Council held on January 18, 2024.
Request for Proposal No. RFP2024-1 was advertised on the City’s Bids & Tenders portal on
June 11, 2024, and closed on July 8, 2023 with fifteen proposals submitted. The Evaluation Committee, consisting of staff from Engineering Services and Community Services reviewed and evaluated the proposals submitted using criteria outlined in the bid document
- 665 -
ENG 16-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Pickering City Centre Park Request for Proposal RFP2024-1 Page 2
The evaluation committee recommends approval of the fee proposal submitted by MacLennan
Jaunkalns Miller Architects Ltd. for the design and construction administration services for the
Pickering City Centre Park Project in the amount $744,105.00 (HST included). The evaluation committee also recommends that a net project cost of $776,958.00 (net of HST) be approved.
Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priority to Advocate for an Inclusive, Welcoming, Safe & Healthy Community.
Financial Implications:
1. Proposal Amount
Request for Proposal No. RFP2024-1
$658,500.00
HST (13%) 85,605.00
Total Gross Tender Amount $744,105.00
2. Estimated Project Cost Summary
Pickering City Centre Park - Design
Request for Proposal No. RFP2024-1 $658,500.00
Associated Costs
Geotechnical Investigations & Topographic Survey Project Signage and Public Consultation Promotional Materials
20,000.00 6,000.00
Contingency (12%) 79,020.00 Sub Total – Costs $763,520.00 HST (13%) 99,258.00 Total Gross Project Cost $862,778.00
HST Rebate (11.24%) (85,820.00) Total Net Project Cost $776,958.00
- 666 -
ENG 16-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Pickering City Centre Park Request for Proposal RFP2024-1 Page 3
3. Approved Source of Funds – 2024 Parks Projects Capital Budget
Expense Code Source of Funds Budget Available Required
C10572.2409
C10572.2409
Casino Reserve
DC Parks & Recreation Reserve Fund
$750,000.00
750,000.00
$388,479.00
388,479.00
Total $1,500,000.00 $776,958.00
Net Project Cost under (over) Approved Funds $723,042.00
Discussion: The purpose of this report is obtain Council approval to retain MacLennan
Jaunkalns Miller Architects Ltd (MJMA), to provide design and construction administration services for the new Pickering City Centre Park. This project was confirmed to be Council’s second capital budget priority, as the first phase of the City Centre redevelopment, at a Special Meeting of Council held on January 18, 2024 (Resolution # 379/24).
The estimated total cost of the park, including design, construction, furniture and fixtures is
$15.0 million. Council recommended that the Mayor be requested to include $1.5 million for the design in the 2024 Capital Budget and $13.5 million for construction and related costs in the Capital Forecast (FIN 01-24, Resolution #379/24).
As part of the Pickering Town Centre redevelopment and City Centre Master Plan,
CentreCourt are conveying 0.5753 hectares (1.42 acres) of parkland to the City of Pickering for
the construction of an urban park located in the existing parking lot directly across Glenanna Road from the Pickering Civic Complex. The property will be available to the City to start construction following the removal of existing underground services that currently run through the park block. CentreCourt has advised that the park block should be available for
construction start late 2025, or early 2026.
Through input from Council, staff, and public consultation for the City Centre Master Plan, a number of features were recommended for consideration, to be included in the Pickering City Centre Park design. As this park space is to become the heart of the City Centre, it must be multi-functional and able to host many different City events. The main features that are to be considered in the design include:
• outdoor skating rink (winter) / public event space (summer)
• public washroom and maintenance (ice re-surfacer) building
• water feature(s)
• public art
• large shade structure “stage” area
• soft landscaping/trees
- 667 -
ENG 16-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Pickering City Centre Park Request for Proposal RFP2024-1 Page 4
• public seating/gathering areas
Request for Proposal RFP2024-1, Pickering City Centre Park – Design was posted on Bids &
Tenders on June 4, 2024 and closed on July 8, 2024, with fifteen respondents submitting proposals. The Evaluation Committee, consisting of staff from Engineering Services and Community Services reviewed and evaluated the proposals submitted using criteria outlined in the bid document .
Proposals were evaluated and ranked based on the experience and qualifications of the
Architectural (lead) consulting firm, the experience and qualifications of the Landscape Architectural consulting firm, the experience and qualifications of the balance of the project team and understanding of the project requirements, work plan and schedule and their price. MJMA was the top-ranked Proponent and is recommended for the Award.
The Design Team
MJMA’s team includes the following companies and their related fields:
• MacLennan Jaunkalns Miller Architects Ltd. – Architecture, Landscape Architecture, Public Engagement, Project Management
• Blackwell – Structural Engineering
• Smith + Andersen – Mechanical & Rink Refrigeration, Electrical & A/V design
• Aquifor Beech – Civil Engineer
• Aqua Plans Aquatic Consultants Inc. – Water Feature Design
• Ingersoll & Associates Inc. – Cost Consultant
• Design Partners – Event Planning Consultant
MJMA is an interdisciplinary design firm of 75 employees based in Toronto. They create unique forms of civic space and they design clear, bold, and responsible public spaces that strengthen communities and connect people. Relevant examples of their work include the
Bernie Morelli Recreation Centre & Skating Rink/Water Feature in Hamilton, Windsor City Hall
Skating Rink & Public Square, Harbourfront Centre Public Square in Toronto, and Halifax Common Park Redevelopment. All of these projects have elements that are being proposed in the Pickering City Centre Park including outdoor skating rinks, water features, public washrooms, and outdoor event space. MJMA have extensive experience in the design of
recreation and arena complexes and were one of the shortlisted companies for the Seaton
Recreation Complex & Library project. Many of the proposed sub-consultants on the design team have worked with MJMA on the relevant example projects as well.
A. Scope of Work
The scope of work for this project has been broken down into five phases: concept design,
schematic design, design development, detailed design and preparation of tender documents,
and construction review and contract administration services. Following is a brief outline of the general requirements for the various phases of this project.
- 668 -
ENG 16-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Pickering City Centre Park Request for Proposal RFP2024-1 Page 5
The Concept Design phase includes reviewing the park programming and initial consultation
with the various city department representatives and Council members, preparing base and
concept site plans, creation of a City Centre Park webpage on Let’s Talk Pickering, and hosting of in-person public information sessions to share the concept plans and gather public comment. Based on the comments received, three final concept plans and associated cost estimates (Class D) are to be prepared. The results of the public consultation process shall be
summarized and presented to Council along with the three concept plans and cost estimates.
A preferred concept design will be approved by Council.
During the Schematic Design phase, the preferred concept design will be advanced in detail,
the City Centre Park webpage will be updated, and the required geotechnical site
investigations will be completed. Schematic designs will be prepared of the skating rink,
washroom/maintenance building, shade structure, water feature, and other key site elements
that have been included in the preferred concept design. A Class C cost estimate will be
completed to assist in decision making and budgeting purposes.
During the Design Development phase, the approved schematic plans will be presented back
to key staff in the various city departments as well as the Accessibility Advisory Committee and
the Cultural Advisory Committee, to obtain their input. The schematic design will be advanced
through the preparation of the final building floor plan and elevations, skating rink, shade
structure, and water feature. Material selection for all key site elements including building
cladding/roofing, surface paving, lighting, and site furniture will be completed during this phase.
The final design along with a Class B cost estimate will be presented to Council for final
endorsement.
Upon approval by Council, the Detailed Design drawings and Tender Documents including
specifications and an itemized breakdown for the form of Tender will be prepared. A final Class
A cost estimate will be prepared, based on 75% completed construction drawings and
specifications and prior to the calling for competitive bids. This estimate will inform staff if the
design prepared is within budget, allowing time for some design adjustments if required, and
will also allow a detailed reconciliation and/or negotiation with any contractor’s tender
submission. The consulting team will also assist staff with the prequalification of contractors
and answer questions during the tendering process.
Throughout the construction period, the consulting team will provide Construction Review and
Contract Administration Services, performing periodic site inspections, document meeting
minutes, review progress draws and certify payments, review and approve shop drawings, prepare change notices, perform final walk-through, deficiency and warranty inspections.
B. Project Schedule
MJMA propose to commence the Concept Development phase upon Council approval. This
phase will take approximately four months, followed by two months for Schematic Design and
two months for Design Development. The final design will be presented to Council for endorsement by early summer 2025. Detailed Design and the preparation of Tender Documents will take approximately four months to complete, followed by the Tender for
- 669 -
ENG 16-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Pickering City Centre Park Request for Proposal RFP2024-1 Page 6
construction. It is anticipated that pending completion of the removal of the underground
services and preparation of the park block by CentreCourt, that park construction could
commence in late 2025 or early 2026.
The evaluation committee recommends approval of the fee proposal submitted by MacLennan Jaunkalns Miller Architects Ltd. for the design and construction administration services for the Pickering City Centre Park Project in the amount $744,105.00 (HST included). It is also
recommended that a net project cost of $776,958.00 (net of HST) be approved.
Attachment:
1.Location Map
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Arnold Mostert, O.A.L.A. Richard Holborn, P. Eng.
Manager, Landscape & Parks Development Director, Engineering Services
Cathy Bazinet, CPPB, NIGP-CPP Stan Karwowski, MBA, CPA, CMA Manager, Procurement Director, Finance & Treasurer
Laura Gibbs, MBA, MSc.
Director Community Services
AM:mh
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:
Original signed by:
Original signed by:
- 670 -
Attachment 1 to Report ENG 16-24
- 671 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: ENG 17-24 Date: September 3, 2024
From: Richard Holborn
Director, Engineering Services
Subject: Sideline 24 Hard Surfacing from Highway 407 to Whitevale Road
-Request for Tender No. T2024-9-File: A-1440
Recommendation:
1. That Request for Tender No. T2024-9 for Sideline 24 Hard Surfacing as submitted byIPAC Paving Limited in the total tendered amount of $501,457.28 (HST included) beaccepted;
2. That the total gross project cost of $604,347.00 (HST included), including the tendered
amount, contingency and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of
$544,233.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved;
3.That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to revise the funding source forthis project by a transfer from the Building Faster Fund (BFF) Reserve Fund, subject tothe Province’s approval of the project;
a.If the Province does not approve the eligibility of BFF funding for this project, that
Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the project from itsoriginal approved funding source, by a transfer from the Roads & Bridges ReserveFund; and,
4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary
actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council approval to award
Request for Tender No. T2024-9 for the hard surfacing of Sideline 24 to IPAC Paving Limited.
As part of the Northern Roads Hard Surfacing Strategy endorsed by Council in 2016 through Report ENG 09-16 (Council Resolution #211/16), Sideline 24 (from Highway 407 to Whitevale Road) was identified as one of the priority roads for improvement from loose surface (gravel) to hard surface (asphalt). As part of the 2024 Capital Budget, funding was approved for Sideline
24 Hard Surfacing (from Highway 407 to Whitevale Road) as a construction project.
Request for Tender No. T2024-9 was advertised on Bids & Tenders on Wednesday, July 10, 2024, and closed on Thursday, August 1, 2024, with five bidders responding. The lowest compliant bid of $501,457.28 (HST included) submitted by IPAC Paving Limited is recommended for approval. The total gross project cost which includes the tendered amount, a
- 672 -
ENG 17-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Sideline 24 Hard Surfacing from Highway 407 to Whitevale Road Page 2
construction contingency, and other associated costs is estimated at $604,347.00 (HST included) with an estimated total net project cost of $544,233.00 (net of HST rebate).
Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priority of Advance Innovation & Responsible Planning to Support a Connected, Well-Serviced Community.
Financial Implications:
1. Tender Amount
Request for Tender No. T2024-9 $443,767.50
HST (13%) 57,689.78
Total $501,457.28
2. Estimated Project Costing Summary
Request for Tender No. T2024-9 $443,768.00
Associated Costs
Topographic Survey Geotechnical Investigation Reports Materials Testing Services
14,450.00 14,800.00 4,800.00 Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) Testing Services 3,750.00
Construction Contingency (12%) 53,252.00
Sub Total – Costs $534,820.00 HST (13%) 69,527.00 Total Gross Project Cost $604,347.00
HST Rebate (11.24%) (60,114.00)
Total Net Project Cost $544,233.00
- 673 -
ENG 17-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Sideline 24 Hard Surfacing from Highway 407 to Whitevale Road Page 3
3.Approved Source of Funds
Location Expense Code Source of Funds Budget Required
Sideline 24
Sideline 24
C10570.2404
C10570.2404
Roads & Bridges
Reserve Fund
Building Faster Fund Reserve Fund
$1,500,000.00
0.00
$0.00
544,233.00
$1,500,000.00 $544,233.00
Net Project Cost under (over) Approved Funds $955,767.00
In March 2024, the City was notified that it had received $5.2 million in grants from the Building
Faster Fund (BFF) from the provincial government for exceeding its 2023 housing targets.
Subject to eligibility approval from the provincial government, it is recommended that the funding source be revised from the Roads & Bridges Reserve Fund to the BFF Reserve Fund. The project will need to be completed by March 31, 2026, to be eligible for BFF grant funding.
Discussion: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council approval to award Request for Tender No. T2024-9 for the hard surfacing of Sideline 24 to IPAC Paving Limited.
In 2016, Council endorsed the Northern Roads Hard Surfacing Strategy through Resolution
#211/16. The Strategy was presented to the Executive Committee through Report ENG 09-16 which identified candidate existing loose surface (gravel) roads to be upgraded to hard surface (asphalt) roads, between Taunton Road and the Uxbridge Pickering Townline. Sideline 24 (from Highway 407 to Whitevale Road) was identified as one of the five priority roads for
improvement.
As part of the 2024 Capital Budget, Sideline 24 Hard Surfacing was approved as a construction project.
Request for Tender No. T2024-9 was advertised on Bids & Tenders on Wednesday, July 10, 2024, and closed on Thursday, August 1, 2024 with five bidders responding. The lowest
compliant bid of $501,457.28 (HST included) submitted by IPAC Paving Limited is
recommended for approval. The total gross project cost which includes the tendered amount, a construction contingency, and other associated costs is estimated at $604,347.00 (HST included) with an estimated total net project cost of $544,233.00 (net of HST rebate).
Through RFSQ2023-1 Roster Category of Geotechnical Investigation and Inspection Services
Master Framework Agreement (MFA), the geotechnical investigation and material testing services under associated costs have been awarded to Thurber Engineering Ltd.
IPAC Paving Limited has successfully completed contracts for the City in the past and the experience with this Contractor was acceptable. Staff have deemed the company’s - 674 -
ENG 17-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Sideline 24 Hard Surfacing from Highway 407 to Whitevale Road Page 4
workmanship, experience and professionalism to be satisfactory. In conjunction with staff’s review of the Contractor’s previous work experience, the tender is deemed acceptable.
Upon careful examination of all tenders and relevant documents received, the Engineering
Services Department recommends acceptance of the low bid submitted by IPAC Paving Limited for Request for Tender No. T2024-9 in the amount of $501,457.28 (HST included), and the total net project cost of $544,233.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved.
Attachments:
1.Location Map2. Resolution #211/16
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
David Lo, CPT, C.E.T. Richard Holborn, P. Eng.
Senior Coordinator, Infrastructure Design Director, Engineering Services
Kevin Heathcote, P. Eng. Stan Karwowski, MBA, CPA, CMA Division Head, Capital Projects & Infrastructure Director, Finance & Treasurer
Cathy Bazinet, CPPB, NIGP-CPP Manager, Procurement
DL: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:
Original signed by:
Original signed by:
- 675 -
Location Map
Attachment 1 to Report ENG 17-24
- 676 -
Legislative Services Division
Clerk’s Office
Directive Memorandum
October 19, 2016
To: Richard Holborn
Director, Engineering & Public Works
From: Debbie ShieldsCity Clerk
Subject: Direction as per Minutes of the Meeting of City Council
held on October 17, 2016
Director, Engineering & Public Works, Report ENG 09-16Northern Roads Hard Surfacing Strategy
Council Decision Resolution #211/16
1.That the Northern Roads Hard Surfacing Strategy, identifying candidate existingloose surface roads to be upgraded to hard surface roads, from north of Taunton
Road to the Uxbridge Pickering Townline, be endorsed by Council;
2.That Council consider funding for candidate roads selected for the NorthernRoads Hard Surfacing Strategy through the annual budget process; and
3.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take thenecessary actions as indicated in this report.
Please take any action deemed necessary.
Debbie Shields/lrCopy: Chief Administrative Officer
Attachment 2 to Report ENG 17-24
- 677 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: ENG 18-24 Date: September 3, 2024
From: Richard Holborn
Director, Engineering Services
Subject: Proposed Community Safety Zone
-West Shore Boulevard-File: A-1440
Recommendation:
1.That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule “14” to By-law 6604/05 toprovide for the regulation of Community Safety Zones on highways or parts of highwaysunder the jurisdiction of The Corporation of the City of Pickering to provide for aCommunity Safety Zone on West Shore Boulevard, from Bayly Street to Beachpoint
Promenade; and,
2.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessaryactions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to respond to Resolution #517/24 passed by Pickering City Council on June 28, 2024, which asks staff to investigate and report back on the following recommendations made by the Community Safety and Well Being Advisory Committee in Report CS 16-24:
•Review West Shore Boulevard for the inclusion of a Community Safety Zone.
•Review West Shore Boulevard, south from Surf Avenue, up to and including BeachpointPromenade for a speed limit reduction.
Based on the review completed, Engineering Services staff recommends approval of a
Community Safety Zone along the entire limit of West Shore Boulevard (from Bayly Street to
Beachpoint Promenade), however, does not recommend lowering the speed limit any lower than the already posted speed of 40 km/h on West Shore Boulevard or Beachpoint Promenade.
Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priority of Advance Innovation & Responsible Planning to Support a Connected, Well-serviced Community.
Financial Implications: The supply and installation of posts and Community Safety Zone signs can be accommodated within the 2024 Roads Current Budget.
- 678 -
ENG 18-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Proposed Community Safety Zone West Shore Boulevard Page 2
Discussion: The purpose of this report is to investigate and respond to Resolution #517/24
(Attachment 1) passed by Pickering City Council on June 24, 2024. Resolution #517/24 asks
staff to investigate and report back to Council in Q3 2024 on the following recommendations made by the Community Safety and Well Being Advisory Committee in Report CS 16-24 (Attachment 2).
• Review West Shore Boulevard for the inclusion of a Community Safety Zone.
• Review West Shore Boulevard, south from Surf Avenue, up to and including Beachpoint Promenade for a speed limit reduction.
A Community Safety Zone is recommended on the entire length of West Shore
Boulevard based on the volume of pedestrians and cyclists in the area that cross the street
Engineering Services staff reviewed West Shore Boulevard for the consideration of a Community Safety Zone. West Shore Boulevard is a major north/south collector street with residential fronting onto the street. The street has a 40 km/h posted speed limit.
Based on the review, a Community Safety Zone on West Shore Boulevard, from Bayly Street
to Beachpoint Promenade, is recommended for approval, with the following justification.
• Engineering Services staff recognizes that there are many pedestrians using West Shore Boulevard, due to the proximity of Father Fenelon Catholic School, Fairport Beach Public School, and Frenchman’s Bay Public School. Pedestrians, especially children, walk and
cycle to these schools.
• In addition to the pedestrians that travel to and from the schools, there are many pedestrians that travel to and from Pickering’s waterfront using West Shore Boulevard
and Beachpoint Promenade. On-street parking for the waterfront is also available on
West Shore Boulevard, which is well used.
• There are a number of destinations in the area that pedestrians cross West Shore Boulevard to access including but not limited to Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park,
Bruce Handscomb Memorial Park, Frenchman’s Bay Yacht Club and the Waterfront Trail.
• There are pedestrian crossings, with school crossing guards, on West Shore Boulevard at both Hillcrest Road and Oklahoma Drive.
• Automated speed enforcement can be introduced on West Shore Boulevard with the
introduction of a Community Safety Zone. This will lead to further enforcement and adherence to the 40 km/h posted speed limit.
Therefore, based on the proximity of three schools and other destinations in the area, the volume of pedestrians and cyclists that use and cross the street, it is recommended that a
Community Safety Zone be approved for the entire limit of West Shore Boulevard, from Bayly
Street to Beachpoint Promenade.
- 679 -
ENG 18-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Proposed Community Safety Zone West Shore Boulevard Page 3
The proposed Community Safety Zone on West Shore Boulevard is shown graphically in
Attachment 3. The draft by-law amendment to Schedule 14 of By-law 6604/05, for the
proposed Community Safety Zone can be found in Attachment 4.
A reduction of the speed limit on West Shore Boulevard between Surf Avenue and Beachpoint Promenade is not recommended
The most recent speed study on West Shore Boulevard, from a speed board situated near
Tullo Street in October 2023, indicates that the average speed on West Shore Boulevard is 30
km/h, and the 85th percentile speed is 38 km/h. Both of these metrics are below the posted speed limit of 40 km/h.
Staff recognizes that the presence of a speed board capturing the speed data likely had an impact on the speed of motorists that pass by, however, if a Community Safety Zone is
installed and an Automated Speed Enforcement Camera is added into rotation for West Shore
Boulevard, speeds will likely continue to remain low.
Beachpoint Promenade speeds are likely lower than speeds on West Shore Boulevard due to the presence of four raised pedestrian crossings, which adds traffic calming to the street and is designed so that motorists cannot travel more than the posted speed limit without it being
uncomfortable to the driver of the vehicle. The current posted speed limit on Beachpoint
Promenade is 40 km/h.
Therefore, based on the collected speeds on West Shore Boulevard, which are showing compliance to the speed limit, and the raised pedestrian crossings on Beachpoint Promenade as a form of traffic calming keeping speeds lower, Engineering Services staff does not
recommend a reduction to the speed limit on West Shore Boulevard or on Beachpoint
Promenade.
Attachments:
1. Resolution #517/24 2. Report CS 16-24 3. Proposed Community Safety Zone, West Shore Boulevard 4. Draft By-law Amendment to Schedule “14”, Community Safety Zones
- 680 -
ENG 18-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Proposed Community Safety Zone West Shore Boulevard Page 4
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Nathan Emery Richard Holborn, P. Eng.
Coordinator, Traffic Programs & Operations Director, Engineering Services
Nadeem Zahoor, P. Eng., M. Eng Manager, Transportation & Traffic
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:
- 681 -
Legislative Services DivisionClerk’s Office Directive Memorandum
June 28, 2024
To: Richard Holborn Director, Engineering Services
From: Susan Cassel City Clerk
Subject: Direction as per Minutes of the Meeting of City Council held on
June 24, 2024
Director, Community Services, Report CS 16-24 Recommendation for a West Shore Community Safety Zone Community Safety & Well-Being Advisory Committee
Council Decision Resolution #517/24
Please take any action deemed necessary.
Susan Cassel
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Director, Community Services
1.That Report CS 16-24 regarding Community Safety & Well-Being AdvisoryCommittee recommendation to designate West Shore Boulevard as a
Community Safety Zone and to decrease the speed limit from West ShoreBoulevard, south from Surf Avenue, up to and including BeachpointPromenade be received;
2.That the request to designate West Shore Boulevard as a Community Safety
Zone and to decrease the speed limit as noted above be referred to theDirector, Engineering Services for investigation, and to report back in Q3 2024;and,
3.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the
necessary actions as indicated in this report.
Attachment 1 to Report ENG 18-24
- 682 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: CS 16-24 Date: June 10, 2024
From: Laura Gibbs Director, Community Services
Subject: Recommendation for a West Shore Community Safety Zone -Community Safety & Well-Being Advisory Committee-File: A-1440-001
Recommendation:
1. That Report CS 16-24 regarding Community Safety & Well-Being Advisory Committeerecommendation to designate West Shore Boulevard as a Community Safety Zone andto decrease the speed limit from West Shore Boulevard, south from Surf Avenue, up to
and including Beachpoint Promenade be received;
2. That the request to designate West Shore Boulevard as a Community Safety Zone and to
decrease the speed limit as noted above be referred to the Director, EngineeringServices for investigation, and to report back in Q3 2024; and
3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessaryactions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to share the recommendations of the Community Safety & Well-Being Advisory Committee (CSWBAC) to designate a Community Safety Zone on West Shore Boulevard and to reduce the speed limit along West Shore Boulevard, south from Surf Avenue, up to and including, Beachpoint Promenade.
Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priority of Advocate for an Inclusive, Welcoming, Safe & Healthy Community.
Financial Implications: There are no direct financial implications to this report.
Discussion: The purpose of this report is to share the recommendation of the CSWBAC to designate a Community Safety Zone and reduce the speed limit on West Shore Boulevard.
A.The CSWBAC identified safety hazards related to vehicle traffic on West ShoreBoulevard
Attachment 2 to Report ENG 18-24
- 683 -
CS 16-24 June 10, 2024
Subject: Recommendation for a Westshore Community Safety Zone Page 2
Members of the CSWBAC identified several hazards that increase the risk to pedestrian safety due to traffic:
• West Shore Boulevard is a bypass used to get to Highway 401 from Oklahoma Drive, which creates conditions for speeding traffic. The posted speed limit on West
Shore Boulevard is 40 km/hour.
• There are two pedestrian crossings on West Shore Boulevard that are used frequently by students and pedestrians.
• West Shore Boulevard adjoins Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park where
pedestrians using the park frequently cross the street.
• Frenchman’s Bay Public School is located in the area, with students frequently traversing and crossing West Shore Boulevard.
The CSWBAC passed a motion on April 11, 2024:
• That the Community Safety & Well-Being Advisory Committee recommends that the West Shore Boulevard be designated as a Community Safety Zone;
• That the Community Safety & Well-Being Advisory Committee recommends a speed limit reduction along West Shore Boulevard, south from Surf Avenue, up to and
including, Beachpoint Promenade; and,
• That further to the recommendation of the Community Safety and Well-Being
Advisory Committee, that Council be requested to direct staff to consider this request and provide a report with recommendations. B. Community Safety Zones and Traffic Safety
A Community Safety Zone is an area designated by municipal by-law to identify a road segment of higher risk or concern. Certain Highway Traffic Act fines (including speeding) are doubled in Community Safety Zones, and many Community Safety Zones are located close to schools and school zones where children tend to walk, run and play. Pickering utilizes
Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE) to enforce speed limits in Community Safety Zones. Pickering was the 16th municipality to sign onto the Ontario ASE program. This initiative is in support of Durham Vision Zero, a long-term plan to ensure a safe transportation system that
sees no lives lost or serious injuries on Durham Region’s roadways.
C. Road Safety and the Community Safety & Well-Being Plan
The Community Safety & Well-Being Plan identifies road safety as a key component to Community Safety. Consistent with the City’s Corporate Priority to Advocate for an Inclusive,
Welcoming, Safe & Healthy Community, the following Community Safety & Well-Being Draft Plan action items support the recommendations of this report:
• Improve road safety, in collaboration with the Integrated Transportation Master Plan. Examples include ASE traffic camera program implementing additional Radar Speed
Board signage, converting existing streetlighting infrastructure, introducing Traffic Calming measures, participating in the Road Watch Program, facilitating residents with the Slow Down Sign campaign, and adding cycling facilities. - 684 -
CS 16-24 June 10, 2024
Subject: Recommendation for a Westshore Community Safety Zone Page 3
•Participation in the Durham Vision Zero and Road Safety Action Plan initiative.
Attachment: None
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Original Signed By Original Signed By
Michael Cain Laura Gibbs, MBA, MSc.
Supervisor, Safety, Security & Well-Being Director, Community Services
LG:mc
Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council
Original Signed By
Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer
- 685 -
Proposed Community Safety Zone
West Shore BoulevardNTSAugust, 2024
Engineering Services
Department
N
West Shore Blvd.
Proposed Community
Safety Zone
Pedestrian &
School Crossing
All-way Stop &
School Crossing
Attachment 3 to Report ENG 18-24
- 686 -
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 14 to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation of community safety zones on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of the Corporation of the City of Pickering, specifically this by-law
amendment will implement a community safety zone on the entire length of West Shore
Boulevard.
Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows:
1. Schedule 14 to By-law 6604/05, as amended, is hereby further amended thereto
by the following:
Schedule 14
Community Safety Zones
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3
Highway Limits (From/To) Prohibited Times
or Days
Add
West Shore Boulevard Full limit Anytime
Attachment 4 to Report ENG 18-24
- 687 -
By-law No. Page 2
By-law passed this 23rd day of September, 2024.
____________________________ Kevin Ashe, Mayor
________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk
- 688 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: ENG 19-24 Date: September 3, 2024
From: Richard Holborn
Director, Engineering Services
Subject: Proposed All-way Stop
-Marshcourt Drive and Beechlawn Drive-File: A-1440
Recommendation:
1.That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule “6” and Schedule “7” toBy-law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation of stop signs on highways or parts ofhighways under the jurisdiction of The Corporation of the City of Pickering, specifically toaddress the proposed installation of an all-way stop control at the intersection of
Marshcourt Drive and Beechlawn Drive; and,
2.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessaryactions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to request Council to enact a by-law to allow for the installation of an all-way stop control at the intersection of Marshcourt Drive and Beechlawn Drive.
Area residents have expressed safety concerns with the intersection of Marshcourt Drive and Beechlawn Drive with respect to vehicle volume, pedestrian safety, vehicle speed and cut-
through traffic.
Based on the results of the review, staff recommend an all-way stop be placed at the intersection of Marshcourt Drive and Beechlawn Drive to reduce vehicle conflicts and create a point where pedestrians can cross the road safely.
Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priority of Advance Innovation & Responsible Planning to
Support a Connected, Well-serviced Community.
Financial Implications: The supply and installation of stop signs, advance warning signs, and pavement markings at the intersection of Marshcourt Drive and Beechlawn Drive can be
accommodated within the 2024 Roads Current Budget.
- 689 -
ENG 19-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Proposed All-way Stop Marshcourt Drive and Beechlawn Drive Page 2
Discussion: The purpose of this report is to request Council to enact a by-law to allow for
the installation of an all-way stop control at the intersection of Marshcourt Drive and
Beechlawn Drive.
Area residents have expressed safety concerns with the intersection of Marshcourt Drive and Beechlawn Drive, as well as the intersection of Marshcourt Drive and Bainbridge Drive, with respect to vehicle volume, pedestrian safety, vehicle speed and cut-through traffic. In response
to these concerns, Engineering Services staff completed a review of both intersections, which
included observations of vehicle and pedestrian traffic, existing signs a pavement markings.
To address these concerns, the intersection of Marshcourt Drive and Bainbridge Drive was approved for an all-way stop through Report ENG 04-24 (Council Resolution # 435/24) in May, 2024. The all-way stop has been installed, therefore, this report focuses on the intersection of
Marshcourt Drive and Beechlawn Drive.
Beechlawn Drive is a local residential street, with intersections at Marshcourt Drive, Ashford Drive and Pickering Parkway. Marshcourt Drive is a main collector north-south street, extending from Pickering Parkway to approximately 200 metres north of Bainbridge Drive, where the road ends at a private residential complex entrance.
The review by Engineering Services staff for the intersection of Marshcourt Drive and
Beechlawn Drive indicates the following:
1. Pedestrians were observed crossing Marshcourt Drive to go to Beechlawn Park, which is located on Beechlawn Drive just west of the intersection. An all-way stop at this intersection would create a safe crossing point for pedestrians to access the park and
playground.
2. Vehicular conflicts were witnessed at the intersection, in particular when motorists turn from eastbound Beechlawn Drive to southbound Marshcourt Drive when there is a southbound vehicle on Marshcourt Drive travelling through the intersection. An all-way stop at this intersection would help in reducing conflicts at the intersection.
Community Consultation with area residents indicates support for an all-way stop
On May 22, 2024, a letter was sent out to all residents in the community. A total of 422 households were included in the consultation. The letter asked for feedback regarding the installation of an all-way stop at the intersection of Marchcourt Drive an Beechlawn Drive. The survey generated 27 replies with 24 in support and 3 opposed.
The community consultation indicated that many residents were concerned with vehicular
speed on Marshcourt Drive near the intersection, and that they are concerned that traffic will eventually increase though the neighbourhood once the construction of houses is completed on Pickering Parkway. Motorists can get from Pickering Parkway to Kingston Road by travelling on Marshcourt Drive and on Bainbridge Drive, which can be faster than accessing
the neighbouring arterial streets of Notion Road, and Brock Road. An all-way stop is not
- 690 -
ENG 19-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Proposed All-way Stop Marshcourt Drive and Beechlawn Drive Page 3
recommended to control speeds, however, an all-way stop at this intersection would enhance
safety since there is a slight curve through the intersection and sightlines would improve.
Based on the review and community consultation an all-way stop is recommended
Therefore, based on the review by Engineering Services staff and the feedback received from the community consultation, Engineering Services staff recommend an all-way stop be installed at the intersection of Marshcourt Drive and Bainbridge Drive. An all-way stop at this
location will improve sightlines, reduce vehicle conflicts and provide better protection for
pedestrians crossing at the intersection.
The proposed all-way stop control at the intersection of Marshcourt Drive and Beechlawn Drive is shown graphically in Attachment 1. The draft by-law amendment to Schedule “6”, Through Highways and Schedule “7”, Stop Signs, of By-law 6604/05 is presented in Attachment 2.
Attachments:
1.Proposed All-way Stop Control, Marshcourt Drive and Beechlawn Drive2.Draft by-law Amendment to Schedule “6”, Through Highways and, Schedule “7”. Stop
Signs to By-law 6604/05.
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Nathan Emery Richard Holborn, P. Eng.
Coordinator, Traffic Programs & Operations Director, Engineering Services
Nadeem Zahoor, P. Eng., M. Eng Manager, Transportation & Traffic
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:
- 691 -
Attachment 1 to Report ENG 19-24
- 692 -
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 6, Through Highways and, 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 Marshcourt Drive and Beechlawn Drive.
Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows:
1. Schedule 6 to By-law 6604/05, as amended, is hereby further amended thereto
by the following:
Schedule 6
Through Highways
Column 1 Column 2
Highway Limits (From/To)
Delete
Marshcourt Drive Pickering Parkway to Bainbridge Drive
Add
Marshcourt Drive Pickering Parkway to Beechlawn Drive
Marshcourt Drive Beechlawn Drive to Bainbridge Drive
Attachment 2 to Report ENG 19-24
- 693 -
By-law No. Page 2
2. 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
Marshcourt Drive Marshcourt Drive, northbound and southbound @ Beechlawn Drive
By-law passed this 23rd day of September, 2024.
____________________________ Kevin Ashe, Mayor
________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk
- 694 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: FIN 16-24 Date: September 3, 2024
From: Stan Karwowski
Director, Finance & Treasurer
Subject: 2023 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund
-File: F-4910-001
Recommendation:
It is recommended that Report FIN 16-24 from the Director, Finance & Treasurer regarding the
2022 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund be received for information.
Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to fulfill Section 7(4) of the Building
Code Act (the “Act”) which requires the City to prepare an annual report of building permit and inspection fees and related administrative and enforcement costs.
Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendation in this report responds to the Pickering Strategic Plan Corporate Key to Deliver on Good Governance – Fiscal
Prudence.
Financial Implications: This report contains information pertaining to the financial status of the Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund as at December 31, 2023.
Discussion: The purpose of this report is to fulfill Section 7(4) of the Building Code Act (the
“Act”) which requires the City to prepare an annual report of building permit and inspection
fees and related administrative and enforcement costs
In December 2005, Council approved Report PD 41-05, which enacted a new building permit process and fees under the Act. The Act requires permit fees to be accounted for, and not used to subsidize City functions other than administration and enforcement of the Act and the Ontario Building Code. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. was retained to undertake a
comprehensive analysis of all Planning & Development costs, fees and legislative requirements and to develop an Activity Based Costing (ABC) model for the City. Using this information, Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. recommended an increase in building permit fees to provide for cost recovery
The purpose of the Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund is to provide a source of funds
for current operating budget costs during an economic downturn to offset lower building permit revenues. Without such a reserve fund, reduced growth and permit volumes during a downturn
- 695 -
FIN 16-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: 2023 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund Page 2
could result in severe budgetary pressures which could impair the City’s ability to enforce the Act and the Ontario Building Code.
The Act requires that an annual report be prepared that includes the total Building Permit fees
collected in the previous 12-month period and a summary of directly and indirectly related administrative costs.
For many years, the City experienced a relatively low rate of development since the Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund was established in 2006. As a result, the accumulated
shortfall for this reserve fund as of December 31, 2022, was $2.01 million. Due to an excess of
building permit revenues over costs in 2023, the accumulated shortfall can be reduced by the excess of revenues in the amount of $2.60 million, thereby eliminating the Building Permit
Stabilization Reserve Fund’s accumulated deficit figure of $2.01 million. The Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund now has a positive 2023 yearend balance of $585,657 which can
be used as a possible funding source for future Building Services operating budget costs in the
event of slower growth to offset lower building permit fee revenues.
Annual Report – Building Permit Fees for the Year Ended December 31, 2023
Building Permit Revenue $6,175,838
Costs: Direct Costs $ (3,059,984) Indirect Costs (520,197) Capital Costs (3,580,181)
Excess (Shortfall) Revenue Over Costs $2,595,657
Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund Opening Balance, January 1, 2022 $ -
2023 Contribution 2,595,657
Transfer to the Rate Stabilization Reserve (2,010,000) Closing Balance, December 31, 2023 $ 585,657 Transfers to the Rate Stabilization Reserve
For the majority of municipalities, building permit revenues are sufficient to cover direct and indirect operating costs. In addition, many municipalities have excess funds that are transferred to their Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund and these funds are used to cover any future operating shortfall in their Building Services section. As stated earlier, up until 2017, Pickering had historically experienced a low level of construction activity that translated
into lower building permit revenues. For most municipalities, the budgeted and actual cost of their Building Services section and/or department is fully funded from building permit revenues. Historically, the Building Services section required a financial subsidy from the Pickering taxpayer to fund their operations. As of December 31, 2022, the accumulated financial subsidy
or deficit was $2.01 million. From a financial perspective, this subsidy was funded from the
- 696 -
FIN 16-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: 2023 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund Page 3
Rate Stabilization Reserve. The City’s financing strategy was to reduce this deficit (subsidy) over time by transferring the Building Services operating surpluses to the Rate Stabilization
Reserve. In 2023, Building Services had an operating surplus of $2,595,657 of which 2.01
million was transferred from the Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund to the Rate Stabilization Reserve, which eliminated the Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund’s accumulated deficit.
Attachment: None.
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Original Signed By: Original Signed By:
James Halsall Stan Karwowski Division Head, Finance Director, Finance & Treasurer
Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council
Original Signed By:
Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer
- 697 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: FIN 17-24 Date: September 3, 2024
From: Stan Karwowski
Director, Finance & Treasurer
Subject: Letters of Credit & Surety Bonds Acceptance Policies
-File: F-1100-001
Recommendation:
1.That Report FIN 17-24 regarding the Letters of Credit (LC) and Surety Bonds Acceptance
Policies be received;
2.That Council approve financial policies for the acceptance of Letters of Credit and SuretyBonds (FIN 100 and FIN 110), as set out in Attachment 1 and 2 to this report; and
3.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions
as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council’s approval of the Letters of Credit and Surety Bonds Acceptance Policies (FIN 100 and FIN 110). The City
currently accepts Letters of Credit (LC) and Surety Bonds to secure the financial obligations for subdivision and site plan agreements. These policies provide the minimum standards for the acceptance, custody, and administration of LCs and Surety Bonds and other acceptable forms of security to protect the financial interests of the City.
Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendation in this report responds to the Pickering Strategic Plan Corporate Key to Deliver on Good Governance – Fiscal Prudence
Financial Implications: There are no direct financial implications regarding the acceptance of LC and Surety Bonds as financial securities for the City. However, the adoption
of these policies will enhance the City’s financial practices. The attached policies are based on
the City’s established business practices, in conjunction with a review of other similar municipal policies. In other words, the attached policies represent the best practices of other
municipalities and now formalize the City’s established business practice.
Discussion: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council’s approval of the LC and Surety Bonds Acceptance Policies (FIN 100 and FIN 110). These policies provide the minimum standards for the acceptance, custody, and administration of LC and Surety Bonds and other acceptable forms of security to protect the financial interests of the City.
- 698 -
FIN 17-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Letters of Credit & Surety Bonds Acceptance Policies Page 2
Letters of Credit
Historically, the City only accepted LC issued by banks to secure the financial obligation for
subdivision and site plan agreements. LC are extremely liquid financial instruments and
guarantees payment or performance by allowing the City the right to draw upon the financial security in the case of developer default. Acceptable alternatives to a LC were cash, certified cheque, bank draft or a money order. The dollar value of a LC can range from a few thousand dollars to millions of dollars depending on the size and scope of the municipal services that are
outlined in the subdivision and site plan agreements.
Banks usually require collateral in the form of cash from the developer to guarantee the LC. For example, a developer that provides the City with a $1.0 million LC would have to deposit $1.0 million at the bank to be held as collateral security for the LC. This may create financial challenges for the developer, since the $1.0 million of cash held by the bank cannot be used
by the developer to pay its normal business operating costs.
Surety Bonds
In 2015, Council approved (Resolution #33/15) the use of Surety Bonds as an acceptable form of financial security for subdivision agreements, site plan agreements and other development agreements of a similar nature. The acceptance of surety bonds provided a secure financial
product as an alternative to a LC that would enable the developer to access some or all of the
cash that would otherwise be held by the bank as security for a LC and provide the developer with cost savings.
Both LCs and Surety Bonds are demand based and do not require the City to prove any default by the developer in Court, which can take a significant amount of time, effort and cost
the City a significant amount of money. The main difference between a LC and Surety Bonds
is that Surety Bonds provide financial security through insurance companies rather than banks (LCs).
Since 2015, the City has accepted 57 Surety Bonds as financial security for Plans of Subdivision, Site Plans and other development agreements. The dollar value of a Surety
Bonds accepted have ranged from $100,000 to millions of dollars depending on the size and
scope of the municipal services that are outlined in the subdivision and site plan agreements. The highest dollar amount accepted for a Surety Bond was $15 million.
The City has had no negative situations or experiences with respect to accepting Surety Bonds. However, there have been no instances to date where the City was required to make a claim against any of these bonds. Commonly cited concerns related to Surety Bonds are that
they are not as secure as LCs as they are issued by insurance companies. To mitigate the risk of default, Surety Bond providers must meet and maintain minimum credit rating requirements before their Surety Bonds will be accepted. In addition, the use of Surety Bonds as security for development agreements is limited to an upset amount of $15 million per agreement. If the required amount of financial security is above the upset limit, then the balance remaining must
be secured by a LC.
- 699 -
FIN 17-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Letters of Credit & Surety Bonds Acceptance Policies Page 3
Bill 109, Homes for Everyone Act, 2022 permitted the Province to enact regulations prescribing and defining surety bonds. This regulation would require and/or allow developers to require
municipalities to accept surety bonds as a financial security instrument. As noted above, the
City of Pickering has accepted Surety Bonds since 2015.
At this time, staff are requesting Council’s approval of both financial policies set out in Attachments 1 and 2 (FIN 100 and FIN 110).
Attachments:
1. Letters of Credit Acceptance Policy 2. Surety Bonds Acceptance Policy
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Signed By: Signed By:
James Halsall Stan Karwowski Division Head, Finance Director, Finance & Treasurer
Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council
Signed By:
Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer
- 700 -
Policy
Procedure Title: Letter of Credit Acceptance Policy Policy Number FIN 100
Reference Date Originated (m/d/y) September 23, 2024 Date Revised (m/d/y) Pages 5
Approval: Chief Administrative Officer Point of Contact
Director, Finance & Treasurer
Policy Objective
To establish a policy for the acceptance and administration of Letters of Credit as a security from
financial institutions.
Index
01 Definitions
02 Scope
03 Requirements for a Letter of Credit
04 Acceptable Institutions
05 Acceptable Alternatives to a Letter of Credit
06 Administration of Letters of Credit
07 Draw, Reduction or Release of a Letter of Credit
01 Definitions
01.01 Automatic Renewal – A condition that states the Letter of Credit shall be
automatically extended without formal amendment for a specified period of time beyond the stated expiry date. Written notification must be received by the City prior to the expiration, if automatic renewal is to be terminated.
01.02 City – The Corporation of the City of Pickering.
01.03 Development Agreement – refers to any agreement entered into between the
City of Pickering and a landowner to regulate the provision of on-site and municipal works required to service land under development applications, and includes, but is not limited to Site Plan, Plan of Subdivision/Condominium, Master Development Agreement, Construction Agreement and Servicing Agreement.
Attachment 1 to Report FIN 17-24
- 701 -
Policy Title: Letter of Credit Policy Page 2 of 5
Policy Number: FIN 100
01.04 Irrevocable Letter of Credit – a Letter of Credit cannot be revoked or amended without the agreement of both the City and the issuing financial institution.
01.05 Letter of Credit – a document issued by a financial institution on behalf of their
client to guarantee payment to the City. This security can be drawn against, should the client fail to meet their obligations under an agreement.
01.06 Schedule I Banks – domestic banks authorized under Schedule I of the Bank
Act to accept deposits.
01.07 Schedule II Banks – foreign bank subsidiaries authorized under Schedule II of
the Bank Act to accept deposits. Foreign bank subsidiaries are controlled by eligible foreign institutions.
01.08 Schedule III Banks – foreign bank branches of foreign institutions that have been authorized under Schedule III of the Bank Act to do banking business in
Canada. Schedule III banks are not incorporated with the Bank Act and operate
under restrictions not required by Schedule I or II banks.
01.09 Surety Bond – a bond which guarantees the assumption of responsibility for payment of security in the event of default of a Development Agreement.
02 Scope
02.01 The City accepts Letters of Credit to be submitted as security for Performance
and Maintenance obligations under Development Agreements. The issuing banks of Letters of Credit accepted by the City must meet specific credit-rating requirements, and the Letters of Credit must be written in a specific form.
02.02 Acceptance of a Letter of Credit as a security is advantageous to the City since
full or partial draws can be made upon the Letter of Credit on demand,
regardless of disputes which may occur; no service charges are assessed to the City; and the Letter of Credit can be written so that it automatically extends from year to year.
02.03 Letters of Credit may be required for other types of agreements at the discretion
of the Director, Finance & Treasurer.
03 Requirements for a Letter of Credit
03.01 Letters of Credit from any institution, including trust companies and credit unions, are not accepted unless approval is first received from the Director, Finance & Treasurer. In all circumstances, the acceptance or rejection of any
Letter of Credit is at the sole discretion of the Director, Finance & Treasurer.
03.02 Institutions issuing Letters of Credit accepted by the City for any reason must meet specific credit-rating requirements, and the Letter of Credit must be written
- 702 -
Policy Title: Letter of Credit Policy Page 3 of 5
Policy Number: FIN 100
in the City’s standard format (see Appendix 1). Acceptance of only certain types of Letters of Credit ensures that the interests of the City are protected.
03.03 Letters of Credit accepted by the City must:
a)be printed on letterhead from the issuing financial institution;
b)be the original copy (electronic copies will not be accepted);
c)be issued in Canadian dollars in the amount requested by the City;
d)specify that the Letter of Credit is irrevocable;
e)be registered in the name of The Corporation of the City of Pickering;
f)for the financial institution issuing office for the Letter of Credit be located inOntario;
g)disclose the project file number and municipal address or legal description;
h)include an automatic renewal clause, requiring the bank to provide thirty
days advance notice to the Treasurer, by registered mail, if it does not intend
to renew; and,
i)conform to the intent of the City’s standard format (see Appendix 1). Anydeviation from the standard format will be subject to review by the City andmay be refused for non-compliance.
03.04 Any deviations from the City’s Letter of Credit “template” shall be reviewed by
the Finance Department and Legal Services Section and are subject to the final approval of the Director, Finance & Treasurer.
04 Acceptable Institutions
04.01 Letters of Credit may be accepted from any of the following six largest banks set
out in Schedule 1 of the Bank Act (R.S.C.1985, C.B-1.01, and any amendments
thereto):
•Bank of Montreal
•Bank of Nova Scotia
•Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
•National Bank of Canada
•Royal Bank of Canada
•Toronto Dominion Bank
04.02 Letters of Credit may be accepted from other Schedule I banks and Schedule II
banks listed in the Bank Act (R.S.C. 1985, C.B-1.01 and any amendments
thereto), having a Morningstar DBRS rating of R-1(Mid) or better, or an
- 703 -
Policy Title: Letter of Credit Policy Page 4 of 5
Policy Number: FIN 100
equivalent rating by the rating agencies Moodys or S&P Global, subject to the approval of the Director, Finance & Treasurer.
04.03 If the City accepts a Letter of Credit from other Schedule I or Schedule II banks,
the bank must maintain the minimum credit rating throughout the period of time the Letter of Credit is held by the City. The Finance Department will monitor the credit ratings of banks for those Letters of Credit held by the City.
04.04 If the bank’s credit rating fall below the minimum level, the City will require a
substitute Letter of Credit from an eligible bank. Upon the direction of the
Finance Department, the City department will contact the developer or landowner to advise them that a substitute Letter of Credit from an eligible bank is required.
04.05 The substitute Letter of Credit must be presented to the City within 30 calendar
days of the City’s request. Should the Letter of Credit not be replaced within the
time frame specified by the City, the City may at their discretion draw down the existing Letter of Credit.
04.06 Letters of Credit from any other institutions, including trust companies, credit unions and Scheule III banks, will not be accepted.
05 Acceptable Alternatives to a Letter of Credit
05.01 Acceptable alternatives to a Letter of Credit are cash, certified cheque, bank draft, and money order.
05.02 If any of the above is provided in lieu of a Letter of Credit, the funds must be forwarded to the Finance Department for deposit to the City’s bank account.
05.03 Releases or draws on these funds will be processed in the same manner as a
Letter of Credit. No interest will be paid when funds are released.
05.04 Surety Bonds issued by insurance companies are acceptable security alternatives subject to the requirements in the Surety Bond Acceptance Policy.
05.05 The City will not accept Letters of Guarantee, Term Deposits, GIC’s or any form
of non-cash security (with exception of Surety Bonds) as an alternative to a
Letter of Credit.
06 Administration of Letters of Credit
06.01 Originating Departments are responsible for the following:
a)providing the City’s Letter of Credit “template” (see Appendix 1) to
developers, landowners, etc. for them to comply with;
- 704 -
Policy Title: Letter of Credit Policy Page 5 of 5
Policy Number: FIN 100
b)ensuring that the form, content and wording of Letters of Credit received
from developers, landowners, etc. match the City’s Letters of Credit
“template”; and,
c)forwarding the Letters of Credit to the Finance Department for evaluationand safekeeping.
06.02 The Finance Department is responsible for the following:
a)confirming the acceptance of Letters of Credit by email to the originating
department;
b)that Letters of Credit (or acceptable alternatives) submitted, meet therequirements of this Policy;
c)the safekeeping of the Letters of Credit; and,
d)all draws, reductions, or releases of Letters of Credit.
07 Draw, Reduction, or Release of a Letter of Credit
07.01 A request in writing to draw, reduce, or release the Letter of Credit, duly signed by an authorized employee (from the originating Department) is forwarded to the Finance Department for the Division Head, Finance’s authorization.
07.02 A letter of request to draw, reduce or release a Letter of Credit is prepared and
signed by the Division Head, Finance or designate and distributed as follows:
•financial institution (original)
•requester in originating department
•individual/developer who submitted Letter of Credit.
Appendices
Appendix 1 Letter of Credit Template
- 705 -
Appendix 1
Required Form for Letter of Credit
[Insert name of]) Agreement
To: The Corporation of the City of Pickering, Civic Complex
One The Esplanade, Pickering, ON L1V 6K7
Re: Description of Lands Affected (Use exact description from ‘Lands Affected’ clause in Agreement)
City File: (SP#, S# or D#)
We hereby authorize you to draw on [insert name of bank], [insert address of bank], for account of
[insert name of company or companies obtaining security] up to an aggregate amount of [insert
amount of security in figures and in full] available by drafts at sight for 100% on demand as follows:
Pursuant to the request of our customers(s), the said [insert name of company or companies
obtaining security], we [insert name of bank], [insert address of bank], hereby establish and give
to you an irrevocable Letter of Credit in your favour in the total amount of [insert amount of security in numbers and in words] which may be drawn on by you at any time and from time to time upon
written demand for payment made upon us by you which demand we shall honour without inquiring whether you have a right as between yourself and our said customer(s) to make such demand, and without recognizing any claim of our said customer(s) .
Provided, however, that you are to deliver to [insert name of bank], [insert address of bank], at such time as a written demand for payment is made upon us a certificate signed by you agreeing or confirming that monies drawn pursuant to this Letter of Credit are payable to you or are to be or have been expended pursuant to obligations incurred or to be incurred by you with reference to your file
regarding a [insert either Site Plan Control, Subdivision or Development Agreement] dated
[insert date of Agreement], between [insert name of owner referenced on Agreement, other
than City and Encumbrancer(s)] and The Corporation of the City of Pickering; this Letter of Credit
is required pursuant to section ____ of that Agreement.
Partial drawings are permitted.
The amount of this Letter of Credit shall be reduced from time to time as advised by notice in writing given to us from time to time by you.
This Letter of Credit will continue up to and including [insert date of expiry of Letter of Credit] and will expire on that date and you may call for payment of the full amount outstanding under this Letter of Credit at any time up to the close of business on that date. It is a condition of this Letter of Credit
that it shall be deemed to be automatically extended for one year from the present or any future
expiration date hereof, unless thirty days prior to any such date, we shall notify you in writing by registered mail that we elect not to consider this Letter of Credit renewed for any such additional period.
We hereby covenant with drawers, endorsers, and bona fide holders of drafts drawn under and in
accordance with the terms of this credit that such drafts will be duly honoured if drawn and negotiated
on or before [insert date of expiry of Letter of Credit] or any automatically extended expiry date.
- 706 -
The drafts drawn under this credit are to be endorsed hereon and shall state on their face that they
are drawn under [insert name of bank], [insert address of bank].
Dated this day of , 20 .
Instructions for completing Letter of Credit:
1.Letter of Credit must be typed on bank letterhead.2.Information required in square brackets must be provided where indicated, without brackets.3.Phrases shown in round brackets must be included without brackets where there are two ormore companies comprising the customer.
4.The date in the sixth paragraph must be at least one year from the date of the Letter of Credit.
5.The date in the seventh paragraph must be the same as the date in the sixth paragraph.6.Bank signatories must show name, printed or typed, and title, in addition to signature.
Acceptable Banking Institutions:
1.Letters of Credit may be accepted from any of the following six largest banks set out in ScheduleI of the Bank Act (R.S.C.1985, C.B-1.01, and any amendments thereto):
•Bank of Montreal
•Bank of Nova Scotia
•Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
•National Bank of Canada
•Royal Bank of Canada
•Toronto Dominion Bank
2.Letters of Credit may be accepted from other Schedule I banks and Schedule II banks listed in the
Bank Act (R.S.C. 1985, C.B-1.01 and any amendments thereto), that meet and maintain
minimum credit ratings as described in the City’s Letters of Credit Acceptance policy3.Letters of Credit from any other institutions, including trust companies, credit unions andSchedule III banks, will not be accepted.
- 707 -
Policy
Procedure Title: Surety Bond Acceptance Policy Policy Number FIN 110
Reference Date Originated (m/d/y) September 23, 2024 Date Revised (m/d/y) Pages 4
Approval: Chief Administrative Officer Point of Contact
Division Head, Finance
Policy Objective
To establish a policy for the acceptance and administration of Surety Bonds as a form of security
under development agreements from surety providers.
Index
01 Definitions
02 Scope
03 Requirements for the Surety Bond
04 Acceptable Institutions
05 Administration of Surety Bonds
06 Draw, Reduction or Release of a Surety Bond
01 Definitions
01.01 City – The Corporation of the City of Pickering.
01.02 Development Agreement – refers to any agreement entered into between the
City of Pickering and a landowner to regulate the provision of on-site and municipal works required to service land under development applications, and includes, but is not limited to, Site Plan, Plan of Subdivision/Condominium, Master Development Agreement, Construction Agreement and Servicing Agreement.
01.03 Irrevocable – a Surety Bond cannot be revoked or amended without agreement of both the City and the issuing insurance company.
01.04 Rider – a Surety Bond provision that amends the terms of the Surety Bond (i.e., a reduction in the bond value).
Attachment 2 to Report FIN 17-24
- 708 -
Policy Title: Surety Bond Acceptance Policy Page 2 of 4
Policy Number: FIN 110
01.05 Security – an amount required to be provided under a Development Agreement, which will ultimately be returned to the developer after the terms of
the Development Agreement have been executed to the City’s satisfaction, but
may be drawn upon in the event of a contravention to the Agreement obligations.
01.06 Surety Bond – a bond which guarantees the assumption of responsibility for payment of security in the event of default of a Development Agreement.
01.07 Surety Provider – a company licensed, either federally or by a provincial
insurance regulatory body, to issue Surety Bonds in the Province of Ontario.
02 Scope
02.01 The City allows Surety Bonds to be submitted as security for Performance and Maintenance obligations under Development Agreements. The issuing
insurance companies of Surety Bonds accepted by the City must meet specific
credit-rating requirements and the Surety Bond must be written in a specific form.
02.02 The use of Surety Bonds as security for Development Agreements shall be limited to an upset amount of $15 million per agreement. If the required amount
of security is above the upset limit, then the balance remaining must be secured
by a Letter of Credit.
02.03 Surety Bonds may be accepted for other types of agreements at the discretion of the Director, Finance & Treasurer.
03 Requirements for the Surety Bond
03.01 The Surety Bond to be provided to the City, issued by a Surety Provider, shall
be irrevocable and shall be in the form and on the terms of the Surety Bond
“template” attached hereto as Appendix 1.
03.02 The City will only accept original copies of Surety Bonds (electronic copies will not be accepted).
03.03 Notwithstanding anything in this Policy:
a) The City may, at its discretion, decline a Surety Bond for any reason; and,
b) When a Surety Bond has been received and is being held by the City, and the City is no longer satisfied that the Surety Bond provides adequate protection, the City may require a new security to its satisfaction, to be
provided to the City within ten calendar days of demand for same and the
original Surety Bond will be returned and/or exchanged for the replacement security. In the event the new scurity is not received as required, the City may draw upon the original Surety Bond.
- 709 -
Policy Title: Surety Bond Acceptance Policy Page 3 of 4
Policy Number: FIN 110
04 Acceptable Institutions
04.01 The City will accept Surety Bonds from a Canadian Surety Provider having a
minimum credit rating of:
a) “A+” or higher as assessed by AM Best’s Financial Strength Rating (FSR); or,
b) “A” or higher as assessed by DBRS Morningstar FSR; or,
c) “A2” or higher as assessed by Moody’s Investor Services FSR; or,
d) “A” or higher as assessed by S&P’s Financial Strength Rating.
AM Best’s FSR is the preferred credit rating to be used for assessing a Surety
Provider’s solvency, financial strength and ability to pay their policyholders’ claims.
04.02 The issuing company shall be incorporated in Canada for no less than ten years
and issue Surety Bonds in Canadian dollars.
04.04 The issuing Surety Provider must be an active institution monitored by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.
04.05 When a Surety Provider, that has issued or confirmed a Surety Bond received and held by the City, subsequently ceases, (in the opinion of the City), to meet
all or any of the requirements of this Policy, the City may, at its discretion and
subject to section 04.01 of this Policy, require a new security to its satisfaction to be provided to the City within ten days of demand for same and the original Surety Bond will be returned or exchanged for the replacement security. In the event the new security is not received as required, the City may draw upon the
original Surety Bond.
04.06 Where there is doubt as to the credit rating or other qualification of a Surety Provider, the Director, Finance & Treasurer or the Division Head, Finance shall be satisfied that the institution meets the requirements of this Policy.
05 Administration of Surety Bonds
05.01 Originating Department is responsible for the following:
a) providing the City’s Surety Bond “template” (see Appendix 1) to developers, landowners, etc. for them to comply with;
b) ensuring that the form, content and wording of Surety Bonds received from developers, landowners, etc. match the City’s Surety Bond “template”; and,
- 710 -
Policy Title: Surety Bond Acceptance Policy Page 4 of 4
Policy Number: FIN 110
c)forwarding the Surety Bonds to the Finance Department for evaluation andsafekeeping.
05.02 The Finance Department is responsible for the following:
a)confirming the acceptance of Surety Bonds by email to the originatingdepartment;
b)that all Surety Bonds submitted meet the requirements of this Policy;
c)the safekeeping of the Surety Bonds; and,
d)all draws, reductions, or releases of Surety Bonds.
06 Draw, Reduction or Release of a Surety Bond
06.01 A request in writing to draw, reduce or release the Surety Bond, duly signed by
an authorized employee (from the originating Department) shall be forwarded to
the Finance Department for the Division Head, Finance’s authorization.
06.02 A letter of request to draw, reduce, or release a Surety Bond is prepared and signed by the Division Head, Finance or designate and distributed as follows:
•financial institution (original)
•requester in originating department
•individual/developer who submitted Letter of Credit
06.03 For Surety Bond reductions, Surety Bond providers are required to provide
“original” copies of Riders to the Finance Department to acknowledge the reduction in the value of the Surety Bond. Finance staff will confirm acceptance of Riders by email to the originating Department. If a Surety Provider fails to
provide a Rider to the Finance Department, the originating Department is
responsible for following up with the developer, landowner, etc. to ensure that
the City receives the “original” rider.
Appendices
Appendix 1 Surety Bond Template
- 711 -
Appendix 1
[Insert Name of Agreement]Bond
Bond Number: [insert number] Amount: $[insert amount]
Know all persons by these presents, that [insert company name] as Principal, hereinafter called
the “Principal”, and [insert company name], as Surety, hereinafter called the “Surety”, are held and
firmly bound unto The Corporation of the City of Pickering, as Obligee, hereinafter called
“Obligee”, in the amount of [insert amount in words] ($[insert amount in numbers]), lawful money of Canada, for the payment of which sum, well and truly to be made, the Principal and the Surety bind themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally,
firmly by these presents.
Whereas the Principal and Obligee have entered into an agreement made the [insert date] day of [insert month], [insert year] with respect to lands legally described as [insert legal description], City of Pickering (said agreement is by reference made a part hereof and is hereinafter referred to as the ‘[insert name of agreement]”.
And Whereas the [insert name of agreement], among other things, requires the Principal to
construct and maintain site improvement works as described in the [insert name of agreement].
Now Therefore, the condition of this obligation is such that if the Principal, in the opinion of the
Obligee’s Director, City Development & CBO, or designate, constructs, installs and maintains the site improvement works in accordance with the [insert name of agreement] and at all times indemnifies the Obligee from all loss, expense and damage which the Obligee may sustain by reason of the
failure or default on the part of the Principal to keep, do and perform any of the stipulations, conditions, covenants and terms of the [insert name of agreement], then this obligation shall be void and of no effect; otherwise, it shall remain in full force and effect.
Provided, however, the foregoing obligation is subject to the following conditions and provisions:
1. Whenever the Principal shall be declared in writing by the Obligee to be in default under the [insert name of agreement], and the Obligee intends to make a demand under this bond, the Obligee shall promptly notify the Principal and the Surety in writing of such default.
2. Any written demand for payment under this bond (hereinafter referred to as the “Demand”) shall:
a. Specify the amount of monies drawn pursuant to this bond; and
b. Provide a certificate to the effect that the amount of monies drawn pursuant to this bond have been paid, are payable, or will be payable by the Obligee pursuant to obligations incurred by the Obligee to remedy the Principal’s default under the [insert name of agreement].
3. Upon receiving the Demand from the Obligee, the Surety shall make payment to the Obligee
in the amount of the Demand to enable the Obligee to remedy the Principal’s default under the [insert name of agreement], including any and all administration fees due from the Principal to the Obligee under the [insert name of agreement].
4. The Obligee may make multiple Demands under this bond.
- 712 -
5. The Obliged shall provide to the Surety a summary of the amounts expended by the Obligee
(including invoices, if applicable), to remedy the Principal’s default under the [insert name of agreement]. In the event the total amount of all payments made by the Surety under this
bond exceeds the amount required to indemnify the Obligee with respect to remedying the
default of the Principal under the [insert name of agreement], the Obligee shall return all excess payments to the Surety.
6. Each payment made by the Surety under this bond shall reduce the amount of this bond.
7. In no event shall the Surety be liable for a greater sum than the amount of this bond.
8. No right of action shall accrue upon or by reason hereof to or for the use or benefit of any
person other than the Obligee.
9. When the Principal has completed all works required by the [insert name of agreement] to
the Obligee’s satisfaction, all maintenance and rectification periods contained within the [insert name of agreement] have expired, and the Obligee has issued a Final Acceptance
Certificate, the Obligee shall return this bond to the Surety for termination or advise the Surety
in writing that this bond is terminated, in accordance with the terms of the [insert name of agreement].
10. If the Surety at any time delivers at least 60 days prior written notice to the Obligee and to the Principal of its intention to terminate this obligation, the Principal shall deliver to the Obligee,
not less than 30 days prior to the termination of this bond, financial security in the amount of
this bond in a form acceptable to the Obligee. If the replacement financial security is not provided by the Principal or is not accepted by the Obligee, this bond shall remain in effect.
11. Nothing in this bond shall limit the Principal’s liability to the Obligee under the [insert name of agreement].
12. Notices to the Surety, including Demands, are to be delivered to the Surety at [insert full mailing address].
In Testimony Whereof, the Principal has hereto set its hand and affixed its seal and the Surety has caused these presents to be sealed with its corporate seal duly attested by the signature of its authorized signing authority.
Signed and Sealed this [insert date] day of [insert month], [insert year] in the presence of:
[insert company name]
___________________________________________ (Signature of Authorized Signing Officer)
___________________________________________ (Print name and title of Signature of Authorized Signing Officer)
I have the authority to bind the corporation.
[insert company name]
___________________________________________ [insert name, title]
- 713 -
Instructions for completing Surety Bond template: 1. Surety Bond must be on surety provider’s letterhead.
2. Information required in square brackets must be provided where indicated, without
brackets. 3. Obligee’s signature must show name and title, printed or typed, in addition to signature. Acceptable Surety Providers:
1. The City will accept surety bonds from Canadian surety providers that meet and maintain minimum credit ratings as described in the City’s Surety Bond Acceptance policy. 2. The issuing company shall be incorporated in Canada for no less than ten (10) years and issue Surety Bonds in Canadian dollars.
3. The issuing surety provider must be an active institution monitored by the Office of the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI). Surety Bond Upset limit:
1. The acceptance of Surety Bonds is limited to an upset amount of $15 million per
agreement. If the amount of financial security is above the upset limit, then the balance remaining must be secured by a Letter of Credit
- 714 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: FIN 18-24 Date: September 3, 2024
From: Stan Karwowski
Director, Finance & Treasurer
Subject: Building Faster Fund – 2024 Investment Plan
-File: F-4910-001
Recommendation:
1.That Report FIN 18-24 regarding the Building Faster Fund grant from the Province
of Ontario be received;
2.That Council authorize and approve the capital project listing in the report to befunded by the Building Faster Fund grant; and
3.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be given authority to take the
necessary actions to give effect thereto.
Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council approval on
City staff’s investment plan on utilizing the Building Faster Fund (BFF) grant dollars. On
March 13, 2024, Premier Doug Ford announced that the City of Pickering will be receiving $5.2M in funding for exceeding its 2023 housing target, through the Province
of Ontario’s new Building Faster Fund, which incentivizes municipalities to tackle housing supply issues, by providing performance-based funding for housing and community infrastructure.
For this grant, City staff are required to submit an “Investment Plan” (IP) to the Province that lists potential projects and or uses of these dollars. This process is similar to the Canada Community Building Fund whereby City staff submit every year to AMO a list of proposed projects to be funded from the grant. City staff have done a thorough review of eligible capital projects that can benefit from this grant and submitted the capital
project list to the BFF (provincial) staff who provided draft approval.
Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report
respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Corporate Key to Deliver on Good Governance
–Open & Transparent Decision Making; and Pickering Strategic Plan priority ofAdvance Innovation & Responsible Planning to Support a Connected, Well-ServicedCommunity.
- 715 -
FIN 18-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Building Faster Fund – 2024 Investment Plan Page 2 ______________________________________________________________________
Financial Implications: The City of Pickering has been allocated approximately
$5.2 million in BBF funding that is required to be spent by March 31, 2026.
City staff have done a thorough review of eligible capital projects that can benefit from the BFF grant which are identified in the in table one. Utilizing the BFF grant for these
vital core infrastructure capital projects will create capacity for the City’s existing
reserves and reserve funds, which can be used for future core infrastructure capital
projects. The City has been given an extension to September 30, 2024, to submit its Investment Plan (IP) for 2024.
Discussion: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council approval on City staff’s investment plan on utilizing the Building Faster Fund grant dollars. On March 13, 2024, Premier Doug Ford announced that the City of Pickering will be receiving $5.2M in
funding for exceeding its 2023 housing target, through the Province of Ontario’s new
Building Faster Fund, which incentivizes municipalities to tackle housing supply issues, by providing performance-based funding for housing and community infrastructure. City staff have done a thorough review of eligible capital projects that can benefit from this grant.
The BFF is a new provincially funded program designed to reward municipalities that
enable home construction, based on meeting its provincially assigned housing targets. It is a three-year program that will provide $400 million per year to municipalities that have achieved 80% or more of their annual housing targets. The funds are awarded based on the percentage of the housing targets met, with bonuses for exceeding the target (up to
a maximum of 25% over target).
In 2023, Pickering experienced 1,502 new housing unit starts, exceeding their target of 951 units by 58 percent. As a result, the City received the maximum funding allocation available, $5.2 million. There are still two more years of BFF availability, but whether the City is successful in receiving future funding will depend on the housing starts in 2024
and 2025.
The below table identifies the proposed capital projects to be funded from the BFF grant. It is anticipated that these projects will begin in the last quarter of 2024, with an estimated 2024 spending of approximately $725,000. The projects identified total
$4,550,000, with the remaining grant funds of $650,000 being carried over to 2025 and
will be utilized for 2025 capital projects.
- 716 -
FIN 18-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Building Faster Fund – 2024 Investment Plan Page 3 ______________________________________________________________________
Table 1: Capital Project Listing
The funding of $5.2 million that the City has received for achieving its housing target
must be spent by March 31, 2026. City staff are confident that the projects listed above
will be completed by this deadline.
Attachment:
1. City of Pickering – 2024 BFF Investment Plan
Proposed Activity Description (including anticipated
outcomes)
Total Amount to be
Committed/Spent
2024 Estimated
Spending
Autumn - Stormwater management cleanout
Maintenance of our stormwater
management ponds are critical to reducing
flood risk, reducing erosion, and improving / maintaining water quality within our watersheds and surrounding community. Sediment removal will restore function of the facility in achieving mandatory water
quality/quantity objectives.
$ 1,050,000 $ 50,000
Begley Street - Stormwater management
cleanout
Maintenance of our stormwater management ponds are critical to reducing flood risk, reducing erosion, and improving /
maintaining water quality within our
watersheds and surrounding community.
Sediment removal will restore function of the
facility in achieving mandatory water
quality/quantity objectives.
$ 550,000 $ 50,000
Wilson Bridge Replacement
The Wilson Bridge on Seventh Concession
Road has been identified through our
biennial OSIM inspection and asseement
program (legislated for all structures that
exceed a span of 3m) as requiring
replacement. Design is complete and
approvals will be in place for 2025
construction.
$ 2,100,000 $ -
Sideline 24 - Hard Surfacing
The hard surfacing of Sideline 24 between Alexander Knox Road (formerly Whitevale Road) and Hwy 7 will provide for a key transportation connection for the growing
Seaton Community.
$ 600,000 $ 600,000
Old Brock Road New Streetlights - from
Hoxton Street to Uxbridge-Pickering
Townline Design and Construction
The installation of streetlights along this
section of road increases safety by guiding
motorists and pedestians/cyclists. This
section of road is a key transportation link
for a new residential subdivision being
developed to the south.
$ 250,000 $ 25,000
GRAND TOTAL $ 4,550,000 $ 725,000
- 717 -
FIN 18-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Building Faster Fund – 2024 Investment Plan Page 4 ______________________________________________________________________
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Original Signed By: Original Signed By:
Jason Bekramchand, CPA Stan Karwowski, CPA, CMA, MBA Senior Financial Analyst, Director, Finance & Treasurer Capital & Debt Management
Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council
Original Signed By:
Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer
- 718 -
1
2024 BFF Investment Plan Instructions
Section A: Contact Information
Please provide the contact information of a representative from your municipality that can answer follow-up questions from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
regarding any of the information provided in the template below.
Section B: Proposed BFF Activities
This section provides an opportunity to describe your municipality’s focus, actions and
plans for use of BFF funding, including intended outcomes such as how the funding will contribute to increasing housing supply, housing development and/or address issues of housing affordability. Information on progress to date and future plans is welcome, but focus should be on activities planned for the coming year/immediate funding cycle.
Section C: Proposed Building Faster Fund (BFF) Expenditures
Please itemize how BFF funds will be used by activity/initiative as related to the eligible expenditures section.
Section D: Attestation
Attest that the information provided on Housing Plans and progress (Section B) and Proposed Expenditures for BFF funding (Section C) are true and correct, with approvals by municipal Council/ or their delegated authority.
Attachment 1 to Report FIN 18-24
- 719 -
2
Name (First & Last) Stan Karwowski
Title Director, Finance & Treasurer
E-mail skarwowski@pickering.ca
Phone 905-420-4640
Please describe the actions that will be supported with BFF funding, including how these actions support increasing housing supply, housing development, including issues of housing affordability and any identified risks to achieve housing targets.
The City of Pickering has identified various projects that would benefit from the BFF funding. The plan is to use the $5.2 million earned for the 2023 housing targets for a
broad range of projects which include stormwater management ponds cleanout, bridge replacements, asphalt resurfacing, hard road surfacing and streetlight installations.
These projects are vital to the City as these enhancements/replacements/new
construction would benefit both existing and new residents of Pickering. The completion
of these vital capital projects will ensure that Pickering’s infrastructure will be able to accommodate the forecasted growth of 13,000 new homes by 2033.
Section A – Municipality Contact Information
Section B – Proposed BFF Activities
- 720 -
Section C: Proposed BFF Expenditures
Please enter detailed information in the table below on the planned expenditures for your BFF funding this year. Auditable detail will be requested for BFF expenditures at the end of each year which should directly connect to the activities/expenditures outlined in this section.
Proposed Activity Eligible Expenditure Category Funding Type (Capital/ Operating)Description (including anticipated outcomes) Total Amount to be Committed/Spent 2024 Estimated Spending
Other Sources of Funding (please specify amounts and sources)
Autumn - Stormwater management cleanout Capital expenditure - housing enabling
core infrastructure Capital
Maintenance of our stormwater management ponds are critical to reducing flood risk, reducing erosion, and improving / maintaining
water quality within our watersheds and surrounding community. Sediment removal will restore function of the facility in achieving mandatory water quality/quantity objectives.
$ 1,050,000 $ 50,000 N/A
Begley Street - Stormwater management cleanout Capital expenditure - housing enabling core infrastructure Capital
Maintenance of our stormwater management ponds are critical to reducing flood risk, reducing erosion, and improving / maintaining
water quality within our watersheds and surrounding community. Sediment removal will restore function of the facility in achieving
mandatory water quality/quantity objectives.
$ 550,000 $ 50,000 N/A
Wilson Bridge Replacement Capital expenditure - housing enabling
core infrastructure Capital
The Wilson Bridge on Seventh Concession Road has been identified through our biennial OSIM inspection and asseement program
(legislated for all structures that exceed a span of 3m) as requiring replacement. Design is complete and approvals will be in place for 2025 construction.
$ 2,100,000 $ - N/A
Sideline 24 - Hard Surfacing Capital expenditure - housing enabling core infrastructure Capital
The hard surfacing of Sideline 24 between
Alexander Knox Road (formerly Whitevale Road) and Hwy 7 will provide for a key transportation connection for the growing
Seaton Community.
$ 600,000 $ 600,000 N/A
Old Brock Road New Streetlights - from Hoxton Street to Uxbridge-Pickering Townline Design and Construction
Capital expenditure - housing enabling core infrastructure Capital
The installation of streetlights along this section of road increases safety by guiding
motorists and pedestians/cyclists. This section of road is a key transportation link for a new residential subdivision being developed
to the south.
$ 250,000 $ 25,000 N/A
Total Funds to be Saved/Banked this Program Year $4,475,000*
* Current estimate at this time. Actual spending will be reported at 2024 year-end. Carryover funds will be fully utilized in 2025.
- 721 -
4
☒I declare that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information provided in
this report is true and correct, with authorization/approval by local Council/Board or
their delegated authority.
Prepared by (Name and Title): Stan Karwowski, Director Finance & Treasurer
Date:
Approved by (Name and Title): Marisa Carpino, Chief Administrative Officer
Date:
Questions on the Building Faster Fund and Building Faster Fund implementation can be directed to: BuildingFasterFund@ontario.ca
Section D – Attestation
- 722 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: FIR 04-24 Date: September 3, 2024
From: Steve Boyd
Fire Chief
Subject: Funding Request for Fire Station Alerting
-Quotation No LL-072224-File: A-1440-001-24
Recommendation:
1.That Quotation LL-072224 for the sole source supply and installation under the CanoeCooperative Purchasing of Fire Station alerting (Zetron™) services for Fire Stations 1, 2,4, 5, and 6, submitted by Williams Communications in the amount of $189,475.00 (HSTincluded) be accepted;
2.That the total gross project cost of $189,475.00 (HST included) and the total net project
cost of $170,628.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved;
3.That Council authorize that the budget shortfall of $136,628.00 be approved with fundingto be provided at the discretion of the Director Finance & Treasurer; and
4.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary
actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council’s authority to fund
the sole source supply and installation of the Fire Station Alerting communications system
totaling $189,475.00 (HST included), and to obtain authorization to award Quotation LL-072224. Fire Services budgeted $350,000.00 in the 2023 Capital Budget as its share for Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) Software project lead by Oshawa Fire Services. The current CAD system has reached end of life and requires replacing.
In May 2024, Oshawa Fire Services took over fire dispatch for all of Durham Region, and at
the time opted to cover the total capital costs of the CAD software, NG911. As a result, the $350,000.00 for the City’s capital project was cancelled at the end of 2023. In July 2024, users were advised that each municipality was required to supply and install the necessary station alerting components to meet the new CAD systems requirements. These components include
IT switches, speakers, relays and other associated equipment. The total cost for the supply
and installation is $189,475.00 (HST included). Unfortunately, Pickering Fire Services was not made aware of this cost until July 2024 after an audit by Oshawa’s vendor. Although the $350,000.00 original project budget was cancelled, we are expecting to incur $170,628.00 (net of HST rebate) in 2024 for the alerting system. In addition, the consolidation of fire dispatch
centres results in annual operating savings to the City of around $250,000.00.
- 723 -
FIR 04-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Funding Request for Fire Station Alerting Page 2
Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priorities to Advocate for an Inclusive, Welcoming,
Safe & Healthy Community; and Advance Innovation & Responsible Planning to Support a
Connected, Well-Serviced Community.
Financial Implications:
1. Quote Amount
Quotation No. LL-072224 $167,677.45
HST (13%) 21,798.07
Total $189,475.52
2. Estimated Project Costing Summary
Quotation No. LL-072224 $167,677.00
Total Project Cost $167,677.00
HST (13%) 21,798.00
Total Gross Project Costs $189,475.00
HST Rebate (11.24%) (18,847.00)
Total Net Project Cost $170,628.00
3. Approved Source of Funds
Expense Code Source of Funds Budget Required
502060.10700 Property Taxes (Current)
$34,000.00 $170,628.00
Net Project Cost under (over) Approved Funds ($136,628.00)
There is approximately $34,000.00 available in the Current Budget under the Fire Protection
dispatch communications account related to this project. It is recommended that the funding shortfall for this project of $136,628.00 be financed at the discretion of the Director, Finance & Treasurer.
Discussion: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council’s authority to fund the sole source supply and installation of the Fire Station Alerting communications system at a cost of
$189,475.00 (HST included), and to obtain authorization to award Quotation LL-072224.
- 724 -
FIR 04-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Funding Request for Fire Station Alerting Page 3
In 2023, Fire Services included within the Fire Services Capital Budget C10700.2306, $350,000.00 for Pickering’s anticipated share of a new CAD software (Hexagon™) to replace
the current CriSys software in Q4 of 2024 which is approaching end of life after 24 years. At
the time, the Regional fire dispatch agreement was not yet in place and a CAD software solution was being designed for the Ajax and the Oshawa dispatch centres.
The $350,000.00 in capital funds was earmarked for Pickering’s share of the Ajax dispatch centres CAD upgrade at the time; however, when the dispatch amalgamation took place,
Oshawa Fire Services opted to assume the total costs for the Hexagon™ software and
advised Ajax and Pickering that they would include their respective share of the costs in their yearly service fee.
Due to this decision, the $350,000.00 budget amount for this project (C10700.2306) was cancelled at year-end 2023.
One requirement of the new CAD (Hexagon) software was the need to upgrade the existing
alerting functions in all Pickering Fire Stations which includes any associated speakers, wiring, IT interfaces, and software. Pickering was provided information in December 2022 on the estimated cost of the station alerting and the documents provided by Oshawa at the time indicated that the cost was approximately $34,000.00. It was determined that Pickering Fire
could cover these costs within the annual communications budget.
In July 2024, Fire Services received a solution proposal from Williams Communications for the Fire Station alerting (Zetron™) for the amount of $189,475.00 (HST included). As this was a far greater amount then what Oshawa had provided, Fire Services set out to investigate, and were advised that the original quote provided to Oshawa did not include Ajax and Pickering at
the time as communications amalgamation had not occurred yet. It was explained that due to
the amalgamation, the core of the system had to be upgraded to accommodate the additional partners and this change had added significant cost to the project.
Although this is an unexpected cost, it is important to note that the $350,000.00 originally earmarked for this project was cancelled from the 2023 Capital Budget, and we are only
expecting to incur approximately $170,628.00 (net of HST rebate), resulting in a net savings of
approximately $179,372.00. In addition, operationally, City has reduced the annual cost for dispatch services by $250,000.00 as a result of transitioning to Oshawa for fire dispatch.
Attachment: None
- 725 -
FIR 04-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Funding Request for Fire Station Alerting Page 4
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Original Signed By Original Signed By
Jason Yoshida Steve Boyd
Deputy Fire Chief Fire Chief
Original Signed By Original Signed By
Cathy Bazinet, CPPB, NIGP-CPP Stan Karwowski, MBA, CPA, CMA
Manager, Procurement Director, Finance & Treasurer
JY:jm
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Original Signed By
Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer
- 726 -