Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
June 22, 2026
Addendum Council Meeting Agenda Electronic Meeting June 22, 2026 07:00 PM Chair: Mayor Ashe Please be advised that in accordance with Section 10.04 of the Procedure By-law, the City of Pickering is holding Council and Committee Meetings in an electronic format until further notice. Members of the public may observe the meeting proceedings by viewing the livestream on the HTML Agenda or the archived video available on the City's website. How to Participate Individuals looking to make a verbal delegation may do so in accordance with the City’s Procedure By-law. In lieu of a verbal delegation, individuals may also submit written comments to clerks@pickering.ca. To register as a Delegation, please submit a Delegation Request Form by visiting pickering.ca/meetings. Please note that matters marked with an asterisk (*) have been amended or added. For inquiries related to accessibility, please contact Legislative Services Phone: 905.420.4611 | Email: clerks@pickering.ca Call to Order/Roll Call Playing of O Canada Moment of Reflection Indigenous Land Acknowledgment Statement Disclosure of Interest Adoption of Minutes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Council Minutes, April 27, 2026 Page 20 Special Council Minutes, May 20, 2026 Page 44 Council Minutes, May 25, 2026 Page 59 Special Council Minutes, June 8, 2026 Page 80 (includes Confidential In Camera Minutes under separate cover) Executive Committee Minutes, June 8, 2026 Page 84 Planning and Development Committee Minutes, June 8, 2026 Page 95 Special Council Minutes, June 17, 2026 Page 103 Presentations Delegations Elena Nicol, Lead Engineer, Projects, Ministry of Transportation Ontario and Brent Gotts, HDR Inc. Re: Highway 7 Widening (Reesor Rd. in Markham to Brock Rd. in Pickering) Marion Thomas, Pickering Resident Re: Report PLN 16-26 Heritage Permit Application HP 01/26 Phase 1 of the Whitevale Road Reconstruction Project between Golf Club Road and the West Duffins Creek, including a portion of North Road (Refer to Item 12.15) Julie Schembri, Pickering Resident Re: Report PLN 16-26 Heritage Permit Application HP 01/26 Phase 1 of the Whitevale Road Reconstruction Project between Golf Club Road and the West Duffins Creek, including a portion of North Road (Refer to Item 12.15) 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 7. 8. 8.1 *8.2 *8.3 Addendum Council Meeting Agenda June 22, 2026 - 2 - Correspondence Corr. 14-26 Page 108 Jeffrey A. Abrams and Janice Atwood, Co-Principals, Principles Integrity, Integrity Commissioner for the City of Pickering Re: Recommendation Report (revised) Regarding Complaint Against Councillor Robinson Respecting Statements About Staff Corruption and Statements About Residential School Mass Graves June 15, 2026 Opening Remarks by: Jeff Abrams, Co-Principal, Principles Integrity, Integrity Commissioner for the City of Pickering Council direction required. Corr. 15-26 Page 119 Richard Linley, Vice President, Stakeholder Affairs and Government Relations, Canadian Beverage Association Re: Request for Municipal Resolution Supporting an Expanded Deposit Return System (DRS) in Ontario Recommendation: That Corr. 15-26, from Richard Linley, Vice President, Stakeholder Affairs and Government Relations, Canadian Beverage Association, dated May 26, 2026, regarding Request for Municipal Resolution Supporting an Expanded Deposit Return System (DRS) in Ontario, be received; 1. That The Honourable Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario, be advised that the City of Pickering, at its meeting held on June 22, 2026 adopted the following: WHEREAS Ontario is one of Canada’s only provinces without a deposit-return program for non-alcoholic beverages; And Whereas Ontario has the lowest beverage container recovery rate in Canada – at roughly 50%; And Whereas an average of 75% of all empties return to Beer Stores each year, and the deposit return provides a consumer incentive to consciously recycle; And Whereas the Ontario government proposed expanding the program to 2. 9. 9.1 9.2 Addendum Council Meeting Agenda June 22, 2026 - 3 - include non-alcoholic containers in 2023; Therefore be it resolved that the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering requests that the Province of Ontario immediately seek to implement a deposit-return program for non-alcoholic beverage containers; and, That a copy of this motion be sent to the Hon. Todd McCarthy, Minister of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks; MPP Peter Tabuns (NDP); MPP Mary- Margaret McMahon (Liberal); MPP Ailinn Clancy (Green Party); the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and all Ontario municipalities. 3. Report EC 05-26 of the Executive Committee Meeting held on June 8, 2026 Director, Community Services, Report CS 15-26 Draft Cultural Strategic Plan, Museum Strategic Plan and Art in Public Spaces Plan Progress Update [Link to Report for reference] Recommendation: That Report CS 15-26 regarding the Draft Cultural Strategic Plan, Museum Strategic Plan and Art in Public Spaces Plan be received for information. Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects, Report ECD 04-26 Economic Development Strategy (2026-2030) Building Our Future: Pickering’s Economic Growth Roadmap [Link to Report for reference] Recommendation: That the Building Our Future: Pickering’s Economic Growth Roadmap, Economic Development Strategic Plan (2026-2030), prepared by KPMG LLP, be received; 1. That Council endorse the Building Our Future: Pickering’s Economic Growth Roadmap, set out as Attachment 1, as the City of Pickering’s Economic Development Strategic Plan (2026-2030); and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 3. 10. 10.1 10.2 Addendum Council Meeting Agenda June 22, 2026 - 4 - Chief Administrative Officer, Report CAO 07-26 Brougham Hall Lease Update [Link to Report for reference] Recommendation: That Report CAO 07-26 regarding Brougham Hall be received;1. That the lease agreement with the Brougham Recreation Society for Brougham Hall, set out in Attachment 1, be terminated with 30 days-notice provided to the Brougham Recreation Society by the Director, Community Services; 2. That the lease agreement with the Government of Canada for Brougham Hall, set out in Attachment 2, be terminated with 30 days-notice provided to the Government of Canada - Transport Canada by the City Solicitor; and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 4. Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report CLK 05- 26 2027 Committee and Council Meeting Schedule [Link to Report for reference] Recommendation: That Report CLK 05-26 regarding the 2027 Committee and Council Meeting Schedule be received; 1. That the 2027 Committee and Council Meeting Schedule included as Attachment 1 to this report be approved; and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 3. Director, Community Services, Report CS 14-26 Fire Station #2 Asphalt Resurfacing Tender No. T2026-5 [Link to Report for reference] Recommendation: That the bid submitted by D. Crupi & Sons Limited in response to Request for Tender T2026-5 for the Fire Station #2 Asphalt Resurfacing, in the amount of 1. 10.3 10.4 10.5 Addendum Council Meeting Agenda June 22, 2026 - 5 - $305,280.00 (net HST) or $338,999.99 (HST included) to be accepted; That the total gross project cost of $396,630.00 (HST included), including the amount of the tender, construction contingency, and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $357,178.00 (net HST) be approved; 2. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the net project cost of $357,178.00 to be funded from the Facilities Reserve and Property Taxes as approved in the 2021 and 2026 Capital Budgets, with the additional overage of $8,598.01 funded from Facilities Reserve; 3. That the Director, Community Services be authorized to execute the CCDC-2, 2020 Stipulated Price Contract with the above-mentioned contractor pursuant to Request for Tender No. T2026-5; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 5. Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 09-26 Various Traffic By-law Updates Amendment to the Traffic and Parking By-law 6604/05 [Link to Report for reference] Recommendation: That Report ENG 09-26 regarding the Various Traffic By-law Updates be received; 1. That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule “1”, No Stopping, Schedule “2”, No Parking and, Schedule “7”, Stop Signs to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation of traffic controls on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of The Corporation of the City of Pickering, specifically to address the proposed installation of parking and stopping restrictions on Azalea Avenue, Canso Drive, Earl Grey Avenue and Twyn Rivers Drive and for the installation of an all-way stop at the intersection of Palmers Sawmill Road and Four Seasons Lane; and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 3. Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 08-26 2026 Corporate Asset Management Plan Update [Link to Report for reference] Recommendation: 10.6 10.7 Addendum Council Meeting Agenda June 22, 2026 - 6 - That Report FIN 08-26 regarding the 2026 Corporate Asset Management Plan Update be received; 1. That Council direct staff to continue monitoring and reporting annually on the City’s asset management Key Performance Indicators, implementation barriers, and strategies to address those barriers in accordance with Section 9 of Ontario Regulation 588/17; 2. That Council direct staff to continue refining the City’s long-term infrastructure funding strategy to reduce backlogs, manage risk, and support sustainable service delivery; and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 4. Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 11-26 Pickering Islamic Centre License Agreement Overflow Parking at Brock Ridge Community Park [Link to Report for reference] Recommendation: That Report PLN 11-26 regarding the Pickering Islamic Centre License Agreement be received; 1. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Pickering Islamic Centre License Agreement for a five-year term, commencing July 1, 2026, and ending June 30, 2031, with Pickering Islamic Centre for the non-exclusive use of 10 parking spaces at Brock Ridge Community Park for overflow parking, set out in Attachment 1 to this report, subject to minor revisions as may be required by the Director, City Development & CBO and the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 3. Report PD 04-26 of the Planning & Development Committee Meeting held on June 8, 2026 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 12-26 Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 25-004P Seaton TFPM Inc. Brock Road and Highway 407 Seaton Community 10.8 11. 11.1 Addendum Council Meeting Agenda June 22, 2026 - 7 - [Link to Report for reference] Recommendation: That Report PLN 12-26 regarding Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 25-004P be received; 1. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 25-004P, submitted by Seaton TFPM Inc., to amend the Region of Durham Official Plan, the City of Pickering Official Plan, and the Thompson's Corners Neighbourhood Plan, to redesignate certain Prestige Employment Node and Community Node lands to Low and Medium Density, Community Node, Mixed Corridors Type 2, and Seaton Natural Heritage System, and to permit additional employment uses on lands designated as Prestige Employment located in the vicinity of Brock Road and Highway 407 to ensure consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement 2024, and permit a broader range of land uses, including institutional, office, service commercial, high-density residential and other community-serving uses compatible with the emerging land use context of the Thompson's Corner Neighbourhood Plan area, be approved; 2. That the draft By-law to adopt Amendment 58 to the Pickering Official Plan, as set out Attachment 1 to Report PLN 12-26, be finalized and forwarded to Council for adoption; and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 4. Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 13-26 Notice of Objection to Part IV Designation of 681 Pleasant Street [Link to Report for reference] Recommendation: That Report PLN 13-26 regarding the Notice of Objection to the Part IV Designation of 681 Pleasant Street be received; 1. That Council decline the objection, and affirm the February 23, 2026, Council Resolution #946/26, to designate 681 Pleasant Street under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act; 2. That the By-law included as Attachment 1 to Report PLN 13-26, designating the property at 681 Pleasant Street, in accordance with Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment; 3. That Council direct staff to serve a Notice of Passing for the property located at 681 Pleasant Street, known as the “Mansfield House”, as a property of 4. 11.2 Addendum Council Meeting Agenda June 22, 2026 - 8 - cultural heritage value or interest pursuant to Section 29(8) of the Ontario Heritage Act; That, should an appeal be filed with the Ontario Land Tribunal, Council direct staff to retain such external legal counsel and subject matter experts, as required, to support the decision of Council at the Ontario Land Tribunal; and, 5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take such actions as necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 6. Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 15-26 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/25 (Part 2) Amendment to Consolidated Zoning By-law 8149/24, as amended Four Seasons Country Club City Initiated [Link to Report for reference] Recommendation: That Report PLN 15-26 regarding the Four Seasons Golf Course be received;1. That Part 2 of City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/25, to permit an amendment to Zoning By-law 8149/24, as amended, to reinstate permissions for two existing residential units, and permit an accessory residential unit in conjunction with the existing permitted golf course at Four Seasons Country Club, 1850-1900 Eighth Concession Road, be approved; 2. That the Draft By-law implementing Part 2 of Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/25, as set out in Attachment 2 to Report PLN 15-26, be finalized and forwarded to Council for adoption; and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 4. New and Unfinished Business Chief Administrative Officer, Report CAO 06-26 Page 122 Municipal Infrastructure & Servicing Agreement between the City of Pickering and Ontario Power Generation Note: Report CAO 06-26 was deferred at the May 25, 2026 Council Meeting. Consultant Delegation: Kathleen Poole, Partner, Nixon Poole Lackie LLP (available for questions if 11.3 12. 12.1 Addendum Council Meeting Agenda June 22, 2026 - 9 - needed) Karina Wong, Associate, Nixon Poole Lackie LLP (available for questions if needed) Recommendation: That Report CAO 06-26 regarding the Municipal Infrastructure & Servicing Agreement between the City of Pickering and the Ontario Power Generation be received; 1. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Municipal Infrastructure & Servicing Agreement with Ontario Power Generation, set out in Attachment 1, subject to revisions that may be required by the Chief Administrative Officer and the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; and, 2. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 3. Chief Administrative Officer, Report CAO 08-26 Page 145 Construction of Dorsay Community & Heritage Centre Project Update Milestone Report #5 Recommendation: That Report CAO 08-26 regarding the Construction of Dorsay Community & Heritage Centre Project Update be received for information. Chief Administrative Officer, Report CAO 09-26 Page 152 Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC) Automatic Door Reliability at City Facilities Recommendation: That Report CAO 09-26 regarding the reliability of automatic and accessible doors at City facilities on behalf of the Accessibility Advisory Committee be received; 1. That Council endorse the Accessibility Advisory Committee’s advice and direct staff to review current practices, identify gaps, and report back on options to improve the reliability, maintenance, and accountability of automatic and accessible door infrastructure across municipal facilities; 2. That staff be requested to consider the implementation of proactive inspection, monitoring, and reporting mechanisms to ensure consistent and equitable access to City facilities for residents with disabilities; and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 4. 12.2 12.3 Addendum Council Meeting Agenda June 22, 2026 - 10 - Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report CLK 06- 26 Page 155 Appointment of an Integrity Commissioner and Lobbyist Registrar 2026-2030 Term of Council Recommendation: That Report CLK 06-26 regarding the Appointment of an Integrity Commissioner and Lobbyist Registrar for the 2026-2030 Term of Council be received; 1. That Boghosian + Allen LLP be appointed as the City of Pickering’s Integrity Commissioner and Lobbyist Registrar for the 2026-2030 Term of Council commencing on November 15, 2026, with the option to renew for an additional Council Term; 2. That the draft agreement, included as Attachment 1 to this report be approved, subject to any minor revisions acceptable to the City Clerk and the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the agreement; 3. That the draft by-law included as Attachment 2 to this report to confirm the appointment of Boghosian + Allen LLP as the provider of Integrity Commissioner and Lobbyist Registrar services for the City of Pickering be enacted; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 5. Director, Community Services, Report CS 16-26 Page 187 Licence Agreement for the use of space at Dr. Nelson F. Tomlinson Community Centre Between the City of Pickering and the Claremont Golden Age Seniors Club Recommendation: That Report CS 16-26 regarding Licence Agreement with Claremont Golden Age Seniors Club for use of the Program Room at Dr. Nelson F. Tomlinson Community Centre be received; 1. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Licence Agreement with the Claremont Golden Age Seniors Club as set out in Attachment 1 to this report, subject to minor revisions acceptable to the Director, Community Services and City Solicitor; and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 3. Director, Community Services, Report CS 17-26 Page 218 12.4 12.5 12.6 Addendum Council Meeting Agenda June 22, 2026 - 11 - Memorial Plaque in Honour of Steve Sattz at Lynn Heights Park Update to Resolution #1009/26 Recommendation: That Report CS 17-26 regarding the memorial plaque in honour of Steve Sattz at Lynn Heights Park be received; 1. That staff be directed to install a commemorative bench at Lynn Heights Park in commemoration of Steve Sattz; and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 3. Director, Community Services, Report CS 18-26 Page 226 Supply and Installation of an Audio-Visual System at Dorsay Community & Heritage Centre RFP2026-5 Recommendation: That Report CS 18-26 regarding the Supply and Installation of an Audio-Visual System at Dorsay Community & Heritage Centre be received; 1. That the proposal submitted by Cycom Canada Corporation in response to Request for Proposal RFP2026-5 for the Supply and Installation of an Audio- Visual System at Dorsay Community & Heritage Centre, in the amount of $279,544.90 (net HST) or $310,422.30 (HST included) be received; 2. That the total gross project cost of $347,672.98 (HST included), including the amount of the proposal and contingency, and the total net project cost of $313,090.20 (net HST) be approved; 3. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the net project cost of $313,090.28 to be funded from the Casino Reserve, as approved in the 2025 and 2026 Capital Budgets; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 5. Director, Community Services, Report CS 19-26 Page 231 Temporary Licence Agreement for use of Rotary Frenchman's Bay West Park Pickering Rouge Canoe Club Recommendation: That Report CS 19-26 regarding the Temporary Licence Agreement for the Pickering Rouge Canoe Club‘s Use of Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park be 1. 12.7 12.8 Addendum Council Meeting Agenda June 22, 2026 - 12 - received; That Council authorize the Director, Community Services to negotiate and execute a Temporary Licence Agreement with the Pickering Rouge Canoe Club subject to terms acceptable to the Director Community Services and City Solicitor; and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 3. Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 10-26 Page 237 Playground Equipment Replacement 2026 and Fitness Station Construction Request for Tender No. T2026-11 Recommendation: That Report ENG 10-26 regarding the Playground Equipment Replacement 2026 and Fitness Station Construction be received; 1. That the bid submitted by Gray’s Landscaping & Snow Removal Inc. in response to Request for Tender No. T2026-11 for the Playground and Fitness Station Construction in the amount of $1,149,301.75 (net HST) or $1,276,249.00 (HST included) be accepted; 2. That the total gross project cost of $1,427,752.00 (HST included), including a contingency and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $1,285,735.00 (net HST) be approved; 3. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the total net project cost of $1,285,735.00 as follows: The sum of $341,250.00 available budget in capital project C10572.2603 (Bay Ridges Kinsmen Park playground) as approved in the 2026 Parks Capital Budget be increased to $433,716.00 and be funded by a transfer of funds from the Parkland Reserve Fund in the sum of $220,609.00 and be funded by the Provincial Grant in the sum of $213,107.00; a. The sum of $136,146.00 available budget in capital project C10572.2604 (Clearside Park playground) as approved in the 2026 Parks Capital Budget be funded by a transfer of funds from the Parkland Reserve Fund in the sum of $69,250.00 and be funded from the Provincial Grant in the sum of $66,896.00; b. The sum of $199,299.00 available budget in capital project C10572.2605 (Glengrove Park playground) as approved in the 2026 Parks Capital Budget be funded by a transfer of funds from the Parkland Reserve Fund in the sum of $101,373.00 and be funded from the Provincial Grant in the sum of $97,926.00; c. The sum of $239,846.00 available budget in capital project C10572.2606 d. 4. 12.9 Addendum Council Meeting Agenda June 22, 2026 - 13 - (Pinegrove Park playground) as approved in the 2026 Parks Capital Budget be funded by a transfer of funds from the Parkland Reserve Fund in the sum of $121,997.00 and be funded from the Provincial Grant in the sum of $117,849.00; The sum of $276,728.00 available budget in capital project C10572.2511 (Fitness Equipment) as approved in the 2025 Parks Capital Budget be funded by a transfer of funds from the Casino Reserve Fund; e. That the Director, Engineering Services be authorized to execute the CCDC-2, 2020 Stipulated Price Contract with the above-mentioned contractor pursuant to Request for Tender No. T2026-11; and, 5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 6. Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 11-26 Page 246 Diana, Princess of Wales Park Licence Renewal Agreement Recommendation: That Report ENG 11-26 regarding the Licence Renewal Agreement for Diana, Princess of Wales Park be received; 1. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute a licence renewal agreement with the Minister of Infrastructure for a further five-year term, commencing January 1, 2027, and ending on December 31, 2031 in substantially the same form as attached to this report, subject to revisions acceptable to the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; and 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 3. Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 10-26 Page 253 Annual Treasurer’s Statement Report Summary of Activity for the Year Ended December 31, 2025 Recommendation: That Report FIN 10-26 regarding the Annual Treasurer’s Statement Report Summary of Activity for the Year Ended December 31, 2025, as required by the Development Charges Act, 1997 and Planning Act, be received; 1. That the City of Pickering’s Annual Treasurer’s Statement Report be made available to the public on the City’s website; and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 3. 12.10 12.11 Addendum Council Meeting Agenda June 22, 2026 - 14 - Director, City Infrastructure, Report INF 09-26 Page 264 Sixth Concession Road Reconstruction & Greenwood Bridge Rehabilitation Request for Tender No. T2026-6 Recommendation: That Report INF 09-26 regarding the Sixth Concession Road Reconstruction & Greenwood Bridge Rehabilitation Request for Tender No. T2026-6 be received; 1. That the bid submitted by Nuroad Construction Limited in response to Request for Tender No. T2026-6 for the Sixth Concession Road Reconstruction and Greenwood Bridge Rehabilitation project, in the amount of $3,050,410.68 (net HST) or $3,387,346.76 (HST included) be accepted; 2. That the total gross project cost of $4,303,935.00 (HST included), including the amount of the bid, contingency, and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $3,875,827.00 (net HST) be approved; 3. That Council award the contract administration and construction inspection for Request for Tender No. T2026-6 to JP2G Consultants Inc. in the amount of $315,061.17 (net HST); in accordance with the Purchasing Policy Section 10.03 (c) as the assignment is above $125,000.00; 4. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the total net project cost of $3,875,827.00 as follows: That the sum of $3,695,000.00 as approved in the 2024 and 2026 Capital Budgets be increased to $3,875,827.00 and be funded from the OCIF Reserve Fund; and, a. 5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 6. Director, City Infrastructure, Report INF 10-26 Page 271 Supply & Delivery of Two Fifteen-Inch Tow Behind Wood Chippers Request for Quotation No. RFQQ2026-27 Recommendation: That Report INF 10-26 regarding the Supply & Delivery of Two Fifteen-Inch Tow Behind Wood Chippers be received; 1. That the Quotation submitted by Vermeer Cananda Inc. in response to Request for Quotation No. RFQQ2026-27 for the Supply and Delivery of Two Fifteen-Inch Tow Behind Wood Chippers, in the amount of $295,731.00 (net HST) or $328,396.00 (HST included) be accepted; 2. That the total gross project cost of $328,396.00 (HST included), and the total net 3. 12.12 12.13 Addendum Council Meeting Agenda June 22, 2026 - 15 - project cost of $295,731.00 (net HST) be approved; That the Director, Finance & Treasurer, be authorized to finance the total net project cost of $295,731.00 as follows: That the sum of $260,000.00 as approved in the 2026 Capital Budget be increased to $295,731.00 funded from the Equipment Reserve Fund; and, a. 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 5. Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 14-26 Page 275 Esri Enterprise Agreement for the Supply of ArcGIS Software and Services Recommendation: That Report PLN 14-26 regarding the Esri Enterprise Agreement for the Supply of ArcGIS Software and Services be received; 1. That Council approves the renewal Enterprise Agreement (EA) with Esri Canada for the supply of ArcGIS software and services, and the City’s participation in the EA for a three year period, at a total cost of $246,279.55, inclusive of applicable HST and HST rebate, with annual payments of $79,678.08 for year one (July 15, 2026 to July 14, 2027), $82,069.44 for year two (July 15, 2027 to July 14, 2028), and $84,532.03 for year three (July 15, 2028 to July 14, 2029); 2. That the annual cost of $79,678.08 for Year One be funded from the current budget allocation under Account 502700.10100.0000 of the City Development Department, as approved in the 2026 Current Budget, with funding for subsequent years to be incorporated into and approved through the respective annual budget processes; 3. That the Director, City Development & CBO be authorized to sign the Esri Proposal to participate in, and commit to, the terms and payment, as set out in Attachment 1 of Report PLN 14-26; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 5. Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 16-26 Page 281 Heritage Permit Application HP 01/26 Phase 1 of the Whitevale Road Reconstruction Project between Golf Club Road and the West Duffins Creek, including a portion of North Road Recommendation: That Report PLN 16-26 regarding Heritage Permit Application HP 01/26 for Phase 1 of the Whitevale Road Reconstruction Project, between Golf Club Road and the West Duffins Creek, including a portion of North Road be 1. 12.14 12.15 Addendum Council Meeting Agenda June 22, 2026 - 16 - received; That the Heritage Permit Application HP 01/26 for Phase 1 of the Whitevale Road Reconstruction Project, between Golf Club Road and the West Duffins Creek, including a portion of North Road, be approved, subject to the following conditions: implementation of all tree protection and preservation measures within the subject work area as identified in the Arborist Report, prepared by AECOM, dated March 2026; a. submission and implementation of a post-construction landscape restoration plan for the subject work area; b. completion of pre-construction condition surveys of all properties and structures within the subject work area; c. implementation of a vibration monitoring program for the subject work area during construction, with appropriate mitigation measures; d. ongoing monitoring of the subject work area by a qualified arborist during construction; e. implementation of best management practices to minimize impacts to the cultural heritage landscape during construction activities; f. implementation of any requirements for archaeological monitoring and contingency measures within the subject work area; and, g. 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 3. Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 17-26 Page 473 Implementation of Minutes of Settlement - Reimbursement to CPC II Management Inc. Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2017-05 Block 54, Plan 40M-1498 1520 Notion Road Recommendation: That Report PLN 17-26 regarding the Implementation of Minutes of Settlement - Reimbursement to CPC II Management Inc., be received; 1. That Council approve the reimbursement to CPC II Management Inc., in the amount of $397,260.44 (HST included) or $357,745.33 (Net HST) to be charged to account 502230.11100 for eligible costs incurred in accordance with the executed Minutes of Settlement, dated February 26, 2020, related to the development of 1520 Notion Road; and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 3. 12.16 Addendum Council Meeting Agenda June 22, 2026 - 17 - Director, City Development & CBO, Report SUS 04-26 Page 478 Battery Recycling Agreement with Call2Recycle Canada and the City of Pickering Recommendation: That Report SUS 04-26 regarding Battery Recycling Agreement with Call2Recycle Canada and the City of Pickering be received; 1. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Used Consumer- Type Portable Battery Recycling Agreement with Call2Recycle Canada and the City of Pickering, subject to minor revisions as may be required by the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 3. By-laws By-law 8273/26 Page 498 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. [Refer to Item 10.6 Report ENG 09-26] By-law 8274/26 Page 501 Being a By-law to adopt Amendment 58 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering (OPA 25-004P). [Refer to Item 11.1 Report PLN 12-26] By-law 8275/26 Page 513 Being a by-law designate the lands legally described as that Plan 65 Block D Lot 6 (the “Mansfield House”) and municipally known as 681 Pleasant Street, Pickering, as being of cultural heritage value or interest. [Refer to Item 11.2 Report PLN 13- 26] By-law 8276/26 Page 516 Being a by-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 8149/24, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, for land City wide (A 03/25). [Refer to Item 11.3 Report PLN 15-26] 12.17 13. 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 Addendum Council Meeting Agenda June 22, 2026 - 18 - By-law 8277/26 Page 520 Being a by-law to confirm the Appointment of Boghosian + Allen LLP as the Integrity Commissioner and Lobbyist Registrar for the City of Pickering. [Refer to Item 12.4 Report CLK 06-26] By-law 8278/26 Page 523 By-law to Establish the 2026-2030 Municipal Election Joint Compliance Audit Committee and Appoint a Roster of Individuals to Serve on the Committee. By-law 8279/26 Page 532 Being a By-law to appoint Tariq Mahmood, Gavin Irvine, Jackson Colquhoun, Anthony Karabulut, and Kaley Lam as a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer for the purpose of enforcing the by-laws of the Corporation of the City of Pickering. By-law 8280/26 Page 533 Being a by-law to establish Part of Lots 46 and 47, RCP 1051, being Parts 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, Plan 40R33081 and Part of Lot 48, RCP 1051, being Part 22, Plan 40R-23842, as public highway. (Goldenridge Road) Confidential Council - Public Report Regional Councillor Updates Other Business Confirmatory By-law Adjournment 13.5 13.6 13.7 13.8 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Addendum Council Meeting Agenda June 22, 2026 - 19 - 1 Council Meeting Minutes Electronic Meeting April 27, 2026 - 07:00 PM Chair: Mayor Ashe Present: Mayor K. Ashe Councillor M. Brenner Councillor S. Butt Councillor L. Cook Councillor M. Nagy Councillor D. Pickles Councillor L. Robinson Regrets: None Also Present: M. Carpino - Chief Administrative Officer K. Bentley - Director, City Development & CBO P. Bigioni – Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor S. Boyd - Fire Chief J. Eddy - Director, Human Resources L. Gibbs - Director, Community Services K. Heathcote - Director, City Infrastructure R. Holborn - Director, Engineering Services F. Jadoon - Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects S. Karwowski - Director, Finance & Treasurer S. Cassel – City Clerk V. Plouffe - Division Head, Facilities Management & Construction C. Rose - Chief Planner C. Whitaker - Manager, Sustainability & Strategic Environmental Initiatives L. Paray - Senior Planner, Sustainability R. Perera – Deputy Clerk - 20 - Council Meeting Minutes April 27, 2026 2 1. Call to Order/Roll Call The City Clerk certified that all Members of Council were present and participating electronically. 2. Playing of O Canada Mayor Ashe asked all Members of Council to rise for the playing of O Canada. 3. Moment of Reflection Mayor Ashe called for a silent moment of reflection. 4. Indigenous Land Acknowledgment Statement Mayor Ashe read the Indigenous Land Acknowledgment Statement. 5. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 6. Adoption of Minutes 6.1 Council Minutes, March 23, 2026 (includes Confidential In Camera Minutes under separate cover) 6.2 Special Council Minutes, March 30, 2026 - 5:30 pm (includes Confidential In Camera Minutes under separate cover) 6.3 Special Council Minutes, March 30, 2026 - 6:00 pm 6.4 Executive Committee Minutes, April 7, 2026 6.5 Special Council Minutes, April 7, 2026 6.6 Planning and Development Committee Minutes, April 7, 2026 Resolution # 978/26 Moved By Councillor Cook Seconded By Councillor Nagy That the minutes, Items 6.1 through 6.6, be approved. - 21 - Council Meeting Minutes April 27, 2026 3 Carried 7. Presentations There were no presentations. 8. Delegations 8.1 Jennifer Grundy, Shuttlebug Weavers & Spinners Guild Re: Report CS 09-26 Licence Agreement for the Odd Fellows Hall Between the City of Pickering and the Shuttlebug Weavers & Spinners Guild (Refer to Item 12.2) J. Grundy, Shuttlebug Weavers & Spinners Guild, appeared before Council via electronic connection to speak to Report CS 09-26. J. Grundy expressed appreciation to the Mayor, Members of Council, and City staff for meeting with the Guild, recognizing its value in the Pickering community, and advocating for the re- homing of the organization. J. Grundy advised that the Guild had operated continuously in Greenwood for over 50 years and celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2025 with a well-attended event. J. Grundy noted that the event was bittersweet, as the Guild faced the potential loss of its studio space due to the planned closure of the Greenwood Community Centre and the risk of disbandment. J. Grundy outlined the history of the Guild’s studio, noting that the Guild had acquired more than 20 large pieces of weaving equipment, many of which were heavy hardwood floor looms, several of which were Canadian antiques. J. Grundy noted that the proposed licence agreement would allow the Guild to relocate a reduced number of looms and equipment to the Odd Fellows Hall at Pickering Museum Village, creating a shared multi-purpose space with benefits for the Guild, the Museum, and the community. J. Grundy advised that while the Guild would need to part with a portion of its equipment, its long-standing legacy would continue in Pickering. J. Grundy further highlighted the rising interest in weaving and spinning since COVID-19, the health and social benefits of the craft, and the Guild’s growing membership, particularly among residents aged 55+, which represents a significant and growing demographic in Pickering. J. Grundy concluded by noting that membership remained open to all and expressed appreciation for Council’s support of the licence agreement. A brief question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and J. Grundy regarding clarification that the delegate was in support of the staff - 22 - Council Meeting Minutes April 27, 2026 4 recommendation and whether they were aware of the moving date into the new location. 8.2 Andrew Muscat and Matt West, Fieldgate Commercial (Available for questions if needed) Re: Report PLN 05-26 Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 25-001P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 06/25 Seaton Commercial Developments Ltd. South of Taunton Road, between Burkholder Drive and Peter Matthews Drive (Refer to Item 11.1) A. Muscat and M. West, Fieldgate Commercial, appeared before Council via electronic connection to respond to any questions from Members of Council. A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and the delegates regarding: • what work was currently occurring on site following the recent groundbreaking and whether construction activities had begun; • the anticipated timing for construction, including when footings and structures were expected to commence; • whether the coffee shop tenant could be publicly disclosed at this time; • why the original plaza location on the eastern parcels was changed, and what issues prevented the project from proceeding at that location; • what types of businesses were proposed for the development; and, • whether the plaza was fully leased or if units remained available for additional tenants. 9. Correspondence 9.1 Corr. 05-26 Khushbu Patwa, Co-Director and Vishal Patwa, Co-Director, The Stemisphere Childcare Academy Re: Support for CWELCC Funding for a New 150-Space Licensed Child Care Centre at 1635 Bayly Street, Unit G, Pickering Resolution # 979/26 Moved By Councillor Brenner - 23 - Council Meeting Minutes April 27, 2026 5 Seconded By Councillor Cook A. That Corr. 05-26, from Khushbu Patwa, Co-Director, and Vishal Patwa, Co- Director, The Stemisphere Childcare Academy, dated March 4, 2026, regarding Support for CWELCC Funding for a New 150-Space Licensed Child Care Centre at 1635 Bayly Street, Unit G, Pickering, be received for information; B. That Council Request the Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Education to support the $10 a day Canada wide Childcare for 150 spaces at The Stemisphere Childcare Academy; and, C. That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to The Honourable Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario, The Honourable Paul Calandra, Minister of Education, and The Honourable Peter Bethlenfalvy, MPP, Pickering-Uxbridge. Carried 9.2 Corr. 06-26 Tracy Brown, Chair, Board of Trustees, Durham District School Board Re: Request for Provincial School Board Governance Consultation Process Resolution # 980/26 Moved By Councillor Cook Seconded By Councillor Nagy A. That Corr. 06-26, from Tracy Brown, Chair, Board of Trustees, Durham District School Board, dated March 26, 2026, regarding a Request for Provincial School Board Governance Consultation Process, be received and endorsed; and, B. That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to Durham Region MP's, Durham Region MPP's, John Henry, Regional Chair, The Regional Municipality of Durham, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), all Ontario Municipalities, the Ontario Public School Boards' Association, and all Durham District School Board Trustees. Carried 9.3 Corr. 07-26 Jesse St. Amant, Coordinator, Cultural Services, City of Pickering Re: Cultural Advisory Committee – 2025 Year End Report & 2026 Work Plan - 24 - Council Meeting Minutes April 27, 2026 6 Resolution # 981/26 Moved By Councillor Butt Seconded By Councillor Brenner That Corr. 07-26 from Jesse St. Amant, Coordinator, Cultural Services, City of Pickering, dated April 27, 2026, regarding the Cultural Advisory Committee 2025 Year End Report and 2026 Work Plan be received for information. Carried 10. Report EC 03-26 of the Executive Committee held on April 7, 2026 Resolution # 982/26 Moved By Councillor Pickles Seconded By Councillor Brenner That Report EC 03-26 of the Executive Committee Meeting held on April 7, 2026 be adopted. Carried 10.1 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report CLK 03-26 Restricted Acts after Nomination Day (Lame Duck Period) Delegation of Authority under Section 275 of the Municipal Act Council Decision: A. That Report CLK 03-26, regarding Restricted Acts after Nomination Day (Lame Duck Period), Delegation of Authority under Section 275 of the Municipal Act, be received; B. That the draft By-law, included as Attachment 2 to CLK 03-26, be approved and enacted; and, C. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 10.2 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 03-26 Park Construction Agreement with Claremont Developments Inc., for Forsyth Park, Claremont Council Decision: - 25 - Council Meeting Minutes April 27, 2026 7 A. That the City of Pickering enter into a Park Construction Agreement with Claremont Developments Inc., to facilitate the construction of Forsyth Park; B. That the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute the Park Construction Agreement between the City of Pickering and Claremont Developments Inc., in substantially the same form as attached to this report, subject to revisions acceptable to the Director, Engineering Services and the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; C. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the gross project cost of $2,620,919.00 (HST included) and net project cost of $2,360,219.00 (net HST) as outlined in the Parks Construction Agreement and approved in the 2024 Capital Budget as follows: a. the sum of $2,214,400.00 available budget, funded from the Development Charges Parks & Recreation Reserve Fund be increased to $2,301,214.00 and funded from the same source; b. the sum of $56,800.00 available budget, funded from Development Charges City‘s Reserve Fund be increased to $59,005.00 and funded from the same source; and, D. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 10.3 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 04-26 Park Construction Agreement with Mattamy (Seaton) Limited for Dave Ryan Community Park Council Decision: A. That the City of Pickering enter into a Park Construction Agreement with Mattamy (Seaton) Limited to facilitate the design and construction of Dave Ryan Community Park; B. That the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute the Park Construction Agreement between the City of Pickering and Mattamy (Seaton) Limited in substantially the same form as attached to this report, subject to revisions acceptable to the Director, Engineering Services and the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; C. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the gross project cost of $6,606,255.00 (HST included) and net project cost of $5,949,137.00 (net HST) as outlined in the Park Construction Agreement and approved in the 2020 and 2023 Capital Budgets as follows: a. the sum of $3,661,100.00 available budget, funded from the - 26 - Council Meeting Minutes April 27, 2026 8 Development Charges Parks & Recreation Reserve Fund be increased to $5,800,409.00 and funded from the same source; b. the sum of $93,900.00 available budget, funded from the Seaton Landowner Group FIA Reserve Fund be increased to $148,728.00 and be funded from the same source; and, D. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 10.4 Director, City Infrastructure, Report INF 05-26 Pike Court Storm Sewer Works Request for Quotation No. Q2026-3 Council Decision: A. That the quotation submitted by Zilli Construction Ltd. in response to Request for Quotation No. Q2026-3 for Pike Court Storm Sewer Works, in the amount of $76,015.00 (net HST) or $84,411.00 (HST included) be accepted; B. That the total gross project cost of $96,235.00 (HST included), including the tendered amount, a construction contingency and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $86,663.00 (net HST) be approved; C. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the total net project cost of $86,663.00 as follows: a. that the amount of $50,000.00 for capital project C10525.2505 Pike Court Storm Sewer Works as approved in the 2025 Capital Budget to be funded by a transfer from Stormwater Management Reserve Fund; b. that additional funds of $36,663.00 for capital project C10525.2505 to be approved by a transfer from the Stormwater Management Reserve Fund; and, D. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 10.5 Director, City Development & CBO, Report SUS 01-26 Pickering Environmental Schools Grant Results of the 2025 Funding Council Decision: That Report SUS 01-26 regarding the Pickering Environmental Schools Grant be - 27 - Council Meeting Minutes April 27, 2026 9 received for information. 11. Report PD 03-26 of the Planning & Development Committee held on April 7, 2026 Resolution # 983/26 Moved By Councillor Pickles Seconded By Councillor Brenner That Report PD 03-26 of the Planning and Development Committee Meeting held on April 7, 2026 be adopted. Carried 11.1 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 05-26 Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 25-001P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 06/25 Seaton Commercial Developments Ltd. South of Taunton Road, between Burkholder Drive and Peter Matthews Drive Council Decision: A. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 25-001P, submitted by Seaton Commercial Developments Ltd., to remove the “Pedestrian Predominant Street” designation on Schedule VIII - Neighbourhood 16: Lamoreaux, for the lands located on the south side of Taunton Road between Burkholder Drive and Peter Matthews Drive, be approved, and that the draft By-law to adopt Amendment 55 to the Pickering Official Plan as set out in Attachment 1 to Report PLN 05-26, be finalized and forwarded to Council for adoption; and, B. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 06/25, submitted by Seaton Commercial Developments Ltd., to remove the Seaton Community Node Pedestrian Predominant Area (SCNPP-1) zone category, to apply the SCN-4 Zone to the easterly parcel and to apply the SCN-1 Zone to the westerly parcel with site-specific zoning exceptions to permit a seasonal garden centre associated with a grocery store and remove the requirement for maximum front and side yard setbacks and requirements for primary building entrances and wall openings to face a public street, in order to facilitate the development of a retail-commercial plaza at the southeast corner of Taunton Road and Burkholder Drive, be approved, and that the draft Zoning By-law Amendment, as set out in Attachment 2 to Report PLN 05-26, be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment. - 28 - Council Meeting Minutes April 27, 2026 10 11.2 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 06-26 Proposed Telecommunication Tower Shared Tower Inc. 1400 Church Street Installation #75 Council Decision: That Shared Tower Inc. be advised that City Council does not object to the proposed 25-metre-high telecommunication tower located at 1400 Church Street, based on the design and location of the proposal. 11.3 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 07-26 Official Plan Amendment OPA 22-002P Zoning By-law Amendment A 05/22 Pickering Ridge Lands Inc. 1755 Pickering Parkway Council Decision: A. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 22-002P, submitted by Pickering Ridge Lands Inc., to amend the Pickering Official Plan by adding site-specific policies for the lands located at the northeast corner of Brock Road and Highway 401, municipally known as 1755 Pickering Parkway: to permit a maximum building height of 36 storeys; by adding policies respecting a future urban-format school site; and by amending Schedule XIV, Sheet 4 of 4 - Brock Precinct Intensification Area of Official Plan Amendment 38 to incorporate a revised road network and public park, and to add a signalized intersection, as they relate to the subject lands to facilitate a phased, high- density, mixed-use development, be approved: and that the draft By-law to adopt Amendment 56 to the Pickering Official Plan, as detailed in Attachment 1 to Report PLN 07-26, be forwarded to Council for enactment; and, B. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 05/22, submitted by Pickering Ridge Lands Inc., to permit a phased high-density, mixed-use development, located at the northeast corner of Brock Road and Pickering Parkway, municipally known as 1755 Pickering Parkway, consisting of 13 towers with building heights ranging between 12 storeys to 36 storeys, containing approximately 5,109 apartment dwelling units; and a minimum of 17,370 square metres of commercial, retail and office space, be approved, subject to - 29 - Council Meeting Minutes April 27, 2026 11 the proposed zoning provisions contained within Attachment 2 to Report PLN 07-26; and that staff be authorized to finalize and forward an implementing Zoning By-law to Council for enactment. 12. New and Unfinished Business 12.1 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report CLK 04-26 Municipal Designation for Special Occasion and Bring-Your-Own-Events Policy S. Cassel, City Clerk, appeared before Council via electronic connection and advised that the Report addressed new provincial legislation that replaced tailgate event liquor licences under the Liquor Licence and Control Act with a Bring Your Own (BYO) Event permit. S. Cassel explained that the report combined the new BYO Event requirements with the City’s existing municipally significant events framework into a single, cohesive policy. S. Cassel clarified that the Province would continue to issue permits through the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO) with the City providing a letter of support to applicants. A brief question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and staff regarding whether the proposed policy addressed a previous event involving the Whitevale Residents Association, where the event had not been permitted to proceed, and whether the proposed $60 fee was consistent with fees being charged by other municipalities. Resolution # 984/26 Moved By Councillor Pickles Seconded By Councillor Brenner 1. That Report CLK 04-26 regarding Municipal Designation for Special Occasion and Bring-Your-Own-Event Permits Policy be received; 2. That the draft ADM 310, Municipal Designation for Special Occasion and Bring- Your-Own Event Permits Policy, included as Attachment 2 to this report be approved; 3. That Council approve the draft By-law to amend the Municipal Fees and Charges By-law, as set out in Attachment 3 to this report; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. Carried - 30 - Council Meeting Minutes April 27, 2026 12 12.2 Director, Community Services, Report CS 09-26 Licence Agreement for the Odd Fellows Hall Between the City of Pickering and the Shuttlebug Weavers & Spinners Guild A brief question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and staff regarding: • confirmation of the Guild’s relocation date and whether any equipment would remain in the former facility for storage following the move; and, • whether all equipment not accommodated at the new location would be removed. Resolution # 985/26 Moved By Councillor Pickles Seconded By Councillor Butt A. That Report CS 09-26 regarding a Licence Agreement with the Shuttlebug Weavers & Spinners Guild for the Odd Fellows Hall be received; B. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Licence Agreement with the Shuttlebug Weavers & Spinners Guild as set out in Attachment 1 to this report, subject to minor revisions acceptable to the Director, Community Services and City Solicitor; and, C. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. Carried 12.3 Director, Community Services, Report CS 10-26 Seaton Recreation Complex & Library Project Management Services Resolution # 986/26 Moved By Councillor Brenner Seconded By Councillor Cook A. That the proposal submitted by Colliers Project Leaders Inc. in response to Request for Proposal No. RFP2026-3 for Project Management Support Services of the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library project, in the amount of $965,500.00 (net HST) or $1,091,015.00 (including HST), be accepted; B. That the total gross project cost of $1,220,965.00 (including HST) and the total net project cost of $1,099,517.00 (net HST rebate) be approved and funded from the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library project budget; - 31 - Council Meeting Minutes April 27, 2026 13 C. That the Director, Community Services be authorized to execute the Form of Agreement with Colliers Project Leaders Inc., pursuant to Request for Proposal No. RFP2026-3; and, D. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. Carried 12.4 Director, Community Services, Report CS 12-26 Consulting Services for Civic Complex Infrastructure Renewal Request for Proposal No. RFP2026-1 A brief question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and staff regarding: • clarification that the Report before Council was for consulting and design services only, and not for construction work at this stage; • confirmation of the scope of work being approved, including that consultants would undertake design, forecasting, and budgeting for future phases; and, • whether there would be an opportunity during the design phase to explore more practical or functional uses of the tower structure, including improved use of interior space. Resolution # 987/26 Moved By Councillor Butt Seconded By Councillor Pickles A. That the proposal submitted by Salter Pilon Architecture Inc. in response to Request for Proposal No. RFP2026-1 for Consulting Services for the Pickering Civic Complex Renewal, in the amount of $1,269,456.00 (net HST) or $1,409,675.00 (HST included) be accepted; B. That the total gross project cost of $1,744,579.00 (HST included), including the amount of the proposal, contingency, and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $1,571,047.00 (net HST) be approved; C. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the net project cost of $1,571,047.00 to be funded from Property Taxes, Rate Stabilization Reserve, Major Equipment Reserve, Casino Reserve, Capital Works Reserve Fund (Parks Infrastructure Reserve), and Facilities Reserve as approved in the 2019, 2021, 2023 and 2025 Capital Budgets; D. That the Director, Community Services be authorized to execute the OAA 600 - 32 - Council Meeting Minutes April 27, 2026 14 2021 A Contract with the above-mentioned consultant pursuant to Request for Proposal No. RFP2026-1; and, E. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. Carried 12.5 Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects, Report ECD 02-26 Licence Agreement with Open Studio Art Cafe Seasonal Patio on City Owned Lands Resolution # 988/26 Moved By Councillor Cook Seconded By Councillor Nagy A. That Report ECD 02-26 regarding the Licence Agreement with Open Studio Art Cafe be received; B. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Licence Agreement between the City of Pickering and Open Studio Art Café for the temporary use of City Property, adjacent to 617 Liverpool Road, to operate a seasonal patio between the City of Pickering and Open Studio Art Café, from May 1, 2026 until November 30, 2026 in the form as attached to this report, subject to revisions as may be acceptable to the Chief Administrative Officer, the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor and the Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects; and, C. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. Carried 12.6 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 04-26 2026 Tax Rates and Final Tax Due Dates Resolution # 989/26 Moved By Councillor Cook Seconded By Councillor Nagy A. That Report FIN 04-26 regarding the 2026 tax rates and final tax due dates be received; B. That the 2026 tax rates for the City of Pickering be approved as contained in Schedule "A” of the By-law attached hereto; C. That the tax levy due dates for the Final Billing for all taxable and PIL properties - 33 - Council Meeting Minutes April 27, 2026 15 be June 25, 2026 and September 25, 2026; D. That the attached By-law be approved; E. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to make any changes or undertake any actions necessary to comply with provincial regulations including altering due dates or final tax rates to ensure that the property tax billing process is completed; and, F. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto. Carried 12.7 Director, City Infrastructure, Report INF 07-26 Asphalt Resurfacing on Various City Streets Request for Tender No. T2026-2 A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and staff regarding: • how soon the asphalt resurfacing program would begin if the Report was approved; • whether roads in the Cherrywood area, including Third Concession Road, were included in this resurfacing program; • clarification that the roads listed were not the only road projects planned for the year, and how resurfacing projects differed from larger reconstruction projects such as Whitevale Road, Town Line, and Sixth Concession; • whether residents should interpret the resurfacing list as excluding other previously committed road projects; • how the ongoing Roads Needs Study would inform future resurfacing priorities, including whether it would affect the 2027 budget and beyond; • whether new maintenance techniques or technologies could be used to extend the life of deteriorating roads, beyond standard pothole repairs; • whether staff planned to accelerate preventative maintenance strategies to improve road longevity and manage escalating deterioration; • whether the severity of the past winter would affect prioritization of roads within the resurfacing list; • how staff determined which roads would be resurfaced first, and whether adjustments could be made based on conditions; • whether the materials and asphalt mix designs currently used could be contributing to premature road deterioration; • what warranty applied to resurfaced roads, and whether contractors were - 34 - Council Meeting Minutes April 27, 2026 16 responsible for repairing deficiencies during that period; and, • whether deficiencies were formally tracked and enforced with contractors to ensure timely repairs. Resolution # 990/26 Moved By Councillor Brenner Seconded By Councillor Cook A. That the bid submitted by Viola Management Inc. in response to Request for Tender No. T2026-2 for Asphalt Resurfacing on Various City Streets, in the amount of $2,764,939.00 (net HST) or $3,070,343.00 (HST included) be accepted; B. That Council award the material testing and inspection services for Request for Tender No. T2026-2 to GHD Ltd. through RFSQ2023-1 Roster Category of Geotechnical Investigation and Inspection Services in the amount of $92,645.00 (HST included); in accordance with the Purchasing Policy Section 10.03 (c) as the assignment is above $50,000; C. That the total gross project cost of $3,591,167.00 (HST included), including the tendered amount, geotechnical investigation reports, material testing, contingency and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $3,233,957.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; D. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the net project cost of $3,233,957.00 as approved in the 2026 Capital Budget as follows: a. That the sum of $2,217,235.00 be funded from the Roads & Bridges Reserve Fund as approved in the 2026 Capital Budget; b. That the sum of $462,828.00 be funded from the Building Faster Fund (BFF) Reserve Fund as approved in the 2026 Capital Budget; c. That the sum of $553,894.00 be funded from the Canada Community Building (CCBF) Reserve Fund as approved in the 2026 Capital Budget; d. That funding from C10365.2611 Poprad Avenue Asphalt Resurfacing and C10365.2612 Drava Street Asphalt Resurfacing in the amount of $510,030.00 be used to fund the resurfacing of Honeywood Crescent, Fairview Avenue and Ilona Park Road; e. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to adjust the funding plan as reflected in Recommendations 4a., 4b., 4c., and 4d. to incorporate and use all existing funding from the Building Faster Fund (BFF) and the receipt of any new additional BFF Funding that be announced later this year; and, E. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. - 35 - Council Meeting Minutes April 27, 2026 17 Carried 12.8 Director, City Infrastructure, Report INF 08-26 Finch Avenue New Sidewalk Construction Request for Quotation No. Q2026-4 Resolution # 991/26 Moved By Councillor Pickles Seconded By Councillor Butt A. That the quotation submitted by Avion Construction Group Inc. in response to Request for Quotation No. Q2026-4 for the Finch Avenue New Sidewalk Construction, in the amount of $86,283.00 (net HST) or $95,813.00 (HST included) be accepted; B. That the total gross project cost of $131,469.00 (HST included), including the quotation amount, a construction contingency and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $118,392.00 (net HST) be approved; C. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the total net project cost of $118,392.00 as follows: a. That the sum of $75,000.00 as approved in the 2024 Sidewalks Capital Budget be increased to $118,392.00 and be funded from the Canada Community Building Fund (CCBF) Reserve Fund; and, D. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. Carried 12.9 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 09-26 Bill 98, Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, 2026: Environmental Registry of Ontario Postings, ERO 026-0300, ERO 026- 0304, ERO 026-0305, ERO 026-0309, ERO 026-0310, ERO 026-0311, ERO 026- 0312, ERO 026-0313, ERO 026-0314, and ERO 026-0315 City of Pickering Comments on ERO Postings K. Bentley, Director, City Development & CBO, appeared before Council via electronic connection and advised that the Report was before Council to receive the Report for information and endorse the comments on ERO postings related to Bill 98. - 36 - Council Meeting Minutes April 27, 2026 18 A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and staff regarding: • whether the ERO postings formed part of an official provincial public consultation process and whether the Province was formally requesting municipal comments; • whether all municipalities were invited to provide comments, and if a submission deadline had been established; • whether municipal comments submitted through the ERO would be considered by the Province prior to finalizing legislative changes; and, • whether there had been any coordinated or collective effort among municipalities to develop a consistent or consensus response to the Province, given the number of municipalities in Ontario and the limited consultation timeframe. Resolution # 992/26 Moved By Councillor Pickles Seconded By Councillor Nagy 1. That Report PLN 09-26 regarding the City of Pickering Comments on Bill 98, Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, 2026, be received; 2. That Council endorse the comments contained in Report PLN 09-26, as the City of Pickering comments on Bill 98 and the identified Environmental Registry of Ontario Postings; and, 3. That Council authorize the Chief Administrative Officer to submit the Council endorsed comments on Bill 98 and the identified Environmental Registry of Ontario Postings to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing website by the April 29, 2026 and May 14, 2026, deadlines. Carried 12.10 Director, Community Services, Report CS 13-26 Municipal Alcohol Policy Resolution # 993/26 Moved By Councillor Cook Seconded By Councillor Nagy A. That Report CS 13-26 regarding the Municipal Alcohol Policy be received; B. That Council approve the draft Municipal Alcohol Policy, as set out in Attachment - 37 - Council Meeting Minutes April 27, 2026 19 1 to this report; C. That Council approve the draft By-law, as set out in Attachment 2 to this report, to repeal By-law 3859/91 to establish an Alcohol Management Policy and By-law 6380/04 that was approved to amend the Alcohol Management Policy; and, D. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. Carried 12.11 Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan (OPA 25-003P) Note: At the March 30, 2026 Special Council Meeting, Council Resolution #975/26 directed that Report PLN 04-26 be referred back to staff to return with a new report to the April 27, 2026 Council Meeting. However, pursuant to Mayoral Decision #11-2026, the Recommendation Report regarding the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan will now be considered at a Special Council Meeting on May 20, 2026 at 6:00 pm. Accordingly, no decision on the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan was made at the April 27, 2026 Council Meeting. 13. Motions and Notice of Motions 13.1 School Board Trustees A discussion ensued between Members of Council regarding: • the importance of maintaining locally elected school board trustees as a direct link between parents, caregivers, and school boards; • concerns that recent provincial regulatory changes could weaken local representation and community-level input, particularly as the GTHA continued to grow; • the risk that shifting authority away from locally elected trustees could limit the ability of parents to raise concerns related to curriculum, class sizes, special needs supports, and school closures; • the view that local influence should remain local, and that education governance should reflect the unique needs of individual communities; • clarification that the motion was not opposed to change, but emphasized the need for the right process, including a full, transparent, province-wide consultation; and, • the importance of meaningful engagement with trustees, educators, and school boards before implementing changes that could impact school board governance. - 38 - Council Meeting Minutes April 27, 2026 20 Resolution # 994/26 Moved By Councillor Nagy Seconded By Councillor Cook WHEREAS, locally elected School Board Trustees provide essential community representation, oversight, accountability, and advocacy; And Whereas, all communities rely on School Board Trustees to reflect local priorities, ensure accountability, and advocate for students; And Whereas, the provincial legislated changes introduced on April 13, 2026 for the Putting Student Achievement First Act, 2026, may reduce locally elected School Board Trustees; Now therefore be it resolved that the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering: A. Affirms its support for maintaining elected School Board Trustees; B. That the Premier of Ontario and the Minister of Education be requested to pause on the implementation of the new regulations until such time that the government has committed to and completed a full-scale, transparent, and province-wide consultation on school board governance models in collaboration with a team, taskforce or alternate made up of representatives of teacher unions and school boards; and, C. That a copy of this Motion be forwarded to The Honourable Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario, The Honourable Rob Flack, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, The Honourable Paul Calandra, Minister of Education, the Leaders of the Opposition for the NDP and Liberal Parties, all Durham MPPs, all Durham Region Lower Tier Municipalities, The Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario, The Association of Municipalities Ontario, the Ontario Catholic School Trustees Association, the Ontario Public School Boards Association, the Durham District School Board, the Durham District Catholic School Board, the Conseil scolaire Viamonde (French- Language Public School), and the Conseil scolaire catholique MonAvenir (French-Language Catholic School Board). Carried 14. By-laws Resolution # 995/26 Moved By Councillor Pickles Seconded By Councillor Cook That By-law Numbers 8246/26 through 8257/26 be approved. - 39 - Council Meeting Minutes April 27, 2026 21 Carried 14.1 By-law 8246/26 Being a by-law to authorize the delegation of authority to the Chief Administrative Officer for certain acts during a “Lame Duck Period” for the 2026 Municipal Election. 14.2 By-law 8247/26 Being a By-law to adopt Amendment 55 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering (OPA 25-001P). 14.3 By-law 8248/26 Being a By-law to amend City Consolidated Zoning By-law 8149/24, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, for the lands being Block 76, 40M-2664, and Block 188, 40M-2671, City of Pickering (A 06/25). 14.4 By-law 8249/26 Being a By-law to adopt Amendment 56 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering (OPA 22-002P). 14.5 By-law 8250/26 Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 3036, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, being Part of Lots 17 and 18, Concession 1, Now Parts 1 to 6, 40R-11780, Part 13, 40R-15636, Parts 1 to 3 and 5 to 11, 40R-20443, and Part 3, 40R-31322 (A 05/22). 14.6 By-law 8251/26 Being a by-law to amend By-law 6191/03 to confirm General Municipal Fees. 14.7 By-law 8252/26 Being a by-law to repeal By-law 3859/91 and By-law 6380/04, a by-law to adopt an Alcohol Management Policy for City owned facilities. 14.8 By-law 8253/26 Being a by-law to adopt the estimates of all sums required to be raised by taxation - 40 - Council Meeting Minutes April 27, 2026 22 for the year 2026 and to establish the Tax Rates necessary to raise such sums and to establish the final due dates for all realty tax classes. 14.9 By-law 8254/26 Being a by-law to exempt Part Block 1, Plan 40M-2755, being Parts 8, 15, 25, 31, 36, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 48, 53, 62 and 65, Plan 40R-32648 Pickering, from the part lot control provisions of the Planning Act. (Brock Dersan Developments Inc.) 14.10 By-law 8255/26 Being a by-law to establish Part of Lots 24 and 25, Concession 4 and Part of the Road Allowance between Lots 24 and 25, Concession 4, being Parts 1, 7 and 10, Plan 40R-31923, as public highway. (Burkholder Drive) 14.11 By-law 8256/26 Being a by-law to establish Part of Lot 24, Concession 4, being Part 4, Plan 40R- 31941, as public highway. (Elizabeth Mackenzie Drive) 14.12 By-law 8257/26 Being a by-law to stop-up and close Block 30, Plan 40M-2014, save and except Part 1, Plan 40R-30655, as a public highway. (Frontier Court) 14.13 By-law 8258/26 Being a By-law to adopt Amendment 57 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering (OPA 24-002/P) (1101A, 1105, and 1163 Kingston Road) Note: By-law approved by Ontario Land Tribunal (Case No. OLT-25-000437). No action required. By-law being assigned a number for record-keeping purposes in accordance with the Tribunal Order. 14.14 By-law 8259/26 Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 3036, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, being Part Lots 23 and 24, Concession 1, in the City of Pickering (A02/24) (1101A, 1105, and 1163 Kingston Road) Note: By-law approved by Ontario Land Tribunal (Case No. OLT-25-000437). - 41 - Council Meeting Minutes April 27, 2026 23 No action required. By-law being assigned a number for record-keeping purposes in accordance with the Tribunal Order. 15. Regional Councillor Updates There were no updates from Regional Councillors. 16. Other Business • Councillor Cook gave Notice of a Motion regarding opposing Alberta Bill 28, the Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 2026, related to public access to public libraries and their collections. • A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and staff regarding Federal public consultation on Airport Lands including: ○ why the City held a public consultation after the federal consultation period had ended and why the format of the consultation was a drop-in session rather than a formal presentation; ○ why only three options were presented to the public and why there was no fourth option presented that would have retained the lands entirely for agricultural use and transfer to Parks Canada; ○ whether comments provided at the City’s drop-in session would form part of the Federal government’s official consultation record; and, ○ clarification of the City’s role as a commenting body, and that the final decision rested with the Federal government. • A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and staff regarding the Regional purchase of Kingston Road property: ○ when the City became aware of the Region of Durham’s decision to purchase the Comfort Inn on Kingston Road for use related to asylum seekers and why the matter was not brought forward to Pickering residents earlier; ○ the purchase cost of the property and the duration of Federal funding and what would occur after Federal funding ended; ○ whether the costs would fall to Pickering taxpayers or to the Region of Durham; and, ○ whether additional information regarding long-term impacts and funding responsibilities could be provided to Council. 17. Confirmatory By-law Moved By Councillor Cook Seconded By Councillor Nagy That By-law 8260/26, to confirm the proceedings of the April 27, 2026 Council Meeting be - 42 - Council Meeting Minutes April 27, 2026 24 approved. Carried 18. Adjournment Moved By Councillor Nagy Seconded By Councillor Robinson That the meeting be adjourned. Carried The meeting adjourned at 8:29 p.m. Dated this 27th day of April, 2026. Kevin Ashe, Mayor Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 43 - 1 Special Council Meeting Minutes Electronic Meeting May 20, 2026 06:00 PM Chair: Mayor Ashe Present: Mayor K. Ashe Councillor M. Brenner Councillor S. Butt Councillor L. Cook Councillor M. Nagy - Joined at 6:06 p.m Councillor D. Pickles Councillor L. Robinson Regrets: None Also Present: M. Carpino - Chief Administrative Officer K. Bentley - Director, City Development & CBO P. Bigioni – Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor S. Boyd - Fire Chief L. Gibbs - Director, Community Services K. Heathcote - Director, City Infrastructure R. Holborn - Director, Engineering Services F. Jadoon - Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects S. Karwowski - Director, Finance & Treasurer R. Perera – (Acting) City Clerk C. Rose - Chief Planner P. Wirch - Principal Planner, Policy Z. Khan - Senior Project Manager, Special Projects, Economic Development R. Kumar - Senior Financial Analyst - Development Charges & Capital Management J. Currie - Legislative Coordinator - 44 - Special Council Meeting Minutes May 20, 2026 2 1. Call to Order/Roll Call The (Acting) City Clerk certified that all Members of Council were present and participating electronically, save and except Councillor Nagy. 2. Disclosure of Interest 2.1 Councillor Pickles – May 14, 2026 Special Council Meeting Agenda Item 3.1 Confidential Memorandum from the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Re: Acquisition of Frenchman's Bay A conflict of interest was declared under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act with respect to the May 14, 2026 Special Council Meeting Agenda Item 3.1 Confidential Memorandum from the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor regarding the acquisition of Frenchman's Bay, on the basis of the involvement of an organization that he was affiliated with. Councillor Pickles did not attend the Special In Camera Council Meeting on May 14, 2026 and did not take part in the discussion or vote on this matter. 3. Delegations Resolution # 999/26 Moved By Councillor Robinson Seconded By Councillor Butt That the rules of procedure be suspended to allow an additional delegation who registered after the deadline. Carried on a Two-Thirds Vote P. Wirch appeared before Council via electronic connection and provided a summary of the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan and advised that the lands were set aside for development through the adoption of the Envision Durham Official Plan in 2023, which was approved by the province in 2024. P. Wirch noted that the City-initiated secondary plan was intended to guide future development, including the planning of parks, community facilities, affordable housing, and other supporting infrastructure and further advised that additional technical studies and future approvals would be required to be brought before Council before development could proceed. P. Wirch concluded by noting that staff were continuing discussions respecting a Memorandum of Understanding with the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation (MSIFN) which would lead to future consultation protocols designed to lead to meaningful engagement for the next stages of planning and engineering work. - 45 - Special Council Meeting Minutes May 20, 2026 3 3.1 James Blair, Pickering Resident Re: Report PLN 08-26 Official Plan Amendment OPA 25-003P City-initiated Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Updated Staff Report: Responses and Revisions to Report PLN 04-26 J. Blair, Pickering Resident appeared before Council via electronic connection to speak to Report PLN 08-26. With the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, J. Blair raised concerns that the consultation process with the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation (MSIFN) had been ineffective, that provincial policy requirements for a technical agricultural impact assessment had not been met, that there had not been proper engagement with the agricultural community, and noted the potential for large tax increases to Pickering residents. Resolution # 1000/26 Moved By Councillor Cook Seconded By Councillor Robinson That the rules of procedure be suspended to allow for an additional two minutes for the delegation. Carried J. Blair concluded their delegation with concerns regarding the inadequate notice provided to residents and advised that additional engagement was required prior to moving forward with the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan. A brief question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and J. Blair regarding whether the delegate was aware of the specifics of the circumstances surrounding MSIFN's involvement and position on the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan. 3.2 Helen Brenner, Pickering Resident Re: Report PLN 08-26 Official Plan Amendment OPA 25-003P City-initiated Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Updated Staff Report: Responses and Revisions to Report PLN 04-26 H. Brenner, Pickering Resident appeared before Council via electronic connection to speak to Report PLN 08-26 and raised concerns regarding advancing with the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan prior to a comprehensive review addressing - 46 - Special Council Meeting Minutes May 20, 2026 4 critical questions regarding infrastructure, environmental impacts, flooding, and long-term taxpayer costs. H. Brenner advised that the City complete Pickering Forward prior to approving the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan to ensure decisions are based on current, complete data rather than irreversible expansion. A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and H. Brenner regarding the sufficiency of the environmental studies completed to date. 3.3 Matt Bentley, Uxbridge Resident Re: Report PLN 08-26 Official Plan Amendment OPA 25-003P City-initiated Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Updated Staff Report: Responses and Revisions to Report PLN 04-26 M. Bentley, Uxbridge Resident, appeared before Council via electronic connection to speak to Report PLN 08-26 and noted concerns regarding urban expansion, financial impacts, and indigenous engagement. M. Bentley suggested prioritizing due diligence before proceeding. A brief question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and M. Bentley regarding: • whether all outstanding studies should be complete prior to proceeding with the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan; • whether the delegate would support a City wide consultation before the project advanced; • the delegate's perspective on the regional implications of the project, including whether it would be necessary for infrastructure costs to be subsidized by all Durham Region residents; and, • whether the delegate was aware of the total expenditures to date from regional, city, and developer sources. 3.4 Abdullah Mir, Pickering Resident Re: Report PLN 08-26 Official Plan Amendment OPA 25-003P City-initiated Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Updated Staff Report: Responses and Revisions to Report PLN 04-26 - 47 - Special Council Meeting Minutes May 20, 2026 5 A. Mir, Pickering Resident, appeared before Council via electronic connection to speak to Report PLN 08-26 and advocated for responsible development and expressed concern that development charge reductions would not result in lower housing prices. A. Mir noted the absence of meaningful engagement with First Nations and called for the protection of the Duffins Creek headwaters. A. Mir urged council to defer the report until independent watershed science was finalized. A brief question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and A. Mir regarding whether the delegate was aware of the total expenditures to date and whether they would potentially have an impact on future costs. 3.5 Mike Borie, Pickering Resident Re: Report PLN 08-26 Official Plan Amendment OPA 25-003P City-initiated Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Updated Staff Report: Responses and Revisions to Report PLN 04-26 M. Borie, Pickering Resident, appeared before Council via electronic connection to speak to Report PLN 08-26 and raised concern regarding the timing of the proposed land-use designations, noting that key environmental and watershed studies had not yet been completed. The delegate expressed concern pertaining to potential impacts on groundwater and private wells in Greenwood, Stanton Glenn, and Kinsell, and emphasized the need to protect endangered species such as the Redside Dace. M. Borie questioned the objectivity of the Master Environmental Servicing Plans being funded or prepared by the Northeast Pickering Landowners Group. The delegate also stressed the importance of completing and formalizing consultation with the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation and the Williams Treaties First Nations (MSFIN) before advancing land-use changes. The delegate requested that Council defer the report pending completion of independent watershed studies and associated Indigenous consultation. A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and M. Borie regarding: • whether there was any specific justification to approve the Plan at this time; • whether developed land could be reverted to farmland; and, • clarification of the endangered species that were at risk. 3.6 Nicholas Zamora, President and Jim Grundy, Treasurer, Greenwood - 48 - Special Council Meeting Minutes May 20, 2026 6 Community Association Re: Report PLN 08-26 Official Plan Amendment OPA 25-003P City-initiated Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Updated Staff Report: Responses and Revisions to Report PLN 04-26 N. Zamora, President, and J. Grundy, Treasurer, Greenwood Community Association, appeared before Council via electronic connection to speak to Report PLN 08-26 and addressed local groundwater protection and the potential impacts of the proposed development on private wells. N. Zamora expressed concern regarding long-term water security, noting that large-scale urban development could affect both groundwater quantity and quality. The delegates submitted several recommended measures, including mandatory baseline well testing, independent peer review of hydrological studies, reverse-onus provisions placing responsibility on developers, emergency potable water access, permanent municipal water connections at no cost to affected residents, and financial security requirements for developers. They stated that existing “mitigation” language in the plan was insufficient and requested stronger, more explicit protections to ensure residents did not bear the burden of proving groundwater impacts. They expressed concern that delaying such requirements increased risk. A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and the delegates regarding: • whether the delegates would agree to ongoing consultation with City staff to refine protections; • the long-term, multi-phase nature of the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan and whether it was appropriate to approve the current phase before additional studies were completed; • clarification on the extent of public consultation regarding potential watershed impacts on private wells; and, • clarification that stronger groundwater-protection language should be incorporated at this stage of the planning process. 3.7 Katie Pandey, Innovative Planning Solutions Inc. and Andrea Woloszczuk, Pickering Landowner Re: Report PLN 08-26 Official Plan Amendment OPA 25-003P City-initiated Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan - 49 - Special Council Meeting Minutes May 20, 2026 7 Updated Staff Report: Responses and Revisions to Report PLN 04-26 K. Pandey, Innovative Planning Solutions Inc. and A. Woloszczuk, Pickering Landowner, appeared before Council via electronic connection to speak to Report PLN 08-26. The delegates requested that the specific location of a proposed community park be deferred to a future neighbourhood planning process and submitted that maintaining a conceptual designation at this stage placed an undue burden on affected landowners. The delegates further submitted that additional technical information should be available before final decisions were made respecting the location and size of community facilities. A brief question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and the delegates regarding whether it was their opinion that approval of the Plan was premature. 3.8 Matthew Cory, Malone Given Parsons Ltd. Re: Report PLN 08-26 Official Plan Amendment OPA 25-003P City-initiated Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Updated Staff Report: Responses and Revisions to Report PLN 04-26 M. Cory, Malone Given Parsons Ltd, appeared before Council via electronic connection to speak to Report PLN 08-26 on behalf of members of the Northeast Pickering Landowners Group and addressed concerns regarding the City's fiscal sustainability, noting that municipalities are required under the Provincial Planning Statement to operate without incurring deficits and that fiscal impact studies would demonstrate how development could remain financially viable. M. Cory advised that the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan formed an early step in a multi year planning process that began with the 2019 Growth Plan, and emphasized that the Secondary Plan served as a policy framework required before detailed neighbourhood plans, engineering studies, fiscal analyses, and technical investigations could proceed. The delegate noted that a City-led Secondary Plan provided a coordinated approach to development compared with individual landowners advancing separate applications. M. Cory concluded that approval of the Secondary Plan would establish the framework necessary to proceed to subsequent, more detailed planning and engineering stages, including additional studies and that the landowners group is committed to ongoing consultation. A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and M. Cory regarding: - 50 - Special Council Meeting Minutes May 20, 2026 8 • whether the planning process was being rushed and how the current phase fit within the broader multi year timeline; • the purpose of the secondary plan as a policy and guideline document, and the limitations on conducting fiscal impact studies or technical assessments at this stage; • whether the landowners group would commit to early consultation with community groups such as Greenwood Community Association to ensure concerns are addressed; • the timeline of the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan and how it compared to similar municipal projects in Ontario; • clarification that future development applications would be required to go back to Council for approval; • clarification that studies on wells and aquifers cannot occur until access is provided through the Secondary Plan; • clarification of the composition of the Landowners group and when the lands were purchased; • what level of meaningful consultation had occurred between the Landowners and the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation (MSFIN) and the Williams Treaties First Nations and how that has shaped the Landowners approach; • whether the Northeast Pickering Landowners Group stood to benefit financially from future developments and whether their intent was to sell the property; • whether approval of the Secondary Plan would increase the value of the land; • whether the Secondary Plan proposal was market driven rather than by the needs of the community; • whether delaying approval of the Secondary Plan would result in any specific harm; and, • what data was available pertaining to whether housing targets were being met. Resolution # 1001/26 Moved By Councillor Cook Seconded By Councillor Butt That Council take a short recess. Carried Council recessed at 8:27 p.m. and reconvened at 8:32 p.m. 4. Matters for Consideration - 51 - Special Council Meeting Minutes May 20, 2026 9 4.1 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 08-26 Official Plan Amendment OPA 25-003P City-initiated Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Updated Staff Report: Responses and Revisions to Report PLN 04-26 Discussion and a question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and City staff regarding: • clarification of how the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan, (the Plan), would protect residents in ensuring completion of all required studies prior to development; • concerns raised by the Greenwood community regarding language related to groundwater protections; • clarification of the potential cost impacts to taxpayers; • whether the Sportsplex facility was proposed to be relocated or removed from the Plan; • whether the Plan followed standard processes consistent with other planning exercises for communities and subdivisions, and clarification of the stage the process had reached; • whether staff could commit to working with the Greenwood community to address their seven points of concern earlier in the process than typically required; • clarification on the status of achieving a Memorandum of Understanding with the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation (MSIFN); • clarification of the implications for the City should Council postpone a decision on the Plan pending completion of the MOU; • why the recreation facility designation required a Mayoral direction to be removed, and whether the removal of community park designations was also being considered; • clarification of whether the Seaton development concluded with a surplus or a deficit; • whether, if a Fiscal Impact Study identified a deficit that could not be covered by development charges, the City would approach landowners to fund the difference; • whether the current procedure for advancing the Plan represented a standard process for developments of this nature; • what harm, if any, would result from deferring the Plan for six months; • whether the MSIFN were opposed to the development; • whether the Plan was needs-driven or market-driven; - 52 - Special Council Meeting Minutes May 20, 2026 10 • whether the proposed Northeast Pickering development was necessary to meet housing targets given that significant portions of Seaton remain unbuilt; • whether the Plan complied with the Durham Official Plan and whether private landowners were permitted to bring forward secondary plan applications outside a comprehensive review; • what studies and reports would be required following approval of the Plan; • whether the Northeast Pickering initiative was developer-driven or City-driven; • the approximate cost of work completed to date for the Northeast Pickering project; • whether a Fiscal Impact Study could be undertaken in the absence of detailed development plans; • how many condominium proposals were currently before Council city-wide and how many were anticipated for Northeast Pickering; • how concerns regarding potential flooding impacts on private wells and community safety were being addressed, and whether the Plan was required prior to further studies being conducted; • what would occur should Council decide not to proceed with the Plan; • clarification that approval of the Plan was required to advance subsequent studies; • clarification that the Envision Durham Official Plan outlined and provided a map of the elements that must be satisfied and that the Plan did not confirm a specific framework; • the importance of prioritizing residents’ interests over those of developers; • concerns that required studies were incomplete and would be funded by developers; • clarification that the decision to develop the lands had already been made and that the current focus was on how development would proceed, including continuing efforts to secure a Memorandum of Understanding with the MSIFN; and, • the City’s responsibility to plan for the future and, by supporting the Plan, the City maintaining control over growth through a conceptual land use framework. Resolution # 1002/26 Moved By Councillor Nagy Seconded By Councillor Cook That due to the remaining items of business on the Agenda, the meeting be extended to allow Council to continue to meet beyond 11:00 p.m. - 53 - Special Council Meeting Minutes May 20, 2026 11 Carried Resolution # 1003/26 Moved By Councillor Butt Seconded By Councillor Pickles 1. That Report PLN 08-26 regarding the recommended Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan be received; 2. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 25-003P, initiated by the City of Pickering, to add new policies and designations to the Pickering Official Plan regarding the recommended Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan, as set out in Attachment 1 to Report PLN 08-26, be approved; 3. That the Draft By-law to adopt Official Plan Amendment 54 to the Pickering Official Plan, to add new policies and designations to the Pickering Official Plan regarding the recommended Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan, as set out in Exhibit “A” to Attachment 1 of Report PLN 08-26, be approved; 4. That staff be directed to negotiate the terms of the following agreements with the North East Pickering Landowners Group Inc. (the “Landowners Group”) for the purpose of implementing the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan (the “Secondary Plan”) in the City’s best interests, and that these agreements be brought to Council for approval: a. an agreement respecting the funding and preparation of one or more Master Environmental Servicing Plans (the "MESP(s)”) for the Secondary Plan area, which the Agreement shall include: i. Terms of Reference for the completion of the MESP(s) to the satisfaction of the City, and the Region of Durham, in consultation with the respective conservation authorities, as set out in section 11.B.71 a) of the Secondary Plan; and, ii. details of funding arrangements requiring the Landowners Group to either fully fund in advance the City’s preparation of the MESP(s) or to prepare the MESP(s) at its cost while fully funding in advance the City’s peer review and oversight function; b. an agreement respecting the funding and preparation of Neighbourhood Plans for the Secondary Plan area, which Agreement shall include: i. Terms of Reference for the completion of the Neighbourhood Plans to the satisfaction of the City, as set out in section 11.B.72 of the Secondary Plan; ii. the process to complete the Neighbourhood Plans either one at a time or concurrently; and, iii. details of funding arrangements requiring the Landowners Group to either fully fund in advance the City’s preparation of the Neighbourhood Plans or to prepare the Neighbourhood Plans at its cost while fully funding in advance the City’s peer review and - 54 - Special Council Meeting Minutes May 20, 2026 12 oversight function; c. an agreement respecting the funding and preparation of a Fiscal Impact Study (the ”FIS”), which agreement shall include: i. Terms of Reference for the completion of the FIS satisfactory to the City as set out in section 11.B.70 b) v. of the Secondary Plan, and section 4.14 of Report PLN 03-26, which includes but is not limited to: Growth Forecast; Capital Forecast; Development Charges/Community Benefits Charges; Operating Expenditure Requirements; Property Tax Yield; Operating, and Capital Fund Impacts; and Municipal Land Needs; and, ii. details of funding arrangements requiring the Landowners Group to fully fund in advance the City’s cost to prepare the FIS; d. if an area-specific development charge, and community benefit charge, is determined to be required to implement the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan, Council authorizes staff to prepare an agreement with the Landowners Group to fully fund in advance the background studies and work required to support and implement such policy; e. an agreement (referred to as a Master Parks and Community Lands Agreement or “MPCLA”) respecting the size, general location and timing of the transfer to the City of lands required for parks, essential community facilities, cultural heritage, road widenings and affordable housing (including compensation where appropriate), which shall be completed and executed in sufficient time to be inputted into the FIS; f. an agreement respecting the funding and preparation of an Infrastructure Staging and Phasing Plan (the "ISPP”), which agreement shall include: i. Terms of Reference for the completion of the ISPP to the satisfaction of the City as set out in section 11.B.68 of the Secondary Plan; and, ii. details of funding arrangements requiring the Landowners Group to either fully fund in advance the City’s preparation of the ISPP, or to prepare the ISPP at its cost while fully funding in advance the City’s peer review and oversight function; g. consistent with the requirements of the Secondary Plan, an agreement that a Landowner shall not receive any development approval until: i. all required environmental assessments for sanitary sewer and water infrastructure are completed to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham, as set out in section 11.B.70 b) iii. of the Secondary Plan, and the costs for completing the environmental assessment are fully funded in advance by the Landowners Group; ii. all required environmental assessments for transportation infrastructure are completed to the satisfaction of the Region of - 55 - Special Council Meeting Minutes May 20, 2026 13 Durham and the City of Pickering, as set out in section 11.B.70 b) iv. of the Secondary Plan, and the costs for completing the environmental assessment are fully funded in advance by the Landowners Group; iii. all the agreements referred to in Recommendations 4 a., b., c., d., e. and f. of this report have been finalized and executed by the City and the Landowners Group; and, iv. the MESP(s), the Neighbourhood Plans, the FIS, the ISPP, and an area-specific development charge by-law and community benefit by-law if applicable are approved or accepted by the City as the case may be; 5. That staff be directed to include expenditures for studies and related items for the implementation of the Secondary Plan in future current budget submissions; 6. That staff be directed to continue their negotiations with MSIFN to prepare a memorandum of understanding (MOU), with respect to the development of a Consultation Protocol regarding Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Area, to be returned for Council’s consideration; 7. That staff continue to engage and collaborate with First Nations rights holders in the preparation of the MESP(s), the Neighbourhood Plans, Phase 3 Scoped Subwatershed Study, the required Environmental Assessments, and all other documents and studies as may be necessary to complete the planning processes for the Secondary Plan area; 8. That staff continue to engage with existing property owners in the Northeast Pickering area, residents of Greenwood, relevant stakeholders, and the broader public at each milestone in the ongoing planning process; 9. That the City Clerk advise the Williams Treaties First Nations, all statutory commenting agencies, the Landowners Group, the Region of Durham, delegates to the November 10, 2025 Statutory Public Meeting and respective Council meeting, delegates to the March 2, 2026 Planning & Development Committee and respective Council meeting, delegates to the March 30, 2026 Special Council meeting and interested parties, of Council’s decision on Pickering Official Plan Amendment 54, which adds policies and designations regarding the Secondary Plan and other general policies to the Pickering Official Plan; 10. That appropriate mitigation is taken to prevent impacts from development in Northeast Pickering on local wells, specifically in Greenwood, Staxton Glen, and the former hamlet of Kinsale; 11. That staff continue to work with the residents of Greenwood to preserve the rural character of the hamlet; 12. That, through the forthcoming Neighbourhood Plan process, the block pattern - 56 - Special Council Meeting Minutes May 20, 2026 14 and layout respect the existing homes and businesses in the former hamlet of Kinsale while also providing them with the opportunity to redevelop in accordance with the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan; and, 13. That appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. Voters Yes No Abstain Conflict Absent Mayor Ashe X Councillor Brenner X Councillor Butt X Councillor Cook X Councillor Nagy X Councillor Pickles X Councillor Robinson X Results 5 2 0 0 0 Carried on a Recorded Vote (5 to 2) 5. By-laws Resolution # 1004/26 Moved By Councillor Cook Seconded By Councillor Butt That By-law Numbers 8262/26 be approved. Carried 5.1 By-law 8262/26 Being a By-law to adopt Amendment 54 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering (OPA 25-003P) 6. Confirmatory By-law Moved By Councillor Butt Seconded By Councillor Nagy That By-law 8263/26, to confirm the proceedings of the May 20, 2026 Special Council Meeting be approved. - 57 - Special Council Meeting Minutes May 20, 2026 15 Carried 7. Adjournment Moved By Councillor Butt Seconded By Councillor Pickles That the meeting be adjourned. Carried The meeting adjourned at 11:07 p.m. Kevin Ashe, Mayor Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 58 - 1 Council Meeting Minutes Electronic Meeting May 25, 2026 - 07:00 PM Chair: Mayor Ashe Present: Mayor K. Ashe Councillor M. Brenner Councillor S. Butt Councillor L. Cook Councillor M. Nagy Councillor D. Pickles Councillor L. Robinson Regrets: None Also Present: M. Carpino - Chief Administrative Officer K. Bentley - Director, City Development & CBO P. Bigioni – Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor S. Boyd - Fire Chief J. Eddy - Director, Human Resources L. Gibbs - Director, Community Services K. Heathcote - Director, City Infrastructure R. Holborn - Director, Engineering Services F. Jadoon - Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects S. Karwowski - Director, Finance & Treasurer J. Litoborski - Division Head, Municipal Law Enforcement Services R. Perera - (Acting) City Clerk V. Plouffe - Division Head, Facilities Management & Construction C. Rose - Chief Planner L. Arshad - Manager, Economic Development & Marketing C. Bazinet - Manager, Procurement H. Thakor - Senior Officer Economic Development & Strategic Projects - 59 - Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 2026 2 L. Narraway - Supervisor, Animal Services J. SanAntonio - Supervisor, Equity, Diversity & Inclusion T. Higgins - Accessibility Coordinator E. Knox - Community Safety and Well Being Advisor J. Currie - Legislative Coordinator 1. Call to Order/Roll Call The City Clerk certified that all Members of Council were present and participating electronically. 2. Playing of O Canada Mayor Ashe asked all Members of Council to rise for the playing of O Canada. 3. Moment of Reflection Mayor Ashe called for a silent moment of reflection. 4. Indigenous Land Acknowledgment Statement Mayor Ashe read the Indigenous Land Acknowledgment Statement. 5. Disclosure of Interest 5.1 Councillor Cook - Grant Support for Royal Canadian Legion Branch 606 Centennial and D-Day Event A conflict of interest was declared under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act with respect to Item 11.7 regarding Grant Support for Royal Canadian Legion Branch 606 Centennial and D-Day Event, on the basis of their association with the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 606 as a volunteer and Member. 6. Adoption of Minutes 6.1 Executive Committee Minutes, May 4, 2026 6.2 Special Council Minutes, May 14, 2026 (includes Confidential In Camera Minutes under separate cover) Resolution # 1005/26 - 60 - Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 2026 3 Moved By Councillor Brenner Seconded By Councillor Butt That the minutes, Items 6.1 through 6.2, be approved. Carried 7. Presentations There were no presentations. 8. Delegations 8.1 Katherine Hale, Member, Sam Snyders, Member, Accessibility Advisory Committee Re: Corr. 12-26 Timothy Higgins, Accessibility Coordinator, City of Pickering Re: Accessibility Advisory Committee - 2025 Year End Report and 2026 Proposed Work Plan (Refer to Item 9.5) K. Hale, Member, Accessibility Advisory Committee, S. Snyders, Member, Accessibility Advisory Committee, and T. Higgins, Accessibility Coordinator, City of Pickering, appeared before Council to speak to the Accessibility Advisory Committee 2025 Year End Report and 2026 Proposed Work Plan. The delegates highlighted the Committee’s continued work to support accessibility planning across City programs, services, and public spaces, and emphasized the importance of integrating accessibility considerations beyond minimum legislative requirements. The delegates emphasized the importance of inclusive recreation programs, accessible and inclusive play spaces, and the value of lived experience in identifying and removing barriers. The delegates concluded by noting the benefits of timely reporting and resolution of accessibility issues and highlighted the use of tools such as accessibility checklists to guide future development and support the City’s continued growth. A brief question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and the delegates regarding notable Committee achievements and best practices for accessible park design. 8.2 Alexis Whalen, Chair, Land Over Landings Re: Report ECD 03-26 - 61 - Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 2026 4 Pickering Federal Lands - Land Use Review and Economic Analysis Recommendation Report (Refer to Item 11.2) A. Whalen, Chair, Land Over Landings, appeared before Council to speak to Report ECD 03-26 regarding the Pickering Federal Lands - Land Use Review and Economic Analysis Recommendation Report. The delegate expressed support for preserving the subject lands, emphasized the agricultural value of the lands, and stated that the lands should be protected for long-term agricultural, conservation, and park-related purposes. A. Whalen also spoke to the importance of safeguarding the natural environment, maintaining the visitor experience associated with nearby parklands, and considering long-term community impacts related to industrial development and prolonged construction activity. A brief question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and A. Whalen regarding alternative land use options which included preservation of the lands, and whether concerns raised by the public had been considered in Report ECD 03-26. 9. Correspondence 9.1 Corr. 08-26 Matt Somerville, Senior Planner, Heritage, City of Pickering Re: Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee 2025 Year-End Report and 2026 Workplan Resolution # 1006/26 Moved By Councillor Brenner Seconded By Councillor Butt That Corr. 08-26, from Matt Somerville, Senior Planner, Heritage, City of Pickering, dated May 25, 2026, regarding the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee 2025 Year-End Report and 2026 Workplan, be received for information. Carried 9.2 Corr. 09-26 Arnold Mostert, Manager, Landscape & Parks Development, City of Pickering Re: Waterfront Visionary Advisory Committee 2025 Year End Report and 2026 Proposed Work Plan - 62 - Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 2026 5 Resolution # 1007/26 Moved By Councillor Brenner Seconded By Councillor Cook That Corr. 09-26, from Arnold Mostert, Manager, Landscape & Parks Development, City of Pickering, dated May 25, 2026, regarding the Waterfront Visionary Advisory Committee 2025 Year End Report and 2026 Proposed Work Plan, be received for information. Carried 9.3 Corr. 10-26 Green Durham Association Re: Transfer of TRCA Osler Tract to Uxbridge Urban Provincial Park - Support from Pickering Resolution # 1008/26 Moved By Councillor Cook Seconded By Councillor Pickles 1. That Corr. 10-26 from Green Durham Association, regarding Transfer of TRCA Osler Tract to Uxbridge Urban Provincial Park - Support from Pickering, dated May 4, 2026, be received; and, 2. That staff, through the Office of the CAO, be directed to prepare a letter to the TRCA indicating that the Council of the City of Pickering supports the letter from the Green Durham Association requesting that the TRCA transfer its ownership of the lands known as the ‘Osler Tract’ in Pickering to the Province of Ontario for inclusion in the Uxbridge Urban Provincial Park. Carried 9.4 Corr. 11-26 John Meloche, Co-Founder & President, Lynn Heights Neighbourhood Association Re: Request for Permission to Install a Permanent Memorial Plaque in Honour of Steve Sattz at Lynn Heights Park Resolution # 1009/26 Moved By Councillor Brenner Seconded By Councillor Butt - 63 - Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 2026 6 1. That Corr. 11-26 from John Meloche, Co-Founder & President, Lynn Heights Neighbourhood Association, regarding a Request for Permission to Install a Permanent Memorial Plaque in Honour of Steve Sattz at Lynn Heights Park, dated May 14, 2026, be received; 2. That staff, through the Office of the CAO, be directed to undertake an evaluation of installing a commemorative plaque or otherwise, recognizing Steve Sattz at the Lynn Heights Park; and, 3. That staff report back to Council with their recommendations no later than the June 22, 2026 Council Meeting. Carried 9.5 Corr. 12-26 Timothy Higgins, Accessibility Coordinator, City of Pickering Re: Accessibility Advisory Committee - 2025 Year End Report and 2026 Proposed Work Plan Resolution # 1010/26 Moved By Councillor Butt Seconded By Councillor Cook That Corr. 12-26, from Timothy Higgins, Accessibility Coordinator, City of Pickering, dated May 25, 2026, regarding the Accessibility Advisory Committee - 2025 Year End Report and 2026 Proposed Work Plan, be received for information. Carried 9.6 Corr. 13-26 Elaine Knox, Community Safety & Well-Being Advisor, City of Pickering Re: Community Safety & Well-Being Advisory Committee 2025 Year End Report and 2026 Proposed Work Plan Resolution # 1011/26 Moved By Councillor Butt Seconded By Councillor Brenner That Corr. 13-26, from Elaine Knox, Community Safety & Well-Being Advisor, City of Pickering, dated May 25, 2026, regarding the Community Safety & Well-Being Advisory Committee 2025 Year End Report and 2026 Proposed Work Plan, be received for information. - 64 - Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 2026 7 Carried 10. Report EC 04-26 of the Executive Committee held on May 4, 2026 Resolution # 1012/26 Moved By Councillor Pickles Seconded By Councillor Brenner That Report EC 04-26 of the Executive Committee held on May 4, 2026 be adopted. Carried 10.1 Chief Administrative Officer, Report CAO 04-26 Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Strategy Progress Update 2025 Annual Report and 2026 Work Plan Council Decision: That Report CAO 04-26 regarding the City of Pickering’s 2025 Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Annual Report and 2026 Work Plan be received for information. 10.2 Chief Administrative Officer, Report CAO 05-26 Pickering Anti-Black Racism Taskforce 2025 Year End Report and Proposed 2026 Work Plan Council Decision: 1. That Report CAO 05-26 regarding the Pickering Anti-Black Racism Taskforce 2025 Year End Report and Proposed 2026 Work Plan be received for information; 2. That Council approve the 2026 4th Annual Community event in celebration of the International Day for People of African Descent, proposed for August 28, 2026, per ADM 040 Committees and Taskforces of Council Policy, and on terms and conditions satisfactory to the Director, Community Services and the Chief Administrative Officer; 3. That Council authorize staff to issue a park permit to the Pickering Anti-Black Racism Taskforce for the use of Esplanade Park, per CUL 070 Community Festivals and Events Policy, for the Community Event in celebration of the - 65 - Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 2026 8 International Day for People of African Descent; and, 4. That Council approve the 5th Annual Black Joy Holiday Market event on November 13 and 14, 2026, per ADM 040 Committees and Taskforces of Council Policy, and on terms and conditions satisfactory to the Director, Community Services and the Chief Administrative Officer. 10.3 Director, Community Services, Report CS 11-26 Consulting Services for Design of a New Animal Shelter & Municipal Law Enforcement Services Offices Request for Proposal No. RFP2026-2 Council Decision: 1. That the proposal submitted by Unity Design Studio Inc. in response to Request for Proposal No. RFP2026-2 for Consulting Services for Design of a New Animal Shelter & MLES Offices, in the amount of $1,107,149.00 (net HST) or $1,229,440.00 (HST included) be accepted; 2. That the total gross project cost of $1,506,999.00 (HST included), including the amount of the proposal, contingency, and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $1,357,099.00 (net HST) be approved; 3. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the net project cost of $1,357,099.00 (net HST) as follows: a. the sum of $284,061.00 to be funded from DC Protective Services Development Charges Reserve Fund; b. the sum of $784,754.00 be funded by a transfer from the Animal Shelter Reserve Fund; and, c. the sum of $288,284.00 be funded by a transfer from the Casino Reserve; 4. That the Director, Community Services be authorized to execute the OAA 600 2021 A Contract with the above-mentioned consultant pursuant to Request for Proposal No. RFP2026-2; and, 5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 10.4 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 05-26 Cognac and Valley Farm SWM Pond Cleanouts Request for Proposal No. RFP2026-4 Council Decision: - 66 - Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 2026 9 1. That the proposal submitted by Aquafor Beech Limited in response to Request for Proposal No. RFP2026-4, Cognac and Valley Farm SWM Pond Cleanouts, in the amount of $65,968.97 (net HST) or $73,255.64 (HST included) be accepted; 2. That the total gross project cost of $171,892.00 (HST included) including the proposal fee amount, a contingency, and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $154,794.00 (net HST) be approved; 3. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the net project cost of $154,794.00 (net HST) by a transfer from the Stormwater Management Reserve Fund as approved in the 2026 Capital Budget; 4. That the Director, Engineering Services be authorized to enter into and execute the Form of Agreement with the above-mentioned consultant pursuant to Request for Proposal No. RFP2026-4; and, 5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 10.5 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 06-26 Durham Meadoway Design Shared Services Memorandum of Understanding Council Decision: 1. That Report ENG 06-26 regarding Durham Meadoway Design Shared Services Memorandum of Understanding be received; 2. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Durham Meadoway Design Shared Services Memorandum of Understanding in substantially the same form as attached to this report, subject to revisions acceptable to the Director, Engineering Services and the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; 3. That the total gross project cost of $341,486.00 (HST included) and the total net project cost of $307,519.00 (net HST) be approved; 4. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to fund the total net project cost of $307,519.00 (net HST) as follows: a. the sum of $153,759.00 be funded by a transfer from the Parks & Recreation Development Charges Reserve Fund as approved in the 2026 Current Budget; b. the sum of $153,760.00 be funded by a transfer from the City Share Development Charges Reserve as approved in the 2026 Current Budget; and, - 67 - Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 2026 10 5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 10.6 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 07-26 School Crossing Guard Program Single Source - One Year Extension Quotation No. Q2023-37 Council Decision: 1. That Council approve the award of a one-year extension of the School Crossing Guard contract to Carraway Inc. for the 2026/2027 school year in accordance with the City’s Purchasing Policy Sections 09.03 (d); 2. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the 2026 portion of the School Crossing Guard Program in the amount of $264,730.00 (net HST) as approved in the 2026 Current Budget and that financing for 2027 portion, in the amount of $397,094.00 (net HST) be provided for in the 2027 Current Budget request, for a total amount of $661,824.00 (net HST); and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 10.7 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 08-26 City Centre Park Preferred Concept Design Council Decision: 1. That Council endorse the City Centre Park preferred concept design, as set out in Attachment 1, consisting of an outdoor skating rink and trail, misting water feature, amenity building with public washrooms, a staff area, mechanical/electrical room, and an ice re-surfacer storage room, walking paths, site furniture, opportunities for public art, turf, planting beds, and trees; 2. That staff and the consultant be authorized to proceed with the design development and detailed design phase for the City Centre Park; and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 10.8 Director, City Infrastructure, Report INF 06-26 Supply and Delivery of One 4 Ton Dump Truck with Plow and Wing Request for Quotation No. RFQQ2026-14 - 68 - Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 2026 11 Council Decision: 1. That the Quotation submitted by Premier Truck Group of London in response to Request for Quotation No. RFQQ2026-14 for the Supply and Delivery of One 4 Ton Dump Truck with Plow and Wing, in the amount of $467,078.00 (net HST) or $518,670.00 (HST included) be accepted; 2. That the total gross project cost of $518,670.00 (HST included), and the total net project cost of $467,078.00 (net HST) be approved; 3. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer, to finance the total net project cost of $467,078.00 as approved in the 2026 Capital Budget, with the funding source changed from 5-year debt financing to DC-Other Services Related to Highway Reserve; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 10.9 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 10-26 Development Application Approvals Process (DAAP) Fee Review Proposed Building, Planning and Engineering Service Fees Council Decision: 1. That the Development Applications Approvals Process (DAAP) Fee Review prepared by Watson and Associates Economists Ltd. included as Attachment 1 be endorsed; 2. That the recommended amendments to the City Development - Building and Planning Fees and Development Services Fees included in Attachments 2, 3 and 4 to Report PLN 10-26 to establish fee adjustments, be approved; and that the draft By-laws to adopt Fees be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment; 3. That the recommended fees outlined in Attachments 2, 3 and 4 to Report PLN 10-26 take effect on July 1, 2026; 4. That all Planning, Building, and Development Services Fees continue to be indexed annually, based on the City‘s annual budgeted cost increases or other appropriate index (i.e., the Municipal Price Index) to maintain the proposed level of cost recovery; and, 5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. - 69 - Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 2026 12 10.10 Director, City Development & CBO, Report SUS 02-26 Durham Greener Buildings Program and Challenge – City of Pickering Participation Council Decision: 1. That Report SUS 02-26 regarding the Durham Greener Buildings Program and Challenge – City of Pickering Participation be received; 2. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Terms and Conditions Enrollment form to participate in the Region of Durham’s Durham Greener Buildings Challenge program, subject to minor revisions as may be required by the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor and/or Chief Administrative Officer; and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 10.11 Director, City Development & CBO, Report SUS 03-26 2025 Sustainable Year-in-Review Council Decision: That Report SUS 03-26 regarding the 2025 Sustainable Pickering Year-in-Review be received for information. 11. New and Unfinished Business 11.1 Chief Administrative Officer, Report CAO 06-26 Municipal Infrastructure & Servicing Agreement between the City of Pickering and Ontario Power Generation 1. That Report CAO 06-26 regarding the Municipal Infrastructure & Servicing Agreement between the City of Pickering and the Ontario Power Generation be received; 2. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Municipal Infrastructure & Servicing Agreement with Ontario Power Generation, set out in Attachment 1, subject to revisions that may be required by the Chief Administrative Officer and the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; and, 3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions - 70 - Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 2026 13 necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. Note: The disposition of this matter was determined through the deferral motion below: Resolution # 1013/26 Moved By Councillor Cook Seconded By Councillor Pickles That Report CAO 06-26 be deferred to the June 22, 2026, Council Meeting. Carried 11.2 Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects, Report ECD 03-26 Pickering Federal Lands - Land Use Review and Economic Analysis Recommendation Report F. Jadoon, Director, Economic Development and Strategic Planning, appeared before Council via electronic connection to speak to Report ECD 03-26 and advised that in 2025 the Federal Government announced that the Pickering Federal Lands would not be used for a future airport and that they would conduct extensive public consultation. F. Jadoon noted that Council had directed staff in January 2026 to conduct a land use and economic analysis. F. Jadoon advised that the City had retained SGL Planning to evaluate the best fiscal and economic value for the lands to inform the City’s recommendation. P. Lowes, Principal, SGL Planning & Design, appeared before Council via electronic connection and spoke to Report ECD 03-26. With the aid of a Power Point presentation, P. Lowes provided an overview of the study area, servicing and transportation considerations, economic analysis, agricultural capability, natural heritage features, public feedback received, and the three land use options considered. The delegate advised that the recommended land use plan sought to balance economic opportunity with the protection of natural heritage, parkland, and agricultural uses, including a framework intended to support long-term agricultural viability and future investment. Discussion and a question and answer period ensued between Members of Council, staff, and P. Lowes regarding: • clarification on the projected job creation under each development option presented in the Report, and the anticipated income generation associated - 71 - Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 2026 14 with those employment forecasts; • clarification on available municipal revenue streams, including development charges, building permit revenues, and long-term taxation impacts; • whether agricultural lands were at risk of acquisition by speculators; • the amount of employment land currently available within the Innovation Corridor, and the anticipated timelines for servicing and marketing employment lands in Northeast Pickering; • clarification on whether authority for determining the future disposition of the Federal Lands rested with the Federal Government or the City, and whether any Federal decision timeline had been communicated; • clarification on the nature of the proposed parkland expansions in Green River and Claremont; • how the proposed allocation of 21% of lands for employment uses could contribute to reducing the residential tax burden; • whether agricultural lands north of Highway 7 were being recommended for inclusion within Rouge National Urban Park; • why an option preserving all of the Pickering Federal Lands was not included in the Report; • why the City’s public consultation process occurred after the Federal Government’s consultation period had closed; • whether consultation had taken place with the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation (MSIFN); • clarification on the timeline for when employment lands would be required and when they were expected to become available; • the source of data supporting the transition to long-term agricultural leases as a means of promoting investment and security for farmers; • the view that the recommended approach represented a balanced outcome, retaining a majority of lands for natural heritage, agricultural, and parkland purposes while addressing long-term economic needs; • the benefits associated with continued federal investment, including requirements for improvements to unserviced roads, and noted that no airport recommendation was being advanced; • the importance and economic potential of preserving agricultural lands, including the value of longer-term lease arrangements to encourage investment by farmers; • the significance of conserving heritage properties and ensuring that archaeological sites identified would be addressed through established land use planning and cultural heritage conservation process; • concerns pertaining to the preservation of rural character and environmentally sensitive lands, acknowledging that none of the options under consideration - 72 - Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 2026 15 would result in full preservation of the lands; and, • the significance of ending 50 years of uncertainty regarding the future of the lands and the potential for the recommended approach to support the City’s tax base through future employment-related economic activity. Resolution # 1014/26 Moved By Councillor Pickles Seconded By Councillor Brenner 1. That the City of Pickering Federal Lands - Land Use Review and Economic Analysis Recommendation Report, prepared by SGL Planning and Design Inc., be received; 2. That Council endorse the City of Pickering Federal Lands - Land Use Review and Economic Analysis Recommendation Report, set out in Attachment 1, as City of Pickering comments on the future use of the Pickering Federal Lands; 3. That Council authorize staff to submit Council endorsed comments, as set out in Attachment 1, to the Federal Government in response to their public consultation; 4. That the City Clerk forward Report ECD 03-26 to Member of Parliament Pickering-Brooklin, Region of Durham Chair, Region of Durham’s Community Growth and Economic Development Department, and Regional Clerk as correspondence; and, 5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. Voters Yes No Abstain Conflict Absent Mayor Ashe X Councillor Brenner X Councillor Butt X Councillor Cook X Councillor Nagy X Councillor Pickles X Councillor Robinson X Results 6 1 0 0 0 Carried on a Recorded Vote (6 to 1) - 73 - Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 2026 16 11.3 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 05-26 Investment Portfolio Activity for the Year Ended December 31, 2025 Ontario Regulation 438/97 under the Municipal Act, 2001 Resolution # 1015/26 Moved By Councillor Pickles Seconded By Councillor Cook That Report FIN 05-26 regarding the Investment Portfolio Activity for the Year Ended December 31, 2025 be received for information. Carried 11.4 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 06-26 Financial Housekeeping Report #2 Resolution # 1016/26 Moved By Councillor Pickles Seconded By Councillor Cook 1. That Report FIN 06-26 regarding the Financial Housekeeping Report #2 be received; 2. That Council approve the draft Purchasing Policy (PUR 010), as amended, set out in Attachment 1; 3. That Council approve the draft Municipal Alcohol Policy (ADM 320), as amended, set out in Attachment 3, and an effective date of June 30, 2026; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. Carried 11.5 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 07-26 2025 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund Resolution # 1017/26 Moved By Councillor Pickles Seconded By Councillor Cook 1. That Report FIN 07-26 regarding the 2025 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund be received; and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the - 74 - Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 2026 17 actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. Carried 11.6 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report LEG 05-26 Carousel Green Stop-up and Close portions of William Jackson Drive Part Lot 18, Concession 3, being Parts 1 to 27, Plan 40R-33051 City Acquisition of Lands from the Region of Durham Part Lot 18, Concession 3, being Parts 1 to 7, Plan 40R-33048 and Parts 29 to 33, Plan 40R-33051; City Disposal of Land to the Region of Durham Part Lot 18, Concession 3, being Part 1, Plan 40R-33051 File: L-4610-009-13 Resolution # 1018/26 Moved By Councillor Pickles Seconded By Councillor Cook 1. That Report LEG 05-26 regarding Carousel Green, the stopping-up and closing of a portion of William Jackson Drive, the City acquisition of lands from the Region of Durham and the City Disposal of lands to the Region of Durham be received; 2. That Council authorize the acquisition of lands from the Region of Durham for nominal consideration, for park purposes, being Parts 1 to 7, Plan 40R-33048 and Parts 29 to 33, Plan 40R-33051, subject to required easements in favour of Elexicon Energy, Enbridge Gas, Region of Durham and Bell Canada; 3. That the By-law included as Attachment 3 be enacted to authorize the stopping- up and closing of Parts 1 to 27, Plan 40R-33051; 4. That Council declare Part 1, 40R-33051 surplus to the needs of the City for the purposes of transfer by the City to the Region of Durham; 5. That Council authorize the transfer of Part 1, Plan 40R-33051 for nominal consideration to the Region of Durham, to form a part of Brock Road; 6. That the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor be authorized to execute on the City’s behalf any documents, instruments, transfers, easements and agreements as may be necessary to complete these transactions; and, 7. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. - 75 - Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 2026 18 Carried Resolution # 1019/26 Moved By Councillor Brenner Seconded By Councillor Nagy That the rules of procedure be suspended in order to allow the introduction of a motion pertaining to a grant in support of the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 606 Centennial and D-Day Event due to its urgent nature. Carried on a Two-Thirds Recorded Vote 11.7 Grant Support for Royal Canadian Legion Branch 606 Centennial and D- Day Event Councillor Cook declared a conflict on this item. ( A conflict of interest was declared under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act with respect to Item 11.7 regarding Grant Support for Royal Canadian Legion Branch 606 Centennial and D-Day Event, on the basis of their association with the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 606 as a volunteer and Member. ) A brief discussion ensued between Members of Council regarding the organization's century of community support and the positive impact the grant would have on the operation of Branch 606. Resolution # 1020/26 Moved By Councillor Brenner Seconded By Councillor Nagy WHEREAS this year marks the 100th anniversary of the Royal Canadian Legion, an organization that has served veterans, military members, and their families since 1926; And Whereas, in our community, the RCL Branch 606 has long stood as a place of remembrance, support, and connection for those who have served Canada; And Whereas, on June 6, 2026, RCL Branch 606 will host a special commemorative event to mark this centennial while also honouring the anniversary of D-Day, the historic day on June 6. 1944 when Allied forces launched the largest seaborne invasion in history on the beaches of Normandy; And Whereas, this pivotal moment helped turn the tide of the Second World War and remains a powerful reminder of the courage and sacrifice made in the fight for freedom; - 76 - Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 2026 19 And Whereas, on Saturday June 6' RCL Branch 606 will begin the day with a 11:00 am Ceremony at City Cenotaph, followed with Anniversary celebrations at the RCL Branch 606 on Bayly beginning at 1:00 pm; And Whereas, the event will include activities for all ages, entertainment, information booths and food in a manner that is meaningful and accessible to everyone; And Whereas, RCL Branch 606 is reaching out to local businesses and all potential donors for financial support to cover the costs of this once in a lifetime event; Now therefore be it resolved that the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering, notwithstanding FIN 040 - Community Grant Policy, provide a grant to the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 606, in the amount of $2,000 dollars (account 503050.11100) to be used towards the celebration of the Centennial of the Royal Canadian Legion in Canada on June 6, 2026. Carried Unanimously on a Recorded Vote 12. By-laws Resolution # 1021/26 Moved By Councillor Pickles Seconded By Councillor Cook That By-law Numbers 8264/26 through 8269/26 be approved. Carried 12.1 By-law 8264/26 Being a by-law to amend By-law No. 6191/03 to confirm General Municipal Fees. 12.2 By-law 8265/26 Being a by-law to stop up and close Part Lot 18, Concession 3, being Parts 1 to 27, Plan 40R-33051, subject to required easements. 12.3 By-law 8266/26 Being a by-law to appoint Kaley Lam as a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer for the purpose of enforcing the by-laws of the Corporation of the City of Pickering. 12.4 By-law 8267/26 Being a by-law to establish Part Lot 93 and Part Block R, Plan 331 and Part Block - 77 - Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 2026 20 G, Plan 272 being Part 3, Plan 40R-32775, as public highway (Hillview Crescent). 12.5 By-law 8268/26 Being a By-law to adopt Amendment 53 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering (OPA 23-004/P) (720 Granite Court). Note: By-law approved by Ontario Land Tribunal (Case No. OLT-25-000509). No action required. By-law being assigned a number for record-keeping purposes in accordance with the Tribunal Order. 12.6 By-law 8269/26 Being a by-law to amend Zoning By-law 8149/24, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, being Part of Bayly Street, 40M-1334, Now Parts 1 to 3, 40R-18421 (OPA 23-004/P, A 10/23) (720 Granite Court). Note: By-law approved by Ontario Land Tribunal (Case No. OLT-25-000509). No action required. By-law being assigned a number for record-keeping purposes in accordance with the Tribunal Order. 13. Regional Councillor Updates There were no updates from Regional Councillors. 14. Other Business There was no other business. 15. Confirmatory By-law Moved By Councillor Cook Seconded By Councillor Robinson That By-law 8270/26, to confirm the proceedings of the May 25, 2026 Council Meeting be approved. Carried 16. Adjournment Moved By Councillor Robinson Seconded By Councillor Nagy - 78 - Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 2026 21 That the meeting be adjourned. Carried The meeting adjourned at 932 p.m. Dated this 25th day of May 2026. Kevin Ashe, Mayor Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 79 - 1 Special Council Meeting Minutes Electronic Meeting June 08, 2026 11:00 AM Chair: Mayor Ashe Present: Mayor K. Ashe Councillor M. Brenner Councillor S. Butt Councillor L. Cook Councillor D. Pickles Councillor M. Nagy Councillor L. Robinson Regrets: None. Also Present: M. Carpino - Chief Administrative Officer P. Bigioni – Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor J. Eddy – Director, Human Resources S. Cassel – City Clerk 1. Call to Order/Roll Call The City Clerk certified that all Members of Council were present and participating electronically. 2. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 3. In Camera Matters - 80 - Special Council Meeting Minutes June 08, 2026 2 Resolution # 1022/26 Moved By Councillor Cook Seconded By Councillor Pickles That Council move into closed session in accordance with the Municipal Act and the Procedure By-law to receive advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege and to discuss personal matters about an identifiable individual. The matter being considered in closed session pertains to a confidential presentation from the Director, Human Resources and John Mascarin, Partner, and Meghan Cowan, Partner, Aird & Berlis LLP, regarding Harassment Investigation Findings and Recommendations, HUR 070 – Respect in the Workplace Policy. Carried Mayor Ashe reminded Members of their confidentiality obligations under the Procedure By law and the Council Code of Conduct. 3.1 Confidential Presentation from the Director, Human Resources and John Mascarin, Partner and Meghan Cowan, Partner, Aird & Berlis LLP Re: Harassment Investigation Findings and Recommendations HUR 070 – Respect in the Workplace Policy This portion of the meeting was closed to the public. Refer to the In Camera meeting minutes for further information. [City Clerk has custody and control of the In Camera minutes.] Resolution # 1023/26 Moved By Councillor Nagy Seconded By Councillor Cook That Council rise and resume into the open session of the Special Meeting of Council. Carried 4. Confidential Special Council - Public Report Mayor Ashe stated that during the closed portion of the meeting, Council considered a matter pertaining to a confidential presentation from the Director, Human Resources and John Mascarin, Partner, and Meghan Cowan, Partner, Aird & Berlis LLP, regarding Harassment Investigation Findings and Recommendations HUR 070 – Respect in the Workplace Policy. The matter was discussed in closed session to receive advice subject to solicitor-client privilege as it pertains to personal matters about an identifiable individual. - 81 - Special Council Meeting Minutes June 08, 2026 3 4.1 Confidential Presentation from the Director, Human Resources and John Mascarin, Partner and Meghan Cowan, Partner, Aird & Berlis LLP Re: Harassment Investigation Findings and Recommendations HUR 070 – Respect in the Workplace Policy Councillor Robinson expressed concerns regarding the process undertaken pertaining to the harassment investigation and findings, particularly that the full report had not been disclosed and that she was unable to ask questions to the third- party investigator. She further expressed concerns regarding the remedies and restrictions imposed on her because of the findings of the investigation. Mayor Ashe called Councillor Robinson to order and cautioned her on disclosing matters that were discussed in closed session. Mayor Ashe stated that the City, as an employer, was legally compelled to investigate complaints pertaining to harassment, noting that the complaints were not just from one member of the City’s Senior Staff, but four who felt harassed and threatened by the Councillor’s actions. Resolution # 1024/26 Moved By Councillor Cook Seconded By Councillor Pickles 1. That Council hereby proclaims their support for the administrative restrictions, as contained in Recommendation 1 of the Confidential PowerPoint presentation document presented by the Director, Human Resources and Aird & Berlis LLP, at the June 8th Special Council Meeting, that have been previously implemented under the direction of the City’s Chief Administrative Officer (CAO); 2. That Recommendations 2 and 3 as contained in the Confidential PowerPoint presentation document be approved and endorsed; 3. That the Clerk be directed to append the Confidential PowerPoint presentation and enter the exact recommendations approved by Council into the confidential meeting minutes; and, 4. That the Mayor be authorized to issue a public statement and that the statement may include the adopted recommendations. Voters Yes No Abstain Conflict Absent Mayor Ashe X Councillor Brenner X Councillor Butt X - 82 - Special Council Meeting Minutes June 08, 2026 4 Councillor Cook X Councillor Nagy X Councillor Pickles X Councillor Robinson X Results 6 1 0 0 0 Carried on a Recorded Vote (6 to 1) 5. Confirmatory By-law Moved By Councillor Cook Seconded By Councillor Brenner That By-law 8271/26, to confirm the proceedings of the June 8, 2026 Special Council Meeting be approved. Carried 6. Adjournment Moved By Councillor Nagy Seconded By Councillor Cook That the meeting be adjourned. Carried The meeting adjourned at 11:50 a.m. Dated this 8th day of June, 2026. Kevin Ashe, Mayor Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 83 - 1 Executive Committee Meeting Minutes Electronic Meeting June 08, 2026 - 02:00 PM Chair: Mayor Ashe Present: Mayor K. Ashe - left the meeting at 4:02 p.m. Councillor M. Brenner Councillor S. Butt Councillor L. Cook - left the meeting at 3:52 p.m. Councillor M. Nagy Councillor D. Pickles Councillor L. Robinson Regrets: None Also Present: M. Carpino - Chief Administrative Officer K. Bentley - Director, City Development & CBO P. Bigioni - Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor J. Eddy - Director, Human Resources L. Gibbs - Director, Community Services K. Heathcote - Director, City Infrastructure R. Holborn - Director, Engineering Services F. Jadoon - Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects S. Karwowski - Director, Finance & Treasurer S. Cassel - City Clerk V. Plouffe - Division Head, Facilities Management & Construction C. Rose – Chief Planner J. Yoshida - Deputy Fire Chief L. Arshad - Manager, Economic Development & Marketing K. Roberts - Manager, Cultural Services J. Robertson - Senior Financial Analyst H. Thakor - Senior Officer Economic Development & Strategic Projects J. Currie - Legislative Coordinator - 84 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes June 08, 2026 2 1. Call to Order/Roll Call The City Clerk certified that all Members of the Committee were present and participating electronically. 2. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 3. Delegations 3.1 Karen Fisher, Vice Chair, John Fahey, Member, John Ecker, Member, Willie Woo, Member, Bill Clancy, Executive Director, Durham Regional Police Service Board, Peter Moreira, Chief of Police, Chris Bovie, Director of External Relations, Durham Regional Police Service Re: Durham Region Policing and Governance Update K. Fisher, Vice Chair Durham Regional Police Service Board, appeared before the Committee via electronic connection to speak to the Durham Region Policing and Governance Update. With the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, K. Fisher provided an update on community safety and policing and outlined the composition of the Police Service Board, the priorities identified in the 2024–2027 Strategic Plan, ongoing efforts to strengthen community trust, and provided 2025 Regional statistic results. K. Fisher summarized recent notable achievements highlighting a decrease in auto theft, an increased number of compliance checks, and progress with diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. The presentation concluded with an overview of available sources of information. A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee, K. Fisher, Chief Moreira, and staff regarding: • the coordination of strategic planning for officer attendance at community events, including whether officers remained on call while participating; • how the increased Regional budget had supported additional staffing and resources, and how those enhancements had benefited the Region; • the decrease in auto thefts and the observed increase in tourism-related crime, including the types of incidents involved; • the extent to which additional services and patrols contributed to improved response times for calls for service; • the importance of proceeding with new capital investments and the priorities that had been identified; - 85 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes June 08, 2026 3 • risks and concerns specific to residents aged 55+, and how supports had been provided and strengthened within those communities; • what measures had been taken to support growing community diversity, including the needs of newcomers and individuals facing language barriers; • the impact and usage of online reporting since its introduction; • which categories of crime had experienced the highest increase in rates; • whether full reports pertaining to alleged misconduct of Durham Regional Police (DRPS) members would be released; • what protocols and monitoring processes were in place for sex offenders released into the community; • how human trafficking had been addressed in Durham Region; • progress made on the Region's Drone Program; • the number of active CCTV cameras and how they had been utilized; and, • whether gun crimes in the region had been committed primarily by licensed firearms or illegally obtained weapons. 3.2 Cynthia Davis, President and CEO, Brian Pollard, Health System Executive, Clinical, Nancy Shaw, Senior Director, Public Affairs, Chris Squire, Health System Executive, Chief of Finance, Trevor Stewart, Chief Development Officer, Lakeridge Health Re: Lakeridge Health Annual Update C. Davis, President and CEO, Lakeridge Health appeared before the Committee via electronic connection to speak to the Lakeridge Health Annual Update. With the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, C. Davis outlined recent advancements, including the introduction of new X-ray technology at the Ajax Pickering Hospital, financial savings, improvements to Emergency Department flow and patient experience, efforts to reduce wait times, and the continued expansion of surgical care closer to home. C. Davis highlighted Lakeridge Health’s partnership with Queen’s University to train future family physicians with the objective of increasing access to primary care in Durham Region. The delegate reviewed planning for future growth, including the redevelopment of the Bowmanville Hospital, the establishment of bridging clinics to strengthen mental health and addictions services, and partnering with Grandview Kids to expand specialized pediatric services locally. C. Davis concluded by noting the upcoming launch of a new Strategic Plan at the 2026 Annual General Meeting, and highlighting the establishment of the new Women’s Health Collective. A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and C. Davis regarding: - 86 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes June 08, 2026 4 • the assessment process for identifying Alternate Level of Care (ALC) patients; • what indicators were tracked to calculate the Emergency Department’s length of stay; • when the Women's Health Collective began and who was eligible to join; • the number of primary care physicians currently in training in Durham Region and the likelihood of whether they would remain in the Region; • whether the surgery numbers reported for the Jerry Coughlan Wellness and Health Centre were cumulative or annual; • the timeline for the post-acute complex continuing care centre to begin operating in Pickering; • whether recent improvements were attributable to additional funding or reduced patient volumes; • what the wait times were to be seen by specialists, and whether residents were leaving the Region to receive treatment elsewhere; and, • the current occupancy level at which Lakeridge Health was operating. 4. Matters for Consideration 4.1 Director, Community Services, Report CS 15-26 Draft Cultural Strategic Plan, Museum Strategic Plan and Art in Public Spaces Plan Progress Update L. Gibbs, Director, Community Services, City of Pickering appeared before the Committee via electronic connection and introduced the Cultural Strategic Plan, Museum Strategic Plan, and Art in Public Spaces Plan and highlighted upcoming events. P. Huntsman, Principal, Patricia Huntsman Culture + Communication appeared before the Committee via electronic connection to provide an update on the Cultural Strategic Plan, Museum Strategic Plan, and Art in Public Spaces Plan. With the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, P. Huntsman outlined the project process, reviewed engagement activities, and summarized major cultural sector shifts. P. Huntsman highlighted the overarching vision and values, noting that safety, collaboration, sustainability, learning, creativity, accessibility and relevance formed the lens through which the Plans were developed. The delegate identified and summarized five overall strategic priorities: fostering placemaking and a distinct community identity; celebrating interculturalism through the arts; sustaining and maintaining a - 87 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes June 08, 2026 5 creative economy; being future ready; and prioritize youth and young families. P. Huntsman concluded with a summary of the objectives of the Pickering Museum Village Strategic Plan and the Art in Public Spaces Plan objectives. Councillor Brenner assumed the Chair at 4:02 p.m. A brief question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee, P. Huntsman, and staff regarding: • identifying underused areas in Pickering for arts and cultural purposes; • clarification that the current draft Plan would undergo further public consultation before returning to Council; and, • whether examples of previous initiatives had informed the development of the Plan. Moved By Councillor Nagy Seconded By Councillor Butt That Report CS 15-26 regarding the Draft Cultural Strategic Plan, Museum Strategic Plan and Art in Public Spaces Plan be received for information. Carried 4.2 Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects, Report ECD 04-26 Economic Development Strategy (2026-2030) Building Our Future: Pickering’s Economic Growth Roadmap F. Jadoon, Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects, appeared before the Committee via electronic connection and provided a brief introduction to Report ECD 04-26 Building our Future: Pickering's Economic Growth Roadmap. K. McCaffrey, Manager, and B. Peever, Partner, Public Sector Advisory, KPMG Canada appeared before the Committee via electronic connection to speak to Report ECD 04-26 Building our Future: Pickering's Economic Growth Roadmap. With the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, the delegates provided a project overview and highlighted the project objectives and engagement strategy. The delegates noted that the City of Pickering was one of the fastest growing communities in Ontario presenting an opportunity to convert major projects into sustained long-term jobs, tax-base growth, and economic diversification. The delegates identified four recommended action items: diversifying and expanding the local economy; leveraging major projects to stimulate growth; enhancing municipal - 88 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes June 08, 2026 6 capacity and fiscal resilience; and building talent and place competitiveness. The delegates concluded that Pickering offered investors a combination of scale, connectivity, and momentum, positioning it to compete effectively in the regional market. A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee, K. McCaffrey, B. Peever, and staff regarding: • whether the strategy's forecast for employment lands focused on the short- term, 5-10 years, or long-term, 15-20 years; • what industries were under consideration to attract investment and job creation; • whether Pickering was losing jobs to neighbouring municipalities; • the advantages of prioritizing the servicing of employment lands to attract new businesses and re-balance the tax structure toward a greater share of non- residential income; • what factors would attract industries to Pickering; and, • what staff were doing to ensure that small businesses remained a priority. Moved By Councillor Pickles Seconded By Councillor Nagy 1. That the Building Our Future: Pickering’s Economic Growth Roadmap, Economic Development Strategic Plan (2026-2030), prepared by KPMG LLP, be received; 2. That Council endorse the Building Our Future: Pickering’s Economic Growth Roadmap, set out as Attachment 1, as the City of Pickering’s Economic Development Strategic Plan (2026-2030); and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. Carried 4.3 Chief Administrative Officer, Report CAO 07-26 Brougham Hall Lease Update A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and staff regarding: - 89 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes June 08, 2026 7 • the extent of public consultation that had been undertaken pertaining to the termination of the lease agreement and the feedback that had been received; • whether an agreement had been reached with Transport Canada guaranteeing continued access to Brougham Hall for residents and community groups; • how many residents and community groups used Brougham Hall; and, • clarification that Brougham Hall was federally owned and that signing a lease would place the responsibility of maintaining the facility on the City. Recommendation: Moved By Councillor Butt Seconded By Councillor Nagy 1. That Report CAO 07-26 regarding Brougham Hall be received; 2. That the lease agreement with the Brougham Recreation Society for Brougham Hall, set out in Attachment 1, be terminated with 30 days-notice provided to the Brougham Recreation Society by the Director, Community Services; 3. That the lease agreement with the Government of Canada for Brougham Hall, set out in Attachment 2, be terminated with 30 days-notice provided to the Government of Canada - Transport Canada by the City Solicitor; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. Carried 4.4 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report CLK 05-26 2027 Committee and Council Meeting Schedule A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and staff regarding: • whether public consultation had been conducted regarding meeting accessibility and timing, and whether the designated meeting times for Committee and Council were intended to increase public participation; • when the decision had been made to move Statutory Public Meetings under the Planning Act to a separate date; • concerns regarding limitations on members of the public being able to participate in meetings; and, - 90 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes June 08, 2026 8 • how many Statutory Public Meetings under the Planning Act had been held virtually. Recommendation: Moved By Councillor Butt Seconded By Councillor Nagy 1. That Report CLK 05-26 regarding the 2027 Committee and Council Meeting Schedule be received; 2. That the 2027 Committee and Council Meeting Schedule included as Attachment 1 to this report be approved; and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. Voters Yes No Abstain Conflict Absent Mayor Ashe X Councillor Brenner X Councillor Butt X Councillor Cook X Councillor Nagy X Councillor Pickles X Councillor Robinson X Results 4 1 0 0 2 Carried on a Recorded Vote (4 to 1) 4.5 Director, Community Services, Report CS 14-26 Fire Station #2 Asphalt Resurfacing Tender No. T2026-5 Recommendation: Moved By Councillor Butt Seconded By Councillor Nagy 1. That the bid submitted by D. Crupi & Sons Limited in response to Request for Tender T2026-5 for the Fire Station #2 Asphalt Resurfacing, in the amount of - 91 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes June 08, 2026 9 $305,280.00 (net HST) or $338,999.99 (HST included) to be accepted; 2. That the total gross project cost of $396,630.00 (HST included), including the amount of the tender, construction contingency, and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $357,178.00 (net HST) be approved; 3. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the net project cost of $357,178.00 to be funded from the Facilities Reserve and Property Taxes as approved in the 2021 and 2026 Capital Budgets, with the additional overage of $8,598.01 funded from Facilities Reserve; 4. That the Director, Community Services be authorized to execute the CCDC-2, 2020 Stipulated Price Contract with the above-mentioned contractor pursuant to Request for Tender No. T2026-5; and, 5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. Carried 4.6 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 09-26 Various Traffic By-law Updates Amendment to the Traffic and Parking By-law 6604/05 Recommendation: Moved By Councillor Butt Seconded By Councillor Nagy 1. That Report ENG 09-26 regarding the Various Traffic By-law Updates be received; 2. That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule “1”, No Stopping, Schedule “2”, No Parking and, Schedule “7”, Stop Signs to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation of traffic controls on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of The Corporation of the City of Pickering, specifically to address the proposed installation of parking and stopping restrictions on Azalea Avenue, Canso Drive, Earl Grey Avenue and Twyn Rivers Drive and for the installation of an all-way stop at the intersection of Palmers Sawmill Road and Four Seasons Lane; and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. Carried 4.7 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 08-26 - 92 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes June 08, 2026 10 2026 Corporate Asset Management Plan Update Recommendation: Moved By Councillor Butt Seconded By Councillor Nagy 1. That Report FIN 08-26 regarding the 2026 Corporate Asset Management Plan Update be received; 2. That Council direct staff to continue monitoring and reporting annually on the City’s asset management Key Performance Indicators, implementation barriers, and strategies to address those barriers in accordance with Section 9 of Ontario Regulation 588/17; 3. That Council direct staff to continue refining the City’s long-term infrastructure funding strategy to reduce backlogs, manage risk, and support sustainable service delivery; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. Carried 4.8 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 11-26 Pickering Islamic Centre License Agreement Overflow Parking at Brock Ridge Community Park Recommendation: Moved By Councillor Butt Seconded By Councillor Nagy 1. That Report PLN 11-26 regarding the Pickering Islamic Centre License Agreement be received; 2. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Pickering Islamic Centre License Agreement for a five-year term, commencing July 1, 2026, and ending June 30, 2031, with Pickering Islamic Centre for the non-exclusive use of 10 parking spaces at Brock Ridge Community Park for overflow parking, set out in Attachment 1 to this report, subject to minor revisions as may be required by the Director, City Development & CBO and the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. - 93 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes June 08, 2026 11 Carried 5. Member Updates on Committees There were no updates from Members on Committees. 6. Other Business There was no other business. 7. Adjournment Moved By Councillor Pickles Seconded By Councillor Butt That the meeting be adjourned. Carried The meeting adjourned at 4:57 p.m. - 94 - 1 Planning and Development Committee Meeting Minutes Electronic Meeting June 08, 2026 - 07:00 PM Chair: Councillor Pickles Present: Mayor K. Ashe - joined the meeting at 8:33 p.m. Councillor M. Brenner Councillor S. Butt Councillor L. Cook Councillor M. Nagy Councillor D. Pickles Councillor L. Robinson Regrets: None Also Present: M. Carpino - Chief Administrative Officer K. Bentley - Director, City Development & CBO P. Bigioni - Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor S. Cassel - City Clerk C. Rose – Chief Planner N. Surti - Division Head, Development Review & Urban Design M. Somerville - Senior Planner, Heritage J. Currie - Legislative Coordinator 1. Call to Order/Roll Call The City Clerk certified that all Members of the Committee were present and participating electronically, save and except Mayor Ashe. 2. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. - 95 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes June 08, 2026 2 3. Delegations 3.1 Elizabeth Howson, Principal, Macaulay Shiomi Howson Ltd. (Seaton TFPM Inc.) Re: Report PLN 12-26 Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 25-004P Seaton TFPM Inc. Brock Road and Highway 407 Seaton Community (Refer to Item 4.1) E. Howson, Principal, Macaulay Shiomi Howson Ltd. (Seaton TFPM Inc.), appeared before the Committee via electronic connection to speak to Report PLN 12-26 and stated that Seaton TFPM was in support of the staff report and recommendation and advised that the proposed amendments would clarify the City's objectives for the node at Highway 407 and Brock Road and assist the City in achieving its goals for that area. 3.2 John McDermott, Principal Planner, McDermott & Associates Limited Re: Report PLN 15-26 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/25 (Part 2) Amendment to Consolidated Zoning By-law 8149/24, as amended Four Seasons Country Club City Initiated (Refer to Item 4.3) J. McDermott, Principal Planner, McDermott & Associates Limited appeared before the Committee via electronic connection to speak to Report PLN 15-16 as a representative of the Four Seasons Country Club and stated his client concurred with the staff report. J. McDermott advised that they had been working with staff to resolve concerns related to permitted land uses and zoning of the property. The Delegate noted that the objective was to recognize the use of lands for the purpose of a golf course and to reinstate the residential permission for two existing dwelling units for the purpose of year round operations and security, rather than providing for expansion of the golf course. A brief question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and J. McDermott regarding: • clarification that the two dwellings were built between 1945 and 1950 and that - 96 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes June 08, 2026 3 no additional dwellings were being proposed; • clarification that the client had agreed to remove the third dwelling unit, above the main home, and convert it into an office and lunchroom for employees; • whether there was intent to expand the golf course; and, • clarification that the Four Seasons Country Club was in support of the staff recommendation. 3.3 Helena Shao, Shao Law Professional Corporation and Ahmed Zaved Choudhury, Owner, 681 Pleasant Street Re: Report PLN 13-26 Notice of Objection to Part IV Designation of 681 Pleasant Street (Refer to Item 4.2) H. Shao, Shao Law Professional Corporation, appeared before the Committee via electronic connection to speak to Report PLN 13-26, representing the owners of 681 Pleasant Street. Through the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, H. Shao outlined the owners' objection to designating the property as a heritage property, stating that, in their view, the building was in poor condition and did not meet the criteria established for designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and H. Shao regarding: • whether the mold identified on the property was limited to the basement or present throughout the dwelling, and the estimated cost of remediation; • whether the furnace was operational or required replacement; • clarification of when the bargeboard had been added to the front facade; • when the current owners had purchased the property, how long it had remained unoccupied, and the reasons for the vacancy; • whether any repairs or renovations had been undertaken by the current owners; • whether any components of the structure could be salvaged; • what the cost of restoring the dwelling to a habitable condition was; • what the owners proposed plans for the property were; • whether the owners would consider installing a commemorative plaque ; • whether the owners had considered the historical relationship between the property, the nearby General Store, and the site’s role and connection to the Nautical Village; and, • why the owners had acquired the property and subsequently left it unused. - 97 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes June 08, 2026 4 4. Planning and Development Reports 4.1 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 12-26 Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 25-004P Seaton TFPM Inc. Brock Road and Highway 407 Seaton Community K. Bentley, Director, City Development & CBO, appeared before the Committee via electronic connection and introduced Report PLN 12-26 regarding Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 25-004P. K. Bentley advised that the area had originally been planned to accommodate high-quality employment uses and noted that recent updates to provincial planning policies, including revisions to the definition of employment areas in the Provincial Planning Statement, necessitated the application. K. Bentley further stated that the proposed amendment sought to provide greater flexibility for land use at the Official Plan level, and that City staff were supportive of the recommended re-designation. A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and staff regarding: • how Report PLN 12-26 aligned with the recommendations contained in Report ECD 04-26, Economic Development Strategy (2026-2030), and the suggestion that future planning processes could require conformity with the Strategy's criteria to support reductions to the residential tax base; • consideration of utilizing a checklist for future applications to ensure that they comply with the Economic Development Strategy and having that information contained in the staff report to signify that the criteria had been met; • confirmation that the re-designation would shift certain prestige employment and community node lands to low- and medium-density uses, and the rationale for converting employment lands to residential or mixed-use designations; • whether staff had undertaken modeling to estimate potential job losses associated with the re-designation; and, • whether the Pickering Federal Lands would continue to be required to meet existing employment targets. Recommendation: - 98 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes June 08, 2026 5 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Butt 1. That Report PLN 12-26 regarding Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 25-004P be received; 2. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 25-004P, submitted by Seaton TFPM Inc., to amend the Region of Durham Official Plan, the City of Pickering Official Plan, and the Thompson's Corners Neighbourhood Plan, to redesignate certain Prestige Employment Node and Community Node lands to Low and Medium Density, Community Node, Mixed Corridors Type 2, and Seaton Natural Heritage System, and to permit additional employment uses on lands designated as Prestige Employment located in the vicinity of Brock Road and Highway 407 to ensure consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement 2024, and permit a broader range of land uses, including institutional, office, service commercial, high-density residential and other community-serving uses compatible with the emerging land use context of the Thompson's Corner Neighbourhood Plan area, be approved; 3. That the draft By-law to adopt Amendment 58 to the Pickering Official Plan, as set out Attachment 1 to Report PLN 12-26, be finalized and forwarded to Council for adoption; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. Voters Yes No Abstain Conflict Absent Mayor Ashe X Councillor Brenner X Councillor Butt X Councillor Cook X Councillor Nagy X Councillor Pickles X Councillor Robinson X Results 5 1 0 0 1 Carried on a Recorded Vote (5 to 1) 4.2 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 13-26 Notice of Objection to Part IV Designation of 681 Pleasant Street - 99 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes June 08, 2026 6 A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and staff regarding: • concerns related to the safety of the existing stone structure, the reported presence of mold within the building, and how any required remediation would be addressed; • clarification that a heritage designation would not prevent a property owner from undertaking routine upgrades or necessary maintenance, including window replacement or installation of a new furnace, provided that such work did not adversely affect the identified heritage attributes; • whether any professional structural or mold assessments had been completed for the property; • clarification of the research staff had completed and available information indicating that the criteria under the Ontario Heritage Act had been met and that the property demonstrated cultural heritage value; • whether previous applications had been submitted for the property and the status of those applications; • the potential cost to the City associated with defending a designation before the Ontario Land Tribunal; • concerns with respect to the financial burden on the property owners associated with the cost of restoring the home to a habitable condition; and, • whether additional time could be provided to allow for structural and mold assessment cost estimates to be obtained. Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Cook Seconded by Councillor Nagy 1. That Report PLN 13-26 regarding the Notice of Objection to the Part IV Designation of 681 Pleasant Street be received; 2. That Council decline the objection, and affirm the February 23, 2026, Council Resolution #946/26, to designate 681 Pleasant Street under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act; 3. That the By-law included as Attachment 1 to Report PLN 13-26, designating the property at 681 Pleasant Street, in accordance with Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment; 4. That Council direct staff to serve a Notice of Passing for the property located at 681 Pleasant Street, known as the “Mansfield House”, as a property of cultural heritage value or interest pursuant to Section 29(8) of the Ontario Heritage Act; - 100 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes June 08, 2026 7 5. That, should an appeal be filed with the Ontario Land Tribunal, Council direct staff to retain such external legal counsel and subject matter experts, as required, to support the decision of Council at the Ontario Land Tribunal; and, 6. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take such actions as necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. Carried later in the Meeting (See Following Motion) Moved by Councillor Robinson Seconded by Councillor Butt That Report PLN 13-26 be referred back to staff to work with the homeowner to assess the financial impacts associated with the costs of remediating the property and report back to the Planning & Development Committee. Motion Lost The Main Motion was then Carried on a Recorded Vote as Follows: Voters Yes No Abstain Conflict Absent Mayor Ashe X Councillor Brenner X Councillor Butt X Councillor Cook X Councillor Nagy X Councillor Pickles X Councillor Robinson X Results 5 2 0 0 0 Carried on a Recorded Vote (5 to 2) 4.3 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 15-26 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/25 (Part 2) Amendment to Consolidated Zoning By-law 8149/24, as amended Four Seasons Country Club City Initiated Recommendation: - 101 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes June 08, 2026 8 Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Councillor Nagy 1. That Report PLN 15-26 regarding the Four Seasons Golf Course be received; 2. That Part 2 of City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/25, to permit an amendment to Zoning By-law 8149/24, as amended, to reinstate permissions for two existing residential units, and permit an accessory residential unit in conjunction with the existing permitted golf course at Four Seasons Country Club, 1850-1900 Eighth Concession Road, be approved; 3. That the Draft By-law implementing Part 2 of Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/25, as set out in Attachment 2 to Report PLN 15-26, be finalized and forwarded to Council for adoption; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. Carried 5. Member Updates on Committees There were no updates from Members on Committees. 6. Adjournment Moved by Councillor Cook Seconded by Councillor Butt That the meeting be adjourned. Carried The meeting adjourned at 8:48 p.m. Dated this 8th day of June 2026. - 102 - 1 Special Council Meeting Minutes Electronic Meeting June 17, 2026 11:00 AM Chair: Mayor Ashe Present: Mayor K. Ashe Councillor M. Brenner Councillor S. Butt Councillor D. Pickles Councillor M. Nagy Councillor L. Robinson Regrets: Councillor L. Cook Also Present: M. Carpino - Chief Administrative Officer K. Bentley - Director, City Development & CBO P. Bigioni – Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor J. Eddy – Director, Human Resources L. Gibbs - Director, Community Services K. Heathcote - Director, City Infrastructure R. Holborn - Director, Engineering Services F. Jadoon - Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects S. Karwowski - Director, Finance & Treasurer J. Halsall - Division Head, Finance V. Plouffe - Division Head, Facilities Management & Construction N. Robinson - Deputy Fire Chief S. Cassel – City Clerk J. Bekramchand - Senior Budget & Financial Analyst R. Kumar - Senior Financial Analyst - Development Charges & Capital Management J. Currie - Legislative Coordinator - 103 - Special Council Meeting Minutes June 17, 2026 2 1. Call to Order/Roll Call The City Clerk certified that all Members of Council were present and participating electronically, save and except Councillor Cook. 2. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 3. Delegations There were no delegations. 4. Matters for Consideration 4.1 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 09-26 Canada-Ontario Partnership to Build - Development Charge Reduction Program S. Karwowski, Director, Finance & Treasurer, appeared before Council via electronic connection and provided an overview of the Canada-Ontario Partnership to Build - Development Charge Reduction Program (DCRP). S. Karwowski stated that the program had two primary purposes, improving housing affordability and supporting targeted economic stimulus. S. Karwowski advised that housing construction had a direct relationship to economic performance, supported skilled trades and related industries, and generated local spending through new residents. S. Karwowski noted that a temporary reduction in development charges would lower upfront costs for builders, improve project viability, and assist those currently constrained by market conditions. A discussion and question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and staff regarding: • whether other municipalities were applying to the program and whether any were taking a different approach; • whether municipalities with higher development charge rates would be required to offer deeper reductions to remain competitive; • how the current housing market slowdown and the projected $19 million reduction in development charge revenue would affect the broader consumer economy; • whether reductions in development charges would be passed on to home - 104 - Special Council Meeting Minutes June 17, 2026 3 buyers and whether such reductions would improve housing affordability; • why the Seaton Recreation Complex was not included among the recommended projects; • whether the proposed reduction would have an impact on the tax-payer supported portion of the budget, and when a final report regarding the details of the DCRP would be presented to Council; • whether the City could reject the program if it was determined not to be financially advantageous; • concerns regarding financial exposure to taxpayers if the City failed to meet housing targets or if project costs exceeded estimates; • whether staff had calculated the minimum level of benefit required for participation to be financially favourable; • whether a study had been completed comparing the cost of lost revenue against future increases in material and construction costs, including the impact of freezing development charge rates at March 2026 levels; • whether staff had estimated the cumulative financial impact of various provincial policies on the City to date; • whether previous development charge reductions or exemptions had resulted in lower home prices; • what issues were being addressed through reducing development charges, given that Pickering was exceeding housing targets; • whether the Building Faster Fund could be used to offset losses in development charge revenue resulting from the proposed reduction program; • concerns that development and investment could shift to other municipalities with lower costs; and, • that submitting an application would allow the City to obtain program details before making a final decision and did not obligate the City to proceed. Resolution # #1025/26 Moved By Councillor Pickles Seconded By Councillor Nagy 1. That Report FIN 09-26 regarding the Canada-Ontario Partnership to Build - Development Charge Reduction Program be received; 2. That Council direct staff to prepare and submit an application to the Development Charge Reduction Program in the estimated amount of $29.4 million, with the Federal and Provincial governments providing up to 90% of the eligible project costs, and the City of Pickering being responsible for funding the other 10% of the program costs; 3. That Council directs staff to prepare and submit an application to the - 105 - Special Council Meeting Minutes June 17, 2026 4 Development Charge Reduction Program that would include the following capital projects: Seaton Fire Station #3, William Jackson Road & Culvert and Audley Road & Culvert; 4. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to adjust the Development Charge Reduction Program dollar submission target amount and corresponding application based on new or revised program information; 5. That Council endorse a residential Development Charge reduction of 30% for a period of three years, conditional upon successful funding approval under the Development Charge Reduction Program and execution of a Transfer Payment Agreement; 6. That Council acknowledge that, as part of the Development Charge Reduction Program current residential Development Charge fees will be frozen at the March 30, 2026 rate, for a period of three years and that the indexing of the residential Development Charge will not be permitted during the rate freeze; 7. That Council direct the Chief Administrative Officer and the Director, Finance & Treasurer to negotiate any changes to the Development Charge Reduction Program or to the draft Transfer Payment Agreement, and that the final Transfer Payment Agreement be approved by Council; and, 8. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. Voters Yes No Abstain Conflict Absent Mayor Ashe X Councillor Brenner X Councillor Butt X Councillor Cook X Councillor Nagy X Councillor Pickles X Councillor Robinson X Results 5 1 0 0 1 Carried on a Recorded Vote (5 to 1) 5. Confirmatory By-law Moved By Councillor Butt Seconded By Councillor Nagy That By-law 8272/26, to confirm the proceedings of the June 17, 2026 Special Council Meeting be approved. - 106 - Special Council Meeting Minutes June 17, 2026 5 Carried 6. Adjournment Moved By Councillor Robinson Seconded By Councillor Pickles That the meeting be adjourned. Carried The meeting adjourned at 12:05 p.m. Kevin Ashe, Mayor Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 107 - Principles Integrity 1 Integrity Commissioner’s Recommendation Report(revised) Regarding Complaint Against Councillor Robinson Respecting Statements About Staff Corruption and Statements About Residential School Mass Graves June 15, 2026 Executive Summary: [1]This report results from a complaint filed against Councillor Robinson in relation to a video interview posted to YouTube on April 27, 2026 which contains statements about the veracity of claims about mass graves at a former residential school site in Kamploops, British Columbia; and which contains statements which disrespect and malign staff, and falsely accuse senior staff of corruption. [2]The complaint alleged that the Councillor’s conduct breached her obligations under the Code of Conduct. [3]We find that the complaint in regard to challenging the veracity of claims about mass graves at a former residential school site, while hateful and offensive, is a matter of opinion. For reasons outlined below, we find that the jurisdiction to prohibit what could be characterized as residential school denialism lies with the Federal Government1 and not with an Integrity Commissioner. [4]We find that the complaint in regard to maligning staff and alleging corruption is substantiated. [5]We find that this is repeat behaviour, which has previously been sanctioned as a breach of the Code. [6]We are recommending a 90-day suspension of pay. Process [7]Given that the complaint arises entirely out of a video posted to YouTube, which remains available for review, and that the conduct complained of has previously 1 Bill C-254 is proposed legislation which would provide appropriate recourse for such comments. &RUU4 - 108 - Principles Integrity 2 been the subject of a full investigation and report to Council, an expedited complaint process approved by Council in August 2025 has been followed. [8] As in that previous investigation, the disparaging and unsubstantiated remarks made toward staff are available to view on YouTube, and the nature of the Respondent’s statements about staff are identical to the statements considered in that previous report. [9] This process, which maintains procedural fairness for the Respondent, includes the following elements: a. Reviewing the complaint to determine whether it is within scope and jurisdiction and in the public interest to pursue; b. Reviewing the video posted to YouTube; and, c. Providing the Respondent with the opportunity to review and provide comments to the Integrity Commissioner’s Preliminary Findings Report, prior to finalizing and submitting a Recommendation Report. Code Provisions [10] Relevant provisions of the Code are set out below: Policy Objective: 2. Attaining an elected position within one's community is a privilege which carries significant responsibilities and obligations. Members of Council are held to a high standard as leaders of the community and are expected to become well informed on all aspects of municipal governance, administration, planning and operations. They are also expected to carry out their duties in a fair, impartial, transparent, professional, and respectful manner. 3. All Members of the Council of the City of Pickering are committed to protecting and promoting the well-being and best interests of the citizens of the City with the highest standards of integrity and ethical conduct. This Code is an affirmation of this commitment It recognizes and is based on the following key statements of principle: (a) Members are committed to performing their duties of office, and arranging private affairs, in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of Member and respect for Council as a whole. (b) Members are committed to acting and being seen to act with integrity and impartiality that will bear the closest scrutiny. (c) Members are committed to serving their constituents in a conscientious and diligent manner. - 109 - Principles Integrity 3 (d) Members are committed to working with City officials and staff in a conscientious and respectful manner. […] 05 Interaction with the Public, Other Members, and Council/Staff Relations 05.01 Members have a duty to treat members of the public, one another, and staff, with respect and dignity and without abuse, bullying, or intimidation. 05.02 Members have a duty to ensure that the City's work environment is safe, and free from discrimination and harassment. 05.06 Respect shall be shown at all times for the roles and responsibilities which Members of Council have in the decision-making process through elected office and which City Staff have in formulating and providing recommenations to Council. 05.09 Notwithstanding the provisions noted above, Members shall have regard for the following City Policies that outline further parameters pertaining to Council/Staff relations including: b) Workplace Harassment The Complaints [11] This report results from a complaint filed against Councillor Robinson in relation to statements made in an interview posted to YouTube by Rebel News in which she disrespected, disparaged and harassed staff, and falsely accused specific identified staff of corruption. Analysis [12] On April 27, 2026 Rebel Media posted a video to YouTube of an interview with the Respondent. In that video, the Respondent: • made statements clarifying a post she had made in early April questioning the veracity of claims of mass graves at the Kamloops residential school site. • Made statements maligning staff, alleging staff corruption. Statements about Mass Graves at Residential School Site: [13] The Respondent’s statements reference a post she had made in early April. - 110 - Principles Integrity 4 [14] In early April 2026 the Respondent posted a short 3-minute video in which she claimed that information regarding mass graves had been exaggerated and manipulated by politicians and the media, and that the most recent evidence, which in her view proved that these claims were false and unfounded, was not being sufficiently publicized. [15] In the video, the Respondent stated that the evidence showed there were no graves, no bodies, and no evidence of human remains. Therefore, “the nightmare was exaggerated, manipulated and unproven.” [16] In response, no doubt, to collective outrage at her statements, in the April 27, 2026 Rebel News interview, she clarified that she was not denouncing the existence of residential schools or that their survivors experienced real harm; only that the existence of mass graves was a lie. [17] The Respondent’s statements align with residential school denialism. [18] Residential school denialism has been defined by some as the “rejection, the twisting or the misrepresentation of basic facts about residential schooling”. [19] Agreeing that the residential school system existed, but denying some of the worst horrors (which mass graves point to) is tantamount to twisting the facts to reject what are well-established events. [20] It is similar to trends such as clilmate change denialism, where people use their platform to sow doubt about well-established events, by cherry-picking facts. [21] Bill C-254 (introduced in October 2025 to replace Bill C-413 which died before the start of the new Parliamentary session) would make it a criminal offence for anyone to willfully promote “hatred against Indigenous peoples by condoning, denying, downplaying or justifying the Inidian residential school system in Canada or by misrepresenting facts relating to it”. [22] In other words, the legislation to prohibit an individual from risrepresenting facts about the residential school system – because it can be treated as willfully promoting hatred – has not yet been passed. [23] This proposed legislative is modelled on provisions recently added to the Criminal Code that makes it a crime to condone, downplay or deny the Holocaust, other than in private conversation. [24] The history of legal attempts in Canada to curtail offensive denialism touching on racism is long and storied. An excellent paper, written by Bruce P. Elman (former Law Professor at Windsor University, Chair for the Centre for Constitutional Studies at the University of Alberta, and Municipal Integrity Commissioner) entitled - 111 - Principles Integrity 5 Combatting Racist Speech: The Canadian Experience, published in the Alberta Law Review, 1994 canvasses some of the challenges in attempts to eradicate racist speech. [25] The clear and obvious solution lies in the enactment of targeted legislation such as Bill C-254. [26] Just as the Criminal Code was eventually amended in 2022 to criminal Holocaust denial, so it would be appropriate for an amendment to criminalize the kind of denialism which the Respondent is engaging in. [27] However, as repugnant and objectionable as the Respondent’s statements are regarding her view that there is evidence to prove the the existence of mass graves was “a lie”, a municipal council Code of Conduct is an ineffective and unsuitable instrument to reckon with such speech. [28] For this reason, we will not be pursuing whether her position regarding the existence of residential mass graves is properly measured against the ethical framework of the Council Code of Conduct. [29] In our view, the prohibition which Bill C-254 is intended to import into the Canadian Criminal Code would be the appropriate mechanism to address the Respondent’s statements. Statements about Staff: [30] In regard to the statements pertaining to City staff, we find that the Councillor has repeated false claims (for example that staff are corrupt2) which are identical to the statements which have previously been found in breach the Code of Conduct and for which the Respondent has previously been sanctioned. [31] We have previously investigated the Respondent’s allegations of corruption and found find that her allegations, statements and claims against staff were entirely baseless and false. [32] Further, we found that her allegations against staff were both disrespectful and harassing. [33] When presented with our preliminary findings report, the Councillor did not deniy her statements. Rather, she denied that her statements constituted harassment, abuse or any breach of the Code. [34] The Councillor provided several justifications of her statements, beginning with her right to Freedom of Expression under s.2(b) of the Charter. 2 We consider it unnecessarily inflammatory to repeat the actual statements here - 112 - Principles Integrity 6 Charter Protections [35] As we have explained in the past reports, the freedom of expression, while a fundamental freedom, is not unrestricted; indeed section 1 of the Charter qualifies its guarantee of rights and freedoms and specifically recognizes that the right to free expression is “subject to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in free and democratic society.” [36] For instance, laws against defamation in all its forms are an example of such a limitation, as are laws and rules against harassment in all its forms. [37] City Council adopted a Code of Conduct to guide and demand a level of integrity, respect, ethics, and decorum necessary to allow efficient and effective governance and citizen representation. [38] The Respondent has voluntarily taken on this role; so long as she is a member of Council, she is subject to the Code and is required to conform to the standards of behaviour required by Council. [39] The standards of behaviour set out in the Code minimally impair a Councillor’s ability to comment on decisions and fully express themselves. [40] In balancing the Member’s freedom of expression rights against the objectives of the Code of Conduct, we are satisfied that, on balance, the limits imposed by the Code of Conduct are proportionate and justifiable. Context of Interview [41] The Councillor submitted that in taking into consideration the full and proper context of her statements – made within the interview framework in a conversational and responsive nature - the statements were merely “generalized”, “not directed at specific inividuals in a personal capacity”, and therefore their characterization as harassing or abusive is “inconsistent”. [42] We find that the statements were most certainly directed at specific individuals in their professional capacity, and that the statements landed as harassing and abusive – which is not altered by them being uttered in the course of a conversational interview. Good Faith and Public Interest - 113 - Principles Integrity 7 [43] The Councillor submitted that her statements were made in good faith and in the public interest, grounded in matters of public concern and directed at ensuring accountability within municipal governance. [44] We find that the statements, identical statement for which she has previously been sanctioned for breaching the Code of Conduct, do not reflect statements in the public interest or statement made in good faith. If indeed the Councillor were acting in good faith, she would not be making statements which she knows breach the Code of Conduct and therefore attract negative consequences. Evidence and Disclosure [45] The Councillor claims a lack of evidentiary disclosure. [46] We note that the interview on which the complaint is based was an interview between the Councillor and Rebel News, and posted publicly to YouTube, where (at the time of writing this report) it remains. [47] We further note that the reference to earlier reports, recommendations, sanctions and Council directions all were before Council while the Councillor was present, and remain publicly posted to the City’s website. Scope creep, irrelevant considerations [48] The Councillor submitted that in making our findings, we rely on “unrelated commentary, prior complaints and/or broader ideological positions”. [49] As detailed in this report, we rely on a review of the Councillor’s statements contained in the video posted to YouTube and on the Recommendation Report regarding identical statements, previously found to breach the Code and attract a sanction. [50] These are entirely relevant to the complaint in this report. Repetitive Sanctioning, Lack of Finality [51] The Councillor submitted that our report purports to sanction her for “prior statements and matters for which she has already been sanctioned”. [52] In fact, this report does not purport to sanction the Councillor for matters which have already been the subject of a report and sanction. [53] Rather, we find that the Councillor has repeated statements, knowing that they constitute harassment, abuse and breach the Code of Conduct. - 114 - Principles Integrity 8 Procedural Fairness [54] The Councillor submitted that the process undertaken in this complaint investigation is procedurally unfair. [55] As detailed in paragraphs [7], [8] and [9], the Councillor has been accorded procedural fairness throughout. Timing [56] The Councillor submitted that this complaint investigation, having been initiated after May 1, 2026, contravenes the “restrictions” of the Municipal Act applicable during an election year. [57] The Councillor is in error. [58] The Municipal Act allows integrity commissioners to continue to investigate and report on complaints filed during an election year up until nomination day which, for the 2026 municipal election, is August 21, 2026. [59] The relevant provisions of the Municipal Act are as follows: Termination of inquiry when regular election begins s. 223.4 (7) If the Commissioner has not completed an inquiry before nomination day for a regular election, as set out in section 31 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, the Commissioner shall terminate the inquiry on that day. Other rules that apply during regular election (9) The following rules apply during the period of time starting on nomination day for a regular election, as set out in section 31 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, and ending on voting day in a regular election, as set out in section 5 of that Act: 1. There shall be no requests for an inquiry about whether a member of council or of a local board has contravened the code of conduct applicable to the member. 2. The Commissioner shall not report to the municipality or local board about whether, in his or her opinion, a member of council or of a local board has contravened the code of conduct applicable to the member. 3. The municipality or local board shall not consider whether to impose the penalties referred to in subsection (5) on a member of council or of a local board. [60] The relevant provision of the Municipal Elections Act is as follows: - 115 - Principles Integrity 9 Nomination day s. 31 Nomination day for a regular election is the third Friday in August in the year of the election. [61] The complaint investigation in this matter is compliant with the Municipal Act. Findings: [62] Given all the foregoing, we find that the Councillor’s conduct as outlined above violated the Code of Conduct, specifically the duty set out at 5.01 to treat members of staff with respect and dignity and without abuse, bullying, or intimidation. [63] We find that the complaint filed by the CAO in this instance is substantiated, and the conduct of the Respondent in making the statements maligning staff breached the Code. [64] We find that she is intentionally maligning and impugning the reputation of the CAO, the City Solicitor and City staff. [65] We find that she has disrespected staff, falsely and maliciously harassed them, and accused senior staff of corruption. [66] The Councillor’s conduct constitutes a pattern of disrespect and harassment. [67] We find that she has breached the Code of Conduct, in particular, Policy Objective 2 and 3, and Rules 5.01, 5.02, 5.09 and 26.04. [68] We find that the Councillor’s statements which might be considered residential school denialism are beyond the scope of a municipal Code of Conduct, but would likely fall under proposed amendments to the Criminal Code contained in Bill C- 254. Recommendations and Concluding Remarks: [69] We are of the view that the Respondent’s conduct represents a continued pattern of blatantly, intentionally and wilfully defying the provisions of the Code of Conduct. [70] In our view, a significant change in behaviour is necessary. As such, we believe that a significant sanction is warranted. - 116 - Principles Integrity 10 [71] Under the Municipal Act, upon receipt of a recommendation report from the integrity commissioner, Council may impose a reprimand or a suspension of pay for a period of up to 90 days. 3 [72] We note that this is the ninth time that we have had to report publicly in regard to conduct of Councillor Robinson that has been found to breach the Code of Conduct and on each occasion, a further suspension of pay has been imposed. [73] More to the point, it is repeat behaviour, which has previously been sanctioned as a breach of the Code. [74] We are recommending a 90-day suspension of pay. [75] We therefore recommend: 1) That the remuneration paid to Councillor Robinson be suspended for a total of 90 days. [76] We will be available to introduce this report and respond to questions during the Council meeting at which this report is considered. 3 For information, the circumstances giving rise to this report occurred prior to the enactment of “Bill 9”, the Municipal Accountability Act, 2025, the schedules of which have not yet been brought into force. Accordingly no consideration of the processes or penalties provided for in Bill 9 were relevant to the formulation of this report. - 117 - Principles Integrity 11 About Principles Integrity and the Complaint Process Principles Integrity was appointed the Integrity Commissioner for the City of Pickering on November 15, 2022. We are also privileged to serve as Integrity Commissioner for a number of other Ontario municipalities. The operating philosophy which guides us in our work with all of our client municipalities is this: The perception that a community’s elected representatives are operating with integrity is the glue which sustains local democracy. We live in a time when citizens are skeptical of their elected representatives at all levels. The overarching objective in appointing an integrity commissioner is to ensure the existence of robust and effective policies, procedures, and mechanisms that enhance the citizen’s perception that their Council (and local boards) meet established ethical standards and where they do not, there exists a review mechanism that serves the public interest. The City has as part of its ethical framework a Code of Conduct which is the policy touchstone underlying the assessments conducted in this report. It represents the standard of conduct against which all members of Council are to be measured when there is an allegation of breach of the ethical responsibilities established under the Code of Conduct. The review mechanism contemplated by the Code, one which is required in all Ontario municipalities, is an inquiry/complaints process administered by an integrity commissioner. Integrity commissioners carry out a range of functions for municipalities (and their local boards). They assist in the development of the ethical framework, for example by suggesting content or commentary for codes of conduct. They conduct education and training for members of council and outreach for members of the community. One of the most important functions is the provision of advice and guidance to members to help sort out ethical grey areas or to confirm activities that support compliance. And finally, but not principally, they investigate allegations that a person has fallen short of compliance with the municipality’s ethical framework and where appropriate they submit public reports on their findings, and make recommendations, including recommending sanctions, that council for the municipality may consider imposing in giving consideration to that report. It is important that this broad range of functions be mentioned in this investigation report. Our goal, as stated in our operating philosophy, is to help members of the Pickering community, indeed the broader municipal sector and the public, to appreciate that elected and appointed representatives generally carry out their functions with integrity. In cases where they do not, there is a proper process in place to fairly assess the facts and, if necessary, recommend appropriate sanctions. In every case, including this one, the highest objective is to make recommendations that serve the public interest, if there are recommendations to be made. Our role differs from other ‘adjudicators’ whose responsibilities generally focus, to state it colloquially, on making findings of fact and fault. While that is a necessary component when allegations are made, it is not the only component. Our operating philosophy dictates the format of this report. The tenets of procedural fairness require us to provide reasons for our conclusions and recommendations, and we have done that. Procedural fairness also requires us to conduct a process where parties can participate in the review and resolution of a complaint. - 118 - Dear Mayor Ashe & Councillor Cook, On behalf of the Canadian Beverage Association and its members, I am writing to respectfully request that the City of Pickering consider passing a resolution in support of expanding Ontario’s Deposit Return Program (ODRP) to include all beverage containers, including non-alcoholic drinks such as water, juice, and soft drinks. As you know, municipalities across Ontario continue to face growing pressure from rising waste management costs, increased litter in public spaces, and the urgent need to improve environmental outcomes. While Ontario has made progress on producer responsibility through the new Blue Box framework, the current system only captures about 50% of beverage containers, many of which still end up in landfills, parks, or waterways. A Deposit Return System (DRS) for non-alcoholic beverage containers offers a proven, effective solution including: •Over 75% recovery rates in provinces like B.C., Alberta, and Nova Scotia •Reduced municipal waste and litter management costs •Cleaner public spaces and natural areas •Support for local charities and community bottle drives through refundable deposits •Complementary to the Blue Box program, not competitive Ontario is one of the only Canadian provinces without a full DRS for all beverage containers. Expanding DRS province-wide would align the province with national best practices and deliver measurable benefits to local governments and residents. On this note, we respectfully urge the City of Pickering to join the growing number of municipalities advocating for this policy by passing a resolution in support of a DRS inclusive to all beverage containers. See recent story. We would be pleased to provide the City with sample wording (e.g. see the attached), speak to staff or Council, and share background materials to support your deliberations. I will follow up with your offices to determine whether a briefing or more information can be provided. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Richard Richard Linley Vice President, Stakeholder Affairs and Government Relations Canadian Beverage Association C.416.540.0087 E.richard@canadianbeverage.ca canadianbeverage.ca Corr. 15-26 From: Richard Linley <richard@canadianbeverage.ca> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 9:33 AM To: Mayor Web Email <mayor@pickering.ca>; Cook, Linda, Councillor <lcook@pickering.ca> Subject: Request for Municipal Resolution Supporting an Expanded Deposit Return System (DRS) in Ontario - 119 - NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain legally privileged or confidential information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You. My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel the need to reply outside of your working hours. - 120 - DRAFT MUNICIPAL RESOLUTION WHEREAS Ontario is one of Canada’s only provinces without a deposit-return program for non-alcoholic beverages; AND WHEREAS Ontario has the lowest beverage container recovery rate in Canada – at roughly 50%; AND WHEREAS an average of 75% of all empties return to Beer Stores each year, and the deposit return provides a consumer incentive to consciously recycle; AND WHEREAS the Ontario government proposed expanding the program to include non-alcoholic containers in 2023. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council support the attached resolution from [fill in blank and insert municipality name], and that the Province of Ontario immediately seek to implement a deposit- return program for non-alcoholic beverage containers; AND FURTHER THAT a copy of this motion be sent to the Hon. Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario; the Hon. Todd McCarthy, Minister of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks; MPP Peter Tabuns (NDP); MPP Mary-Margaret McMahon (Liberal); MPP Ailinn Clancy (Green Pa rty); the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and to all Ontario municipalities and regional associations. - 121 - Report to Council Report Number: CAO 06-26 Date: May 25, 2026 From: Marisa Carpino Chief Administrative Officer Subject: Municipal Infrastructure & Servicing Agreement between the City of Pickering and Ontario Power Generation File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1. That Report CAO 06-26 regarding the Municipal Infrastructure & Servicing Agreement between the City of Pickering and the Ontario Power Generation be received; 2. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Municipal Infrastructure & Servicing Agreement with Ontario Power Generation, set out in Attachment 1, subject to revisions that may be required by the Chief Administrative Officer and the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; and, 3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 1.0 Executive Summary: Ontario Power Generation (OPG) has been a significant presence in the City of Pickering for more than five decades through the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station (PNGS). Operating since 1971, PNGS uses CANDU reactors to produce nearly emissions‑free power that supplies approximately 14 per cent of Ontario’s electricity demand. On November 26, 2025, the Ontario government approved OPG’s plan to refurbish four CANDU nuclear reactors (units 5-8) at the PNGS which will extend the facility’s operations to deliver affordable, reliable and clean power for up to 38 years. As OPG continues to operate and plan for future activities at its Pickering site, a comprehensive Municipal Infrastructure & Servicing Agreement (MISA) has been negotiated between OPG and the City to formalize responsibilities, contributions, and coordination. The - 122 - CAO 06-26 May 25, 2026 Page 2 Agreement reflects the outcomes of negotiations between City staff and OPG representatives and provides a framework for the following financial commitments and arrangements: a) Financial Contribution Toward Fire Hall #5: OPG has confirmed a financial contribution of up to $10 million to the City of Pickering toward the City’s design and construction of Fire Hall #5, to be located at the southeast corner of Bayly St. and Sandy Beach Rd. b) Financial Contribution Toward the Acquisition of 591 Liverpool Road: OPG has confirmed a financial contribution of up to $10 million to the City of Pickering toward the City’s acquisition of the property municipally known as 591 Liverpool Road. c) Sandy Beach Road Rehabilitation and Montgomery Park Road Reconstruction Projects: OPG has entered into a Road Servicing Agreement with the City of Pickering such that OPG is performing rehabilitation work on Sandy Beach Road and the reconstruction of Montgomery Park Road, at a cost of approximately $16 million to support the PNGS B Refurbishment Project, Pickering Residents and community. d) PNGS Property Tax Payments During the Refurbishment Period: This agreement includes clauses whereby OPG will keep the City whole from a property tax payment perspective during the refurbishment period from 2027 up to and including 2031 with an annual indexing clause based on the annual Pickering budget levy increase. Staff are proposing that the agreement end in 2031, as this is the year that the first unit (Unit 5) and deep-water intake system at the facility are expected to be completed. By adopting this strategy, the City has balanced the benefit of keeping property tax payments (revenues) stable during the refurbishment period from 2027 up to and including 2031. For 2032 and beyond, if a further agreement is not reached, the property tax liability will be based on the current established business practice of MPAC’s current value assessment multiplied by the applicable property tax rate. e) Pickering Community Fund: OPG will continue to support not-for-profit and community organizations with donations, sponsorships, awards and scholarships through its community investment program, the Power for Change Project, throughout the term of this Agreement. f) Community Engagement & Communications during the PNGS B Refurbishment Project: OPG will provide, in a timely and transparent manner, accurate information to stakeholders and the public, including the local business community, in the vicinity of OPG’s PNGS facility, regarding PNGS events, activities, operations and projects, including the PNGS B Refurbishment Project. The proposed Agreement establishes a clear framework to address municipal infrastructure, servicing, and related financial contributions arising from OPG’s ongoing operations and future plans in Pickering. Approval of the MISA will provide certainty to both parties, protect the City’s financial and operational interests, and support a collaborative long-term relationship with one of Pickering’s largest employers and strategic partners. - 123 - CAO 06-26 May 25, 2026 Page 3 2.0 Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priority of [pick one or more of the following: Champion Economic Leadership & Innovation; Advocate for an Inclusive, Welcoming, Safe & Healthy Community; Advance Innovation & Responsible Planning to Support a Connected, Well-Serviced Community; Lead & Advocate for Environmental Stewardship, Innovation & Resiliency; Strengthen Existing & Build New Partnerships; Foster an Engaged & Informed Community. 3.0 Financial Implications: A key component of the MISA is the establishment of financial contributions by OPG toward municipal infrastructure and services that support OPG’s ongoing operations in the City of Pickering. a) Fire Hall #5: OPG confirmed a financial contribution equal to 68% of the expenses for the design and construction of Fire Hall #5, up to a maximum of $10 million. Contributions may be made in instalments or aligned with defined project milestones, consistent with the City’s capital planning and approval processes. Payments will start January 2027. Please note: the City’s estimated cost for the design and construction of Fire Hall #5 is $15 million. b) 591 Liverpool Road: OPG confirmed a financial contribution of up to $10 million that will be advanced in accordance with the conditions set out in a separate Agreement of Purchase and Sale and the associated Licence Agreement. This financial contribution will be conditional upon the completion of the City’s purchase of 591 Liverpool Road from the Pickering Harbour Company (PHC) and its transfer to OPG. Thereafter, a Licence agreement between the City and OPG that would permit the use of 591 Liverpool Road for public City purposes (boat storage and public parking) at a nominal cost. c) Sandy Beach Road Rehabilitation and Montgomery Park Road Reconstruction Projects: As per the Road Servicing Agreement entered into with the City of Pickering, OPG committed to rehabilitate Sandy Beach Road and reconstruct Montgomery Park Road to support the PNGS B Refurbishment Project, Pickering residents and the community – resulting in a financial contribution of approximately $16 million. OPG agreed to undertake and fund the design, approvals and reconstruction of Montgomery Park Road in order to assure a completion date by the end of 2026. This work, performed by OPG at their cost of approximately $8.17 million, removes the Montgomery Park Road reconstruction project entirely from the City’s forecasted capital program. In order to improve Sandy Beach Road to a standard suitable to support the increased traffic by the end of 2026, the City agreed to allow OPG undertake and fund the design, approvals and construction to provide a rehabilitated Sandy Beach Road as a rural - 124 - CAO 06-26 May 25, 2026 Page 4 cross section with sidewalk provisions for pedestrian safety. This work, performed by OPG at their cost of approximately $7.85 million, defers the City’s Sandy Beach Road reconstruction and urbanization project estimated at $12 million by about 10 years (to 2035), which will increase the City’s future costs to $20.45 million (2035$) due to indexing. This results in approximately $8.45 million in additional City costs. In summary, OPG’s financial contribution advances the rehabilitation of Sandy Beach Road and the reconstruction of Montgomery Park Road in 2026 for the benefit of PNGS, Pickering residents and businesses, and the community. However, the City’s Sandy Beach Road reconstruction and urbanization project will be delayed for 10 years, resulting in an increased project cost due to indexing. As a result, this arrangement is relatively cost neutral with a net cost to the City of approximately $280,000. d) PNGS Municipal Tax Assessment: The MISA agreement includes a section whereby the City will receive its annual property tax payments from 2027 up to and including 2031 with an indexing factor based on the City’s annual levy increase. The base year for the agreement is the 2026 property tax payment for this site, which are the City Share of $1,052,754 and the Educational Share of $1,658,436 for a total of $2,711,190. If the City’s 2027 budget levy increase is 2.5%, the City would receive a total payment of $2,778,970. OPG and the City will conduct a thorough inventory of the site from an assessment perspective to ensure that every building and structure is reflected in the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation’s (MPAC) records. Under this agreement, there is no potential loss of property taxation revenues during the first five years of the construction period. e) Pickering Community Fund: OPG confirmed its financial commitment to continue to offer the community investment program, through the Power for Change Project, throughout the term of this agreement. Ontario Power Generation's (OPG) Power for Change Project offers different grant, awards, and scholarship programs to give back to the communities who do so much. This is a continuation of an existing community investment program and does not represent a new/additional financial contribution by OPG. f) Community Engagement & Consultation: In recognition that the PNGS B Refurbishment Project will result in increased on-site activities at PNGS and traffic to and from the facility for the duration of the project, OPG confirmed its commitment to provide, in a timely and transparent manner, accurate information to stakeholders and the public, including the local business community, in the vicinity of OPG’s PNGS facility, regarding PNGS events, activities, operations and projects, including the PNGS B Refurbishment Project. These contributions represent a significant financial commitment by OPG and support the City’s broader objectives related to strategic infrastructure planning. Approval of the MISA will result in direct and indirect financial benefits to the City of Pickering through confirmed and anticipated contributions by OPG. Overall, the Agreement strengthens the City’s financial position by ensuring that major infrastructure costs associated with OPG - 125 - CAO 06-26 May 25, 2026 Page 5 are addressed through a negotiated and transparent framework, thereby reducing potential financial impacts on City taxpayers. 4.0 Discussion: 4.1 Ontario Power Generation Pickering is home to one of the largest nuclear generating facilities in the world, the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station (PNGS), operated by OPG. PNGS has been operating in Pickering for over 50 years and consists of eight nuclear units, with four currently in service. The station supplies approximately 14 per cent of Ontario’s electricity demand and produces nearly emissions‑free power. OPG’s Pickering operations support approximately 4,500 employees and play a critical role in the Regional and Provincial economy. As Ontario’s other nuclear stations undergo refurbishment, OPG has sought regulatory approval to continue operating certain Pickering units through to 2026, with longer‑term planning underway for potential refurbishment of Units 5 to 8, subject to regulatory approvals. In November 2025, OPG publicly announced its intent to pursue the potential refurbishment of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station’s Units 5 to 8, subject to regulatory approvals. This planning follows OPG’s request to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) to continue operating certain Pickering units through to 2026, while longer‑term decisions regarding refurbishment are considered. OPG has indicated that refurbishment of the Pickering station would enable the facility to continue producing safe, reliable, and nearly emissions‑free electricity for Ontario for several additional decades. In fact, the project will secure 2,100 megawatts of low-carbon, reliable electricity for another 30-plus years to help meet Ontario’s forecasted increase in energy demand and support its economic growth. The potential refurbishment of the Pickering station represents a significant long‑term investment in the community and region. The project is expected to create approximately 30,000 jobs during refurbishment phase of Pickering Units 5–8 (beginning in early 2027 and extending into the mid‑2030s), while sustaining 6,700 jobs throughout the station’s operation. OPG’s refurbishment will support the continuation of highly skilled employment, maintain Pickering’s role as a critical contributor to Ontario’s electricity system, and generate substantial economic activity across Durham Region and the province. These include a combination of on‑site trades, engineers, project management, and supply‑chain employment across Ontario, with peak workforce levels occurring during major construction and component replacement activities. With a final budget of $26.8 billion, more than 90 per cent of the project cost will be spent in Canada to support local businesses and deliver economic benefits across the Province. - 126 - CAO 06-26 May 25, 2026 Page 6 4.2 Municipal Infrastructure & Servicing Agreement (MISA): Given the scale and duration of OPG’s presence, there is a clear need for a MISA to address municipal support and financial arrangements between OPG and the City. The MISA also recognizes the social licence with the City of Pickering as a supportive host community of the PNGS. The MISA has been developed following a series of meetings and negotiations between City staff and representatives of OPG over the past year. The Agreement is intended to provide a comprehensive framework that governs: a) Municipal infrastructure and servicing considerations related to OPG’s operations and lands within the City; b) Financial contributions by OPG toward municipal infrastructure and facilities impacted by or associated with its operations; and, c) Processes for ongoing communication and collaboration between OPG and the City & Stakeholders. The Agreement reflects the outcomes of discussions held between City staff and OPG representatives through late 2025 and early 2026, with the shared objective of bringing a finalized agreement forward for Council consideration within the second quarter of 2026. 4.3 Financial Contributions in the MISA The Agreement reflects the outcomes of negotiations between City staff and OPG representatives and provides a framework for the following financial commitments and arrangements: a) Financial Contribution Toward Fire Hall #5: OPG has confirmed a financial contribution of up to $10 million to the City toward the City’s design and construction of Fire Hall #5, located at the southeast corner of Sandy Beach Road and Bayly Street. b) Financial Contribution Toward the Acquisition of 591 Liverpool Road: OPG has confirmed a financial contribution of up to $10 million to the City toward the City’s acquisition of the property municipally known as 591 Liverpool Road. This financial contribution will be conditional upon the completion of the City’s purchase of 591 Liverpool Road from the Pickering Harbour Company (PHC) and its transfer to OPG. Thereafter, a Licence agreement between the City and OPG that would permit the use of 591 Liverpool Road for public City purposes. This contribution is conditional upon: i. the City’s acquisition of the total PHC land holdings which includes 591 Liverpool Road; - 127 - CAO 06-26 May 25, 2026 Page 7 ii. the transfer of 591 Liverpool Road from the City to OPG through a separate Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) subject to a Licence Agreement enabling Pickering’s ongoing use and occupation of 591 Liverpool Road, at nominal cost. c) Sandy Beach Road Rehabilitation and Montgomery Park Road Reconstruction Projects: OPG has entered into a Road Servicing Agreement with the City of Pickering such that OPG is performing rehabilitation work on Sandy Beach Road and the reconstruction of Montgomery Park Road to support the PNGS B Refurbishment Project, Pickering residents and local businesses, and the community. d) PNGS Property Tax Payments During the Refurbishment Period: The MISA agreement sub-section 3.4 relates to the property tax agreement. The goal of staff as it relates to property tax payments was to keep the property tax payments whole during the period of time the facility is not operating during the refurbishment. Absent an agreement, there is a risk that MPAC applies a much lower assessment value during the refurbishment construction phase, which would significantly reduce the property tax payments. In other words, an argument could be made that during refurbishment, the facility could be valued as vacant land or subject to a high obsolescence factor due to the fact the facility is not producing and or generating any power and therefore, no revenues. Under the agreement, if MPAC lowers the assessment value for the facility, that results in lower property taxes (for the City & Region), OPG would then make up the difference (by making an additional top-up payment) so that there is no loss in property tax revenues. In addition, there would be an indexing of the base amount every year based on Pickering’s annual budget levy increase. The first step in establishing the base amount for the agreement is to use the 2026 returned roll assessment values for the facility. In addition, the City and MPAC have committed to undertake an assessment audit of the entire facility (late spring or early summer of this year) so that the 2026 assessment records are accurate and reflect the true property tax liability for this property. It should be noted that while this agreement protects the City from any property tax losses and includes an indexing factor, it also includes a clause that if MPAC returns a higher assessment for the facility during the duration of the agreement, that results in higher property tax payments then permitted under the agreement, the City would refund the difference (Sub-section 3.4 (d)). As the portions of the facility’s refurbishment are completed and occupied, it is more likely that MPAC will assess these portions of the facility. This timing permits the stabilization of property tax payments while the facility is likely not operational and also allows the City to capture value of the newly refurbished portions of the facility as they are completed in 2032 and onward. e) Pickering Community Fund: OPG will continue to support not-for-profit and community organizations through donations, sponsorships, awards and scholarships its community investment program, the Power for Change Project, throughout the term of this Agreement. - 128 - CAO 06-26 May 25, 2026 Page 8 f) Community Engagement & Communications during the PNGS B Refurbishment Project: OPG will provide, in a timely and transparent manner, accurate information to stakeholders and the public, including the local business community, in the vicinity of OPG’s PNGS facility, regarding PNGS events, activities, operations and projects, including the PNGS B Refurbishment Project. This includes regular outreach on OPG project updates and the following: i. direct, ongoing communication between OPG and City staff to maintain ongoing, proactive, and responsive two-way communications; ii. OPG’s Public Information Centre will be staffed daily (Monday to Friday, excluding holidays) by staff who can respond to questions from the public, local residents and businesses, regarding OPG’s operations, projects and the PNGS B Refurbishment Project; iii. public Telephone Line (905-832-7272) and web-based contact at opg.com; and, iv. 24/7 on-call staff for media and public inquires. It is important to note that OPG's financial contributions to the City for Fire Hall #5, the Sandy Beach Road and Montgomery Park Road Projects, PNGS Municipal Tax Assessment, as set out in the MISA, remain intact and unchanged should the City be unsuccessful in purchasing the PHC land holdings. The financial contribution related to 591 Liverpool Road represents the Provincial contribution toward the City’s purchase of the larger Frenchman’s Bay landholding. This serves the City’s interests by reducing the cost of acquiring the Bay. It also serves the interests of OPG because 591 Liverpool Road lies within the nuclear exclusion zone surrounding PNGS. By taking title to 591 Liverpool Road, OPG ends the possibility of any private sector uses on 591 Liverpool Road that would be inconsistent with the ongoing refurbishment and operation of PNGS. 4.4 Benefits of the MISA The proposed MISA provides several key benefits to the City: a) Financial Protection: By formalizing OPG’s financial contributions toward municipal infrastructure, the Agreement helps ensure that City taxpayers are not disproportionately impacted by costs associated with OPG’s operations. b) Strategic Alignment: The Agreement supports the City’s broader objectives related to growth management, infrastructure planning, and long‑term financial sustainability. c) Strengthened Partnership: Establishing a formal, Council‑approved agreement reinforces the collaborative relationship between the City and OPG as a major employer and stakeholder in Pickering. 4.5 Conclusion OPG has been, and will continue to be, a significant presence in the City of Pickering. The proposed MISA provides a necessary and appropriate framework to manage the municipal - 129 - CAO 06-26 May 25, 2026 Page 9 impacts of OPG’s operations while supporting a collaborative, transparent, and financially responsible relationship. Attachment: 1. Municipal Infrastructure & Servicing Agreement between the City of Pickering and the Ontario Power Generation Prepared By: Marisa Carpino, Chief Administrative Officer Approved/Endorsed By: Fiaz Jadoon, Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects Approved/Endorsed By: Paul Bigioni, Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Approved/Endorsed By: Stan Karwowski, MBA, CPA, CMA, Director, Finance MC:sn Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 130 - Draft: May 20, 2026 MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICING AGREEMENT This Municipal Infrastructure and Servicing Agreement is dated , 2026, between ONTARIO POWER GENERATION INC., a corporation existing under the laws of Ontario ("OPG"), and THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING, a corporation existing under the laws of Ontario ("Pickering"). RECITALS A.Whereas OPG is the owner of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station (“PNGS”), an eight- unit nuclear generating station, located in the City of Pickering, Ontario; B.Whereas OPG has carried out construction, operation, maintenance, repair and refurbishment of reactor units and associated infrastructure at the PNGS, and may do so now and/or in the future, including refurbishment of the four (4) nuclear generating units at PNGS designated as Pickering B, and ultimately will carry out the decommissioning of reactor units at PNGS, along with other related activities (collectively, the “PNGS Activity”); C.Whereas Pickering is recognized as the host municipality for PNGS; D.Whereas Pickering and OPG acknowledge that the PNGS Activity has brought, and is expected to bring, continued benefits to Pickering and to the residents of the City of Pickering (the "Pickering Residents"); E.Whereas OPG acknowledges that local community support is desirable for the success of the refurbishment of the four (4) nuclear generating units at PNGS designated as Pickering B and more generally for the continued success of the PNGS Activity; F.Whereas Pickering and OPG wish to ensure that the refurbishment of the four (4) nuclear generating units at PNGS designated as Pickering B specifically, and the PNGS Activity more generally, is carried out in the public interest and in the interest of the general safety and welfare of the Pickering Residents; and G.Whereas OPG wishes to obtain Pickering’s continued support, as the host community for the PNGS and the PNGS Activity. THEREFORE IN CONSIDERATION OF the covenants hereinafter contained and for value mutually given and received, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: Attachment 1 - Report CAO 06-26 - 131 - ARTICLE 1- INTENT AND INTERPRETATION 1.1 Definitions In this Agreement, the following terms have the respective meanings set out below: (a) Agreement means this municipal infrastructure and servicing agreement, including any recitals and schedules, as amended or restated from time to time by an Amendment. (b) Amendment means a written amendment agreement signed by the Parties which makes any change, amendment or restatement to this Agreement and Amend, Amends and Amended shall have similar meanings. (c) Applicable Laws, in respect of any person, property, transaction or event, means all applicable laws, statutes, regulations, treaties, judgements and decrees applicable to that person, property, transaction or event at the applicable time and, whether or not having the force of law, all applicable permits, licences, consents and approvals, requirements, requests, directives, rules, guidelines, standards, specifications, codes, instructions, circulars, manuals, and policies of any relevant technical organization or any Governmental Authority having authority over that person, property, transaction or event at the applicable time. (d) Arbitrator means a single arbitrator appointed with respect to a Dispute pursuant to Section 5.2 and must be a retired judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Superior Court of Justice (Ontario) or of any court of a Canadian province having jurisdiction comparable to, or higher than that of such court. (e) Business Day means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday, New Year's Day, Family Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, Victoria Day, Canada Day. Civic Holiday, Labour Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day and Boxing Day or any other public holiday declared by the federal or provincial government. Each Business Day will end at 5:00 p.m. on that day. (f) Dispute has the meaning given to this term in Section 5.1. (g) Effective Date has the meaning given to this term in Section 2.1(a). (h) Fire Hall Contribution has the meaning given to this term in Section 3.1(a). (i) Governmental Authority means any federal, provincial, territorial, regional, municipal or local governmental authority, quasi-governmental authority, court, government or self- regulatory organization, commission, board, tribunal, organization, or any regulatory, administrative or other agency, or any political or other subdivision, department, or branch of any of the foregoing, having legal jurisdiction in any way over OPG or Pickering, any aspect of the performance of this Agreement or the carrying out of the PNGS Activity, in each case to the extent it has or performs legislative, judicial, regulatory, administrative or other functions within its jurisdiction, and including the Independent Electricity System Operator for Ontario and, for clarity, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. (j) Harbour Company Land has the meaning given to this term in Section 3.2(a). (k) Harbour Company Land Purchase has the meaning given to this term in Section 3.2(b). - 132 - (l) Land License has the meaning given to this term in Section 3.2(d). (m) MPAC has the meaning given to this term in Section 3.4(a). (n) New Fire Hall has the meaning given to this term in Section 3.1(a). (o) Notice means any notice, required or permitted to be given under this Agreement, and Notify has a similar meaning. (p) Permitted Use has the meaning given to this term in Section 3.2(d). (q) PILs has the meaning given to this term in Section 3.4(a). (r) PNGS has the meaning given to this term in Recital A. (s) PNGS Activity has the meaning given to this term in Recital B. (t) PNGS B Refurb means OPG’s Pickering refurbishment project, which consists of the refurbishment of the four (4) nuclear generating units at PNGS designated as Pickering B, including the site preparation for such refurbishment and the construction, refurbishment, operation, decommissioning and abandonment and refurbishment of such units, and all administrative, ancillary and other buildings, structures, infrastructure and systems necessary to refurbish, operate, maintain, repair, decommission and abandon such units in accordance with Applicable Laws, applicable codes and standards and good utility practices, including any combination of the following as determined by OPG: (1) the nuclear island, balance of the plant and all other facilities; (2) the buildings for or associated with the nuclear reactors, including the turbine hall and used fuel bays; (3) the water treatment plants, pump/screen facilities and forebays; (4) the low and intermediate level radioactive waste storage facilities, used fuel dry storage facilities, and internal maintenance areas; (5) the irradiated fuel bay, new nuclear fuel storage areas, converted fuel storage facilities, hazardous substance facilities, compressed gas storage facilities, radiation support and decontamination facilities, the heavy water management facilities (if applicable), the training centre and training simulator, and security systems, fencing and signage facilities; (6) the condenser cooling structures (i.e. lake water intake/discharge structures and/or cooling towers); (7) the support facilities (including administrative buildings, cafeterias, change room facilities, records facilities, parking facilities, maintenance facilities and shops, laboratories, warehouses, contaminated and uncontaminated laundry, lay down areas, inspection services and radiography facilities, dentistry laboratories, first aid and medical facilities, health physic laboratory and facilities, emergency response centres and monitoring - 133 - equipment and systems); (8) the shoreline and underwater structures, including infill of an adjacent area, a docking facility, underwater tunnels and pipes into Lake Ontario; (9) the buildings and equipment necessary to extend the switchyard at the Pickering Nuclear Generation Site; (10) the ancillary infrastructure facilities (including power systems, sanitary sewers, chemical waste ponds, potable water systems or connections, storm water systems, subsurface drainage management systems, roads and driveways into the PNGS, and a fence between the PNGS B Refurb site and the remainder of the PNGS; and (10) all other ancillary facilities (including chemical and oil storage facilities, vehicle fuel storage facilities, emergency backup diesel generators). (u) PNGS B Refurb Period means the period of time from the Execution Date until the earlier of: (1) the date that OPG or the Government of Ontario publicly announces the PNGS B Refurb has been completed; and (2) PNGS B Refurb Will Not Proceed. (v) PNGS B Refurb Will Not Proceed means, as determined by OPG in its sole discretion, that PNGS B Refurb will not be further advanced or constructed, or that there is no reasonable prospect thereof, and Notice of same is provided by OPG to Pickering or a bona.fide public announcement is made of same by either OPG or the Government of Ontario. (w) Parties means Pickering and OPG and Party means either Pickering or OPG, as the context requires. (x) Permits, Licences and Approvals means all permissions, consents, approvals, certificates, permits, licences, statutory agreements and authorizations required by Applicable Laws, and all consents and agreements from any third parties (including any development permits, building permits, zoning approvals, and any other planning or development permit which may be required by Applicable Laws) needed, in each case for PNGS Activity. 1.2 Headings The division of this Agreement into sections and the insertion of headings are for convenience of reference only and are not to affect the construction or interpretation of this Agreement. 1.3 Expanded Definitions Unless otherwise specified in this Agreement, words importing the singular include the plural and vice versa and words importing gender include all genders. The term "'including" means "including without limitation", and the terms "include", "includes" and "included" have similar meanings. Any reference in this Agreement to any other agreement, is deemed to include a reference to that other agreement, as amended or restated from time to time. 1.4 Time of Day Unless otherwise specified in this Agreement, references to time of day or date mean the local time or date in Pickering, Ontario. 1.5 Business Days If under this Agreement any payment or calculation is to be made on or as of a day which is not a - 134 - Business Day, then that payment or calculation is to be made on or as of the next day that is a Business Day. 1.6 Governing Law This Agreement will be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Ontario and the laws of Canada applicable in Ontario. Each of the Parties irrevocably submits to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Ontario. 1.7 Severability If any term of this Agreement is or becomes illegal, invalid or unenforceable, the illegality, invalidity or unenforceability of that term will not affect the legality, validity or enforceability of the remaining terms of this Agreement and the Parties will, if necessary, Amend this Agreement to accomplish the intent of the Parties as originally set out in this Agreement to the maximum extent allowed by Applicable Laws. 1.8 Statutory and Technical References Each reference to a statute in this Agreement is deemed to be a reference to that statute, and to the regulations made under that statute, all as amended or re-enacted from time to time. 1.9 Entire Agreement This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties regarding the subject matter and, except for any Amendment, supersedes all other agreements, negotiations, discussions, undertakings, representations, warranties and understandings, whether written or verbal. 1.10 Currency Amounts to be paid under this Agreement are to be paid in Canadian Dollars or, for greater certainty, the lawful currency of Canada. ARTICLE 2-TERM AND TERMINATION 2.1 Effective Date (a) The effective date of this Agreement (the “Effective Date”) shall be the last of the following dates: (1) the date upon which OPG executes this Agreement; and (2) the date upon which Pickering executes this Agreement. (b) Each Party shall notify the other Party and deliver to it a copy of this Agreement duly executed by the notifying Party when that Party has executed this Agreement. 2.2 Term and Termination (a) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the term of this Agreement will commence on the Effective Date and will expire at midnight on December 31, 2036, unless terminated earlier in accordance with this Agreement. (b) If a Party is in material breach of its obligations under this Agreement, the other Party may terminate this Agreement upon giving the breaching Party at least thirty (30) days prior written notice including - 135 - the reasons for termination, unless the breaching Party cures such breach prior to the effective date of termination ARTICLE 3- OPG’S CONTRIBUTIONS 3.1 Contribution to New Fire Hall The total amount contributed by OPG to the City of Pickering under this Section 3.1 shall be considered full and final payment by OPG for, and shall be applied by Pickering to, the necessary relocation and reconstruction of the aged Pickering Fire Hall #5 (built in 1969, concurrent with PNGS construction), located at the area of Bayly St./Brock Rd./Sandy Beach Rd., which remains the closest and primary responding fire hall for the geographical area south of Highway 401 to Lake Ontario and encompassing the Pickering Nuclear station (undergoing refurbishment), facilities and adjacent land. As a longstanding partner with Pickering Fire Services, OPG believes the reconstructed fire hall will further enhance local fire response and community safety in South Pickering, including for the refurbished PNGS. By promoting greater fire safety and responsiveness through this payment, OPG continues to demonstrate its commitment to the ongoing safety of OPG’s operations, employees and community. (a) OPG shall pay Pickering an amount (the “Fire Hall Contribution”) equal to 68% of the out-of- pocket costs expended by Pickering for the design and construction of a new fire hall on lands owned by Pickering in the general vicinity of the Sandy Beach Road and Bayly Road intersection to serve the City of Pickering (the “New Fire Hall”), up to a maximum total aggregate Fire Hall Contribution of $10,000,000. For greater certainty, the parties confirm that the Fire Hall Contribution excludes any costs incurred to acquire the lands on which the New Fire Hall is to be located or to extend municipal services to such lands. (b) OPG acknowledges that Pickering has provided documentation demonstrating the community’s need for a New Fire Hall 5, and OPG is of the opinion that the New Fire Hall will constitute a meaningful contribution towards OPG meeting the baseline fire and safety requirements set out in OPG’s construction and operating licences issued, or to be issued, by the CNSC to OPG with respect to PNGS B Refurb. Pickering shall provide OPG with copies of receipts for out-of-pocket costs paid by Pickering for the New Fire Hall including sufficient details to confirm that such costs were incurred solely in respect of the design or construction of the New Fire Hall. (c) OPG shall pay Pickering the Fire Hall Contribution set out herein by monthly instalments starting January, 2027, subject to Section 3.1(a). Each monthly instalment shall reimburse Pickering for 68% of the amount shown on copies of receipts provided by Pickering to OPG no later than the 15th day of the previous month for out-of-pocket costs incurred by Pickering for the New Fire Hall, provided that no such payment shall be due and payable until January 1, 2027 at the earliest. (d) No amount shall be payable by OPG to Pickering under this Section 3.1 in compensation for out- of-pocket costs paid by Pickering after the earlier of PNGS B Will Not Proceed and the termination or expiry of this Agreement. - 136 - 3.2 591 Liverpool Road (a) Within a reasonable time after the Effective Date, OPG and Pickering will negotiate in good faith a written agreement of purchase of sale, on terms and conditions satisfactory to the Parties, acting reasonably, whereby Pickering will agree to sell to OPG, and OPG will agree to buy from Pickering (the “Harbour Company Land Purchase”), a freehold interest in the land municipally known as 591 Liverpool Road, Pickering (the “Harbour Company Land”)for a purchase price of up to $10,000,000 plus H.S.T. if applicable. This Agreement is not conditional upon the entry into or completion of the Harbour Company Land Purchase. (b) The Harbour Company Land Purchase will include the grant of a licence to Pickering to use and occupy the Harbour Company Land on terms acceptable to OPG and Pickering (the “License”). (c) A Party’s failure to execute or to close the Harbour Company Land Purchase (which, for certainty, would include failure to grant the License which forms part of the Harbour Company Land Purchase) for any reason whatsoever shall not be considered a breach or default of that Party’s obligations under this Agreement. 3.3 Sandy Beach Road & Montgomery Park Road Resurfacings Pickering acknowledges that OPG has entered into a Road Servicing Agreement with the City of Pickering such that OPG is performing rehabilitation work on Sandy Beach Road and reconstruction of Montgomery Park Road to support the PNGS B Refurb, Pickering, the Pickering Residents and community, at an approximate cost to OPG of approximately $16,000,000. 3.4 PNGS Municipal Tax Assessment (a) The parties acknowledge and agree that: (1) payments-in-lieu-of-realty-taxes (“PILs”) made by OPG to Pickering are made in accordance with valuations determined by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) pursuant to the statutory scheme (“Scheme”) set out in the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A. 31 as amended (the “Act”). MPAC may alter its valuations under the Scheme as a result of the PNGS B Refurb; (2) notwithstanding Subsection 3.4(a)(1) above, Pickering has an interest in stabilizing the amount of revenue it receives from the PILS during the first five years of the PNGS B Refurb Period to avoid reduction in the City’s budgeted revenues with respect to the PNGS B Refurb Period as a result of any PILS re- assessment by MPAC in accordance with the Scheme; and (3) OPG has an interest in stabilizing the amount of PILS it must pay during the first five years of the PNGS B Refurb Period to avoid any increase to the amount OPG has budgeted for payment thereof as a result of a PILS re-assessment by MPAC in accordance with the Scheme. (b) The amount of PILs payable by OPG in respect of the 2026 to 2031 taxation years will be subject to adjustment, on an annual basis in accordance with the Municipal Tax Levy including the - 137 - Education Levy under O. Reg. 400/98. (c) If the amount of PILs payable by OPG in respect of the 2026 o 2031 taxation years is reduced by MPAC as a result of an MPAC re-assessment thereof, compared to the amount of PILs that would have been payable by OPG in respect of the 2026 to 2031 taxation years at the rate determined by MPAC that was in effect as of the Effective Date (as adjusted accordance with subsection 3.4(b) above), OPG shall pay Pickering the difference between such amounts. OPG shall make such payment by instalments due in each case within 90 days after payment of PILs is due and payable by OPG at the MPAC-assessed rate with respect to the 2026 to 2031 taxation years, and the amount of each instalment shall reflect the difference between such MPAC-assessed rates for the subject period of time during the 2026 to 2031 taxation years. (d) If the amount of PILs payable by OPG in respect of the 2026 to 2031 taxation years is increased by MPAC as a result of an MPAC re-assessment thereof, compared to the amount of PILS that would have been payable by OPG in respect of the 2026 to 2031 taxation years at the rate determined by MPAC that was in effect as of the Effective Date (as adjusted in accordance with subsection 3.4(b) above), Pickering shall pay OPG the difference between such amounts. Pickering shall make such payment by instalments due in each case within 90 days after payment of PILS is due and payable by OPG at the MPAC-assessed rate with respect to the 2026 to 2031 taxation years, and the amount of each instalment shall reflect the difference between such MPAC-assessed rates for the subject period of time during the 2026 to 2031 taxation years. (e) Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to affect any of the statutory rights of MPAC, OPG or Pickering pursuant to the Act. (f) The existence and contents of this Agreement may not be referred to or used as evidence or in argument for the purpose of any current or future disposition of an appeal to the Assessment Review Board pursuant to Section 40 of the Act. 3.5 Pickering Community Fund OPG will continue its commitment to being a good corporate citizen and neighbour through its community investment program, the Power for Change Project, throughout the term of this Agreement. OPG support for not-for-profit and community organizations through donations, sponsorships, awards and scholarships will continue throughout the term of this Agreement. 3.6 Communications and Community Engagement (a) OPG will continue its commitment to being a good corporate citizen and neighbour in accordance with the following provisions of this Section 3.6. (b) OPG recognizes the importance of early, ongoing and meaningful engagement with the PNGS’ host community and will use not less than reasonable efforts to maintain open and transparent communications with the Pickering community on OPG’s PNGS-related operations and projects, including PNGS B Refurb, through a public information and disclosure program. (c) As part of OPG’s public information and disclosure program, OPG will provide, in a timely and transparent manner, accurate information to stakeholders and the public, including the local business community, in the vicinity of OPG’s PNGS facility, regarding PNGS events, activities, operations and projects, including PNGS B Refurb. (d) In carrying out this public information and disclosure program, OPG will ensure consistent standards and procedures are followed for dissemination of information to the public in a number of ways based - 138 - on the audience, their interest and their preferred method of communication. Some of these methods will include, but will not be limited to: (1) direct, ongoing communication between OPG and the City of Pickering - staff at the City of Pickering will have direct access to OPG’s Senior Manager, Corporate Relations & Projects to maintain ongoing, proactive and responsive two-way communication; (2) OPG’s Public Information Centre - staffed Monday-Friday (excluding statutory holidays) by a team who are available to answer questions from the public, local neighbours and the local business community on OPG’s operations and projects, including PNGS and PNGS B Refurb; (3) a public telephone line (905-832-7272) and web-based contact form available on opg.com; and (4) 24/7 on-call staff for media and public inquiries. (e) In addition, as part of this public information and disclosure program, OPG will use not less than reasonable efforts to ensure the community remains informed with OPG project updates through ongoing outreach, including but not limited to: (1) Public website - opg.com; including a Pickering Refurbishment Project page and a Community Page; (2) Social media - Twitter/X, Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn; (3) Traditional and print media – including Neighbours Newsletter delivered to 250,000 homes and businesses with information about OPG’s operations and projects; and (4) Community presentations and outreach initiatives, including to local businesses through direct outreach as well as through the Ajax-Pickering Board of Trade. ARTICLE 4 – HOST COMMUNITY SUPPORT 4.1 Municipal Approvals Pickering agrees to give due consideration to providing OPG with all permits, licences and approvals properly applied for by OPG and within its jurisdiction to grant in order to permit and expedite PNGS operations and PNGS B Refurb, and will expeditiously process applications it receives in this regard provided that: (a) OPG will furnish any such documentation normally required by Pickering to support the approval being sought; and (b) OPG will pay all normal costs associated with any such applications which are customarily required by Pickering. 4.2 CNSC Licensing Pickering will take not less than reasonable steps to support OPG in each licensing application hearing conducted by the Canada Nuclear Safety Commission in connection with PNGS. 4.3 Host Community Support - 139 - In addition to the other consideration given by Pickering to OPG under this Agreement, Pickering agrees to continue using reasonable efforts to cooperate with OPG as a supportive host community for PNGS. 4.4 Mutual Acknowledgement OPG and Pickering acknowledge and agree that they have a shared understanding of the municipal infrastructure and servicing needs related to PNGS operations and that these have been addressed to their mutual satisfaction through this Agreement, through the agreement made by them for road servicing dated July 11, 2025, and through the PNGS B Refurb. ARTICLE 5 - DISPUTE RESOLUTION 5.1 Disputes Referred to Arbitration The Parties will work co-operatively to resolve any dispute, disagreement, controversy, question or claim (including a claim for indemnification) (collectively, a "Dispute"). If either Party is of the opinion that a Dispute will not be resolved by the Parties co-operatively in a timely fashion, it will refer any outstanding Dispute or other controversy between the Parties arising in respect of this Agreement to arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1991 (Ontario) by giving Notice thereof to the other Party. 5.2 Notice of Arbitration and Appointment of Arbitrator A Party that delivers the Notice referred to in Section 5.1 will include in its written Notice the names of three individuals who are acceptable to it to serve as a sole Arbitrator for the subject Dispute. Within ten days of the receipt of the Notice, the other Party will give written Notice that it accepts the appointment of one of the three named individuals or will name three other individuals who are acceptable to it to serve as sole Arbitrator. If the Parties are unable to agree upon a sole arbitrator within a further ten days, either Party may apply to the Superior Court of Justice to appoint an Arbitrator who will preside over resolution of the Dispute.. 5.3 Powers of Arbitrator The Arbitrator may determine all questions of law, fact and jurisdiction regarding the arbitration (including questions as to whether the matter at issue is arbitrable) and all matters of procedure relating to the arbitration. The Arbitrator may grant legal and equitable relief (including injunctive relief), award costs (including legal fees and the costs of the arbitration) and award interest. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing or the Arbitrator's jurisdiction at law, the Arbitrator may: (a) determine any question of good faith, dishonesty or fraud arising in the matter at issue; (b) order either Party to furnish further details of that Party's case, in fact or in law; (c) proceed in the arbitration notwithstanding the failure or refusal of either Party to comply with this section or with the Arbitrator's orders or directions, or to attend any meeting or hearing, but only after giving that Party written Notice that the Arbitrator intends to do so; (d) receive and take into account written or oral evidence tendered by the Parties that the Arbitrator determines is relevant, whether or not strictly admissible in law; (e) make interlocutory determinations or interim orders or awards; (f) hold meetings and hearings and make a decision (including a final decision) in the - 140 - Municipality of Clarington (or elsewhere with the concurrence of the Parties); and (g) order the Party(ies) to provide to the Arbitrator, and to the opposing Party(ies) for inspection, and to supply copies of, any documents or classes of documents in its possession or control that the Arbitrator determines to be relevant. 5.4 Arbitration Procedure The arbitration will take place in Toronto, Ontario at such place and time as the Arbitrator may fix. The arbitration will be conducted in English. Within 10 Business Days of the appointment of the Arbitrator, the Parties will either agree on the procedure to be followed for the arbitration or the Arbitrator will determine the appropriate procedure, in accordance with the principles of natural justice, to be followed. The Parties will keep confidential and not disclose to any other person, the arbitration and all matters arising directly or indirectly from the matter(s) at issue (including all documents exchanged. the evidence and the award), except as set out in this Section 13.4. A Party may disclose any such information to the extent required: (a) to obtain assistance from persons to conduct the matters under arbitration; (b) by law or securities exchange rules; or (c) by a disclosure requirement with a shareholder, lender or potential lender (including any advisor to any such recipient person), so long as such person is informed of the confidential nature of such information and such person agrees to be bound, subject to law, by such confidentiality obligation. 5.5 Arbitrator's Decision No later than 20 Business Days after hearing the representations and evidence of the Parties, the Arbitrator will make the Arbitrator's determination in writing, with reasons, and deliver one copy to each of the Parties. The Arbitrator may only interpret and apply the terms of this Agreement and, except as expressly permitted in this section, may not change this Agreement in any manner. The decision of the Arbitrator will be final and binding upon the Parties regarding all matters relating to the arbitration, the conduct of the Parties during the proceedings and the final determination of the matter at issue. 5.6 No Appeal and Enforcement Subject to Section 44 of the Arbitration Act, 1991 (Ontario), the Parties may not appeal from the determination of the Arbitrator to any court. The Parties may enter any judgment upon any award rendered by the Arbitrator in any court having jurisdiction. 5.7 Costs of Arbitration Subject to the terms of this Agreement, the Parties will bear the costs of any arbitration under this section in the manner specified by the Arbitrator. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, if the Arbitrator does not specify the costs, each Party will bear its own costs and will share the costs of the Arbitrator equally. - 141 - ARTICLE 6 - GENERAL 6.1 Assignment and Benefit This Agreement enures to the benefit of and binds the Parties and their respective successors and permitted assigns. Neither Party may assign this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other Party, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. 6.2 Amendments Except as expressly provided in this Agreement no amendment, restatement or termination of this Agreement in whole or in part is binding unless it is in writing and signed by each Party. 6.3 Notice Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, every Notice required or permitted under this Agreement must be in writing and may be delivered in person, by courier or by fax to the applicable Party, as follows: If to OPG: If to Pickering: Ontario Power Generation Inc. 1908 Colonel Sam Drive Oshawa, Ontario L1H 8W8 Attention: David Rogers Email: David.Rogers@OPG.com Attention: Email: or to any other address, fax number or individual that a Party designates by Notice. Any Notice under this Agreement, if delivered personally or by courier will be deemed to have been given when actually received, if delivered by fax before 3:00 p.m. on a Business Day will be deemed to have been delivered on that Business Day and if delivered by fax after 3:00 p.m. on a Business Day or on a day which is not a Business Day will be deemed to be delivered on the next Business Day. 6.4 Waivers No waiver of any term or condition of this Agreement is binding unless it is in writing and signed by all the Parties entitled to grant the waiver. No failure to exercise, and no delay in exercising, any right or remedy, under this Agreement will be deemed a waiver of that right or remedy. No waiver of any breach of any term of this Agreement will be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of that term. 6.5 Entire Agreement This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties regarding the subject matter and, except for any Amendment, supersedes all other agreements, negotiations, discussions, undertakings, representations, warranties and understandings, whether written or oral. 6.6 Execution of Contract - 142 - This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which when executed shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which when taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement. Signatures by facsimile shall be as effective as original signatures to this Agreement. [The remainder of this page is intentionally blank.] - 143 - IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have duly executed this Agreement as of the date hereof. ONTARIO POWER GENERATION INC. THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING Name: Name: Title: Title: I have authority to bind the Corporation. I have authority to bind the Corporation. [Signature page of Municipal Infrastructure and Servicing Agreement] - 144 - Report to Council Report Number: CAO 08-26 Date: June 22, 2026 From: Marisa Carpino Chief Administrative Officer Subject: Construction of Dorsay Community & Heritage Centre Project Update Milestone Report #5 File: A-1440-001 Recommendation: 1. That Report CAO 08-26 regarding the Construction of Dorsay Community & Heritage Centre Project Update be received for information. 1.0 Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to provide a semi-annual project status update on the construction of the Dorsay Community & Heritage Centre (DCHC). In accordance with Recommendation 10 of Report FIN 03-24 (Resolution #398/24), staff were instructed to provide semi-annual project status updates on the construction of DCHC. 2.0 Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Priorities to Champion Economic Leadership & Innovation; Advocate for an Inclusive, Welcoming, Safe & Healthy Community; Advance Innovation & Responsible Planning to Support a Connected, Well- Serviced Community; Lead & Advocate for Environmental Stewardship, Innovation & Resiliency; Strengthen Existing & Build New Partnerships; and, Foster an Engaged & Informed Community. 3.0 Financial Implications: The project’s construction phase is substantially complete. Current total expenditure on the construction contract, as of the writing of this report, is $50,579,928.46 (HST exempt, including work invoiced to the end of April 2026). Approved Change Orders to date have added a net total increase of $2,099,279.31 (HST exempt), for a total revised construction contract price of - 145 - CAO 08-26 June 22, 2026 Page 2 $54,052,279.31 (HST exempt). Total expenditures sum to 93.6% completion, though actual progress is higher as the values shown do not yet include already completed work still to be invoiced for May and June. Overall, the project remains under budget, though delays in the delivery of certain key materials affected the original targeted occupancy date of late 2025. Partial occupancy was achieved on March 3, 2026, and further expanded on May 8, 2026. Only the elevator and one barrier free washroom remain excluded at the time of the writing of this report. Both are expected to be complete, enabling full occupancy to be achieved in the next eight weeks. Furniture, fixture and equipment (FF&E) purchases, for products not included in the construction contract, have been ongoing since the end of 2025. Commitments and expenditures to date total $656,808.39 (HST exempt), from a total available budget of $1,505,000.00. FF&E budgets and costs are separate from construction costs noted above. Goods and materials essential to commence operations were prioritized, and purchases remain ongoing. 4.0 Discussion: The purpose of this report is to provide operational and financial project updates on the construction of the DCHC in accordance with Recommendation 10 of Report FIN 03-24 (Resolution #398/24). 4.1 Decision History a. Report CS 19-18; Resolution #455/18: RFP-6-2018 was awarded to Hariri Pontarini Architects in June 2018 for design and consulting services of Phase 1 of the PHCC project. b. Report CS 34-18; Resolution #08/18: Council directed staff to expand the scope of the design awarded for RFP-6-2018 to include Phase 2 design and related consulting services in the amount of $660,654.50 (HST included). c. Report CS 20-19; Resolution #72/19: Council directed staff to submit an application for funding to the Government of Canada’s Canada Cultural Spaces Fund for the construction of the PHCC. The City of Pickering was successful in securing $4,000,000.00 from the Canada Cultural Investment Fund toward construction costs for the PHCC. d. Report CS 40-19; Resolution #595/21: Council authorized staff to initiate and submit an application to the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program to fund construction of PHCC. The City of Pickering was not successful in securing $12,500,000.00 in funding from the Government of Canada Investing in Infrastructure Program. - 146 - CAO 08-26 June 22, 2026 Page 3 e. Corr 24-21; Resolution #595/21: Council directed staff to submit an application for funding to the Government of Canada’s Green and Inclusive Community Building Program for the construction of the Council approved PHCC. The City of Pickering was successful in securing $12,500,000.00 toward construction costs for the PHCC. f. Report CS 27-21; Resolution #612/21: Council directed staff to finance the net amount of $126,691.00 in consulting costs to Hariri Pontarini Architects for the technical work required to complete the City’s application to the GICB program. g. Report OPS 17-22; Resolution #970/22; Council directed staff to allocate unspent funds provided by Reports CS 19-18 and CS 34-18 for architectural, landscape and engineering services for the PHCC at the Pickering Museum Village be re-allocated for the conversion of existing technical documents to meet Net-Zero Design criteria in accordance with the City’s Green and Inclusive Community Building grant application in the net amount of $394,727.00. h. Report OPS 03-23; Resolution #79/23: Council directed staff to award consulting and professional services to Archaeological Services Inc. in the amount of $364,708.00 (HST Included) to complete an archaeological review of existing property to be affected by the construction of the PHCC. i. Report FIN 01-24; Resolution #379/24: Council confirmed PHCC as a Capital Budget priority and requested that the Mayor include the applicable funds in the 2024 Current and Capital Budget and Capital Forecast. The estimated gross construction cost is $61.2 million less Federal Grants of $16.5 million which results in net construction cost of $44.7 million. Council authorized staff to pursue naming rights revenues for the confirmed Capital Budget priorities. j. Report FIN 03-24; Resolution #398/24: Council awarded the construction tender of the PHCC project to J. R. Certus. k. Report CS 25-24; Resolution #574/24: Council directed staff to explore the naming of the exhibit gallery in the PHCC as the John E. Anderson Exhibit Gallery. l. Report CAO 05-24: Resolution #533/24; staff provided Council with an update on the PHCC project. m. Report CAO 07-24: Resolution #632/24; staff provided Council with an update on the PHCC project. n. Report CS 01-25; Resolution #686/25; Council approved the naming of the exhibit gallery to be the John E. Anderson Exhibit Gallery. o. Report ECD 05-25: At the May 26, 2025 Council Meeting, staff recommended accepting $1,000,000.00 from Dorsay Developments Corporation in exchange for naming rights of - 147 - CAO 08-26 June 22, 2026 Page 4 Pickering’s new community centre, (previously called the Pickering Heritage & Community Centre) to be called the Dorsay Community & Heritage Centre. p. Report CAO 10-25: Resolution #764/25; staff provided Council with an update on the DCHC project. q. Report CS 22-25; Resolution #840/25; Council directed staff to award the commission of public art at the main entrance of DCHC to Hooman Mehdizadehjafari in the amount of $112,566.43 (HST included). r. Report CAO 22-25; Resolution #902/25; staff provided Council with an update on the DCHC project. 4.2 Site Works & Construction Activity Construction activity on site is winding down, with significant reductions in construction personnel, materials and equipment. DCHC officially opened on June 13, 2026 and programs are actively running at the facility. Remaining work is focused around the completion of millwork, commissioning of the elevator, exterior lighting and bollards, landscaping, provision of signage and final placement of the top layer as asphalt. HVAC, water, septic, lighting, life safety and other critical systems are all functional, with final coordinated testing and commissioning to be completed throughout the month of June. Staff have moved into the upper floor administrative office spaces and staff are working full time in the facility. All construction activity on site, other than addressing any ongoing minor deficiencies, is expected to be formally completed by July 2026. A final update report to Council on the status of the project will be provided in September 2026. 4.3 Operating Update The facility is now open Monday to Friday, 9:00 am to 9:00 pm, and Saturday and Sunday from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm. a. Events Council and staff were provided with an informal First Look at DCHC on May 5. A soft launch of the facility was held on May 9, 2026, including invitational tours to Greenwood residents. The Duffins Creek Festival was held on May 30, welcoming the public to the DCHC and the Pickering Museum Village. The event celebrated and highlighted the natural and cultural significance of the Duffins Creek ecosystem. This event had an artisan market, - 148 - CAO 08-26 June 22, 2026 Page 5 live entertainment, education stations, and outdoor activities. Over 600 people were in attendance. The Sip & See event was held on June 7 from 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm. Vendors submitted an application to be part of the event and 12 vendors were selected. The Sip & See showcased the DCHC and all of the spaces available for rental options, including weddings, celebrations and events. Vendors included décor, rentals, caterers, photographers and a DJ on hand for potential permit holders to speak to and understand what offerings could accompany their event and what the spaces could look like with a sample event set up. Over 250 people were in attendance. DCHC’s formal grand opening was held on June 13, 2026. This event marks the official opening of the new Dorsay Community & Heritage Centre. Formal remarks were provided by Mayor Ashe, MP Nathan, Doodnauth Sharma, Vice-Chair of the Pickering Library Board, Geoff Grayhurst, Dorsay Developments, and Siamak Hariri, Hariri Pontarini Architects. Guests participated in tours and activities and enjoyed refreshments and entertainment. Events planned over the summer include Movie Nights in the Park (July 15 and August 19), a car show (September 5), Cultural Fusion (September 12), and a job fair (July 30). b. Programs From May 11 to June 13, the City started offering free programs at DCHC through a soft launch period. Programs that were offered included children’s art, culinary classes, a wide range of fitness classes (pilates, dance, yoga, socacize, nia, pole walking, etc.) choir (adult and child), crocheting, guitar, tai chi, homeschooler programs, and sewing. The Pickering Museum Village offered clay baking classes, after school programs, and a PA Day camp. There were 1,925 registrants for programs during the soft launch period. Paid programs, similar to the range of programs offered during the soft launch are now running in the facility. Eco Adventure Camp will run for eight weeks over the summer. Fitness programs will move from the Dr. Nelson F. Tomlinson Community Centre to DCHC to accommodate septic system repairs this fall. c. Bookings Facility bookings began in May and bookings continue to increase through marketing initiatives and referrals. • May: 3 rentals (2 birthday parties, 1 baby shower). • June: 6 rentals (3 baby showers, 1 birthday party, 1 Pre-wedding, Greenwood Rec Assoc. BBQ event). - 149 - CAO 08-26 June 22, 2026 Page 6 • July: 9 rentals (1 celebration of life, 1 baptism, 5 birthday parties, 1 baby shower, 1 basketball league ceremony). • August: 6 rentals (1 ceremony, 1 anniversary,1 family party, 1 wedding, 1 baby shower, 1 birthday party). • The Greenwood Ratepayers Association and Greenwood Recreation Association are meeting monthly on site. d. Library Programs / Events / Operations Library operating hours will be from Monday to Friday: 9:30 am – 9:00 pm, Saturday: 9:00 am – 5:00 pm, Sunday: 1:00 pm – 5:00 pm. Greenhood Heritage Library grand opening activations taking place in June and July include Little Sprouts Storytime, Nature Makers, Seed Scouts, and Dine on a Dime: Personal Pizzas and Rice Krispie Square. e. Marketing • Pickering GO Platform Advertising will be activated from June 1 to July 20, with three window panels visible from the westbound platform, and backlit posters and digital screens located throughout Pickering GO, along with select Pattison signage across Pickering and Ajax. • Pole Banners will be installed in late June along Brock Road leading the facility to increase awareness of DCHC. • A custom event map is being designed in collaboration with local artist Zuna Amir. Zuna will develop an interior events map for DCHC helping guide visitors during activations. • This summer a display will be installed in the lobby of Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex to promote DCHC. • A series of video shorts has been developed and issued through the City’s social media channels. • A media release was issued to notify residents of the facility’s grand opening. • Staff continue to promote programs and events through established marketing tactics and channels. - 150 - CAO 08-26 June 22, 2026 Page 7 Attachment: None Prepared By: Vince Plouffe, OAA, MRAIC, Division Head, Facilities Management & Construction Prepared By: Krystal Roberts, Manager, Cultural Services Prepared By: Marilou Murray, Manager, Prepared By: Karen Coleman, Manager, Recreation Services Prepared By: Shobha Oza, CEO, Director of Public Libraries Approved/Endorsed By: Laura Gibbs, MBA, MSc., Director, Community Services LG:vp Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 151 - Report to Council Report Number: CAO 09-26 Date: June 22, 2026 From: Marisa Carpino, Chief Administrative Officer Subject: Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC) Automatic Door Reliability at City Facilities File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1. That Report CAO 09-26 regarding the reliability of automatic and accessible doors at City facilities on behalf of the Accessibility Advisory Committee be received; 2. That Council endorse the Accessibility Advisory Committee’s advice and direct staff to review current practices, identify gaps, and report back on options to improve the reliability, maintenance, and accountability of automatic and accessible door infrastructure across municipal facilities; 3. That staff be requested to consider the implementation of proactive inspection, monitoring, and reporting mechanisms to ensure consistent and equitable access to City facilities for residents with disabilities; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 1.0 Executive Summary: The Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC) identified ongoing concerns regarding the reliability of automatic doors at key City facilities, including the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex and Dunbarton Pool. Unreliable operation creates barriers to independent access for residents with disabilities. The AAC recommends that Council direct staff to review current practices and report back with options to improve maintenance, monitoring, and accountability of accessible door infrastructure. - 152 - CAO 09-26 June 22, 2026 Page 2 2.0 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. 3.0 Financial Implications: There are no direct financial implications associated with the receipt of this report. Future costs may arise through enhanced maintenance, inspection, or system upgrades, and will be reported in a subsequent staff report. 4.0 Discussion: At its January meeting, the AAC received concerns from Committee Member Sam Snyders regarding the reliability of automatic and accessible door systems at various City facilities, including the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex and the Dunbarton Pool. Mr. Snyders noted that inconsistent operation of these doors can create significant barriers for residents who rely on them for independent access. While acknowledging that some improvements have been made, he emphasized that ongoing reliability issues continue to impact accessibility and require sustained attention. Following discussion, the AAC passed a formal motion requesting that Council direct staff to prepare a report outlining current practices, identifying gaps, and recommending options to improve the reliability and accountability of accessible door infrastructure across municipal facilities. The concerns raised by the AAC highlight the critical role that automatic and accessible entrances play in enabling equitable access to public facilities. Reliable operation of these systems is essential for residents who rely on barrier-free entry to participate fully in municipal programs and services. The AAC identified key actions including proactive inspection schedules, clear performance standards, accessible reporting mechanisms, and prioritization of repairs. Subject to Council direction, staff will undertake a review of current practices and report back with findings and recommended timelines for implementation. Attachment: None Prepared By: Tim Higgins, Accessibility Coordinator - 153 - CAO 09-26 June 22, 2026 Page 3 Approved/Endorsed By: Jaclyn San Antonio, Supervisor, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Approved/Endorsed By: Mark Guinto, Division Head, Public Affairs and Corporate Communications TH:th Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 154 - Report to Council Report Number: CLK 06-26 Date: June 22, 2026 From: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Subject: Appointment of an Integrity Commissioner and Lobbyist Registrar 2026-2030 Term of Council File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1. That Report CLK 06-26 regarding the Appointment of an Integrity Commissioner and Lobbyist Registrar for the 2026-2030 Term of Council be received; 2. That Boghosian + Allen LLP be appointed as the City of Pickering’s Integrity Commissioner and Lobbyist Registrar for the 2026-2030 Term of Council commencing on November 15, 2026, with the option to renew for an additional Council Term; 3. That the draft agreement, included as Attachment 1 to this report be approved, subject to any minor revisions acceptable to the City Clerk and the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the agreement; 4. That the draft by-law included as Attachment 2 to this report to confirm the appointment of Boghosian + Allen LLP as the provider of Integrity Commissioner and Lobbyist Registrar services for the City of Pickering be enacted; and, 5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 1.0 Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to appoint an Integrity Commissioner and Lobbyist Registrar for the 2026-2030 Term of Council. The contract with Principles Integrity, the City’s current Integrity Commissioner, expires on November 14, 2026. This report is seeking approval to execute a contract for the next Term of Council to ensure that a new Integrity Commissioner is in place for the start of the new Term which begins on November 15, 2026. It is proposed that David Boghosian serve as Integrity Commissioner and Lobbyist Registrar and have primary responsibility for carrying out all aspects of those roles including liaising with the City, Members of Council and local boards and members of the public, providing advice to Members of Council, directing investigations and inquiries and authoring and delivering reports - 155 - CLK 06-26 June 22, 2026 Page 2 to Council. Other members of Boghosian + Allen LLP will assist David Boghosian with the Integrity Commissioner/Lobbyist Registrar Contract. 2.0 Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priority of Foster an Engaged & Informed Community. 3.0 Financial Implications: In accordance with the draft Agreement (Attachment 1), the fees for Integrity Commissioner and Lobbyist Registrar services fluctuate based on which individuals of Boghosian + Allen LLP render their services. Services rendered by David G. Boghosian are $350.00/hour, while services rendered by junior lawyers are $260.00/hour and $160.00/hour for law clerks or students. These fees are not inclusive of HST. Due to the integrity commissioner services being used on an as-needed basis, it is difficult to determine the total annual costs. Dedicated funds in the amount of $135,000.00 have been included in the 2026 Budget to cover costs associated with Code of Conduct complaints and investigations and $8,000.00 has been included for education, training and consulting services related to the Code of Conduct and Lobbyist Registry. A similar amount will be proposed for the 2027 Budget to cover the fees for services rendered. 4.0 Discussion: The purpose of this report is to appoint an Integrity Commissioner and Lobbyist Registrar for the 2026-2030 Term of Council. The contract with Principles Integrity, the City’s current Integrity Commissioner, expires on November 14, 2026. This report is seeking approval to execute a contract for the next Term of Council to ensure that a new Commissioner is in place for the start of the new Term which begins on November 15, 2026. Pursuant to Subsection 223.3(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 (the “Act”), the Integrity Commissioner reports to Council and is responsible for performing, in an independent manner, the functions assigned by the municipality. Integrity Commissioners carry out a range of functions for municipalities including: • The application of the code of conduct for Members of Council and the Code of Conduct for members of local boards. • The application of any procedures, rules and policies of the municipality and local boards governing the ethical behaviour of Members of Council and of local boards. • The application of sections 5, 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act to Members of Council and of local boards. • Requests from Members of Council and of local boards for advice respecting their obligations under the Code of Conduct applicable to the Member. • Requests from Members of Council and of local boards for advice respecting their obligations under a procedure, rule, or policy of the municipality or of the local board, as the case may be, governing the ethical behaviour of members. - 156 - CLK 06-26 June 22, 2026 Page 3 • Requests from Members of Council and of local boards for advice respecting their obligations under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. • The provision of educational information to Members of Council, members of local boards, the municipality and the public about the municipality’s Codes of Conduct for Members of Council and members of local boards and about the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. • Recommending the imposition of penalties in accordance with the Act if in the opinion of the Integrity Commissioner a Member of Council has contravened the Code of Conduct. For municipalities that have a lobbyist registry program, the Integrity Commissioner is often also appointed as the Lobbyist Registrar to respond to complaints or issues pertaining to the Municipal Lobbyist Registry. By-law 8003/23, being a by-law to establish and maintain a Lobbyist Registry for the City of Pickering, states “The City of Pickering’s Integrity Commissioner is herein appointed as the Lobbyist Registrar in accordance with section 223.11 of the Municipal Act, 2001.” The draft by-law included as Attachment 2 to this report proposes to formally appoint Boghosian + Allen LLP as the City’s Lobbyist Registrar and includes the duties associated with that role. Over the last few Terms of Council, the Region of Durham and some area municipalities have undertaken a collaborative RFP process for the selection of an Integrity Commissioner. This process was initiated again in January 2026. The process to secure Integrity Commissioner services for the next term of Council followed the Durham Region’s Consultant and Professional Services Contracting Procedure. Invitations to enter into a consulting and professional services contract with the Region and local municipalities were sent to nine individuals/firms. Three proposals were received and evaluated. Respondents participated in presentation and interview sessions which were evaluated by the Region, and the Municipal Clerks or Deputy Clerks from Oshawa, Pickering, Uxbridge and Whitby. The top two submissions received were Principles Integrity and Boghosian + Allen LLP and the scores of those two proposals were tied. On April 28, 2026, after the RFP evaluations had taken place, the City received a Notice of Termination from Principles Integrity advising that they would no longer be providing integrity commissioner services to any municipalities for the 2026-2030 Term of Council. Up until the receipt of the Termination Notice, City staff were prepared to recommend the services of Principles Integrity for the 2026-2030 Term of Council given that their services were satisfactory to the City and their recommendations pertaining to Code of Conduct violations were upheld by the Divisional Court in two hearings regarding three separate judicial review applications. With the Notice that Principles Integrity will no longer be providing integrity commissioner services, and with Boghosian + Allen LLP receiving the same score as Principles Integrity in the RFP process, Boghosian + Allen LLP is now the successful proponent being recommended by staff to provide Integrity Commissioner and Lobbyist Registrar services for the 2026-2030 Term of Council. Durham Region Council approved the appointment of Boghosian + Allen LLP as its Integrity Commissioner at its meeting held on April 29, 2026. It is anticipated that the remaining participating municipalities will be taking recommendations to appoint Boghosian + Allen LLP to their respective Councils. - 157 - CLK 06-26 June 22, 2026 Page 4 Boghosian + Allen LLP (formerly Boghosian + Associates PC) is a leading Ontario law firm servicing municipalities across Ontario in the areas of general municipal law, general civil litigation, municipal defence litigation and accountability/transparency services. Founded by David Boghosian in 2005, the firm has provided legal services to dozens of municipalities as well as other public entities. The firm is currently comprised of 10 lawyers, supported by articling and summer students, law clerks, legal assistants and administrative staff. David Boghosian is currently the Integrity Commissioner (IC) for 13 municipalities (Fort Frances, Hamilton, Caledon, Haldimand County, Kirkland Lake, Norfolk County, Bonfield, Temagami, Stratford, Prince Edward County, Cornwall, East Ferris and Red Lake). He is the Lobbyist Registrar for Hamilton and Niagara Region. Outside of and/or predating his formal IC roles, his retainers for municipalities have included numerous accountability services assignments. These include Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, Municipal Elections Act and Code of Conduct investigations, serving as a compliance audit adjudicator in Municipal Elections Act challenges to campaign finance expenditures, and involvement in municipal auditor general investigations. David Boghosian also worked for the Ontario Office of the Ombudsman while in law school and thereby gained first-hand knowledge of the conciliatory approach employed in that office. David Boghosian is the Lobbyist Registrar for the City of Hamilton and Niagara Region. David and his accountability services team are experienced in providing comprehensive lobbyist registry training, responding to requests for advice and investigating/determining alleged breaches of and enforcing lobbyist registry by-laws. The investigations undertaken by the team have included factually and legally complex investigations related to high profile housing policy issues. Due to the RFP process undertaken and the evaluation of the proponents, along with the Notice of Termination provided by Principles Integrity, staff recommend the appointment of Boghosian + Allen LLP as the City’s Integrity Commissioner and Lobbyist Registrar for the 2026-2030 Term of Council, with the option to renew for an additional Term should their services be satisfactory to the City of Pickering. Attachments: 1. Draft Agreement for Integrity Commissioner and Lobbyist Registrar Services between the City of Pickering and Boghosian + Allen LLP 2. Draft By-law to Appoint Boghosian + Allen LLP as the City’s Integrity Commissioner and Lobbyist Registrar Prepared By: Susan Cassel, City Clerk Approved/Endorsed By: Paul Bigioni, Director Corporate Services & City Solicitor - 158 - CLK 06-26 June 22, 2026 Page 5 SC:ks Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 159 - Attachment 1 to Report CLK 06-26 - 160 - - 161 - - 162 - - 163 - - 164 - - 165 - - 166 - - 167 - - 168 - - 169 - - 170 - - 171 - - 172 - - 173 - - 174 - - 175 - - 176 - - 177 - - 178 - - 179 - - 180 - - 181 - - 182 - Attachment 2 to Report CLK 06-26 The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. XXXX/26 Being a by-law to confirm the Appointment of Boghosian + Allen LLP as the Integrity Commissioner and Lobbyist Registrar for the City of Pickering Whereas Section 223.3 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 (the “Act”), authorizes a municipality to appoint an Integrity Commissioner who reports to Council and who is responsible for performing in an independent manner the functions assigned by the municipality; And Whereas Section 223.11 of the Act, authorizes the City of Pickering to appoint a Lobbyist Registrar who is responsible for performing in an independent manner the functions assigned by the City of Pickering with respect to a Lobbyist Registry; And Whereas Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act, authorize the City of Pickering to pass by-laws that are necessary or desirable for municipal purposes, and in particular paragraph 2 of subsection 10(2) authorizes by-laws respecting the accountability and transparency of the municipality and its operations; And Whereas the current contract for Integrity Commissioner and Lobbyist Registrar services for the City of Pickering will expire on November 14, 2026; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. That Boghosian + Allen LLP, is hereby appointed as the Integrity Commissioner and Lobbyist Registrar for the City of Pickering; and, 2. That in accordance with the agreement between Boghosian + Allen LLP, as the City of Pickering’s Integrity Commissioner and Lobbyist Registrar, and the City of Pickering, the following roles and services shall be provided: Role: In accordance with Section 223.3(1) of the Municipal Act, the role of the Integrity Commissioner is: (a) The application of the Code of Conduct for Members of Council and for members of local boards; (b) The application of any procedures, rules and policies of the City and local boards governing the ethical behaviour of Members of Council and local boards; (c) The application of sections 5, 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act to Members of Council and local boards; - 183 - By-law No. "[Click here and type By-law #]" Page 2 (d) Respond to requests from Members of Council and of local boards for advice respecting their obligations under the Code of Conduct applicable to the member; (e) Respond to requests from Members of Council and of local boards for advice respecting their obligations under a procedure, rule or policy of the City or of a local board, governing the ethical behaviour of members; (f) Respond to requests from Members of Council and of local boards for advice respecting their obligations under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act; and, (g) Provide educational information to Members of Council, local boards, the City and the public about the City’s Code of Conduct and the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. Duties: The Integrity Commissioner shall cause to perform, in an independent manner, the functions of an Integrity Commissioner pursuant to Part V.1 of the Municipal Act, with respect to the application of the Code of Conduct for Members of Council and of local boards, of the City of Pickering, including any legislation, procedures, rules and policies of the City governing the ethical behaviour of the Members. The mandate of the Integrity Commissioner includes: (a) Providing advice and education upon request by a Member or by Council or the local board as a whole, regarding ethical obligations and responsibilities under their Code of Conduct, and any other legislation, rules or policies governing their ethical behaviour; (b) Receiving, assessing and investigating where appropriate, complaints may by Council, a Member of Council, a local board, a member of a local board, a member of staff, or a member of the public respecting an alleged breach of the City’s Code of Conduct through the provisions of the Code of Conduct and any Procedures for complaints; (c) Receiving, assessing and conducting an inquiry, where appropriate, with respect to requests for inquiry made by an elector, or a person demonstrably acting in the public interest concerning an alleged contravention of section 5, 5.1, 5.2 or 5.3 of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act; (d) Giving advice on policy issues and the workings of the City’s Integrity Commissioner’s office; and, (e) All advice being provided in writing in accordance with the requirements of Section 223.3(2.2) of the Municipal Act; The Integrity Commissioner shall cause to perform, in an independent manner, the functions of a Lobbyist Registrar in accordance with section 223.11 of the Municipal Act, and By-law 8003/23 which includes but is not limited to: - 184 - By-law No. "[Click here and type By-law #]" Page 3 (a) providing advice, opinions and interpretation pertaining to the administration, application and enforcement of the Lobbyist Registry By-law; (b) conducting inquiries in respect of a request made about compliance with the Lobbyist Registry By-law, which may include requesting that a Public Office Holder gather information concerning Lobbying of themselves and provide that information to Lobbyist Registrar; (c) enforcing the Lobbyist Registry By-law; (d) suspending, revoking or refusing a Registration or Return; (e) advising Council on Lobbying matters and recommending improvements to the Lobbyist Registry By-law; and, (f) providing an annual report to Council and any other reports as the Lobbyist Registrar considers appropriate. Reporting to Council: (a) The Integrity Commissioner will report directly to Pickering City Council with a report containing the results of investigations and one annual report summarizing the year’s activities, observations, and any resulting general recommendations including reporting on matters pertaining to the City’s Lobbyist Registry; and, (b) The Integrity Commissioner may recommend that City Council impose penalties in accordance with the Municipal Act if in the opinion of the Integrity Commissioner, a Member has contravened the Code of Conduct. Other General Provisions: (a) Should the Integrity Commissioner conduct an investigation or provide any other service, it shall do so in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement executed between it and the City of Pickering and shall adhere to all applicable laws, applicable statutes, and established City Policies; and, (b) All services provided by the Integrity Commissioner shall conform to all the statutory requirements of Section 223.3 to 223.12 of the Municipal Act. 3. That By-law 7956/22 be repealed effective November 14, 2026. 4. That this By-law shall come into effect as of November 15, 2026. By-law passed this 22nd day of June, 2026. ________________________________ Kevin Ashe, Mayor - 185 - By-law No. "[Click here and type By-law #]" Page 4 ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 186 - Report to Council Report Number: CS 16-26 Date: June 22, 2026 From: Laura Gibbs Director, Community Services Subject: Licence Agreement for the use of space at Dr. Nelson F. Tomlinson Community Centre Between the City of Pickering and the Claremont Golden Age Seniors Club. File: A-1440-001 Recommendation: 1. That Report CS 16-26 regarding Licence Agreement with Claremont Golden Age Seniors Club for use of the Program Room at Dr. Nelson F. Tomlinson Community Centre be received; 2. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Licence Agreement with the Claremont Golden Age Seniors Club as set out in Attachment 1 to this report, subject to minor revisions acceptable to the Director, Community Services and City Solicitor; and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 1.0 Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to execute the Licence Agreement with the Claremont Golden Age Seniors Club (the “Club”) for a five-year term beginning on July 1, 2026, and ending on June 30, 2031. The City of Pickering is committed to maintaining and strengthening its partnership with the Club and to supporting their contributions to the community by renewing a five-year Licence Agreement. This Agreement will permit the use of a program room within Dr. Nelson F. Tomlinson Community Centre in Claremont for the purpose of operating their Club activities. The Club has operated programs and activities in the program room within Dr Nelson F. Tomlinson to the satisfaction of the City and staff recommend the Licence Agreement set out in Attachment 1 of this report be renewed for another five-year term. - 187 - CS 16-26 June 8, 2026 Page 2 2.0 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; Strengthen Existing & Build New Partnerships; Foster an Engaged & Informed Community. 3.0 Financial Implications: Since the Dr. Nelson F. Tomlinson Community Centre is owned and operated by the City, the maintenance and upkeep of the building is already undertaken by the City. There are no additional costs resulting from the approval of this Licence Agreement. The terms of the licence agreement requires that the Club pay the City $1.00 for the term of the agreement. The Claremont Golden Age Seniors Club generate revenue from activities that occur within the licenced premises. The Club is required to provide a financial summary from their activities to the City by October 1 annually. For the term from August 2024 to August 2025, the Club reported total income of $2,413.25 and expenses totaling $3,327.02. 4.0 Discussion: The purpose of this report is to execute the Licence Agreement with the Club beginning on July 1, 2026, and ending on June 30, 2031. 4.1 Background of the Claremont Golden Age Seniors Club The Claremont Golden Age Seniors Club is a community hub for seniors aged 55+ and has been located at the Dr. Nelson F. Tomlinson Community Centre for over 25 years. The Club focuses on fostering social connection and physical health for older adults in the Durham Region, specifically in Claremont. The Club offers social and recreational opportunities which include card games, arts and crafts, afternoon social teas, potluck lunches and fitness programs. As part of Pickering’s 55+ community network, the Club offers a friendly, local setting for seniors to remain active and engaged in the community and is a key social resource for seniors in Claremont. 4.2 Licence Agreement Staff have consulted with the Club in the preparation of the draft Licence Agreement, and they are agreeable to its terms. The Agreement was reviewed with input from a Solicitor from Corporate Services. - 188 - CS 16-26 June 8, 2026 Page 3 The following notable changes have been made to this agreement: i. Standardized Language: The agreement’s wording has been updated to align with similar licence agreements for consistency; ii. Licence Format: The document now reflects a licence agreement rather than a lease, ensuring accurate representation of space usage; iii. Alcohol Policy Update: References to the City’s Alcohol Management Policy (now the Municipal Alcohol Policy) were removed from the schedule; however, the policy remains applicable; iv. Annual General Meeting: A requirement to hold an Annual General Meeting has been added; v. Termination Notice: The termination notice period has been reduced from six months to three months for either party; vi. Overholding Clause: The overholding provision has been removed; vii. Maintenance Services: Responsibility for general maintenance has been transferred from the Club to the City. The City has been providing this service and will continue to clean and maintain the premises; and, viii. Weather Cancellations: A clause was added allowing the City to cancel operating dates and times due to unsafe weather conditions. Updates to the Licence Agreement continue to provide the same level of access to the premises that the Club had in the previous agreement. The Club is able to adjust their operating hours and activities during the operating hours of the facility (9:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday to Sunday), with notice provided to the City. A request to operate activities outside those hours can be made to the Director. Staff recommend that a Licence Agreement be executed with the Club to permit the operation of their community program within the program room at Dr. Nelson F. Tomlinson as outlined in Attachment 1. The proposed Agreement will be for a term commencing July 1, 2026, and ending on June 30, 2031. Attachments: 1. Claremont Golden Age Seniors Club Licence Agreement 2. Claremont Golden Age Seniors Club Licence Agreement – track changes - 189 - CS 16-26 June 8, 2026 Page 4 Prepared By: Kim Bradley, Special Advisor, Community Initiatives Prepared By: Marilou Murray, Manager, Community Services Administration & Strategic Initiatives Approved/Endorsed By: Laura Gibbs, MBA, MSc., Director, Community Services LG:kb Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 190 - Attachment 1 to Report CS 16-26 Licence Agreement This Licence is made as of the 1st day of July, 2026. Between: The Corporation of the City of Pickering (the "City") -and - Claremont Golden Age Seniors Club (the "Club") Whereas the City is the owner of Dr. Nelson F. Tomlinson Community Centre located at 4941 Old Brock Road, Claremont, ON L1Y 1A9; Whereas the Claremont Golden Age Seniors Club wishes to use the Program Room for the purpose of operating their community program; and, Whereas the City is prepared to grant a licence to the Club to permit non-exclusive use of the Program Room and washrooms located in the Community Centre for such purpose; Now therefore the parties agree as follows: Article I Interpretation Definitions 1.In this Agreement, (a)Commencement Date: July 1, 2026; (b)Licence Agreement: this agreement as it may be amended from time to time; (c)Licence Fee: the fee(s) payable pursuant to Section 21; (d)Premises: the Seniors Club (Program Room) within Dr. Nelson F. Tomlinson Community Centre located at 4941 Old Brock Road, in the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham as Schedule B; (e)Term: the term of this Licence Agreement as set out in Section 19; - 191 - 2 (f) Director: the Director of the Community Services Department or a designate; (g) Community Programs: all activities related to the delivery of the Claremont Golden Age Seniors Club, and the use of all equipment; (h) Club: the Claremont Golden Age Seniors Club is an unincorporated Club it is agreed and understood that when the term “Club” is used in this Agreement it means the unincorporated Club and all its members in their capacity as individuals. Headings 2. The division of this Licence Agreement into articles, sections, subsections and schedules and the insertion of headings are for convenience of reference only and shall not affect the construction or interpretation of this Agreement. Schedule 3. Schedule “A” (Club Program/Activity Schedule) and Schedule “B” (Dr. Nelson F. Tomlinson Community Centre layout – Seniors Club Room) are incorporated into and form part of this Agreement. The Clubs use of the Premises shall be in accordance with Schedules A and B. Severability 4. All of the provisions of this Licence Agreement are to be construed as covenants even where not expressed as such. If any such provision is held to be or rendered invalid, unenforceable or illegal, then it shall be considered separate and severable from this Agreement and the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in force. Number 5. Wherever a word importing the singular number only is used in this Agreement, such word shall include the plural. Words importing either gender or firms or corporations shall include the other gender and individuals, firms or corporation where the context so requires. Governing Law 6. This Agreement shall be governed by, and interpreted and enforced in accordance with, the laws in force in the Province of Ontario. - 192 - 3 Entire Agreement 7. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties concerning the Premises and may only be amended or supplemented by an Agreement in writing signed by both parties. Article II Grant and Use Grant 8. In consideration of the performance by the Club of their obligations under this Agreement, the City is granting a non-exclusive Licence to the Club to use the Premises for the purpose described herein. The Club acknowledges that this Agreement does not create an interest in the Licenced Premises, nor does the Club claim any past or present interest, howsoever arising, as a result of or connected in any way with the use of the Licenced Premises. Club Use of Premises 9. The Premises shall be used only for functions organized by the Club and not by not-for -profit organizations or other organizations pre-approved in writing by the Coty, including charity events or non-commercial receptions and for no other purpose without the prior written consent of the City which consent may be arbitrarily withheld. The Premises shall not be used for the delivery of programs, services, activities or events which are directly or indirectly in competition with those offered by the City of Pickering. 10. The Club is only permitted to use the Premises during the hours of 9:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday to Sunday. Club hours of use are outlined in Schedule A and are attached to this Agreement The Club may alter hours of use with written notice to the City during the operating hours of the facility. Club requests outside of facility operating hours are subject to the approval of the Director. 11. The City reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to alter the operating schedules and the City will not be responsible for any losses or damage including any lost revenues and/or expenses incurred by the Club due to operating schedule changes and/or Premises closure, for any reason whatsoever. Nuisance 12. The Club shall not carry on any activities or do or suffer any act or thing that constitutes a nuisance, or which is offensive or an annoyance to the City. - 193 - 4 City Use of Premises Takes Priority 13. The City shall always have right to use the Premises for its own purposes as required and, in such instances, shall give the Club reasonable notice of its intention to use the Premises to minimize and avoid any scheduling conflicts. The City’s needs shall take priority. The Club shall not be entitled to any rental fees or other remuneration associated with the use of the Premises by the City. The City shall ensure the Premises are cleaned after such use should it occur. Assignment 14. The Club shall not assign this Licence without the prior written consent of the Director, which consent may be arbitrarily withheld. Licences 15. The Club shall hold an Annual General Meeting (AGM) in each calendar year of the Term. 16. The Club may not grant Licences to other third parties to use the Premises. 17. The Club shall submit their annual year-end financial statement and membership list (to include names and municipality of residence) to the City by October 1st of each year of the Term . 18. The Club shall submit an annual calendar of events or Club activities to the City by October 1st of each year of the Term. 19. The Club shall submit a list of the Club Board of Directors to the City by October 1st of each year of the Term. Article III Term Term 20. The term of this Licence Agreement shall be five (5) years from the Commencement Date to June 30, 2031. 21. Notwithstanding anything else contained herein, this Agreement may be terminated by either party for any reason upon three months’ notice to the other in writing. 22. Upon expiry or earlier termination of this Agreement, the Club’s right to use the Premises shall terminate and all the rights of the Club under this Agreement shall - 194 - 5 terminate (but the Club shall, notwithstanding such expiry or termination, be liable to the City for any loss or damage suffered by the City by reason of any default of the Club of its obligations hereunder). 23. If the City terminates this Agreement pursuant to Section 20, the City will not be liable to the Club for any damage or loss occasioned thereby. Article IV Licence Fee Licence Fee 24. The Club shall pay to the City as a Licence Fee for the entire the Term in lawful money of Canada the sum of One (1) Dollar ($1.00). Article V Maintenance, Repairs and Alterations Maintenance of Premises 25. Subject to the obligations of the City pursuant to Sections 27 and 29, the Club shall maintain and operate the Premises so that the Premises shall always be of good appearance and suitable for the proper operation. 26. The Club shall ensure that the emergency exits are kept free from obstruction and debris in the case of a fire. 27. The City shall provide general maintenance services (i.e. cleaning, vacuuming, minor/cosmetic upgrades/supplies) to the Premises at its expense and shall provide all necessary cleaning and maintenance supplies such as cleaning products, related paper products and cleaning equipment. 28. The City, or its designate, shall provide snow removal services for the parking lot, sidewalks, walkways and all other areas of pedestrian passage on the Premises after the end of a snow event; The City reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to cancel any facility operating dates and times due to any emergency, inclement weather, snow accumulation or ice conditions. 29. (1) The City shall be responsible for all inspections and preventative maintenance and replacement at its sole discretion, to with respect to: (a) HVAC equipment; (b) Electrical systems (c) water supply, treatment, and septic systems - 195 - 6 (d) plumbing system and fixtures (e) roofs; (f) exterior cladding; (g) doors and hardware (h) parking lots; and (i) lawn care, landscaping, and pest control. (2) The Club shall be responsible for any damages or costs incurred due to the misuse or negligence of the Club, its employees, invitees, servants, agents, or others under its control and the Club shall pay to the City on demand the expense of any repairs including the City’s reasonable administration charge necessitated by such negligence or misuse. 30. The Club shall immediately notify the City of any unsafe conditions on the Premises. Security 31. The Club shall be responsible for the security of the Premises. The Club will ensure that no copies of the keys to the Premises are made or given to third parties (even temporarily) without the prior written consent of the City. Only Club representatives that have signed for keys with the City, or parties granted written consent by the City, will be authorized to be in possession of keys to the Premises. 32. Any keys provided to the Club must be returned to the City immediately upon request. Alterations/Improvements to Premises 33. The Club shall not make alterations or additions to the Premises without prior written consent of the Director. Any such pre-approved alterations, additions or fixtures shall be at the sole cost and expense of the Club and shall be added to the City’s inventory of fixtures and shall form part of the City’s property. The Club acknowledges that is has no claim to any such alteration, addition, or fixture upon termination of this Agreement. Article VI Insurance and Indemnity Insurance 34. The Club, at its sole cost and expense, shall take out and keep in full force and effect throughout the Term: - 196 - 7 (a) insurance upon property owned by it which is located on the Premises; and, (b) commercial general liability insurance pertaining to the Club's liability to others in respect of injury, death or damage to property occurring upon, in or about the Premises,. Such insurance to be of an amount not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) for claims per occurrence. Such policy shall also name the City as an additional named insured, shall contain a cross-liability clause and may not be cancelled unless prior notice by registered letter has been given to the City by the insurer 30 days in advance of the expiry date. 35. Prior to the Commencement Date, the Club shall file with the City a Certificate of Insurance in a form satisfactory to the City Treasurer, verifying that the commercial general liability insurance policy is in effect and setting out the essential terms and conditions of the insurance. 36. The provision of the insurance policy required by this section shall not relieve the Club from liability for claims not covered by the policy or which exceed its limits, if any, for which the Club may be held responsible. 37. The Club is responsible for insuring all of its own property including any property owned by any other party and which is brought to the Premises. 38. The Club shall not do, omit to do, or permit anything to be done that causes any insurance premium of the City to be increased, and if any insurance premium shall be so increased, the Club shall pay to the City forthwith upon demand the amount of such increase. If notice of cancellation or lapse shall be given respecting any insurance policy of the City or if any insurance policy shall be cancelled or refused to be renewed by the insurer by reason of the use of occupation of the Premises, the Club shall forthwith remedy or rectify such use or occupation upon being required to do so in writing by the City and if the Club shall fail to do so the City may, at its option, terminate this Agreement forthwith by notice to the Club and the Club shall immediately vacate the Premises. Liability and Indemnification 39. The Club shall indemnify, defend and and save harmless the City, its directors, officers, employees, elected officials, agents, contractors and representatives from and against any and all actions, losses, damages, claims, costs and expenses (including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing all claims for personal injury, death, and/or property damage and also damages arising from an breach of this Agreement by the Club or from any act or omission of the Club or those for whom the Club is at law responsible) in or around the Premises arising from the Club’s use and occupation of the Premises pursuant to this - 197 - 8 Agreement. This provision shall survive the expiration of earlier termination of this Agreement. The City shall not be liable for any loss or damage to any property belonging to the Club or to any persons or for any injury or death to any person while such person or property is on the Premises, unless such loss, damage or injury is caused directly by the wilful misconduct or negligence of the City, or those for whom the City is at law responsible. This provision shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement.) Article VII Remedies on Default City's Right to Re-Enter 40. The City reserves the right to re-enter the Premises at any time for any reason without notice. The City will provide reasonable notice if it deems practical to do so based on its sole discretion. City's Right to Remedy Default 41. In addition to all other remedies the City may have under this Agreement and in law, if the Club is in default of any of its obligations under this Agreement, and such default has continued for a period of ten (10) days after receipt of notice by the Club (or such longer period as the City deems may be reasonably required in the circumstances to cure such default, except in an emergency where the City will not be required to give notice), the City, without prejudice to any other rights which it may have with respect to such default, may remedy such default and the Club shall be responsible for all such costs. Waiver 42. No condoning, excusing or overlooking by the City of any default, breach or non-observance by the Club at any time or times in respect of any covenant, obligation or agreement under this Agreement shall operate as a waiver of the City’s rights hereunder in respect of any continuing or subsequent default, breach or non-observance, or so as to defeat or affect in any way the rights of the City in respect of any such continuing or subsequent default or breach, and no waiver shall be inferred from or implied by anything done or omitted by the Club save only an express waiver in writing. - 198 - 9 Article VIII General Operations Signs 43. The Club shall not exhibit or allow to be exhibited on the exterior of the Premises any sign, notice, noticeboard, painting, design or advertisement without the prior written consent of the City. Internal signs can be erected within the Premises that include notices, program information, and advertising that relate to the programs and services offered by the Club. All such signs shall be removed from the Premises at the end of the Term. Compliance with Laws 44. The Club, at its sole cost and expense, shall comply with all legal requirements (including statutes, laws, by-laws, regulations, ordinances, orders, rules and regulations of every governmental authority having jurisdiction) that relate to the use of the Premises by the Club or the making of any improvements to the Premises by the Club. 45. This Agreement shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties and their respective successors (including any successor by reason of amalgamation or statutory arrangement) and permitted assigns. 46. The Club hereby agrees to keep the title to the Premises, including every part thereof, free and clear of any lien, encumbrance or security interest or notice thereof. The Club shall not enter into any agreements for the Premises which would run with the Premises and become an obligation of the City upon termination or expiration of this Agreement General 48. (1) The Club shall, (a) operate the Club on the days outlined in Schedule A of this Agreement; (b) be responsible for all day-to-day operating expenses and program related equipment and supplies (c) obtain all necessary licenses and approvals that may be required in connection with the operation of the Club’s programs; (d) ensure that games of chance, lottery, or gambling in any form, contrary to law is strictly forbidden; and, - 199 - 10 (e) maintain the Premises in a clean, sanitary and attractive condition satisfactory to the City throughout the Term and, at the end of the Term, repair or replace any damage to the Premises and save and except reasonable wear and tear, at its sole cost and expense. The Club shall leave the Premises in the same state in which they were at the commencement of the Term. (2) The City shall provide, (a) all necessary electrical power, heat and other utilities; and (b) The City assumes no responsibility to the Club and shall not be liable for any loss or damage incurred by the Club arising from temporary or unavoidable interruption of the supply of electrical power, heat, or other utilities due to any cause whatsoever. The City shall use reasonable diligence to restore any such services whenever they are interrupted. 50. The City shall not be liable for any damages caused by any delay or failure to perform the whole or any part of this Agreement, where such performance is made impossible or impractical due to any cause direct or indirect, beyond the control of the City, including, but not limited to, labour disruptions, strikes, lockouts, fire, flood, storms, acts of nature, natural disasters, acts of war, insurrection and terrorism, outbreak, pandemic, epidemic, disease or emergency. 51. The Club shall not have the right to register this Agreement or notice thereof against title to the Premises or any part thereof. 52. This Licence and any information or documents that are provided hereunder may be released pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.M.56, as amended. This acknowledgement shall not be construed as a waiver of any right to object to the release of this Licence or of any information or documents. 53. The Club covenants and agrees to advise all members of the Club that the City is not the provider of the program and that all associated activities are provided solely by the Club. - 200 - 11 Notice 54. Any notice to the City under the Licence shall be in writing and shall be delivered to the following address: Pickering Civic Complex One the Esplanade Pickering, Ontario, L1V 6K7 Attention: City Clerk 55. Any notice of the Club under this Licence shall be in writing and shall be delivered to the following address: Claremont Golden Age Seniors Club 1761 Joseph Street Pickering, Ontario, L1Y 1B5 Attention: Club President 56. Notice shall be sufficiently given if delivered in person or sent by registered mail during normal business hours on a business day. 57. Each notice sent shall be deemed to have been received on the day it was delivered or on the third (3rd) business day after it was mailed. 58. The parties may change their address for notice by giving notice to the other in the manner provided in this Section. 59. No amendment to this Licence shall be effective unless it is in writing and signed by both parties, except for the hours outlined in Schedule A which may be altered at any time as per clause 10. - 201 - 12 In Witness Whereof the parties have executed this Licence Agreement as of the date first written. The Corporation of the City of Pickering ________________________________ Kevin Ashe, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk Claremont Golden Age Seniors Club ________________________________ Barbara Twiner, President I have the authority to bind the Club and am also signing in my personal capacity. ________________________________ Linda Lusted, Treasurer I have the authority to bind the Club and am also signing in my personal capacity. - 202 - Attachment 2 to Report CS 16-26 Lease Licence Agreement This Lease Licence is made as of the 1st day of July, 20216. Between: Formatted: Not Highlight Formatted: English (United States) The Corporation of the City of Pickering (the "City") - and - Claremont Golden Age Seniors Club (the "Club") Whereas the City is the owner of Dr. Nelson F. Tomlinson Community Centre located at 4941 Old Brock Road, Claremont, ON L1Y 1A9; Whereas the Claremont Golden Age Seniors Club wishes to use the Program Room for the purpose of operating their community program; and, Whereas the City is prepared to grant a licence to the Club to permit non-exclusive use of the Program Room and washrooms located in the Community Centre for such purpose; Now therefore the parties agree as follows: Article I Interpretation Definitions 1. In this LeaseAgreement, (a) "Commencement Date": means July 1, 20216; (b) "LeaseLicence Agreement": means this lease agreement as it may be amended from time to time; Formatted: English (United States) Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Not Highlight Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering, Tab stops: Not at -1"(b)(c) Licence Fee: the fee(s) payable pursuant to Section 21; Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Font: Bold (c) "Premises": means that portion of thethe Seniors Club (Program Room) within Claremont Community CentreDr. Nelson F. Tomlinson Community Centre located at 4941 Old Brock Road, in the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham as Schedule B; considered to be the Claremont Seniors Centre composed of the first floor seniors activity room and - 203 - 2 storage room therein as shown on Schedule “A” attached hereto, located at 4941 Old Brock Road, in the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham; Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.5", Numbered + Level: 2 + (d) (d) "Rent" means the rent payable pursuant to Section 21; and (e) "Term": means the term of this Lease Licence Agreement as set out in Section 189; Numbering Style: a, b, c, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.75" + Tab after: 1" + Indent at: 1" Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering, Tab stops: Not at -1" Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering, Tab stops: Not at -1" Formatted: Font: Bold (f) Director: .the Director of the Community Services Department or a designate; (g) Community Programs: all activities related to the delivery of the Claremont Golden Age Seniors Club, and the use of all equipment; (e)(h) Club: the Claremont Golden Age Seniors Club is an unincorporated Club it is agreed and understood that when the term “Club” is used in this Agreement it means the unincorporated Club and all its members in their capacity as individuals. Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering, Tab stops: Not at -1" Formatted: Font: Bold Headings 2. The division of this Lease Licence Agreement into articles, sections, subsections and schedules and the insertion of headings are for convenience of reference only and shall not affect the construction or interpretation of this LeaseAgreement. Schedule 3. Schedule “AB” (City’s Alcohol Management PolicyClub Program/Activity Schedule) and Schedule “BC” (City’s Conditions of AgreementDr. Nelson F. Tomlinson Community Centre layout – Seniors Club Room) are incorporated into and form part of this LeaseAgreement. The Clubs use of the Premises shall be in accordance with Schedules A and B. Severability 4. All of the provisions of this Lease Licence Agreement are to be construed as covenants even where not expressed as such. If any such provision is held to be or rendered invalid, unenforceable or illegal, then it shall be considered separate and severable from this Lease Agreement and the remaining provisions of this Lease Agreement shall remain in force. Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left - 204 - 3 Number 5. Wherever a word importing the singular number only is used in this LeaseAgreement, such word shall include the plural. Words importing either gender or firms or corporations shall include the other gender and individuals, firms or corporation where the context so requires. Governing Law 6. This Lease Agreement shall be governed by, and interpreted and enforced in accordance with, the laws in force in the Province of Ontario. Entire Agreement 7. This Lease Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties concerning the Premises and may only be amended or supplemented by an aAgreement in writing signed by both parties and is a renewal of lease agreement for which the previous term was from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2021. Article II Grant and Use Grant 8. In consideration of the performance by the Club of its their obligations under this LeaseAgreement, the City leases is granting a non-exclusive Licence the Premises to the Club to use the Premises for the purpose described herein. The Club acknowledges that this Agreement does not create an interest in the Licenced Premises, nor does the Club claim any past or present interest, howsoever arising, as a result of or connected in any way with the use of the Licenced Premises for its use during the Term. Club Use of Premises 9. The Premises shall be used only for non-profit functions organized by the Club and not by not-for-profit organizations or other organizations pre-approved in writing by the Coty, including, charity events or non-commercial receptions of the Club at its expense and for no other purpose without the prior written consent of the City which consent may be arbitrarily withheld. The Premises shall not be used for the delivery of programs, services, activities or events which are directly or indirectly in competition with those offered by the City of Pickering.. 10. The Club’s is only permitted to use of the Premises during the hours of 9:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday to Sunday. Club hours of use are outlined in Schedule A and are attached to this Agreement shall be in accordance with the City’s Alcohol Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left - 205 - 4 Management Policy (Schedule “B”) and Conditions of Agreement (Schedule “C”). The Club may alter hours of use with written notice to the City during the operating hours of the facility. Club requests outside of facility operating hours are subject to the approval of the Director, or a designate. Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering, Tab stops: Not at 0.75"10.11. The City reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to alter the operating schedules and the City will not be responsible for any losses or damage including any lost revenues and/or expenses incurred by the Club due to operating schedule changes and/or Premises closure, for any reason whatsoever. Nuisance 11.12.The Club shall not carry on any activities or do or suffer any act or thing that constitutes a nuisance, or which is offensive or an annoyance to the City. City Use of Premises Takes Priority 12.13.Subject to section 9, tThe City shall always have right of first refusal to use the Premises for its own purposes as required and, in such instancesinstances, shall give the Club reasonable notice of its intention to use the Premises to minimize and avoid any scheduling conflicts. The City’s needs shall take priority. The Club shall not be entitled to any rental fees or other remuneration associated with the use of the Premises by the City. The City shall ensure the Premises are cleaned after such use should it occur. Assignment and Subletting 13.14.The Club shall not assign this Lease Licence or sublet all or any portion of the Premises without the prior written consent of the CityDirector, which consent may be arbitrarily withheld. Licences 15. The Club shall hold an Annual General Meeting (AGM) in each calendar year of the Term. 14.16.The Club may not grant Llicences to other third parties to use the Premises. 15.17.The Club shall submit their annual year endyear-end financial statement and membership list (to include names and municipality of residence) to the City by October 1st of each year of the Term. 16.18.The Club shall submit an annual calendar of events or Club activities to the City by December October 1st of the previouseach year of the Term. Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", No bullets or numbering Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left - 206 - 5 17.19.The Club shall submit a list of the Club Board of Directors to the City by October 1st of each year of the Term. Article III Term Term 20. The term of this Lease Licence Agreement shall be five (5) years from the Commencement Date to June 30, 203126. 21. Notwithstanding anything else contained herein, this Agreement may be terminated by either party for any reason upon three months’ notice to the other in writing. 18.22. Upon expiry or earlier termination of this Agreement, the Club’s right to use the Premises shall terminate and all the rights of the Club under this Agreement shall terminate (but the Club shall, notwithstanding such expiry or termination, be liable to the City for any loss or damage suffered by the City by reason of any default of the Club of its obligations hereunder). Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", No bullets or numbering Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left Formatted: French (France) Formatted: French (France) Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left 19.23. The City may terminate this Lease at any time for any reason provided it has given the Club six (6) months prior noticeIf the City terminates this Agreement pursuant to Section 20, the City will not be liable to the Club for any damage or loss occasioned thereby. Overholding 20. If the Club remains in possession of the Premises after the expiry of the Term, there shall be no tacit renewal of this Lease or the Term, notwithstanding statutory provisions or legal presumption to the contrary, and the Club shall be deemed to be occupying the Premises from month to month upon the same terms, covenants and conditions as are set forth in this Lease insofar as they are applicable to a monthly tenancy. Article IV RentLicence Fee RentLicence Fee 21.24.The Club shall pay to the City as rent a Licence Fee for the entire the Term in lawful money of Canada the sum of One (1) Dollar ($1.00). - 207 - 6 Gross Lease 22. The City acknowledges that this is a gross lease and agrees to pay all charges, impositions and outlays of every nature and kind relating to the Premises except as expressly set out in this Lease. Article V Maintenance, Repairs and Alterations Maintenance of Premises 25. Subject to the oblifagationsobligations of the City pursuant to Sections 27 and 29(1), Tthe Club shall maintain and operate the Premises so that they the Premises shall always be of good appearance and suitable for the proper operation of the Premises. 23.26. The Club shall ensure that the emergency exits are kept free from obstruction and debris in the case of a fire. 24. The Club CituCity shall provide general maintenance services (i.e. cleaning, vacuuming, minor/cosmetic upgrades/supplies) to the Premises at its expense and shall provide all necessary cleaning and maintenance supplies such as cleaning products, related paper products and cleaning equipment. Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left Formatted: English (United Kingdom) Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", No bullets or numbering Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Numbered + Level: 1 + 25.27.The City, or its designate, shall be responsible for all day-to-day operating expenses including garbage removal and furniture/appliance life cycle replacement. The Club shall not be responsible for utilities. 26.28.The City, or its designate, shall provide snow removal services for the parking lot, sidewalks, walkways and all other areas of pedestrian passage on the Premises after the end of a snow event; The City reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to cancel any facility operating dates and times due to any emergency, inclement weather, snow accumulation or ice conditions. 29. (1) Subject to subsection (2), tThe City shall be responsible for all inspections and preventative maintenance and replacement at its sole discretion, to wwithwith respect to: (a) the heatingHVAC equipment;, Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering, Tab stops: Not at 0.5" Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Tab after: 0.75" + Indent at: 0.75", Tab stops: 0.5", Left + Not at 0.75" Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left (b) Electrical systems (c) water supply, treatment, and septic systems (d) plumbing system and fixtures (e) roofs; (f) exterior cladding; (g) doors and hardware Formatted: Indent: First line: 0" - 208 - 7 (h) parking lots; and (i) lawn care, landscaping, and pest controltransformer, parking lot, lights and exterior grass cutting and landscaping. 27. (2) The Club shall be responsible for any damages or costs incurred due to the misuse or negligence of the Club, its employees, invitees, servants, agents, or others under its control and the Club shall pay to the City on demand the expense of any repairs including the City’s reasonable administration charge necessitated by such negligence or misuse. 28.30.The Club shall immediately notify the City of any unsafe conditions on the Premises. Security 31. The Club shall be responsible for the security of the Premises. The Club will ensure that no copies of the keys to the Premises are made or given to third parties (even temporarily) without the prior written consent of the City. Only Club representatives that have signed for keys with the City, or parties granted written consent by the City, will be authorized to be in possession of keys to the Premises. 29.32. Any keys provided to the Club must be returned to the City immediately upon request. Alterations/Improvements to Premises 30.33. The Club shall only be permitted tonot make alterations or additions to the Premises without prior written consent of the City’s Director, Community Services or a designate. Any such pre-approved alterations, additions or fixtures shall be at the sole cost and expense of the Club and shall be added to the City’s inventory of fixtures and shall form part of the City’s property. The Club acknowledges that is has no claim to any such alteration, addition, or fixture upon termination of this Agreement.and improvements to the Premises that have been approved by the City. Article VI Insurance and Indemnity Club's Insurance 31.34.The Club, at its sole cost and expense, shall take out and keep in full force and effect throughout the Term maintain:, Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", No bullets or numbering Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left Formatted: English (United Kingdom) Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", No bullets or numbering Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left - 209 - 8 (a) insurance upon property owned by it which is located on the Premises; and, (b) commercial general liability insurance pertaining to the Club's liability to others in respect of injury, death or damage to property occurring upon, in or about the Premises, and includes coverage for abuse insuranceand tenants legal liability. Such insurance to be of an amount which is reasonable and sufficient having regard to the scope of the risk and the current practice of prudent owners of similar premises for the carrying on of similar businesses, but in any event in an amount not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) for claims arising out of oneper occurrence. Such policy shall also name the City as an additional named insured, shall contain a cross liabilitycross-liability clause and may not be cancelled unless prior notice by registered letter has been given to the City by the insurer 30 days in advance of the expiry date. 32.35.Prior to the Commencement Date, the Club shall file with the City a Certificate of Insurance in a form satisfactory to the City Treasurer, verifying that the commercial general liability insurance policy is in effect and setting out the essential terms and conditions of the insurance. 36. The provision of the insurance policy required by this section shall not relieve the Club from liability for claims not covered by the policy or which exceed its limits, if any, for which the Club may be held responsible. 33.37. The Club is responsible for insuring all of its own property including any property owned by any other party and which is brought to the Premises. Insurance Risks Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left Formatted: English (United Kingdom) Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left 34.38. The Club shall not do, omit to do, or permit anything to be done or omitted to be done upon ththat causes Premises anything that may contravene or be prohibited by any of the City's insurance policies in force from time to time covering or relevant to any part of the Premises or which would prevent the City from procuring its policies with companies acceptable to the City. If the conduct of business in the Premises or any acts or omissions of the Club on the Premises causes or results in any insuranceincrease in premiums for any of the City to be increased, and if any insurance premium shall be so increased, the Club shall pay to the City forthwith upon demand the amount of such increase. If notice of cancellation or lapse shall be given respecting any insurance policy of the City or if any insurance policy shall be cancelled or refused to be renewed by the insurer by reason of the use of occupation of the Premises, the Club shall forthwith remedy or rectify such use or occupation upon being required to do so in writing by the City and if the Club shall fail to do so the City may, at its option, terminate this Agreement forthwith by notice to the Club and the Club shall immediately - 210 - 9 vacate the Premises's insurance policies, the Club shall pay such increase to the City. Liability and Indemnification 39. Each of the City and Tthe Club shall indemnify, defend and and save harmless the other City, its directors, officers, employees, elected officials, agents, contractors and representatives from and against any and all actions, losses, damages, claims, costs and expenses (including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing all claims for personal injury, death, and/or property damage and also damages arising from an breach of this Agreement by the Club or from any act or omission of the Club or those for whom the Club is at law responsible) in or around the Premises arising from the Club’s use and occupation of the Premises pursuant to this Agreement. This provision shall survive the expiration of earlier termination of this Agreement. Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", No bullets or numbering The City shall not be liable for any loss or damage to any property belonging to the Club or to any persons or for any injury or death to any person while such personsuch person or property is on the Premises, unless such loss, damage or injury is caused directly buby the wilful misconduct or negligence of the City, or those for whom the City is at law responsible. This provision shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement.solicitors' fees on a solicitor and client basis) to which the party being indemnified shall or may become liable by reason of any breach, violation or non-performance by the party so indemnifying of any covenant, term or provision of this Lease or by reason of any damage, injury or death occasioned to or suffered by any person or persons including the City or the Club, as the case may be, or any property by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the party so indemnifying or any of those persons for whom it is in law responsible. For greater certainty, the limitation of liability set out above in this section does not extend to claims, losses or damages resulting in whole or in part from the gross negligence or wilful misconduct of the party claiming indemnification, its employees or those for whom it is in law responsible. Article VII Remedies on Default City's Right to Re-Enter 40. If any amount payable to tThe City under this Lease shall remain unpaid for fifteen (15) days after the Club has received notice thereof, then it shall be lawful for the City at any time thereafter to re-enter the Premises.reserves the right to re-enter the Premises at any time for any reason without notice. The City will Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5" Formatted: No bullets or numbering Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", Tab stops: Not at 3.25" Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left - 211 - 10 provide reasonable notice if it deems practical to do so based on its sole discretion. 35. City's Right to Remedy Default 36.41. In addition to all other remedies the City may have under this Lease Agreement and in law, if the Club is in default of any of its obligations under this LeaseAgreement, and such default has continued for a period of ten (10) days after receipt of notice by the Club (or such longer period as may be reasonablythe City deems may be reasonably required in the circumstances to cure such default, except in an emergency where the City will not be required to give notice), the City, without prejudice to any other rights which it may have with respect to such default, may remedy such default and the Club shall be responsible for all such costs. Waiver Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", No bullets or numbering Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left 37.42. No condoning, excusing or overlooking by the City of any default, breach or non-observance by the Club at any time or times in respect of any covenant, obligation or agreement under this Lease Agreement shall operate as a waiver of the City’s rights hereunder in respect of any continuing or subsequent default, breach or non-observance, or so as to defeat or affect in any way the rights of the City in respect of any such continuing or subsequent default or breach, and no waiver shall be inferred from or implied by anything done or omitted by the Club save only an express waiver in writing. Article VIII MiscellaneousGeneral Operations Quiet Enjoyment 38. The City shall permit the Club to peaceably possess and enjoy the Premises during the Term without any interference from the City, or any person lawfully claiming by, from or under the City provided the Club is not in default. Right of Entry 39. The Club agrees to permit the City and authorized representatives of the City to enter the Premises during normal business hours for the purpose of inspecting the Premises. The City shall use its best efforts to minimize the disruption to the Club's use of the Premises during any such entry. Signs - 212 - 11 43. The Club shall not exhibit or allow to be exhibited oan the exterior of the Premises any sign, notice, noticeboard, painting, design or advertisement without the prior written consent of the City. Internal signs can be erected within the Premises that include notices, program information, and advertising that relate to the programs and services offered by the Club. All such signs shall be removed from the Premises at the end of the Term. 40. The Club may only erect signs on the Premises with the City’s prior approval. All such signs shall be removed from the Premises at the end of the Term. Compliance with Laws 41.44.The Club, at its sole cost and expense, shall comply with all legal requirements (including statutes, laws, by-laws, regulations, ordinances, orders, rules and regulations of every governmental authority having jurisdiction) that relate to the use of the Premises by the Club or the making of any improvements to the Premises by the Club. Notice Any notice required to be given by the City to the Club under this Lease shall be in writing and shall be delivered to the Premises or such other address of which the Club has notified the City in writing, and any such notice delivered shall be deemed good and sufficient notice under the terms of this Lease. 45. This Agreement shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties and their respective successors (including any successor by reason of amalgamation or statutory arrangement) and permitted assigns. 42. 46. Any notice required to be given by tThe Club hereby agrees to keep the title to the Premises, including every part thereof, free and clear of any lien, encumbrance or security interest or notice thereof. The Club shall not enter into any agreements for the Premises which would run with the Premises and become an obligation of the City upon termination or expiration of this Agreement 43. the City under this Lease shall be in writing and shall be delivered to The Corporation of the City of Pickering, Pickering Civic Complex, One The Esplanade, Pickering, Ontario (Attention: City Clerk) or such other address of which the City has notified the Club in writing, and any such notice delivered shall be deemed good and sufficient notice under the terms of this Lease. Successors and Assigns Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.75", Tab stops: 0.5", List tab + Not at 0.75" Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", No bullets or numbering Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", No bullets or numbering Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", No bullets or numbering Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left Formatted: Don't hyphenate, Tab stops: -0.5", Left Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering - 213 - 12 44. This Lease shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties and their respective successors (including any successor by reason of amalgamation or statutory arrangement) and permitted assigns. General 498. (1) The Club shall, Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Font: Not Bold (a) operate the Club on the days outlined in Schedule A of this Agreement; (b) be responsible for all day-to-day operating expenses and program related equipment and supplies (c) obtain all necessary licenses and approvals that may be required in connection with the operation of the Club’s programs; (d) ensure that games of chance, lottery, or gambling in any formsform, contrary to law is strictly forbidden; and, (e) maintain the Premises in a clean, sanitary and attractive condition satisfactory to the City throughout the Term and, at the end of the Term, repair or replace any damage to the Premises and save and except reasonable wear and tear, at its sole cost and expense. The Club shall leave the Premises in the same state in which they were at the commencement of the Term. (2) The City shall provide, (a) all necessary electrical power, heat and other utilities; and (b) The City assumes no responsibility to the Club and shall not be liable for any loss or damage incurred by the Club arising from temporary or unavoidable interruption of the supply of electrical power, heat, or other utilities due to any cause whatsoever. The City shall use reasonable diligence to restore any such services whenever therethey are interrupted. 50. The City shall not be liable for any damages caused by any delay or failure to perform perform the whole or any part of this Agreement, where such performance is made impossible or impractical due to any cause direct or indirect, beyond the control of the City, including, but not limited to, labour disruptions, strikes, lockouts, fire, flood, storms, acts of nature, natural disasters, acts of war, insurrection and terrorism, Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", Hanging: 0.5", Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: a, b, c, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 1" + Indent at: 1.25" Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", Hanging: 0.5" Formatted: List Paragraph, Line spacing: single, No bullets or numbering, Tab stops: Not at 0.5" + 1" + 1.5" + 2" + 7.38" Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", Hanging: 0.5" Formatted: List Paragraph, Line spacing: single, No bullets or numbering, Tab stops: Not at 0.5" + 1" + 1.5" + 2" + 7.38" Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", Hanging: 0.5" Formatted: List Paragraph, Line spacing: single, No bullets or numbering, Tab stops: Not at 0.5" + 1" + 1.5" + 2" + 7.38" Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", Hanging: 0.5" Formatted: List Paragraph, Line spacing: single, No bullets or numbering, Tab stops: Not at 0.5" + 1" + 1.5" + 2" + 7.38" Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5" Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.25", No bullets or numbering Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", Hanging: 0.5" Formatted: List Paragraph, Line spacing: single, No bullets or numbering, Tab stops: Not at 0.5" + 1" + 1.5" + 2" + 7.38" Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.06", Hanging: 0.5", Tab stops: 0.56", Left Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.5" - 214 - 13 outbreak, pandemic, epidemic, disease or emergency. 51. The Club shall not have the right to register this Agreement or notice thereof against title to the Premises or any part thereof. 52. This Licence and any information or documents that are provided hereunder may be released pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.M.56, as amended. This acknowledgement shall not be construed as a waiver of any right to object to the release of this Licence or of any information or documents. 53. The Club covenants and agrees to advise all members of the Club that the City is not the provider of the program and that all associated activities are provided solely by the Club. Notice 54. Any notice to the City under the Licence shall be in writing and shall be delivered to the following address: Pickering Civic Complex One the Esplanade Pickering, Ontario, L1V 6K7 Attention: City Clerk 55. Any notice of the Club under this Licence shall be in writing and shall be delivered to the following address: Claremont Golden Age Seniors Club 1761 Joseph Street Pickering, Ontario, L1Y 1B5 Attention: Club President Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.5" Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.5", Tab stops: 0.25", Left + 0.63", Left Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5" Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.5" Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5" Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.5", Tab stops: Not at 1" Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5" - 215 - ________________________________ ________________________________ 14 56. Notice shall be sufficiently given if delivered in person or sent by registered mail during normal business hours on a business day. 57. Each notice sent shall be deemed to have been received on the day it was delivered or on the third (3rd) business day after it was mailed. 58. The parties may change their address for notice by giving notice to the other in the manner provided in this Section. 59. No amendment to this Licence shall be effective unless it is in writing and signed by both parties, except for the hours outlined in Schedule A which may be altered at any time as per clause 10. Schedules 45. Schedules “A”, “B” and “C” attached hereto form part of this Agreement. In Witness Whereof the parties have executed this LeaseLicence Agreement as of the date first written. The Corporation of the City of Pickering David RyanKevin Ashe, Mayor Debbie ShieldsSusan Cassel, City Clerk Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.5" Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.5" Formatted: Superscript Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.5" Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.5" Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0" Formatted: Indent: First line: 0" Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Indent: Left: 3.5", First line: 0" - 216 - ________________________________ ________________________________ 15 Claremont Golden Age Seniors Club Linda LustedBarbara Twiner, President I have the authority to bind the Club and am also signing in my personal capacity. Barb TranLinda Lusted, Treasurer I have the authority to bind the Club and am also signing in my personal capacity. Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Indent: Left: 3.5" - 217 - Report to Council Report Number: CS 17-26 Date: June 22, 2026 From: Laura Gibbs Director, Community Services Subject: Memorial Plaque in Honour of Steve Sattz at Lynn Heights Park Update to Resolution #1009/26 File: A-1440-001 Recommendation: 1. That Report CS 17-26 regarding the memorial plaque in honour of Steve Sattz at Lynn Heights Park be received; 2. That staff be directed to install a commemorative bench at Lynn Heights Park in commemoration of Steve Sattz; and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 1.0 Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to provide an update on Resolution #1009/26 regarding the request from the Lynn Heights Neighbourhood Association to install a permanent memorial plaque in honour of Steve Sattz. At the Council Meeting on May 25, 2026, Council received Corr. 11-26 (Attachment 1) from John Meloche, Co-Founder & President, Lynn Heights Neighbourhood Association, regarding a request for permission to install a permanent memorial plaque in honour of Steve Sattz at Lynn Heights Park. Council directed staff to undertake an evaluation of installing a commemorative plaque or otherwise, recognizing Steve Sattz at Lynn Heights Park and report back to Council with recommendations no later than June 22, 2026. Staff have undertaken an evaluation and recommend that a commemorative bench be installed at Lynn Heights Park in commemoration of Steve Sattz. - 218 - CS 17-26 June 22, 2026 Page 2 2.0 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. 3.0 Financial Implications: The family of Steve Sattz will cover the costs of the commemorative bench which is $3,740.00 There are no financial implications associated with the recommendations of this report. 4.0 Discussion: The purpose of this report is to provide an update on Resolution #1009/26 regarding the request to install a Permanent Memorial Plaque in Honour of Steve Sattz at Lynn Heights Park. For nearly four decades, Steve has been part of the fabric of Lynn Heights. He knew the people, the streets, the stories, and the spirit of this neighbourhood. He believed deeply in bringing neighbours together, making people feel welcome, and ensuring that the community had a strong and united voice. Whether through everyday conversations, advocacy, helping residents feel heard, or supporting improvements such as winter access and care for Lynn Heights Park, Steve gave his time and energy freely because he loved the neighborhood. John Meloche, Co-Founder & President, Lynn Heights Neighbourhood Association submitted a letter to the City dated May 14, 2026 with a request that the City install a modest commemorative plaque or marker in Lynn Heights Park that honours contributions of Steve Sattz. 4.1 Commemorative Bench The City offers a commemorative tree and bench program for residents to pay tribute to loved ones by purchasing a bench or tree for installation in a public park or open space. The program is temporarily on-hold due to high demand and material shortages. Demand for benches is largely in parks along the waterfront which have been impacted by construction activity. The established fees for a tree memorial are $1,335.00 and $3,740.00 for a bench. Staff met with John Meloche and Pam Sattz at Lynn Heights Park on Friday, June 5. In discussions with John, it was agreed that a commemorative bench would be an appropriate commemoration to Steve and will serve to benefit the community’s use of the park. With the assistance of staff, Pam identified a location for the bench. Lynn Heights Park only has two benches that are located next to the playground. The placement of a bench further along the path will allow for residents to enjoy views into the forested area under the shade of a mature tree. - 219 - CS 17-26 June 22, 2026 Page 3 4.2 Timeline and Process The delivery timelines for benches can be up to eight weeks, and bench placement requires the installation of a concrete pad as a base. The commemorative bench is anticipated to be installed in late summer, 2026. Staff will follow up with Pam Sattz to confirm the wording of the plaque to be affixed to the bench. City staff will also coordinate a neighbourhood unveiling of the bench with the Lynn Heights Neighbourhood Association. This event is planned for September, date and time will be confirmed with the Association and Pam Sattz. Attachments: 1. Corr. 11-26 2. Resolution #1009/26 Prepared By: Dan Finn, Manager, Parks & Property, City Infrastructure Prepared/Approved/Endorsed By: Laura Gibbs, MBA, MSc., Director, Community Services Approved/Endorsed By: Kevin Heathcote, P.Eng., Director, City Infrastructure LG:df Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 220 - From: Lynn Heights Neighbourhood Association <info@lynnheights.com> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2026 12:41 AM To: Clerks Web Email <clerks@pickering.ca> Subject: Request for Permission to Install a Permanent Memorial Plaque in Honour of Steve Sattz at Lynn Heights Park A Lasting Tribute to a Neighbour Who Helped Build Our Community Dear Mayor Ashe, Members of Council, and City of Pickering Staff, On behalf of the Lynn Heights Neighbourhood Association, the residents of our community and the Sattz family, I am writing with a heartfelt request for the City of Pickering’s consideration and support to place a small, permanent memorial in Lynn Heights Neighbourhood Park in honour of the late Steve Sattz. Steve was more than a neighbour. He was a friend, a community builder, and one of the founding voices behind the Lynn Heights Neighbourhood Association. Steve helped turn a simple idea into a real neighbourhood movement — one rooted in connection, care, communication, and pride in the place we call home. For nearly four decades, Steve was part of the fabric of Lynn Heights. He knew the people, the streets, the stories, and the spirit of this neighbourhood. He believed deeply in bringing neighbours together, making people feel welcome, and ensuring that our community had a strong and united voice. Whether through everyday conversations, advocacy, helping residents feel heard, or supporting Attachment 1 to Report CS 17-26 Corr. 11-26 - 221 - improvements such as winter access and care for Lynn Heights Park, Steve gave his time and energy freely because he loved this neighborhood. His passing has left a deep sadness in our community, but also a strong desire to ensure that his legacy is remembered in a dignified and lasting way. We are respectfully asking the City of Pickering to consider authorizing a small, discreet, City-approved commemorative plaque or marker in Lynn Heights Park, installed by the City or under City direction, in accordance with all applicable by- laws, policies, permit requirements, maintenance standards, safety considerations, and any agreement the City may require. This would not be a large monument or anything intrusive. Our vision is a modest plaque that quietly honours Steve’s contribution and reminds future residents that this park and this neighbourhood were strengthened by people who cared enough to get involved. Lynn Heights Park is the natural place for this recognition. It is the heart of our neighbourhood and a shared space where families, children, seniors, and neighbours gather. It represents the very community spirit that Steve worked so hard to build. Placing a plaque there would be a meaningful and appropriate tribute to a man who made his mark not through titles or ceremony, but through service, kindness, conversation, and commitment. We understand that the City has policies, processes, and maintenance considerations for commemorative items in public spaces. We are fully prepared to work respectfully with City staff on the plaque’s wording, size, material, location, installation requirements, safety considerations, and any costs associated with the project. Our intent is to do this properly, with the City’s knowledge, approval, and official endorsement. This request is deeply personal to our neighbourhood. Steve helped give Lynn Heights a voice. He helped bring people together. It would mean a great deal to our small community here in Lynn Heights Neighbourhood to have the City recognize his contribution in the very park that serves the people he cared about. To be clear, the Lynn Heights Neighbourhood Association is not seeking to place, attach, or install anything independently on City property. We are asking Council - 222 - and City staff to identify the appropriate approval path for a City-authorized form of recognition. If a standalone plaque is not possible under the City’s current programs, we would welcome staff’s guidance on suitable alternatives, including a future commemorative bench or tree, a plaque integrated into a City-approved park feature, or another form of recognition that meets City standards. We kindly appeal to the City of Pickering to grant permission for this memorial plaque and to work with us to make it a reality. Steve Sattz’s contribution to Lynn Heights deserves to be remembered, and we believe this small, respectful tribute would be a fitting way to honour a man who gave so much of himself to his neighbours and his community. Thank you for considering this request with compassion and care. Sincerely, John Meloche Co-Founder & President Lynn Heights Neighbourhood Association Phone: 647-428-7751 Email: info@lynnheights.com Website: https://LynnHeights.com CC: Lynn Heights Neighbourhood Association Members - 223 - Lynn Heights Neighbourhood Association Pickering, Ontario Est. 2025 You’re receiving this email because you signed up at LynnHeights.com Contact Us - 224 - Legislative Services Division Clerk’s Office Directive Memorandum May 30, 2026 To: Laura Gibbs Director, Community Services From: Rumali Perera (Acting) City Clerk Subject: Direction as per Minutes of the Regular Meeting of City Council held on May 25, 2026 Corr. 11-26 John Meloche, Co-Founder & President, Lynn Heights Neighbourhood Association Re: Request for Permission to Install a Permanent Memorial Plaque in Honour of Steve Sattz at Lynn Heights Park Council Decision Resolution #1009/26 1.That Corr. 11-26 from John Meloche, Co-Founder & President, Lynn Heights Neighbourhood Association, regarding a Request for Permission to Install a Permanent Memorial Plaque in Honour of Steve Sattz at Lynn Heights Park, dated May 14, 2026, be received; 2.That staff, through the Office of the CAO, be directed to undertake an evaluation of installing a commemorative plaque or otherwise, recognizing Steve Sattz at the Lynn Heights Park; and, 3.That staff report back to Council with their recommendations no later than the June 22, 2026 Council Meeting. Please take any action deemed necessary. RP:am Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Attachment 2 to Report CS 17-26 - 225 - Report to Council Report Number: CS 18-26 Date: June 22, 2026 From: Laura Gibbs Director, Community Services Subject: Supply and Installation of an Audio-Visual System at Dorsay Community & Heritage Centre RFP2026-5 File: A 1440-001 Recommendation: 1. That Report CS 18-26 regarding the Supply and Installation of an Audio-Visual System at Dorsay Community & Heritage Centre be received; 2. That the proposal submitted by Cycom Canada Corporation in response to Request for Proposal RFP2026-5 for the Supply and Installation of an Audio-Visual System at Dorsay Community & Heritage Centre, in the amount of $279,544.90 (net HST) or $310,422.30 (HST included) be received; 3. That the total gross project cost of $347,672.98 (HST included), including the amount of the proposal and contingency, and the total net project cost of $313,090.20 (net HST) be approved; 4. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the net project cost of $313,090.28 to be funded from the Casino Reserve, as approved in the 2025 and 2026 Capital Budgets; and, 5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 1.0 Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to award Request for Proposal No. RFP2026-5 to provide all equipment, labour, and technical services required for the furnishing, delivery and the installation of a fully operational audio-visual (AV) projection system for the John E. Anderson Exhibit Gallery within the newly constructed Dorsay Community & Heritage Centre (DCHC), located at 2365 Sixth Concession Road. - 226 - CS 18-26 June 22, 2026 Page 2 Awarding this RFP will ensure the City obtains a professionally installed AV system that meets technical, safety, and operational requirements for the gallery, supporting the successful opening and long‑term functionality of the DCHC. Request for Proposal No. RFP2026-5 was advertised on the City’s Bids & Tenders portal on March 31, 2026, and closed on April 23, 2026. Four proponents submitted proposals. The evaluation committee, consisting of staff from Community Services, reviewed and evaluated the proposals received using criteria outlined in the request for proposal documents. Subject to receipt and approval of all pre-conditions of award required in accordance with the bid document, the top-ranked proposal submitted by Cycom Canada Corporation in the amount of $279,544.90 (net HST) or $310,422.30 (HST included), is recommended for approval. The total gross project cost is estimated to be $347,672.98 (HST included), and the total net project cost is estimated at $313,090.28 (net HST). 2.0 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. 3.0 Financial Implications: Proposal Amount RFP 2026-5 $274,710.00 HST (13%) 35,712.30 Total Gross Proposal Amount HST Rebate (11.24%) Total Net Proposal Amount $310,422.30 (30,877.40) $279,544.90 Estimated Project Costing Summary RFP2026-5 $274,710.00 Contingency (12%) 32,965.20 Total Project Cost $307,675.20 HST (13%) 39,997.78 Total Gross Project Cost $347,672.98 HST Rebate (11.24%) (34,582.69) Total Net Project Cost $313,090.28 - 227 - CS 18-26 June 22, 2026 Page 3 Approved Source of Funds – Community Services Capital Budgets (Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment (FF&E)) Approved Capital Account Source of Funds Approved Budget Funds Required C10220.2011 Casino Reserve 707,655.10 313,090.28 Total $707,655.10 $313,090.28 Net Project Cost Under (Over) Approved Funds $394,564.82 4.0 Discussion: The purpose of this report is to award Request for Proposal No. RFP2026-5 to provide all materials, equipment, labour, and technical services required for the furnishing, delivery and the installation of a fully operational audio-visual (AV) projection system for the Exhibit Gallery room within the newly constructed Dorsay Community & Heritage Centre, located at 2365 Sixth Concession Road. 4.1 Project Background DCHC is a dynamic cultural hub that combines community programs with festivals, events and displays. As one of the core amenities, the John E. Anderson Exhibit Gallery features changing exhibits that will serve as a gathering space for residents, an opportunity to showcase art by local artists and community groups, and as an attraction to the site with immersive, interactive, and inspiring exhibits. Equipping this space with dedicated audio-visual equipment will allow for a broader range of future exhibits and displays. Doing so aligns with the Pickering Museum Village’s Digital Strategy, and the strategic directions of the Cultural Strategic Plan to build a strong and collaborative cultural sector, strengthen culture-led economic development and cultivate opportunities for the creation, education and enjoyment of the arts. This AV projection system includes loudspeakers, amplifiers, microphones, projectors, transmitters, receivers, processors, software, switches, controllers and hardware. It will allow staff, artists, and community groups to incorporate audio, video, and immersive projections into exhibits. Projectors and AV equipment are highly common in modern galleries, serving as essential tools for both contemporary art and event programming. Virtually all major contemporary art institutions rely on these systems, which range from single-room video displays to immersive, room-scale projection mapping. - 228 - CS 18-26 June 22, 2026 Page 4 AV equipment will be used for the following purposes: • Video Art & Installations: Standalone video pieces, short films, and animated works rely heavily on high-quality, high-lumen projectors. • Immersive Exhibitions: Use of multi-projector arrays and seamless edge-blending for massive, wrap-around digital art experiences. • Event Hosting: Supporting rental of spaces for corporate events, film screenings, and galas, requiring robust in-house AV systems. • Dynamic Illumination: Use of light-shaping LED projectors to render light shapes and highlights directly onto sculptures or flat canvases. This equipment will support the City’s arts, cultural and heritage areas in reaching their full potential through use of immersive audio-visual experiences. These experiences help attract visitors and promote the City as a major tourism destination. 4.2 Procurement Process Request for Proposal No. RFP2026-5 was advertised on the City’s Bids & Tenders portal on March 31, 2026, and closed on April 23, 2026. Four proponents submitted proposals. The evaluation committee, consisting of staff from Community Services, reviewed and evaluated the proposals received using criteria outlined in the request for proposal documents. Awarding this RFP will ensure the City obtains a professionally installed AV system that meets technical, safety, and operational requirements for the John E. Anderson Exhibit Gallery, supporting the successful opening and long‑term functionality of the Dorsay Community & Heritage Centre. Subject to receipt and approval of all pre-conditions of award required in accordance with the bid document, the top-ranked proposal submitted by Cycom Canada Corporation in the amount of $279,544.90 (net HST) or $310,422.30 (HST included), is recommended for approval. The total gross project cost is estimated to be $347,672.98 (HST included), and the total net project cost is estimated at $313,090.28 (net HST). Attachment: None Prepared By: Lou Kahssay, OAA, LEED® AP, Senior Project Manager, Facilities Capital Projects Prepared By: Dennis Yip, P.Eng., PMP®, CEM, LEED® AP, Manager, Facilities Capital Projects - 229 - CS 18-26 June 22, 2026 Page 5 Approved/Endorsed By: Vince Plouffe, OAA, MRAIC, Division Head, Facilities Management & Construction Approved/Endorsed By: Laura Gibbs, MBA, MSc., Director, Community Services Approved/Endorsed By: Cathy Bazinet, CPPB, NIGP-CPP, Manager, Procurement Approved/Endorsed By: Stan Karwowski, MBA, CPA, CMA, Director, Finance & Treasurer LG:dy Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 230 - Report to Council Report Number: CS 19-26 Date: June 22, 2026 From: Laura Gibbs Director, Community Services Subject: Temporary Licence Agreement for use of Rotary Frenchman's Bay West Park Pickering Rouge Canoe Club File: A-1440-001 Recommendation: 1. That Report CS 19-26 regarding the Temporary Licence Agreement for the Pickering Rouge Canoe Club‘s Use of Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park be received; 2. That Council authorize the Director, Community Services to negotiate and execute a Temporary Licence Agreement with the Pickering Rouge Canoe Club subject to terms acceptable to the Director Community Services and City Solicitor; and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 1.0 Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to seek Council authorization for staff to negotiate and execute a temporary licence agreement with the Pickering Rouge Canoe Club (The Club) for use of Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park from June 29 to October 15, 2026, to support children’s summer camps and the sprint/flat-water bantam program while Rouge Beach and the Great Lakes Waterfront Trail remain closed for the Rouge Beach Improvements Project through the 2026 paddle sport season. The agreement will allow the Club to operate its summer camp and competitive programs at the site, supporting community recreation and continued partnership between the City and the Club. Staff recommend a limited, non-exclusive licence agreement that maintains public access to the accessible canoe and kayak launch and requires the Club to maintain the site by removing garbage daily and removing all equipment from the site at the end of the agreement. - 231 - CS 19-26 June 22, 2026 Page 2 2.0 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 Strengthen Existing & Build New Partnerships. 3.0 Financial Implications: There are no financial implications arising from the recommendations in this report. 4.0 Discussion: The purpose of this report is to seek Council authorization for staff to negotiate and execute a temporary licence agreement with the Pickering Rouge Canoe Club for use of Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park from June 29 to October 15, 2026, to support children’s summer camps and the sprint/flat-water bantam program while Rouge Beach and the Great Lakes Waterfront Trail remain closed for the Rouge Beach Improvements Project through the 2026 paddle sport season. 4.1 Pickering Rouge Canoe Club The Pickering Rouge Canoe Club is a long-standing, non-profit, and inclusive paddling club that offers recreational and competitive canoe and kayak programs for all ages and skill levels, while promoting physical activity, youth engagement and athletic development. The Club has been in operation since 1958 and contributes to the community in the following ways: • Community engagement: every summer the Club’s camps provide hundreds of local children, adults and families with essential water safety skills and an appreciation for Pickering’s natural environment. • Youth employment: every summer the Club’s camps are staffed by local youth who have grown from camper to coach. • Inclusive programming: the PaddleALL and Special Olympics programs provide rare, accessible outdoor opportunities for athletes with disabilities in Pickering. The Club has operated out of Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park since 1993 on land owned by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). Following the extremely high lake water levels of 2017 and 2019, TRCA advised the Club that their operating location at Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park fell below the proposed new 100-year static lake elevation and was within the dynamic beach area. As such, the Club was advised that they would no longer be allowed to operate in that location. The Club submitted a proposal to the City to relocate programs to Progress Frenchman’s Bay East Park. In 2021 a public on-line survey was prepared in order to gauge public support of the Club’s use of Progress Frenchman’s Bay East Park for their programs. Notification of the - 232 - CS 19-26 June 22, 2026 Page 3 survey was provided to the public through social media and through a postal walk to area residents, which was sent out on April 19, 2021. The survey was open and comments were received up to and including May 10, 2021. A total of 424 responses were received. The following is a summary of feedback received: • 66% of respondents were in support of the Club’s proposal to relocate and operate programs out of Progress Frenchman’s Bay East Park. This number dropped to 63% for Pickering residents only. • When respondents were asked which program they supported, the Special Olympics program received the highest support at 65% followed by Dragon Boats, Masters and Outrigger all at 60% and High Performance at 57%. • 73% of the respondents said that they would support the PRCC since they have programs for people with disabilities and to support the National/Olympic athletes. • Of the respondents that were not in support, parking was the number one concern for 51% of the local residents, followed by conflicts with other park users (46%), park cleanliness (43%), and noise (34%). In consideration of the public feedback supporting the relocation of the Club and the expressed concerns for parking, Council endorsed that a temporary lease agreement be entered into granting the relocation of the Club to Progress Frenchman’s Bay East Park for the operation of only their Special Olympics (PaddleAll) and Masters programs (Report CS 24-21; Resolution #627/21). This agreement was never entered into as it did not meet the needs of the club for a relocation of their complete program and club activities. In recent weeks, the Pickering Rouge Canoe Club has submitted a request to the City for temporary access to Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park for the 2026 summer season to operate children’s summer camps and the sprint/flat water bantam program while the Rouge Beach and Great Lakes Waterfront Trail remain temporarily closed. 4.2 Paddle Sport on Frenchman’s Bay In 2025, staff conducted discussions with stakeholders and engaged residents for feedback on a paddle sport rental service located in Frenchman’s Bay. Staff considered three locations, outlined in Report CS 05-25 that was presented to Council in May 2025. An online survey was posted on LetsTalkPickering on August 9, 2024, and was available until September 8, 2024. The survey was promoted on the City’s website and through various social media channels. A promotional postcard was distributed to 3,600 household within the immediate community surrounding east and west Frenchman’s Bay. Staff received 150 responses to the survey. Residents raised several concerns that included traffic congestion, accessibility and environmental impacts to the Provincially Significant Wetland. Residents requested that staff continue to investigate the east side of Frenchman’s Bay as a more appropriate location than the west side. Many residents (90%) responded to the survey in - 233 - CS 19-26 June 22, 2026 Page 4 favour of a paddle sport rental service being available but preferred that the service not be located in Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park. Feedback from the Waterfront Visionary Advisory Committee on November 18, 2024, echoed the concerns of residents and re-iterated that a preferred location would be at Beachfront Park, west of Millennium Square. The design of Beachfront Park is now underway and will include a permanent location that will better serve a paddle sport rental service. Due to the concerns raised by residents through community engagement, staff recommend that any type of rental service be prohibited in the temporary licence agreement with the Club. 4.3 Temporary Closure of Rouge Beach and the Great Lakes Waterfront Trail From November 2025 until 2027, Parks Canada have closed the Rouge Beach area and Great Lakes Waterfront Trail bridge that crosses the Rouge River, connecting Scarbrough to Pickering, to permit construction of The Rouge Beach Improvements Project. The project will revitalize aging infrastructure, including beach facilities and visitor amenities. This construction activity has impacted the Pickering Rouge Canoe Club’s access to their former clubhouse as well as the mouth of the Rouge River and Lake Ontario where much of their summer camp activities were taking place. Although Parks Canada provided the Club with a temporary location for their programs at the Glen Rouge Campground, this site is not suitable for their programs that require a longer flat-water area to practice on. Construction in Rouge Park is expected to be complete in time for the 2027 paddle sport season. 4.4 Temporary Licence Agreement Staff recommend that the City negotiate and execute a temporary licence agreement to provide provisional space to the Pickering Rouge Canoe Club while their permanent location in Rouge Park is under construction. Staff recommend the following parameters for use of Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park will be included in the licence agreement: • The licence agreement will be for a term from June 29 to October 15, 2026. • The licence agreement will be a non-exclusive licence agreement, to allow public users to continue to access the bay via. the accessible kayak and canoe launch. • The Club will be responsible for keeping the site clean and free of debris. The Club will be responsible for garbage removal. • Paddle sport rental services including kayaks and paddle boards are prohibited. • A shipping container, approved by the City and TRCA may be placed on the site for the duration of the licence agreement, and must be removed before the agreement expires. • Proof of insurance must be provided to the City before operations commence. - 234 - CS 19-26 June 22, 2026 Page 5 Staff have consulted with the Club and recommend a location in Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park close to the accessible canoe and kayak launch. A map of the location is included in Attachment 1. Staff are seeking TRCA approval for the placement of the shipping container which is required to store the Club’s equipment. The licence agreement will be negotiated between the Club and the Director, Community Services. The City Solicitor will review and approve the agreement before it is executed. Attachment: 1. Location Map Prepared By: Dan Finn, Manager, Parks & Property Prepared By: Karen Coleman, BA, Manager, Recreation Services Prepared By: Arnold Mostert, OALA, Manager, Landscape & Parks Development Approved/Endorsed By: Laura Gibbs, MBA, MSc., Director, Community Services LG:kc Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 235 - WE S T S H O R E B O U L E V A R D OKLAHO M A DRIVE Lake Ontario Frenchman's Bay Rotary Frenchman's Bay West Park SCALE: LOCATION MAP Jun. 16, 2026 DATE: Community Services Department 1:1,150 REPORT TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL F Temporary License Agreement Pickering Rouge Canoe Club Summer Camp Proposed Site Area Pickering Rouge Canoe Club Summer Camp Location on Rotary Frenchman's Bay West Park Attachment 1 to Report CS 19-26 - 236 - Report to Council Report Number: ENG 10-26 Date: June 22, 2026 From: Richard Holborn Director, Engineering Services Subject: Playground Equipment Replacement 2026 and Fitness Station Construction Request for Tender No. T2026-11 File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1. That Report ENG 10-26 regarding the Playground Equipment Replacement 2026 and Fitness Station Construction be received; 2. That the bid submitted by Gray’s Landscaping & Snow Removal Inc. in response to Request for Tender No. T2026-11 for the Playground and Fitness Station Construction in the amount of $1,149,301.75 (net HST) or $1,276,249.00 (HST included) be accepted; 3. That the total gross project cost of $1,427,752.00 (HST included), including a contingency and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $1,285,735.00 (net HST) be approved; 4. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the total net project cost of $1,285,735.00 as follows: a. The sum of $341,250.00 available budget in capital project C10572.2603 (Bay Ridges Kinsmen Park playground) as approved in the 2026 Parks Capital Budget be increased to $433,716.00 and be funded by a transfer of funds from the Parkland Reserve Fund in the sum of $220,609.00 and be funded by the Provincial Grant in the sum of $213,107.00; b. The sum of $136,146.00 available budget in capital project C10572.2604 (Clearside Park playground) as approved in the 2026 Parks Capital Budget be funded by a transfer of funds from the Parkland Reserve Fund in the sum of $69,250.00 and be funded from the Provincial Grant in the sum of $66,896.00; c. The sum of $199,299.00 available budget in capital project C10572.2605 (Glengrove Park playground) as approved in the 2026 Parks Capital Budget be funded by a transfer of funds from the Parkland Reserve Fund in the sum of $101,373.00 and be funded from the Provincial Grant in the sum of $97,926.00; - 237 - ENG 10-26 June 22, 2026 Page 2 d. The sum of $239,846.00 available budget in capital project C10572.2606 (Pinegrove Park playground) as approved in the 2026 Parks Capital Budget be funded by a transfer of funds from the Parkland Reserve Fund in the sum of $121,997.00 and be funded from the Provincial Grant in the sum of $117,849.00; e. The sum of $276,728.00 available budget in capital project C10572.2511 (Fitness Equipment) as approved in the 2025 Parks Capital Budget be funded by a transfer of funds from the Casino Reserve Fund; 5. That the Director, Engineering Services be authorized to execute the CCDC-2, 2020 Stipulated Price Contract with the above-mentioned contractor pursuant to Request for Tender No. T2026-11; and, 6. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 1.0 Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council authorization to award Request for Tender No. T2026-11 for the Playground and Fitness Station Construction to Gray’s Landscaping & Snow Removal Inc. The playgrounds included in this project are located in Bay Ridges Kinsmen Park, Clearside Park, Glengrove Park and Pinegrove Park. The fitness stations are to be located in East Woodlands Park, Alex Robertson Park, and Glengrove Park. The selection of playground and fitness equipment for all the locations was completed through RSFQ2026-6, a separate procurement process. The selection of a vendor and installer for the rubber tile playground safety surfacing for Bay Ridges Kinsmen Park was also completed through a separate procurement process, RSFQ2026-17. Independent evaluations of the proposals were conducted by Engineering Services and City Infrastructure staff. The cost of the selected equipment and rubber safety surfacing was included as a cash allowance in Request for Tender No. T2026-11. The City was successful in obtaining grant funding from the Province of Ontario through the Community Sport and Recreation Infrastructure Fund (CSRIF). This grant will fund up to 50% of the eligible project costs to replace the playground equipment, up to a total value of $762,500. Three playgrounds in the 2025 replacement program were partially funded by this grant in the amount of $250,264.00. The four playgrounds included in Tender No. T2026-11 will also receive partial funding by this grant, with an approximate value of $495,778.00. Request for Tender No. T2026-11, for the Playground and Fitness Station Construction was advertised on the City’s bids&tenders portal on May 11, 2026, and closed on June 2, 2026, with eight compliant bids submitted. The lowest compliant bid submitted by Gray’s Landscaping & Snow Removal Inc. in the amount of $1,149,301.75 (net HST) or $1,276,249.00 (HST included) is recommended for approval. It is recommended that the total gross project cost of $1,427,752.00 (HST included) and the total net project cost of $1,285,735.00 (net HST) be approved. - 238 - ENG 10-26 June 22, 2026 Page 3 2.0 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 Advance Innovation & Responsible Planning to Support a Connected, Well-Serviced Community. 3.0 Financial Implications: 1. Tender Amount T2026-11 $1,129,423.89 HST (13%) 146,825.11 Total Gross Tender Cost HST Rebate (11.24%) Total Net Tender Cost $1,276,249.00 ($126,947.25) $1,149,301.75 2. Estimated Project Cost Summary T2026-11 Bay Ridges Kinsmen Park Playground $382,700.00 Clearside Park Playground 118,928.00 Glengrove Park Playground 175,347.00 Pinegrove Park Playground 211,571.00 Glengrove Park Fitness Equipment 84,471.00 East Woodlands Park Fitness Equipment 72,072.00 Alex Robertson Park Fitness Equipment 84,335.00 Materials Testing Allowance $2,000.00 CSRIF Project Signage & Plaque ($2,000 per grant funded location) 8,000.00 Third Party Inspection for CSA Compliance 6,315.00 Construction Contingency 117,758.00 Total Project Cost $1,263,497.00 HST (13%) 164,255.00 Total Gross Project Cost $1,427,752.00 HST Rebate (11.24%) (142,017.00) Total Net Project Cost $1,285,735.00 3 A. Estimated Project Cost and Funding – Bay Ridges Kinsmen Park Playground - 239 - ENG 10-26 June 22, 2026 Page 4 T2026-11 – Bay Ridges Kinsmen Park Playground $382,700.00 Materials Testing Allowance 2,000.00 Third Party Inspection for CSA Compliance 1,245.00 CSRIF Project Signage and Plaque 2,000.00 Construction Contingency (10%) 38,270.00 Total Project Cost $426,215.00 HST (13%) 55,408.00 Total Gross Cost $481,623.00 HST Rebate (11.24%) (47,907.00) Total Net Project Cost $433,716.00 Approved Capital Account Source of Funds Approved Budget Funds Required C10572.2603 Parkland Reserve Fund $176,640.00 $220,609.00 Provincial Grant (CSRIF) $164,610.00 $213,107.00 Total: $341,250.00 $433,716.00 Net Project Cost Under (Over) Approved Funds ($92,466.00) 3 B. Estimated Project Cost and Funding – Clearside Park Playground T2026-11– Clearside Park Playground $118,928.00 Third Party Inspection for CSA Compliance 970.00 CSRIF Project Signage and Plaque 2,000.00 Construction Contingency (10%) 11,893.00 Total Project Cost $133,791.00 HST (13%) 17,393.00 Total Gross Cost $151,184.00 HST Rebate (11.24%) (15,038.00) Total Net Project Cost $136,146.00 Approved Capital Account Source of Funds Approved Budget Funds Required C10572.2604 Parkland Reserve Fund $81,530.00 $69,250.00 Provincial Grant (CSRIF) $75,970.00 $66,896.00 Total: $157,500.00 $136,146.00 Net Project Cost Under (Over) Approved Funds $21,354.00 - 240 - ENG 10-26 June 22, 2026 Page 5 3 C. Estimated Project Cost and Funding – Glengrove Park Playground T2026-11– Glengrove Park Playground $175,347.00 Third Party Inspection for CSA Compliance 970.00 CSRIF Project Signage and Plaque 2,000.00 Construction Contingency (10%) 17,535.00 Total Project Cost $195,852.00 HST (13%) 25,461.00 Total Gross Cost $221,313.00 HST Rebate (11.24%) (22,014.00) Total Net Project Cost $199,299.00 Approved Capital Account Source of Funds Approved Budget Funds Required C10572.2605 Parkland Reserve Fund $108,700.00 $101,373.00 Provincial Grant (CSRIF) $101,300.00 $97,926.00 Total: $210,000.00 $199,299.00 Net Project Cost Under (Over) Approved Funds $10,701.00 3 D. Estimated Project Cost and Funding – Pinegrove Park Playground T2026-11 – Pinegrove Park Playground $211,571.00 Third Party Inspection for CSA Compliance 970.00 CSRIF Project Signage and Plaque 2,000.00 Construction Contingency (10%) 21,156.00 – Total Project Cost $235,697.00 HST (13%) 30,641.00 Total Gross Cost $266,338.00 HST Rebate (11.24%) (26,492.00) Total Net Project Cost $239,846.00 Approved Capital Account Source of Funds Approved Budget Funds Required C10572.2606 Parkland Reserve Fund $135,870.00 $121,997.00 Provincial Grant (CSRIF) $126,630.00 $117,849.00 Total: $262,500.00 $239,846.00 Net Project Cost Under (Over) Approved Funds $22,654.00 - 241 - ENG 10-26 June 22, 2026 Page 6 3 E. Estimated Project Cost and Funding – Fitness Equipment Installations T2026-11 – Glengrove Park Fitness Equipment $84,471.00 T2026-11 – East Woodlands Park Fitness Equipment 72,072.00 T2026-11 – Alex Robertson Park Fitness Equipment 84,335.00 Third Party Inspection for CSA Compliance 2,160.00 Construction Contingency (12%) 28,904.00 Total Project Cost $271,942.00 HST (13%) 35,352.00 Total Gross Cost $307,294.00 HST Rebate (11.24%) (30,566.00) Total Net Project Cost $276,728.00 Approved Capital Account Source of Funds Approved Budget Funds Required C10572.2511 Casino Reserve Fund $300,000.00 $276,728.00 Total: $300,000.00 $276,728.00 Net Project Cost Under (Over) Approved Funds $23,272.00 3 F. Net Project Cost Under (Over) Approved Funds Summary Bay Ridges Kinsmen Park Playground ($92,466.00) Clearside Park Playground 21,354.00 Glengrove Park Playground 10,701.00 Pinegrove Park Playground 22,654.00 Fitness Equipment Installations 23,272.00 Net Project Cost Under (Over) Approved Funds ($14,485.00) The City was successful in obtaining grant funding from the Province of Ontario through the Community Sport and Recreation Infrastructure Fund (CSRIF). This grant will fund up to 50% of the eligible project costs to replace the playground equipment included in this tender as well as the playground equipment that was replaced through the 2025 replacement program. Note that taxes are not an eligible cost under the CSRIF grant program. The total amount of grant funding available for the 2025 and 2026 playground replacement program is $762,500.00, of which approximately $217,144.00 has been spent on the 2025 replacement program, leaving approximately $545,356.00 for the 2026 playground replacement program. The total amount budgeted for 2026 is $468,510.00 and the amount required is $495,778.00. As such, there will - 242 - ENG 10-26 June 22, 2026 Page 7 be sufficient funds available in the CSRIF grant to cover the additional amount required for Bay Ridges Kinsmen Park. Discussion: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council authorization to award Request for Tender No. T2026-11 for the Playground and Fitness Station Construction to Gray’s Landscaping & Snow Removal Inc. The playgrounds included in this project are located in Bay Ridges Kinsmen Park, Clearside Park, Glengrove Park and Pinegrove Park. The fitness stations are located in East Woodlands Park, Alex Robertson Park, and Glengrove Park. As part of the City’s Corporate Asset Management Plan, commitment has been made to replace a minimum of three playgrounds per year. Four locations were included in the 2026 Parks Capital Budget with locations selected on the existing equipment’s physical condition, appearance, playability, and level of accessibility. All playgrounds are inspected annually for CSA compliance and based on annual inspections the City’s park inspector determines the replacement priorities for the following year. To make some of the City’s prime playground locations even more accessible, barrier free ramping to elevated play structures and rubber tile playground safety surfacing has been included in the new installation for Bay Ridges Kinsmen Park, which is reflected in the higher overall project cost for this location. Through the 2025 budget process, residents had a direct say on how a portion of the municipal budget could be spent, with close to 600 residents weighing in on five potential priorities designed to enhance the community’s quality of life. The most-supported project was the installation of outdoor fitness equipment, with a location to be determined by staff in each Ward. $300,000 was approved in the 2025 Capital Budget, with funding provided through the Casino Reserve. The selection of playground and fitness equipment for all the locations was completed through a separate procurement process. RSFQ2026-6 was advertised on the City’s bids&tenders portal on February 18, 2026, and closed on March 20, 2026, with 10 vendors submitting proposals. The selection of a vendor and installer for the rubber tile playground safety surfacing for Bay Ridges Kinsmen Park was also completed through a separate procurement process. RSFQ2026-17 was advertised on the City’s bids&tenders portal on February 27, 2026, and closed on March 20, 2026, with 2 vendors submitting proposals. Independent evaluations of the proposals were conducted by Engineering Services and City Infrastructure staff. The cost of the selected equipment and rubber safety surfacing was included as a cash allowance in Request for Tender No. T2026-11. The City was successful in obtaining grant funding from the Province of Ontario through the Community Sport and Recreation Infrastructure Fund (CSRIF). This grant will fund up to 50% of the eligible project costs to replace the playgrounds, up to a total value of $762,500. Three playgrounds in the 2025 replacement program were partially funded by this grant in the amount of $250,264.00, namely Lynn Heights Park, Bayshore Tot Lot and Bonita Park. The four playgrounds included in Tender T2026-11 will also receive partial funding by this grant, with an approximate value of $495,778.00. - 243 - ENG 10-26 June 22, 2026 Page 8 Request for Tender No. T2026-11, for the Playground and Fitness Station Construction was advertised on the City’s bids&tenders portal on May 11, 2026, and closed on June 2, 2026, with eight compliant bids submitted. The lowest compliant bid submitted by Gray’s Landscaping & Snow Removal Inc. in the amount of $1,149,301.75 (net HST) or $1,276,249.00 (HST included) is recommended for approval. Gray’s Landscaping & Snow Removal have successfully completed many other playground equipment replacement projects for the City. It is recommended that the total gross project cost (which also includes a contingency, cost for CSRIF project signage and plaques to recognize the provincial grant, and the cost for a third party inspection for CSA compliance of $1,427,752.00 (HST included) and the total net project cost of $1,285,735.00 (net HST) be approved. Attachment: 1. Location Map Prepared By: Arnold Mostert, Manager, Landscape & Parks Development Approved/Endorsed By: Richard Holborn, Director, Engineering Services Approved/Endorsed By: Stan Karwowski, Director, Finance & Treasurer Approved/Endorsed By: Cathy Bazinet, Manager, Procurement AM:am Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 244 - !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! FIE L D L I G H T B O U L E V A R D GLENANNA ROAD R O S E F I E L D R O A D ANTON S QU A R E M E M O R Y LA N E FAYLEE CRE S C E N T BRANDS COURT G L E N G R O V E R O A D Glengrove Park ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !O L D F O R E S T R O A D R O S E B A N K R O A D HIGHW A Y 4 0 1 K I N G S T O N R O AD ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! P I NE G R OV E AV E NU E R O C K W O O D D R IVE ROUGE F O R E S T C R E SC E NT SAND CHER R Y C O U R T Pinegrove Park ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! S O U T H C O T T ROADC O N A C H E R CR E SCE N T C L E A R S I D E C O U R T B R O C K R O A D ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! COLMAR AVENUE A N N L A N D S T R E E T B A L A T O N A V EN UE PA R KHAM C R E S C E N T L U B L I N A V E N U E S A N D Y B E A C H R O A D C O R T E Z A V E N U E MONTGOMERY PARK ROAD Fre nch ma n ' s B a y Co a s t a l Wetl a n d C o m p l ex Alex Robertson Park Engineering Services Department LOCATION MAP Jun 03, 2026 DATE: T2026-11 PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 2026 & FITNESS STATION CONSTRUCTION East Woodlands Park F F F F F Clearside Park Bay Ridges Kinsmen Park Attachment 1 - Report ENG 10-26 - 245 - Report to Council Report Number: ENG 11-26 Date: June 22, 2026 From: Richard Holborn Director, Engineering Services Subject: Diana, Princess of Wales Park Licence Renewal Agreement File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1. That Report ENG 11-26 regarding the Licence Renewal Agreement for Diana, Princess of Wales Park be received; 2. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute a licence renewal agreement with the Minister of Infrastructure for a further five-year term, commencing January 1, 2027, and ending on December 31, 2031 in substantially the same form as attached to this report, subject to revisions acceptable to the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; and 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 1.0 Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council authorization to enter into the licence renewal agreement with the Ministry of Infrastructure for Diana, Princess of Wales Park, amended to include additional land within the hydro corridor between Kingston Road and Finch Avenue. The Ministry of Infrastructure is in agreement to extend the licence agreement for a further five- year term, commencing on January 1, 2027, and ending on December 31, 2031. The additional land to be added to the agreement will provide space for a new community sized skateboard park and associated parking to be constructed in 2026 as well as space for future recreational facilities as approved by Infrastructure Ontario and Hydro One Networks Inc. (HONI). 2.0 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. - 246 - ENG 11-26 June 22, 2026 Page 2 3.0 Financial Implications: Under the existing agreement, the City is responsible for the full cost of maintenance on the lands used for recreational purposes, and for paying 50% of all the taxes or other similar charges levied against the lands. 4.0 Discussion: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council authorization to enter into the licence renewal agreement with the Ministry of Infrastructure for Diana, Princess of Wales Park. The park is located within the hydro corridor adjacent to the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex and runs from Pickering Parkway to Kingston Road. The existing park is approximately 11.82 hectares (29.22 acres) in area. The agreement includes an additional 5.89 hectares (14.58 acres) of land within the hydro corridor between Kingston Road and Finch Avenue. The additional land to be added to the agreement will provide space for a new community sized skateboard park and associated parking to be constructed in 2026 as well as space for future recreational facilities as approved by Infrastructure Ontario and HONI. The land is presently owned by His Majesty The King in right of Ontario as represented by The Minister of Infrastructure (MOI). Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corp. (OILC), acting as agent on behalf of MOI, is responsible for the oversight of the Provincial Secondary Land Use Program (PSLUP). Hydro One has a statutory easement and is responsible for the management activities of the corridor which includes providing front line delivery of the PSLUP. The City of Pickering entered into a licence agreement with the Ministry of Infrastructure on January 1, 2012, respecting the property located in part of Lot 19 and 20, Concession 1, also known as Diana, Princess of Wales Park. The licence agreement has now been renewed twice with five-year terms extending from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2021, and January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2026. The amended licence renewal agreement will be for another five- year term, commencing on January 1, 2027 and ending on December 31, 2031. In order for the City of Pickering to continue providing recreational services on the land and to extend it to include the additional land north of Kingston Road, a further licence renewal agreement in a form satisfactory to the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, is required. The Director, Engineering Services recommends that a licence renewal agreement for a further five-year term be entered into, and that Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement in its final form. Attachments: 1. Draft Licence Renewal Agreement 2. Location Map - 247 - ENG 11-26 June 22, 2026 Page 3 Prepared By: Arnold Mostert, Manager, Landscape & Parks Development Approved/Endorsed By: Richard Holborn, Director, Engineering Services Approved/Endorsed By: Paul Bigioni, Corporate Services & City Solicitor AM:am Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 248 - HONI File #: PICKERING T 632.1-537 HYDRO CORRIDOR Licence Renewal (rec.) - Sept 2022 LICENCE RENEWAL AGREEMENT – (RECREATIONAL) BETWEEN: HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO as represented by THE MINISTER OF INFRASTRUCTURE (hereinafter called the "Licensor") -and - CITY OF PICKERING (hereinafter called the "Licensee") WHEREAS: A.Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation acting as agent on behalf of His Majesty The King in right of Ontario as represented by The Minister of Infrastructure (previously the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure) now the Minister of Infrastructure entered into a Licence Agreement with the Licensee, dated February 14, 2012 (the “Licence Agreement”), regarding certain lands located in the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, described as Part of Lots 19 & 20, Concession 1, comprising an area of approximately 28.92 acres, (the “Licence Lands”) for the purpose of public recreational purposes only; B.The Minister of Infrastructure is responsible for certain aspects of government real property pursuant to the Ministry of Infrastructure Act, S.O. 2011, c. 9, Sched 27; C.Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation confirms that it is the designated agent of the Minister of Infrastructure with authority to act in respect of the Licence Agreement. IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth and the sum of two dollars ($2.00) paid by the Licensee to the Licensor, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, and other good and valuable consideration, the Licensor and the Licensee agree as follows: 1.The Licence Agreement is hereby renewed, subject to the terms set out below. 2.“Licensor” shall include for the purpose of any exculpatory clause and/or indemnity included in favour of the Licensor, Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation. 3.The Term of the Licence Agreement shall be five (5) years, commencing on the 1st day of January, 2027. 4.The description and the extent of the area of the Lands is and shall be amended by increasing the area of the Licence from 28.92 acres to 42.92 acres, as shown on the sketch attached hereto as Schedule “A”. Attachment 1 - Report ENG 11-26 - 249 - HONI File #: PICKERING T 632.1-537 2 5. The Licensee shall pay to the Licensor an amount equal to Fifty percent (50%) of the annual realty taxes or grants and/or payments in lieu thereof payable with respect to the Licence Lands, as owned by the Licensor and used by the Licensee pursuant to the Licence Agreement for the purposes stated herein. 6. The Licensor’s address for service of notice pursuant to the notice section of the Licence Agreement and other related particulars are amended as follows: Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation Real Estate Transactions 1 Dundas Street West, Suite 2000 Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z3 Attention: Director, Hydro Land Transactions Telephone: (437) 537-5511 Facsimile: (416) 327-3942 With a copy to: Attention: Director, Legal Services (Real Estate) 1 Dundas Street West Suite 2000 Toronto, ON M5G 1Z3 Facsimile: 416-327-3376 7. All terms which are defined in the Licence Agreement shall have the same meaning when used in this Licence Renewal Agreement unless they are amended herein. 8. Except as they may be amended by this Licence Renewal Agreement, all of the terms and conditions of the Licence Agreement shall apply to the renewed Term and shall be binding upon and enure to the benefit of the Licensor and the Licensee. 9. This Licence Renewal Agreement may be offered and accepted by electronic or facsimile transmission and by different parties in separate counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement. Delivery by facsimile or by electronic transmission in portable document format of an executed counterpart is as effective as delivery of an originally executed counterpart. 10. The Licensee acknowledges that this Agreement and any related information, documents and/or Data (as defined in the Open Data Directive) may be released pursuant to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Ontario) or the Open Data Directive issued under the Management Board of Cabinet Act (Ontario), as each may be amended or replaced from time to time. - 250 - HONI File #: PICKERING T 632.1-537 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Licence Renewal Agreement. Signed by the Licensee at this day of 20 . CITY OF PICKERING Per:______________________________________ Name: Title: Per:______________________________________ Name: Title: I/We have authority to bind the Corporation Signed by the Licensor at_________________this day of _____________________20 . HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO as represented by THE MINISTER OF INFRASTRUCTURE, as represented by ONTARIO INFRASTRUCTURE AND LANDS CORPORATION Per: Name: Title: Authorized Signing Officer - 251 - HONI File #: PICKERING T 632.1-537 4 Schedule “A” HONI File: Pickering T 632.1-537 Tenant(s): City of Pickering Legal Description: Part of Lots 19 & 20, Concession 1, in the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham Original Licensed Area: 28.92 acres Additional Licensed Area: 14.00 acres Total Licensed Area: 42.92 acres Lands Owned by His Majesty the King in the Right of Ontario Original Licensed Area Additional Licensed Area Attachment 2 - Report ENG 11-26 - 252 - Report to Council Report Number: FIN 10-26 Date: June 22, 2026 From: Stan Karwowski Director, Finance & Treasurer Subject: Annual Treasurer’s Statement Report Summary of Activity for the Year Ended December 31, 2025 File: F-4920 Recommendation: 1. That Report FIN 10-26 regarding the Annual Treasurer’s Statement Report Summary of Activity for the Year Ended December 31, 2025, as required by the Development Charges Act, 1997 and Planning Act, be received; 2. That the City of Pickering’s Annual Treasurer’s Statement Report be made available to the public on the City’s website; and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 1.0 Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to comply with the legislative requirements in the Development Charges Act, 1997 (DCA) and the Planning Act that necessitates the Treasurer of the municipality to provide Council with a financial statement each year for the Development Charges (DC), Community Benefits Charges (CBC), and Cash-in- Lieu (CIL) of Parkland Reserve Funds as of December 31, 2025. Section 43 of the DCA requires that the Treasurer of a municipality provide to Council an annual financial statement for activities relating to the DC by-law and reserve funds established under section 33 of the DCA, and a listing of DC/Lot Levy credits. Subsection 37 (48) of the Planning Act, 1990 states that a council of a municipality that passes a CBC by-law shall provide an annual financial statement of the CBC transactions in the preceding year. These reserve funds are established as the Public Benefits Reserve Fund and CBC Reserve Fund, respectively. - 253 - FIN 10-26 June 22, 2026 Page 2 Additionally, subsection 42 (17) of the Planning Act, 1990 sets out that if a council of a municipality that passes a Parkland Conveyance by-law, the Treasurer must provide Council with an annual financial statement for activities related to its CIL of Parkland reserve funds. Collectively, these three charges are known as growth funding tools. They are collected to fund new infrastructure needed to service the requirements brought about by new developments. These revenues can only be used for the purposes for which it was collected, in compliance with the legislation and Council approved policies. Growth funding tools are important revenue tools for municipalities so that existing property owners are not unduly burdened by the cost of growth-related infrastructure. Attachment 1 provides details of the activity of the Development Charges Reserve Fund (DCRF) for the year ended December 31, 2025, in the manner prescribed by section 43(2)(a) of the DCA. Attachment 2 provides details on information related to projects funded by the development charges as stipulated by section 43(2)(b) of the amended DCA. Attachment 3 is the Treasurer’s Statement attesting to the fact that no additional levies have been collected by the City beyond those allowed under existing legislation as per Section 59.1 (1) of the DCA. Legislation requires Council to ensure that these statements are made available to the public. These statements will be posted on the City’s website to facilitate compliance with the amendment. 2.0 Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priorities to Champion Economic Leadership & Innovation, Strengthen Existing & Build New Partnerships; and Foster an Engaged & Informed Community. 3.0 Financial Implications: As presented in Table 1, DC revenue of $ 14.4 million was collected in 2025 with an additional $ 5.8 million in interest earned. In-Year transfers to capital projects amounted to $14.1 million, with the majority, approximately 65% or $9.1 million, being for Parks and Recreation development projects. The closing balance (after commitments) of the DC Reserve Fund as of December 31, 2025 was $20.1 million, which represents a decrease of $4.9 million, from 2024. - 254 - FIN 10-26 June 22, 2026 Page 3 Attachment 1 provides a breakdown of the various DC service categories. A few of the service categories are in a negative position — this is normal as the infrastructure required to service growth needs to be emplaced prior to developments happening and the negative balances will be recovered through DC fees collected from current and future growth-related activity. The Treasurer’s Statement for Parkland, Public Benefits and Community Benefit charges Reserve Funds as required under the Planning Act is as follows: - 255 - FIN 10-26 June 22, 2026 Page 4 The CBC framework, introduced through Bill 197 – COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020, replaced the former Section 37 density bonusing provisions of the Planning Act. The CBC allows municipalities to levy up to 4% of land value (as of the day before building-permit issuance) on higher-density developments — those with five or more stories and ten or more units. In 2025, $882,737 was collected in Community Benefit Charges and interest earnings of $7,864 was credited to the reserve, with $263,074 transferred to fund Dorsay Community & Heritage Centre. The remaining balance from the legacy Public Benefits Reserve Fund has been committed to park-related capital works and will be fully drawn down upon project completion. The CIL of Parkland reserve, established under Section 42 of the Planning Act, continues to provide dedicated funding for parkland acquisition and improvement. CIL receipts in 2025 were $32,460 with interest earnings of $261,887 and expenditures of $381,361 towards various city- wide park enhancements and parkland acquisitions. Together, these two funding tools ensure that as development intensifies, the supporting community infrastructure and public-realm amenities are adequately provided. There are no outstanding lot-levies or DC Credits carried over from the previous legislation. 4.0 Discussion: The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the legislated Reserve Funds as of December 31, 2025. Funds are not transferred out of the Development Charges Reserve Fund for projects until the funds are actually needed, as required by applicable accounting rules. This ensures that the reserve fund continues to earn interest income on the unspent monies until such time as actual expenses are incurred. The total reserve fund balance of $139.6 million (before commitments) represented in Attachment 1 is the unspent balance as of December 31, 2025. There is approximately $119.5 million of committed capital projects that have been approved but have not proceeded or are still ongoing as of December 31, 2025. Of these commitments, approximately $72 million or 61% relate to Parks and Recreation which include high profile projects like Dorsay Community & Heritage Centre and Seaton Recreation Complex & Library. The other high value projects include Fire Station #1, the New Operations Centre and Walnut Lane extension. Having various DC components in a deficit position is not unusual when you consider that the City is now transitioning from a moderate to a higher growth scenario due to Seaton and downtown area intensification. The total projected net surplus position after all budget expenditures and commitments was $20.1 million for the year-ended December 31, 2025. - 256 - FIN 10-26 June 22, 2026 Page 5 In order to meet the requirements under section 43(2.1) of the amended DCA and section 37 and 42 of the Planning Act, it is recommended that these statements be posted on the City’s website upon approval by Council. Attachments: 1. 2025 Statement of the Treasurer – Development Charges Reserve Fund 2. Amount Transferred to Assets – Capital & Current Funds Transactions 3. Statement of Compliance Prepared By: Raghu Kumar, Senior Financial Analyst, Development Finance & Capital Management Approved/Endorsed By: Stan Karwowski, Director, Finance & Treasurer SK:rk Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 257 - City of Pickering 2025 Statement of the Treasurer - Development Charges Reserve Fund - (Pre Audit)DC Act S 43 (2)(a) For the year ended December 31, 2025 Services to which the Development Charges Relates Account 8601/8043 8602/8044 8603/8045 8604/8046 8605/8047 8606/8048 8607/8049 8608/8050 Description Fire Protective Services Transportation Other Services Related to a Highway (Deficit) Storm Water Mgmt Studies (Deficit)Parks & Recreation Library: Facilities & Materials By-Law Services Enforcement Total $ $$$$$$$$ Opening Balance, January 1, 2025 3,636,807 45,618,599 (600,990)5,689,674 (1,273,722)67,913,604 12,341,294 167,989 133,493,255 Plus: Development Charges Collections 864,510 401,098 584,155 344,692 170,420 10,183,326 1,833,968 82,312 14,464,481 Interest Income-Internal Investment 2,388 33,211 - 4,119 - 47,433 8,624 105 95,880 Interest Income-Negative Balance 1,978 24,809 (39,463)3,094 (34,156)36,934 6,712 91 0 Interest Income -External Investment 147,894 2,051,488 - 253,961 - 2,919,897 529,623 6,844 5,909,707 Less: Admin Fee (3441.17)(47850.85)0.00 (5934.66)0.00 (68342.62)(12425.53)(151.84)(138146.67) Sub-Total 1,013,329 2,462,755 544,692 599,931 136,264 13,119,248 2,366,501 89,201 20,331,921 Less: 2025 Transfer to Capital Funds 1 (127,442) (805,278) (1,803,872) (101,829) - (8,885,829) (1,072,322) (5,422) (12,801,994) 2025 Transfer to Current Funds 1 (520,427) 3 - (448,359) 3 - (107,021) (264,047) 3 - - (1,339,853) Sub-Total 2025 (647,870) (805,278) (2,252,231) (101,829) (107,021) (9,149,876) (1,072,322) (5,422) (14,141,847) Closing Balance, December 31, 2025 before Budget Commitments 4,002,267 47,276,076 (2,308,529)6,187,777 (1,244,478)71,882,976 13,635,472 251,769 139,683,330 Less Budget Commitments 2 (1,738,282) (17,844,616) (2,197,995) (4,200,875) (857,198) (69,338,828)(5,372,234)(2,864,583) (104,414,610) Less Debt Charges Commitments 4 (7,036,196) - (4,947,984) - - (3,123,637)0 - (15,107,817) Sub-Total Budget Commitments (8,774,478) (17,844,616) (7,145,978) (4,200,875) (857,198) (72,462,465) (5,372,234) (2,864,583) (119,522,427) Closing Balance, December 31, 2025 after Budget Commitments-(Deficit)(4,772,212) 29,431,460 (9,454,507) 1,986,902 (2,101,676) (579,489) 8,263,238 (2,612,815) 20,160,902 Notes 1.See Attachment 2 for detailed breakdown. 2. Budget commitments include capital projects previously approved, but have not proceeded or still ongoing. 2025 & Prior Commitments. 3.Annual principal & interest payment related DC debenture financing 4.Includes outstanding principal & interest payments related to DC debenture financing The Municipality is compliant with s.s.59.1(1) of the Development Charges Act,whereby charges are not directly or indirectly imposed on development nor has a requirement to construct a service related to development been imposed, except as permitted by the Development Charges Act or another Act. Attachment 1 - Report FIN 10-26 - 258 - 1 of 4 City of Pickering Amount Transferred to Assets - Capital & Current Fund Transactions DC Act S 43 (2)(b) For the year ended December 31, 2025 DC Recoverable Cost Share Non - DC Recoverable Cost Share Description Project Code Gross Capital Costs DC RF 5: Funded in prior years DC RF 5: Funded in 2025 DC RF 5: Future Funding 1 Other Reserves/Re serve Funds Type of Funds (R=Reserve, RF=Reserve Fund) Property Taxes Other Sources Type Total Funding Development Related Studies New Financial System C10600.1801 5,000,000 1,537,906 0 418,594 1,743,500 R-Rate Stabilization 1,300,000 R-Financial System 5,000,000 Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review-Phse 1 to 3 10105-502230 495,487 331,687 0 163,799 495,487 Northeast Pickering OPA - Background studies 10105-502230 596,835 135,209 59,728 0 401,898 Third Party Contribut 596,835 Facilities Renewal Plan 10325-502230 50,066 25,033 25,033 R-DC City's Share 50,066 OP Review Grwth Mgmt, EmplLand Studies 10105-502230 139,442 46,685 92,756 139,442 DC/CBC Study 10105-DC/CBC 90,000 28,738 61,262 90,000 Housing Assessment & Incl Zoning Study 10105-502230 101,250 101,250 101,250 Growth Management Study OP Review 10105-502230 45,000 45,000 45,000 Official Plan Review Background Study 10105-502230 407,788 78,916 607 138,336 189,929 407,788 Sub-total Studies 6,925,867 2,137,489 107,021 857,198 1,768,533 - 353,728 1,701,898 6,925,867 Fire Protection Services Seaton- New Fire Hall-Site Preparation, Other Construction Re C10700.1601 1,066,290 335,805 48,142 480,706 201,637 R-DC City's Share 1,066,290 FS #1 New Fire Station & HQ (Seaton) Bunker Gear & BreathinC10700.2201 169,000 80,581 79,301 9,119 169,000 Seaton FS#1- New Fire Station & H.Q.Re-design - Design and C10700.2007 622,213 506,394 19,956 95,862 R-DC City's Share 622,213 FS #1 New Fire Station & HQ (Seaton) - Construction DC Debt 11100 8,136,830 1,277,355 403,973 6,455,502 2 8,136,830 Fire Master Plan 10700 -502230 94,982 71,237 0 23,745 94,982 FS #1 New Fire Station & HQ (Seaton) - FF&E C10700.2107 355,660 246,010 0 109,650 RF - Seaton Land Grp FIA 355,660 Aerial Ladder Truck for Seaton (FS1)C10700.1903 1,510,641 1,473,128 37,513 RF - Seaton Land Grp FIA 1,510,641 Seaton North FS - Land (Debt charges)11100 1,166,324 469,176 116,455 580,694 2 1,166,324 C10700.2502-FS #3 New Fire Station (Seaton) - Design C10700.2502 1,260,000 - 1,228,500 RF - Seaton Land Grp FIA 31,500 1,260,000 10700 - Equipment for 4 Firefighters 53,600 53,600 53,600 Sub-total Fire Services 14,435,539 4,513,286 647,870 8,774,478 444,662 55,245 0 14,435,539 By-Law Enforcement Services Animal Shelter - Design & Construction C10430.2101 9,739,000 70,223 5,422 2,864,583 3,429,292 RF - Animal Shelter & R-City's Share 3,369,480 Debt 15-Yr 9,739,000 Sub-total By-Law Enforcement Services 9,739,000 70,223 5,422 2,864,583 3,429,292 0 3,369,480 9,739,000 Attachment 2 - Report FIN 10-26 - 259 - 2 of 4 City of Pickering Amount Transferred to Assets - Capital & Current Fund Transactions DC Act S 43 (2)(b) For the year ended December 31, 2025 DC Recoverable Cost Share Non - DC Recoverable Cost Share Description Project Code Gross Capital Costs DC RF 5: Funded in prior years DC RF 5: Funded in 2025 DC RF 5: Future Funding 1 Other Reserves/Re serve Funds Type of Funds (R=Reserve, RF=Reserve Fund) Property Taxes Other Sources Type Total Funding Transportation B-29 Sandy Beach Road - EA, Design, Construction C10575.1609 5,895,000 163,318 0 2,784,182 2,647,500 R-AIP & R-DC City's Share 300,000 Loan 10-Yr 5,895,000 Walnut Lane Extension Study & EA, Design, Construction (rela C10575.1801 10,024,088 342,822 454,307 6,806,643 2,420,316 R-DC City's Share 10,024,088 DH-4 Valley Farm Road - Road Oversizing - DH-4 Valley Farm C10575.1804 288,000 91,849 0 167,351 28,800 R-DC City's Share 288,000 B-29 Sandy Beach Rd. - Road Reconstruction Phase 1 - Sandy C10575.1904 2,000,000 - 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 R-DC City's Share 2,000,000 B-26B A-11 (Plummer Street)C10575.2001 364,045 - 0 273,033 91,012 R-DC City's Share 364,045 Highway 401 Road Crossing Design C10575.2002 3,478,460 26,002 0 1,574,090 1,391,384 Third Party Contribution 486,984 Loan 2-Yr 3,478,460 Hwy 401 Road Crossing - Land Acquisition - Phase 1 C10575.2004 4,887,626 2,053,848 0 133,778 700,000 RF- Roads & Bridges 2,000,000 Third Party Contribution 4,887,626 Hwy 401 Road Crossing - Land Acquisition - Phase 2 C10575.2004 10,934,876 4,966,534 0 9,698 4,373,950 Debt-20 Yr 1,584,694 Loan 2-Yr 10,934,876 City Dev Projects-DCRF committed 6,219,100 47,153 78,000 3,897,596 4 2,196,350 R-DC City's Share 6,219,100 Sidewalks W0-2,WO-10 Kingston Rd & Altona C10515.1603 294,262 133,002 0 14,129 147,131 R-DC City's Share 294,262 1 Ton Dump Truck with Aluminum Body, Plow and Salter - New C10315.2113 273,142 - 272,971 171 273,142 L-13d Third Concession Road Culvert Redevelopment C10570.2501 597,000 447,700 149,300 R-DC City's Share 597,000 Scarborough/Pickering Townline Road Reconstruction - Finch A C10570.2207 1,005,300 16,587 0 486,063 305,150 R-DC City's Share 197,500 Third Party Contribution 1,005,300 DH-3 Tillings Road - Road Oversizing C10575.1803 294,800 15,140 0 250,180 29,480 R-DC City's Share 294,800 Sub-total Transportation 46,555,699 7,856,254 805,278 17,844,615 15,480,373 0 4,569,178 46,555,699 Stormwater Management B-20 D Krosno Creek SWM Facility Design & Construction C10575.1904 2,280,400 - 0 1,094,592 1,185,808 R-DC City's Share 2,280,400 Breezy Drive/Sunrise Ave. Storm Sewer Outfall Reconstruction C10575.1903 1,446,299 349,938 5,978 5,658 1,084,725 R-DC City's Share 1,446,299 Installation of Oil Grit Separators - Installation of Oil Grit Separators F C10575.1903 300,900 - 0 85,310 215,590 R-DC City's Share 300,900 Krosno Creek Culvert Replacements & Erosion Control Construction C10575.1910 4,800,000 75,287 36,664 2,192,050 2,496,000 R-DC City's Share 4,800,000 Installation of Oil Grit Separators - Frenchman's Bay C10575.2203 349,000 - 0 99,000 250,000 R-DC City's Share 349,000 City Centre Storm Water Mgmt Strategy 10510-502230 53,899 28,984 0 0 24,916 R-DC City's Share 53,899 2404-B-19 D Krosno Creek - SWM Facility C10575.2404 188,542 - 48,172 42,280 98,090 R-DC City's Share 188,542 Pine Creek Restoration Site #22 Culvert C10525.2503 302,500 11,015 26,985 264,500 R-DC City's Share 302,500 Installation of Oil Grit Separators C10575.2501 405,600 115,000 290,600 R-DC City's Share 405,600 Frenchman's Bay Watershed S Mngt Plan C10510 540,000 540,000 540,000 Pine Creek Erosion Assessment Municipal Class EA Study 10510-502230 76,524 9,719 0 0 66,805 76,524 Sub-total Stormwater Management 10,743,664 463,928 101,829 4,200,875 5,910,229 66,805 10,743,664 Other Services Related to a Highway 5 Ton Dump Truck with Snow Plow & Wing C10315.2222 404,974 0 404,974 0 404,974 4 Ton Dump Truck with Snow Plow, Wing & Brine Tank (2)C10315.2223 804,400 0 402,937 401,463 804,400 City Centre Transportation Master Plan 10500-502230 261,727 120,113 35,363 80,078 26,173 261,727 4 Ton Dump Truck with Snow Plow & Wing C10315.2205 388,463 0 388,457 6 388,463 1 Ton Dump Truck with Tailgate Lift C10315.2312 100,440 100,440 0 0 100,440 Northern Satellite Facility C10300.2404 528,000 528,000 528,000 Sidewalk Plow with Attachments - New C10305.2405 275,000 213,078 61,922 275,000 4 Ton Dump Truck w/ Snow Plow/Wing C10315.2406 450,000 450,000 450,000 4 Ton Dump Truck Roll-off Body - New C10315.2413 350,000 350,000 350,000 1 Ton Truck w/ Aluminum Dump Body (2)C10315.2415 330,552 202,225 128,327 330,552 Neighbourhood Traffic Calming Measures Study C10500 156,600 156,600 156,600 Sidewalk Sweeper with Attachments C10305.2502 233,800 192,201 41,599 233,800 Operations Centre-Debt Charges 61% of total debt charges C10300.1801 8,279,058 2,918,079 412,996 4,947,984 2 0 8,279,058 Attachment 2 - Report FIN 10-26 - 260 - 3 of 4 City of Pickering Amount Transferred to Assets - Capital & Current Fund Transactions DC Act S 43 (2)(b) For the year ended December 31, 2025 DC Recoverable Cost Share Non - DC Recoverable Cost Share Description Project Code Gross Capital Costs DC RF 5: Funded in prior years DC RF 5: Funded in 2025 DC RF 5: Future Funding 1 Other Reserves/Re serve Funds Type of Funds (R=Reserve, RF=Reserve Fund) Property Taxes Other Sources Type Total Funding Sub-total 12,563,014 3,138,632 2,252,231 7,145,978 0 26,173 12,563,014 Parks & Recreation Services Indoor Soccer Facility and Land - Design & Construction of Indo C10220.1401 7,296,605 3,369,586 0 114,543 78,375 R-DC City's Share 101 3,734,000 Debt 15-Yr 7,296,605 Duffin Heights Village Green (East)-New C10320.1708 490,000 5,670 18,955 434,600 30,775 R-DC City's Share - 23,275 Pakland Oblig - 7,500 490,000 Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Park Construction C10320.1808 1,377,500 22,925 0 1,278,700 75,875 R-DC City's Share 1,377,500 Seaton (P103) Village Green Construction C10320.1816 210,000 - 0 184,275 25,725 RF-FIA 210,000 Village Green Seaton P-114 (88/12)C10320.1909 224,520 2,141 195,184 0 27,195 RF-Parkland 224,520 Seaton Parks P-123, P-112, P-113, P-126, P-127, P-121, P- 131,P-132, P-104,P-124,P-125,P-105,P-106,P-107 C10320.2023-2025, 2118, 2119, 2205,C10572.2401,24 02,2411,2414,2415,24 16,2417,2418 15,250,861 - 662,111 14,007,650 4 581,100 RF-Seaton FIA 15,250,861 Dorsay Community & Heritage Ctr C10220.2011 62,874,819 3,320,983 3,561,092 19,857,678 2,894,142 3 RF-DC Library Facilities 33,240,924 Multiple Funding Sources 62,874,819 Rotary Frenchman's Bay West Park Waterfront Master Plan C10320.1912 2,730,487 1,227,934 137,309 1,365,244 R-DC City's Share 2,730,487 Rotary Frenchmans Bay West-Accessibility C10320.1913 1,426,820 708,849 4,562 713,409 R-DC City's Share 1,426,820 Seaton Community Centre - Preliminary Planning, Investigations & Design C10260.2101 18,150,001 552,062 87,606 17,120,992 389,341 RF-Seaton FIA 18,150,001 Skate Board Park - Community Size - Design & Construction C10320.2134 990,017 - 7,553 503,175 479,290 R-DC City's Share 990,017 Operations Centre - DC Debt Charges, 39% of total debt charges 11100 5,252,276 1,864,592 264,047 3,123,637 2 0 - 5,252,276 Various Growth Park Vehicles C10305.2306, C10320.2316, 2321- 2323, 2404,2406,2421,2424 1,354,556 759,556 422,643 172,357 1,354,556 C10320.2303- Creekside Park – Expansion C10320.2303 110,000 63,726 43,474 2,800 R-DC City's Share 110,000 C10320.2305- Village Green - Four Seasons Lane C10320.2305 960,000 - 936,000 24,000 R-DC City's Share 960,000 Beachfront Park MP Detailed Design C10320.2206 10,600,000 971,500 3,673,074 405,426 500,000 RF- Parkland Oblig Fund 5,050,000 Casino Reserves 10,600,000 C10320.2318-Tennis/Pickleball Court-ShadybrookPark C10320.2318 400,000 64,158 1,526 34,316 300,000 R-DC City's Share 400,000 C10320.2332- Park Block at Old Ops Centre Site C10320.2332 1,397,500 - 698,700 698,800 R-DC City's Share 1,397,500 C10300.2404 - Northern Satellite Facility C10300.2404 1,457,000 1,457,000 1,457,000 10200 - Parks & Rec Masterplan (2023)10200-502230 210,497 161,197 0 49,300 210,497 WaterfrntTrail WestShore/Marksbury Des C10572.2404 1,083,600 13,370 29,356 1,003,374 37,500 1,083,600 GeraniumHomes - Claremont Park C10572.2405 2,271,200 2,214,400 56,800 R-DC City's Share 2,271,200 NewGravelParkingLot-Alex RobertsonPark C10572.2408 376,600 12,713 175,587 17,191 171,110 R-DC City's Share 376,600 Attachment 2 - Report FIN 10-26 - 261 - 4 of 4 City of Pickering Amount Transferred to Assets - Capital & Current Fund Transactions DC Act S 43 (2)(b) For the year ended December 31, 2025 DC Recoverable Cost Share Non - DC Recoverable Cost Share Description Project Code Gross Capital Costs DC RF 5: Funded in prior years DC RF 5: Funded in 2025 DC RF 5: Future Funding 1 Other Reserves/Re serve Funds Type of Funds (R=Reserve, RF=Reserve Fund) Property Taxes Other Sources Type Total Funding City Centre Park C10572.2409 1,500,000 - 51,143 698,857 750,000 R - Casino Reserves 1,500,000 Park Gateway Feature - Seaton - Land C10572.2504 400,000 390,000 10,000 RF-Seaton FIA 400,000 Neighbourhood Park - Seaton P-128 C10572.2502 1,691,100 1,648,800 42,300 RF-Seaton FIA 1,691,100 Community Park - Greenwood Conservation C10572.2501 500,000 250,000 250,000 R-DC City's Share 500,000 Seaton Muncipal Land - Site Servicing C10000.2502 417,000 417,000 417,000 Seaton Muncipal Land Acquisition C10000.2501 5,118,900 5,118,900 5,118,900 Durham Meadoway Class EA 10500 175,000 175,000 175,000 Seaton Rec - Consultation 10200 14,550 14,550 14,550 0 0 0 0 Sub-total 146,311,409 13,120,961 9,149,876 72,462,465 9,466,281 86,901 42,024,924 146,311,409 Library Facilites & Materials Dorsay Heritage & Community Ctr C10220.2011 3,148,182 1,477,690 1,072,322 598,170 (2,894,142)3 RF-DC Library Facilities 3,148,182 Outreach Vehicle C10900.2109 220,000 180,958 17,043 22,000 R-Vehicle Replacement 220,001 Seaton Regional Library C10905.2101 5,195,000 151,103 4,710,122 333,775 RF-DC Parks & Rec - 220,000 RF - Seaton FIA - 113,775 5,195,000 Facilities Plan 10900 46,900 46,900 46,900 Library Strategic Plan 10900-502230 102,269 76,019 0 26,250 102,269 Sub-total 8,712,351 1,885,770 1,072,322 5,372,234 (2,538,367)26,250 0 8,712,352 Grand Total 255,986,543 33,186,543 14,141,847 119,522,427 33,961,002 615,102 51,665,480 253,092,401 Notes 1 Projects ongoing. Future funding for incomplete component. DC RF will be drawn when expenses are incurred. 2 DC Costs relates to Debt charges undertaken for the projects 3 Presented as in/out to show funding from "Library Facilities". Total costs and sources of funds presented in "Parks & Recreation". 4 Amount presented relates to DC RF budget commitments only, combination of multiple projects. 5 Development Charges Reserve Fund (DC RF) Attachment 2 - Report FIN 10-26 - 262 - Statement of Compliance The City has not imposed additional levies in accordance with Subsection 59.1 (1) of the DC Act. ___________________________ Stan Karwowski Director, Finance & Treasurer Attachment 3 - Report FIN 10-26 - 263 - Report to Council Report Number: INF 09-26 Date: June 22, 2026 From: Kevin Heathcote Director, City Infrastructure Subject: Sixth Concession Road Reconstruction & Greenwood Bridge Rehabilitation Request for Tender No. T2026-6 File: A-1440-001 Recommendation: 1. That Report INF 09-26 regarding the Sixth Concession Road Reconstruction & Greenwood Bridge Rehabilitation Request for Tender No. T2026-6 be received; 2. That the bid submitted by Nuroad Construction Limited in response to Request for Tender No. T2026-6 for the Sixth Concession Road Reconstruction and Greenwood Bridge Rehabilitation project, in the amount of $3,050,410.68 (net HST) or $3,387,346.76 (HST included) be accepted; 3. That the total gross project cost of $4,303,935.00 (HST included), including the amount of the bid, contingency, and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $3,875,827.00 (net HST) be approved; 4. That Council award the contract administration and construction inspection for Request for Tender No. T2026-6 to JP2G Consultants Inc. in the amount of $315,061.17 (net HST); in accordance with the Purchasing Policy Section 10.03 (c) as the assignment is above $125,000.00; 5. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the total net project cost of $3,875,827.00 as follows: a. That the sum of $3,695,000.00 as approved in the 2024 and 2026 Capital Budgets be increased to $3,875,827.00 and be funded from the OCIF Reserve Fund; and, 6. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. - 264 - INF 09-26 June 22, 2026 Page 2 1.0 Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to award Request for Tender No. T2026-6 for Sixth Concession Road Reconstruction & Greenwood Bridge Rehabilitation to Nuroad Construction Limited, including contract administration and inspection services to JP2G Consultants Inc. As part of the 2024 and 2026 City Infrastructure Capital Budgets, funding was approved for the Sixth Concession Road Reconstruction and Greenwood Bridge Rehabilitation project as a construction project. This project represents the continuation of works completed under Tender T-6-2017 and addresses aging infrastructure, identified bridge deficiencies, and stormwater servicing requirements along Sixth Concession Road between Highway 7 and Greenwood Road. Request for Tender No. T2026‑6 was advertised on the City’s bids&tenders portal on May 13, 2026, and closed on June 4, 2026, with six contractors submitting bids. The lowest compliant bid submitted by Nuroad Construction Limited in the amount of $3,050,410.68 (net HST) or 3,387,346.76 (HST included), is recommended for approval. JP2G Consultants Inc. has provided a fee proposal in the amount of $315,061.17 (net HST) for contract administration and construction inspection services and are recommended for approval in accordance with Purchasing Policy Section 10.03 (c). The total gross project cost which includes the tendered amount, construction contingency, and other associated costs is estimated to be $4,303,935.00 (HST included), with an estimated total net project cost of $3,875,827.00 (net HST). 2.0 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. 3.0 Financial Implications: 3.1 Tender Amount T2026-6 $2,997,652.00 HST (13%) 389,694.76 Total Gross Tender Cost $3,387,346.76 Net HST Rebate (11.24%) (336,936,08) Total Net Tender Cost $3,050,410.68 - 265 - INF 09-26 June 22, 2026 Page 3 3.2 Estimated Project Cost Summary T2026-6 $2,997,652.00 OCIF Sponsor Signage 2,500.00 Material Testing 24,135.00 TRCA Permit 5,245.00 Contract Administration and Inspection 309,612.00 Utility Relocations 20,000.00 Project Contingency (15%) 449,648.00 Total Project Cost $3,808,792.00 HST(13%) 495,143.00 Total Gross Project Cost $4,303,935.00 HST Rebate (11.24%) (428,108.00) Total Net Project Cost $3,875,827.00 3.3 Approved Source of Funds – City Infrastructure Capital Budget Approved Capital Account Source of Funds Approved Budget Funds Required C10570.1803 OCIF Reserve Fund $2,025,000.00 $2,025,000.00 C10570.1803 OCIF Reserve Fund $1,670,000.00 $1,850,827.00 Total Funds $3,695,000.00 $3,875,827.00 Net Project Cost Under (Over) Approved Funds ($180,827.00) A higher construction contingency of 15% has been included as an associated cost as bridge rehabilitation projects have a high degree of complexity due to in-water work and the potential for unforeseen site conditions. 4.0 Discussion: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council approval to award Request for Tender No. T2026-6 for Sixth Concession Road Reconstruction & Greenwood Bridge Rehabilitation to Nuroad Construction Limited, including contract administration services to JP2G Consultants Inc. The Sixth Concession Road corridor serves as a key local roadway providing access into the Hamlet of Greenwood and connecting to Highway 7 as well as a main access point to the - 266 - INF 09-26 June 22, 2026 Page 4 newly constructed Dorsay Community and Heritage Centre. Sixth Concession Road and Greenwood Bridge were originally constructed in 1970 and have not undergone significant rehabilitation since that time. The existing roadway is a rural cross-section with ditches for drainage and carries low to moderate traffic volumes. The corridor is also identified as a future cycling route and forms part of the Trans Canada Trail. As part of the City’s 2016 Capital Program, Stage 1 works between Greenwood Road and Westney Road were completed under Tender T-6-2017. That work included full road reconstruction and urbanization, partial storm sewer replacement, and boulevard restoration. The current project represents Stage 2 of the Sixth Concession Road corridor improvements and will continue the infrastructure upgrades from Highway 7 to Greenwood Road. The need for this project is driven by the deteriorating condition of the roadway due to the aging pavement structure, limitations in the existing stormwater system including reliance on temporary outfall connections from Stage 1, and deficiencies in Greenwood Bridge identified through the City’s biennial OSIM inspections. Recent bridge inspections have confirmed that deterioration of the bridge deck is a key concern, and continued degradation may result in the need for full replacement if rehabilitation is not undertaken. The project is also influenced by environmental and regulatory requirements associated with Duffins Creek and the approval required from external authorities such as TRCA. The scope of work includes for this construction project includes the following: • Full depth road reconstruction to a rural cross-section, west of Greenwood bridge and a semi-urban section, east of Greenwood Bridge, matching Phase 1. • Storm sewer upgrades such as pipe replacement and capacity improvements, new catchbasins and ditch inlets, and reconstruction of the stormwater outfall including an oil grit separator, plunge pool, bioswale and channel restoration into Duffins Creek. • Greenwood Bridge structural rehabilitation including partial deck replacement and overlay, replacement of curb, sidewalk, parapet walls and centre island, waterproofing and expansion joint replacement and local abutment repairs. • Environmental restoration and landscaping works including incorporation of a low impact development (LID) and treatment train approach to improve stormwater quality discharge and reduce risk of erosion along Duffins Creek. During detailed design, City staff conducted public consultation with area residents to gather local knowledge and understand potential concerns related to the project. A Public Information Centre was held on January 30, 2025 at the Greenwood Community Centre. Working concepts of the proposed design were on display and City Infrastructure Staff as well as the City’s Consultant were available to discuss the project scope and address any questions or concerns area residents may have regarding the project. The main topics of feedback staff received included the following topics: • concerns about bridge condition; - 267 - INF 09-26 June 22, 2026 Page 5 • pedestrian facilities; • speeding and traffic calming; and, • project timing. Report ENG 15-23 was approved by Council (Resolution #356/23) to retain JP2G Consultants Inc. (formerly Greer Galloway Group Inc.) to undertake the detailed engineering design for the reconstruction of Sixth Concession Road and rehabilitation of Greenwood Bridge. It is good engineering practice to have the same consultant provide further support with contract administration and inspection services. This ensures good technical continuity for the project by using the same company and allows for certification upon completion. JP2G Consultants Inc. have provided a fee proposal in the amount of $315,061.17 (net HST) for all construction related services and are recommended for approval in accordance with the Purchasing Policy Section 10.03 (c). In accordance with Purchasing Policy Item 10.03, the Manager may obtain the services of a particular consultant selected by the initiating Director without going through a competitive process. Where the funds are available in the approved budget and the project or annual cost of a consulting or professional service assignment is expected to be: (c) Above $125,000 is subject to the additional approval of Council. The initiating Director shall submit a report to Council for approval. Pursuant to RFSQ2023-1 Roster Category of Geotechnical Investigation and Inspection Services Master Framework Agreement, geotechnical inspection and material testing services, in the amount of $24,559.78 (net HST), will be awarded to Engtec Consulting Inc. Request for Tender No. T2026-6 was advertised on the City’s bids&tenders portal on May 13, 2026 and closed on June 4, 2026 with six contractors submitting bids. The lowest compliant bid of $3,050,410.68 (net HST) or $3,387,346.76 (HST included) submitted by Nuroad Construction Limited is recommended for approval. The total gross project cost which includes the tendered amount, construction contingency, and other associated costs is estimated to be $4,303,935.00 (HST included), with an estimated total net project cost of $3,875,827.00 (net HST). Upon careful examination of all bids and relevant documentation received, the City Infrastructure Department recommends acceptance of the lowest compliant bid submitted by Nuroad Construction Limited for Tender No. T2026-6 in the amount of $3,050,410.68 (net HST) or $3,387,346.76 (HST included), and that the total net project cost of $3,875,827.00 (net HST) be approved. Attachment: 1. Location Map Prepared By: Cynthia Islam, Manager, Capital Projects & Infrastructure - 268 - INF 09-26 June 22, 2026 Page 6 Approved/Endorsed By: Cathy Bazinet, Manager, Procurement Approved/Endorsed By: Kevin Heathcote, Director, City Infrastructure Approved/Endorsed By: Stan Kawwowski, Director, Finance & Treasurer CI:mjh Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 269 - HIG HW A Y 7 P A D D O C K R O A D TR IMBLE' S L A N E SCALE: City Infrastructure Department L O C A T I O N M A P Jun 03, 2026 DATE: 1:2,000 6th Concession Rd (Hwy 7 and Greenwood) New Storm Sewer Installation Road Reconstruction Limits Greenwood Bridge Rehabilitation F S I X T H C O N C E S S I O N R O A D G R E E N W O O D R O A D Request for Quotation Approval - SIXTH CONCESSION ROAD Proposed Road Reconstruction, Bridge Rehabilitation and New Storm Drainage Attachment 1 to Report INF 09-26 - 270 - Report to Council Report Number: INF 10-26 Date: June 22, 2026 From: Kevin Heathcote Director, City Infrastructure Subject: Supply & Delivery of Two Fifteen-Inch Tow Behind Wood Chippers Request for Quotation No. RFQQ2026-27 File: A - 1440-001 Recommendation: 1. That Report INF 10-26 regarding the Supply & Delivery of Two Fifteen-Inch Tow Behind Wood Chippers be received; 2. That the Quotation submitted by Vermeer Cananda Inc. in response to Request for Quotation No. RFQQ2026-27 for the Supply and Delivery of Two Fifteen-Inch Tow Behind Wood Chippers, in the amount of $295,731.00 (net HST) or $328,396.00 (HST included) be accepted; 3. That the total gross project cost of $328,396.00 (HST included), and the total net project cost of $295,731.00 (net HST) be approved; 4. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer, be authorized to finance the total net project cost of $295,731.00 as follows: a. That the sum of $260,000.00 as approved in the 2026 Capital Budget be increased to $295,731.00 funded from the Equipment Reserve Fund; and, 5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 1. Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to award Request for Quotation No. RFQQ2026-27 for the Supply & Delivery of Two Fifteen-Inch Tow Behind Wood Chippers. The Public Works Division, within the City Infrastructure Department, uses wood chippers for brushing and chipping during maintenance projects and for emergency response during severe weather events. Request for Quotation No. RFQQ2026-27 was posted on the City’s bids&tenders portal on April 21, 2026 and closed on May 8, 2026. Two companies submitted a response for this project. The quotation from Vermeer Canada Inc. complied with all of the technical requirements and was - 271 - INF 10-26 June 22, 2026 Page 2 the lowest compliant response with a price of $295,731.00 (net HST) or $328,396.00 (HST included). 2. 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. 3. Financial Implications: 3.1 Quotation Amount RFQQ2026-27 $290,615.70 HST (13%) 37,780.04 Total Gross Quotation Cost $328,395.74 3.2 Estimated Project Costing Summary RFQQ2026-27 $290,616.00 HST (13%) 37,780.00 Total Gross Project Cost $328,396.00 HST Rebate (11.24%) (32,665.00) Total Net Project Cost 295,731.00 3.3 Approved Source of Funds Approved Capital Account Source of Funds Available Budget Funds Required C10305.2601 Equipment Reserve Fund $130,000.00 $147,865.50 C10315.2602 Equipment Reserve Fund $130,000.00 $147,865.50 Total $260,000.00 $295,731.00 Net Project Cost under (over) Approved Funds ($35,731.00) In accordance with Section 11.02 of the City’s Financial Control Policy, where authority has been given in the annual Capital Budget for a particular project, the Chief Administrative Officer, the appropriate Department Head(s) and the Treasurer may jointly approve changes to such authorized amounts provided that the total amount of the over expenditures: - 272 - INF 10-26 June 22, 2026 Page 3 a. does not exceed the lesser of 10% of the approved capital expenditure or $100,000.00; and, b. are offset by corresponding under expenditures in other approved capital expenditures. This quotation did not meet the above noted thresholds. In accordance with Section 11.05 of the City’s Financial Control Policy, Current and Capital Budget expenditures in excess of the limits established under Section 11.01, 11.02, 11.03 and 11.04 shall require the approval of the Treasurer, the Chief Administrative Officer and Council. 4. Discussion: The purpose of this report is to award Request for Quotation No. RFQQ2026-27 for the Supply & Delivery of Two Fifteen-Inch Tow Behind Wood Chippers. The Public Works Division, within the City Infrastructure Department, uses wood chippers for brushing and chipping during maintenance projects and for emergency response during severe weather events. As the City continues to grow and severe weather events become more frequent, the addition of new wood chippers to the City’s fleet will increase operational effectiveness, improve emergency storm response and reduce costs related to renting equipment. This reduces risk due to rental equipment being unavailable during or after storm events. Request for Quotation No. RFQQ2026-27 was posted on the City’s bids&tenders portal on April 21, 2026, and closed on May 8, 2026. Two companies submitted a quotation for this project. The quotation from Vermeer Canada Inc. complied with all of the technical requirements and received an acceptable score from the Evaluation Committee. Upon careful review of the responses received, the City Infrastructure Department recommends the acceptance of the lowest compliant response submitted by Vermeer Canada Inc. for Request for Quotation No. RFQQ2026-27 in the amount of $295,731.00 (net HST) or $328,396.00 (HST included) and that the total net project cost of $295,731.00 (net HST) be approved. Attachment: None Prepared By: Matt Currer, Manager, Fleet & Roads Operations Approved/Endorsed By: Cathy Bazinet, Manager, Procurement Approved/Endorsed By: Kevin Heathcote, Director, City Infrastructure Approved/Endorsed By: Stan Karwowski, Director, Finance & Treasurer - 273 - INF 10-26 June 22, 2026 Page 4 MC:mjh Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 274 - Report to Council Report Number: PLN 14-26 Date: June 22, 2026 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Esri Enterprise Agreement for the Supply of ArcGIS Software and Services File: L-4100 Recommendation: 1. That Report PLN 14-26 regarding the Esri Enterprise Agreement for the Supply of ArcGIS Software and Services be received; 2. That Council approves the renewal Enterprise Agreement (EA) with Esri Canada for the supply of ArcGIS software and services, and the City’s participation in the EA for a three year period, at a total cost of $246,279.55, inclusive of applicable HST and HST rebate, with annual payments of $79,678.08 for year one (July 15, 2026 to July 14, 2027), $82,069.44 for year two (July 15, 2027 to July 14, 2028), and $84,532.03 for year three (July 15, 2028 to July 14, 2029); 3. That the annual cost of $79,678.08 for Year One be funded from the current budget allocation under Account 502700.10100.0000 of the City Development Department, as approved in the 2026 Current Budget, with funding for subsequent years to be incorporated into and approved through the respective annual budget processes; 4. That the Director, City Development & CBO be authorized to sign the Esri Proposal to participate in, and commit to, the terms and payment, as set out in Attachment 1 of Report PLN 14-26; and, 5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 1.0 Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council approval for the City to renew its license agreement with Esri Canada. The City of Pickering currently holds a direct Small Local Government Enterprise Agreement (EA) with Esri Canada for the supply of ArcGIS software and services, covering the period from July 15, 2023 to July 14, 2026. This agreement followed - 275 - PLN 14-26 June 22, 2026 Page 2 the City’s earlier participation in the Region of Durham’s Esri Enterprise Agreement and established Pickering’s independent licensing arrangement with Esri Canada since July 2023. To ensure the continued availability of ArcGIS software and services in support of the City’s Geographic Information System (GIS) operations, staff are recommending the renewal of the existing Small Local Government Enterprise Agreement for an additional three-year term, from July 15, 2026 to July 14, 2029. The cost and eligibility level of the agreement are based on the City’s published Statistics Canada population, which continues to qualify Pickering for a Level 3 Small Local Government Enterprise Agreement (applicable to municipalities with populations between 50,000 and 100,000). This agreement provides the City with stable pricing, predictable licensing terms, and access to a comprehensive suite of GIS software, services, and support. The ArcGIS software and services provided under this agreement are essential to the delivery of GIS-based analysis, mapping, data management, and decision support across the organization. Renewal of the Small Local Government Enterprise Agreement will ensure continuity of service, maintain access to current technology, and support the City’s ongoing operational and strategic GIS needs. It is therefore recommended that the City renew the Small Local Government Enterprise Agreement with Esri Canada for another three-year term commencing July 15, 2026 and ending July 14, 2029, in accordance with Attachment 1 to Report PLN 14-26, and that the agreement be executed. 2.0 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; and Foster an Engaged & Informed Community. 3.0 Financial Implications: 3.1 Total Project Cost for Pickering’s 3-Year License Agreement 3 Year License Extension $242,020.00 HST (13% 31,462.60 Total Gross Project Costs $273,482.60 HST Rebate (11.24%) (27,203.05) Total Net Project Costs $246,279.55 - 276 - PLN 14-26 June 22, 2026 Page 3 3.2 Annual Costs Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Pickering Costs (excl. taxes) HST (13%) Gross Project Costs HST Rebate (11.24%) Net Project Cost to City (incl. 1.76%) $78,300.00 10,179.00 $88,479.00 (8,800.92) $79,678.08 $80,650.00 10,484.50 $91,134.50 (9,065.06) $82,069.44 $83,070.00 10,799.10 $93,869.10 (9,337.07) $84,532.03 3.3 Approved Source of Funds – Phase 1 (2026 Current Budget) Account Code Source of Funds Budget Required 10100.502700.0000 Property Taxes $114,330.0 $79,678.08 Under/(Over) approved budget $34,651.92 4.0 Discussion: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council approval for the City to renew its license agreement with Esri Canada. The ArcGIS software and services provided by Esri Canada have been used by the City of Pickering for more than two decades and form the backbone of the City’s Geographic Information System (GIS). Throughout this time, the ArcGIS platform has supported a wide range of municipal functions, including mapping, spatial analysis, asset management, planning, engineering, infrastructure management, and data‑driven decision‑making across the organization. In July 2023, the City entered into a direct Small Local Government Enterprise Agreement (EA) with Esri Canada for the provision of ArcGIS software and services, covering the period from July 15, 2023 to July 14, 2026. This agreement was based on the City’s Statistics Canada population and qualified Pickering for a Level 3 Small Local Government EA, which generally keeps annual costs under $100,000 per year. Under this model, the City has benefited from predictable licensing, stable pricing, and access to a comprehensive suite of GIS software, tools, and services aligned with municipal operational requirements. - 277 - PLN 14-26 June 22, 2026 Page 4 To ensure continuity of GIS operations and to avoid disruption to business‑critical systems, staff are recommending the renewal of the existing Small Local Government Enterprise Agreement for a further three‑year term, from July 15, 2026 to July 14, 2029. Based on the City’s current published population, Pickering continues to qualify for the Level 3 Small Local Government EA, enabling the City to maintain access to the same tier of products, services, and benefits currently in use. The importance of maintaining current and supported GIS technology is further demonstrated through the City’s involvement in the Region of Durham’s Next Generation 9‑1‑1 (NG9‑1‑1) initiative. This Canada‑wide program requires standardized, high‑quality municipal addressing to support emergency response and relies on up‑to‑date ArcGIS capabilities. Timely renewal of the City’s Esri software agreement is essential to ensure continued compatibility, support, and the ability to meet these regional and national requirements. In addition, Pickering Fire Services currently rely on routing software within frontline vehicles that is integrated with the City’s GIS data, including the corporate basemap, fire hydrant locations, and municipal addressing maintained through ArcGIS Online. Continued access to this data is dependent on the City’s Esri licensing. Any lapse in licensing would impact the ability to maintain and deliver up‑to‑date geospatial information to emergency responders, potentially affecting response efficiency and service levels. The current agreement provides the City with a broad range of ArcGIS Online and ArcGIS Enterprise user types, uncapped viewer access, significant service credits, desktop GIS capabilities, advanced analytical extensions, and 3D mapping tools. This licensing structure supports a growing and increasingly distributed GIS user base across multiple departments, while allowing flexibility to adapt to evolving business needs over the term of the agreement. In addition to core licensing, the Small Local Government Enterprise Agreement includes access to Esri training resources, professional services hours, direct technical support, and user conference attendance. Direct access to Esri Canada for technical assistance and troubleshooting has improved operational efficiency and reduced issue‑resolution timelines, supporting the effective maintenance and ongoing enhancement of the City’s GIS environment. The ArcGIS software and services delivered through this agreement are an essential element of the City’s GIS operations and service delivery. GIS systems and data are relied upon by multiple departments and divisions, including Information Technology, City Development, Engineering Services, and City Infrastructure. GIS staff within City Infrastructure rely on these tools to support asset management, capital planning, inspections, and infrastructure‑related analysis. Failure to renew the agreement would have significant operational impacts and would negatively affect the City’s ability to deliver services that depend on spatial data and analysis. Accordingly, staff recommend that Council support the renewal of the Small Local Government Enterprise Agreement with Esri Canada for the supply of ArcGIS software and services, and the City’s continued participation in this agreement for another three‑year term commencing July 15, 2026 and ending July 14, 2029, in accordance with Attachment 1 of Report PLN 14- 26. - 278 - PLN 14-26 June 22, 2026 Page 5 Further, it is recommended that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the License Agreement between the City of Pickering and Esri Canada, subject to such revisions as may be acceptable to the Chief Administrative Officer, the City Solicitor, and the Director, City Development & CBO. This report has been reviewed by the Director, Finance & Treasurer, the Director, Engineering Services, the Director, City Infrastructure, and the Division Head, Information Technology. They concur with the contents of the report and its recommendations. Attachment: 1. Esri Small Government Enterprise Agreement Letter Prepared By: Jill McMullen, Supervisor, Geomatics Prepared By: Déan Jacobs, Manager, Policy & Geomatics Approved/Endorsed By: Catherine Rose, Chief Planner Approved/Endorsed By: Kyle Bentley, Director, City Development & CBO JM:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 279 - Public $WWDFKPHQWWR5HSRUW3/1-26 May 21, 2026 Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO The Corporation of the City of Pickering 1 The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Esri Small Government Enterprise Agreement Letter Dear Kyle Bentley, Thank you for your ongoing interest in Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (Esri) software at your organization. As follow up to our discussions on renewing the Esri Small Government Enterprise Agreement (SG-EA) for the Corporation of the City of Pickering, I am pleased to provide you with this summary letter of our proposal outlining Esri’s SG-EA program offering. The Esri SG-EA is a three-year agreement that grants your organization access to the Esri software including maintenance and unlimited technical support provided by Esri Canada on all software offered through the SG-EA for the term of the agreement. The SG-EA fee for your earmarked 3-year period is a lump sum of $ 242,020.00 which is payable in annual installments: $78,300 for year one (July 15, 2026 to July 14, 2027), $80,650 for year two (July 15, 2027 to July 14, 2028), and $83,070 for year three (July 15, 2028 to July14, 2029). Once executed, the SG-EA will be effective on the date following the expiry date of your current Esri SG-EA, July 14, 2026, and will require a firm, three-year commitment. I appreciate the opportunity to present you with the proposal. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at (647) 943-1770 or email at bwheatley@esri.ca. Thank you very much for your consideration. Best regards, Brandon Wheatley Account Manager - 280 - Report to Council Report Number: PLN 16-26 Date: June 22, 2026 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Heritage Permit Application HP 01/26 Phase 1 of the Whitevale Road Reconstruction Project between Golf Club Road and the West Duffins Creek, including a portion of North Road Recommendation: 1. That Report PLN 16-26 regarding Heritage Permit Application HP 01/26 for Phase 1 of the Whitevale Road Reconstruction Project, between Golf Club Road and the West Duffins Creek, including a portion of North Road be received; 2. That the Heritage Permit Application HP 01/26 for Phase 1 of the Whitevale Road Reconstruction Project, between Golf Club Road and the West Duffins Creek, including a portion of North Road, be approved, subject to the following conditions: a. implementation of all tree protection and preservation measures within the subject work area as identified in the Arborist Report, prepared by AECOM, dated March 2026; b. submission and implementation of a post-construction landscape restoration plan for the subject work area; c. completion of pre-construction condition surveys of all properties and structures within the subject work area; d. implementation of a vibration monitoring program for the subject work area during construction, with appropriate mitigation measures; e. ongoing monitoring of the subject work area by a qualified arborist during construction; f. implementation of best management practices to minimize impacts to the cultural heritage landscape during construction activities; g. implementation of any requirements for archaeological monitoring and contingency measures within the subject work area; and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. - 281 - PLN 16-26 June 22, 2026 Page 2 1.0 Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval of a Heritage Permit Application HP 01/26 for Phase 1 of the Whitevale Road Reconstruction Project within the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD), designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. As the proposed infrastructure works may alter the character and appearance of the district, a Heritage Permit is required under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The proposed works form part of the broader Whitevale Master Drainage Plan (MDP) Implementation Project, which originated through the Whitevale MDP Municipal Class Environmental Assessment completed in 2013. The Environmental Assessment identified recurring flooding, drainage deficiencies, erosion concerns, and aging infrastructure within the hamlet of Whitevale. During detailed design, the City determined the project should proceed in two phases to allow priority infrastructure improvements to advance while additional design work is completed for the remaining areas. Phase 1 includes Whitevale Road between Golf Club Road and West Duffins Creek, and a portion of North Road extending north to just beyond Churchwin Street. The Whitevale HCD recognizes the hamlet as a significant cultural heritage landscape defined by its rural roadway character, mature vegetation, informal streetscape edges, views to the surrounding landscape, and historic built form context. In response, the design has been refined through the detailed design process, informed by heritage review, technical studies, and public consultation. Key refinements included modifications to sidewalk alignments and widths, reduced select sidewalk segments, grading adjustments and measures to protect mature vegetation and maintain the rural character. To support the Heritage Permit application, the City retained AECOM to complete a Heritage Impact Assessment and an Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan. These studies evaluated the proposed works in relation to the Whitevale HCD Plan and identified mitigation measures to reduce impacts on the cultural heritage landscape, including: • tree protection fencing; • arborist supervision; • root exploration; • vibration monitoring; • landscape restoration; • compensation planting; and, • best management practices during construction. The Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee (HPAC) reviewed the application on May 13, 2026, and recommended approval, subject to undertaking the construction mitigation measures noted above. - 282 - PLN 16-26 June 22, 2026 Page 3 With these mitigation measures in place, staff are satisfied that the proposed works are consistent with the intent of the Whitevale HCD Plan and represents an appropriate balance between infrastructure renewal and heritage conservation. 2.0 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; and Strengthen Existing & Build New Partnerships. 3.0 Financial Implications: No direct financial implications for the City are associated with the approval of the heritage permit application. 4.0 Discussion: The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval of a Heritage Permit Application HP 01/26 for Phase 1 of the Whitevale Road Reconstruction Project in relation to the Whitevale HCD Plan, supporting technical studies, and applicable heritage conservation considerations. It also provides recommendations regarding the appropriateness of the proposed works and mitigation measures. 4.1 Whitevale Heritage Conservation District The proposed Whitevale Road reconstruction project is located within the Whitevale HCD, designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act by By-law 4074/92. The Whitevale HCD recognizes the hamlet as a significant cultural heritage landscape characterized by its historic development pattern, natural setting, and intact rural character. The Whitevale HCD Plan (1990) emphasizes the importance of conserving not only individual heritage buildings, but also the broader landscape, including streetscapes, vegetation, views, and the relationship between the built and natural environment. Key character-defining elements identified in the HCD Plan include: • narrow rural roadways with informal edges; • mature tree cover and vegetation; • views to surrounding agricultural lands and the West Duffins Creek valley system; and, • a cohesive historic streetscape pattern characterized by modest vernacular buildings and consistent spatial relationships. - 283 - PLN 16-26 June 22, 2026 Page 4 The HCD Plan also recognizes that public works and infrastructure projects impact the heritage character of the district and includes policies intended to minimize adverse impacts on heritage resources and the broader cultural heritage landscape. Major projects within the HCD are reviewed through the Heritage Permit process established under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act. While Delegation By-law 7651/18 authorizes the Director, City Development & CBO, to approve many heritage permit applications, the scale, complexity, and potential district-wide impacts of the proposed infrastructure works warranted review by the HPAC and final consideration by Council. 4.2 Phase 1 of the Whitevale Road Reconstruction Project The Whitevale Road Reconstruction Project forms part of the broader Whitevale Master Drainage Plan (MDP) Implementation Project undertaken by the City of Pickering. The project identified recurring flooding, drainage deficiencies, erosion concerns, and aging infrastructure within the hamlet. As the scope of work became more refined, the City Infrastructure Department determined that the project should proceed in two phases. This decision was primarily driven by the poor condition of Whitevale Road west of West Duffins Creek, where the roadbed will require more work that is beyond the scope originally anticipated. The Heritage Permit application for Phase 1 works is limited to the stretch of Whitevale Road located between Golf Club Road and the West Duffins Creek, and includes a portion of North Road, extending north from Whitevale Road to just beyond Churchwin Street (see Location Map, Attachment 1). The proposed works include: • road reconstruction and resurfacing; • installation of storm sewer infrastructure and upgraded drainage systems, including catch basins, ditch inlets, and trench drains; • improvements to roadside ditches to enhance drainage capacity; • replacement of culverts and installation of oil grit separator to address erosion and improve stormwater quality and quantity management; • modifications to road grading and profile to improve drainage performance; • select removal, reduction, or realignment of sidewalk infrastructure to minimize impacts on the cultural heritage landscape; • associated landscape restoration and tree protection and compensation measures; and, • replacement and improvements to streetlighting along Whitevale Road. Phase 1 has undergone several design revisions as a result of the recommendations from the Heritage Impact Assessment (see Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District, Attachment 2), the Arborist Report (see Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan, Attachment 3), and continued public consultation. - 284 - PLN 16-26 June 22, 2026 Page 5 4.3 Cultural Heritage Assessment and Arborist Report To support the cultural heritage evaluation of the Whitevale MDP and the submitted Heritage Permit application, the City retained AECOM to prepare a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), and an Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan. The HIA assess the proposed Whitevale MDP works against the Whitevale HCD Plan and identified key character-defining elements of the district, including: • rural roadway form; • mature vegetation and tree canopy; • historic landscape relationships; • views and spatial character; • historic built form context; and, • the broader cultural heritage landscape. The HIA concluded that infrastructure improvements could proceed, provided that mitigation measures are implemented to reduce impacts on the district’s heritage character. Recommended mitigation measures include minimizing visual changes to the roadway, protecting mature vegetation where feasible, restoring disturbed landscape areas, and monitoring vibrations near heritage buildings during construction. The Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan assessed existing vegetation across Phases 1 and 2, identifying approximately 990 trees, including: • 20 trees proposed for removal; • 74 trees requiring arborist supervision due to potential injury; • 258 trees anticipated to experience minor impacts; and, • 638 trees that are not anticipated to be impacted. The report recommends tree protection fencing, root exploratory excavation under arborist supervision; ongoing monitoring during construction, and a compensation strategy requiring the planting of 30 replacement trees. Together, the HIA and Arborist Report informed several design refinements intended to better align the project with the rural character of the Whitevale HCD, while reducing impacts on vegetation and adjacent heritage resources. 4.4 Assessment of the Proposed Works: The proposed reconstruction works have been assessed against the policies and objectives of the Whitevale HCD Plan, as well as the findings of the supporting technical studies and HIA. The following sections summarize the key considerations and conclusions of this assessment. - 285 - PLN 16-26 June 22, 2026 Page 6 4.5 Retention of Historic Roadway Character The proposed design maintains the existing road alignment, with only minor adjustments required for grading, drainage, and safety improvements. No significant roadway realignment or widening is proposed. The design also retains a rural cross-section by avoiding urban features, such as curbs and gutters, and maintaining informal edges and roadside ditches, where possible. This approach is consistent with the objectives of the Whitevale HCD Plan. 4.6 Utility Infrastructure and Visual Character Existing hydro infrastructure within the first phase will be replaced by Elexicon Energy. The scope of the utility upgrades is beyond the jurisdiction of the HCD Plan as they are subject to Elexicon’s technical and safety standards, which do not always permit direct “like-for-like” replacement of existing poles. Recognizing that the project is located within the Whitevale HCD, staff have worked with Elexicon to communicate to them the cultural heritage significance of the area and the importance of minimizing visual and physical impacts on the district’s character. Elexicon has committed to implementing measures to reduce impacts where feasible, including: • the use of wood utility poles, instead of concrete poles, to better reflect the existing rural character; and, • efforts to minimize tree removal and vegetation clearing associated with hydro works. Although some changes to utility infrastructure are unavoidable, staff are satisfied that the proposed approach appropriately balances operational requirements with the conservation of the district’s rural character and visual qualities. 4.7 Tree Preservation and Landscape Mitigation The Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan identified several mitigation measures to protect the mature tree canopy and broader cultural heritage landscape during construction. Recommended measures include: • establishment of Tree Protection Zones (TPZs); • installation of protective fencing prior to construction; • root exploration and monitoring by International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborists in sensitive areas; and, • implementation of a tree compensation strategy requiring the planting of replacement trees at a 1.5:1 ratio. - 286 - PLN 16-26 June 22, 2026 Page 7 These measures are proposed to be incorporated into the construction drawings, specifications, and tender documentation to ensure implementation throughout all phases of construction and restoration. The Arborist Report also notes that impacts to the tree canopy have been reduced through revisions to sidewalk alignment, grading, and infrastructure placement during the design process. 4.8 Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee (HPAC) Recommendation: The HPAC considered the Heritage Permit application for the Whitevale Road Reconstruction project at its meeting of May 13, 2026. During deliberations, the Committee discussed the proposed impacts to the cultural heritage landscape, including roadway character, tree preservation, drainage infrastructure, and construction-related impacts on adjacent heritage resources. The Director, City Infrastructure, attended the meeting and responded to questions raised by the Committee. Particular attention was given to the recommendations contained in the HIA and the Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan, including measures intended to reduce impacts on mature vegetation and maintain the rural character of the district. Following this discussion, HPAC expressed support for the overall approach to balancing infrastructure renewal with heritage conservation objectives and acknowledged the design refinements made through the ongoing review process. As a result of its deliberations, HPAC recommended that Council approve the Heritage Permit application for the Phase 1 Whitevale Road Reconstruction project between the West Duffins Creek and Golf Club Road, including a portion of North Road, subject to undertaking the conditions respecting: • tree protection and preservation measures; • landscape restoration; • pre-construction condition surveys; • vibration monitoring; • arborist supervision during construction; • implementation of best management practices for the cultural heritage landscape; and, • archaeological monitoring requirements. 4.9 Staff Recommendation and Conclusion: Staff have reviewed the proposed Phase 1 Whitevale Road Reconstruction project in relation to the Whitevale HCD Plan, supporting technical studies, and stakeholder input. - 287 - PLN 16-26 June 22, 2026 Page 8 The proposed works reflect an iterative design process that has reduced impacts on the rural streetscape, mature vegetation, and broader cultural heritage landscape. While some impacts are unavoidable, particularly related to vegetation removal, grading changes, and roadside modifications, they have been reduced through design refinements and are proposed to be mitigated through tree protection measures, compensation planting, vibration monitoring, landscape restoration, and construction management practices. Construction activities may also introduce vibration-related risks to adjacent heritage buildings; however, these impacts will be managed through monitoring and established mitigation measures identified in the HIA and Arborist Report. The proposed works retains the historic roadway alignment and overall rural cross-section, consistent with the intent of the Whitevale HCD Plan. It also incorporates mitigation measures identified through the HIA, Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan, and consultation with the Whitevale and District Residents Association. Subject to the implementation of the recommended conditions of approval, staff are satisfied that the proposed works are consistent with the intent of the Whitevale HCD Plan and represent an appropriate balance between infrastructure renewal and heritage conservation. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD) - AECOM 3. Whitevale Road Reconstruction, Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan - AECOM Prepared By: Matt Somerville, Senior Planner, Heritage Prepared By: Nilesh Surti, Division Head, Development Review & Urban Design Approved/Endorsed By: Kyle Bentley, Director, City Development & CBO Approved/Endorsed By: Kevin Heathcote, Director, City Infrastructure MS:NS:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 288 - Attachment 1 to Report PLN 16-26 - 289 - Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD) Whitevale Master Drainage Plan City of Pickering 60560495 May 2026 Attachment 2 to Report PLN 16-26 - 290 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final iiX Statement of Qualifications and Limitations The attached Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by AECOM Canada ULC (“AECOM”) for the benefit of the Client (“Client”) in accordance with the agreement between AECOM and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the “Agreement”). The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the “Information”): is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications contained in the Report (the “Limitations”); represents AECOM’s professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation of similar reports; may be based on information provided to AECOM which has not been independently verified; has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time period and circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued; must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context; was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement; and in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on the assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time. AECOM shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information that was provided to it and has no obligation to update such information.AECOM accepts no responsibility for any events or circumstances that may have occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, is not responsible for any variability in such conditions, geographically or over time. AECOM agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that the Information has been prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement, but AECOM makes no other representations, or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to the Report, the Information or any part thereof. Without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing, any estimates or opinions regarding probable construction costs or construction schedule provided by AECOM represent AECOM’s professional judgement in light of its experience and the knowledge and information available to it at the time of preparation. Since AECOM has no control over market or economic conditions, prices for construction labour, equipment or materials or bidding procedures, AECOM, its directors, officers and employees are not able to, nor do they, make any representations, warranties or guarantees whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to such estimates or opinions, or their variance from actual construction costs or schedules, and accept no responsibility for any loss or damage arising therefrom or in any way related thereto. Persons relying on such estimates or opinions do so at their own risk. Except (1) as agreed to in writing by AECOM and Client; (2) as required by-law; or (3) to the extent used by governmental reviewing agencies for the purpose of obtaining permits or approvals, the Report and the Information may be used and relied upon only by Client. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to parties other than Client who may obtain access to the Report or the Information for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, reliance upon, or decisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Information (“improper use of the Report”), except to the extent those parties have obtained the prior written consent of AECOM to use and rely upon the Report and the Information. Any injury, loss or damages arising from improper use of the Report shall be borne by the party making such use. This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report and any use of the Report is subject to the terms hereof. AECOM:2015-04-13 © 2009-2015 AECOM Canada ULC All Rights Reserved. - 291 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final iiiX Quality Information Prepared by Checked by Preston Arens, PhD Cultural Heritage Specialist Liam Ryan, MES,MCIP, RPP,CAHP Cultural Heritage Planner, Lead Verified by Adria Grant, MA, CAHP Associate Vice President, Technical Practice Lead Archaeology and Heritage Revision History Rev #Revision Date Revised By:Revision Description 0 September 10, 2025 Preston Arens and Liam Ryan Draft Preparation 0a May 27, 2026 Preston Arens Final Distribution List # Hard Copies PDF Required Association / Company Name 0 City of Pickering 0 AECOM Canada ULC - 292 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final ivX Prepared for: City of Pickering Prepared by: Preston Arens, PhD Cultural Heritage Specialist Preston.arens@aecom.com Liam Ryan, MES,MCIP,RPP, CAHP Cultural Heritage Planner, Lead liam.ryan@aecom.com Adria Grant, MA, CAHP Associate Vice President, Technical Practice Lead Archaeology and Heritage Adria.grant@aecom.com AECOM Canada ULC 410 –250 York Street, Citi Plaza London, ON N6A 6K2 Canada T: 519.673.0510 F: 519.673.5975 www.aecom.com - 293 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final vX Executive Summary AECOM Canada ULC (AECOM) was retained by the City of Pickering to complete a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for proposed improvements to Whitevale Road and North Road, including road and storm sewer reconstruction, within the village of Whitevale (the Project). This work is being conducted as part of the Whitevale Master Drainage Plan and occurs within the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). The purpose of this HIA is to assess the impacts of the proposed Whitevale Road and North Road Improvements on the Whitevale HCD, and to recommend mitigation measures to ensure that the character-defining elements and overall character of the District are conserved. The Project was initiated after extensive flooding and erosion in Whitevale in 2008 and included the commission of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA), the construction of a new bridge over West Duffins Creek in 2014-2015, and the aforementioned road improvements. The Detailed Design for the road improvements were awarded to AECOM in 2018 with pre-engineering due to begin in 2021 along with public consultation. Residents of Whitevale expressed concerns, both in an initial survey in January of 2022 and a subsequent open house in June of 2023, that the proposed designs would not sufficiently align with the Whitevale HCD Guidelines and that the impacts of the Project on the HCD had not been adequately considered. The City of Pickering subsequently requested an HIA be added to the scope of the project, and following the submission of the 90% detailed design, AECOM provided a draft proposal for the HIA on June 24, 2024. This HIA, prepared on the basis of the 95%detailed design for Whitevale Road and North Road improvements, was developed in consultation with the City of Pickering Heritage Planner, Matthew Sommerville.The Project is anticipated to occur entirely within the settlement area of the hamlet of Whitevale and includes the Whitevale road right of way between Altona Road and Golf Club Road, and the North Road right of way from Whitevale Road to the northern extent of the village, approximately 175m north of Whitevale Road. The Project will therefore occur entirely within the Whitevale HCD. In consequence, this assessment has been scoped as an HCD-focused HIA.The Whitevale Road and North Road streetscapes, and most adjacent properties, are contributing elements of the Whitevale HCD. The Project therefore has potential to both directly and indirectly impact the Whitevale HCD. Accordingly, a Cultural Heritage Study Area was developed for this report in order to better understand the potential impacts of the Project on the Whitevale HCD. For the purposes of this HIA, the Cultural Heritage Study Area is defined as the 95% Detailed Design of the Project in addition to an 11 metre (m) buffer. This approach, which encompasses both the Project footprint and adjacent areas, was adopted to ensure that all potential direct or indirect impacts of the Project were accounted for, particularly in areas where the anticipated work occurs in close proximity to the boundary of the public right of way. The following recommendations have been developed based on background historical research, field review, professional expertise, and the evaluation of anticipated impacts within the Cultural Heritage Study Area. A summary of recommendations for the Whiteva le HCD is provided below. For the complete discussion of mitigation measures, refer to Table 6. General Recommendations If any future changes to the proposed development extend beyond the current design shown in Figure 5, this HIA should be reviewed and updated to assess potential direct and indirect impacts on the CHVI and character-defining elements of the cultural heritage resources within the Cultural Heritage Study Area. Additional work may be required, which could include, but is not limited to, updating this HIA to reflect the revised design. Prior to commencing work, consultation with City Heritage Planning staff should be undertaken to confirm that the proposed activities are considered minor in nature and to determine whether a heritage permit is - 294 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final viX required. This will ensure compliance with the applicable regulatory framework and alignment with the objectives of the HCD Plan. Landscape Recommendations Driveway Aprons & Walkways: Reconstruct to pre-construction condition using original or compatible materials, consistent with HCD guidelines. Street Signage:Salvage and reinstate existing signage; new signage to be simple, non-backlit, and compliant with City by-laws. Mature Trees & Hedgerows:Retain and protect wherever possible with certified arborist oversight; replace removals on a like-for-like basis to maintain canopy continuity. Landscape Elements:Retain lawns, gardens, fences, hedges, and street furniture; restore unavoidable impacts using heritage-consistent designs in consultation with Heritage Planning staff. Hydro Poles & Overhead Lines:Retain rural character by reinstating wooden poles and radial streetlights if relocation/replacement is required. Gravel Parking Areas:In consultation with Heritage Planning staff, conserve gravel parking areas associated with former mill buildings to maintain village character. Structural Recommendations: Protect the historic house at 3195 Factory Street with fencing/hoarding and no-go zones; brief contractors on its significance. Establish a contingency plan for halting work and stabilizing the structure in the event of accidental damage. Road Widening Recommendations: Minimize impacts of paved aprons by limiting their size, using compatible materials, incorporating low vegetation/landscape treatments, and consulting with residents. Implement drainage controls and long-term maintenance measures to protect unpaved surfaces. Sidewalk Recommendations: Replace sidewalks with narrower, heritage-sensitive designs that retain grass boulevards, consider meandering alignments near mature trees, and use visually compatible materials. Design in consultation with residents to balance accessibility, safety, and heritage character. Speed Hump Recommendations: The proposed speed hump is consistent with existing traffic calming features and is not anticipated to affect heritage character. No specific mitigation required beyond vibration and impact monitoring during construction. Vibration Recommendations: A vibration and impact monitoring plan should be implemented prior to the start of construction. Vibration Impacts and Monitoring Evaluation of impacts related to vibration activities requires assessment based on the identification of specific construction methods proposed, distance between the sensitive receptor (i.e. a cultural heritage resource) and the construction activity, local soil conditions, and anticipated vibration levels (mm/s). Historic buildings can be extremely suspectable to vibration damage and Project-specific vibration limits should be established prior to the commencement of construction. - 295 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final viiX Given the proximity to historic buildings to the proposed work, it is anticipated that in some locations safe vibration limits may be exceeded. Accordingly, prior to the commencement of the Project, a professional engineer should complete a report assessing the potential vibration impacts of the Project on the surrounding area, including, but not limited to, identified cultural heritage resources. Appropriate vibration limits (i.e. prohibitions or no-go zones for certain types of construction machinery, etc.) and monitoring protocols (i.e., the use of seismographs, etc.) should then be implemented during construction in accordance with the information provided in the vibration report. - 296 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final viiiX Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................v 1.Background ................................................................................................1 1.1 Description of Study Methodology ...........................................................................1 1.2 Description and General Location of the Cultural Heritage Study Area ...................2 1.3 Heritage Policy Framework .....................................................................................5 1.3.1 The Planning Act....................................................................................................................5 1.3.2 Provincial Planning Statement ...............................................................................................5 1.3.3 Ontario Heritage Act ..............................................................................................................5 1.3.4 Pickering Official Plan ............................................................................................................6 1.4 Cultural Heritage Status Overview ..........................................................................7 1.4.1 City of Pickering’s Municipal Heritage Register .....................................................................7 1.4.2 Whitevale Heritage Conservation District ..............................................................................7 1.5 Summary of Community Engagement ....................................................................9 2.Background Research and Analysis ......................................................10 2.1 Pre-Contact and Indigenous History......................................................................10 2.2 The Settlement of Pickering Township, Ontario County ........................................11 2.3 From Majorville to Whitevale .................................................................................13 2.4 Whitevale in the 20th Century ................................................................................16 2.5 Historical Summary ...............................................................................................19 3.Statement of Significance ......................................................................20 3.1 Description of the District ......................................................................................20 3.2 District Character: A Summary ..............................................................................20 3.3 Working List of Character-Defining Elements (for HIA Purposes).........................21 4.Proposed Development or Site Alteration ..............................................23 4.1 Purpose of Proposed Activity ................................................................................23 4.2 Work Required to Complete this Project:..............................................................23 5.Assessment of Existing Conditions .......................................................24 5.1 Field Review ..........................................................................................................24 5.1.1 Whitevale Road (West) Existing Conditions ........................................................................24 5.1.2 Whitevale Road (East) Existing Conditions .........................................................................29 5.1.3 North Road Existing Conditions ...........................................................................................39 6.Evaluation of Anticipated Impacts ..........................................................45 6.1 Screening for Potential Impacts.........................................................................45 6.2 Additional Considerations......................................................................................46 6.3 Impact Assessment of the Whitevale HCD............................................................46 7.Mitigation Measures and Recommendations ........................................53 7.1 Mitigation Measures ..............................................................................................53 - 297 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final ixX 7.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................53 7.2.1 Vibration Impacts and Monitoring ........................................................................................54 8.Sources .....................................................................................................55 Figures Figure 1:The Cultural Heritage Study Area on Base Mapping ............................................................................3 Figure 2:The Cultural Heritage Study Area on Aerial Photography.....................................................................4 Figure 3:The Cultural Heritage Study Area on Historic Mapping, including the 1860 Tremaine Map, the 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas, and the 1914 and 1943 NTS Maps............................................59 Figure 4:The Cultural Heritage Study Area on 1954 Aerial Photography .........................................................60 Figure 5:The 95%Detailed Design and Cultural Heritage Study Area on Aerial Photography .........................61 Figure 6:Select Photograph Locations and Direction ........................................................................................65 Tables Table 1: Results of Community Engagement ...............................................................................................................9 Table 2: Cultural Chronology of Indigenous Settlement in Southern Ontario .............................................................10 Table 3: Summary of Existing Conditions within the Whitevale Road (West) Streetscape ........................................25 Table 4: Summary of Existing Conditions within the Whitevale Road (East) Streetscape .........................................30 Table 5: Summary of Existing Conditions within the North Road Streetscape...........................................................39 Table 6:Impact Assessment of the Whitevale HCD Including Potential Mitigation Measures ...................................47 List of Photographs Photograph 1: Streetview of the intersection of Altona Road and Whitevale Road, looking west. (AECOM, 2025)....................................................................................................................................................25 Photograph 2: Streetview of the west portion of Whitevale Road, looking east from the Altona Road intersection (AECOM, 2025)...............................................................................................................25 Photograph 3: Historic houses along the west portion of Whitevale Road, including number 335 and 345 Whitevale Road. Looking south from the right of way (AECOM, 2025 ...............................................26 Photograph 4: View of the western slope of Whitevale Road, including manicured lawns and narrow gravel shoulders. Looking east (AECOM, 2025)............................................................................................26 Photograph 5: South facing view of a typical property entrance on Whitevale Road, including gravel driveway, manicured lawns and gardens, and mature tree coverage. Located at 345 Whitevale Road (AECOM 2025).........................................................................................................26 Photograph 6: Gravel driveway and mature cedar hedgerow at 360 Whitevale Road. Looking northwest (AECOM, 2025)...................................................................................................................................26 Photograph 7: Historic house, manicured lawn and gardens, and private concrete stairs at 360 Whitevale Road. Looking north (AECOM, 2025).................................................................................................27 Photograph 8: Mature tree coverage and private concrete stairs along the Whitevale Road frontage of 3190 Byron Street. Looking south from Whitevale Road (AECOM, 2025)..................................................27 Photograph 9:The intersection of Whitevale Road and Byron Street, looking north from Byron Street (AECOM, 2025)...................................................................................................................................27 Photograph 10: Mature cedar hedgerow along the Whitevale Road right of way. Looking west (AECOM, 2025)....................................................................................................................................................27 Photograph 11: Split rail cedar fence, gardens, and mature trees defining the entrance to a late 20th century infill house at 380 Whitevale Road. Looking northwest (AECOM, 2025)...............................28 - 298 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final xX Photograph 12: Semicircular gravel driveway with central gardens at 395 Whitevale Road. Looking southeast (AECOM, 2025)..................................................................................................................28 Photograph 13: Mutal Street, looking south from Whitevale Road (AECOM, 2025)..................................................28 Photograph 14: Entrance to Whitevale Park at 405 Whitevale Road, looking southeast from Mutual Street at the “Christian House” (AECOM, 2025)............................................................................................28 Photograph 15: Looking north at the Whitevale Bridge commemorative feature within Whitevale Park. Note the Whitevale Road grade in the background (AECOM, 2025)..........................................................28 Photograph 16: Narrow, irregular concrete sidewalk along the south side of Whitevale Road, looking east (AECOM, 2025)...................................................................................................................................28 Photograph 17: Mature trees and wildflowers along the Whitevale Road right of way. Looking northwest from the Seaton Hiking Trail (AECOM, 2025).....................................................................................29 Photograph 18:View of the Whitevale Community Centre (formerly the Miller House and likely the oldest structure in Whitevale), looking south from Whitevale Road (AECOM, 2025)....................................29 Photograph 19: View of west slope of Whitevale Road, looking west from the valley bottom (AECOM, 2025)........29 Photograph 20: View of the valley flats, looking east across Whitevale Bridge (AECOM, 2025)..............................29 Photograph 21: View of the former mill complex, looking southeast from Whitevale Road (AECOM, 2025)............30 Photograph 22: Southwest view of the former mill complex (AECOM, 2025)............................................................30 Photograph 23: View of the Seaton Hiking Trail access from Whitevale Road. Looking northwest (AECOM, 2025)....................................................................................................................................................31 Photograph 24: View of the gambrel roofed structure at 424 Whitevale Road associated with the former milling complex across the street. Looking north (AECOM, 2025).....................................................31 Photograph 25: Streetview of Whitevale Road, looking west across the gravel parking area around the mill complex towards Whitevale Bridge (AECOM, 2025)..........................................................................31 Photograph 26: Streetview of Mill Street, looking north across Whitevale Road (AECOM, 2025).............................31 Photograph 27: Streetview of Whitevale Road, looking east across the valley bottom (AECOM, 2025)...................32 Photograph 28: View of east slope of Whitevale Road, looking east (AECOM, 2025)..............................................32 Photograph 29: The Whitevale Road frontage of 3195 Factory Street, looking south. Note that this elevation of 3195 Factory Street extends into the public right of way (AECOM, 2025)......................................32 Photograph 30: Manicured lawns, mature tree coverage, and narrow concrete sidewalks at the corner of Mill Street and Whitevale Road, looking east (AECOM, 2025)...........................................................32 Photograph 31: Mature tree coverage along Whitevale Road, looking south (AECOM, 2025).................................32 Photograph 32: down the east slope of Whitevale Road, looking west. Note the radial street lights and wood hydro poles (AECOM, 2025)......................................................................................................32 Photograph 33: Westward view of Whitevale Road, showing the sidewalk, sloped verges, and 3195 Factory Street in the background (AECOM, 2025)...........................................................................................33 Photograph 34: Concrete stairs and gravel driveway aprons in disrepair on the north side of Whitevale Road (AECOM, 2025).........................................................................................................................33 Photograph 35: Northwest view across the Whitevale Road streetscape (AECOM, 2025).......................................33 Photograph 36: Narrow, irregular concrete sidewalk along the south side of Whitevale Road, looking east (AECOM, 2025)...................................................................................................................................33 Photograph 37: North facing street view of 460 Whitevale Road, showing the shallow ditches, grassed verges, wood hydro poles, manicured gardens and mature tree coverage typical to the settlement area (AECOM, 2025).........................................................................................................34 Photograph 38:View of manicured lawns, gardens, and ornamental fences at 470 Whitevale Road. Looking north (AECOM, 2025)............................................................................................................34 Photograph 39: View of the east slope for Whitevale Road, looking west (AECOM, 2025).......................................34 Photograph 40: Narrow concrete sidewalk, mature trees, and well developed gardens along the north side of Whitevale Road. Looking west (AECOM, 2025).............................................................................34 Photograph 41: Narrow concrete sidewalk, mature trees, ornamental fences, and well developed gardens along the north side of Whitevale Road. Looking east (AECOM, 2025).............................................35 Photograph 42: The former Whitevale Hotel at 465 Whitevale Road, looking south (AECOM, 2025).......................35 Photograph 43: View of the corner of Gladstone Street and Whitevale Road, looking northwest (AECOM, 2025)....................................................................................................................................................35 - 299 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final xiX Photograph 44: The Whitevale Arts & Culture Centre (WACC), with brick paved frontage, park benches, gardens and library box. Looking south (AECOM, 2025)....................................................................35 Photograph 45: View of the community mailboxes to the immediate east of the WACC. Looking southeast (AECOM, 2025)...................................................................................................................................36 Photograph 46: View of mural on east wall of the WACC (AECOM, 2025)...............................................................36 Photograph 47:Streetscape along south side of Whitevale Road, looking southwest (AECOM, 2025)....................36 Photograph 48: View of streetscape along Whitevale Road, looking northeast (AECOM, 2025)..............................36 Photograph 49: View of 480 Whitevale Road, looking northeast. Note the gravel apron of Gladstone Street, mature trees, manicured lawns, and ornamental fencing (AECOM, 2025).........................................37 Photograph 50: View of the former Whitevale store, looking north (AECOM, 2025)..................................................37 Photograph 51: Narrow concrete sidewalk, mature trees, manicured lawn, and private gravel path along the north side of Whitevale Road. Looking east (AECOM, 2025).............................................................37 Photograph 52: View of 495 Whitevale Road showing private concrete path, mature tree coverage, and well developed gardens along the right of way. Looking south (AECOM, 2025)...............................37 Photograph 53: View of the former cheese factory at 499 Whitevale Road. Looking south (AECOM, 2025)............38 Photograph 54: View of irregular asphalt sidewalk along the north side of Whitevale Road, looking west.(AECOM, 2025).........................................................................................................................38 Photograph 55: View of overgrown sidewalk within the manicured lawns in front of Whitevale Church. Looking west (AECOM, 2025).............................................................................................................38 Photograph 56: Whitevale Church, looking north (AECOM, 2025)............................................................................38 Photograph 57: West facing view of Whitevale Road through the settlement area (AECOM, 2025).........................39 Photograph 58:View of the east extent of the Study Area with Golf Course Road on the right and the former Baptist church at 530 Whitevale Road on the left (AECOM, 2025).........................................39 Photograph 59:Streetview of North Road, looking north from Whitevale Road (AECOM, 2025).............................40 Photograph 60:Streetview of the intersection between North Road and Whitevale Road, looking south from North Road (AECOM, 2025).......................................................................................................40 Photograph 61:Commemorative sign on the church grounds at the corner of Whitevale Street and North Road, looking northeast (AECOM, 2025)............................................................................................40 Photograph 62:View of the wooden sitting area along the North Road frontage of the church grounds. Looking north (AECOM, 2025)............................................................................................................40 Photograph 63:Streetview of North Road, showing mature trees, manicured lawns, and shallow ditches, looking north (AECOM, 2025).............................................................................................................41 Photograph 64:View of 3225 North Road, showing the shallow grassed ditches, mature trees and gardens, and timber and gravel walkway (AECOM, 2025).................................................................41 Photograph 65:View of naturalized lot on North Road, looking west (AECOM, 2025).............................................41 Photograph 66:View of narrow concrete sidewalk and naturalized overgrowth on the west side of North Road. Looking North (AECOM, 2025).................................................................................................41 Photograph 67:View of the North Road streetscape, looking south from the intersection between Churchwin Street and North Road.(AECOM, 2025)............................................................................42 Photograph 68:View of the North Road streetscape, looking south (AECOM, 2025)..............................................42 Photograph 69:View of the mature trees and gardens at 3220 North Road. Looking west (AECOM, 2025)..........42 Photograph 70:Manicured lawns and mature trees surround the mid-century rancher style bungalow at 3235 North Road (AECOM, 2025)......................................................................................................42 Photograph 71:West facing view of 3250 North Road, showing manicured lawns and gardens, mature trees, and ornamental split rail fencing (AECOM, 2025).....................................................................43 Photograph 72: The east side of North Road at 3245 North Road, showing grassed shallow ditches and residential tree coverage (AECOM, 2025)..........................................................................................43 Photograph 73:West facing view of the treeline along the north edge of the village, as seen from North Road (AECOM, 2025).........................................................................................................................43 Photograph 74:Northeastern view across open fields to the north of the village, as seen from North Road (AECOM, 2025)...................................................................................................................................43 Photograph 75:Photograph 75: View of North Road as it leaves the Whitevale settlement area, looking north (AECOM, 2025)..........................................................................................................................44 - 300 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final xiiX Photograph 76:View of North Road streetscape from the north edge of the settlement area, looking south. (AECOM, 2025)...................................................................................................................................44 Images Image 1: Truman P. White in the late 19th century (Wood, 1911: 154)......................................................................14 Image 2: Northeast facing view of Whitevale, as printed in the 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas (Beers & Co., 1877)....................................................................................................................................................15 Image 3: Plan of the Village of Whitevale as it appears in the 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas (Beers & Co., 1877)....................................................................................................................................................16 Image 4: East-facing view of the grist mill in the brick shell of the former woollens mill prior to the 1961 fire (Sabean, 2000: 46)..............................................................................................................................17 Image 5: View of the ruins of the mill after the 1961 fire. The current sheet metal clad feed mill was built on the same site soon afterwards (Sabean, 2000: 46)............................................................................17 Image 6: The proposed North Pickering Project lands, with federal lands and the proposed international airport illustrated in the north portion of the block (Government of Ontario, 1975).............................18 Image 7: The proposed North Pickering Project lands, showing the land use concept for provincial lands in the south portion of the block, which include Whitevale as a hamlet (black) within the development area (blue) (Government of Ontario, 1975)...................................................................18 Appendices Appendix A.Mapping Appendix B.Existing Conditions –Whitevale Road (West) Appendix C.Existing Conditions –Whitevale Road (East) Appendix D.Existing Conditions –Whitevale Road (North) Appendix E Designation By-Law for the Whitevale HCD Appendix F.Key Project Personnel - 301 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 1 1.Background AECOM Canada ULC (AECOM) was retained by the City of Pickering to complete a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for proposed improvements to Whitevale Road and North Road, including road and storm sewer reconstruction, within the village of Whitevale (the Project). This work is being conducted as part of the Whitevale Master Drainage Plan and occurs within the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). The purpose of this HIA is to assess the impacts of the proposed Whitevale Road and North Road Improvements on the Whitevale HCD, and to recommend mitigation measures to ensure that the character-defining elements and overall character of the District are conserved. The Project was initiated after extensive flooding and erosion in Whitevale in 2008 and included the commission of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA), the construction of a new bridge over West Duffins Creek in 2014-2015, and the aforementioned road improvements. The Detailed Design for the road improvements were awarded to AECOM in 2018 with pre-engineering due to begin in 2021 along with public consultation. Residents of Whitevale expressed concerns, both in an initial survey in January of 2022 and a subsequent open house in June of 2023, that the proposed designs would not sufficiently align with the Whitevale HCD Guidelines and that the impacts of the Project on the HCD had not been adequately considered. The City of Pickering subsequently requested an HIA be added to the scope of the project, and following the submission of the 90% detailed design, AECOM provided a draft proposal for the HIA on June 24, 2024. This HIA, prepared on the basis of the 95%detailed design for Whitevale Road and North Road improvements, was developed in consultation with the City of Pickering Heritage Planner, Matthew Sommerville. The assessment has been scoped as an HCD-focused HIA, as the majority of adjacent properties fall within the Whitevale HCD and are therefore anticipated to experience similar types of direct and indirect impacts, particularly in relation to landscape and streetscape features. 1.1 Description of Study Methodology This HIA was completed in accordance with the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism’s (MCM’s)InfoSheet #5 Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plans, as part of the Ontario Heritage Toolkit (2006), Parks Canada’s Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (2010), and the the City of Pickering‘sTerms of Reference:Heritage Impact Assessments (April 2022). For the purposes of this HIA, AECOM undertook the following key tasks: Provided background information on the Project and the regulatory context of the present report; Outlined contextual information including the location and description cultural heritage resources in the Study Area; Consulted with the City of Pickering Senior Heritage Planner, Matthew Somerville,and relevant heritage documents, including: o The Hamlet of Whitevale, Heritage Conservation District Study: Background Report (1989), o The Hamlet of Whitevale, Heritage Conservation District Study: The District Plan (1990) o The Town of Pickering By-Law No.4074/92 Being a by-law to designate the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act, Part V (1993) Conducted background research and analysis to elucidate the history of Whitevale including the development of the village within the wider history of the Pickering Township, and changes to the site over time; Provided a summary of district character (Section 3); Provided a written description of the proposed development accompanied by mapping; - 302 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 2 Conducted a field review to assess the existing conditions within the Whitevale HCD; Identified and prepared a description of the proposed Development (the Project); Assessed the impacts of the project, based on the 95%Detailed Design plans, on the cultural heritage value of the Whitevale HCD;and Provided conservation methods and mitigation measures in order to avoid or limit negative impacts to the Whitevale HCD. 1.2 Description and General Location of the Cultural Heritage Study Area The hamlet of Whitevale is centrally located in the City of Pickering. The hamlet of Whitevale is generally bound by Highway 407 to the north, Taunton Road to the south, Sideline 26/ Whites Road to the east, and York Durham Line (the Markham Pickering Townline) to the west. The area is geographically defined by the river valley of West Duffins Creek, which flows from north to south towards Lake Ontario. The river valley is generally forested, while the surrounding tablelands are rural agricultural lands. The hamlet itself spans the river valley of West Duffins Creek and is generally cited from east to west along Whitevale Road.The Whitevale HCD spans the river valley and also includes several farm properties on the tablelands to the east of the village, which form an important approach to the village along Whitevale Road.The majority of the settlement area is located between Altona Road in the west, and Golf Club Road in the east. The settlement area extends to the north of Whitevale Road, along North Road.Side streets within the village include Byron Street and Mutual Street to the west of West Duffins Creek, and Mill Street, Factory Street, Churchwin Street, and Gladstone Street to the east of West Duffins Creek. In general, the properties within the village each contribute to the overall heritage character of Whitevale HCD and include numerous residential dwellings in addition to parks, historic commercial structures, and places of worship which reflect the villages largely preserved 19th century character. The Project is anticipated to occur entirely within the settlement area of the hamlet of Whitevale and includes the Whitevale road right of way between Altona Road and Golf Club Road, and the North Road right of way from Whitevale Road to the northern extent of the village, approximately 175m north of Whitevale Road.The Project will therefore occur entirely within the Whitevale HCD (see Section 4).The Whitevale Road and North Road streetscapes, and most adjacent properties, are contributing elements of the Whitevale HCD. The Project therefore has potential to both directly and indirectly impact the Whitevale HCD.Accordingly, a Cultural Heritage Study Area was developed for this report in order to better understand the potential impacts of the Project on the Whitevale HCD. For the purposes of this HIA, the Cultural Heritage Study Area is defined as the 95% Detailed Design of the Project in addition to an 11 metre (m)buffer.This approach, which encompasses both the Project footprint and adjacent areas,was adopted to ensure that all potential direct or indirect impacts of the Project were accounted for, particularly in areas where the anticipated work occurs in close proximity to the boundary of the public right of way. An overview of the Cultural Heritage Study Area within the Whitevale HCD is shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. Detailed segment maps overlaying the extent of the 95% Detailed Design and the Cultural Heritage Study Area on aerial photography are included in Appendix A,Figure 5.Mapping of the full extent of the HCD can be found in the designation by-law, which is included in Appendix E. - 303 - Ma p l o c a t i o n : L : \ D C S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e \ D e s i g n \ 0 1 _ R e p o r t s \ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e . a p r x Da t e S a v e d : 8 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 : 4 0 P M U s e r N a m e : M a r i n c S Aug, 2025 Data Sources: Figure 1 V#:01P#:60560495 0 100 200 30050 Meters DATUM: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Ontario LIO, http://whitevale.ca/ heritageconservationdistrict.html* when printed 11"x17" Contains Information licensed under the Open Government Licence Ontario. This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties, except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent. ° Project Area on Topographic Map Whitevale Master Drainage Plan – Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA)° 1:4,000 Cultural Heritage Study Area Property Boundary Heritage Conservation District - 304 - W h i t e v a l e R d W h i t e v a l e R d B y r o n S t A l t o n a R d W h i t e v a l e R d Wh itev ale P ark A l t o n a R d Nor t h R d W h i t e v a l e R d N o r t h R d C h u r c h w i n S t F a c t o r y S t M i l l S t W h i t e v a l e W h i t e v a l e R d G o l f C l u b R d Ma p l o c a t i o n : L : \ D C S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e \ D e s i g n \ 0 1 _ R e p o r t s \ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e . a p r x Da t e S a v e d : 8 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 : 4 0 P M U s e r N a m e : M a r i n c S Aug, 2025 Data Sources: Figure 2 V#:01P#:60560495 0 100 200 30050 Meters DATUM: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Ontario LIO, http://whitevale.ca/ heritageconservationdistrict.html* when printed 11"x17" Contains Information licensed under the Open Government Licence Ontario. This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties, except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent. ° Project Area on Aerial Map Whitevale Master Drainage Plan – Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA)° 1:4,000 Cultural Heritage Study Area Property Boundary Heritage Conservation District - 305 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 5 1.3 Heritage Policy Framework The authority to request this heritage assessment arises from the Ontario Heritage Act, Section 2(d) of the Planning Act,and the Provincial Planning Statement (2024). 1.3.1 The Planning Act The Planning Act (1990) and related make several provisions relating to heritage conservation. One of the general purposes of the Planning Act is to integrate matters of provincial interest into provincial and municipal planning decisions. To inform all those involved in planning activities of the scope of matters of provincial interest, Section 2 of the Planning Act provides an extensive listing of such interests. These matters of provincial interest shall be regarded when certain authorities, including the council of a municipality, carry out their responsibilities under the Act. One of these provincial interests is directly concerned with: 2 (d)the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest. 1.3.2 Provincial Planning Statement Subsection 4.6 of the Provincial Planning Statement (PPS 2024), which concerns Cultural Heritage and Archaeology,makes the following provisions: 4.6.1. Protected heritage property, which may contain built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes, shall be conserved. 4.6.3. Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property unless the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved. The PPS indicates in Section 6 –Implementation and Interpretation, that: 6.1.5 Official plans shall identify provincial interests and set out appropriate land use designations and policies. Official plans shall provide clear, reasonable and attainable policies to protect provincial interests and facilitate development in suitable areas. In order to protect provincial interests, planning authorities shall keep their official plans up-to-date with the Provincial Planning Statement. The policies of the Provincial Planning Statement continue to apply after adoption and approval of an official plan. 1.3.3 Ontario Heritage Act The Ontario Heritage Act enables municipalities and the province to designate individual properties and/or districts as being of cultural heritage value or interest. The province or municipality may also “list” a property, or include a property on a municipal register, that has not been designated but is believed to be of cultural heritage value or interest.Ontario Regulation 9/06, Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (O. Reg. 9/06) under the Ontario Heritage Act provides criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest. If a property meets two or more of these criteria it may be designated under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. - 306 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 6 1.3.4 Pickering Official Plan The Pickering Official Plan is currently under review as part of the Pickering Forward initiative. The first phase of the official plan review began in the second quarter of 2024 with research and background studies. The review is currently in its second phase, which includes policy drafting and additional community engagement (City of Pickering, 2025). Pending the results of the official plan review (anticipated for mid-2026), the most current draft of the Pickering Official Plan is the 9th Edition, which was consolidated in March of 2022 (City of Pickering, 2022). The Pickering Official Plan sets out a vision for planning in Pickering which emphasizes the five interrelated themes of evolving needs, healthy settings, urban and rural sustainability, unique community, and global connectivity (City of Pickering, 2022). These themes have guided change and growth in the municipality as it transitioned from a Town to a City into the early 21st century. With these themes in mind, the plan contains several policies relevant to the present report, including policies to conserve the City’s cultural heritage resources, and policies to preserve its rural settlements, including the hamlet of Whitevale, which was designated as a Heritage Conservation District in 1993 (Town of Pickering, 1993). General cultural heritage policies are outlined in Section 8.2 of the Pickering Official Plan, and include the following relevant provisions: City Council shall: (a) identify important cultural heritage resources from all time periods, so that they can be appropriately conserved and integrated into the community fabric, including: (i) significant heritage structures, features and sites; (ii) buildings, sites, and artifacts of historical, archaeological and architectural significance including modern or recent architecture; (iii) significant landscape features and characteristics, including vistas and ridge lines; and (iv) other locally important cultural heritage resources; (b) foster public awareness and appreciation of the City’s cultural heritage; (c) prevent the demolition, destruction or inappropriate alteration of important cultural heritage resources to the extent possible; (d) where possible, restore, rehabilitate, maintain and enhance important cultural heritage resources owned by the City, and encourage the same for those owned by others; (e) where possible, ensure development, infrastructure, capital works and other private and public projects conserve, protect and enhance important cultural heritage resources; and (f) involve the public, business-people, landowners, local heritage experts, heritage committees, relevant public agencies, and other interested groups and individuals in cultural heritage decisions affecting the City. The official plan specifies in Section 8.8 that in cases of alteration and demolition of Cultural Heritage Resources: City Council, in consultation with its heritage committee, shall: (a) allow alterations, additions or repairs to buildings designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, provided the changes to the building do not detrimentally affect the heritage value; - 307 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 7 (b) allow new buildings, or alterations, additions or repairs to existing buildings within a Heritage Conservation District that are consistent with the District Conservation Guidelines; These general heritage conservation policies are reinforced by the municipal vision for the settlement of Whitevale, which is articulated in Chapter 13 of the Pickering Official Plan. Section 4, which pertains to Whitevale, stipulates that: City Council shall: (a) encourage opportunities for enhancing the historic village of Whitevale through general or site specific zoning that allows the introduction of arts and craft studios, custom workshops and small-scale commercial enterprises on suitable sites, providing the historic character of the village and the interests of neighbouring residents are respected; (b) endeavour to ensure that development within the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District complies with the adopted heritage district guidelines and heritage district permit process These policies provide specific direction for the conservation of cultural heritage resources in Pickering, including the conservation of the historic character of the hamlet of Whitevale. 1.4 Cultural Heritage Status Overview The following section provides an overview of the cultural heritage status of the Cultural Heritage Study Area. 1.4.1 City of Pickering’s Municipal Heritage Register The City of Pickering’s Municipal Heritage Register (the “Heritage Register”), maintained under Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act, was most recently updated in June 2021. The Heritage Register is publicly accessible and identifies properties of cultural heritage value or interest. It includes: Listed properties (pursuant to Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act); Individually designated properties under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; and Heritage Conservation Districts designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. The Heritage Register is a living document, updated and approved by the City Council with advice from the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee. Within the Cultural Heritage Study Area, all properties along Whitevale Road and North Road are included on the Heritage Register by virtue of their inclusion within the Whitevale HCD, which is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. 1.4.2 Whitevale Heritage Conservation District HCDs are designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act for the purpose of conserving cultural heritage value within a defined area.Unlike individual property designation under Part IV, HCD designation emphasizes the collective character of the overall area, as defined by its historic context, architecture, streets, landscape and other physical and visual features.HCDs are established to manage change in a manner that conserves the area’s cultural heritage value, including its functional, spatial, and visual relationships. Contributing elements may include buildings, natural and cultural landscapes, streets and streetscapes, hardscape features, and other attributes that together create the area’s recognizable heritage character. - 308 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 8 The Cultural Heritage Study Area is located within the boundaries of the Whitevale HCD, which is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. As a result, all properties within the HCD are considered designated under Part V and are included on the City’s Heritage Register. This HCD has an irregular shape that reflects historical property boundaries, in addition to significant structures along the eastern approaches to the village and the limits of the developed portions of the village itself. The HCD generally runs along the east-west axis of Whitevale Road straddling the valley of West Duffin Creek. To the east, the boundary begins 80m east of Sideline 28 and extends approximately 250 m to the north and south of Whitevale Road. The north boundary of the HCD incorporates rural properties along the north side of Whitevale Road to the east of the village, the northern portion of the village itself and, to the west of the village it extends further north to include the large former mill pond. The west boundary of the HCD extends approximately 270m to the west of Altona Road to incorporate several rural properties before continuing north towards the mill pond area, and southeast to the village limits. The south boundary of the HCD encompasses the southern portion of the village and various rural properties to the east of the village. The south boundary is generally parallel to Whitevale Road, ranging in depth from a minimum of 190m to a maximum of 550m (Unterman McPhail et al., 1990). These boundaries were recommended in the 1989 HCD Background Study, and include the privately owned parcels within the village, in addition to surrounding rural lands owned by the Province of Ontario. The inclusion of these lands within the HCD boundary, particularly to the east of the village, was considered to be of particular importance in establishing the scenic context of the hamlet and an important entrance and approach to the village (Unterman McPhail et. al. 1989). The Whitevale HCD Plan was prepared by Unterman McPhail Heritage Resource Consultants, in association with David Cuming and Associates, and Wendy Shearer, Landscape Architect in June of 1990. The HCD was subsequently designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act on June 7, 1993 (Appendix E).The public rights of way and each of the properties within the HCD all relate to the history of the village as an early milling and industrial centre and later, as a rural service centre. The stated goal of the HCD Plan is “to maintain, protect and conserve the Whitevale heritage conservation district” (Unterman McPhail et. al. 1990). To that end, the District Plan specifies the following objectives. Objectives: Heritage Buildings (Section 3.1.2 of the HCD Plan): To encourage the maintenance and conservation of individual heritage buildings by property o owners. To support the conservation and restoration of heritage buildings by providing guidelines on sound o conservation practice and encouraging application to funding sources for eligible work. Objectives: Landscape (Section 3.1.3 of the HCD Plan): To maintain and conserve the rural character in and around Whitevale. To enhance public spaces such as roads and sidewalks with sympathetic surface treatment and o landscaping. To maintain and conserve tree plantings within the area. To minimize any adverse effects of public undertakings within the district on significant landscape o features such as trees and grassed areas. Objectives: Archaeology (Section 3.1.4 of the HCD Plan): To avoid wherever possible the disruption or disturbance of known archaeological sites or areas of o archaeological potential. Objectives: Land Use (Section 3.1.5 of the HCD Plan): To encourage the maintenance of a continuing stable residential environment within the district - 309 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 9 To discourage those land uses which would be out of keeping with or have detrimental effects upon o the residential and agricultural character of the district To encourage the Provincial Government of Ontario to maintain and conserve their properties o within the Heritage Conservation District. To support existing uses and adaptive re-uses wherever feasible within the existing building stock. Objectives: New Development (Section 3.1.6 of the HCD Plan): To discourage the demolition or removal of existing heritage buildings and their replacement by o new development. To encourage new development only where it respects or otherwise complements the prevailing o low profile of the existing buildings and structures within the Whitevale heritage conservation district. 1.5 Summary of Community Engagement Table 1, below, includes a summary of the engagement activities and correspondence undertaken during the preparation of this HIA. It should be noted that this table only includes consultations conducted during the preparation of the HIA and does not include prior community engagement, including correspondence with the Whitevale and District Residents’ Association (WDRA) and the results of the open house on June 7, 2023, which precipitated the production of the present report. Table 1: Results of Community Engagement Contact Organization Date Notes Matthew Somerville Senior Planner, Heritage msomerville@pickering.ca City of Pickering June 3, 2025 AECOM contacted the City of Pickering by telephone to request contact information for municipal heritage staff. AECOM staff spoke with the City’s Senior Heritage Planner, Matthew Somerville, who followed up via email the same day to provide the HCD Plan and Background Report, and the City’s terms of reference for HIAs. June 5, 2025 Noting that the original designation bylaw and HCD plan had discrepancies of which properties were included in the Whitevale HCD, AECOM followed up via email to clarify whether certain properties were designated or excluded from the HCD.No response was initially received and AECOM followed up again via email on July 10, and August 7, 2025. August 13, 2025 Matthew Somerville replied and clarified that certain properties were excluded from the original designation bylaw for the Whitevale HCD, but that the roadways were included. Therefore, all properties within the village are to some degree adjacent to protected heritage property, and warrant review under any heritage study. - 310 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 10 2.Background Research and Analysis 2.1 Pre-Contact and Indigenous History In the area that is now central Ontario, the first human settlement can be traced back to 11,000 BC; these earliest well-documented groups are referred to as Paleo which means old or ancient. During the Paleo period, people were widely scattered, nomadic groups that occupied the sub-tundra-like environment that prevailed in south and central Ontario during that time. Past research indicates that these groups likely followed big game (such as Caribou) across the landscape, preferring to camp on high ground,immediately adjacent to water sources, such as glacial lakes or spillways, where smaller game and plant foods would have also been harvested. Due to the relative antiquity of Paleo sites, all that remains at their occupations are stone tool fragments and their characteristic spear points known as “fluted points” (Ellis and Deller 1990). The picture that has emerged for the early and late Paleo is of groups at low population densities who were residentially mobile and made use of large territories during annual cycles of resource exploitation. The subsequent Archaic period (8,000 BC to 950 BC) is characterized by a warming climate and a temperate forest environment which was crisscrossed by streams and rivers and surrounded by large freshwater lakes that would have supported many species of fish, shorebirds, and mammals. Small hunting and gathering bands (20-50 people) utilized the lake shores during the spring and summer months, then broke into smaller family groups and moved inland for the fall and winter to hunt and trap. Archaic period tool assemblages consisted of both chipped and ground/polished stone implements indicating that a wider variety of activities, such as fishing, woodworking, and food preparation/grinding, were now taking place. The Archaic period is followed by the Woodland period (ca. 950 BC to 1650 AD) which is subdivided into three phases. The Early Woodland period (ca. 950 BC to 400 BC) is characterized by the introduction of pottery for storage and an increase in regional trade networks. Trading of exotic goods, such as obsidian, silver, copper, and seashells persists into the Middle Woodland period (ca. 400 BC to 900 AD) when horticulture was introduced to Ontario. The adoption of food production brought to some groups a more sedentary lifestyle in seasonal villages, and more elaborate burial ceremonies –including the construction of large, earthen mounds. The Late Woodland period (ca. 900 AD to 1650 AD) is marked by the establishment of larger, organized polities including larger populations, palisaded villages (often containing dozens of longhouse structures), an increase in regional warfare and resource competition, and intensified horticulture. Table 2 provides a general summary of the history of Indigenous land use and settlement of the area. Table 2: Cultural Chronology of Indigenous Settlement in Southern Ontario Archaeological Period Time Period Characteristics Early Paleo 9000-8400 BC Fluted Points Arctic tundra and spruce parkland, caribou hunters Late Paleo 8400-8000 BC Holcombe, Hi-Lo, and Lanceolate Points A slight reduction in territory size Early Archaic 8000-6000 BC Notched and Bifurcate base Points Growing populations Middle Archaic 6000-2500 BC Stemmed and Brewerton Points, Laurentian Development Increasing regionalization Late Archaic 2000-1800 BC Narrow Point - 311 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 11 Environment similar to the present 1800-1500 BC Broad Point Large lithic tools 1500-1100 BC Small Point Introduction of bow Terminal Archaic 1100-950 BC Hind Points, Glacial Kame Complex Earliest true cemeteries Early Woodland 950-400 BC Meadowood Points Introduction of pottery Middle Woodland 400 BC-AD 500 Dentate/Pseudo-scallop Ceramics Increased sedentism AD 550-900 Princess Point Introduction of corn horticulture Late Woodland AD 900-1300 Agricultural villages AD 1300-1400 Increased longhouse sizes AD 1400-1650 Warring nations and displacement Contact Period AD 1600-1875 Early written records and treaties Profusion of trade goods Historic AD 1749-present European settlement (French and English) 2.2 The Settlement of Pickering Township, Ontario County While many Indigenous groups lived in this area during the Contact and Historic Periods, by the turn of the 19th century, the area that would become Ontario County was principally home to Mississauga Nations of the Anishinaabe People. The long-term Euro-Canadian settlement of what became Ontario County began with the 1788 Johnson-Butler Purchases. These purchases concerned the north shore of Lake Ontario between the east boundary of the 1787 Toronto Purchase and the west boundary of the 1783 Crawford Purchase at the Bay of Quinte. The Johnson-Butler Purchases, also known as the “Gunshot Treaty” included the Lake Ontario shoreline as far inland as a person could hear a gunshot (Government of Ontario, 2023). These lands were meant to connect previous Crown purchases on the north side of Lake Ontario, which were intended to open land for settlement by United Empire Loyalists moving to Canada following the American War for Independence. A secondary wave of loyalist migrants also came north following the War of 1812. As new territories were incorporated into Upper Canada, new administrative districts were organized. Soon after the Johnson-Butler Purchases, Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe reorganized the new colony of Upper Canada into nineteen counties within four broader districts (Robinson, 1885: 14). Pickering Township was located in the so-called “Home District” as part of the East Riding of York County (Farewell, 1907: 3). Although, Pickering Township had been surveyed as early as 1797 as part of Simcoe’s reorganization of Upper Canada, Euro- Canadian settlement did not begin in earnest until the 1820s. Due to extensive absentee landlordism in the Johnson-Butler treaty areas along the Lake Ontario shoreline, the settlement of Pickering Township began first inland, in contrast to other townships where the shoreline was settled first (Unterman McPhail et. al. 1989: 2-1). Most of these early Euro-Canadian settlers were United Empire Loyalists moving north and west from Niagara and enjoying priority treatment under the system of Crown land grants (Colonial Office, 1837: 6). It should be noted that the survey and settlement of Pickering Township occurred on unceded Indigenous lands well beyond earshot of the immediate Lake Ontario shoreline, as ceded in the Johnon-Butler Purchases. The ownership of these lands was not confirmed until 1923, when the Williams Treaties consolidated and expanded Crown ownership of the lands between the Lake Ontario shoreline and Lake Nipissing to the north (Government of Ontario, 2023). - 312 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 12 The Township of Pickering was further defined by administrative devolution and a move towards responsible government as recommended in Lord Durham’s 1839 report on the causes of the 1837 Upper Canada Rebellion. As part of this movement, in 1852 the districts system was abolished, including the Home District of which Pickering had previously been a part. That same year, the old County of York was also reorganized to form the United Counties of York, Peel, and Ontario, each with a greater degree of self government to reflect their growing populations. Pickering Township was included in the newly formed Ontario County. These administrative trends continued, and the United Counties of York,Peel, and Ontario soon fragmented, with Ontario County separating as an independent county in 1854 (McKay, 1961: 113). With a growing population and increasing administrative independence, the Township of Pickering experienced rapid growth through the mid 19th century. From a recorded population 375 in 1820, by 1850, the Township had a population of 6,074 which was principally composed of settlers engaged in land clearance and agriculture (Farewell, 1907: 13; McKay, 1961: 106). The clearance of land for farming was facilitated by the establishment of numerous saw and grist mills, with Duffins Creek serving as corridor of early, mill-based industry in the Township. The 1851 Census records no less than 11 mills on East Duffins Creek, and a further 13 on West Duffins Creek, including one at the present site of Whitevale (McKay, 1961: 107). With growing numbers of settlers and a well established agricultural and light industrial base, the Township of Pickering experienced a period of growth and prosperity from the 1850s through the 1860s. Wider global events also contributed to this period of growth with spillover economic effects in the agriculture, industrial, and transportation sectors. For instance, both the Crimean War (1853-1856) and the American Civil War (1861-1865) both created huge export demands for agricultural products, particularly wheat, which fuelled a wheat boom in Ontarian agriculture through the 1850s and 1860s (McKay, 1961: 128). At the same time, technological advancements facilitated the rapid growth of railways which made it easier to move goods and supplies across the township. These changes were accompanied by the development of Frenchman Bay on Lake Ontario as a port, thereby facilitating agricultural exports and allowing the Township to profit from broader global events (McKay, 1961: 128). Milling, local manufacturing,agriculture, and transportation in Pickering were all buoyed by these wider economic trends in the 1850s and 1860s. In the longer term, reduction in internation demand and increase in export competition following the settlement of the prairies in western Canada and the American Midwest ended the Ontario wheat boom by the mid 1870s (McKay, 1961: 130). The reduced profitability of wheat, the maturation of transportation networks, the consolidation of settlement, and the near total clearance of available land within Pickering Township precipitated an economic shift in the latter decades of the 19th century (McKay, 1961: 132). A major feature of this shift was the establishment of the mixed farm model across much of Ontario. As Wendy Shearer (Shearer, 2012) succinctly puts it: The mixed farm model was an extremely efficient organization of farm family labour, animal husbandry and crop production. It created a distinctive layout and division of the farm into eight to 10 fenced fields, a small managed woodlot for fuel and timber,a farmstead core dominated by a large timber barn for the farm animals and hay and grain storage, numerous outbuildings, and a spacious farmhouse surrounded by gardens and an orchard. The division of the landscape into the domestic activities of the farm women and the production area of the farm men was guided by a well established layout pattern centred on the farm lane that linked the back fields and the farm core to the public road.Each of the fields was fenced to control the farm animals; trees and shrubs were allowed to grow along these fencerows, creating a well-defined border to each field. Within the farm core area, the farmer planted sugar maple and Norway spruce treelines to act as windbreaks and to define the boundary of the heart of the farm. - 313 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 13 The mixed farm model built on the precedents of early settler farms and land surveys, but was a mature agricultural system that helped create, and in many places still defines the rural landscape in Ontario. As the mixed farm model was consolidated in the late 19th century, the booming villages of Pickering Township adapted to the new pace of rural life. With fewer markets for grain and no remaining untapped timber reserves, the milling industry in Pickering Township declined over this period. The creation of larger factories in urban centres and the increased ease of moving people and goods also lead to a decline in local industry, which was exacerbated by a period of population decline in the countryside and rural hamlets of Pickering that continued well into the 20th century (McKay, 1961: 138). From a peak of 7,375 in 1877, by 1904, the population of Pickering had declined to 5,211 (Beers & Co., 1877: ix; Farewell, 1907: 11). Taken together, these changes saw the heady days of rapid settlement, land clearance, and booming villages of the 1850s and 1860s give way to a period of relative calm, with ordered farmlands surrounding now quiet villages which acted as rural service centres for the surrounding countryside (McKay, 1961: 132). This pace of rural life remained the norm in much of the Township of Picking until after the Second World War. 2.3 From Majorville to Whitevale The overarching trends of settlement and rapid growth, followed by a period of economic change and relative calm that animated the broader history of Pickering Township in the 19th century are equally apparent in the history of Whitevale. The origins of the village are tied to the initial surveys and land grants meant to facilitate the resettlement of loyalists from the United States. One United Empire Loyalist, John Major, was granted lands in Pickering Township after the War of 1812 and eventually settled with his family on Lot 26 Concession 5 and Lot 29 Concession 4, both fronting Concession Road 5 (now Whitevale Road) to the east of the present village of Whitevale. In the early 1820s, Major established a sawmill on the banks of West Duffin Creek in Lot 32 Concession 5 and a small community variously known as Major, Major Mills, or Majorville grew around the mill site, predominantly cited to the east along Concession Road 5 (Unterman McPhail et. al. 1989: 2-1). In 1843, Ira White,of nearby Markham, purchased the Major mill and his son, Truman P. White was put in charge of its operation (Unterman McPhail et. al. 1989: 2-2). Truman White soon became involved in the political and business life of the county, variously serving on the County Council and as a County Warden (Farewell, 1907: 15; Beers & Co., 1877: ix). At the same time, the White family continued to accumulate land in the area in the 1840s and 1850s, eventually amassing some 400 acres in and around the community (Unterman McPhail et. al. 1989: 2- 2). The White family greatly expanded milling operations, building a new grist mill, sawmill, planing mill, and a woollens mill on West Duffins Creek (Farewell, 1907: 15). - 314 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 14 Image 1: Truman P. White in the late 19th century (Wood, 1911: 154) These efforts were accompanied by the first plan of subdivision for the village registered by Truman White in 1857 (Unterman McPhail et. al. 1989: 2-3-4). The plan created a single tier of acre or smaller lots along either side of the fifth concession line (renamed Main Street), closer to the mill buildings than the previous settlement of Major. The plan was amended in 1860, mainly to straighten main street where it crossed West Duffins Creek (Unterman McPhail et. al. 1989: 2-6). Tremaine’s 1860 Map of Ontario County illustrates the settlement of Major as predominantly cited on the valley slopes to the east of the milling complex, which is within the properties owned by Truman White along the valley floor (Figure 3). The growth of the milling industry under the leadership of the White family attracted additional business to the community, which expanded into the valley along the lines proposed in the 1860 plan of subdivision. By the late 1860s, the growing community boasted not only the grist mill, sawmill, planing mill, and woollens mill, but also a steam-carriage factory, a cheese factory, a cabinet factory, a wagon shop, a cooperage, two shoe makers, and a weaver a tinsmith, in addition to other typical village trades such as carpenters, blacksmiths, tailors, and grocers (McKay, 1961: 120; Wood, 1911: 154-155) The population by 1866 had reached just over 300 (McEvoy, 1866: 88). Accompanying this growth, the village also had a new school built in 1865, in addition to a hotel and two churches. By 1870, a new plan of subdivision was registered for the village which included additional tiers of roadways on either side of Main Street (Whitevale Road) (Image 4). While not all of the new road allowances were opened, the basic outline of the 1870 plan formed the basis of the village layout as it exists in the present day (Unterman McPhail et. al. 1989: 2-7). Notably, in the 1870 plan the village had been renamed from “Major” to “Whitevale” after Truman White and family (Unterman McPhail et. al. 1989: 2-8). This plan was reproduced in the 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas of Ontario County, in addition to a view of the village, which shows a compact industrial core on the banks of West Duffins Creek and an orderly village ascending the eastern slopes of the valley into well-established farmland (Image 3,Figure 3). - 315 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 15 Image 2: Northeast facing view of Whitevale, as printed in the 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas (Beers & Co., 1877) - 316 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 16 Image 3: Plan of the Village of Whitevale as it appears in the 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas (Beers & Co., 1877). Yet despite the rapid growth of the 1860s and the bustling village depicted in the 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas, by the late 1870s Whitevale had already begun to decline as a local industrial centre. A series of fires around 1874 had destroyed the carriage factory, cooperage, and planing mill (suggesting that the 1877 image was drafted some years before), and the woollens mill and the grist mill both burned down a few years later, as did the village’s public hall which had been erected in 1860 (Unterman McPhail et. al., 1989: 2-9; Wood, 1911: 155). Following these setbacks, in 1882, Truman White left Whitevale with his family for Pilot Mound, Manitoba, where he sought to establish a new milling site.2 In short order, the village lost much of its industry, as well as one of its main proponents (though the Whites did return in the 1890s). Efforts were made in the 1880s to reestablish basic milling operations with the planing mill rebuilt on the site of the former grist mill (to the immediate north of Main Street/Whitevale Road) and the grist mill rebuilt in the brick shell of the former woollens mill (to the immediate south of Main Street/Whitevale Road on the present mill site). However, the planing mill again burnt down in 1899, leaving only the grist mill by the turn of the 20th century (Unterman McPhail et. al., 1989: 2-9). 2.4 Whitevale in the 20th Century While the numerous mill fires of the late 19th century sped the industrial decline of Whitevale, the decline of the milling industry in the Township of Pickering was already occurring in response to broader economic trends. As with other villages, Whitevale became a modest service centre for the surrounding countryside. The village experienced a slight population loss and remained at just below three hundred people into the 20th century. The hamlet lost its - 317 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 17 resident doctor in 1902 (a post which had been filled since the 1860s) and, with the loss of businesses, former commercial buildings were converted into housing (Unterman McPhail et. al. 1989: 2-13; Wood, 1911: 155-156) By 1911, the village contained a rural post office, a general store, a hotel, the grist mill, and services including a veterinary surgeon, a blacksmith, an undertaker, a wagon maker, and a shoemaker (Union Publishing Co. 1911: 758). These services continued to narrow, and through most of the 20th century, the village was only serviced by the general store, post office, grist mill, and a blacksmith (later a gas station) (McKay, 1961: 137; Unterman McPhail et. al., 1989: 2-13). As noted above, the mixed farm model established in the late 19th century was a mature agricultural system which was, in many ways, self sustaining. However, despite such a strong foundation, global trends of the early 20th century ensured that significant economic growth would not return to rural Pickering or the village of Whitevale, which remained relatively static as a rural service centre. The First and Second World Wars, and the intervening Great Depression stifled rural economic and population growth, with price caps for wartime food exports, and many farm labourers lost either as soldiers or to urban factories. In consequence, very few buildings were constructed in the village of Whitevale prior to the end of the Second World War. Many of the structures in the village remained unaltered, some even without basic utilities like water or electricity, until the mid 20th century (Unterman McPhail, 1989: 2-13). After the second World War, the demobilization of soldiers, the realignment of wartime industry, the movement of refugees and postwar migrants, and the baby-boom, all contributed to rapid population growth across Canada. The Township of Pickering was no exception and, after a long decline, by the mid-1950s the township population had surpassed its previous peak from the 1870s (McKay, 1961: 143). While much of the related growth in Pickering was urban growth along the shore of Lake Ontario where wartime industries, including a large munitions plant, had been established, several new houses were also built in Whitevale through the 1950s and 1960s.The village, however, remained a modest rural service centre, and actually lost services in 1961 due to a series of fires which destroyed the grist mill, the general store, and much of the former hotel (Unterman McPhail et. al. 1989: 2-13). While the mill and store were rebuilt, the village remained a predominantly residential area, with few changes to the residential housing stock (Unterman McPhail et. al., 1989: 2-14). Image 4: East-facing view of the grist mill in the brick shell of the former woollens mill prior to the 1961 fire (Sabean, 2000: 46) Image 5: View of the ruins of the mill after the 1961 fire. The current sheet metal clad feed mill was built on the same site soon afterwards (Sabean, 2000: 46) In 1970 the Ontario Government released a design concept for the “Toronto-Centred Region”, which was a broad economic plan for the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) that had been developed in conjunction with the Canadian Federal Government. The plan set the basis for subsequent regional planning including the 2020 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and outlined major components of GTA growth, including the establishment of a new international airport, urban expansion in conjunction with surrounding municipalities, and the establishment of the Greenbelt (Government of Ontario, 1975). As part of the 1970 concept, a new urban centre was proposed for - 318 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 18 North Pickering, including the areas around the village of Whitevale. The North Pickering Plan was predicated on the establishment of a new international airport in north Pickering. The plan included accompanying industrial, transportation, commercial, and residential development plans, with an initial design to accommodate 75,000 new inhabitants,with anticipated growth of up to 200,000 by the year 2000 (Government of Ontario, 1975). With this vision in mind, in 1972 the northern portion of the Town of Pickering, subject to the North Pickering Plan, was largely expropriated, with the Federal Government expropriating lands primarily north of Highway 7 for the future airport, and the Provincial Government expropriating lands to the south of Highway 7 for the accompanying new community. In 1974 Ontario County was dissolved and its constituent townships reorganized into the new Regional Municipality of Durham. The urban portions of the former Township of Pickering were severed into the new town of Ajax, and the remaining portions became the Town of Pickering, much of which was anticipated to be urbanized as part of the North Pickering Plan. In this context, uncertainty about the future of Whitevale lead to a number of the hamlet’s residents moving away, while those who remained rented their properties from the Provincial Government (Unterman McPhail et. al., 1989: 2-14). In response to the proposed development of the area, in 1972 remaining residents founded the Whitevale and District Residents’ Association (WDRA). The WDRA is committed to protecting the heritage of Whitevale and its surrounding agricultural land, to promoting the social, cultural and recreations interests of the people in the district, and to working with likeminded organizations to achieve those aims (WDRA, no date). Image 6: The proposed North Pickering Project lands, with federal lands and the proposed international airport illustrated in the north portion of the block (Government of Ontario, 1975) Image 7: The proposed North Pickering Project lands, showing the land use concept for provincial lands in the south portion of the block, which include Whitevale as a hamlet (black)within the development area (blue) (Government of Ontario, 1975) The momentum for the plan to fully redevelop north Pickering ultimately slowed with the decision to concentrate airport development at the existing Toronto International Airport (now Pearson), rather than create additional new airports to service the GTA.However, during the initial planning and background studies for the North Pickering Plan, the Ontario Ministry of Housing had recorded at least 103 structures of architectural and historical significance in the Town of Pickering, noting that most of these were located in hamlets, particularly Whitevale (Government of Ontario, 1975). As such,Whitevale was exempted from expropriation in 1974 and gradually returned to private ownership (Unterman McPhail. Et. al. 1989: 2-14). While large scale redevelopment plans for the area remained on the books for the province, in 1975 the Ontario Ministry of Housing noted: The hamlet of Whitevale and structures along the 5th Concession east of this hamlet, represent a remarkable example of village and rural life of the 19th century Ontario. It is, therefore, recommended that sensitive planning be carried out in this area to preserve its unique character. The studies for the North Pickering Plan and subsequent recommendations recognized the unique and valuable historical character of the hamlet of Whitevale and called for future planning to be conducted both with care and in - 319 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 19 consultation with residents. These principles were later formalized with the designation of the Whitevale HCD in 1993. In 2008-2009, the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario (ACO) conducted a follow up study of the Whitevale HCD after 15 years. The study found that the HCD had been successful in encouraging the conservation and maintenance of heritage buildings within the village, and that both new developments and public works had generally maintained the rural character of Whitevale. The 2009 study further found a high degree of satisfaction among residents living within the HCD and noted that most properties in the district had average or above property sales history trajectories (ACO, 2009). To date, the implementation of the HCD has had continued success in preserving the unique character and history of Whitevale. 2.5 Historical Summary The village of Whitevale is historically associated with the settlement of Pickering Township in the former County of Ontario during the 19th century. The hamlet was established as a milling site in the 1820s by William Major and greatly expanded as a centre of local industry by the White family under the leadership of Truman P. White, after whom the settlement was ultimately named. The settlement and expansion of the village corresponded with similar patterns of development across the county. However, a series of significant fires in the 1870s and 1880s hastened the decline of the village by 1900, and it remained a modest service centre for the surrounding countryside through most of the 20th century. Although several houses were added to the village in the 1950s and 1960s as the population of Pickering once again grew, the growth of the village was checked by a series of fires in 1961, which destroyed several of the remaining commercial buildings. In many ways, the fires that have historically beset the hamlet of Whitevale have also been responsible for its conservation. The fires of the late 19th century halted the growth of the village at its peak, and curtailed industry in particular. The timing of these fires ensured that the village would not evolve as an industrial site, while also assuring an adequate stock of housing for the remaining residents. In consequence, the mid-to-late 19th century housing stock was retained with a remarkable degree of integrity, with very few additional structures added or exterior alterations made between the 1880s and the 1950s (Unterman McPhail et. al., 1989: 2-13). Similarly, the fires of 1961 prevented the village from attaining the commercial base that may have supported it as a bedroom community to one of the larger urban centres nearby. In consequence, by the time the area was considered for full- scale redevelopment in the 1970s, planners recognized the exceptional number of surviving heritage buildings and the unique historic character of the hamlet. These characteristics were duly incorporated into policy recommendations, in the long term resulting in the designation and further preservation of the hamlet as an HCD. - 320 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 20 3.Statement of Significance Due to the age of the Whitevale HCD designation, no formal Statement of Significance or list of heritage attributes was prepared in accordance with the current provincial standards set out in the Ontario Heritage Toolkit or O. Reg. 385/21. The original designation by-law for the Whitevale HCD (Town of Pickering, 1993) does not include a description, Statement of Significance, or identified heritage attributes. The Hamlet of Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Study: Background Report (1989) includes a summary of the district’s character, which has since been relied upon as the closest equivalent to a Statement of Significance. This summary has been carried forward in subsequent studies, including the ACO’s 2009 follow-up review of the Whitevale HCD (Unterman McPhail et al., 1990: 4; ACO, 2009: 3). The district summary and description are reproduced in full below. 3.1 Description of the District The Whitevale Heritage Conservation District is bounded by Altona Road to the east and Sideline 26 to the west in the City of Pickering. The district consists of 35 properties, mainly all one and two-and-a-half storey residential dwellings except for two retail and three public buildings (ACO, 2009: 3). 3.2 District Character: A Summary The hamlet of Whitevale is located in a scenic river valley along the banks of West Duffin's Creek in the Town of Pickering. Dominated by its rural setting and modest vernacular buildings the hamlet has not changed significantly in character since the late nineteenth century. It had a small but thriving industrial centre until the 1870s when a disastrous fire effectively destroyed most of the mill buildings except for the feed mill. With the depopulation of rural Ontario during the late 1800s and early 1900s Whitevale's role as a small service centre for the local farming community waned resulting in the complete disappearance of its commercial enterprises on Main Street with the exception of the general store and the mill. The building style in Whitevale is a mixture of typical rural Ontario vernacular architecture combined with Victorian influences and materials in common usage at the time of construction. The result is a distinctive cohesiveness of scale, mass, decorative detailing and building materials. Although many individual buildings and properties have been altered over the decades, the overall 19th century village has been retained. Most of the existing nineteenth century buildings have wood frame structures and siding ranging from clapboard, shiplap,to vertical board and batten. The majority of structures are one-and-a-half storeys in height with a three bay front facades and centre gables. The rural character of Whitevale with its narrow tree-lined streets,scenic views over the surrounding agricultural lands,and the West Duffin's Creek and its steep river valley provides a distinctive context and setting for its buildings. The community has a rich and diverse character within a relatively small area. Archaeological remains located in and around Whitevale attest to its enduring attractiveness as a settlement area. (Unterman McPhail et. al., 1990: 4; ACO, 2009: 3). - 321 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 21 3.3 Working List of Character-Defining Elements (for HIA Purposes) As noted in Section 3, no formal list of heritage attributes was prepared at the time of the Whitevale HCD’s designation. However, the “elements” identified in the 1989 Background Report and 1990 District Plan have been reviewed. While these were not formally defined as “heritage attributes” under the terminology in use at that time, they correspond closely to the district’s character-defining features. For the purposes of this Heritage Impact Assessment, the “elements” identified in the 1989 Background Report and 1990 District Plan have been interpreted as character-defining features. This approach ensures a fulsome evaluation of potential impacts within the Cultural Heritage Study Area. The following consolidated list represents the working set of character-defining elements of the Whitevale HCD within the Cultural Heritage Study Area. This list is intended to inform both the assessment of existing conditions (Section 5) and the impact assessment (Section 6). It is not exhaustive and includes only those features within the defined Cultural Heritage Study Area. For further context, the 1989 Background Report and 1990 District Plan should be consulted. Disclaimer:The following list is not an official statement of heritage attributes. It is derived from the District Character Summary (1989), the District Plan (1990), and subsequent reporting, and is provided solely for the purposes of this HIA to evaluate potential impacts within the Cultural Heritage Study Area. Historic housing stock and legibility as a 19th century village Cohesiveness of scale, form, and massing of structures Prevalence of modest-scale, one-an-a-half storey wood frame structures with three bay facades, centre gables,end or side gable plans,and wood cladding including clapboard, shiplap, and vertical board and batten Victorian design influences including classical revival and Gothic revival exterior architectural detailing Historic commercial, public, and religious buildings including, but not limited to the: former milling complex, Community Centre, church, Arts and Culture Centre, and former store. Circa 1870 village plan, including road and side street alignments Narrow setbacks for buildings within the village Rural (landscape) character Narrow, tree-lined streets o Rural streetscape including:narrow asphalt paving on main roads,uneven gravel shoulders,shallow ditches, gravel side streets,open gravel parking around mill buildings,overhead wires on wood hydro poles,radial streetlights,lack of contiguous sidewalks along the Whitevale Road and North Road rights of way, and the absence of suburban style concrete curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, which are likewise considered positive attributes of the rural character of the village Scenic view over surrounding agricultural lands o East-West view along Whitevale Road through the settlement area, o Northeasterly views over open fields at the extent of the village along North Road; Scenic context of the steeply sloped West Duffins Creek river valley o Slope defining west entrance to settlement along Whitevale Road, o Dense woods including mature conifers close to Whitevale Road along the west approaches and in the valley bottom, o Slope defining east entrance to village core along Whitevale Road, o Developed parkland to the west of West Duffin Creek, including access to the Seaton Hiking Trail, - 322 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 22 Well maintained residential landscape including foundation plantings, manicured lawns, gardens,and decorative fences and hedges defining the edge of the streets Mature specimen trees and hedgerows creating a dense and diverse tree canopy throughout the entire settlement area. - 323 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 23 4.Proposed Development or Site Alteration 4.1 Purpose of Proposed Activity The City of Pickering retained AECOM to complete the Detailed Design work for proposed improvements to Whitevale Road and North Road within the village of Whitevale. This work includes road reconstruction and resurfacing, stormwater flow diversion works complete with a new storm sewer system, sidewalk installation, retaining wall replacement in some areas, and boulevard and driveway restoration. The work is being conducted as part of the Whitevale Drainage Master Plan. The objectives of the project are to: Reduce the occurrence of flooding; Mitigate erosion along roadways; Minimize future maintenance requirements; Enhance the quality of surface runoff discharging into West Duffins Creek, and; Improve overall public safety Pre-Engineering for the Project began in 2021, with additional public consultation taking place throughout the process. Residents of Whitevale have consistently expressed concerns that the proposed designs do not sufficiently align with the Whitevale HCD Guidelines and may adversely impact the Whitevale HCD. The Project is currently in the 95% Detailed Design phase. 4.2 Work Required to Complete this Project: Whitevale Road: Replace existing paved road with new paved rural cross section and grass ditches (similar to current road width), Adjust road profile to establish proper drainage and minimize flooding of adjacent properties, Construct a new storm sewer and properly spaced ditch inlets/catch basins to prevent surface flooding and erosion. Local Sideroads: Maintain existing unpaved rural cross section, Carry out local grading works (i.e. profile, road crown, ditches, driveway culverts, etc.), Undertake regular maintenance, including use of organic topical sealant in order to re-establish proper drainage and minimize surface flooding / erosion to adjacent properties. North Road: Regrade roadside ditch on east side of North Road to accommodate infrequent storm flows from north catchment area, Construct a new storm inlet to Whitevale Road storm sewer and over-size proposed Whitevale Road storm sewer to accommodate additional flood flows from North Road, Restore culvert crossing at North Road to direct low flows to existing drainage features. - 324 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 24 5.Assessment of Existing Conditions As discussed in Section 1.2,the Whitevale Road and North Road streetscapes, and most adjacent properties within the village of Whitevale are contributing elements of the Whitevale HCD. The Cultural Heritage Study Area consists of the 95% Detailed Design plus an 11 m buffer in order to account for potential impacts to both the public right of way, where the proposed work is anticipated to take place, and adjacent private properties. The following sections present a summary of the existing conditions within the Cultural Heritage Study Area. For organizational purposes,in this section the Cultural Heritage Study Area is divided into the three principal street segments. The following represents the boundaries of the three principal street segments of the Cultural Heritage Study Area. Whitevale Road West (from Altona Road RR 27 to the west end of Whitevale Bridge); Whitevale Road East (from the east end of Whitevale Bridge to Golf Club Road); North Road (from the intersection with Whitevale Road to the limit of the village, approximately 175 m north) The body text emphasizes the existing conditions of the streetscape within the Cultural Heritage Study Area, which is most likely to be directly impacted by the Project (see Section 6). Additional details concerning individual properties adjacent to the proposed work, but still within the Cultural Heritage Study Area,can be found in Appendix B, Appendix C,and Appendix D, which correspond with the street segments indicated above. 5.1 Field Review A field review was completed by Preston Arens, Cultural Heritage Specialist with AECOM’s Cultural Heritage team on July 9, 2025, to photograph the existing conditions of the Cultural Heritage Study Area. The field review was conducted from the public right of way and does not include any interior assessments, nor assessments from within private properties. 5.1.1 Whitevale Road (West) Existing Conditions Whitevale Road, between Altona Road (RR 27) and the west end of the Whitevale Bridge is a two-lane paved road with narrow shoulders and shallow ditches. The road in this segment is generally level on the uplands near the intersection with Altona Road, then steeply descends from west to east before levelling on the flats at the valley bottom. The westernmost stretch of this section of Whitevale Road is situated on the uplands and is modestly treed, with extensive manicured lawns providing unobstructed views of residential dwellings on both sides of the right of way. As the road descends towards West Duffin Creek and levels in the valley bottom, the verges become heavily treed with mixed deciduous and coniferous trees and dense groundcover. The dwellings along this portion of Whitevale Road are accessed by either paved or gravel driveways and include a mixture of 19th and 20th century frame houses closer to West Duffin Creek, in addition to several mid 20th century brick bungalows on the uplands at the western extent of the Cultural Heritage Study Area . Within the Whitevale Road (West) segment, fourteen (14) properties have frontage along Whitevale Road, 13 of which are designated under Part V of the OHA, and seven (7) of which have structures that fall within the Cultural Heritage Study Area (Figure 5a). Descriptions of the 14 properties with structures within and adjacent to the Cultural Heritage Study Area of the Whitevale Road (West) segment are provided in Appendix B.The following table summarizes character-defining elements of the segment of Whitevale Road (West) streetscape within the Cultural Heritage Study Area: - 325 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 25 Table 3: Summary of Existing Conditions within the Whitevale Road (West) Streetscape Location Streetscape Description Photographs Whitevale Road between Altona Road and the Whitevale Bridge Whitevale Road (West) Streetscape The Whitevale Road (west) streetscape includes numerous character-defining elements which support the heritage character of the District. These include, but are not limited to: 14 adjacent properties, including 13 Part V designated properties; Slope defining the west entrance to the settlement area; Eastward view along Whitevale Road from Altona Road to Golf Course Road; Narrow asphalt pavement with gravel shoulders and side street/driveway aprons; Overhead wires and radial streetlights on wood hydro poles; Lack of sidewalks along the right of way; Well maintained residential landscape including foundation planting; Developed parkland on the west side of West Duffins Creek (Whitevale Park) including two heritage structures and access to the Seaton Trail. Manicured lawns, decorative fences, and gardens; and Mature tree cover including naturalized deciduous forest, specimen plantings, and cedar hedgerows. See below: Photographs 1-20 The following provides overview photographs of the existing conditions within the Cultural Heritage Study Area of the Whitevale Road (West) segment: Photograph 1:Streetview of the intersection of Altona Road and Whitevale Road, looking west. (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 2:Streetview of the west portion of Whitevale Road, looking east from the Altona Road intersection (AECOM, 2025) - 326 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 26 Photograph 3:Historic houses along the west portion of Whitevale Road, including number 335 and 345 Whitevale Road. Looking south from the right of way (AECOM, 2025 Photograph 4:View of the western slope of Whitevale Road, including manicured lawns and narrow gravel shoulders. Looking east (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 5:South facing view of a typical property entrance on Whitevale Road, including gravel driveway, manicured lawns and gardens, and mature tree coverage. Located at 345 Whitevale Road (AECOM 2025) Photograph 6:Gravel driveway and mature cedar hedgerow at 360 Whitevale Road. Looking northwest (AECOM, 2025) - 327 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 27 Photograph 7:Historic house, manicured lawn and gardens, and private concrete stairs at 360 Whitevale Road. Looking north (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 8:Mature tree coverage and private concrete stairs along the Whitevale Road frontage of 3190 Byron Street. Looking south from Whitevale Road (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 9:The intersection of Whitevale Road and Byron Street, looking north from Byron Street (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 10:Mature cedar hedgerow along the Whitevale Road right of way. Looking west (AECOM, 2025) - 328 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 28 Photograph 11:Split rail cedar fence, gardens, and mature trees defining the entrance to a late 20th century infill house at 380 Whitevale Road. Looking northwest (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 12:Semicircular gravel driveway with central gardens at 395 Whitevale Road. Looking southeast (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 13:Mutal Street, looking south from Whitevale Road (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 14:Entrance to Whitevale Park at 405 Whitevale Road, looking southeast from Mutual Street at the “Christian House” (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 15:Looking north at the Whitevale Bridge commemorative feature within Whitevale Park. Note the Whitevale Road grade in the background (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 16:Narrow, irregular concrete sidewalk along the south side of Whitevale Road, looking east (AECOM, 2025) - 329 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 29 5.1.2 Whitevale Road (East) Existing Conditions Whitevale Road (East) between the east end of the Whitevale Bridge and Golf Club Road, Whitevale Road is a two-lane paved road with narrow shoulders and shallow ditches. The road passes from the level valley flats at the west end of this section and gradually ascends from west to east and before levelling on the uplands beyond Golf Club Road. This segment of Whitevale Road fronts the majority of the historic village, which includes numerous frame and brick residential dwellings from the 19th and early 20th century along both sides of the right-of-way. This segment of Whitevale Road also includes several current and former public and commercial buildings, including the former mill building and the former bank/library on the south side of the road, and the former general store and the former Methodist Chapel (now Orthodox Church) on the north side of the road. This segment features some use of manicured lawns along the right of way but is generally well treed in a fashion which shows sustained human Photograph 17:Mature trees and wildflowers along the Whitevale Road right of way. Looking northwest from the Seaton Hiking Trail (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 18:View of the Whitevale Community Centre (formerly the Miller House and likely the oldest structure in Whitevale), looking south from Whitevale Road (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 19:View of west slope of Whitevale Road, looking west from the valley bottom (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 20:View of the valley flats, looking east across Whitevale Bridge (AECOM, 2025) - 330 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 30 influence. Historical lot lines are clearly demarcated with trees and hedgerows, while residential dwellings are well accompanied by a variety of shade and ornamental trees and gardens. Within the Whitevale Road (East) segment, twenty-five (25) properties have frontage along Whitevale Road, of which twenty (20) are designated under Part V of the OHA, and twenty-one (21) of which have structures that fall within the Cultural Heritage Study Area (Figure 5b and Figure 5c). Descriptions of the 25 properties with structures within and adjacent to the Cultural Heritage Study Area of the Whitevale Road (West) segment are provided in Appendix C.The following table summarizes character-defining elements of the segment of Whitevale Road (West) streetscape within the Cultural Heritage Study Area: Table 4: Summary of Existing Conditions within the Whitevale Road (East) Streetscape Location Streetscape Description Photographs Whitevale Road between the Whitevale Bridge and Golf Club Road Whitevale Road (East) Streetscape The Whitevale Road (east) streetscape includes numerous character-defining elements which support the heritage character of the District. These include, but are not limited to: 25 adjacent properties including 20 Part V designated properties; Slope defining the east entrance to the settlement area; Narrow asphalt pavement with gravel shoulders and side street/driveway aprons; Overhead wires and radial streetlights on wood hydro poles; Non-contiguous narrow concrete and asphalt sidewalks along the right of way; Mature tree cover along the streetscape including specimen plantings and cedar hedgerows; and Well maintained residential landscape including foundation planting, manicured lawns, decorative fences, and gardens. See above: Photographs 21-58 The following provides overview photographs of the existing conditions within the Cultural Heritage Study Area of the Whitevale Road (East) segment: Photograph 21: View of the former mill complex, looking southeast from Whitevale Road (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 22: Southwest view of the former mill complex (AECOM, 2025) - 331 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 31 Photograph 23:View of the Seaton Hiking Trail access from Whitevale Road. Looking northwest (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 24:View of the gambrel roofed structure at 424 Whitevale Road associated with the former milling complex across the street. Looking north (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 25: Streetview of Whitevale Road, looking west across the gravel parking area around the mill complex towards Whitevale Bridge (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 26: Streetview of Mill Street, looking north across Whitevale Road (AECOM, 2025) - 332 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 32 Photograph 27:Streetview of Whitevale Road, looking east across the valley bottom (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 28:View of east slope of Whitevale Road, looking east (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 29:The Whitevale Road frontage of 3195 Factory Street, looking south. Note that this elevation of 3195 Factory Street extends into the public right of way (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 30: Manicured lawns, mature tree coverage, and narrow concrete sidewalks at the corner of Mill Street and Whitevale Road, looking east (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 31: Mature tree coverage along Whitevale Road, looking south (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 32: down the east slope of Whitevale Road, looking west. Note the radial street lights and wood hydro poles (AECOM, 2025) - 333 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 33 Photograph 33: Westward view of Whitevale Road, showing the sidewalk, sloped verges, and 3195 Factory Street in the background (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 34:Concrete stairs and gravel driveway aprons in disrepair on the north side of Whitevale Road (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 35: Northwest view across the Whitevale Road streetscape (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 36: Narrow, irregular concrete sidewalk along the south side of Whitevale Road, looking east (AECOM, 2025) - 334 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 34 Photograph 37: North facing street view of 460 Whitevale Road, showing the shallow ditches, grassed verges, wood hydro poles, manicured gardens and mature tree coverage typical to the settlement area (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 38:View of manicured lawns, gardens, and ornamental fences at 470 Whitevale Road. Looking north (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 39: View of the east slope for Whitevale Road, looking west (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 40: Narrow concrete sidewalk, mature trees, and well developed gardens along the north side of Whitevale Road. Looking west (AECOM, 2025) - 335 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 35 Photograph 41: Narrow concrete sidewalk, mature trees, ornamental fences, and well developed gardens along the north side of Whitevale Road. Looking east (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 42: The former Whitevale Hotel at 465 Whitevale Road, looking south (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 43:View of the corner of Gladstone Street and Whitevale Road, looking northwest (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 44:The Whitevale Arts & Culture Centre (WACC), with brick paved frontage, park benches, gardens and library box. Looking south (AECOM, 2025) - 336 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 36 Photograph 45: View of the community mailboxes to the immediate east of the WACC. Looking southeast (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 46: View of mural on east wall of the WACC (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 47:Streetscape along south side of Whitevale Road, looking southwest (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 48: View of streetscape along Whitevale Road, looking northeast (AECOM, 2025) - 337 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 37 Photograph 49: View of 480 Whitevale Road, looking northeast. Note the gravel apron of Gladstone Street, mature trees,manicured lawns, and ornamental fencing (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 50: View of the former Whitevale store, looking north (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 51: Narrow concrete sidewalk, mature trees, manicured lawn, and private gravel path along the north side of Whitevale Road. Looking east (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 52: View of 495 Whitevale Road showing private concrete path, mature tree coverage, and well developed gardens along the right of way. Looking south (AECOM, 2025) - 338 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 38 Photograph 53: View of the former cheese factory at 499 Whitevale Road. Looking south (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 54: View of irregular asphalt sidewalk along the north side of Whitevale Road, looking west.(AECOM, 2025) Photograph 55: View of overgrown sidewalk within the manicured lawns in front of Whitevale Church. Looking west (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 56: Whitevale Church, looking north (AECOM, 2025) - 339 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 39 5.1.3 North Road Existing Conditions North Road from the intersection with Whitevale Road to the limit of the village is a paved two-lane road with modest gravel shoulders and shallow ditches. The road gently ascends from the intersection with Whitevale road to the north extent of the village. Much like the adjacent stretch of Whitevale Road (East), this section of North Road is characterized by 19th and 20th century frame dwellings, manicured lawns, and diverse and varied tree coverage along the verges. Notable features of this section of North Road include the former Methodist Chapel along the east side of North Road as it intersects with Whitevale Road. This section of North Road also includes two mid 20th century bungalows along the east side of the road, near the north extent of the village. Within the North Road segment, seven (7) properties have frontage along North Road,of which three (3) are designated under Part V of the OHA and five (5) of which have structures that fall within the Cultural Heritage Study Area (Figure 5c and Figure 5d).Descriptions of the 7 properties with structures within and adjacent to the Cultural Heritage Study Area of the North Road segment are provided in Appendix D.The following table summarizes character-defining elements of the segment of North Road streetscape within the Cultural Heritage Study Area: Table 5: Summary of Existing Conditions within the North Road Streetscape Location Streetscape Description Photographs North Road between Whitevale Road and the northern limit of the village of Whitevale North Road Streetscape The North Road streetscape includes numerous character-defining elements which support the heritage character of the District. These include, but are not limited to: 7 adjacent properties including 3 Part V designated properties Slope defining the north entrance to the settlement area, Narrow asphalt pavement with gravel shoulders and side street/driveway aprons, Overhead wires and radial streetlights on wood hydro poles, Non-contiguous narrow concrete and asphalt sidewalks along the right of way, See above: Photographs 59- 76 Photograph 57: West facing view of Whitevale Road through the settlement area (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 58:View of the east extent of the Study Area with Golf Course Road on the right and the former Baptist church at 530 Whitevale Road on the left (AECOM, 2025) - 340 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 40 Well maintained residential landscape including foundation plantings, manicured lawns, decorative fences, and gardens, Mature tree cover along the streetscape including specimen plantings and naturalized forest Views over fields north of the village The following provides overview photographs of the existing conditions within the Cultural Heritage Study Area of the North Road segment: Photograph 59:Streetview of North Road, looking north from Whitevale Road (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 60:Streetview of the intersection between North Road and Whitevale Road, looking south from North Road (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 61:Commemorative sign on the church grounds at the corner of Whitevale Street and North Road, looking northeast (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 62:View of the wooden sitting area along the North Road frontage of the church grounds. Looking north (AECOM, 2025) - 341 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 41 Photograph 63:Streetview of North Road, showing mature trees, manicured lawns, and shallow ditches, looking north (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 64:View of 3225 North Road, showing the shallow grassed ditches, mature trees and gardens, and timber and gravel walkway (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 65:View of naturalized lot on North Road, looking west (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 66:View of narrow concrete sidewalk and naturalized overgrowth on the west side of North Road. Looking North (AECOM, 2025) - 342 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 42 Photograph 67:View of the North Road streetscape, looking south from the intersection between Churchwin Street and North Road.(AECOM, 2025) Photograph 68:View of the North Road streetscape, looking south (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 69:View of the mature trees and gardens at 3220 North Road. Looking west (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 70:Manicured lawns and mature trees surround the mid-century rancher style bungalow at 3235 North Road (AECOM, 2025) - 343 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 43 Photograph 71:West facing view of 3250 North Road, showing manicured lawns and gardens, mature trees, and ornamental split rail fencing (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 72:The east side of North Road at 3245 North Road, showing grassed shallow ditches and residential tree coverage (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 73:West facing view of the treeline along the north edge of the village, as seen from North Road (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 74:Northeastern view across open fields to the north of the village, as seen from North Road (AECOM, 2025) - 344 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 44 Photograph 75:Photograph 75: View of North Road as it leaves the Whitevale settlement area, looking north (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 76:View of North Road streetscape from the north edge of the settlement area, looking south. (AECOM, 2025) - 345 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 45 6.Evaluation of Anticipated Impacts The conservation of cultural heritage resources is a matter of public interest under Ontario planning policy. Roadway modifications, such as widening projects or intersection improvements, have the potential to negatively impact cultural heritage resources, including HCDs, through both direct and indirect impacts during and following construction. Indirect impacts may also arise from the introduction of new streetscape elements, visual changes, or designs that are inconsistent with the character of the HCD. This HIA evaluates the anticipated impacts of construction on the Whitevale HCD based on the 95% Detailed Design for Whitevale Road and North Road, which forms part of the Whitevale Drainage Master Plan.The intention of the impact assessment contained in this HIA is to: Review the 95% Detailed Design as it relates to the Whitevale HCD;Identify the impacts as outlined in the Ontario Heritage Toolkit (MCM, 2006) based on the 95% Detailed Design, on the Whitevale HCD;Provide a description and analysis of how the proposed site alterations may impact the integrity and character of the Whitevale HCD; Where necessary, recommend mitigation measures to avoid or reduce potential direct and indirect adverse impacts on the Whitevale HCD, its constituent properties and streetscapes, and the character defining elements that contribute to the district’s overall character. These mitigation measures will inform subsequent project planning and design decisions. 6.1 Screening for Potential Impacts To assess the potential impacts of the undertaking, identified cultural heritage resources are considered against a range of possible impacts based on the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process,Info Sheet #5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans (MCM 2006:3) which include, but are not limited to: Destruction, removal or relocation of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes or features Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric or appearance Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the exposure or visibility of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context, or a significant relationship Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas from, within, or to a built or natural heritage feature A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeological resource5 The MCM document defines “impact” as a change, either positive or adverse, in an identified cultural heritage resource resulting from a particular activity. This HIA identifies direct (physical) impacts,indirect impacts, and/or positive impacts as the types of impact that a construction component and/or activity may have on cultural heritage resources. A direct (physical) negative impact has a permanent and irreversible negative effect on the cultural heritage value or interest of a property, or results in the loss of a heritage attribute on all or part of the heritage property. Any land - 346 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 46 disturbance, such as a change in grade and/or drainage patterns that may adversely affect a heritage property, including archaeological resources. An indirect negative impact is the result of an activity on or near the property that may adversely affect its cultural heritage value or interest and/or heritage attributes. A positive impact will conserve or enhance the cultural heritage value or interest and/or heritage attributes of the property. 6.2 Additional Considerations The Hamlet of Whitevale, Heritage Conservation District Study: The District Plan (1990) and the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Guidelines (2020) provide recommendations for conservation best practices within the Whitevale HCD. Both documents recognize that the completion of public works, including, but not limited to, road, sewer, and drainage projects, have the potential to cause considerable disruption to the character of the district and its component heritage resources. In light of this risk, the HCD Plan stipulates that every effort should be made to minimize adverse effects to the HCD and its components. Section 6.7 of the updated district guidelines further stipulates that: The road character of the District should be preserved. Modern suburban development standards are inappropriate in the District. The narrow pavement, shoulder treatments and grass ditches are essential to the heritage character of the District and should be maintained. When projects in the interest of public safety must be undertaken, they should be reviewed carefully so that the scenic road quality is not sacrificed. The removal or excessive pruning of significant tree plantings should be avoided. 6.3 Impact Assessment of the Whitevale HCD The impact assessment in Table 6 presents the potential impacts of the 95% Detailed Design to the Whitevale HCD,including properties and character-defining elements along Whitevale Road and North Road.The assessment considers localized roadway widening, paving of driveway and side street aprons, adjustments to ditch grading, and replacement of sidewalks. The evaluation of impacts to character-defining elements of the Whitevale HCD follows the guidance provided in the Ontario Heritage Toolkit: Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process,InfoSheet #5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans (MCM, 2006:3).Table 6 also provides potential mitigation measures to inform the next steps of Project planning and design and ensures that potential adverse impacts on the cultural heritage value of the HCD and its constituent heritage properties are avoided or minimized wherever possible. Mapping of the 95% Detailed Design is included in Figure 5, Appendix A. - 347 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 47 Table 6:Impact Assessment of the Whitevale HCD Including Potential Mitigation Measures Impact Discussion of Impacts Potential Mitigation Measures Destruction, Removal, or Relocation Landscape Impacts: The 95% Detailed Design illustrates significant disruption to the Whitevale and North Road rights of way during the Project. This includes: Temporary removal of driveway aprons, private walkways, and street signage;Potential destruction or removal of manicured lawns, gardens, decorative fences, hedges, and mature trees located within or adjacent to the right-of-way;Removal of gravel paving areas in front of the former mill buildings; andRelocation of hydro poles and associated infrastructure by a third party. These elements collectively contribute to the rural character of the streetscape,which is a defining feature of the Whitevale HCD. While some impacts may be temporary, the permanent loss or alteration of these features have the potential result in a significant adverse impact on the heritage value and character of the District. Structural Impacts The circa 1855 structure at 3195 Factory Street extends into the Whitevale Road right-of-way and directly fronts the Study Area. The 95% Detailed Design illustrates road removal, paving, and sidewalk replacement occurring within approximately 3 m of the building. Although no direct impacts to the structure are proposed, its proximity to construction activities creates an elevated risk of accidental damage, either Landscape Mitigation Measures: Driveway Aprons and Private Walkways: Reconstruct all impacted driveway aprons and private walkways to their pre-construction condition using original or contextually appropriate materials. Reconstruction efforts must also align with the Landscape and Infrastructure principles outlined in Section 6.7 of the Guidelines Street Signage:Salvage and reinstate signage post-construction, ensuring placement and design are consistent with the heritage character of the streetscape.Where new signage is required,it should be simple in design,avoid the use of plastic, vinyl or backlit and comply with the City Sign By-law for Special Sign Districts. Mature Trees and Hedgerows: Every effort should be made to retain and protect the mature street trees and hedgerows that contribute to the tree canopy along Whitevale Road and North Road. Mature trees and hedgerows adjacent to the right-of-way shall be protected with fencing and root protection zones during construction under certified arborist supervision. If removal is unavoidable, replacement plantings should follow a like-for-like approach (species,placement, etc.)to maintain canopy continuity, consistent with recommendations in the 1990 HCD Plan (Unterman McPhail et al., 1990: 53). - 348 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 48 Impact Discussion of Impacts Potential Mitigation Measures through contact with machinery or through vibration generated by heavy equipment. As preserved 19th century housing stock is a defining characteristic of the Whitevale HCD, any damage to this building,or similar historic structures,would adversely impact the integrity and heritage value of the District. Landscape Elements: Every effort should be made to retain landscape elements that contribute to the heritage character of the HCD, including manicured lawns, gardens, decorative fences, hedges, and street furniture. Where impacts are unavoidable, restore these features promptly at project completion using materials, forms, and designs consistent with both the updated HCD Plan’s Landscape and Infrastructure policies (City of Pickering, 2020: 33) and the original HCD Plan’s recommendations for landscape conservation and enhancement (Unterman McPhail et al., 1990: 53). The design and restoration of landscape elements within the Whitevale HCD should be undertaken in consultation with Heritage Planning staff to ensure alignment with the HCD Plan. Hydro Poles and Overhead Lines: The rural character of the overhead power lines, including wooden poles and radial streetlights, are character defining- elements of the Whitevale Road streetscape. The third-party contractor shall be notified of the hydro poles and overhead lines cultural heritage value prior to relocation. In the event that the hydro poles are replaced during the Project, they should be replaced with wood poles in keeping with those throughout the HCD. The radial streetlights should be retained during any pole relocation work, either by salvaging and reinstating the existing radial streetlights, or by replacing them in kind. If replacement radial streetlights are considered, the design, exterior paint, and light hue should be matched to the existing streetlights.The specifications of replacement lights must be submitted to the municipal Heritage Planning Staff and/or members of the Whitevale and District Residents’ - 349 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 49 Impact Discussion of Impacts Potential Mitigation Measures Association to ensure that the design is in keeping with character of the HCD. Gravel Parking Area: Conserve the gravel parking areas around the former mill buildings, identified in the 1989 HCD Background Study as contributing to the village’s character (Unterman McPhail et al., 1989: 3-6–3-7). Ensure the final Detailed Design reflects conservation of these open gravel parking areas. The final Detailed Design should be reviewed by municipal Heritage Planning Staff and/or members of the Whitevale and District Residents’ Association to ensure that the Design is in keeping with the principles outlined in the HCD Plan. Structural Mitigation Measures: The historic house at 3195 Factory Street should be conserved during construction through the use of protective fencing or hoarding around the structure to prevent accidental contact by machinery. No-go zones should be clearly marked on construction plans. Ensure all contractors working within the vicinity of the structure are briefed on its significance and the protective protocols in place. Consider the development of a contingency plan for halting work and stabilizing the building if accidental impact results in damage. Alteration The 95% Detailed Design illustrates the replacement of the existing pavement, gravel shoulders, culverts, and sidewalks. While the existing road material and alignment will generally be maintained,the design includes: Slight extension of paved surfaces into currently unpaved driveway and side street aprons; Road Widening Mitigation Measures While existing pavement, gravel shoulders and culvert replacement are not antipcated to adversely impact the aesthetic quality of the streetscape, the introduction of paved aprons at driveway and side street intersections has the potential to diminish the rural character of the HCD. - 350 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 50 Impact Discussion of Impacts Potential Mitigation Measures Replacement and localized re-grading of sidewalks along the north side of Whitevale Road, with partial removal of sidewalk segments on the south side; andAddition of a speed hump on North Road. These changes represent alterations to the existing rural streetscape character of the Whitevale HCD, which is defined by its narrow road profiles, gravel shoulders, unpaved driveways, and non-contiguous sidewalks. However, the addition of aprons is justified in limited cases to address safety concerns related to loose gravel and drainage. To balance safety and heritage character, aprons should: o Be limited to the minimum width required for safe vehicle movement; o Use visually compatible materials; o Be edged with low vegetation or landscape treatments where feasible; and o Be designed in consultation with residents to maintain community support. Consider drainage controls and a long-term maintenance plan to reduce erosion and preserve the integrity of unpaved surfaces. Sidewalk Mitigation Measures The existing narrow, non-contiguous sidewalks are a character-defining element of the Whitevale streetscape. While replacement is warranted to improve accessibility and safety, the widened sidewalk sections must be carefully designed to avoid a suburban appearance. The 95% Detailed Design retains grass boulevards and proposes a narrower profile (1.2 m rather than the municipal standard of 1.5 m), consistent with HCD guidelines. Where sidewalks pass between mature trees or constrained rights- of-way, narrower or meandering alignments should be considered. To balance safety and heritage character, sidewalks should: o Use visually compatible materials; o Retain or enhance grass boulevards;and o Be designed in consultation with residents to maintain community support. Speed Hump Mitigation Measures - 351 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 51 Impact Discussion of Impacts Potential Mitigation Measures The proposed speed hump on North Road represents a minor alteration to the rural road profile. Similar traffic calming features already exist along Whitevale Road, and the design is consistent with the established character of the HCD. As a low-profile measure, the speed hump is expected to improve safety without detracting from the streetscape character, and no additional mitigation measures are required. Shadows The Project is not anticipated to result in any significant changes in shadows within the Whitevale HCD. No specific mitigation measures required. Isolation The Project is not anticipated to isolate any heritage structures or character-defining elements within the Whitevale HCD. No specific mitigation measures required. Direct or Indirect Obstruction of Significant Views The 1989 HCD Background Report identifies the eastward view along Whitevale Road from Altona Road to Golf Course Road, and the north-westerly view from North Road across the fields to the north of the village, as significant views contributing to the heritage character of the District. The Project is not anticipated to directly or indirectly obstruct or diminish these significant views. Accordingly, no adverse impacts to significant views associated with the Whitevale HCD are anticipated. No specific mitigation measures required. A Change in Land Use The Project is not anticipated to result in any changes in land use within the Whitevale HCD. No specific mitigation measures are required. Land Disturbance Due to the narrow setbacks of most of the properties within the Whitevale HCD, numerous buildings along Whitevale Road and North Road fall within the 11 m Cultural Heritage Study Area for the Project. These include 33 of the 46 A vibration and impact monitoring plan should be implemented prior to the start of construction. See Section 7.2.1. - 352 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 52 Impact Discussion of Impacts Potential Mitigation Measures structures fronting the right of way along Whitevale Road and North Road.1 1 The structures falling within the Cultural Heritage Study Area include: 335, 345, 360, 395, 405,425, 430, 440, 450, 455, 460, 465, 470, 475, 480, 485 (x2), 489, 490, 494, 495, 498, 499, 507, and 510 Whitevale Road,3215, 3225, 3230, 3245, and 3250 North Road,3190 and 3191 Byron Street,and 3195 Factory Street.It should be noted that the properties at 345,405 465, 480, 507, and 510 Whitevale Road,and 3245 North Road are marginally included in this tally, with the boundary of the Cultural Heritage Study Area in rough alignment with the façade of the structures on said properties.A modern shed at 385 Whitevale Road also falls within this zone but is not considered to be a cultural heritage resource. - 353 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 53 7.Mitigation Measures and Recommendations 7.1 Mitigation Measures Based on the results of the evaluation of anticipated impacts in Section 6.3, the Project has the potential to result in both direct and indirect adverse impacts to the Whitevale HCD.Mitigation measures are therefore required. 7.2 Recommendations The following recommendations have been developed based on background historical research, field review, professional expertise, and the evaluation of anticipated impacts within the Cultural Heritage Study Area. A summary of recommendations for the Whitevale HCD is provided below. For the complete discussion of mitigation measures, refer to Table 6. General Recommendations If any future changes to the proposed development extend beyond the current design shown in Figure 5, this HIA should be reviewed and updated to assess potential direct and indirect impacts on the CHVI and character-defining elements of the cultural heritage resources within the Cultural Heritage Study Area. Additional work may be required, which could include, but is not limited to, updating this HIA to reflect the revised design. Prior to commencing work, consultation with City Heritage Planning staff should be undertaken to confirm that the proposed activities are considered minor in nature and to determine whether a heritage permit is required. This will ensure compliance with the applicable regulatory framework and alignment with the objectives of the HCD Plan. Landscape Recommendations Driveway Aprons & Walkways: Reconstruct to pre-construction condition using original or compatible materials, consistent with HCD guidelines. Street Signage:Salvage and reinstate existing signage; new signage to be simple, non-backlit, and compliant with City by-laws. Mature Trees & Hedgerows:Retain and protect wherever possible with certified arborist oversight; replace removals on a like-for-like basis to maintain canopy continuity. Landscape Elements:Retain lawns, gardens, fences, hedges, and street furniture; restore unavoidable impacts using heritage-consistent designs in consultation with Heritage Planning staff. Hydro Poles & Overhead Lines:Retain rural character by reinstating wooden poles and radial streetlights if relocation/replacement is required. Gravel Parking Areas:In consultation with Heritage Planning staff, conserve gravel parking areas associated with former mill buildings to maintain village character. Structural Recommendations: Protect the historic house at 3195 Factory Street with fencing/hoarding and no-go zones; brief contractors on its significance. Establish a contingency plan for halting work and stabilizing the structure in the event of accidental damage. Road Widening Recommendations: Minimize impacts of paved aprons by limiting their size, using compatible materials, incorporating low vegetation/landscape treatments, and consulting with residents. Implement drainage controls and long-term maintenance measures to protect unpaved surfaces. - 354 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 54 Sidewalk Recommendations: Replace sidewalks with narrower, heritage-sensitive designs that retain grass boulevards, consider meandering alignments near mature trees, and use visually compatible materials. Design in consultation with residents to balance accessibility, safety, and heritage character. Speed Hump Recommendations: The proposed speed hump is consistent with existing traffic calming features and is not anticipated to affect heritage character. No specific mitigation required beyond vibration and impact monitoring during construction. Vibration Recommendations: A vibration and impact monitoring plan should be implemented prior to the start of construction. See Section 7.2.1. 7.2.1 Vibration Impacts and Monitoring Evaluation of impacts related to vibration activities requires assessment based on the identification of specific construction methods proposed, distance between the sensitive receptor (i.e. a cultural heritage resource) and the construction activity, local soil conditions, and anticipated vibration levels (mm/s). Historic buildings can be extremely suspectable to vibration damage and Project-specific vibration limits should be established prior to the commencement of construction. Given the proximity to historic buildings to the proposed work, it is anticipated that in some locations safe vibration limits may be exceeded.Accordingly, prior to the commencement of the Project, a professional engineer should complete a report assessing the potential vibration impacts of the Project on the surrounding area, including,but not limited to, identified cultural heritage resources.Appropriate vibration limits (i.e. prohibitions or no-go zones for certain types of construction machinery,etc.)and monitoring protocols (i.e., the use of seismographs,etc.)should then be implemented during construction in accordance with the information provided in the vibration report. - 355 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 55 8.Sources Primary and Secondary Sources: Architectural Conservancy of Ontario (ACO) 2009 Heritage Districts Work! Heritage Conservation District Study Whitevale –City of Pickering. Accessed online at: https://uwaterloo.ca/heritage-resources- centre/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/Whitevale_Pickering.pdf Beers, J.H. & Co. 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario. Toronto: Gorrell Craig & Co. Accessed via the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/McGillLibrary-rbsc_county-atlas-maps- ontario_elfG1148O57J31877-22501/mode/2up City of Pickering 2020 Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Guidelines. Accessed online at: https://www.pickering.ca/media/t1sp42j2/whitevale-guidelines_final-2020.pdf 2022 Terms of Reference: Heritage Impact Assessments. Accessed online at: https://www.pickering.ca/media/ov1ll2j3/hia-terms-of-reference-april-2022_acc.pdf 2022 Pickering Official Plan, Edition 9.Accessed online at: https://www.pickering.ca/media/320h0m40/op9acc.pdf 2025 Official Plan Review. Accessed online at: https://www.pickering.ca/business-building- development/planning-and-development/official-plan/official-plan-review/ Colonial Office 1837 Orders in Council and Returns Respective the Sale of Lands in Upper Canada. London: HMSO. Accessed via the Canadiana Database. https://www.canadiana.ca/view/oocihm.9_01081/3 Ellis, Chris J. and D. Brian Deller 1990 Paleo-Indians. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to AD 1650, eds. Chris J. Ellis and Neal Ferris. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS Number 5. Farewell, John Edwin Chandler. 1907 County of Ontario: Short Notes as to the Early Settlement and Progress of the County. Whitby: Gazette-Chronicle Press. Accessed via the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/ontariocounty0000fare/page/n11/mode/2up Government of Ontario 1975 North Pickering Project: Summary of Recommended Plan. Accessed via the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/39201316070258/mode/2up 2023 Map of Ontario Treaties and Reserves.Webpage. https://www.ontario.ca/page/map-ontario- treaties-and-reserves#treaties McEvoy, H.N. 1866 Gazetteer & Directory for the County of Ontario. Toronto: Mitchell & Co. Publishers. Accessed via the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/1866-ontario-county- directory/page/n3/mode/2up McKay, William A. 1961 The Pickering Story. Pickering: Township of Pickering Historical Society. - 356 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 56 Parks Canada 2010 Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Accessed online at: https://www.historicplaces.ca/media/18072/81468-parks-s+g-eng-web2.pdf Robinson, C. Blackett 1885.History of Toronto and county of York, Ontario: containing an outline of the history of the Dominion of Canada; a history of the city of Toronto and the county of York, with the townships, towns, villages, churches, schools; general and local statistics; biographical sketches, etc., etc. Illustrated. Toronto: C. Blackett Robinson, Publisher. Accessed via the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/cihm_07392/page/n364/mode/1up Shearer, Wendy 2012 The Evolution of the Agricultural Cultural Landscape.Heritage Matters. Accessed online at: https://www.heritage-matters.ca/articles/the-evolution-of-the-agricultural-cultural-landscape Town of Pickering 1993 By-Law Number 4074/92: Being a by-law to designate the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act, Part V. Accessed online at: https://www.heritagetrust.on.ca/en/oha/details/file?id=11492 Union Publishing Company 1911 Farmers and Business Directory for the Counties of Haliburton, Ontario, Peterborough, Victoria and York [sic], 1911: Vol. XVI. Ingersoll: Union Publishing Company. Accessed via the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/halunionpublishi16uniouoft/page/n3/mode/2up Unterman McPhail Heritage Resource Consultants, David Cuming and Associates, and Wendy Shearer Landscape Architect Limited 1989 The Hamlet of Whitevale, Heritage Conservation District Study: Background Report. 1990 The Hamlet of Whitevale, Heritage Conservation District Study: The District Plan. WDRA N.D.Whitevale and District Residents’ Association.Webpage. http://www.whitevale.ca/WDRA.html Wood, William R. 1911 Past Years in Pickering: Sketches of the History of the Community. Toronto: William Briggs. Accessed via the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/pastyearsinpicke00wooduoft/page/n5/mode/2up Provincial Standards and Resources: Government of Ontario: O. Reg 385/21:General;made under the Ontario Heritage Act. Available online at: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/r21385#BK3 Government of Ontario: O. Reg. 9/06: Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest; made under the Ontario Heritage Act. Available online at:https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/060009 Government of Ontario: O Reg. 10/06: Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest of Provincial Significance. Available online at:https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/060010 - 357 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 57 Government of Ontario: Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.0.18.Available online at https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o18 Government of Ontario: Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13. Available online at: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p13 Government of Ontario: Provincial Planning Statement, 2024. Available online at:https://www.ontario.ca/page/provincial- planning-statement-2024 Government of Ontario: Standards & Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties: Standards and Guidelines.Available online at: http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Standards_Conservation.pdf Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, 2006: Ontario Heritage Tool Kit.http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/heritage/heritage_toolkit.shtml Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, 2007: Heritage Conservation Principles for Land Use Planning. Available online at: http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/InfoSheet_Principles_Land use_Planning.pdf - 358 - Appendix A Mapping - 359 - W h i t e v a l e R d N o r t h R d C h u r c h w i n S t F a c t o r y S t A l t o n a R d Whi tev ale P ar k W h i t e v a l e W h i t e v a l e R d G o l f C l u b R d Ma p l o c a t i o n : L : \ D C S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e \ D e s i g n \ 0 1 _ R e p o r t s \ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e . a p r x Da t e S a v e d : 8 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 1 : 0 2 A M U s e r N a m e : M a r i n c S Aug, 2025 Data Sources: Figure 3 V#:01P#:60560495 0 100 200 300 400 50050 Meters DATUM: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N https://digital.library.mcgill.ca/countyatlas/ searchmapframes.php* when printed 11"x17" Contains Information licensed under the Open Government Licence Ontario. This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties, except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent. ° Project Area on Historical Maps Whitevale Master Drainage Plan – Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA)° 1:7,000 Cultural Heritage Study Area W h i t e v a l e R d N o r t h R d C h u r c h w i n S t F a c t o r y S t A l t o n a R d Whitev a le P a rk W h i t e v a l e W h i t e v a l e R d G o l f C l u b R d W h i t e v a l e R d N o r t h R d C h u r c h w i n S t F a c t o r y S t A l t o n a R d Whi tev ale P ar k W h i t e v a l e W h i t e v a l e R d G o l f C l u b R d W h i t e v a l e R d N o r t h R d C h u r c h w i n S t F a c t o r y S t A l t o n a R d Whi tev al e P ar k W h i t e v a l e W h i t e v a l e R d G o l f C l u b R d 1860 1914 1877 1943 - 360 - G l a d s t o n e S t B y r o n S t M i l l St Churchwin St Fa c t o r y S t G o l f C l u b R d Whitevale Rd N o r t h R d A l t o n a R d QR27 Ma p l o c a t i o n : L : \ D C S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e \ D e s i g n \ 0 1 _ R e p o r t s \ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e . a p r x Da t e S a v e d : 8 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 1 : 0 2 A M U s e r N a m e : M a r i n c S Aug, 2025 Data Sources: Figure 4 V#:01P#:60560495 0 100 200 30050 Meters DATUM: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N https://mdl.library.utoronto.ca/collections/air- photos/1954-air-photos-southern-ontario/index* when printed 11"x17" Contains Information licensed under the Open Government Licence Ontario. This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties, except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent. ° Project Area on 1954 Aerial Photography Whitevale Master Drainage Plan – Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA)° 1:4,000 Cultural Heritage Study Area Property Boundary - 361 - B y r o n S t Whitevale Rd A l t o n a R d QR27 Ma p l o c a t i o n : L : \ D C S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e \ D e s i g n \ 0 1 _ R e p o r t s \ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e . a p r x Da t e S a v e d : 8 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 : 4 0 P M U s e r N a m e : M a r i n c S Aug, 2025 Data Sources: Figure 5a V#:01P#:60560495 0 5025 Meters DATUM: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Ontario LIO, http://whitevale.ca/ heritageconservationdistrict.html* when printed 11"x17" Contains Information licensed under the Open Government Licence Ontario. This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties, except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent. ° Project Area 95% Design Whitevale Master Drainage Plan – Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA)° 1:800 Cultural Heritage Study Area Property Boundary Conceptual 95% Design Heritage Conservation District - 362 - G l a d s t o n e S t Mi l l S t Whitevale Rd Fa c t o r y S t Ma p l o c a t i o n : L : \ D C S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e \ D e s i g n \ 0 1 _ R e p o r t s \ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e . a p r x Da t e S a v e d : 8 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 : 4 0 P M U s e r N a m e : M a r i n c S Aug, 2025 Data Sources: Figure 5b V#:01P#:60560495 0 5025 Meters DATUM: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Ontario LIO, http://whitevale.ca/ heritageconservationdistrict.html* when printed 11"x17" Contains Information licensed under the Open Government Licence Ontario. This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties, except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent. ° Project Area 95% Design Whitevale Master Drainage Plan – Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA)° 1:800 Cultural Heritage Study Area Property Boundary Conceptual 95% Design Heritage Conservation District - 363 - G o l f C l u b R d Whitevale Rd N o r t h R d Ma p l o c a t i o n : L : \ D C S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e \ D e s i g n \ 0 1 _ R e p o r t s \ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e . a p r x Da t e S a v e d : 8 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 : 4 0 P M U s e r N a m e : M a r i n c S Aug, 2025 Data Sources: Figure 5c V#:01P#:60560495 0 5025 Meters DATUM: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Ontario LIO, http://whitevale.ca/ heritageconservationdistrict.html* when printed 11"x17" Contains Information licensed under the Open Government Licence Ontario. This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties, except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent. ° Project Area 95% Design Whitevale Master Drainage Plan – Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA)° 1:800 Cultural Heritage Study Area Property Boundary Conceptual 95% Design Heritage Conservation District - 364 - Churchwin St N o r t h R d Ma p l o c a t i o n : L : \ D C S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e \ D e s i g n \ 0 1 _ R e p o r t s \ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e . a p r x Da t e S a v e d : 8 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 : 4 0 P M U s e r N a m e : M a r i n c S Aug, 2025 Data Sources: Figure 5d V#:01P#:60560495 0 5025 Meters DATUM: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Ontario LIO, http://whitevale.ca/ heritageconservationdistrict.html* when printed 11"x17" Contains Information licensed under the Open Government Licence Ontario. This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties, except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent. ° Project Area 95% Design Whitevale Master Drainage Plan – Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA)° 1:800 Cultural Heritage Study Area Property Boundary Conceptual 95% Design Heritage Conservation District - 365 - W h i t e v a l e R d A l t o n a R d A l t o n a R d W h i t e v a l e R d B y r o n S t W h i t e v a l e R d M u t u a l S t Whitev ale P ar k >!( >!( >!(>!(>!( >!(>!( >!( >!( >!( >!( >!( >!( >!( >!( >!( >!( >!( >!(>!( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Ma p l o c a t i o n : L : \ D C S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e \ D e s i g n \ 0 1 _ R e p o r t s \ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e . a p r x Da t e S a v e d : 8 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 1 : 0 2 A M U s e r N a m e : M a r i n c S Aug, 2025 Data Sources: Figure 6 V#:01P#:60560495 0 5025 Meters DATUM: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Ontario LIO* when printed 11"x17" Contains Information licensed under the Open Government Licence Ontario. This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties, except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent. ° Project Area Photo Locations Whitevale Master Drainage Plan – Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA)° 1:800 Cultural Heritage Study Area >!(Photo Location Property Boundary Conceptual 95% Design - 366 - M i l l S t W h i t e v a l e R d F a c t o r y S t M i l l S t Gla d s t o n e S t W h i t e v a l e R d W h i t e v a l e R d >!(>!(>!( >!( >!( >!(>!( >!(>!( >!(>!(>!(>!( >!( >!(>!(>!( >!(>!(>!(>!(>!( >!(>!( >!( >!(>!(>!( >!(>!(>!(>!( 21 23 24 30 22 25 26 27 28 29 31 3334 32 35 36 37 40 41 38 39 49 42 44 43 45 46 48 47 50 51 52 Ma p l o c a t i o n : L : \ D C S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e \ D e s i g n \ 0 1 _ R e p o r t s \ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e . a p r x Da t e S a v e d : 8 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 1 : 0 2 A M U s e r N a m e : M a r i n c S Aug, 2025 Data Sources: Figure 6 V#:01P#:60560495 0 5025 Meters DATUM: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Ontario LIO* when printed 11"x17" Contains Information licensed under the Open Government Licence Ontario. This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties, except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent. ° Project Area Photo Locations Whitevale Master Drainage Plan – Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA)° 1:800 Cultural Heritage Study Area >!(Photo Location Property Boundary Conceptual 95% Design - 367 - Chu r c h w i n S t C h u r c h w i n S t W h i t e v a l e R d N o r t h R d W h i t e v a l e R d N o r t h R d W h i t e v a l e R d G o l f C l u b R d >!( >!(>!(>!( >!(>!(>!(>!(>!(>!( >!( >!(>!( >!( >!(>!( >!(>!(>!( >!( >!( >!( > 45 46 48 47 50 51 52 53 54 59 57 56 58 55 61 66 60 63 65 64 69 Ma p l o c a t i o n : L : \ D C S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e \ D e s i g n \ 0 1 _ R e p o r t s \ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e . a p r x Da t e S a v e d : 8 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 1 : 0 2 A M U s e r N a m e : M a r i n c S Aug, 2025 Data Sources: Figure 6 V#:01P#:60560495 0 5025 Meters DATUM: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Ontario LIO* when printed 11"x17" Contains Information licensed under the Open Government Licence Ontario. This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties, except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent. ° Project Area Photo Locations Whitevale Master Drainage Plan – Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA)° 1:800 Cultural Heritage Study Area >!(Photo Location Property Boundary Conceptual 95% Design - 368 - C h u r c h w i n S t G l a d s t o n e S t G l a d s t o n e S t NorthRd N o r t h R d C h u r c h w i n S t N o r t h R d N o r t h R d >!( >!( >!( >!( >!( >!( >!( >!(>!(>!( >!( 65 64 69 70 68 72 71 74 75 73 76 Ma p l o c a t i o n : L : \ D C S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e \ D e s i g n \ 0 1 _ R e p o r t s \ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e . a p r x Da t e S a v e d : 8 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 1 : 0 2 A M U s e r N a m e : M a r i n c S Aug, 2025 Data Sources: Figure 6 V#:01P#:60560495 0 5025 Meters DATUM: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Ontario LIO* when printed 11"x17" Contains Information licensed under the Open Government Licence Ontario. This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties, except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent. ° Project Area Photo Locations Whitevale Master Drainage Plan – Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA)° 1:800 Cultural Heritage Study Area >!(Photo Location Property Boundary Conceptual 95% Design - 369 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 68 Appendix B: Existing Conditions –Whitevale Road (West) Location/ Address Property Description2 Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph 320 Whitevale Road Circa 1960s. This is a one storey vernacular house with Ranch Style elements such as the low hipped roof and horizontal lines, The exterior walls have two colours of brick veneer. A large, off centre gable has been added to the front elevation to create a covered porch. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) 325 Whitevale Road Circa 2000s. Designed in a neo- eclectic fashion, this modern two storey house has freely adapted the characteristics of various architectural styles. It is clad in clapboard siding and has a prominent wrap-around verandah. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) 2 Most of the property descriptions in Appendix B, C, and D have been adapted from historical building survey included in Part 2 of The Hamlet of Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Study: Background Report (1989). - 370 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 69 Location/ Address Property Description2 Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph 330 Whitevale Road Circa 1960s. Designed in the Ranch Style, this house has low pitched hip roof, wide eaves overhang and a combination of brick veneer and stone siding. None (AECOM, 2025) 335 Whitevale Road Circa 1900. This plain vernacular house is one-and-a-half storeys high with a front gable plan and balloon frame construction. It was probably constructed in the late 1800's to early 1900’s Although once clad in tongue and groove vertical board siding, it is now covered with modern metal siding. A portion of the house has been converted into a garage and a one storey rear addition extends from the back of the house. This structure may have been moved to the site from the Markham- Pickering Townline. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) - 371 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 70 Location/ Address Property Description2 Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph 340 Whitevale Road Circa 1850. Due to its Classical Revival detailing, it is generally felt that the Truman P. White house was built around 1850. The 1861 Census Return notes that T.P. White lived in a one-and-a-half storey frame dwelling. Originally the house had a front gable plan with a side entrance and return eaves detailing on the front facade. A later nineteenth century addition on the west side of the building gave the structure its present saltbox appearance. The exterior is clad in clapboard siding and most of the window sash still have the original 12/12 or 12/6 lights. The front entrance has a simple but elegant architrave consisting of an entablature and rectangular half sidelights over lower panels. The T.P. White house is one of the most important heritage structures in Whitevale and was highlighted as being of provincial architectural importance in the 1974 report, Architectural Evaluation of the North Pickering Project and the Toronto Airport Project Sites. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) - 372 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 71 Location/ Address Property Description2 Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph 345 Whitevale Road Circa 1865. Similar in design to the T.P. White house, this clapboard frame structure has retained its attractive Classical Revival detailing such as the entablature, side pilasters and half sidelights over lower panels around the front entrance door, the returned eaves,and the moulded cornice and frieze. This house may have been built by George Gilchrist, a local planer and later owner of a sash and door factory, in the mid-1860s after he purchased the property from T.P. White.It is considered to be one of the more important heritage buildings in Whitevale. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) 350 Whitevale Road Circa 1825; addition circa 1957. This one-and-one-half storey building was moved to its present site in 1980 from Brock Road. It incorporates a circa 1825 Vertical log structure under the exterior clapboard on the south end and a circa 1957 addition on the north end. A front porch was added in the 1980’s.The structure is deeply setback so as to look over the valley of West Duffins Creek and as such is not visible from the right of way. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) - 373 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 72 Location/ Address Property Description2 Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph 360 Whitevale Road Circa 1860s. This modest one-and- a-half storey frame building of post and beam construction has clapboard siding and a front gable plan. The front gable has returned eaves, a plain frieze and a side entrance with an unusual single half sidelight over a lower panel. A large two storey addition has been built on the rear of the original structure incorporating an existing one storey wing, the window openings have been made smaller and the exterior has been resided with new clapboard. Originally part of a farm complex, a Pennsylvania Style barn was demolished in the 1970's. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) 3190 Byron Street Circa early 1870s. Considered to be a good example of vernacular Gothic Revival architecture, this one-and-a-half storey clapboard house has a side gable roof with a front central wall gable and a three bay front facade. Decorative looped vergeboards adorn the front and side gables while the front entrance is highlighted by a simple but attractive entablature. The front gable has a triangular headed window with a multi-pane upper sash and an unusual hood ornament which duplicates the design of the looped gable Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) - 374 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 73 Location/ Address Property Description2 Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph vergeboard. Most of the original window sash with its 6/6 panes remains intact. An extensive rear addition with board and batten and vertical tongue and groove siding extends to the rear of the main house. The gables on the addition also have looped vergeboard detailing, This house may have been built by Robert Vardon, a local planer, who purchased village Lots 7, 8 and 9 on the south side of Main Street in 1870. 3191 Byron Street Circa 1860s. It is believed that this house is the one-and-a-half storey T-shaped plan structure shown on the hill in the left forefront of the 1877 County Atlas view of Whitevale (Image 3).Once a typical example of local architecture, this building has undergone significant exterior changes probably ca. 1920s. A one storey addition has been added to the front northeast corner, across the front gable and in the northwest corner.A verandah on the west side was also part of this new section. Such architectural features on the addition as the one storey bay window, the decorative rafter ends under the eaves, the triple windows with small multi-paned upper sash and the slightly Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) - 375 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 74 Location/ Address Property Description2 Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph cantilevered wooden shingle siding on the upper storey are reminiscent of the Craftsman style popular in the 1920s and 1930s.The two round headed windows on the upper storey of the north elevation and the segmental headed windows as well as the clapboard siding are probably original to the building. This house was used for many years as the United Church manse prior to a new manse was being built in the 1950s. 380 Whitevale Road Circa 1970s. A two storey house with an attached side garage which projects forward from the main house. The upper storey is clad in white clapboard while the lower facade has a stone finish. A one storey open verandah runs across the front facade from the garage. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) - 376 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 75 Location/ Address Property Description2 Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph 385 Whitevale Road Late 20th century. This building is a modern two storey frame house with wooden cladding. It has a front gable plan similar to many of the hamlet's earlier buildings, but is not visible from the right of way. A shed on the property is partially visible from Whitevale Road, but is heavily obscured by a historic cedar hedgerow that runs along the property edge. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) 395 Whitevale Road Early 20th century. This one-and-a- half storey frame house is located on a hill overlooking the park. The high hip roof with bellcase eaves, the wooden shingle clad hipped dormers with the Palladian inspired triple windows and multi-paned upper sash of the central unit are all reminiscent of the Craftsmen style of architecture of the 1920s and 1930s. The house is clad with board and batten siding This house was built on the foundations of an earlier house which was destroyed by fire in the early 1900's. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) - 377 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 76 Location/ Address Property Description2 Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph 405 Whitevale Road Circa 1860. This small plain frame house known as the Christian House is shown on the 1860 Plan of the Village of Major and in the 1877 County Atlas (Image 3). It consists of a one-and-a-half storey frame building with a side gable plan and a rear one storey kitchen addition. The front portion is clad in vertical board and batten while the rear addition has both clapboard and board and batten siding. The front facade has an off centre entrance door and a single side window. This building was designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act prior to the creation of the Whitevale HCD. Circa 1825-1835. Restored as a community hall by residents of Whitevale, this one-and-a-half storey frame house with gable roof, clapboard siding and early 19th century exterior detailing is believed to be the earliest surviving building in Whitevale. Known as the Miller House after James and Robenna Miller, who purchased the property from T.P. White in 1866, this house remained in the family until it was expropriated in 1972. It was designated under Part IV of The Ontario Heritage Act prior to the creation of the Whitevale HCD. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) (AECOM, 2025) - 378 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 77 Location/ Address Property Description2 Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph Local historians have suggested that this house was built as early as 1825 due to its unusual construction of vertical plank walls pegged to the upper beam and lower sill. It has been speculated that a French Canadian logger working in the Great Pine Ridge clearing in the early 1820s may have built the house since it is similar to the Lower St. Lawrence Valley construction methods of the period, The house is shown in the 1877 County Atlas and on the 1860 Plan of the Village of Major. The house has an unusual single sidelight at the main entrance, a front gable plan, returned caves detailing, corner boards and fascia and a fieldstone foundation. A one storey side addition extends to the east of the main entrance. A one storey verandah is located on the south side of the house. Whitevale Park also contains a commemorative structure dedicated to the history of the Whitevale Bridge, which includes a paved surface and two interpretive signs, along with two concrete portions of the circa 1926 and 1929 bridges. (AECOM, 2025) - 379 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 78 Appendix C: Existing Conditions –Whitevale Road (East) Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph 424/430 Whitevale Road Associated with the milling complex across the street at 425 Whitevale Road, this is a late 19th to early 20th century gambrel roofed structure, with an attached garage at the east end. It is currently clad with sheet metal and is in a state of abandonment. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) 425 Whitevale Road The first sawmill was established in the early 1820s to the northwest of the present building. It was water powered with a mill pond to the north and a mill race running down to the east of the site. In 1855 a grist mill was built immediately to the north of the road and a planing mill was built just south of the sawmill. In the early 1870s, a brick woolen mill was constructed on the south side of the road. After fire destroyed most of the industrial buildings in the 1870s, the grist mill was re-established in the shell of the brick woolen mill in the late 1870s and continued to operate Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) - 380 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 79 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph until 1961 when it was destroyed by fire. The present feed mill which is the only visible reminder of Whitevale's former Industrial past is a concrete block and sheet metal structure that was built on the foundations of the former woolens mill. The present mill was opened in November 1962 and now serves as a commercial outlet for wholesale giftware company Ace Annison Ltd. 3195 Factory Street Circa 1855. Shown in the 1860 Plan of the Village of Major, this building is believed to incorporate the 1855 store/residence of Donald McPhee. McPhee purchased the one acre site in Lots 28 and 29 in 1857 from T.P. White but was assessed as the occupant as early in 1856. The 1861 Census Return recorded that McPhee lived in a one-and-a-half storey frame dwelling. The T.L. Wilson family who owned and operated the mill,lived in the house from 1932 to its expropriation in 1972. Mi.11 owner Joseph Leary owned the house from 1903 to 1930. The building is also shown in the 1877 County Atlas as the village post office.The present house has an eclectic vernacular style due to additions and alterations. A photograph from the early 1900s shows that the north elevation facing Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) - 381 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 80 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph Main Street once had a one storey verandah. According to former resident Audrey Hornshaw this verandah had been removed by 1932. A one storey verandah presently runs across the west elevation. The second storey dormer windows have Palladian-inspired windows with small multi-paned upper sashes. 440 Whitevale Road Circa 1900. Believed to have been built by Charles Rice, this two storey red brick house has a hipped roof with a recessed side front entrance, a two storey porch and balcony and segmental window openings, The first floor porch was originally open on the first floor level and was decorated with a square balustrade railing like the existing balustrade on the second floor balcony. This house was apparently located in front of Rice's earlier frame home and workshop. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) - 382 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 81 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph 450 Whitevale Road Circa 1860s.This modest one-and-a- half storey frame house has board and batten siding with a side gable plan. It is three bays wide with a central door and two flanking side windows. The window sash still has the original 6/6 lights. A small portico with decorative trim is presently located over the main entrance. This house is depicted in the 1877 County Atlas. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) 455 Whitevale Road Circa 1858. This building is a one- and-a-half storey frame house with narrow clapboard siding The main house originally had vertical board and batten siding. The front portion of the house which was probably built by local carpenter Joseph Vardon ca. 1858-1859 is three bays wide with a centre wall gable. The main entrance has rectangular half sidelights and a simple but attractive door frame. The side elevations have returned eaves detailing while plain cornerboards and a moulded cornice complete this attractive house. The window sash has 6/6 lights.Joseph Ellis, local manufacturer and operator of the Whitevale woolen mill during the 1860s and 1870s,owned the Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) - 383 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 82 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph property from 1872 to 1877. Shoemaker Daniel Moodie owned the property from 1877 to 1892.It is generally believed that the original rear wing was built during Moodie’s ownership. The house also served as a funeral home at one time. In 1978 the building was purchased from the Ontario Land Corporation by Gordon and Anna Willson and the front portion of the house was restored. The original rear kitchen wing was dismantled and a new replica wing was constructed in its place. 460 Whitevale Road Circa 1870. This building is a one- and-a-half storey frame house clad in clapboard siding with a side gable plan and central wall gable on the front elevation, The centre gable has an attractive Gothic style pointed arch window and looped vergeboard and pendants are found in both the front and side gables. The front porch probably dates from the early 1900s and the side vestibule is a later addition. Constructed in the late 1860s, early 1870s, this building is depicted in the 1877 County Atlas. According to past owner Austin Metcalfe, a large shed with a coach house was taken down during the ate 1950s. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) - 384 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 83 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph 465 Whitevale Road Circa 1840s with late 1860s addition. This one-and-a-half storey frame building with clapboard siding is known to have been used as a hotel around 1865-1866 by Thomas Burton who was listed as an innkeeper on Concession 4 Lot 31 in the 1866 Assessment Rolls. In The Province of Ontario Gazetteer and Directory of 1869 Burton was listed as the proprietor of the Major Hotel. The present structure appears to consist of two different sections with the west side possibly being an earlier house moved to the site. The sidelight window on the west entrance bears the inscription "1847, T. Burton." The proportions of the west section and its classical revival entranceway bear a resemblance to the style of the T.P. White house while the eastern section appears to be a later addition of Gothic Revival proportions and style. At one time a ballroom and shed extended to the west of the present building but it was destroyed by fire in August 1961. As well, numerous sheds once stood to the rear of the building for stabling horses. The 1877 County Atlas depicts a large building with numerous wings owned by "J.F.". The building was last used as a hotel Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) - 385 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 84 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph in the early 1900s and has been a private residence for most of this century.A headstone dated 1854 found in the Whitevale Cemetery is said to be that of an unknown stranger who perished at the hotel in that year. 470 Whitevale Road Circa 1870s. This vernacular Gothic- styled one-and-a-half storey frame building has a gabled ell plan with a steeply pitched roof. It is clad in V- groove board and batten siding and has window sash with 6/6 lights, an attractive one storey open verandah with decorative fretwork and spindle work runs across the front of the main block on the east side. The verandah has been restored without an earlier balustrade and an attractive nineteenth century designed picket fence now encloses this corner property. Daniel Moody purchased one quarter of an acre of Lot 31, Con. 5, Village Lot #9 in 1858 from Truman White for $61.00. A building (now removed) shown in the 1877 County Atlas in the southeast corner of Lot 9 was probably the shop built by shoemaker Daniel Moodie ca. 1858. It is believed that this earlier building was attached to the southeast front of the building where the porch is now situated.Daniel and Elizabeth Moody sold the property in 1873 to None (AECOM, 2025) - 386 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 85 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph James Cloakwell, harness-maker, for $600.00 but continued to occupy the premises until early 1874.James and Phoebe Taylor purchased the lot in 1900 Taylor was a local merchant. Samuel Pennock, undertaker, owned the property from 1913 to 1919; and Margaret Annis from 1919 to 1937., Edna and D.F.G. Turner purchased the lot in 1937. 475 Whitevale Road Circa 1900. This modest building has housed the local branch of the township library for many years. Prior to being a library, it was apparently used as a local bank branch. The front gable plan which is a typical Whitevale style is shingled while the rest of the building has clapboard siding. The building currently houses the Whitevale Arts & Culture Centre (WACC). Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) - 387 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 86 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph Whitevale Road The community mailboxes on Whitevale road occupy a separate property that was included in the original bounds of the HCD but is not associated with a street address or heritage structure. It remains, nonetheless, a contributing property to the HCD. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) 480 Whitevale Road Circa 1860s. Once known as the Beaton House, this large multi-gabled house was originally a much smaller T-shaped plan consisting of the northwest section facing Gladstone St. and a wing running to the east. The present multi-gabled wing on the east side and the north multi-gabled wing were built in 1978. The eastern wing replaced an earlier wing which once housed the Pickering Township office during former owner Donald Beeton's residency.The original section is two storeys high with a steeply pitched multi-·gabled roof, board and batten siding and decorative vergeboard, finials and pendants. All of the original round headed windows were changed ca. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) - 388 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 87 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph 1920s to the present rectangular openings and multi-paned upper sash. The main entrance is located in the side wing. It has a handsome rectangular transom window, half sidelights over lower panels and decorative wooden trim. A second floor double lancet window is located over the entrance and one storey verandah. The verandah was restored to its present appearance in 1978.Mr. James Taylor purchased a quarter of an acre in the southeast corner of Lot 7 in 1868. The commercial building shown on Lot b in the 1877 County Atlas is probably the Taylor general store. 485 Whitevale Road Circa 1874. Francis von Scharfenstein, shoemaker, purchased one quarter of an acre of Lot 31, Con. 4 from Thomas and Susannah Burton in March 1874. Burton owned the hotel to the east of the property. Restored in 1976, this frame one-and a-half storey building was erected as a shoe maker’s shop and residence. Used throughout most of the 20th century for residential purposes, it was converted back to commercial use in the late 1970s and housed a Woolen Craft Shop into the late 20th century. Clad in vertical board and batten, the architectural style is typical of early Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) - 389 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 88 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph commercial buildings. It is residential in form and appearance with a front gable roof. Two residential style windows and a side entrance door with a transom window are located on the commercial level, while a wooden storefront cornice divides it from the upper residential area. A rear summer kitchen was removed during the 1976 renovations.At one time there were apparently several outbuildings on this property which were part of the Spink brothers' carriage shop. In the 1877 County Atlas, Joseph Wilson, a local carriagemaker, is noted as the property owner. 489 Whitevale Road Circa 1870s. This one-and-a-half storey frame residence has clapboard siding and handsome exterior detailing. Its gabled ell plan is typical of many of the larger hamlet residences and the front gable is decorated with Gothic style looped vergeboard, finial and pendant. A one storey verandah is located at the main entrance. At one time there appears to have been several ancillary structures associated with the Spink brothers’ carriage shop. The 1877 County Atlas identifies Joseph Wilson, a local carriage maker, as the registered owner of the property at that time. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) - 390 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 89 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph (AECOM, 2025) 490 Whitevale Road Circa 1961. According to local history, the first store located on this property was built by Israel Burton and sold to Mr. Porteous. The nineteenth century general store was destroyed by fire in 1961. The present two storey concrete block structure immediately replaced the previous store and was used as the only general store in Whitevale until the late 1970s. The former store was clad with clapboard and finished to an early 20th century appearance to complement the surrounding HCD in 1993. None (AECOM, 2025) - 391 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 90 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph 494 Whitevale Road Circa 1860. This two storey buff brick residence was designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act prior to the creation of the Whitevale HCD. It is believed to have been built ca. 1860 as a frame structure with the exterior brickwork being added around 1876. It has a steeply pitched gable roof with a front centre wall gable. A round headed window is located in the centre gable. The window and door openings have been decorated with contrasting corbelled and moulded red brick voussoirs. At one time the house had a one storey wrap-around verandah. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) 495 Whitevale Road Circa 1857. One of two pre-1900 brick residences in the hamlet, this house was originally clad in board and batten and later reclad with a brick veneer. It is one-and-a-half storeys with a front gable dormer and the main facade is three bays wide with a central door with a window on each side. Over the main entrance the centre wall gable has a pointed arch window. The front entrance has a rectangular transom window. The present one storey verandah on the front facade is a 20th century addition probably replacing the earlier verandah.Red brick voussoirs and quoins accent the exterior buff brick walls. A one storey rear addition Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) - 392 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 91 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph extends to the back. This structure is shown on the 1877 County Atlas as the property of C. Dale, the original owner of the neighbouring cheese factory. 499 Whitevale Road Late 1860s. Originally built as a cheese factory, this two storey building was renovated during the 1980s when insulbrick siding was removed and replaced with the current board and batten siding. A large east addition and garage were added to the site during the renovations. This building represents one of a few nineteenth century commercial buildings readily identifiable within the hamlet. Built by C. Dale in the late 1860's this building was listed in the 1871 Census Return as the property of Peter Hoover and Co. It appears to have ceased to operate as a cheese factory during the mid-to-late 1870’s and has probably been used as a private residence since that time. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) - 393 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 92 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph 498 Whitevale Road Circa 1860. Apparently built as a temperance hall and later used by dentists Patterson and Fenton ca. 1866, this rectangular one-and-a-half storey frame building was probably originally clad in wooden siding. Presently it is covered in insulbrick. It has a front gable roof typical of an early public building. The front porch was probably a later addition based on the rusticated concrete block piers and smooth concrete porch surface, which are all that remain. This building is shown in the 1877 County Atlas and probably dates from the late 1850s to early 1860s. Mention is made in the local histories of the Whitevale temperance hall having been used by the founding fathers of the Baptist Church (once located at Church and Gladstone Streets) for their first Meeting House. It is presently owned by the Province of Ontario. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) - 394 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 93 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph 503 Whitevale Road 1980s. Constructed as a modern brick replica of a mid-nineteenth Ontario century farmhouse, this building is one and-a-half storeys in height with a side gable roof. A front: centre gable is located over an entrance door with a rectangular transom window and half sidelights. Dichromatic brickwork has been used to accent the window and door openings, the corners and the front facade. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) 507 Whitevale Road 1980s. The original building on this site was demolished and replaced by the present one-and-a-half storey house.It is clad in wooden shingle siding and has a one storey open verandah across the front facade. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) - 395 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 94 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph 510 Whitevale Road 1884. A one half acre property was sold by Dr. Jacob Taber in 1883 to the Trustees of the Methodist Church and the present church building was constructed in 1884 to replace the 1854 Methodist Church located behind the present cemetery to the rear of Lot 28, Concession 4. Its architectural style is typical of many late 19th century rural churches and has liberally used dichromatic and decorative brickwork to its advantage. The building is set atop a high dressed fieldstone foundation. The gothic influenced gable--end church has a steeply pitched roof with a bell tower placed at the peak of the front gable. Below the stone parapet of the roof exists a well-detailed corbel table. A large stained glass wheel window is featured below the corbelling over the lower gable roof main entrance which contains a quatrefoil window fitted into the gothic arch opening. A pair of lancet windows with stain glass decoration are found on either side of the projecting main entrance in the wall of the gabled nave. A brick label hood mould decorates each of the gothic style windows and doorway.The side elevation bays are divided by brick and stone buttresses. Each bay contains a paired set of gothic Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) - 396 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 95 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph wooden windows complete with a trefoil, The basement is lit by 2/2 double hung windows found in the lower stone walling, 520 Whitevale Road Circa 1960s. This tiny house is one storey high with a hipped roof and a small portico over the front side entrance. Prior to its construction, a gas station was located at the front of the lot. None (Google Street View, 2020) 530 Whitevale Road Late 1940s.The former Trinity Baptist Church.Constructed in rusticated concrete block with redbrick accents, this structure was built in the late 1940s after a split in the main Baptist congregation.It has been used as a private residence since the late 1960s and was recently clad in stucco. None (AECOM, 2025) - 397 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 96 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph 3196 Golf Club Road 1988. Designed in a neo-eclectic fashion, this modern two storey house has freely adapted the characteristics of various architectural styles. It is clad in clapboard siding. None (Google Street View, 2020) - 398 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 97 Appendix D: Existing Conditions –North Road Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph 3215 North Road Circa 1900. The front gable roof and rectangular plan of this house is common to the village. It has a two bay front facade with a side entrance and the window openings are square headed. The siding is vertical tongue and groove and the front entrance has a rectangular transom window. Renovations have resulted in the addition of two skylights on the southern slope of the roof and an extensive rear addition. A one storey verandah with a square balustrade runs across the front elevation and is approached from the side. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) 3220 North Road This is a modern gambrel roof house with an attached side garage.It is clad in clapboard siding. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) - 399 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 98 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph 3225 North Road Circa 1900. Built in a vernacular style typical of several houses in the village, this building is one- and-a-half storeys with a steeply- pitched side gable roof and a three bay front facade with a centre door and two side windows. It has segmental window openings, a one storey front porch and has been reclad in modern raised vertical board siding. A two storey addition extends from the rear of the building. The front entrance door has round headed upper panels reminiscent of Italianate detailing. None (AECOM, 2025) 3230 North Road Circa 1870. This one-and-a-half storey house has a side gable roof with a front projecting cross gable. The front gable has an ornamental vergeboard with a pendant and finial. Presently clad in two tone metal siding on the lower walls and board and batten metal siding in the gables, the house was probably originally clad with clapboard. The front entrance door has a simple entablature and some of the window sash has retained the original 6/6 lights. A one storey shed addition is attached to the rear of the house. Built circa 1870, this structure is probably Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) - 400 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 99 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph the house depicted in the 1877 County Atlas view of Whitevale at the southwest corner of North and Churchwin Streets. Elder Tatten, who built the Christian Church across Church Street purchased part of Lot 43 in 1868 and may have been the original builder. 3235 North Road Mid-1980s. Designed in the Ranch style, this house has a gable roof form with an attached garage on the south end and a cross gable on the north end. The roofline has a moderate eaves overhang and the house has been clad in brick siding. None (AECOM, 2025) - 401 - City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 100 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph 3245 North Road Early 1950s. This modern, vernacular house has a hip roof with a front gable, The exterior is clad with wooden siding and fieldstone. None (AECOM, 2025) 3250 North Road This property was the location of the former Christian Church/Odd Fellow's Hall. This structure was taken to the Pickering Museum Village in Green River in the late 1970s after having been moved to the Major Farm earlier in the decade. The present clapboard clad house is a late 20th to early 21st century replica of the vernacular style house typical to the village, and includes a steeply pitched front gable with an upper lancet window, a door with upper sidelights, 6/6 sash windows, and fieldstone cladding over the concrete foundation None (AECOM, 2025) - 402 - Appendix E Designation By-Law for the Whitevale HCD - 403 - Ce document est tiré du registre aux fins de la Loi sur le patrimoine de l’Ontario, accessible à partir du site Web de la Fiducie du patrimoine ontarien sur www.heritagetrust.on.ca. This document was retrieved from the Ontario Heritage Act Register, which is accessible through the website of the Ontario Heritage Trust at www.heritagetrust.on.ca. - 404 - THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF PICKERING BY-LAW NUMBER 4074/92 I Being a by-law to designate the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act, Part V WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of section 41 of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.s.o. 1990, chapter 0.18, where there is in effect in a municipality an official plan that contains provisions relating to the establishment of he:citage conservation districts, the council of the municipality may by by-law designate the municipality or any defined area or areas thereof as a heritage conservation district; and WHEREAS Section II of Part I of the Town of Pickering District Plan, being an official plan, contains provisions relating to the establishment of hei:itage conservation districts, and has l:reen in effect since November 10, 1989, and continues to be in effect; and WHEREAS The Corporation of the Town of Pickering has examined that area within the Town of Pickering known as the Hamlet of Whitevale for deaignation as a heritage conservation district and has determined that a defined area thereof should be so designated; NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Pickering HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The area of the Town of Pickering shaded on Schedule I to this By-law is hereby designated as a heritage conservation district to be known as The Whitevale Heritage conservation District. 2. By-law 3632/91 and 4039/92 are hereby repeale~. 3. This by-law shall not come i.nto force without the app:i:-oval of the Ontario Municipal Board. BY-LAW read a first and second time the 4th day of August, 1992. /9'9$,f? BY-LAW read a third time and finally passed the 7th day of June, ~. / / Clex:k I fJ~_ - 405 - SCHEDULE I TO BY-LAW 40 74/92 PASSED THIS 7 th DAY OF~~-Ju_n_e~_1993 - 406 - Appendix F Key Project Personnel - 407 - Liam Ryan, MES, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Cultural Heritage Lead/Planner Education MES, Environmental Studies: Planning, York University, 2022. BA (Hons), Anthropology, University of Waterloo, 2019. Years of Experience Total of 7 years (5 with AECOM) Professional Affiliations Member of Ontario Professional Planner Institute (OPPI) Member of Canadian Institute of Planners (CIP) Member of Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) Areas of Expertise ✓ Project Management ✓ Policy Development and implementation ✓ Stakeholder Engagement ✓ Architectural and Landscape Analysis ✓ Heritage Conservation ____________________________________________________________________________ Profile Liam Ryan holds a master’s degree in Environmental Studies : Planning with a specialization in both urban and regional planning and heritage planning from York University. He is currently a Register Professional Planner (RPP) and a Professional Member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP). As a Cultural Heritage Planner at AECOM, Liam has extensive experience managing heritage planning projects, including Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment Reports (CHRARs), Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports (CHERs), and Heritage Impact Assessments (HIAs). His work spans municipal stakeholders and large-scale infrastructure projects, with key clients including Metrolinx and the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO). In addition, Liam has contributed to Documentation and Salvage Reports and provided policy analysis for a Heritage Conservation District Study. His expertise in cultural heritage evaluation, policy review, and impact assessment allows him to effectively navigate regulatory frameworks and develop strategic heritage conservation solutions that balance preservation and development. With a strong foundation in heritage planning, regulatory compliance, cultural heritage evaluation and heritage impact assessment, Liam is committed to protecting and managing Ontario’s cultural heritage resources. His leadership in project management, proactive stakeholder engagement, and strategic policy analysis enable him to effectively guide multidisciplinary teams, coordinate complex projects, and deliver practical, well-informed solutions that align with provincial and municipal heritage policies. Select Project Experience HIA Experience Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO), Highway 400 – Highway 404 (Bradford Bypass), Bradford Bypass Project., Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA): 3412 8th Line (2024- Present). Cultural Heritage Lead & Cultural Heritage Planner. Documented the results of the site visit and consultation undertaken for the Subject Property. Identified impacts resulting from the project and assessed conservation alternatives and recommended mitigation measures that conserve the cultural heritage value of the Subject Property while allowing the required infrastructure development. Peel of Region, Detailed Design, Contract Administration and Construction Inspection Airport Road Improvements Project. Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA): 15421 Airport Road, Caledon east, Ontario (2023 - Present). Cultural Heritage Planner/Report Writer. Evaluated the Subject Property using Ontario Regulation 9/06 and assessed the proposed development impacts on the potential cultural heritage value and heritage attributes of the listed heritage property. The HIA assessed the proposed development impacts and proposed mitigation options with recommendations to avoid or reduce any negative impacts to the property. - 408 - City of London, Heritage Impact Assessments (HIAs) for the London Rapid Transit and Infrastructure Improvements – Downtown Loop, London, Ontario (2021-2023). Cultural Heritage Planner/Report Writer. Completed four (4) HIAs for various heritage properties impacted by the London Rapid Transit and Infrastructure Improvements. The HIAs Identified impacts resulting from the infrastructure improvements, assessed conservation alternatives, and recommended mitigation measures that conserve the cultural heritage value of the properties while allowing the required infrastructure development. Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO), Highway 400 – Highway 404 (Bradford Bypass), Bradford Bypass Project., Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA): 2948 Yonge Street (2022 - 2023). Cultural Heritage Planner/Report Writer. Documented the results of the site visit and consultation undertaken for the Subject Property. Identified impacts resulting from the project, assessed conservation alternatives, and recommended mitigation measures that conserve the cultural heritage value of the Subject Property while allowing the required infrastructure development. City of London, Western Road and Sarnia Road/Philip Aziz Avenue Improvements. Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA): 150 Philip Aziz Avenue (2022-2023). Cultural Heritage Planner/Report Writer. The HIA was written to address the impacts of the proposed infrastructure improvements to Western Road and Philip Aziz Avenue on the property, which is designated Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The HIA assessed the proposed development impacts and proposed mitigation options with recommendations to avoid or reduce a ny negative impacts to the property. Monteith Brown Planning Consultants, Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), 2473 Oxford Street West, London, Ontario (2022). Cultural Heritage Planner/Report Writer. Evaluated the Subject Property using Ontario Regulation 9/06 and assessed the proposed development impacts on the potential cultural heritage value and heritage attributes of the listed heritage property. Worked with the client to adjust the site design to mitigate and reduce any negative impacts to the heritage attributes of the Subject Property. No decision has been made on this application to date. Monteith Brown Planning Consultants, Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), 146 Exeter Road, London, Ontario (2022). Cultural Heritage Planner/Report Writer. Evaluated the Subject Property using Ontario Regulation 9/06 and assessed the proposed development impacts on the potential cultural heritage value and heritage attributes of the listed heritage property. Worked with the client to adjust the site design to mitigate and reduce any negative impacts to the heritage attributes of the Subject Property. Related Experience Karmina Developments and The Biglieri Group Ltd. Former Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company Factory: Cultural Heritage Documentation and Salvage Report (2023- Present). Cultural Heritage Planner/Report Writer. Conducted in-depth research on land-use history, architectural analysis, and contributed to the adaptive reuse strategy and documentation/salvage components of the report. Hydro One Network Inc. Durham Kawartha Power Line Project Class EA, Cultural Heritage Existing Conditions (2024- Present). Cultural Heritage Planner. Identified the existing conditions of the Class EA study area and presented a built heritage resource and cultural heritage landscape inventory of known (i.e., listed and/or designated properties) or potential built heritage cultural heritage resources. WSP (MTO), Highway 413 Transportation Corridor Route Planning, Preliminary Design, and Provincial Environmental Assessment Project, stage 2, Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report s (CHER): (2022- Present). Cultural Heritage Lead & Cultural Heritage Planner. As the Cultural Heritage Team Lead, Liam is actively collaborating with MTO to draft Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports (CHER) that incorporate in-depth historical research and evaluates properties based on Ontario Regulations 9/06 and 10/06. He has serve d as a writer, reviewer, and project - 409 - manager for over 40 CHERs as part of the Highway 413 Transportation Corridor Environmental Assessment (EA) – Stage 2. His role includes reviewing MTO comments, engaging with stakeholders, and conducting field reviews to ensure thorough and accurate heritage evaluations that align with provincial heritage policies and EA requirements. Town of Lincoln. Downtown Beamsville Heritage Conservation District (HCD) Study (2022 -2024). Cultural Heritage Planner/Report Writer. Assisted in creating an online inventory form using ArcGIS Collector and conducted a comprehensive inventory of 183 properties in the HCD study area. In response to Bill 23, the assessment covered both individual property heritage evaluation under Ontario Regulation 9/06, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and evaluation of the entire study area under Ontario Regulation 9/06, Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. WSP (MTO), Highway 413 Transportation Corridor Route Planning, Preliminary Design, and Provincial Environmental Assessment Project, stage 2, Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (2022 - 2024) Cultural Heritage Planner/Report Writer. AECOM completed the Cultural Heritage Assessment Report in 2024, which included field reviews to identify potential built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes within the study area. For the original study area in 2015, 277 known and potential BHCHLs were documented during the field review. The final CHAR in 2024, fully describes 54 BHCHLs within the 30% Preliminary Design. Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO). Bradford Bypass, Holland River Subwatersheds Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) (2022- 2024). Cultural Heritage Planner/ Report Writer. Provided research and writing support to the project team. Identified and developed themes in the history of the Holland River Subwatershed Areas using primary and secondary source materials. Undertook visits to archives and oversaw the collection of historic maps and written materials. Completed an evaluation of the Holland River using Ontario Regulation 9/06 and 10/06. MTO, Highway 401 Improvements from 1 km East of Highway 16 to 3.3 km West of Maitland Road, Preliminary Design and Environmental Assessment Study. Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment Report (CHRAR): Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes (2021- 2024). Cultural Heritage Planner/Report Writer. Identified the existing and potential cultural heritage conditions within the Study Area and completed a preliminary assessment of the potential impacts from the proposed project activities which was used to inform project planning and design by providing recommendations for the conservation of the cultural heritage conditions. MTO, Highway 400 – Highway 404 (Bradford Bypass), Bradford Bypass Project. Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment Report (CHRAR): Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes (2022- 2023). Cultural Heritage Planner/Report Writer. Identified the existing and potential cultural heritage conditions within the Study Area and completed a preliminary assessment of the potential impacts from the proposed project activities which was used to assist the Ministry with development of the Preliminary Design for the project and to inform the Environmental Conditions Report and Environmental Impact Assessment Report. MTO, Highway 400 – Highway 404 (Bradford Bypass), Bradford Bypass Project. Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER): 2835-2879 Yonge Street, 2948 Yonge Street, 3412 8th Line, 2673 9th Line, 2779 9th Line, 3521 9th Line and 21138 Leslie Street (2021- 2023). Cultural Heritage Planner/Report Writer. Produced seven (7) CHERs, which included community engagement with groups and individuals with associations to the properties, in -depth historical research, field reviews to document the existing conditions of the properties, and evaluations of the properties using Ontario Regulation 9/06 and Ontario Regulation 10/06. - 410 - Preston Arens,PhD Cultural Heritage Specialist Education PhD in History, 2020 University of Waterloo MA in History, 2015 University of Waterloo BA in History, 2014 Thompson Rivers University Years of Experience Total of 6 years (2 with AECOM) Professional affiliations Intern Member of Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) Member of Ontario Archaeological Society (OAS) ______________________________________________________________________ Summary Preston Arens is a versatile professional with a holistic understanding of history and heritage that ranges from research and policy considerations to community engagement and fieldwork. He holds a Doctorate in History and has over ten years of experience in historical research and teaching which he brings to his work in the heritage field. He has three years of experience conducting archaeological fieldwork in southwestern Ontario and holds an Avocational Archaeological Licence. He has gained practical experience working with community stakeholders on heritage projects and cementing his knowledge of the Ontario Heritage Act in his capacity as a regional Heritage Advisory Committee Member.In his current role as a Cultural Heritage Specialist at AECOM, Preston specializes in background research and report writing, particularly Cultural Heritage Assessment Reports (CHARs), Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports (CHERs), and Heritage Impact Assessments (HIAs). Select Project Experience City of Toronto. Gerrard Street East Heritage Impact Assessment (2025).Cultural Heritage Specialist Drafted HIA for Gerrard Street East between Sherbourne Street and Parliament Street for the Gerrard Street East Complete Streets Project, including description of existing conditions, historical background, assessment of project impacts, and recommended mitigation measures. City of Markham. 7750 Bayview Road Heritage Impact Assessment (2025)Cultural Heritage Specialist Drafted HIA for the property at 7750 Bayview Road as part of the Glynnwood Sewer Project, including description of existing conditions, historical background, assessment of project impacts, and recommended mitigation measures. Hydro One. North Shore Link Power Line Project Class EA: Preliminary Impact Assessment (2025). Cultural Heritage Specialist. Templated Preliminary Impact Assessment report including research and compilation of relevant background history. Hydro One. Wawa to Porcupine Power Line Project Class EA: Cultural Heritage Existing Conditions Report (2025)Cultural Heritage Specialist. Researched and compiled relevant background history for the report including the history of northern districts and treaties with Indigenous groups. Township of Centre Wellington Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment, New Water Supply Well Areas 3 & 7 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Study (2025). Cultural Heritage Specialist Drafted desktop review of project areas, including historical background and preliminary impact assessment based on the anticipated project footprint. Marten Falls First Nation.Marten Falls First Nation Community Access Road,Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions & Preliminary Impact Assessment (2024-Present).Cultural Heritage Specialist. Copy edited early drafts of Cultural Heritage Screening Report and worked with team to conduct preliminary impact - 411 - assessment of preferred route and recommend mitigation work as needed.Responded to and incorporated comments from internal teams in addition to Indigenous communities and government ministries. Lifelong Developments (formerly Karmina Developments) and The Biglieri Group Ltd.Former Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company Factory: Cultural Heritage Documentation and Salvage Report, Ontario, Canada (2023 –2024). Cultural Heritage Specialist. Conducted in-depth research on land-use history and architectural evolution of former Goodyear plant and wrote associated report components.Revised statement of heritage significance emphasizing community ties to local industry. Presented report to local Heritage Committee per request by client and municipality Ontario Ministry of Transportation.Highway 413 Transportation Corridor Route Planning, Preliminary Design, and Provincial Project, Ontario, Canada (2023 –2024).Cultural Heritage Specialist.Worked on numerous Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports (CHERs)including historical and architectural research and analysis to identify and protect built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes.Completed five CHERs, drafted two river CHERs, and fully revised thirteen CHERs to meet updated MTO standards. Ontario Ministry of Transportation.Heritage Evaluation Report: East and West Holland River Subwatershed, Ontario, Canada (2023 –2024).Cultural Heritage Specialist. Conducted archival research to uncover historical information relevant to heritage evaluation.Revised and copy-edited research reports and heritage evaluations to incorporate new data. - 412 - Preston Arens, PhD Cultural Heritage Specialist Preston.arens@aecom.com Liam Ryan, MES, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Cultural Heritage Planner, Lead liam.ryan@aecom.com Adria Grant, MA, CAHP Associate Vice President, Technical Practice Lead Archaeology and Heritage Adria.grant@aecom.com AECOM Canada ULC 410 –250 York Street, Citi Plaza London, ON N6A 6K2 Canada T: 519.673.0510 F: 519.673.5975 www.aecom.com - 413 - Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan City of Pickering 60560495 March 2026 Attachment 3 to Report PLN 16-26 - 414 - City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft X Statement of Qualifications and Limitations The attached Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by AECOM Canada ULC (“AECOM”) for the benefit of the Client (“Client”) in accordance with the agreement between AECOM and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the “Agreement”). The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the “Information”): is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications contained in the Report (the “Limitations”); represents AECOM’s professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation of similar reports; may be based on information provided to AECOM which has not been independently verified; has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time period and circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued; must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context; was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement; and in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on the assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time. AECOM shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information that was provided to it and has no obligation to update such information. AECOM accepts no responsibility for any events or circumstances that may have occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, is not responsible for any variability in such conditions, geographically or over time. AECOM agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that the Information has been prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement, but AECOM makes no other representations, or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to the Report, the Information or any part thereof. Without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing, any estimates or opinions regarding probable construction costs or construction schedule provided by AECOM represent AECOM’s professional judgement in light of its experience and the knowledge and information available to it at the time of preparation. Since AECOM has no control over market or economic conditions, prices for construction labour, equipment or materials or bidding procedures, AECOM, its directors, officers and employees are not able to, nor do they, make any representations, warranties or guarantees whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to such estimates or opinions, or their variance from actual construction costs or schedules, and accept no responsibility for any loss or damage arising therefrom or in any way related thereto. Persons relying on such estimates or opinions do so at their own risk. Except (1) as agreed to in writing by AECOM and Client; (2) as required by-law; or (3) to the extent used by governmental reviewing agencies for the purpose of obtaining permits or approvals, the Report and the Information may be used and relied upon only by Client. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to parties other than Client who may obtain access to the Report or the Information for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, reliance upon, or decisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Information (“improper use of the Report”), except to the extent those parties have obtained the prior written consent of AECOM to use and rely upon the Report and the Information. Any injury, loss or damages arising from improper use of the Report shall be borne by the party making such use. This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report and any use of the Report is subject to the terms hereof. AECOM: 2024-12-21 © 2009-2024 AECOM Canada ULC / All Rights Reserved. - 415 - City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft X Quality Information Prepared by Technical Review by electronic signature here for final electronic signature here for final Courtney Bender, B.EM. (Hons) ISA ON-3217A courtney.bender@aecom.com Brian Magee ISA Certified Arborist ON-1915A brian.magee@aecom.com Lead Verifier Review by electronic signature here for final Johanna Perz, M.Sc. Ecology Supervisor Johanna.Perz@aecom.com Distribution List # Hard Copies PDF Required Association / Company Name City of Pickering AECOM Canada ULC Revision History Revision #Date Author Description 00 2026-02-05 Courtney Bender Original Draft - 416 - City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft X Prepared for: City of Pickering 1 The Esplanade South Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Prepared by: Courtney Bender, B.EM. (Hons) ISA ON-3217A courtney.bender@aecom.com AECOM Canada ULC 250 York St. Suite 410 London, Ontario, N6A 6K2, Canada T +1 519-673-0510 www.aecom.com - 417 - City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft i Executive Summary AECOM has been retained by the City of Pickering to complete an Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan in support of Whitevale Road Reconstruction Project. The tree inventory and assessment were completed by AECOM’s ISA Certified Arborists using the accepted standard arboricultural techniques as outlined in the Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers’ Guide for Plant Appraisal (2020). Table 1 provides a summary of the results of the tree inventory, indicating tree ownership, the number of trees to be removed and the number of trees anticipated to be injured. Table 1: Summary of Anticipated Impacts Tree Ownership Anticipated Removal Anticipated Injury with Supervision Anticipated Injury without Supervision No Anticipated Impact Total City 15 42 152 110 319 Private 5 32 106 528 671 Total 20 74 258 638 990 The findings of this report indicated that 20 trees will require removal, and 332 trees are anticipated to be injured. Of the 332 trees identified to be injured, 74 are recommended for injury with supervision while the remaining 258 do not require supervision during construction. The remaining 638 trees are not anticipated to be impacted by the proposed work. In accordance with the City of Pickering By-law 8073/24 (2024), the number of trees required to compensate for trees to be removed is 30. - 418 - City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft X Table of Contents 1.Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Purpose ................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Tree Inventory Area................................................................................................. 2 1.4 Legislation ............................................................................................................... 4 2.Methods ...................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Tree Inventory ......................................................................................................... 5 2.1.1 Tree Assessment ................................................................................................................... 5 2.1.2 Heritage, Memorial, and Special Status Trees ...................................................................... 6 2.2 Tree Impact Analysis ............................................................................................... 6 3.Results ........................................................................................................ 7 3.1 Tree Assessment .................................................................................................... 7 3.2 Tree Impact Analysis ............................................................................................... 7 3.3 Municipal Permits and Compensation ..................................................................... 8 3.3.1 Permits ................................................................................................................................... 8 3.3.2 Tree Compensation ............................................................................................................... 8 3.4 Species at Risk ....................................................................................................... 9 3.5 Heritage, Memorial, and Special Status Trees ........................................................ 9 4.Tree Preservation Plan Recommendations ............................................ 10 5.Conclusions ............................................................................................. 12 6.Limitations of the Assignment ................................................................ 13 7.Certification .............................................................................................. 14 8.References ................................................................................................ 15 Figures Figure 1. Tree Inventory Area ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Tables Table 1:Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................................................................................................................ i Table 2:Summary of Tree Condition ...................................................................................................................... 7 Table 3:Summary of Tree Ownership in the Tree Inventory Area ......................................................................... 7 Table 4:Summary of Tree Inventory and Total Trees in Each Category ................................................................ 8 Table 5:Summary of Tree Compensation – City of Pickering ................................................................................ 9 - 419 - City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft X Appendices Appendix A. Legislation, Policies and Guidelines Appendix B. Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan Appendix C. Tree Assessment Results Appendix D. Tree Inventory Abbreviations Appendix E. Tree Protection, Preservation and Maintenance Measures and City of Pickering Tree Protection Measures - 420 - City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft 1 1. Introduction AECOM Canada ULC (AECOM) has been retained by the City of Pickering (the City) to prepare an Arborist Report in support of the Detailed Design for the Whitevale Master Drainage Plan (MDP) Implementation Project (the Project). The tree inventory and assessment were completed by AECOM’s ISA Certified Arborists using the accepted standard arboricultural techniques as outlined in the Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers’ Guide for Plant Appraisal (2020). This report is based on the 95% Detailed Design drawings. 1.1 Background AECOM completed the Whitevale MDP Municipal Class Environmental Assessment in 2013. The Whitevale MDP Municipal Class Environmental Assessment identified regular and significant flooding and erosion within the Hamlet of Whitevale, a small community in the City with a strong and well-represented resident associated the Whitevale and District Residents Association (WDRA). The proposed Detail Design reflects the preferred solution identified in the Whitevale MDP and includes road and drainage upgrades along Whitevale Road between Altona Road and Golf Club Road. The proposed work includes: Installation of storm sewer and two separate drainage systems (catch basin, ditch inlet and trench drain drainage systems); Improved roadside ditches on the east and west side of North Road and the north and south side of Whitevale Road; Replacement of driveway culverts and North Road culvert crossing; Replacement of damaged west outfall with new headwall and outlet pool in order to improve storm runoff quality and reduce erosion; Road resurfacing; Sidewalk restoration/reconstruction; Reconstruction of existing speed humps; and Excess soil management strategy. AECOM prepared the Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Implementation – Road Reconstruction, Storm Sewer and Sidewalk Installation Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan (hereafter referred to as the 2021 Arborist Report; AECOM, 2021) for this Project in 2021. However, due to WDRA concerns regarding tree removal impacts, as well as ongoing design revisions, the 2021 Arborist Report became outdated and no longer met the five-year industry standard for data validity. The tree inventory and assessment were updated for this Arborist Report to ensure all information reflects current conditions. The following proposed design changes were implemented at 95% to mitigate the tree impacts: Remove all existing and proposed sidewalk from the south side of Whitevale Road; Remove the proposed sidewalk on the north side of Whitevale Road, east of the Church entrance, east of North Road; Remove the existing and proposed sidewalk on North Road; Reassess the proposed sidewalk width from North Road to Gladstone Street; Reassess sidewalk width and alignment from Gladstone Street to the bridge. Eliminate proposed retaining wall and assess options that: - 421 - City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft 2 o Keep existing sidewalk alignment / profile which would likely keep existing steps. o Move sidewalk to roadside with implementation of rolled curb. 1.2 Purpose The purpose of this Arborist Report is to complete a tree inventory to assess the general condition of the on-site trees (trees situated within the Project footprint), as well as quantify any impacts to trees that are associated with the Project within the Tree Inventory Area. The Tree Inventory Area for this assignment includes the Impact Area representing the limits of disturbance based on the 95% Detailed Design plus a Buffer Area of ten metres (m) to account for adjacent trees, their branches and roots. This report has been prepared in accordance with tree related by-laws and guidelines from the City and other relevant stakeholders as per the Project’s 95% Detailed Design. 1.3 Tree Inventory Area The tree inventory was conducted along Whitevale Road from east of Altona Road to east of Golf Club Road, within the road Right-of-Way (ROW) and private lands. The Tree Inventory Area consists primarily of residential and forested areas. West Duffins Creek and associated ravine was identified within the Tree Inventory Area. Tree Inventory Area is illustrated on Figure 1. - 422 - W h i t e v a l e R d B y r o n S t M u t u a l S t A l t o n a R d W h i t e v a l e R d Whi teva le P ar k W h i t e v a l e R d N o r t h R d C h u r c h w i n S t F a c t o r y S t M i l l S t W h i t e v a l e G o l f C l u b R d WestDuffins Creek Ma p l o c a t i o n : Z : \ H a m i l t o n - C A H A M 1 \ D C S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e \ D e s i g n \ 0 1 _ R e p o r t s \ A r b o r i s t \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ I m p a c t _ A n a l y s i s _ T r e e _ P r o t e c t i o n _ P r o g r a m \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ I m p a c t _ A n a l y s i s _ T r e e _ P r o t e c t i o n _ P r o g r a m . a p r x Da t e S a v e d : 2 / 2 5 / 2 0 2 6 1 2 : 4 4 P M U s e r N a m e : M e n o n P Feb, 2026 Data Sources: Figure 1 V#:01P#:60560495 0 19095 Meters DATUM: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Ontario LIO* when printed 11"x17" Contains Information licensed under the Open Government Licence Ontario. This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties, except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent. ° Overview of Project Area Whitevale Master Drainage Plan° 1:2,550 Legend Proposed Sidewalk Proposed Location for Asphalt Proposed Location for Sub Drain Proposed Location for Curb ProposedDitch Proposed Storm Pipeline Proposed Slope (Engineering) Grading Limits Tree Inventory Area (10m) Impact Area Map Extent- 423 - City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft 4 1.4 Legislation This Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan were conducted in accordance with standard arboriculture techniques, as outlined in the Tree and Landscape Appraiser’s Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition (ISA, 2020) and the Arborists’ Certification Guide (ISA, 2010). Other legislation, policies and guidelines may apply to this Project. A list of potentially applicable legislation in provided in Appendix A. - 424 - City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft 5 2. Methods The tree inventory and assessment were completed by AECOM’s ISA Certified Arborists on July 11, 2025. Data were collected using the accepted standard arboricultural techniques as outlined in the Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers’Guide for Plant Appraisal (2020). 2.1 Tree Inventory Trees were inventoried or tallied based on the following parameters: Municipal Trees o All purposely planted individual trees within the road ROW and parks within the Tree Inventory Area (Impact Area plus additional 10 m Buffer Area) o Naturalized areas were tallied with descriptions. Private Trees o All purposely planted individual trees with a Diameter at Breast Height (DBH)1 of 10 cm or greater within the Tree Inventory Area. All Species at Risk (SAR) trees regardless of DBH were inventoried if encountered within 30 m of the Impact Area. The locations of all identified trees were recorded using an online field map on the ESRI ArcGIS Field Maps app on a Samsung tablet or smartphone which was connected to an Emlid Reach Global Positioning System (GPS) unit for georeferencing purposes (accuracy < 1 m). Tree locations are displayed on Figures 1-1 to 1-5 in Appendix B. 2.1.1 Tree Assessment The DBH of all inventoried trees were measured using a metric diameter tape. The dripline of inventoried trees were estimated in meters. The tree assessment included a Visual Tree Assessment (VTA) to determine the health and structural condition of each tree. The VTA included recording abiotic and biotic disorders and conditions, as well as structural defects, recorded within the Observations/Comments column in Appendix C. Abbreviations for terms used in this appendix are detailed in Appendix D. For the purposes of this assignment, a qualitative rating is used for both health and structure as described below: Excellent – Nearly perfect or ideal for the species, free of defects. Good – Normal vigour, well developed structure, slight asymmetries. Fair – Reduced vigour, multiple moderate defects, minor asymmetries. Poor – Unhealthy and declining, multiple significant defects, major asymmetries. Very Poor – Poor vigour, dying, multiple severe defects, largely asymmetric. Dead It is at the discretion of the municipality and the associated property owners whether dead trees or trees with poor structure or health should be inspected further or whether any other mitigation measures should be implemented. Mitigation recommendations foe dead or trees in poor health will be provided in this report. 1 DBH is the diameter of a tree measured at 1.5 m above ground level as defined in the City of Pickering’s Tree Protection By-law 8073/24 (2024). - 425 - City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft 6 2.1.2 Heritage, Memorial, and Special Status Trees Special status trees will be identified as part of the background review and tree inventory, including heritage and memorial trees. Memorial trees will be noted and confirmed with the respective municipal authority where memorial plaques were identified on site. Whereas heritage trees designated under the Ontario Heritage Act (1990) or recognized by the Heritage Tree Program (Forests Canada, 2022) will be identified during the background review. 2.2 Tree Impact Analysis Using data collected during the tree inventory and assessment, a tree impact analysis was performed using ESRI ArcGIS software. Recommendations for each tree’s proposed action (i.e., remove, injure, injure with supervision, and no anticipated impact) were based on several factors including each tree’s current condition, species specific sensitivity to construction, its location in relation to the Impact Area, and the percentage of the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) impacted. The Tree Protection Zone for a tree found within the Project’s Tree Inventory Area was determined based on the tree’s diameter class. For multi-stemmed trees, the sum of squares of the DBH of the five (5) largest stems was calculated and used to determine the TPZ. Additionally, the Structural Root Zone (SRZ)2 of each tree was calculated and included in Appendix C. In Appendix B, the TPZ is shown for live trees, with the SRZ indicated for dead trees. Generally, the following guidelines were followed in determining the recommended action for each tree: Trees, including dead trees, whose SRZ is impacted by the proposed works were recommended for removal. Trees with equal to or greater than 30% of their TPZ affected by proposed work activities were recommended for removal as the impacts are expected to lead to their decline. Although trees with 30% or greater TPZ encroachment were generally recommended for removal, some exceptions were made where the anticipated impacts were deemed unlikely to compromise the trees’ long- term health These trees were instead recommended for injury with supervision. Trees recommended for injury with supervision will require a qualified ISA Certified Arborist to conduct a root exploratory excavation prior to the start of construction or to supervise the work during construction to determine the feasibility of retaining the trees. Trees with less than 30% of their TPZ affected by proposed work activities were recommended for injury and protection to mitigate further damage to the trees’ below- and above-ground parts. Where the proposed work is not expected to encroach into their TPZ based on the impact analysis described above,no impact is anticipated to the subject trees. Depending on the location of the trees in relation to the proposed work activities, including construction laydown and site access, tree protection may be proposed to prevent encroachment into their TPZ and to protect them from injury. Following the impact analysis described above, tree recommendations were also reviewed manually by AECOM’s ISA Certified Arborists to confirm the recommendations based on factors such as the position of the trees in relation to the work, required pruning, and the trees’ overall conditions, species sensitivity, and age. Overall results of the tree impact analysis are summarized in Section 3.2, with specific results for SAR in Section 3.4, and special status trees in Section 3.5. 2 The SRZ is considered the minimum structural distance away from a tree for any type of encroachment under ideal conditions where encroachment could lead to tree failure due to structural root loss (Coder, 2018). - 426 - City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft 7 3. Results 3.1 Tree Assessment All individual trees surveyed as part of the tree inventory and assessment were found within an urban environment and consisted of small, medium and large trees with DBH measurements ranging from 1 cm to 130 cm; the average DBH was 25 cm. Several tree species were identified during the tree inventory, with the most abundant being Eastern White Cedar (Thuja occidentalis). The majority of the defects observed were caused by either human interference or natural occurrences including mechanical damage, insects, weather and natural environmental conditions. Biotic and abiotic disorders and structural defects observed are included in Appendix B. Table 2 provides a summary of the overall condition of trees ranging from a rating of good to dead. Table 2: Summary of Tree Condition Tree Condition Condition - Health Condition - Structure Good 261 167 Fair 623 699 Poor 67 83 Very Poor 5 7 Dead 34 34 Total 990 990 In terms of location of the trees, most of the trees were inventoried on private properties. Of the total 990 trees inventoried, 54 were located within the Impact Area, and 936 were located within the Buffer Area.Table 3 below provides a summary of tree ownership of the inventoried trees. Table 3: Summary of Tree Ownership in the Tree Inventory Area Ownership Trees Within the Impact Area Trees Within the Buffer Area Trees Outside the Tree Inventory Area Total City 41 278 0 319 Private 13 658 0 671 Total 54 936 0 990 3.2 Tree Impact Analysis Based on the results of the tree impact analysis, the full development of the Impact Area would lead to the removal of 20 trees, and the injury of 332 trees. The remaining 638 trees are not anticipated to be impacted by the proposed work, with protection proposed around retained trees located within the Buffer Area.Table 4 below provides an overall summary of the recommended action for all inventoried trees based on the current Impact Area.Appendix C lists the recommended action for each tree and Appendix D provides a definition of abbreviations and terms. - 427 - City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft 8 Table 4: Summary of Tree Inventory and Total Trees in Each Category Ownership Anticipated Removal Anticipated Injury with Supervision Anticipated Injury without Supervision No Anticipated Impact Total City 15 42 152 110 319 Private 5 32 106 528 671 Total 20 74 258 638 990 Of the 332 trees identified for injury, 74 are recommended for injury with supervision. For these trees, root exploratory excavation is recommended prior to tree removals to assess the potential impacts to the root system and to help ensure that construction impacts will not lead to tree failure or impede construction progress. The specific methods and procedures for conducting this excavation are provided in Section 4 and Appendix E. All root exploratory excavation should occur under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and with authorization from the City of Pickering. It is recommended that the proposed work as part of the Project is reviewed alongside the results of the tree impact analysis and the results of the root exploration, and that proposed impacts to trees are reduced wherever feasible to maximize tree preservation. Should the limits or nature of the proposed work change, an ISA Certified Arborist should be retained to review the additional impacts and determine whether the recommended actions in this report are still applicable. 3.3 Municipal Permits and Compensation 3.3.1 Permits As per Section 4.1(a) of the Regional Municipality of Durham’s Regional Woodland By-law 30-2020 (2020) and Section 2.2(b) of the City’s Tree Protection By-law 8073/24 (2024) activities undertaken by the City are exempt from the regulatory requirements outlined in these By-laws. As such, permits for the proposed private tree removals required to facilitate the proposed activities are not anticipated to be required. 3.3.2 Tree Compensation All regulated trees typically require compensation in the form of tree plantings if removal is permitted. As such, compensation is proposed for all tree removals with a DBH of 15 cm or greater, except for dead or Ash trees. Compensation requirements for tree removals under the City’s Tree Inventory, Preservation, and Removal Compensation Requirements (City of Pickering, no date) are provided in Table 5. Of the 20 trees identified for removal, seven fall within the regulation limits of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). It is therefore recommended that TRCA review this Arborist Report along with the proposed work to allow for comments on compensation and recommended remediation measures. - 428 - City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft 9 Table 5: Summary of Tree Compensation – City of Pickering DBH (cm) Range Replacement Ratio Number of Trees for Removal Number of Trees for Compensation 0-14 Compensation Not Required 5 0 15-29 1:1 4 4 30-49 2:1 8 16 50-74 3:1 2 6 75 cm or greater 4:1 1 4 Total 20 30 A total of 30 replacement trees are proposed as compensation. If there is insufficient space to plant the trees on the subject property, a cash-in-lieu payment may be accepted by the City. It is recommended that replacement trees are planted on site during the next available planting season following construction. Given the subject areas are within the jurisdiction of the TRCA, it is recommended that native tree species are chosen based on Flora Species Native to the TRCA Jurisdiction (TRCA, 2022). The replacement trees should have sufficient growing space for establishment and development. Replanting plans should be considered with the aid of a landscape architect based on the site conditions at the time of the replanting work, as approved by the City. 3.4 Species at Risk At the time of the tree inventory, two Butternuts (Juglans cinerea) were observed at the edge of the Tree Inventory Area. Butternut is listed as Endangered under Ontario Regulation 230/08: Species at Risk in Ontario List and is protected under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA). Under the amended ESA, habitat for SAR plants is defined as the species-specific Critical Root Zone3. Based on guidance3 provided by the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP), the CRZ for Butternut is 17 m. While no direct impacts to the individual Butternuts are anticipated, the proposed works slightly infringe upon the trees’ CRZ (i.e., habitat). AECOM is of the opinion that the proposed activities do not constitute damage or destruction of habitat, as only a small proportion of the CRZ is affected and this area largely consists of existing hardscape. 3.5 Heritage, Memorial, and Special Status Trees At the time of the tree inventory, there were no heritage, memorial, or other trees with special status observed within the Tree Inventory Area. Heritage, memorial or other special status trees are defined by Heritage Tree Program (Forests Canada, 2022). 3 Guidance provided by MECP defined the CRZ as the radial distance from the stem equal to 18 times the species’ reported maximum DBH in Ontario, rounded up to the nearest metre. - 429 - City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft 10 4. Tree Preservation Plan Recommendations The Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan is provided in Appendix B. Specific measures for the implementation of tree protection, preservation and maintenance measures are provided in Appendix E. The following provides a summary of the tree protection, preservation and maintenance measures that are recommended for implementation: 1.Tree protection fencing is to be installed around trees recommended for retention within the Buffer Area (as shown in Appendix B). The tree protection fencing shall be installed in accordance with City of Pickering Standard Detail P-1100 (Tree Protection Fencing) and P-1101 (Tree Protection Notes) (see Appendix E). 2.All tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to any construction activity taking place on site, and it shall remain standing in good repair until construction is complete. 3.As described in Appendix E, a root exploratory excavation is recommended for the 74 trees that are recommended for injury with supervision. a. The exploratory excavation shall be conducted prior to any tree removals. b. The exploratory excavation should be performed using hand digging or a low-pressure hydro-vac or pneumonic device, such as an air spade. c. No roots should be severed during the root exploration, and special care should be taken to avoid root damage during the excavation process. d. The excavated area should be backfilled with clean native fill as soon as reasonably possible, and the area should then be watered to prevent desiccation and promote root growth. e. The root exploration shall be conducted under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and following the City of Pickering’s authorization. A memorandum shall be prepared summarizing the results of the root exploration including an assessment of whether each tree can be retained. f. Following the root exploratory excavation, if trees recommended for injury with supervision are confirmed safe to retain, tree protection fencing shall be installed near the tree’s trunks to provide adequate protection to the base of the trunk. Tree protection fencing will be displayed on an updated Tree Protection Plan as part of the memorandum. 4.All grade changes within and adjacent to TPZs shall be undertaken in accordance with the previously specified tree protection guidelines. 5.Roots encountered during excavation in or outside TPZ should be preserved wherever feasible. However, if it is determined that root pruning must occur to facilitate a grade change or other earthworks, where authorized by the applicable authorities, root pruning shall be conducted in accordance with acceptable arboricultural standards. 6.Where branches are likely to be damaged during construction, and pruning is approved by the relevant authorities, branches shall be pruned ahead of the work to avoid branches being broken off, so that bark is not torn, and wounds are not more extensive than necessary. 7.Any branches that overhang the work area and require pruning are to be pruned using clean tools as per the latest arboricultural practices (TCIA, 2008). 8.The pruning of Oak trees (Quercus spp.) is discouraged during the growing season. Avoiding pruning at this time reduces the likelihood of attracting beetles and minimizes the risk of the fungus being transferred to healthy trees. If pruning activities cannot be delayed, apply an appropriate tree wound paint or latex-based paint immediately to all exposed cut surfaces as soon as possible (Michigan State University, 2020). - 430 - City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft 11 9.The Contractor(s) must report immediately to the Contract Administrator any damage to trees such as broken limbs, damage to roots, or wounds to the main trunk or stem systems so that the damage can be assessed immediately. 10. If required, clearing of vegetation should be conducted between December 1 and March 31, outside of the breeding bird season (April 1 to August 31) and active bat season (April 1 to September 30) to reduce potential impacts to migratory birds and SAR bats. 11. Nests searches, for the purpose of providing approval for vegetation removal during the nesting period (April 1 to August 31) must be completed by a qualified biologist (Government of Canada, 2022). 12. It is recommended all trees on site be inspected by an ISA Certified Arborist post construction to assess the health of each tree. Remedial care such as mulching, vertical mulching, fertilization or irrigation may be required based on each tree’s current condition. 13. If tree removal is required as the project progresses, trees shall be removed from the site in a manner that will prevent the emergence and spread of invasive species. 14. Invasive trees and shrubs (i.e., European Buckthorn [Rhamnus cathartica]) should be removed where applicable. - 431 - City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft 12 5. Conclusions Of the 990 trees inventoried, 20 trees will require removal based on the results of the tree impact analysis. Furthermore, 332 trees are anticipated to be injured, of which 74 are recommended for injury with supervision while the remaining 258 do not require supervision during construction. The remaining 638 trees are not anticipated to be impacted by the proposed work, with protection proposed around retained trees located within the Buffer Area. Furthermore, a total of 30 replacement trees are proposed as compensation. A root exploratory excavation shall be conducted in advance of any tree removals for the 74 trees recommended for injury with supervision. A qualified ISA Certified Arborist shall conduct the root exploratory excavation to determine which trees can be retained and which may need to be removed. Details for root exploration are in Section 4 and Appendix E. Any additional removals identified during this process will be added to the 20 trees previously recommended for removal. Tree removals will be conducted prior to construction operations commencing. It is recommended that an ISA Certified Arborist be retained during tree removal operations to ensure proper arboricultural techniques are employed prior to and during proposed activities. It is also recommended that an ISA Certified Arborist supervise any root pruning that needs to be done to trees recommended for injury. Additionally, it is recommended that an ISA Certified Arborist return at the conclusion of construction to assess the health of preserved trees after construction is complete and to mitigate risk associated with falling limbs and declining health from potentially stressful conditions. Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to initiation of the work. Tree protection fencing shall be installed to protect trees recommended for retention within the Buffer Area. The installation of tree protection fencing will reduce the potential for negative impacts including soil and root compaction as well as the potential for mechanical damage to trunks or branches. Lastly, it is recommended that any necessary pruning be conducted prior to tree removal by an ISA Certified Arborist or trained professional with adequate arboricultural experience, to ensure that trees marked for preservation do not experience unnecessary stress or damage. Overall, it is recommended that the proposed works for the Project be reviewed with the results of the tree impact analysis, and that proposed impacts to trees be reduced wherever feasible to maximize tree preservation. Should the limits or nature of the proposed work change, an ISA Certified Arborist should be retained to review the additional impacts and determine whether the recommended actions in this report are still applicable. - 432 - City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft 13 6. Limitations of the Assignment 1.Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however, AECOM can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of the information provided by others. 2.Unless expressed otherwise: a. the information contained in this report covers only those items at the time of inspection; and b. the inspection is limited to visual examination of the accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future. 3.The assessment of the subject trees, despite its rating, does not constitute a tree risk assessment. 4.It is at the discretion of the tree owner/manager and the associated property owners whether dead trees or trees with poor ratings should be inspected further or whether any other mitigation measures should be implemented. 5.Tree’s location, size, and condition were estimated if on adjacent properties where permission to enter was not available. 6.It is understood the relevant conservation authority will defer to applicable municipal by-laws and regulations. It is the responsibility of the tree owner/manager to ensure no further permitting will be required. 7.Every effort is made to correctly identify tree ownership during the tree inventory, and the Geographic Information System (GIS)-based tree impact assessment and tree ownership was estimated as best as possible by the arborist. It must be understood; tree ownership can only be determined by comparing the legally surveyed location of the tree trunk to the legally surveyed property boundary. 8.Shrubs, such as but not limited to, Staghorn Sumac (Rhus typhina) or European Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), were not included in the tree inventory. - 433 - City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft 14 7. Certification I certify that all the statements of fact in this assessment are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that they are made in good faith. AECOM Canada ULC Report Certified By: electronic signature here for final Courtney Bender, B.EM. (Hons) ISA ON-3217A courtney.bender@aecom.com - 434 - City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft 15 8. References AECOM, 2021: Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Implementation – Road Reconstruction, Storm Sewer and Sidewalk Installation Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), 2021a: Emerald ash borer - Agrilus planipennis. Retrieved from http://www.inspection.gc.ca/plants/plant- protection/insects/emerald-ash-borer/eng/1337273882117/1337273975030 Coder, K.D., 2018: Conserving trees during site development: A training manual. University of Georgia Warnell School of Forestry & Natural Resources Outreach Publication WSFNR-18-35. Pp.74 Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers, 2020: Guide for Plant Appraisal, International Society of Arboriculture. Tenth Edition City of Pickering, no date: Tree Inventory, Preservation, and Removal Compensation Requirements. City of Pickering, 2024: Tree Protection By-law 8073/24.2024. Accessed from https://corporate.pickering.ca/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=253620&dbid=1&repo=PICKERING&cr=1. Dunster, J.A., E.T. Smiley, N.P. Matheny and S.J, Lilly, 2017: Tree Risk Assessment Manual. Second Edition. International Society of Arboriculture. Endangered Species Act: Revised Statutes of Ontario (2007, SO 2007, c 6), https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/07e06. Retrieved February 2026. Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2022: Environment and Natural Resources.Guidelines to reduce avoid harm to migratory birds. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/avoiding-harm-migratory-birds/reduce-risk- migratory-birds.html#toc3 Forests Ontario, 2022: Heritage Tree Program, https://forestsontario.ca/en/program/heritage-tree Forestry Act, 1990: Revised Statutes of Ontario (1990, c.F.26), https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90f26. Retrieved February 2026. Halloran, J., H. Anderson and D. Tassie, 2013: Clean Equipment Protocol for Industry.Peterborough Stewardship Council and Ontario Invasive Plant Council. Peterborough, ON. Updated, 2016. Available at https://www.ontarioinvasiveplants.ca/wp- content/uploads/2016/07/Clean-Equipment-Protocol_June2016_D3_WEB-1.pdf Lilly, S.J, 2010:Arborists’ Certification Study Guide. Third Edition. International Society of Arboriculture. Invasive Species Act: Statutes of Ontario (2015, SO 2015, c.22), https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/s15022. Retrieved February 2026. - 435 - City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft 16 Matheny, N.P. and J.R. Clarke, 1994: A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas.Second Edition. International Society of Arboriculture. Michigan State University, 2020: Worried about oak wilt?Available at: https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/worried_about_oak_wilt Migratory Birds Convention Act: Revised Statutes of Canada (1994, SC 1994, c 22), https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/m-7.01/. Retrieved February 2026. Migratory Birds Regulations: Revised Statutes of Canada [2022 (SOR/2022-105)], https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR- 2022-105/index.html. Retrieved August 2025. Ontario Heritage Act: Revised Statutes of Ontario (1990, c.O.18), https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o18. Retrieved February 2026. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), 2017: Recovery Strategy for Kentucky Coffee-trees (Gymnocladus dioicus) in Ontario. Ontario Recovery Strategy Series. Prepared by the Ministry of Ontario of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. v + 6 pp. + Appendix. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), 2023: Oak Wilt.Accessed from https://www.ontario.ca/page/oak-wilt Ontario Regulation 230/08: Species at Risk in Ontario List, O. Reg. 230/08 (2008) Under the Endangered Species Act, 2007. S.O. 2007, c. 6. Retrieved February 2026 from https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/080230. Retrieved February 2026. Regional Municipality of Durham, 2020: Regional Woodland By-law 30-2020. 2020. Accessed from https://www.durham.ca/en/doing- business/resources/Documents/PlanningandDevelopment/By-law-Number-30-2020.pdf Tree Care Industry Association (TCIA), 2008: American National Standard for Tree Care Operations: Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Maintenance – Standard Practices (Pruning). A300, Part 1.TCIA. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2022: Flora Species Native to the TRCA Jurisdiction. October 2022. Access from: chrome- extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://trcaca.s3.ca-central- 1.amazonaws.com/app/uploads/2022/10/18104147/Flora-Species-Native-to-the-TRCA-Jurisdiction- October-2022.pdf Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2023: Guideline for Determining Ecosystem Compensation.Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, June 2023.Accessed from https://trcaca.s3.ca-central- 1.amazonaws.com/app/uploads/2023/08/18123313/TRCA-Ecosystem-Compensation-Guideline-June- 2023.pdf Weed Control Act: Revised Statutes of Ontario (1990, RSO 1990, c. W.5), https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90w05. Retrieved February 2026. - 436 - Appendix A Legislation, Policies and Guidelines - 437 - Appendix A - Legislation, Policies and Guidelines 1 of 1 1Legislation, Policies and Guidelines Applicable to Project Legislation Governing Authority Relevant Information Applicability to the Project Federal Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA), 1994 Migratory Birds Regulations, 2022 Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) • The MBCA is intended to protect migratory birds, their eggs, and their active nests. The Act includes protections for more than 700 species of birds. The MBCA prohibits the possession, destruction, and harm of migratory birds and/or their nests while there is a live bird or a viable egg in it for most migratory birds except for 18 species that have site fidelity and reuse their nests from year to year and receive year-round nest protection whether there are eggs or live birds in there or not. Registration under the Abandoned Nest Registry and permits are required to remove potential or confirmed nests of the 18 species listed on Schedule 1 of the Migratory Birds Regulations if removal is required before the end of designated wait periods for each respective species to confirm use of nest. • Tree removal should occur outside of the breeding bird season (April 1 to August 31) to reduce potential impacts to migratory birds and avoid contravention of the MBCA. Provincial Endangered Species Act (ESA), 2007 Amended 2025 Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) • On June 5, 2025, the Province of Ontario enacted amendments to the ESA through Bill 5: Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act,, with the goal of streamlining permitting processes and aligning species protection with economic development priorities. The amended ESA continues to provide legal protection for species listed as Threatened or Endangered under Schedules 2 and 3 of Ontario Regulation 230/08 (Section 9), as well as their habitat (Section 10). However, the definition of “habitat” has been revised for vascular plant species to refer only to the Critical Root Zone (CRZ). According to guidance provided by MECP “When assessing areas of potential habitat, best available information suggests that the critical root zone is generally the radial distance from the stem equal to 18 times the species’ reported maximum diameter at breast height (DBH) in Ontario (or a juris diction with comparable growing conditions), rounded up to the nearest metre, for trees and shrubs.” • In addition, under Schedule 10 of Bill 5, a new Species Conservation Act (SCA) is introduced which will repeal and replace the current amended ESA at a later date established by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. At the time of preparing this Arborist Report, the SCA was not in force. Where a proposed activity will affect a p rotected species or habitat, changes to timing, location and methods of the proposed activity should be considered, wherever feasible, to avoid impacts to Species at Risk (SAR). Where impacts cannot be avoided or mitigated, authorization from the MECP will be required under the amended ESA as applicable. • Two Butternuts (Juglans cinerea) were identified during the 2025 tree inventory. The CRZs of the two identified Butternut trees were determined to be located sufficiently far enough from the Impact Area that neither the species nor its habitat are anticipated to be impacted by proposed work. Therefore, contravention of Sections 9 or 10 of the ESA are not anticipated for Butternut. • Tree removal should occur outside of the breeding bird season and active bat season (combined from April 1 to November 30) to reduce potential impacts to SAR birds and bats. Heritage Act and Heritage Tree Program R.S.O. 1990 c.18 Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) • Trees with heritage status may be designated as heritage trees under the Ontario Heritage Act or recognized by the Heritage Tree Program (Forests Ontario, 2022) and therefore may be afforded additional protection and require further authorization for injury and removal. • There are no trees with heritage status with the Project limits. Invasive Species Act, 2015 MNR • The Invasive Species Act regulates the prevention and management of invasive species in Ontario to prevent and control invasive species. There are two classes of invasive species regulated under the Act: • Prohibited: It is illegal to import, possess, transport, or release these species anywhere in Ontario, and, • Restricted: It is illegal to bring them into provincial parks or conservation reserves and illegal to release them anywhere in Ontario. These include Common Reed (Phragmites australis ssp. Australis), Dog-strangling Vine (Vincetoxicum rossicum) and Japanese Knotweed (Fallopia japonica). • All machinery, construction equipment and vehicles arriving on site should be in clean condition (e.g., free of fluid leaks, or attached soil potentially containing seeds of plant material from invasive species) and be inspected and washed in accordance wi th the Clean Equipment Protocol for Industry (Halloran et al., 2013) prior to arriving and leaving the construction site. Weed Control Act, 1990 Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs • The Weed Control Act regulates the designation and management of noxious (harmful, destructive) weeds in Ontario. There are currently 25 species listed as noxious weeds in Ontario, including but not limited to invasive species such as Dog-strangling Vine, Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), Giant Hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum) and Wild Parsnip (Pastinaca sativa). • All machinery, construction equipment and vehicles arriving on site should be in clean condition (e.g., free of fluid leaks, or attached soil potentially containing seeds of plant material from invasive species) and be inspected and washed in accordance wi th the Clean Equipment Protocol for Industry (Halloran et al., 2013) prior to arriving and leaving the construction site. Municipal Regional Woodland By- law 30-2020 Regional Municipality of Durham • The Regional Woodland By-law applies to Woodlands within the region that are one hectare (2.5 acres) in size and greater. Areas that are less than one hectare are the responsibility of the local area municipalities. • The Regional Woodland By-law states that “any Person who intends to Cause Injury or Destruction to one or more Trees in a Woodland, in a manner that does not constitute Cumulative Removal or Clear Cutting, shall first complete and submit to the Region, an application for a Good Forestry Practice Permit.” The application will be reviewed by the area municipality, Conservation Authority and/or other commenting agencies to determine whether a permit is required. A Good Forestry Practice Permit may be waived if the tree removal being proposed involves a small number of trees and the impact of the removal is deemed to be negligible to the integrity of the overall woodland. • As per Section 4.1(a) of the By-Law, activities undertaken by the municipality are exempt from the regulatory requirements stated within. As such, permits for proposed private tree removals to facilitate the proposed activities are not anticipated to be required under the Regional Woodland By-Law. Tree Protection By-law 8073/24 (2024) City of Pickering • The Tree Protection By-law prohibits the injury, destruction or removal of a tree measuring 2.5 centimetres (cm) Diameter-at-Breast-Height (DBH) or larger in the Tree Protection Area without a permit issued under the By-law. • As per Section 2.2(b) of the By-Law, activities undertaken by the municipality are exempt from the regulatory requirements stated within. As such, permits for proposed private tree removals to facilitate the proposed activities are not anticipated to be required under the Tree Protection By-Law. - 438 - Appendix B Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan - 439 - Whiteva l e R d W h i t e v a l e R d W h i t e v a l e R d A l t o n a R d A l t o n a R d 345 3190 280 340330320 295 325 335 310300290270 T180T181 T185 T237 T472 T473 T475 T482 T483T620 T624 T625 T626T642 T667T668 T723 T724 T753 T765 T770 T774 T186 T187 T198 T203T205T217T218 T477 T478 T479 T480 T481 T591 T592 T593 T594 T595T596 T597T598 T614 T615T616 T617T618 T619 T631 T635 T640 T649 T650 T651 T653 T654 T655T657T658T659 T660 T661 T669T670 T671 T672 T673T674T675 T682 T683 T684 T685 T686 T704T705 T706 T707 T708 T709T710T711 T721 T722 T725T726 T727 T754 T755 T756 T757 T758 T759 T760 T762 T763T764 T766 T769 Ma p l o c a t i o n : Z : \ H a m i l t o n - C A H A M 1 \ D C S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e \ D e s i g n \ 0 1 _ R e p o r t s \ A r b o r i s t \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ I m p a c t _ A n a l y s i s _ T r e e _ P r o t e c t i o n _ P r o g r a m \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ I m p a c t _ A n a l y s i s _ T r e e _ P r o t e c t i o n _ P r o g r a m . a p r x Da t e S a v e d : 2 / 2 5 / 2 0 2 6 1 2 : 4 4 P M U s e r N a m e : M e n o n P Feb, 2026 Data Sources: V#:01P#:60560495 0 5025 Meters DATUM: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Ontario LIO* when printed 11"x17" Contains Information licensed under the Open Government Licence Ontario. This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties, except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent. ° Tree Impact Analysis Whitevale Master Drainage Plan° 1:700 Legend Impact Area Tree Inventory Area (10m) TRCA Regulated Area Parcel boundary Tree protection fencing Tree Location Recommended Action Injure Injury with Supervision No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Anticipated Impact - Protect (SAR Tree) Remove Tree Protection Zone Recommended Action Injure No Anticipated Impact - Protect Detail of Work Grading Limits Proposed Slope (Engineering) Proposed Storm Pipeline ProposedDitch Proposed Location for Curb Proposed Location for Sub Drain Proposed Location for Asphalt river Map Extent Figure 1-1 - 440 - W h i t e v a l e R d B y r o n S t W h i t e v a l e R d M u t u a l S t W h i t e v a l e R d WestDuffins Creek 3190 385 395 360 3191 380 T35T36T41 T986 T1 T4 T232 T387 T393T966 T2 T5 T12 T13T19T29T44 T51 T68 T94 T95 T115 T119 T151T169T172 T180T181 T184 T197 T236T237T239 T262 T280T327T330 T343 T362 T386 T395 T410T529 T552T555 T557 T560 T561 T573T574 T575T576 T621T622T623T624 T625 T626 T632 T967 T3 T6 T7 T8 T9 T11 T15 T17 T18 T20 T26 T27 T28 T30 T32 T37 T43 T45 T46 T48 T49 T52 T53 T54 T55 T56 T58 T59 T60 T61 T63T65 T69 T70 T72 T74 T76 T77 T78 T79 T80 T81 T82 T83 T84 T85T86 T88 T91 T93 T96 T97 T100 T103T112 T113T114 T122 T124 T126T128 T129T130 T131 T132T133 T134 T135 T137 T138 T140 T142 T143 T146 T166T177 T178 T186 T189 T190 T191 T192 T193 T194 T195 T196 T199 T203 T209 T210 T211 T212 T213 T215 T217 T219 T220 T221 T223 T224 T226 T227 T228 T229 T230T231 T233T234T235 T238 T240 T243 T244 T245 T247 T248 T249 T250 T251 T252 T254 T255 T259 T260 T263 T267 T268 T269T270 T271 T272T273 T274 T275 T276T277 T278 T279 T281T286T299 T300 T304 T305 T306 T307 T308T309T310 T311 T312 T313 T314 T315 T316 T317 T318 T319 T321 T323 T324 T325 T326T329 T331 T332T336T337 T338 T340 T341 T342 T346 T361 T366 T371 T388 T389T391 T392T400 T404 T407 T408 T409 T415 T427 T431 T432 T433 T434T435 T437 T455 T550 T551 T554 T570T571 T572 T631 T635 T970 T972 T978 T990 Ma p l o c a t i o n : Z : \ H a m i l t o n - C A H A M 1 \ D C S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e \ D e s i g n \ 0 1 _ R e p o r t s \ A r b o r i s t \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ I m p a c t _ A n a l y s i s _ T r e e _ P r o t e c t i o n _ P r o g r a m \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ I m p a c t _ A n a l y s i s _ T r e e _ P r o t e c t i o n _ P r o g r a m . a p r x Da t e S a v e d : 2 / 2 5 / 2 0 2 6 1 2 : 4 4 P M U s e r N a m e : M e n o n P Feb, 2026 Data Sources: V#:01P#:60560495 0 5025 Meters DATUM: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Ontario LIO* when printed 11"x17" Contains Information licensed under the Open Government Licence Ontario. This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties, except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent. ° Tree Impact Analysis Whitevale Master Drainage Plan° 1:700 Legend Impact Area Tree Inventory Area (10m) TRCA Regulated Area Parcel boundary Tree protection fencing Tree Location Recommended Action Injure Injury with Supervision No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Anticipated Impact - Protect (SAR Tree) Remove Tree Protection Zone Recommended Action Injure No Anticipated Impact - Protect Remove Injury with Supervision Detail of Work Grading Limits Proposed Slope (Engineering) Proposed Storm Pipeline ProposedDitch Proposed Location for Curb Proposed Location for Sub Drain Proposed Location for Asphalt Proposed Sidewalk river Map Extent Figure 1-2 - 441 - M i l l S t W h i t e v a l e R d F a c t o r y S t M i l l S t G l a d s t o n e S t W h i t e v a l e R d W h i t e v a l e R d 475 430 3117 480 490 494 450 425 455 3195 465 485 440 470460 T448 T449 T450 T451 T452 T453 T454 T456 T457 T458 T459 T461 T462 T463 T464 T565T566 T567 T578T581 T590 T599 T600 T232 T421 T424 T447 T568 T569 T410 T411 T412 T414 T422 T423 T425 T440 T466 T469 T470 T471 T487 T498 T500 T501 T502 T504 T507 T509 T512 T515 T517 T522 T536 T537 T540 T541 T542 T543 T544 T545 T562 T563 T577 T579 T580 T665T666T676 T677 T678 T680 T688 T698 T702 T215 T226 T227 T228 T229 T230 T409 T413 T426T438 T439 T441 T442 T443 T444T445 T446 T460 T465T467 T468 T488 T490 T492 T493 T494 T496 T523 T524 T525T527 T538 T546T547 T548 T564 T582 T583 T584 T586T587 T588T589 T662 T663 T679 T691 Ma p l o c a t i o n : Z : \ H a m i l t o n - C A H A M 1 \ D C S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e \ D e s i g n \ 0 1 _ R e p o r t s \ A r b o r i s t \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ I m p a c t _ A n a l y s i s _ T r e e _ P r o t e c t i o n _ P r o g r a m \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ I m p a c t _ A n a l y s i s _ T r e e _ P r o t e c t i o n _ P r o g r a m . a p r x Da t e S a v e d : 2 / 2 5 / 2 0 2 6 1 2 : 4 4 P M U s e r N a m e : M e n o n P Feb, 2026 Data Sources: V#:01P#:60560495 0 5025 Meters DATUM: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Ontario LIO* when printed 11"x17" Contains Information licensed under the Open Government Licence Ontario. This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties, except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent. ° Tree Impact Analysis Whitevale Master Drainage Plan° 1:700 Legend Impact Area Tree Inventory Area (10m) TRCA Regulated Area Parcel boundary Tree protection fencing Tree Location Recommended Action Injure Injury with Supervision No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Anticipated Impact - Protect (SAR Tree) Remove Tree Protection Zone Recommended Action Injure No Anticipated Impact - Protect Remove Injury with Supervision Detail of Work Grading Limits Proposed Slope (Engineering) Proposed Storm Pipeline ProposedDitch Proposed Location for Curb Proposed Location for Sub Drain Proposed Location for Asphalt Proposed Sidewalk river Map Extent Figure 1-3 - 442 - W h i t e v a l e R d W h i t e v a l e R d N o r t h R d W h i t e v a l e R d G o l f C l u b R d 540530 3117 480 490 494 3220 3196 503 485 507 498 520510 3215 3225 530A T565T566 T590 T599 T600 T601 T602 T603 T613 T643 T645 T646 T648 T776 T777 T790 T791 T794 T795 T796 T797 T929 T930 T931 T932 T933 T946T947 T948 T950 T712 T717 T720 T752 T778 T779 T466 T605 T606 T607 T644 T665T666T676 T677 T678 T680 T688 T698 T700 T701T702 T713 T714 T718 T719 T728 T730 T731 T733 T736T737 T739 T741 T780T781 T782 T820T821 T822 T823 T833 T836 T839 T875 T877 T881 T882 T901T902 T906T919T920 T924T925 T928T954T955 T956 T465 T564 T582 T583 T584 T586T587 T588T589 T604 T608 T609 T611 T612 T647 T679 T691 T715 T716 T734 T735 T740 T742 T743 T744 T745 T747 T748 T783 T784 T785 T786T787 T788T789 T792T793 T798 T799 T800 T801 T802T803 T805 T816 T817T818 T819 T838 T843 T844 T846 T847 T850 T853 T855 T856 T872 T874 T878 T879 T880 T884T904T907 T934T935 T936T937 T938 T939 T945 T949 T951 T952 T953 T957 T958 T960 T961 T962 T963 Ma p l o c a t i o n : Z : \ H a m i l t o n - C A H A M 1 \ D C S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e \ D e s i g n \ 0 1 _ R e p o r t s \ A r b o r i s t \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ I m p a c t _ A n a l y s i s _ T r e e _ P r o t e c t i o n _ P r o g r a m \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ I m p a c t _ A n a l y s i s _ T r e e _ P r o t e c t i o n _ P r o g r a m . a p r x Da t e S a v e d : 2 / 2 5 / 2 0 2 6 1 2 : 4 4 P M U s e r N a m e : M e n o n P Feb, 2026 Data Sources: V#:01P#:60560495 0 5025 Meters DATUM: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Ontario LIO* when printed 11"x17" Contains Information licensed under the Open Government Licence Ontario. This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties, except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent. ° Tree Impact Analysis Whitevale Master Drainage Plan° 1:700 Legend Impact Area Tree Inventory Area (10m) TRCA Regulated Area Parcel boundary Tree protection fencing Tree Location Recommended Action Injure Injury with Supervision No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Anticipated Impact - Protect (SAR Tree) Remove Tree Protection Zone Recommended Action Injure No Anticipated Impact - Protect Remove Injury with Supervision Detail of Work Grading Limits Proposed Slope (Engineering) Proposed Storm Pipeline ProposedDitch Proposed Location for Sub Drain Proposed Location for Asphalt Proposed Sidewalk river Map Extent Figure 1-4 - 443 - Church w i n S t No r t h R d N o r t h R d C h u r c h w in S t N o r t h R d 3235 3245 486 492 479 3230 3220 3225 3250 T797 T806 T809 T810 T811 T812 T824 T825 T828 T829 T830 T857 T858 T859 T863 T864 T896 T897 T898 T899 T900 T908 T942 T946T947 T948 T798 T799 T807T808 T813 T814T815 T826T827 T831 T832 T860 T861 T862 T865 T866T867 T868 T869 T870 T885 T886 T887 T888 T909 T910 T911T913 T914T915 T916 T917 T918 T940 T941 T943T944 T945 Ma p l o c a t i o n : Z : \ H a m i l t o n - C A H A M 1 \ D C S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e \ D e s i g n \ 0 1 _ R e p o r t s \ A r b o r i s t \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ I m p a c t _ A n a l y s i s _ T r e e _ P r o t e c t i o n _ P r o g r a m \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ I m p a c t _ A n a l y s i s _ T r e e _ P r o t e c t i o n _ P r o g r a m . a p r x Da t e S a v e d : 2 / 2 5 / 2 0 2 6 1 2 : 4 4 P M U s e r N a m e : M e n o n P Feb, 2026 Data Sources: V#:01P#:60560495 0 5025 Meters DATUM: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Ontario LIO* when printed 11"x17" Contains Information licensed under the Open Government Licence Ontario. This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties, except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent. ° Tree Impact Analysis Whitevale Master Drainage Plan° 1:700 Legend Impact Area Tree Inventory Area (10m) TRCA Regulated Area Parcel boundary Tree protection fencing Tree Location Recommended Action Injure Injury with Supervision No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Anticipated Impact - Protect (SAR Tree) Remove Tree Protection Zone Recommended Action No Anticipated Impact - Protect Injury with Supervision Detail of Work Grading Limits Proposed Slope (Engineering) Proposed Storm Pipeline ProposedDitch Proposed Location for Sub Drain Proposed Location for Asphalt Proposed Sidewalk river Map Extent Figure 1-5 - 444 - Appendix C Tree Assessment Results - 445 - Appendix C. Tree Assessment Results Tree #Common Name Scientfic Name First DBH (cm) Second DBH (cm) Third DBH (cm) Fourth DBH (cm) Fifth DBH (cm) DBH Analysis (cm) Dripline (m) Tree Condition - Health Tree Condition - Structure Species at Risk (Yes or No)Observations/Comments TRCA Regulation Limits (Yes or No) Tree Ownership Tree Location (Impact Area, Buffer Area) Tree Protection Zone Area (m) Recommended Action Structural Root Zone Impacted? Removal Justification 1 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 46 38 46 5 Fair Poor No ML, BR, CV Yes City Impact Area 6 Remove Yes Significant grading will occur, resulting in root impacts. 2 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 15 15 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), SS, DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 3 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 93 93 10 Good Fair No VC Yes Private Buffer Area 11 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 4 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 13 13 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), SS, LN(L)Yes Private Impact Area 3 Remove Yes Significant grading will occur, resulting in root impacts. 5 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 3 3 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), SS, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 Injure No Not Applicable 6 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 12 12 3 Fair Fair No PB, EG(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 7 White Elm Ulmus americana 3 3 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), SS, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 8 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 2.5 2.5 1 Good Good No HL Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 9 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 29 29 4 Good Fair No CON(T), SS Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 10 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 64 64 7 Good Fair No CON(T), SS Yes Private Buffer Area 8 Injure No Not Applicable 11 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 13.5 4 13.5 1 Fair Fair No DW(L),Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 12 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 2.5 2.5 2 Good Fair No SS, DW(S), CT Yes Private Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 13 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 82 82 8 Good Fair No CON(T), SS, DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 9 Injure No Not Applicable 14 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 7 7 3 Good Fair No CR, SS Yes Private Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 15 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 10 10 1 Good Fair No CON(T), SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 16 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 3 3 1 Good Fair No CON(T), SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 17 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 17 17 1 Good Good No CT, EG(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 18 Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia 6 6 1 Good Fair No CON(T), SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 19 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 3 3 3 Good Good No SS Yes City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 20 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 10 10 1 Good Fair No CON(T), SS Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 21 Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia 3 3 1 Good Fair No CON(T), SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 22 Other Other 11 11 0 Dead Dead No Dead Yes City Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 23 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 7 7 1 Good Fair No CON(T), SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 24 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 11 11 2 Good Fair No CON(T), SS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 25 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 17.5 6 17.5 3 Fair Fair No EG(B), EG(T), CR Yes City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 26 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 28 25 28 4 Poor Poor No CON(T), SS, ML, CV, BR Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 27 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 11 11 1 Good Good No SS Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 28 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 9 9 1 Fair Fair No SS, CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 29 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 21 21 4 Good Good No SS Yes City Buffer Area 5 Injure Yes Not Applicable 30 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 18 18 2 Fair Fair No SS, CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 31 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 3 3 2 Fair Fair No SS Yes City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 32 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 22 20 22 5 Fair Fair No SS, CON(T), LN(M)Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 33 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 18 10 18 3 Fair Fair No SS, CON(T), LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 34 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 17 17 3 Fair Fair No SS, CON(T), LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 35 Norway Spruce Picea abies 3 34.5 34.5 4 Poor Good No DW(L)Yes City Buffer Area 5 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 36 Norway Spruce Picea abies 44 44 4 Poor Fair No DW(L), PP Yes City Buffer Area 5 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 37 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 23 23 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 38 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 23 23 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 39 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 13 13 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), TW Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 40 White Elm Ulmus americana 12 12 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), TW, ML Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 41 Norway Spruce Picea abies 58 58 4 Poor Poor No ML Yes City Impact Area 5 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 42 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 42 37 42 5 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), TW, ML Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 43 Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia 5 5 1 Fair Fair No LN(L), ML Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 44 Wild Crab Apple Malus coronaria 25 14 25 2 Fair Fair No ML, EG(T), CR Yes City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 45 Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia 10 10 1 Fair Fair No LN(L), ML Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 46 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 4 4 1 Fair Fair No LN(L), ML Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 47 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 24.5 16.5 24.5 5 Fair Fair No ML, DW(S), EG(T), DW(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 48 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 3 3 3 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 49 Trembling Aspen Populous tremuloides 20 20 3 Fair Fair No LN(M), DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 50 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 12 12 3 Fair Fair No 1SD Yes Private Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 51 Trembling Aspen Populous tremuloides 19 19 3 Fair Fair No LN(M), DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 52 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 5 5 1 Fair Fair No LN(L), CON(T), SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 53 Norway Spruce Picea abies 26 26 2 Fair Good No ER, DW(S), DW(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 54 Norway Spruce Picea abies 30.5 30.5 4 Fair Good No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 55 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 81 81 8 Good Fair No DW(S), VC Yes Private Buffer Area 9 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 56 Norway Spruce Picea abies 32 32 4 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 57 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 4.5 4.5 1 Fair Fair No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 58 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 4.5 4.5 1 Fair Fair No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 59 Norway Spruce Picea abies 35 35 4 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 60 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 55 55 8 Good Fair No DW(S), VC Yes Private Buffer Area 9 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 61 Wild Crab Apple Malus coronaria 21 13 7 5 21 4 Fair Fair No DW(L), EG(T), ML Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 62 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 5.5 5.5 1 Good Fair No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 63 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 35 35 0 Dead Dead No BR Yes Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 64 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 26.5 26.5 3 Good Good No HL Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 65 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 8.5 8.5 0 Dead Dead No Dead Yes Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 66 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 12 12 3 Good Good No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 67 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 11 11 11 2 Good Fair No ML, DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 68 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 85 85 6 Very Poor Very Poor No CV, FU Yes Private Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 69 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 15 15 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L)Yes City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 70 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 8 8 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L)Yes City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 71 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 18 18 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L)Yes City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 72 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 15 15 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L)Yes City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 73 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 12 12 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L)Yes City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 74 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 19 19 2 Poor Poor No CON(T), LN(L), CD, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 75 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 22 22 0 Dead Dead No CON(T), LN(L)Yes City Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 1 of 14- 446 - Appendix C. Tree Assessment Results Tree #Common Name Scientfic Name First DBH (cm) Second DBH (cm) Third DBH (cm) Fourth DBH (cm) Fifth DBH (cm) DBH Analysis (cm) Dripline (m) Tree Condition - Health Tree Condition - Structure Species at Risk (Yes or No)Observations/Comments TRCA Regulation Limits (Yes or No) Tree Ownership Tree Location (Impact Area, Buffer Area) Tree Protection Zone Area (m) Recommended Action Structural Root Zone Impacted? Removal Justification 76 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 17 17 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 77 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 8 8 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 78 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 57 57 6 Good Good No VC, DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 79 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 37 37 5 Good Good No VC, DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 80 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 19 19 6 Fair Poor No VC, DW(S), LN(H)Yes Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 81 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 15 15 3 Good Fair No VC, DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 82 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 42 42 5 Good Fair No VC, DW(S), CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 83 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 58 58 5 Good Fair No VC, DW(S), CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 84 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 27 27 5 Poor Fair No VC, DW(S), CON(T), EAB, PB Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 85 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 35 35 0 Dead Dead No DW(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 86 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 30 30 0 Dead Dead No DEAD Yes Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 87 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 30 21 30 0 Dead Dead No DEAD Yes Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 88 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 35 35 0 Dead Dead No DEAD Yes Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 89 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 32 32 2 Poor Poor No TW, PB Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 90 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 26 26 2 Poor Poor No TW, PB, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 91 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 26 26 2 Poor Poor No TW, PB, LN(L), CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 92 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 17 17 2 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 93 Willow sp.Salix sp.5 3 2 5 1 Fair Fair No IE, ML Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 94 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 4 4 1 Fair Fair No IE, LN(L)Yes City Buffer Area 2 Injure No Not Applicable 95 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 45 41 35 26 45 7 Fair Fair No CV, PP, DW(L), ML, CD Yes Private Buffer Area 8 Injure No Not Applicable 96 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 32 30 32 4 Fair Fair No CV, PP, DW(L), ML, CD Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 97 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 15 15 2 Fair Fair No CV, PP, DW(L), ML, CD Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 98 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 25 25 0 Dead Dead No DW(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 99 Other Other 9.5 9.5 0 Dead Dead No Dead Yes Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 100 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 19 19 4 Good Good No HL Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 101 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 15.5 15.5 3 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 102 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 7.5 7 7.5 3 Fair Fair No DW(S), ML Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 103 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 9 9 1 Fair Fair No LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 104 Choke Cherry Prunus virginiana 5 3 5 1 Fair Fair No LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 105 Choke Cherry Prunus virginiana 5 5 1 Fair Fair No LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 106 Choke Cherry Prunus virginiana 5 5 1 Fair Fair No LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 107 Choke Cherry Prunus virginiana 5 5 1 Fair Fair No LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 108 Choke Cherry Prunus virginiana 6 6 1 Fair Fair No LN(L)Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 109 Choke Cherry Prunus virginiana 10 10 1 Fair Fair No LN(L)Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 110 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 20 20 0 Dead Dead No LN(H), PB Yes Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 111 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 17 17 0 Dead Dead No LN(H), PB Yes Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 112 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 20 20 2 Fair Fair No LN(H), PB Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 113 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 9 9 9 2 Fair Poor No LN(M), TT Yes City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 114 White Elm Ulmus americana 3 3 1 Fair Fair No SS Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 115 White Elm Ulmus americana 5 5 1 Fair Fair No SS Yes City Buffer Area 2 Injure No Not Applicable 116 White Elm Ulmus americana 5 5 1 Fair Fair No SS, LN(L)Yes City Buffer Area 2 Injure No Not Applicable 117 White Elm Ulmus americana 5 5 1 Fair Fair No SS, LN(L)Yes City Buffer Area 2 Injure No Not Applicable 118 White Elm Ulmus americana 5 5 1 Fair Fair No SS, LN(L)Yes City Buffer Area 2 Injure No Not Applicable 119 White Elm Ulmus americana 5 5 1 Fair Fair No SS, LN(L)Yes City Buffer Area 2 Injure No Not Applicable 120 White Elm Ulmus americana 5 2 5 1 Fair Fair No SS, LN(L), ML Yes City Buffer Area 2 Injure No Not Applicable 121 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 9.5 9.5 2 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 122 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 17 17 2 Fair Fair No DW(S), CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 123 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 7 7 0 Dead Dead No PB Yes Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 124 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 3 3 0 Dead Dead No PB Yes Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 125 Slippery Elm Ulmus rubra 23 23 5 Fair Fair No LN(M), EG(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 126 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 24 24 5 Fair Fair No LN(M), EG(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 127 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 12 12 3 Fair Fair No LN(M), EG(T), TW, CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 128 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 8 7 8 3 Fair Fair No LN(M), EG(T), TW, CON(T), VC Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 129 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 8 8 1 Fair Fair No LN(L), CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 130 White Elm Ulmus americana 39 39 0 Dead Dead No DED, DW(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 131 White Elm Ulmus americana 14 14 2 Fair Fair No TW, PB, EG(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 132 White Elm Ulmus americana 22 22 3 Fair Fair No TW, PB, EG(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 133 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 41 41 3 Fair Fair No CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 134 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 41 41 3 Fair Fair No CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 135 White Ash Fraxinus americana 10 10 3 Good Good No HL Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 136 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 9.5 9.5 2 Fair Fair No ML Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 137 White Elm Ulmus americana 36 36 4 Good Fair No CON(T), LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 138 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 42 42 4 Good Fair No CON(T), LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 139 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 15 15 3 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(M)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 140 Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia 4 3 3 4 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), ML Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 141 Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia 4 3 3 4 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), ML Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 142 White Mulberry Morus alba 13 13 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), ML, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 143 White Elm Ulmus americana 5 5 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), SS, VC Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 144 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 21 21 3 Fair Fair No CON(T), SS, VC, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 145 Crack Willow Salix fragilis 72 40 72 8 Fair Fair No LN(L), ML Yes Private Buffer Area 9 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 146 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 27 21 19 27 8 Fair Fair No LN(H), ML, CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 9 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 147 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 31 31 5 Fair Fair No LN(L), ML, CON(T), PB Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 148 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 108 108 7 Very Poor Very Poor No DW(L), CR, DE Yes Private Buffer Area 8 Injure Yes Not Applicable 149 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 18.5 18.5 3 Fair Fair No ML Yes Private Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 150 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 2.5 2.5 2.5 Fair Poor No CT Yes Private Buffer Area 3.5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 151 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 19.5 19.5 3 Good Fair No ML Yes City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 152 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 31 31 5 Fair Poor No LN(M), CR Yes City Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 2 of 14- 447 - Appendix C. Tree Assessment Results Tree #Common Name Scientfic Name First DBH (cm) Second DBH (cm) Third DBH (cm) Fourth DBH (cm) Fifth DBH (cm) DBH Analysis (cm) Dripline (m) Tree Condition - Health Tree Condition - Structure Species at Risk (Yes or No)Observations/Comments TRCA Regulation Limits (Yes or No) Tree Ownership Tree Location (Impact Area, Buffer Area) Tree Protection Zone Area (m) Recommended Action Structural Root Zone Impacted? Removal Justification 153 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.9 9 3 Fair Fair No DE Yes City Impact Area 4 Injure Yes Not Applicable 154 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 34 34 5 Fair Fair No PP, ML Yes City Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 155 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 29 29 5 Fair Fair No PP, ML, CR Yes City Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 156 Other Other 8 8 0 Dead Dead No DEAD Yes City Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 157 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 9.5 9.5 2 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 158 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 11 11 4 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 159 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 18 18 3 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 160 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 93 93 7 Fair Fair No ML Yes Private Buffer Area 8 Injure No Not Applicable 161 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 14 14 2 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 162 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 5 5 3 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 163 White Birch Betula papyrifera 4.5 4.5 1 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 164 White Birch Betula papyrifera 6.5 6.5 1 Poor Fair No DW(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 165 Other Other 4 4 0 Dead Dead No Dead Yes Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 166 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 19 19 3 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 167 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 28.5 28.5 3 Good Fair No DW(S)Yes City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 168 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 12 12 3 Good Good No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 169 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 18.5 18.5 3 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 170 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 14 14 3 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 171 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 22 22 3 Fair Fair No DW(S), W Yes City Buffer Area 4 Injure Yes Not Applicable 172 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 7 7 2 Poor Poor No LN(M), DW(L)Yes City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 173 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 23 23 3 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 174 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 21 21 3 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 175 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 12 12 3 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 176 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 19 19 3 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 177 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 3 3 2 Good Good No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 178 Cherry sp.Prunus sp.2.5 2.5 1 Good Good No SS Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 179 Elm sp.Ulmus sp.16 16 4 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes City Buffer Area 5 Injure No Not Applicable 180 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.12 10.5 8 7 12 3 Fair Fair No DW(S)No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 181 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 19.5 19.5 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 Injure Yes Not Applicable 182 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 11 8 11 2 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 183 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 14 14 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 184 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 12 12 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 185 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 13 13 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 186 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 11 11 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 187 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 12 12 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 188 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 189 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 5 5 1 Fair Fair No CON(S), ML, EG(T)Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 190 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 15 15 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), TW, EG(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 191 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 7 3 7 1 Fair Fair No ML, SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 192 Willow sp.Salix sp.3 2 2 1 3 1 Fair Fair No ML, SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 193 Willow sp.Salix sp.3 2 2 1 3 1 Fair Fair No ML, SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 194 Alder sp.Alnus sp.10 8 3 3 2 10 2 Fair Fair No ML, EG(T), TK9 Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 195 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 21 13 21 2 Fair Fair No ML, EG(T), LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 196 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 18 11 18 2 Poor Poor No ML, EG(T), LN(L), PB, BR Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 197 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 51 51 8 Poor Poor No LN(H), FU, TW Yes Private Buffer Area 9 Injure No Not Applicable 198 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 14 14 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 199 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 11 11 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 200 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 13 13 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 201 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 13 13 13 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 202 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 17 17 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 203 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 14 14 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 204 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 14 14 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 205 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 13 13 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 206 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 12 12 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 207 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 13 13 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 208 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 38 38 12 Very Poor Very Poor No LN(H), FU, TW, CV Yes Private Buffer Area 13 Injure No Not Applicable 209 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 12 8 5 3 12 2 Very Poor Very Poor No ML, LN(L), EG(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 210 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 20 20 2 Fair Fair No LN(L), CON(T), ER Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 211 Choke Cherry Prunus virginiana 4 4 1 Fair Fair No SS, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 212 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 9 9 1 Fair Fair No SS, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 213 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 6 6 6 2 Fair Fair No SS, LN(M), ML Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 214 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 8 8 1 Fair Fair No SS, VC Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 215 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 15 15 1 Fair Fair No SS, VC, LN(L), TW, CON(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 216 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 16 15 16 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 217 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 14 14 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 218 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 20 20 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 219 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 23 23 3 Good Good No HL Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 220 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 27 27 3 Good Good No HL Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 221 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 4 4 0 Dead Dead No Dead Yes Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 222 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 21 21 3 Good Good No HL Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 223 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 24 24 3 Good Good No HL Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 224 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 36.5 18 36.5 6 Good Fair No ML Yes Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 225 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 46 46 6 Fair Fair No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 226 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 9 9 1 Fair Fair No SS, CON(T), CON(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 227 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 9 9 1 Fair Fair No SS, CON(T), CON(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 228 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 5 5 1 Fair Fair No SS, CON(T), CON(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 229 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 10 10 1 Fair Fair No SS, CON(T), CON(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 3 of 14- 448 - Appendix C. Tree Assessment Results Tree #Common Name Scientfic Name First DBH (cm) Second DBH (cm) Third DBH (cm) Fourth DBH (cm) Fifth DBH (cm) DBH Analysis (cm) Dripline (m) Tree Condition - Health Tree Condition - Structure Species at Risk (Yes or No)Observations/Comments TRCA Regulation Limits (Yes or No) Tree Ownership Tree Location (Impact Area, Buffer Area) Tree Protection Zone Area (m) Recommended Action Structural Root Zone Impacted? Removal Justification 230 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 12 12 1 Fair Fair No SS, CON(T), CON(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 231 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 13 13 2 Fair Fair No SS, CON(T), CON(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 232 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 10 10 1 Fair Fair No WI, EG(T)No City Impact Area 2 Remove Yes At the base of the hydro pole, overgrown shrubs and grading activities will cause significant impacts. 233 Willow sp.Salix sp.5 3 5 1 Fair Fair No ML, LN(L), SS, CON(S)Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 234 Willow sp.Salix sp.5 3 5 1 Fair Fair No ML, LN(L), SS, CON(S)Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 235 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 38 32 38 4 Very Poor Very Poor No Dead Almost No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 236 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 28 28 6 Fair Very Poor No CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 237 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 31 31 6 Fair Very Poor No CON(T)No City Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 238 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 17 17 2 Good Fair No DW(S)No City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 239 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 12 12 3 Good Fair No DW(S)No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 240 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 18 14 18 3 Fair Fair No ML No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 241 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 16 16 3 Good Fair No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 242 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 51.5 51.5 6 Good Good No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 243 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.71 71 0 Dead Dead No DEAD Yes Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 244 Willow sp.Salix sp.3 3 3 1 Fair Fair No ML, LN(L), SS, CON(S)Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 245 Willow sp.Salix sp.9 5 9 1 Fair Fair No ML, LN(L), SS, CON(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 246 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 39 39 5 Poor Fair No CD, VC, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 247 White Elm Ulmus americana 34 34 0 Dead Dead No DED,VC, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 248 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 9 9 1 Fair Fair No SS, LN(L), CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 249 Butternut Juglans cinerea 17 17 2 Poor Poor Yes CA, CD, TW Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 250 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 4 4 1 Fair Fair No SS, ML, VC Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 251 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 26 26 3 Fair Fair No SS, ML Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 252 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 7 7 1 Fair Fair No SS, ML, VC Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 253 Willow sp.Salix sp.5 5 1 Fair Fair No ML, LN(L), SS, CON(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 254 Willow sp.Salix sp.8 8 1 Fair Fair No ML, LN(L), SS, CON(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 255 Willow sp.Salix sp.13 13 1 Fair Fair No ML, LN(L), SS, CON(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 256 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 33 33 3 Fair Fair No ML, IN(B)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 257 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 14 14 9 9 6 14 3 Fair Fair No ML, IN(B)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 258 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.26 26 6 Fair Fair No DW(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 259 Norway Spruce Picea abies 70 70 6 Fair Fair No ER, DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 260 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.14.5 14.5 5 Fair Fair No ML Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 261 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.3 3 2 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 262 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 27 27 6 Good Good No DW(S), EG(T)Yes City Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 263 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.3 3 1 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 264 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.4 4 1 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 265 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.3 3 1 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 266 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.3 3 1 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 267 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 22 22 3 Fair Fair No VC, CD, TW, EG(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 268 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 18 18 3 Fair Fair No VC, CD, TW, EG(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 269 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 10 10 1 Fair Fair No VC, CD, TW, EG(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 270 Butternut Juglans cinerea 15 15 3 Poor Poor Yes CA, CD, LN(L), TW Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 271 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 33 8 33 4 Fair Poor No LN(M), CON(T), EG(T), ML Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 272 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 4 4 1 Fair Fair No LN(M), CON(T), EG(T), ML Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 273 Crack Willow Salix fragilis 67 67 8 Poor Poor No IE, LN(H), CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 9 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 274 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 24 24 1 Fair Fair No SS, ML, VC Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 275 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 8 8 1 Fair Fair No SS, ML, VC, LN(H)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 276 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 15 9 3 15 2 Fair Fair No ML, LN(L), CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 277 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 5 5 1 Fair Fair No ML, LN(L), CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 278 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 45 45 4 Fair Fair No ML, LN(L), CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 279 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 40 31 40 12 Fair Fair No ML, LN(H), CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 13 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 280 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 31 29 31 6 Fair Fair No ML, LN(H), CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 281 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 18 18 3 Fair Fair No ML, LN(H), CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 282 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.3 3 1 Good Good No DW(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 283 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.3 3 2 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 284 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.6.5 6.5 3 Fair Fair No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 285 White Spruce Picea glauca 17 16 17 5 Fair Fair No ML, DW(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 286 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.3 3 2 Fair Fair No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 287 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.3 3 1 Fair Fair No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 288 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.3 3 1 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 289 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 44 43 44 6 Good Poor No CR Yes Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 290 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.4.5 4.5 2 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 291 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.5 5 2 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 292 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.5 5 2 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 293 White Spruce Picea glauca 56 56 5 Good Good No DW(S)Yes City Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 294 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 3 3 1 Good Good No SS Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 295 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.2.5 2.5 1 Good Fair No SS Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 296 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.3.5 3.5 1 Good Fair No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 297 Other Other 10 10 0 Dead Dead No Dead Yes Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 298 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.4 4 1 Fair Fair No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 299 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.6 6 1 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 300 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.5.5 4 5.5 1 Fair Fair No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 301 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.3 3 1 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 302 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.2.5 2 2.5 2 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 303 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 52 52 6 Fair Fair No CON(S)Yes City Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 304 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 15 13 12 10 15 5 Fair Fair No ML, LN(H), CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 4 of 14- 449 - Appendix C. Tree Assessment Results Tree #Common Name Scientfic Name First DBH (cm) Second DBH (cm) Third DBH (cm) Fourth DBH (cm) Fifth DBH (cm) DBH Analysis (cm) Dripline (m) Tree Condition - Health Tree Condition - Structure Species at Risk (Yes or No)Observations/Comments TRCA Regulation Limits (Yes or No) Tree Ownership Tree Location (Impact Area, Buffer Area) Tree Protection Zone Area (m) Recommended Action Structural Root Zone Impacted? Removal Justification 305 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 16 13 16 5 Fair Fair No ML, LN(H), CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 306 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 40 40 5 Fair Fair No CON(T), ML Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 307 Crack Willow Salix fragilis 58 58 5 Fair Fair No CON(T), ML, EG(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 308 Crack Willow Salix fragilis 72 72 5 Poor Poor No CON(T), ML, EG(T), CV, BR, TW, LN(M)Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 309 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 36 36 5 Poor Poor No CON(T), ML, EG(T), TW, LN(M)Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 310 Crack Willow Salix fragilis 63 63 0 Dead Dead No CON(T), ML, EG(T), CV, BR, TW, LN(M), BR Yes Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 311 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 22 14 22 5 Fair Fair No LN(L), ML, CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 312 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 10 10 2 Poor Fair No EG(T), TW, EAB Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 313 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 18 18 2 Poor Fair No LN(M), ML, EG(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 314 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 19 16 12 19 2 Poor Fair No LN(M), ML, EG(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 315 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 15 15 2 Fair Fair No LN(M), ML, EG(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 316 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 4 4 2 Fair Fair No LN(M), SW Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 317 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 4 4 2 Fair Fair No LN(M), SW Yes City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 318 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 37 37 12 Fair Fair No LN(H), EG(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 13 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 319 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 47 47 4 Fair Fair No LN(M), CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 320 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 32 32 4 Fair Fair No LN(H), EG(T), IN(B)Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 321 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 32 32 4 Poor Poor No LN(L), EG(T), IN(B), BR, TW Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 322 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 15 15 3 Poor Poor No LN(L), EG(T), IN(B), BR, TW Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 323 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 39 39 6 Poor Poor No LN(M), EG(T), IN(B), BR, TW Yes Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 324 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 21 20 20 18 16 21 10 Poor Poor No LN(H), ML, EG(T), TW, CV, FU Yes Private Buffer Area 11 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 325 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 5 5 1 Poor Poor No LN(M), CON(T), EG(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 326 Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia 10 8 10 2 Fair Fair No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 327 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 20 20 4 Fair Fair No LN(M), TW, IN(B)Yes Private Buffer Area 5 Injure No Not Applicable 328 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.10 10 2 Fair Fair No LN(M), TW, IN(B)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 329 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.8 3 8 2 Fair Fair No ML, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 330 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 15 15 2 Fair Fair No ML, LN(L), VC, TW Yes Private Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 331 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 16 16 4 Fair Fair No IN(B), TW Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 332 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 42 42 4 Fair Fair No LN(L), EG(T), IN(B)Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 333 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 46 46 4 Fair Fair No LN(H), EG(T), IN(B)Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 334 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 53 53 4 Fair Fair No LN(H), EG(T), IN(B)Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 335 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 42 42 4 Fair Fair No LN(L), EG(T), IN(B)Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 336 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 42 22 22 42 4 Fair Fair No ML, VC, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 337 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 63 63 6 Fair Fair No ML, VC, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 338 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 10 10 1 Poor Fair No ML, VC, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 339 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 42 29 42 4 Poor Fair No ML, VC, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 340 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 28 17 28 3 Poor Fair No ML, LN(L), PB Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 341 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 41 39 41 3 Poor Fair No ML, LN(L), PB Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 342 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 45 45 7 Good Good No HL, CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 8 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 343 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 62 62 7 Good Good No HL, CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 8 Injure No Not Applicable 344 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 28 28 5 Good Good No HL, CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 345 Choke Cherry Prunus virginiana 6 6 1 Fair Fair No SS, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 346 Choke Cherry Prunus virginiana 6 6 1 Fair Fair No SS, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 347 Choke Cherry Prunus virginiana 6 6 1 Fair Fair No SS, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 348 Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia 6 6 1 Fair Fair No SS, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 349 Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia 6 6 1 Fair Fair No SS, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 350 Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia 6 6 1 Fair Fair No SS, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 351 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 4 4 1 Good Good No SS Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 352 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.4 4 1 Good Good No SS Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 353 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.3 3 1 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 354 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.2.5 2.5 1 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 355 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.3 3 2 1 3 3 Good Good No SS, ML Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 356 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 6.5 6.5 6 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 357 Lilac sp.Syringa sp.3 3 2 Fair Fair No SS, LN(M)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 358 Cherry sp.Prunus sp.6 6 2 Fair Good No DIS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 359 Willow sp.Salix sp.125 125 6 Poor Poor No PP Yes Private Buffer Area 7 Injure Yes Not Applicable 360 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.6 6 3 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 361 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.4 4 2 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 362 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 4 4 4 Good Good No SS Yes City Buffer Area 5 Injure No Not Applicable 363 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.2.5 2 2 2 2.5 2 Fair Poor No CON(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 364 Cherry sp.Prunus sp.3.5 3.5 2 Fair Fair No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 365 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.4 3.5 3 3 3 4 2 Poor Poor No PP Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 366 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 71 71 7 Good Good No HL, CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 8 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 367 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 8 8 1 Good Good No HL, CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 368 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 43 41 28 24 18 43 6 Fair Poor No ML, TK6, CV, TW, ER Yes Private Buffer Area 7 Remove Yes A new drainage pool will be installed, which will cause significant root impacts. 369 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.5 5 2 Good Fair No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 370 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.7 7 2 Good Fair No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 371 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.10.5 10.5 4 Good Good No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 372 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 4 4 6 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 373 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.5 5 2 Good Good No SS Yes City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 374 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.4 4 2 Good Good No SS Yes City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 375 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.3 3 2 Good Good No SS Yes City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 376 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.2.5 2.5 2 Good Good No SS Yes City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 377 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.3 3 2 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 378 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.3 3 2 Good Good No SS Yes City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 379 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.3 3 2 Good Good No SS Yes City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 5 of 14- 450 - Appendix C. Tree Assessment Results Tree #Common Name Scientfic Name First DBH (cm) Second DBH (cm) Third DBH (cm) Fourth DBH (cm) Fifth DBH (cm) DBH Analysis (cm) Dripline (m) Tree Condition - Health Tree Condition - Structure Species at Risk (Yes or No)Observations/Comments TRCA Regulation Limits (Yes or No) Tree Ownership Tree Location (Impact Area, Buffer Area) Tree Protection Zone Area (m) Recommended Action Structural Root Zone Impacted? Removal Justification 380 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 2.5 2.5 1 Good Good No SS Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 381 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.4.5 4.5 3 Good Fair No SS Yes City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 382 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.7 7 3 Good Fair No DW(S)Yes City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 383 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.4.5 4.5 3 Good Fair No SS Yes City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 384 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.3.5 3.5 3 Fair Fair No SS Yes City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 385 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 2.5 2 2 2.5 2 Poor Poor No PP Yes City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 386 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 3.5 2 3.5 2 Good Fair No SS Yes City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 387 Willow sp.Salix sp.5 4 2 5 2 Fair Fair No ML, LN(H), CON(T)Yes City Impact Area 3 Remove Yes Tree is a roadside shrub. 388 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 5 5 5 1 Fair Fair No LN(M), CON(T), ML Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 389 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 5 5 4 5 1 Fair Fair No LN(M), CON(T), ML Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 390 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 7 5 5 5 4 7 1 Fair Fair No LN(M), CON(T), ML Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 391 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 7 5 5 5 4 7 1 Fair Fair No LN(M), CON(T), ML Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 392 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 7 5 5 7 1 Fair Fair No LN(M), CON(T), ML Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 393 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 5 5 1 Fair Fair No LN(M), CON(T), ML Yes City Impact Area 2 Remove Yes A new drainage pool will be installed, which will cause significant root impacts. 394 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 15 15 2 Fair Fair No LN(M), CON(T), ML Yes Private Impact Area 3 Remove Yes A new drainage pool will be installed, which will cause significant root impacts. 395 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.6 5 3 3 2 6 3 Poor Fair No ML Yes City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 396 Norway Spruce Picea abies 21 21 3 Good Good No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 397 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.6 6 3 Good Fair No LN(M)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 398 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.3 3 2 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 399 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 6 6 3 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 400 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.4 4 4 2 Good Fair No CON(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 401 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.5 5 2 Good Fair No ML Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 402 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 76 76 6 Good Fair No VC, DW(L), DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 403 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.3.5 3.5 3 Good Fair No LN(M)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 404 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.3.5 3.5 3 Good Fair No LN(M)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 405 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.3.5 2.5 2 2 3.5 3 Fair Fair No LN(M)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 406 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.3.5 2.5 3.5 2 Fair Fair No LN(M)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 407 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 19 19 3 Fair Fair No VC, CON(T), ML Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 408 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 21 21 4 Fair Fair No VC, CON(T), ML Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 409 Common Pear Pyrus communis 10 10 1 Fair Fair No LT Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 410 Common Pear Pyrus communis 10 10 1 Fair Fair No LT Yes City Buffer Area 2 Injure No Not Applicable 411 Littleleaf Linden Tilia cordata 29 29 2 Fair Fair No LT, PP, GR, CD No Private Impact Area 3 Injure Yes Not Applicable 412 Norway Spruce Picea abies 39 39 3 Fair Fair No LT, PP, GR No Private Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 413 White Fir Abies concolor 10 10 1 Good Good No WI, LT No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 414 Red Oak Quercus rubra 12 12 2 Good Good No WI, LT No Private Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 415 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.46 46 6 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 416 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.52 52 6 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 417 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.3.5 3.5 2 Fair Fair No LN(M)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 418 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.3.5 3.5 3 Good Fair No LN(M)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 419 Cherry sp.Prunus sp.2.5 2.5 1 Poor Poor No DE Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 420 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.2.5 2.5 2 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 421 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 82 82 8 Fair Poor No LT, SM, WC(P), TW, CV, CD No City Buffer Area 9 Remove Yes A new catch basin will be installed, which will cause significant root impacts. 422 White Spruce Picea glauca 18 18 2 Poor Fair No LT, CD, PP, DW(S)No City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 423 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 15 15 6 Fair Fair No CON(S), TT, EG(T), LN(M)No Private Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 424 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 17 17 6 Fair Fair No CON(S), TT, EG(T), LN(M)No Private Buffer Area 7 Remove No Overgrown shrubs with grading impacts will cause significant root impacts. 425 Common Pear Pyrus communis 27 25 20 18 15 27 6 Poor Poor No CON(S), TT, EG(T), LN(M), CV, BR, OB No Private Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 426 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 37 37 5 Fair Fair No CON(T), CON(S), GR No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 427 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.2.5 2.5 2 Fair Fair No LN(M)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 428 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.3 3 2 Fair Fair No LN(M)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 429 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.4.5 4.5 2 Fair Fair No LN(M)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 430 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.3.5 3.5 2 Fair Fair No LN(M)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 431 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.5.5 5.5 2 Fair Fair No LN(M)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 432 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.4 3 4 2 Fair Fair No LN(M)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 433 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 2.5 2.5 2 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 434 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 2.5 1 2.5 2 Fair Fair No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 435 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 7.5 7.5 4 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 436 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 5 5 2 Fair Fair No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 437 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.6 6 4 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 438 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 35 32 30 22 20 35 5 Fair Fair No TK8, ML, LN(H), CON(S), CON(T), CV No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 439 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 26 26 3 Fair Fair No CON(T), CON(S), GR No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 440 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 47 47 8 Fair Fair No CON(T), CON(S), GR, ML, GR No Private Buffer Area 9 Injure No Not Applicable 441 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 20 20 4 Fair Poor No CON(T), CON(S), GR, ML, BR No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 442 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 22 22 4 Fair Fair No CON(T), CON(S), GR No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 443 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 15 15 4 Fair Poor No CON(T), CON(S), LN(L), EG(T)No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 444 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 13 13 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), CON(S), EG(T)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 445 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 41 41 10 Fair Poor No CON(T), CON(S), LN(H), ML No Private Buffer Area 11 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 446 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 18 15 18 2 Fair Fair No CON(S), ML, TW, PP No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 6 of 14- 451 - Appendix C. Tree Assessment Results Tree #Common Name Scientfic Name First DBH (cm) Second DBH (cm) Third DBH (cm) Fourth DBH (cm) Fifth DBH (cm) DBH Analysis (cm) Dripline (m) Tree Condition - Health Tree Condition - Structure Species at Risk (Yes or No)Observations/Comments TRCA Regulation Limits (Yes or No) Tree Ownership Tree Location (Impact Area, Buffer Area) Tree Protection Zone Area (m) Recommended Action Structural Root Zone Impacted? Removal Justification 447 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 33 33 3 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L)No Private Buffer Area 4 Remove Yes A new catch basin will be installed, which will cause significant root impacts. 448 Norway Spruce Picea abies 87 87 8 Fair Poor No ML, PP, IN(B), IN(U)No Private Buffer Area 9 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 449 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 10 10 1 Fair Fair No LT, TW,No City Impact Area 2 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 450 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 37 29 37 5 Fair Fair No LT, TW, WI, ML LN(L), PP No City Impact Area 6 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 451 Colorado Spruce Picea pungens 28 28 3 Fair Fair No LT, WI, PP, ER No Private Buffer Area 4 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 452 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 17 17 2 Poor Poor No EG(T), LN(L), WI No City Impact Area 3 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 453 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 28 19 28 3 Poor Poor No EG(T), LN(L), WI No City Impact Area 4 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 454 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 30 30 3 Fair Fair No PP, LT, ML No City Impact Area 4 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 455 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 29 29 3 Good Good No HL Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 456 Norway Spruce Picea abies 42 42 3 Fair Fair No PP, LT, ML No Private Buffer Area 4 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 457 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 41 41 5 Fair Fair No PP, LT, ML No City Impact Area 6 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 458 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 41 41 5 Fair Fair No PP, LT, ML No City Impact Area 6 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 459 White Elm Ulmus americana 86 86 8 Fair Poor No ML, PB, GR, EG(T), CON(T), WI No Private Buffer Area 9 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 460 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 15 15 2 Fair Poor No CON(T), SS, PP No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 461 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 37 37 4 Good Fair No PP, LT, DW(S)No Private Impact Area 5 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 462 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 32 32 4 Good Fair No PP, LT, DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 5 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 463 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 71 71 4 Fair Fair No PP, LT, DW(S)No City Impact Area 5 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 464 Littleleaf Linden Tilia cordata 22 22 2 Poor Poor No PB, TW, CD, PP, WI No Private Impact Area 3 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 465 Norway Spruce Picea abies 18 18 2 Fair Fair No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 466 Norway Spruce Picea abies 24 24 2 Fair Fair No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 467 Norway Spruce Picea abies 32 32 0 Dead Dead No HL, LT No Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 468 Norway Spruce Picea abies 22 22 0 Dead Dead No HL, LT, ID No Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 469 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 18 18 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), PP No City Buffer Area 3 Injure Yes Not Applicable 470 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 14 14 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), PP No City Impact Area 3 Injure Yes Not Applicable 471 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 25 25 3 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), PP No City Buffer Area 4 Injure Yes Not Applicable 472 Norway Spruce Picea abies 40 40 5 Good Good No DW(S)No City Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 473 Norway Spruce Picea abies 23 23 5 Good Good No DW(S)No City Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 474 Norway Spruce Picea abies 23 23 5 Good Good No DW(S)No City Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 475 Norway Spruce Picea abies 47 47 5 Good Good No DW(S)No City Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 476 Norway Spruce Picea abies 69 69 6 Fair Fair No DW(S), PP No Private Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 477 White Spruce Picea glauca 10 10 2 Good Good No IE No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 478 White Spruce Picea glauca 10 10 2 Good Good No IE No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 479 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 16 16 2 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 480 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 78 78 6 Good Good No WI, PP No Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 481 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 90 90 6 Good Good No PP, IN(B)No Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 482 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 73 73 6 Good Good No PP, DW(L)No Private Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 483 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 54 54 6 Good Fair No WI, DW(S), ER, PP No Private Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 484 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 21 21 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), PP No City Impact Area 3 Injure Yes Not Applicable 485 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 10 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L)No City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 486 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 17 17 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L)No City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 487 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 21 21 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), PP No City Impact Area 3 Injure Yes Not Applicable 488 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 13 13 1 Poor Poor No CON(T), LN(L), PB, EAB No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 489 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 17 17 2 Poor Poor No CON(T), LN(L), PB, EAB No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 490 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 47 47 7 Good Good No CON(S), CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 8 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 491 Norway Spruce Picea abies 19 19 2 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 492 Norway Spruce Picea abies 12 12 2 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 493 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 15 15 2 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 494 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 51 51 7 Good Good No CON(S), CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 8 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 495 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 11 11 2 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), LN(L)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 496 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 16 16 2 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), LN(L)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 497 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 18 18 2 Poor Poor No CON(S), CON(T), LN(L), EAB, PB No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 498 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 32 32 7 Good Good No CON(S), CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 8 Injure No Not Applicable 499 Norway Spruce Picea abies 39 39 4 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD No City Buffer Area 5 Injure Yes Not Applicable 500 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 43 43 2 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD No City Buffer Area 3 Injure Yes Not Applicable 501 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 25 25 2 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD No City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 502 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 77 77 6 Poor Poor No CV, DEH, SM, LN(L), CD, TW No City Buffer Area 7 Injure Yes Not Applicable 503 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 30 30 3 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 504 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 29 29 3 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD No City Buffer Area 4 Injure Yes Not Applicable 505 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 31 31 3 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 506 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 34 34 3 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD No City Buffer Area 4 Remove Yes A ditch line change will cause significant root compaction. 507 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 13 9 4 13 3 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD No City Buffer Area 4 Injure Yes Not Applicable 508 Norway Spruce Picea abies 36 36 3 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD, PP No City Buffer Area 4 Injure Yes Not Applicable 509 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 15 15 3 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD, PP No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 510 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 18 18 3 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD, PP No City Buffer Area 4 Injure Yes Not Applicable 511 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 11 11 3 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD, PP No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 512 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 13 13 2 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD, PP No City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 513 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 10 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD, PP No City Buffer Area 2 Injure No Not Applicable 514 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 15 15 1 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD, PP No City Buffer Area 2 Injure No Not Applicable 515 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 20 20 1 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD, PP No City Impact Area 2 Injure Yes Not Applicable 516 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 17 17 2 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD, PP No City Impact Area 3 Injure Yes Not Applicable 517 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 10 10 2 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD, PP No City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 518 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 16 16 2 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD, PP No City Buffer Area 3 Injure Yes Not Applicable 519 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 13 13 2 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD, PP No City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 520 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 18 18 2 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD, PP No City Buffer Area 3 Injure Yes Not Applicable 7 of 14- 452 - Appendix C. Tree Assessment Results Tree #Common Name Scientfic Name First DBH (cm) Second DBH (cm) Third DBH (cm) Fourth DBH (cm) Fifth DBH (cm) DBH Analysis (cm) Dripline (m) Tree Condition - Health Tree Condition - Structure Species at Risk (Yes or No)Observations/Comments TRCA Regulation Limits (Yes or No) Tree Ownership Tree Location (Impact Area, Buffer Area) Tree Protection Zone Area (m) Recommended Action Structural Root Zone Impacted? Removal Justification 521 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 18 18 0 Dead Dead No PB, CON(T)No City Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 522 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 130 130 10 Good Fair No PP, VC, EG(T)No Private Buffer Area 11 Injure No Not Applicable 523 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 18 18 2 Good Fair No PP, VC, EG(T)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 524 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 13 13 2 Good Fair No PP, VC, EG(T)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 525 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 51 51 6 Fair Fair No PP, VC, EG(T)No Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 526 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 17 17 2 Fair Fair No PP, VC, EG(T),No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 527 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 17 17 2 Good Fair No PP, VC, EG(T)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 528 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 17 17 2 Good Fair No PP, VC, EG(T)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 529 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 24 24 3 Good Fair No DW(S)Yes City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 530 White Spruce Picea glauca 34 34 4 Fair Fair No PP, DW(L)Yes City Buffer Area 5 Injure Yes Not Applicable 531 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 10 10 3 Fair Fair No SS Yes City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 532 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 93 93 6 Fair Fair No ML, CR(V)Yes City Buffer Area 7 Injure Yes Not Applicable 533 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 48 48 7 Good Good No CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 8 Injure No Not Applicable 534 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 18 18 2 Good Fair No PP, VC, EG(T)No City Impact Area 3 Injure Yes Not Applicable 535 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 20 20 2 Good Fair No PP, VC, EG(T)No City Impact Area 3 Injure Yes Not Applicable 536 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 17 17 2 Good Fair No PP, VC, EG(T)No City Impact Area 3 Injure Yes Not Applicable 537 Norway Spruce Picea abies 34 34 4 Fair Fair No LT, ER, DW(S), CD No Private Buffer Area 5 Injure No Not Applicable 538 Norway Spruce Picea abies 50 50 6 Fair Fair No LT, ER, DW(S), CD No Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 539 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 15 12 15 2 Fair Fair No ML, PP, CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 540 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 25 23 18 11 25 2 Fair Fair No ML, PP, CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 541 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 42 42 6 Good Fair No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 7 Injure Yes Not Applicable 542 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 50 10 50 6 Fair Fair No DW(S)No City Buffer Area 7 Injure Yes Not Applicable 543 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila 65 65 7 Fair Fair No ML, ID, CON(T), DW(S), WI No City Buffer Area 8 Injure Yes Not Applicable 544 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 29 29 4 Fair Fair No TW, ML, IN(U), WI No Private Buffer Area 5 Injure Yes Not Applicable 545 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 114 114 11 Fair Fair No SM(V), ML, IN(U), PP No Private Buffer Area 12 Injure No Not Applicable 546 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 16 16 2 Fair Fair No LN(L), CON(T), PP No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 547 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 15 8 15 2 Fair Fair No LN(L), CON(T), PP No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 548 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 15 15 2 Fair Fair No LN(L), CON(T), PP No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 549 Norway Spruce Picea abies 57 57 6 Fair Fair No CON(S), DW(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 550 Norway Spruce Picea abies 61 61 6 Fair Fair No CON(S), DW(L), IE Yes Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 551 Norway Spruce Picea abies 61 61 6 Fair Fair No CON(S), DW(L), IE Yes Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 552 White Spruce Picea glauca 22 22 4 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes City Buffer Area 5 Injure No Not Applicable 553 White Spruce Picea glauca 30 30 4 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 5 Injure No Not Applicable 554 Norway Spruce Picea abies 74 74 4 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 555 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 21 21 3 Good Fair No DW(S)Yes City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 556 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 19 19 3 Good Fair No DW(S)Yes City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 557 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 12 12 3 Good Fair No DW(S)Yes City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 558 White Spruce Picea glauca 21 21 4 Fair Fair No PP, DW(L)Yes City Buffer Area 5 Injure No Not Applicable 559 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 18 18 3 Good Fair No DW(S)Yes City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 560 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 12 12 3 Good Fair No DW(S)Yes City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 561 White Spruce Picea glauca 12 12 4 Fair Fair No PP, DW(L)Yes City Buffer Area 5 Injure Yes Not Applicable 562 White Elm Ulmus americana 45 16 45 7 Fair Fair No ML, EG(T), PP, TT No City Buffer Area 8 Injure Yes Not Applicable 563 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 61 28 18 61 6 Fair Poor No DW(L), PP, CON(T), BR, ML No Private Buffer Area 7 Injure Yes Not Applicable 564 White Elm Ulmus americana 16 16 1 Poor Poor No CON(T), PP, EG(T), DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 565 Littleleaf Linden Tilia cordata 39 39 6 Fair Fair No TW, PP, WI No City Impact Area 7 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 566 Littleleaf Linden Tilia cordata 51 51 6 Fair Fair No TW, PP, WI No Private Impact Area 7 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 567 Callery pear Pyrus calleryana 23 23 4 Fair Fair No TW, PP, WI No City Impact Area 5 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 568 Callery pear Pyrus calleryana 23 23 3 Fair Fair No TW, PP, WI No City Buffer Area 4 Remove Yes A new catch basin will be installed, which will cause significant root impacts. 569 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 47 47 3 Fair Poor No ID, TW, WC(P), ER, LN(L)No City Buffer Area 4 Remove Yes A new catch basin will be installed, which will cause significant root impacts. 570 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 54 54 6 Fair Fair No ER, DW Yes Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 571 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 26 26 2 Good Fair No LN No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 572 Norway Spruce Picea abies 50 50 6 Fair Fair No DW(L)No Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 573 Norway Spruce Picea abies 63 60 53 63 6 Fair Fair No DW(L), CV Yes Private Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 574 Norway Spruce Picea abies 87 87 6 Fair Fair No DW(L), ML Yes Private Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 575 Norway Spruce Picea abies 41 41 6 Fair Fair No DW(L), ML No Private Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 576 Norway Spruce Picea abies 58 58 6 Fair Fair No DW(L) ML CON(S)No Private Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 577 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 56 56 3 Fair Fair No BR, SM(V), PP, ID, CD No City Buffer Area 4 Injure Yes Not Applicable 578 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 32 32 4 Good Fair No WC(P), ML, ER No Private Impact Area 5 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 579 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 49 49 9 Good Fair No PP, WC(P), SM(V), ML No Private Buffer Area 10 Injure No Not Applicable 580 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 62 62 10 Good Good No PP, ML No Private Buffer Area 11 Injure Yes Not Applicable 581 Littleleaf Linden Tilia cordata 43 43 5 Fair Fair No PP, LN(L), EG(T)No Private Buffer Area 6 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 582 Norway Spruce Picea abies 18 18 2 Fair Fair No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 583 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 1 Fair Fair No ML, LN(L), GTF No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 584 White Mulberry Morus alba 12 12 2 Fair Fair No ML, LN(L), GTF No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 585 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 2 Fair Fair No ML, CON(S), CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 586 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 2 Fair Fair No ML, CON(S), CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 587 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 2 Fair Fair No ML, CON(S), CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 588 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 2 Fair Fair No ML, CON(S), CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 589 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 2 Fair Fair No ML, CON(S), CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 590 Japanese Lilac Syringa reticulata 18 15 15 12 11 18 2 Fair Fair No ML, TK12, CD No City Impact Area 3 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 591 Pear sp.Pyrus sp.22 22 2 Fair Fair No EG(T), DW(S), WI No City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 592 Pear sp.Pyrus sp.24 24 2 Fair Fair No EG(T), DW(S), WI No City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 593 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 89 89 7 Good Fair No CON(S), DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 8 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 8 of 14- 453 - Appendix C. Tree Assessment Results Tree #Common Name Scientfic Name First DBH (cm) Second DBH (cm) Third DBH (cm) Fourth DBH (cm) Fifth DBH (cm) DBH Analysis (cm) Dripline (m) Tree Condition - Health Tree Condition - Structure Species at Risk (Yes or No)Observations/Comments TRCA Regulation Limits (Yes or No) Tree Ownership Tree Location (Impact Area, Buffer Area) Tree Protection Zone Area (m) Recommended Action Structural Root Zone Impacted? Removal Justification 594 White Spruce Picea glauca 54 54 3 Fair Fair No PP, DW(L), DW(S), LN(B)No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 595 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 14 14 14 3 Good Fair No IN(U)No City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 596 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10.5 6.5 10.5 3 Good Fair No IN(U), LN No City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 597 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 15 15 12 10 8 15 3 Good Fair No IN(U), LN No City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 598 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 13 9 8 13 3 Good Fair No IN(U), LN, WI No City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 599 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 48 48 5 Fair Fair No WI, CD, SM(V), PP No City Impact Area 6 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 600 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 36 36 5 Fair Fair No WI, CD, SM(V), PP, ML No City Impact Area 6 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 601 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 41 41 5 Fair Fair No WI, CD, ML, PP, DW(S)No City Impact Area 6 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 602 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 32 32 5 Fair Fair No WI, CD, ML, PP, DW(S)No City Impact Area 6 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 603 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 38 38 5 Fair Fair No WI, CD, ML, PP, DW(S)No City Impact Area 6 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 604 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 21 21 5 Good Fair No CON(T), ML, DW(S), LN(L)No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 605 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 10 8 5 10 2 Fair Poor No EG(T), PP, ML, VC No Private Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 606 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 10 10 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), DW(S), VC No Private Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 607 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 31 31 6 Fair Fair No EG(T), LT, ML, IN(B)No Private Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 608 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 11 11 2 Fair Fair No LN(L), CON(T), SS No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 609 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 10 10 1 Fair Fair No SS, CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 610 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 22 22 6 Fair Fair No ML, CON(T), DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 611 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 10 10 1 Fair Fair No SS, CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 612 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 67 67 0 Dead Dead No snag No Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 613 Littleleaf Linden Tilia cordata 41 10 8 5 5 41 4 Fair Fair No WI, EG(T), PP No City Impact Area 5 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 614 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 61 61 6 Good Good No EG(T), PP, CON(S)No Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 615 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 13 13 3 Good Good No EG(T), PP, CON(S)No City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 616 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 32 22 20 17 32 5 Good Good No EG(T), PP, ML No City Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 617 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 76 76 4 Fair Fair No PP, WI,No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 618 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 14 12 12 11 14 3 Good Fair No PP, ML No City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 619 Colorado Spruce Picea pungens 34 34 3 Poor Fair No LN(M), DW(L)No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 620 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 45 45 6 Good Fair No WI, DW(S), ER, PP No Private Buffer Area 7 Injure Yes Not Applicable 621 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.12 12 2 Fair Fair No SS Yes City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 622 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 15 10 15 3 Fair Fair No SS Yes City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 623 Norway Spruce Picea abies 45 45 6 Fair Fair No ML, CR No Private Buffer Area 7 Injure Yes Not Applicable 624 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.34 34 5 Fair Fair No DW(S)No City Buffer Area 6 Injure Yes Not Applicable 625 Norway Spruce Picea abies 35 35 6 Fair Fair No DW(L), ML, CON(S), IE No Private Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 626 Norway Spruce Picea abies 60 60 6 Fair Fair No DW(L), ML, CON(S), IE No Private Buffer Area 7 Injure Yes Not Applicable 627 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 13 13 3 Fair Fair No SS No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 628 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 26 26 5 Fair Fair No SS No City Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 629 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 28 28 5 Fair Fair No SS No City Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 630 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 10 10 3 Fair Fair No SS No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 631 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.21 21 1 Fair Fair No IE, SS No City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 632 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 25 21 25 4 Poor Poor No DW(S)No City Buffer Area 5 Injure No Not Applicable 633 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 25 25 4 Poor Poor No CV No Private Buffer Area 5 Injure No Not Applicable 634 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 25 25 4 Poor Poor No CV No Private Buffer Area 5 Injure No Not Applicable 635 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 0 Dead Dead No Dead No City Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 636 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 12 12 3 Fair Fair No SS No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 637 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 12 12 3 Fair Fair No SS No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 638 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 20 20 3 Fair Fair No SS No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 639 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 13 13 3 Fair Fair No SS No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 640 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 11 11 3 Fair Fair No SS No City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 641 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 17 17 3 Fair Fair No SS No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 642 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 14 14 3 Fair Fair No SS No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 643 Littleleaf Linden Tilia cordata 34 12 34 4 Fair Fair No WI, EG(T), PP No Private Impact Area 5 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 644 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 12 12 2 Fair Fair No SS, LN(L), EG(T)No Private Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 645 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 41 41 6 Good Fair No DW(S), CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 7 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 646 White Mulberry Morus alba 38 27 24 38 6 Fair Fair No DW(S), CON(T), ML, TW, WC(P)No Private Buffer Area 7 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 647 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 27 27 4 Fair Fair No GR, DW(S), LN(L)No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 648 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 18 16 18 3 Fair Poor No TW, LN(L), ML No Private Buffer Area 4 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 649 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 10 10 3 Fair Fair No WI, SS No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 650 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 12 12 2 Good Good No HE No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 651 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 16 16 2 Good Good No HE No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 652 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 13 13 2 Good Good No HE No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 653 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 20 16 12 20 2 Good Good No HE No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 654 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 51 51 48 51 6 Good Poor No IE No Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 655 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 15 15 2 Good Good No IE No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 656 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 12 12 2 Good Good No IE No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 657 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 12 12 2 Good Good No IE No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 658 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 12 12 2 Good Good No IE No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 659 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 12 12 2 Good Good No IE No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 660 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 12 12 2 Good Good No IE No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 661 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 10 10 3 Fair Fair No SS, IE No City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 662 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 3 3 1 Fair Fair No VC, CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 663 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 3 3 1 Fair Fair No VC, CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 664 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 5 5 1 Fair Fair No PP, VC, EG(T)No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 665 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 10 10 2 Fair Fair No VC, ML No City Impact Area 3 Injure Yes Not Applicable 666 Lilac sp.Syringa sp.10 8 5 3 10 2 Fair Fair No VC, ML No City Impact Area 3 Injure Yes Not Applicable 667 Pear sp.Pyrus sp.22.5 22.5 3 Fair Good No DW(S)No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 668 Pear sp.Pyrus sp.23 23 3 Fair Fair No DW(S), CR, PP, EG(T)No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 669 Juniper sp.Juniperus sp.15 15 2 Good Fair No LN(M)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 670 Norway Spruce Picea abies 10 10 3 Good Fair No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 9 of 14- 454 - Appendix C. Tree Assessment Results Tree #Common Name Scientfic Name First DBH (cm) Second DBH (cm) Third DBH (cm) Fourth DBH (cm) Fifth DBH (cm) DBH Analysis (cm) Dripline (m) Tree Condition - Health Tree Condition - Structure Species at Risk (Yes or No)Observations/Comments TRCA Regulation Limits (Yes or No) Tree Ownership Tree Location (Impact Area, Buffer Area) Tree Protection Zone Area (m) Recommended Action Structural Root Zone Impacted? Removal Justification 671 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 47 47 5 Good Fair No ML, SS No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 672 Willow sp.Salix sp.36 18 16 14 13 36 4 Fair Fair No CON(T), ML No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 673 White Birch Betula papyrifera 45 45 4 Fair Fair No DW(S), ML No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 674 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.16 16 5 Good Fair No SS No City Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 675 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.15 15 4 Good Fair No SS No City Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 676 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 33 33 5 Fair Fair No VC, DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 677 Norway Spruce Picea abies 77 77 5 Fair Fair No VC, DW(S)No City Buffer Area 6 Injure Yes Not Applicable 678 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 24 34 5 Fair Fair No LN(L), PP, TW No City Buffer Area 6 Injure Yes Not Applicable 679 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 10 10 1 Fair Fair No SS, CON(T)No City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 680 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 37 37 5 Fair Fair No LN(L), CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 681 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 38 38 5 Fair Fair No LN(L), CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 682 White Spruce Picea glauca 55 55 6 Good Good No PP No Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 683 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 68 68 6 Good Good No EG(T), PP, ML No Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 684 White Spruce Picea glauca 38 38 4 Fair Good No PP, DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 685 White Spruce Picea glauca 42 42 4 Fair Good No PP, DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 686 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 12 9 8 12 2 Good Good No HE No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 687 White Elm Ulmus americana 69 60 55 69 8 Fair Fair No ML, CON(T), IN(U), IN(B), PP No Private Buffer Area 9 Injure No Not Applicable 688 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), ML No City Buffer Area 2 Injure No Not Applicable 689 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), ML No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 690 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), ML No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 691 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), ML No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 692 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), ML No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 693 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 15 15 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), ML No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 694 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 27 27 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), ML No Private Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 695 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 20 20 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), ML No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 696 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 16 16 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), ML No Private Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 697 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 19 14 10 10 19 3 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), ML No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 698 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 22 11 6 22 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), ML No City Buffer Area 3 Injure Yes Not Applicable 699 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 16 16 3 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), ML No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 700 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 20 16 15 20 3 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), ML No City Impact Area 4 Injure Yes Not Applicable 701 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 10 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), ML No Private Buffer Area 2 Injure No Not Applicable 702 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 26 26 4 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), ML No Private Buffer Area 5 Injure No Not Applicable 703 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 14 14 3 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), ML No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 704 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 13 8 8 13 2 Good Good No HE No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 705 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 13 13 2 Good Good No HE No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 706 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 16 16 2 Good Good No HE No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 707 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 12 12 12 2 Good Fair No HE No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 708 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 14 14 2 Good Fair No HE No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 709 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 30 30 5 Fair Fair No CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 710 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 36 36 5 Fair Fair No CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 711 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 22 22 5 Fair Fair No CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 712 Littleleaf Linden Tilia cordata 43 43 4 Fair Fair No ID, PP, LN(L)No City Buffer Area 5 Remove Yes A ditch line change will cause significant root compaction. 713 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 30 30 4 Fair Fair No LN(L), EG(T)No City Buffer Area 5 Injure No Not Applicable 714 Norway Spruce Picea abies 27 27 4 Fair Fair No LN(L), EG(T), PP No Private Buffer Area 5 Injure No Not Applicable 715 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 102 102 9 Good Fair No PP, ML, DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 10 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 716 Colorado Spruce Picea pungens 22 22 3 Fair Fair No PP, ML, DW(S), LN(L)No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 717 Littleleaf Linden Tilia cordata 42 42 5 Poor Poor No PP, ID, CV, DE(S)No City Buffer Area 6 Remove Yes A ditch line change will cause significant root compaction. 718 Linden sp.Tilia sp.15 15 2 Fair Fair No LN(L), PP No City Impact Area 3 Injure Yes Not Applicable 719 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 13 9 5 13 2 Fair Fair No LN(L), PP No City Impact Area 3 Injure Yes Not Applicable 720 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 73 73 7 Good Good No HL, PP No City Buffer Area 8 Remove Yes A ditch line change will cause significant root compaction. 721 Beech sp.Fagus sp.13 13 3 Good Poor No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 722 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 2 Good Fair No CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 723 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 96 96 7 Fair Fair No LN(M), CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 8 Injure No Not Applicable 724 Pear sp.Pyrus sp.21 12 11 21 3 Fair Fair No PP, ML No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 725 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 53 53 3 Good Good No HL No City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 726 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 31 31 3 Good Good No HL No City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 727 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 2 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 728 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 78 78 7 Good Fair No ML, PP No Private Buffer Area 8 Injure Yes Not Applicable 729 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 75 75 7 Good Good No HL, PP No Private Buffer Area 8 Injure Yes Not Applicable 730 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 16 16 2 Fair Fair No PP, CON(T), DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 731 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 13 13 2 Fair Fair No PP, CON(T), DW(S)No City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 732 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 13 13 2 Fair Fair No PP, CON(T), DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 733 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 18 18 2 Poor Fair No DIS, EG(T), DW(S)No City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 734 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 18 18 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), DW(S), ML No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 735 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 15 15 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), DW(S), ML No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 736 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 24 24 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), DW(S), ML No City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 737 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 18 18 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), DW(S), ML No City Impact Area 3 Injure Yes Not Applicable 738 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 48 48 7 Fair Fair No CON(T), DW(S), ML No City Buffer Area 8 Injure Yes Not Applicable 739 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 74 74 9 Good Fair No CON(T), DW(S), ML No Private Buffer Area 10 Injure No Not Applicable 740 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 71 71 8 Good Fair No CON(T), DW(S), ML No Private Buffer Area 9 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 741 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 45 45 8 Good Fair No CON(T), DW(S), ML No Private Buffer Area 9 Injure No Not Applicable 742 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 57 57 8 Good Fair No CON(T), DW(S), ML No Private Buffer Area 9 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 743 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), GTF No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 744 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), GTF No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 10 of 14- 455 - Appendix C. Tree Assessment Results Tree #Common Name Scientfic Name First DBH (cm) Second DBH (cm) Third DBH (cm) Fourth DBH (cm) Fifth DBH (cm) DBH Analysis (cm) Dripline (m) Tree Condition - Health Tree Condition - Structure Species at Risk (Yes or No)Observations/Comments TRCA Regulation Limits (Yes or No) Tree Ownership Tree Location (Impact Area, Buffer Area) Tree Protection Zone Area (m) Recommended Action Structural Root Zone Impacted? Removal Justification 745 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 14 14 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), GTF No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 746 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), GTF No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 747 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), GTF No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 748 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), GTF No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 749 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), GTF No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 750 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), GTF No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 751 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 19 19 3 Fair Fair No CON(T), GTF, LN(L)No Private Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 752 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 56 56 8 Fair Poor No TW, PB, DW(S)No City Buffer Area 9 Remove Yes A ditch line change will cause significant root compaction. 753 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 86 86 6 Good Fair No ML, IN(U)No City Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 754 Wild Crab Apple Malus coronaria 15 10 8 15 3 Good Good No ML No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 755 Wild Crab Apple Malus coronaria 17 17 3 Good Good No ML No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 756 Wild Crab Apple Malus coronaria 12 12 3 Good Good No ML No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 757 Wild Crab Apple Malus coronaria 14 14 3 Good Good No ML No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 758 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 95 35 20 95 8 Fair Fair No IE, ML, DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 9 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 759 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 75 75 8 Fair Fair No IE, DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 9 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 760 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 20 20 3 Fair Fair No IE, DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 761 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 16 16 3 Fair Fair No IE, DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 762 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 53 53 3 Fair Fair No IE, DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 763 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 42 42 3 Fair Fair No IE, DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 764 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 10 10 1 Fair Fair No IE, DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 765 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 31 31 3 Fair Fair No IE, DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 766 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 65 65 3 Fair Fair No IE, DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 767 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 31 15 31 3 Good Fair No IN(U), ML No Private Buffer Area 4 Injure Yes Not Applicable 768 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 13 13 13 3 Good Good No SS No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 769 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 13 13 13 3 Good Good No SS No City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 770 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 27 27 5 Good Fair No SS, ER No City Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 771 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 41 41 5 Good Fair No SS, ER No City Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 772 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 13 13 3 Good Good No SS, IE No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 773 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 64 64 4 Fair Fair No DE No City Buffer Area 5 Injure No Not Applicable 774 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.11 11 4 Fair Fair No SS, LN(M)No City Buffer Area 5 Injure No Not Applicable 775 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 10 10 3 Good Fair No SS, LN(L)No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 776 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 69 69 6 Good Fair No ER, WI, ML, CV, CR No City Buffer Area 7 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 777 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 91 91 6 Fair Fair No WI, ML, CV No City Buffer Area 7 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 778 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 27 27 3 Fair Fair No LN(L), PP No City Buffer Area 4 Remove Yes A ditch line change will cause significant root compaction. 779 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 34 34 4 Fair Fair No LN(L), PP, WI No City Buffer Area 5 Remove Yes A new drainage swale will be installed, which will cause significant root impacts. 780 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 39 39 4 Fair Fair No SM(V), LN(L), GR No Private Buffer Area 5 Injure No Not Applicable 781 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 28 28 4 Fair Fair No LN(L), GR, DW(S), IN(B), CV No Private Buffer Area 5 Injure No Not Applicable 782 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 29 29 4 Fair Fair No LN(M), DW(S), IN(B), CV, TW No Private Buffer Area 5 Injure No Not Applicable 783 Colorado Spruce Picea pungens 24 24 2 Fair Fair No CD, LN(L), PP No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 784 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 30 27 30 2 Fair Fair No CD, LN(L), PP, WI No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 785 Cherry sp.Prunus sp.12 10 12 2 Fair Fair No CD, LN(L), PP, WI No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 786 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 10 10 2 Fair Fair No SS, PP, CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 787 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 22 22 3 Fair Fair No PP, CON(T), ML No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 788 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 11 11 0 Dead Dead No VC No City Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 789 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 22 20 20 22 3 Fair Fair No VC, ML, LN(L)No City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 790 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 91 50 91 6 Fair Fair No WI, ML, CV No Private Buffer Area 7 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 791 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 67 67 6 Fair Fair No ML, CV No Private Buffer Area 7 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 792 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 84 84 6 Fair Fair No ML, CV No Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 793 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 21 21 4 Fair Fair No ML, CV No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 794 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 20 20 4 Fair Fair No SS No Private Buffer Area 5 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 795 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 30 28 30 6 Fair Fair No ML, IN(U)No Private Buffer Area 7 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 796 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 75 75 6 Fair Fair No ML, PP No City Buffer Area 7 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 797 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 78 78 6 Fair Fair No ML, PP, 1SD No Private Impact Area 7 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 798 White Spruce Picea glauca 15 15 3 Good Good No CON(S)No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 799 White Spruce Picea glauca 15 15 3 Good Good No CON(S)No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 800 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 42 35 30 42 5 Fair Fair No VC, ML, LN(L)No City Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 801 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 72 70 64 31 72 7 Fair Fair No VC, ML, LN(L), CD, DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 8 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 802 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 16 16 2 Fair Fair No VC, CON(T), LN(L)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 803 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 11 11 2 Fair Fair No VC, CON(T), LN(L)No City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 804 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 32 32 4 Fair Fair No VC, ML, LN(L)No City Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 805 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 12 12 2 Fair Fair No VC, ML, LN(L)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 806 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 90 90 5 Poor Fair No pp, DW(L) DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 6 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 807 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 14 11 14 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 808 Austrian Pine Pinus nigra 45 45 3 Fair Fair No FS No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 809 Austrian Pine Pinus nigra 54 54 3 Fair Fair No FS No City Buffer Area 4 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 810 Austrian Pine Pinus nigra 54 54 3 Fair Fair No FS No City Buffer Area 4 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 811 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 80 80 6 Fair Poor No CV, DW(L), IN(B)No City Buffer Area 7 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 812 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 57 57 5 Fair Poor No CV, DW(L), IN(N), PP No City Buffer Area 6 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 813 White Birch Betula papyrifera 40 40 6 Fair Fair No CON(S)No Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 814 White Birch Betula papyrifera 40 40 6 Fair Fair No CON(S)No Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 815 White Birch Betula papyrifera 33 33 6 Fair Fair No CON(S)No Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 816 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 15 15 2 Fair Fair No VC, ML, LN(L)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 817 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 32 32 7 Fair Fair No CON(T), ML, LN(L)No City Buffer Area 8 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 11 of 14- 456 - Appendix C. Tree Assessment Results Tree #Common Name Scientfic Name First DBH (cm) Second DBH (cm) Third DBH (cm) Fourth DBH (cm) Fifth DBH (cm) DBH Analysis (cm) Dripline (m) Tree Condition - Health Tree Condition - Structure Species at Risk (Yes or No)Observations/Comments TRCA Regulation Limits (Yes or No) Tree Ownership Tree Location (Impact Area, Buffer Area) Tree Protection Zone Area (m) Recommended Action Structural Root Zone Impacted? Removal Justification 818 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 15 15 4 Fair Fair No CON(T), ML, LN(L), BR No City Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 819 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 21 21 6 Fair Fair No LN(L), DW(S), CON(T)No City Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 820 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 81 74 81 8 Fair Poor No LN(L), DW(S), CON(T), IN(B), CV No City Buffer Area 9 Injure No Not Applicable 821 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 32 30 28 17 32 6 Fair Poor No LN(H), DW(S), CON(T)No City Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 822 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 24 24 5 Fair Fair No LN(L), CON(T)No City Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 823 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 36 36 7 Fair Fair No LN(L), CON(T), EG(T)No City Buffer Area 8 Injure No Not Applicable 824 Norway Spruce Picea abies 54 54 4 Good Good No HL No City Buffer Area 5 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 825 Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis 12 12 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 826 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 84 84 6 Poor Poor No DW(L)No Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 827 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 73 73 5 Fair Fair No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 828 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 59 59 5 Fair Fair No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 6 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 829 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 47 47 5 Fair Fair No DW(S)No City Buffer Area 6 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 830 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 60 30 60 6 Fair Fair No SS, IE No City Buffer Area 7 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 831 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.35 35 35 5 Good Fair No IE, ML No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 832 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.14 14 3 Good Good No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 833 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 52 52 8 Fair Fair No LN(L), CON(T), GR, ML No City Buffer Area 9 Injure No Not Applicable 834 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 36 36 6 Fair Fair No LN(L), CON(T), GR, ML No City Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 835 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 61 37 61 6 Fair Fair No LN(L), CON(T), GR, ML No City Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 836 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 28 28 6 Fair Fair No LN(L), CON(T), GR, ML No City Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 837 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 29 29 5 Fair Fair No LN(L), CON(T), GR, ML No City Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 838 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 14 14 3 Fair Poor No DW(S), LN(L), TW No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 839 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 11 11 3 Fair Fair No ER, GD1M No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 840 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 15 15 3 Fair Fair No ER, GD1M No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 841 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 17 17 3 Fair Fair No ER, GD1M No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 842 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 10 10 2 Fair Fair No ER, GD1M No City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 843 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 19 19 2 Fair Fair No ER, GD1M No City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 844 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 22 22 3 Fair Fair No ER, GD1M, LN(L)No City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 845 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 10 8 10 2 Fair Fair No ER, ML No City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 846 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 19 19 3 Fair Fair No ER, ML, CD, LN(M)No City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 847 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 20 18 20 3 Fair Fair No ER, ML, CD, LN(L), CON(T)No City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 848 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 10 10 2 Fair Fair No ER, CON(T), ML No City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 849 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 63 63 7 Fair Fair No LN(L), DW(L), EG(T)No City Buffer Area 8 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 850 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 76 76 7 Fair Poor No LN(L), DW(L), CV, DEH No City Buffer Area 8 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 851 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 16 16 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), ER, GD1M, CT No City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 852 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 28 28 5 Fair Fair No CON(T), ER, GD1M, ML No City Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 853 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 25 25 4 Fair Fair No DW(S), LN(L), ER, CON(T)No City Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 854 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 29 29 3 Fair Poor No DW(S), LN(L), ER, CON(T), BR No City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 855 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 44 44 4 Fair Poor No TW, DE(S), CT, CV No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 856 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 40 40 4 Fair Poor No TW, DE(S), CT, CV, LN(L)No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 857 White Spruce Picea glauca 16 16 3 Fair Good No PP, DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 4 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 858 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.26 26 5 Good Good No PP No City Buffer Area 6 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 859 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.52 36 52 5 Good Good No PP No Private Buffer Area 6 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 860 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.45 45 5 Good Good No PP No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 861 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.42 42 5 Good Good No PP No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 862 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.22 22 5 Good Good No PP No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 863 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.30 30 5 Good Good No PP No City Buffer Area 6 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 864 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 16 16 4 Fair Fair No SS No City Buffer Area 5 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 865 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 14 14 4 Fair Fair No SS No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 866 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 15 15 3 Fair Fair No IE No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 867 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 20 20 4 Fair Fair No IE No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 868 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 35 35 4 Fair Fair No IE No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 869 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.6 6 4 Fair Fair No IE No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 870 Other Other 60 60 0 Dead Dead No IE No Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 871 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 16 16 3 Fair Fair No LN(L), CON(T), SS No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 872 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 18 18 1 Poor Poor No PP, BR, EG(T), EAB No City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 873 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 37 37 6 Fair Fair No LN(L), CT No City Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 874 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 11 11 0 Dead Dead No LN(L), CON(T), PB No City Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 875 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 46 46 7 Fair Fair No LN(L), CT, CON(T)No City Buffer Area 8 Injure No Not Applicable 876 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 13 13 3 Fair Fair No LN(L), CT, CON(T)No City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 877 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 28 25 20 28 3 Fair Poor No PP, ML, TW, WC(P)No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 878 Colorado Spruce Picea pungens 18 18 1 Fair Fair No PP, LT No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 879 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 15 15 2 Fair Fair No PP, CON(T), CON(S), DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 880 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 15 15 2 Fair Fair No PP, CON(T), CON(S), DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 881 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 32 32 3 Fair Fair No PP, CON(T), DW(S)No City Buffer Area 4 Injure Yes Not Applicable 882 Norway Spruce Picea abies 20 20 2 Fair Fair No PP, CON(T), DW(S), CD No City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 883 Colorado Spruce Picea pungens 10 10 1 Fair Fair No PP, CON(T), DW(S), CD No City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 884 Colorado Spruce Picea pungens 10 10 1 Fair Fair No PP, CON(T), DW(S), CD No City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 885 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 65 65 5 Fair Fair No IE No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 886 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 4 4 2 Fair Fair No SS No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 887 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.15 15 2 Fair Fair No SS No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 888 Other Other 15 15 0 Dead Dead No Dead No Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 889 Other Other 4.5 4.5 0 Dead Dead No Dead No Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 890 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.4.5 4.5 3 Poor Poor No LN(M)No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 891 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.35 35 5 Poor Poor No IE No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 892 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 4 4 2 Fair Fair No SS No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 893 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 4 4 2 Fair Fair No SS No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 894 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 4 4 2 Fair Fair No SS No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 12 of 14- 457 - Appendix C. Tree Assessment Results Tree #Common Name Scientfic Name First DBH (cm) Second DBH (cm) Third DBH (cm) Fourth DBH (cm) Fifth DBH (cm) DBH Analysis (cm) Dripline (m) Tree Condition - Health Tree Condition - Structure Species at Risk (Yes or No)Observations/Comments TRCA Regulation Limits (Yes or No) Tree Ownership Tree Location (Impact Area, Buffer Area) Tree Protection Zone Area (m) Recommended Action Structural Root Zone Impacted? Removal Justification 895 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 6 6 2 Fair Fair No SS No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 896 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 16 13 16 5 Good Fair No LN(M)No City Impact Area 6 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 897 White Spruce Picea glauca 32 32 5 Fair Good No PP, DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 6 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 898 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 43 43 4 Fair Fair No EG(T), DW(S)No City Buffer Area 5 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 899 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 43 43 4 Fair Fair No EG(T), DW(S)No City Buffer Area 5 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 900 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 16 16 4 Fair Fair No EG(T), DW(S)No City Buffer Area 5 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 901 Norway Spruce Picea abies 32 32 2 Fair Fair No PP, CON(T), DW(S), CD No City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 902 Colorado Spruce Picea pungens 22 22 2 Fair Fair No PP, CON(T), DW(S), CT No City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 903 Norway Spruce Picea abies 18 18 18 2 Fair Fair No PP, CON(T), DW(S), CT No City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 904 Norway Spruce Picea abies 14 14 2 Fair Fair No PP, CON(T), DW(S), CT No City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 905 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 19 19 3 Fair Fair No PP, CON(T), ML, ER No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 906 English Oak Quercus robur 26 26 4 Fair Poor No PP, CV, DEH, SM(V), CT, CD No City Buffer Area 5 Injure No Not Applicable 907 Magnolia sp.Magnolia sp.15 13 12 15 2 Fair Fair No LT, PP, SM(V), ML No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 908 Norway Spruce Picea abies 10 10 4 Fair Fair No EG(T), DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 5 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 909 Austrian Pine Pinus nigra 22 22 2 Poor Poor No DW(L)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 910 Austrian Pine Pinus nigra 20 20 0 Dead Dead No Dead No Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 911 Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus 10 10 2 Poor Poor No DW(L)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 912 Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus 13 13 3 Fair Fair No DW(L)No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 913 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 49 49 3 Poor Poor No DW(L), DIS No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 914 White Spruce Picea glauca 38 38 5 Good Good No DW(L)No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 915 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 23 23 3 Good Good No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 916 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 3 Good Fair No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 917 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 3 Good Fair No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 918 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 89 89 6 Poor Poor No DIS No Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 919 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 22 22 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), ML, VC No Private Buffer Area 2 Injure Yes Not Applicable 920 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 6 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), ML No Private Buffer Area 2 Injure No Not Applicable 921 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), ML, PP No Private Buffer Area 2 Injure No Not Applicable 922 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 12 12 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), ML, PP No Private Impact Area 2 Injure Yes Not Applicable 923 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 8 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), ML, PP No Private Impact Area 2 Injure Yes Not Applicable 924 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 8 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), ML, PP, VC No City Impact Area 2 Injure Yes Not Applicable 925 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 12 8 12 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), ML, PP No City Impact Area 2 Injure Yes Not Applicable 926 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), ML, PP No Private Impact Area 2 Injure Yes Not Applicable 927 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 14 14 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), ML, PP No Private Impact Area 2 Injure Yes Not Applicable 928 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 25 22 20 19 25 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), ML, PP No Private Buffer Area 3 Injure Yes Not Applicable 929 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 27 27 5 Good Good No HL, CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 6 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 930 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 35 35 5 Good Good No HL, CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 6 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 931 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 12 5 12 2 Fair Fair No SS, ML No City Impact Area 3 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 932 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 12 12 2 Fair Fair No SS, WI, VC No City Buffer Area 3 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 933 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 31 31 5 Fair Fair No SS, WI, VC No City Buffer Area 6 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 934 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 13 13 2 Fair Fair No LN(L), CT, TW No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 935 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 17 17 3 Fair Fair No LN(L), CT, TW No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 936 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 21 21 3 Good Good No DW(S), HL No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 937 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 20 20 3 Fair Fair No DW(S), VC No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 938 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 32 15 32 7 Fair Fair No DW(S), VC, ML No Private Buffer Area 8 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 939 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 22 22 5 Fair Fair No DW(S), VC No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 940 Cherry sp.Prunus sp.11 11 4 Fair Fair No LN(M)No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 941 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 83 83 4 Poor Poor No CR, CV No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 942 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.58 58 6 Fair Fair No PP, DW(L)No City Buffer Area 7 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 943 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.24 28 28 5 Fair Fair No PP, DW(L)No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 944 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 23 23 3 Fair Fair No CR, CV No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 945 Wild Crab Apple Malus coronaria 29 29 4 Fair Fair No IN(B)No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 946 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 57 57 6 Fair Fair No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 7 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 947 Norway Spruce Picea abies 30 30 5 Good Good No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 6 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 948 Norway Spruce Picea abies 30 30 5 Good Good No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 6 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 949 Norway Spruce Picea abies 22 22 5 Poor Poor No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 950 Norway Spruce Picea abies 22 22 5 Poor Poor No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 6 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 951 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 13 13 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), CT No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 952 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 20 20 3 Fair Fair No CON(T), CT No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 953 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 14 14 0 Dead Dead No CON(T), ID, EAB No Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 954 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 91 91 8 Good Fair No ER, PP, OL No Private Buffer Area 9 Injure Yes Not Applicable 955 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 67 67 8 Good Fair No ER, PP, OL No Private Buffer Area 9 Injure No Not Applicable 956 Norway Spruce Picea abies 43 43 5 Good Fair No ER, PP, LN(L)No Private Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 957 Norway Spruce Picea abies 12 12 2 Poor Poor No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 958 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 26 26 6 Fair Fair No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 959 Norway Spruce Picea abies 33 33 6 Fair Fair No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 960 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 14 7 6 6 5 14 5 Fair Fair No SS, ML No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 961 Norway Spruce Picea abies 47 47 5 Good Good No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 962 Norway Spruce Picea abies 55 55 5 Good Good No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 963 Norway Spruce Picea abies 58 58 4 Poor Poor No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 964 Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia 5 5 2 Fair Fair No SS Yes City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 965 Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia 5 5 2 Fair Fair No SS Yes City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 966 Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia 6 6 2 Fair Fair No SS Yes City Buffer Area 3 Remove No A new drainage pool will be installed, which will cause significant root impacts. 967 Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia 7 7 2 Fair Fair No SS Yes City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 968 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 61 61 6 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes City Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 969 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 61 61 4 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes City Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 13 of 14- 458 - Appendix C. Tree Assessment Results Tree #Common Name Scientfic Name First DBH (cm) Second DBH (cm) Third DBH (cm) Fourth DBH (cm) Fifth DBH (cm) DBH Analysis (cm) Dripline (m) Tree Condition - Health Tree Condition - Structure Species at Risk (Yes or No)Observations/Comments TRCA Regulation Limits (Yes or No) Tree Ownership Tree Location (Impact Area, Buffer Area) Tree Protection Zone Area (m) Recommended Action Structural Root Zone Impacted? Removal Justification 970 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 61 61 6 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes City Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 971 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 51 51 5 Fair Fair No DW(L), IE Yes City Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 972 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 51 51 5 Fair Fair No DW(L), IE Yes City Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 973 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 45 45 5 Fair Fair No DW(L), IE Yes City Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 974 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 45 45 5 Fair Fair No DW(L), IE Yes City Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 975 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 51 51 5 Fair Fair No DW(L), IE Yes City Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 976 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 51 51 5 Fair Fair No DW(L), IE Yes City Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 977 Honey Locust Gleditsia triacanthos 51 51 5 Fair Fair No 1SD, PP Yes Private Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 978 Cherry sp.Prunus sp.9 7 7 9 2 Fair Fair No DW(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 979 Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia 3 4 4 2 Fair Fair No SS, ML, IE Yes City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 980 Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia 5 5 2 Fair Fair No SS Yes City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 981 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 10 10 1 Fair Fair No SS Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 982 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 61 61 6 Fair Fair No DW(L)Yes City Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 983 Cherry sp.Prunus sp.5 5 1 Poor Fair No DIS Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 984 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 7 7 1 Fair Fair No SS Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 985 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 5 5 1 Fair Fair No LN(M)Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 986 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 24 24 4 Fair Fair No PP No City Buffer Area 5 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 987 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 12 10 5 4 12 4 Fair Fair No PP Yes City Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 988 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 20 20 4 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes City Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 989 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 20 20 4 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes City Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 990 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 25 25 4 Fair Fair No PP Yes City Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 14 of 14- 459 - Appendix D Tree Inventory Abbreviations - 460 - Tree Inventory Abbreviations DBH = Diameter at Breast Height (i.e. 1.4 metres) Last Updated: June 6th, 2023 1SD One-Sided Crown AD Animal Damage BH Bat Habitat BR Broken Branches BW Basal Trunk (Below 1.4 Metres) Wound or Root Damage CA Cankers CD Crown Dieback CL Chlorotic Leaves CON(x) Conflict: (x = Structure [S], Tree [T], Hardscape [H], Utility [U]) CR(x) Crack: (x = Vertical [V], Horizontal [H]) CS Close to Building CT Crooked/Bent Trunk CV Cavity DE(x) Decay: (x = Heartwood [H], Softwood [S]) DED Dutch Elm Disease DIS Diseased DW(x) Deadwood: (x = Small [S], Large [L]) EAB Emerald Ash Borer EG(x) Epicormic Growth: (x = Basal [B], Trunk [T], Crown [C]) EM Excessive Mulch or Soil EP Excessive Pruning ER Exposed Roots ET Enlarged Trunk Abnormality FC Frost Crack FK#@#M Forks, # of Trunks at # Metres FO(x) Form: (x = Globe [G], Weeping [W], Columnar [C], Pyramidal [P]) FS Fused or Crossing Branches/Limbs FU Fungus/Conk/Fruiting Body GC Grade Change GD#M Grade Difference, # Metres GR Girdling Root(s) GTF Growing Through Fence HE Hedge/Sheared HL Healthy Specimen IC Impacted by Construction ID Insect Damage IE Information Estimated, Inaccessible IN(X) Included: (x = Bark [B], Union [U]) LG Laying on Ground LN(x) Lean: (x = Low[L], Moderate [M], High[H]) LS Light or Spatially Suppressed Tree LT Landscape Tree ML Multi-Leaders/Limbs NST Bird Nest in Tree (x)OB Bank (x = Top [T], Middle [M], Bottom [B]) OL Overextending Limb PB Peeling Bark PC Pollarded Crown PF Previous Failure PP Past Pruning PT(x) Planted Too (x = High [L], Low [L]) RFS Regeneration from Stump RH Remove Tree Hardware RPM Root Plate Movement SM(x) Seam: (x = Vertical [V], Horizontal[H]) SN Squirrel Nest SP Sapling SS Self-Seeded TBP Tight Bud Progression TG# # of Trees in Close Proximity TK# # of Trunks at or Below 1.4 Metres TT Twisted Trunk TW Trunk Wound UC Unbalanced Crown VC Vine Covered WC(x) Wound Compartmentalization: (x = Full [F], Partial [P], None [N]) WI Tree Under/Over/Adjacent to Wires - 461 - Appendix E Tree Protection, Preservation and Maintenance Measures and City of Pickering Tree Protection Measures - 462 - Appendix E – 1 Tree Protection, Preservation and Maintenance Measures - 463 - Appendix E-1 – Tree Protection, Preservation and Maintenance Measures and City of Pickering Tree Protection Measures 1 of 5 Tree Protection, Preservation and Maintenance Measures General recommendations included in this section are based on the latest arboricultural standards. Recommendations in this section assume that all required permits and authorizations have been obtained prior to construction commencing. It is recommended that an ISA Certified Arborist be retained to regularly monitor the Project’s construction activities as they relate to tree protection and retention in accordance with standard arboricultural practices and the tree protection protocols. Similarly, encroachment into the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) of trees permitted for injury should be conducted under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist. Where a permit to injure or remove was not previously issued, no grading, excavation, construc tion access, or material storage shall occur within the TPZ of those trees. Tree protection fencing, as described below, shall be installed as per the local by-laws and regulations to protect all trees proposed for retention throughout the construction process. It is recommended that an ISA Certified Arborist conducts a post-construction assessment to evaluate the health and structure of trees that were retained during construction and identify opportunities for mitigation should any trees display signs of stress (i.e., falling limbs, declining health, etc.). Additional mitigation measures may be prescribed following construction such as monitoring, mulching, vertical mulching, irrigation, fertilization, and pruning. 1. Tree Protection Fencing Tree protection fencing is to be installed around trees recommended for retention within the Buffer Area as shown in Error! Reference source not found.The tree protection fencing shall be installed in accordance with City of Pickering Standard Detail P-1100 (Tree Protection Fencing) and P-1101 (Tree Protection Notes) (see Appendix E-2). Tree protection fencing may include vertical fencing or horizontal fencing and tree protection signage. A total of 74 trees are recommended for injury with supervision. These trees are recommended to undergo a root exploratory excavation (see Section 2) to determine the extent of damage to the tree’s root system by the proposed work. Following the excavation, tree protection fencing shall be installed around any trees confirmed safe to retain. The fencing will be placed close to the trunk to provide adequate protection to the trunk base. The tree protection fencing will be displayed on an updated Tree Protection Plan as part of the memorandum discussed in Section 2. Vertical Fencing Vertical fencing is designed to prevent access into the TPZ of protected trees and shall be installed as per Standard Detail P-1100 (Tree Protection Fencing) and P-1101 (Tree Protection Notes) (Appendix E-2). Vertical fencing should encompass as much of the TPZ of protected trees as possible, extending to existing public sidewalks and roads. Horizontal Fencing Horizontal fencing is to be installed to supplement vertical fencing to prevent compaction and root damage where encroachment into the minimum TPZ is required and authorized. In conjunction with the vertical fencing shown in Appendix B, it is recommended that horizontal fencing is installed wherever the full TPZ cannot be protected with vertical fencing and where temporary disturbance is anticipated, such as site access and material storage. General horizontal tree protection guidelines are as follows: - 464 - Appendix E-1 – Tree Protection, Preservation and Maintenance Measures and City of Pickering Tree Protection Measures 2 of 5 ◼ Place two (2) 1.22 x 2.44 m (4 ft x 8 ft) plywood boards (minimum 0.75” [3/4”] thick) within the TPZ between the trunk or vertical fencing and the limit of excavation. Field fit may be necessary and board width and length may vary depending on available space. ◼ Boards are to be placed atop 300 mm (1 ft) of shredded bark mulch, framed with 2”x4”x8’ lumber. ◼ Upon completion of required and authorized work within the TPZ, remove boards and spread mulch in a two-metre diameter around the trunk to a depth of 75 mm (3”), and reinstate vertical tree protection fencing to protect the full extent of the minimum TPZ. ◼ Steel plates may also be accepted as horizontal tree protection fencing. Overall, installation of tree protection fencing will reduce the potential for negative impacts including soil and root compaction, as well as the potential for mechanical damage to trunks or branches. All tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to any construction activity taking place on site, and it shall remain standing in good repair until construction is complete. Photographs of the fencing are required to be submitted to the City of Pickering prior to construction commencing; the City of Pickering may conduct an inspection at this time to ensure that fencing is installed in accordance with their guidelines. Once approved by the City of Pickering, fencing shall not be modified or removed during construction without written acknowledgment from the City of Pickering. If modification of fencing is required during construction, the City of Pickering should be informed, and an ISA Certified Arborist should be retained to review the revised scope of work as it relates to tree impacts. The City of Pickering may then provide additional authorization to modify the fencing, and the Arborist may provide further recommendations to reduce impact to the existing trees. Post-construction, the Contractor shall contact the City of Pickering to confirm that all protection fencing/fencings have remained in place and shall provide pictures to the City of Pickering with trees clearly identified and fencing intact post construction. The City of Pickering staff may complete a fencing inspection to confirm this information. Thereafter, the City of Pickering shall provide written confirmation that fencing may be removed. No tree protection fencing/fencings shall be removed until this written confirmation has been received from the City of Pickering. Tree Protection Signage Tree protection signage shall be installed on the fence by the Contractor to clearly identify TPZs. The sign shall be a minimum of 40 cm x 60 cm, made of white gator board and outline the following: ◼ That no grade change, storage of materials or equipment is permitted within the TPZ. ◼ Contact information of the municipal forestry department. ◼ The potential fine for contravention of disobeying bylaws in which the TPZ was installed. 2. Root Exploration A root exploratory excavation is recommended for the 74 trees that are recommended for injury with supervision. For these trees, root exploratory excavation is recommended prior to tree removals to assess the potential impacts to the root system and to help ensure that construction impacts will not lead to tree failure or impede construction progress. The exploratory excavation should be performed using hand digging or a low-pressure hydro-vac or pneumonic device, such as an air spade. No roots should be - 465 - Appendix E-1 – Tree Protection, Preservation and Maintenance Measures and City of Pickering Tree Protection Measures 3 of 5 severed during the root exploration, and special care should be taken to avoid root damage during the excavation process. The excavated area should be backfilled with clean native fill as soon as reasonably possible, and the area should then be watered to prevent desiccation and promote root growth. The root exploration shall be conducted under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and following the City of Pickering’s authorization. A memorandum shall be prepared summarizing the results of the root exploration including an assessment of whether each tree can be retained. The memorandum shall include an updated Tree Protection Plan that reflects the results of the root exploration. Additionally, the memorandum shall outline recommended next steps, which may include modifications to the proposed design or construction methods, excavation and root pruning, or additional remediation measures as required. 3. Excavation Methods of excavation within the TPZ of trees proposed for preservation shall include those which are less harmful to the tree, such as hand digging or excavation using a low-pressure hydro-vac or pneumatic soil excavation device, such as an air spade. These methods include tools which use pressured air or water to remove the soil around the roots without damaging the larger roots. It is recommended that any excavation within the TPZ of tree, if approved, occur using a hydro-vac at a low pressure of less than 100 psi to ensure roots are not unnecessarily damaged. Any roots observed during excavation shall be pruned by an ISA Certified Arborist (or under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist) using proper arboricultural techniques. If excavation is to occur, fill within the TPZ shall not be permitted unless mitigated in a way that maintains air and water availability for roots. Additionally, all grade changes within and adjacent to TPZs shall be undertaken in accordance with the previously specified tree protection guidelines. 4. Root Pruning Roots encountered during excavation in or outside TPZ should be preserved wherever feasible. However, if it is determined that root pruning must occur to facilitate a grade change or other earthworks, where authorized by the applicable authorities, root pruning shall be conducted in accordance with acceptable arboricultural standards which may include: ◼ Maintenance and pruning during hot and dry weather should be avoided. ◼ To expose the roots, the area should be excavated by hand digging or using a low -pressure hydro-vac or pneumatic soil excavation device. ◼ Exposed roots should be neatly cut to the limit of disturbance with a sharp saw to minimize decay and entry points for disease. ◼ To prevent desiccation, exposed roots should be wrapped with dampened burlap, so that the roots maintain optimum soil moisture during construction and backfilling operations. ◼ If the root can be preserved while conducting the proposed work, temporary protection can be provided such as using a PVC pipe, cut in half, filled with loamy soil, placed over the root to protect it from injury ◼ Trees to be pruned should be watered after digging, along with an application of soil and mulch. ◼ The excavated area should be backfilled with the excavated material and reinstated to the original condition or better. - 466 - Appendix E-1 – Tree Protection, Preservation and Maintenance Measures and City of Pickering Tree Protection Measures 4 of 5 ◼ Where needed, the use of clean, uncontaminated topsoil from an approved source may be used. It is recommended that the texture of backfill be coarser than existing soils, and that the backfill is applied directly onto existing soils (i.e., remove air pocke ts, sod, etc.) ◼ Root pruning must first be exposed using pneumatic excavation by hand digging or the use of a low pressure hydraulic (water) excavation. The water pressure, less than 3500 Kpa for hydraulic excavation must be low enough that root bark is not damaged or removed and on the lowest temperature setting. This will allow a proper pruning cut and minimize tearing of the roots. ◼ Upon completion, tree protection fencing should be reinstated to maximize protection of the minimum TPZ. ◼ All tree maintenance and pruning should be carried out by a qualified tree care specialist that is also an ISA Certified Arborist or under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist. 5. Branch Pruning Where branches are likely to be damaged during construction, and pruning is approved by the relevant authorities, branches shall be pruned ahead of the work to avoid branches being broken off, so that bark is not torn, and wounds are not more extensive than necessary. Any branches that overhang the work area and require pruning are to be pruned using clean tools as per the latest arboricultural practices (TCIA, 2008). The Contractor(s) must report immediately to the Contract Administrator any damage to trees such as broken limbs, damage to roots, or wounds to the main trunk or stem systems so that the damage can be assessed immediately. 6. Oak Wilt Oak Wilt (Bretziella fagacearum) is a fungus that grows on the outer sapwood of Oak trees (Quercus spp.) and restricts the flow of water and nutrients throughout the tree (MNR, 2023). It spreads through connected root systems or by beetles. In spring, beetles are attracted to the fungal mats that form on infected tree stems. Spores from the fungal mats will stick to the beetles and are subsequently transferred to fresh wounds on healthy Oak trees (MNR, 2023). With increased concern for Oak Wilt becoming established in Ontario, the pruning of Oak trees during the growing season is discouraged. Avoiding pruning at this time reduces the likelihood of attracting beetles and minimizes the risk of the fungus being transferred to healthy trees. If pruning activities cannot be delayed, apply an appropriate tree wound paint or latex-based paint immediately to all exposed cut surfaces as soon as possible (Michigan State University, 2020). The Contractor(s) must report immediately to the Contract Administrator any damage to trees such as broken limbs, damage to roots, or wounds to the main trunk or stem systems so that the damage can be assessed immediately. 7. Tree Removal and Vegetation Clearing If tree removals are required to facilitate the Project as it progresses, they should be removed following permit issuance where applicable and prior to construction activities commencing on site, as trees proposed for removal may become hazardous once construction and excavation begin on site. It is recommended that an ISA Certified Arborist be retained during tree removal operations to monitor the application of standardized arboricultural techniques. - 467 - Appendix E-1 – Tree Protection, Preservation and Maintenance Measures and City of Pickering Tree Protection Measures 5 of 5 If required, clearing of vegetation should be conducted between October 1 and March 31, outside of the breeding bird season (April 1 to August 31) and active bat season (April 1 to September 30) to reduce potential impacts to migratory birds and Species at Risk (SAR) bats and avoid contravention of the Migratory Birds Convention Act (1994) and Endangered Species Act (2007). Nests searches, for the purpose of providing approval for vegetation removal during the nesting period (April 1 to August 31) must be completed by a qualified biologist (Government of Canada, 2022). Such nest searches are typically only conducted in simple habitats, referring to habitats that contain few likely nesting spots or a small community of migratory birds. Clearing in simple habitats during the nesting season can only occur if a qualified biologist has confirmed it would not affect the nest or young of a protected species. Searching for nests is not recommended within complex habitats, as the ability to detect nests is low while the risk of disturbance to active nests is high. This disturbance increases the risk of nest predation or abandonment by adults. 8. Post Construction Monitoring and Remedial Care It is recommended all trees on site be inspected by an ISA Certified Arborist post construction to assess the health of each tree. Remedial care such as mulching, vertical mulching, fertilization or irrigation may be required based on each tree’s current condition. 9. Invasive Species and Emerald Ash Borer If tree removal is required as the project progresses, trees shall be removed from the site in a manner that will prevent the emergence and spread of invasive species. Invasive trees and shrubs [i.e., European Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica)] should be removed where applicable - 468 - Appendix E – 2 City of Pickering Tree Protection Measures - 469 - - 470 - - 471 - Courtney Bender, B.EM. (Hons) ISA ON-3217A courtney.bender@aecom.com AECOM Canada ULC 250 York St. Suite 410 London, Ontario, N6A 6K2, Canada T +1 519-673-0510 www.aecom.com - 472 - Report to Council Report Number: PLN 17-26 Date: June 22, 2026 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Implementation of Minutes of Settlement - Reimbursement to CPC II Management Inc. Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2017-05 Block 54, Plan 40M-1498 1520 Notion Road Recommendation: 1. That Report PLN 17-26 regarding the Implementation of Minutes of Settlement - Reimbursement to CPC II Management Inc., be received; 2. That Council approve the reimbursement to CPC II Management Inc., in the amount of $397,260.44 (HST included) or $357,745.33 (Net HST) to be charged to account 502230.11100 for eligible costs incurred in accordance with the executed Minutes of Settlement, dated February 26, 2020, related to the development of 1520 Notion Road; and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 1.0 Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council approval to reimburse CPC II Management Inc. in the amount of $397,260.44 (HST included) for eligible costs incurred in accordance with the executed Minutes of Settlement related to the development of 1520 Notion Road. The Minutes of Settlement resolved the LPAT (now OLT) appeals and established the City’s obligation to reimburse CPC II Management Inc. for certain costs associated with noise mitigation, flood assessment, and wetland compensation arising from the Highway 401 Overpass project, connecting Notion Road to Squires Beach Road. CPC II Management Inc. has completed the required studies and technical work as part of the subdivision approval process and has submitted supporting documentation for reimbursement. - 473 - PLN 17-26 June 22, 2026 Page 2 Staff have reviewed the submitted documentation and confirmed that the cost were incurred in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement and fall within the City’s financial obligations. Staff therefore recommend that Council approve the requested reimbursement. 2.0 Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priorities of Advance Innovation & Responsible Planning to Support a Connected, Well-Serviced Community; and Strengthen Existing & Build New Partnerships. 3.0 Financial Implications: The total reimbursement amount of $397,260.44 (HST included) will be funded from the General Government Budget account purchased services (502230.11100). 4.0 Discussion: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council’s approval to reimburse CPC II Management Inc. for eligible costs incurred in relation to noise mitigation, flood assessment, and wetland compensation matters, in accordance with the executed Minutes of Settlement for the development of 1520 Notion Road. 4.1 Background In September 2017, CPC II Management Inc. (“CPC”) submitted applications for Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment for the westerly portion of the property municipally known as 1520 Notion Road, to permit a residential subdivision consisting of 9 lots for detached dwellings fronting onto the east side of Marshcourt Drive. CPC also owned the easterly portion of the subject lands and, in May 2018, submitted an application for site plan approval to permit the development of a commercial plaza on those lands. On May 29, 2018, CPC appealed the Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment application to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (“LPAT”), currently known as the Ontario Land Tribunal, on the basis that the City did not make a decision within the timelines prescribed by the Planning Act. These appeals remained before the LPAT while the City and CPC continued discussions regarding the impact of the proposed Highway 401 Overpass project on the subject lands. Through these discussions, City staff and CPC worked collaboratively to address outstanding issues related to the overpass project and the proposed development. This process resulted in the execution of formal Minutes of Settlement (“MoS”) between the City and CPC to resolve the appeals and establish the framework for future development and associated obligations. - 474 - PLN 17-26 June 22, 2026 Page 3 4.2 Minutes of Settlement terms and LPAT Approval The executed MoS established the basis for resolving the LPAT appeals and addressing technical and financial matters from the Highway 401 Overpass project. Key provisions of the MoS include: • City support for a revised draft plan of subdivision consisting of 7 lots for detached dwellings; • City support for the implementing site-specific zoning by-law amendment require to facilitate the development; • The transfer of lands from CPC to the City to accommodate the future Highway 401 Overpass project, with compensation to be determined in accordance with the MoS; • City responsibility for costs associated with preparing the reference plan and transferring the conveyance land; • City reimbursement of reasonable costs incurred by CPC after execution of the MoS related to studying, assessing or mitigating noise, where such work is required by or requested by the City and the Region of Durham; • City reimbursement of reasonable costs incurred by CPC related to studying or assessing flooding, including the preparation of flood studies required to support the development; • City responsibility for studies or assessments relating to wetland compensation, including reimbursement to CPC for reasonable costs incurred in connection with such work; and, • Provision of a temporary easement over the conveyed lands to facilitate access, site preparation, and construction staging for the residential development. The LPAT considered the settlement at a hearing held on February 10, 2020, and issued its decision on February 26, 2020. The Tribunal approved the revised draft plan of subdivision and the zoning by-law amendment and authorized the City to clear conditions and administer final approval of the subdivision. 4.3 Reimbursement of Eligible Costs Following the LPAT decision, CPC proceeded with the development in accordance with the approved draft plan of subdivision and associated conditions of draft plan approval. This included obtaining approval of detailed engineering drawings, entering into a subdivision agreement with the City, providing the required financial securities, and satisfying the conditions necessary for registration of the plan of subdivision. The draft plan conditions required CPC to complete various technical studies and implement mitigation measures, including those related to noise attenuation and flood risk, in consultation with the Region of Durham and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). Under the terms of the MoS, the City is required to reimburse CPC for reasonable costs incurred after execution of the MoS in relation to noise and flooding studies and mitigation - 475 - PLN 17-26 June 22, 2026 Page 4 measures, and to assume responsibility for wetland compensation-related studies and associated costs. CPC has submitted supporting documentation to the City outlining cost incurred in relation to these obligations. Staff have reviewed the submitted materials and are satisfied that $397,260.44 of the total costs of $448,310.44 identified by CPC: • were incurred following execution of the MoS; • related to works required or requested by the City; Region, or TRCA; and, • fall within the scope of the City’s reimbursement obligations under the MoS. Based on this review, CPC is requesting reimbursement in the total amount of $397,260.44. Staff are satisfied that the request amount is reasonable and consistent with the City’s obligation under the MoS. 5.0 Conclusion: The executed MoS establish the City’s obligation to reimburse CPC for specific costs related to noise mitigation, flood studies, and wetland compensation associated with the Notion Road Overpass project. CPC has completed the required work and provided supporting documentation confirming that costs were incurred in accordance with the MoS. Staff have reviewed the submission and are satisfied that the amount of $397,260.44 is eligible and reasonable. Staff therefore recommend that Council approve the reimbursement of $397,260.44 (HST included) to CPC II Management Inc. Attachment: None Prepared By: Nilesh Surti, Division Head, Development Review & Urban Design Approved/Endorsed By: Kyle Bentley, Director, City Development & CBO Approved/Endorsed By: Paul Bigioni, Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Approved/Endorsed By: Stan Karwowski, Director, Finance & Treasurer NS:ld - 476 - PLN 17-26 June 22, 2026 Page 5 Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 477 - Report to Council Report Number: SUS 04-26 Date: June 22, 2026 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Battery Recycling Agreement with Call2Recycle Canada and the City of Pickering File: D-7001-033 Recommendation: 1. That Report SUS 04-26 regarding Battery Recycling Agreement with Call2Recycle Canada and the City of Pickering be received; 2. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Used Consumer-Type Portable Battery Recycling Agreement with Call2Recycle Canada and the City of Pickering, subject to minor revisions as may be required by the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 1.0 Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s authorization for the City of Pickering to enter into a Battery Recycling Agreement with Call2Recycle Canada to reinstate a municipal household battery recycling program. The City previously participated in a provincially supported battery stewardship program delivered through a third-party provider. That service was discontinued following Ontario’s transition from municipal participation models to a full producer responsibility system under the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2016 and Ontario Regulation 30/20, which places end-of-life battery management responsibility on producers. As a result, the City’s previous battery recycling program ended on January 1, 2026, and there is currently no municipal household battery drop-off service available at City facilities. Staff reviewed household battery recycling options, including a municipal scan and consultation with neighbouring Durham Region municipalities. Call2Recycle Canada was - 478 - SUS 04-26 June 22, 2026 Page 2 identified as the preferred service provider due to its provincial network, producer-funded model, operational reliability, and fire safety protocols. The program is fully funded by producers and delivered at no cost to the City or taxpayers. The agreement includes a revenue payment of $0.95 per kilogram collected. Revenue will offset minor staff administration time and support other municipal sustainability programs. Approval of this agreement would enable the battery recycling program to continue and would restore safe, convenient, year-round battery drop-off services at City facilities. 2.0 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; and Strengthen Existing & Build New Partnerships. 3.0 Financial Implications: There is no financial impact to the City. All costs, including containers, transportation, processing, recycling, and administration, are fully funded by producers under Ontario’s Extended Producer Responsibility framework. Under the Call2Recycle Canada Agreement, the City will receive $0.95 per kilogram of batteries collected and recycled, with revenue generated based on total collection volumes, and an estimated annual revenue of approximately $5,000 from this program. Revenue for this first year is expected to be lower due to the program’s anticipated start halfway through 2027. 4.0 Discussion: Staff reviewed household battery recycling options and consulted with Durham Region area municipalities. At the Region of Durham, battery collection is mainly provided through regional household hazardous waste events, which offer limited, periodic access for residents. 4.1 Call2Recycle Canada Battery Recycling Program Call2Recycle Canada is a not-for-profit, producer-funded battery stewardship organization that provides end-to-end battery household battery recycling services to participating municipalities at no direct program delivery cost to the City. The program operates under Ontario’s Individual Producer Responsibility framework, established through the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2016 and associated regulations. Producers fund all aspects of the battery recycling system, including collection, transportation, processing, recycling, administration, and regulatory reporting. - 479 - SUS 04-26 June 22, 2026 Page 3 Under the Program model: • producers fund the full system; • Call2Recycle Canada manages program delivery, including collection, logistics, and recycling, and, • the City provides facility space and supports access to approved collection locations. Services include certified, fire-resistant collection containers, scheduled pickup and regulated transportation, processing at certified facilities, compliance reporting, and public education materials. Once placed in designated containers, materials enter the stewardship system and are managed by Call2Recycle Canada in accordance with program requirements. This approach aligns with Ontario’s producer responsibility framework by shifting end-of-life battery management from municipalities to producers while maintaining convenient public diversion services. 4.2 Recycling Container Use and Accepted Materials Residents place accepted household batteries into designated Call2Recycle Canada collection containers at approved drop-off locations for safe recycling. The program accepts household batteries up to five kilograms per unit from residential use only and does not accept industrial, automotive, or large-format batteries. Accepted types include alkaline, rechargeable (nickel metal hydride and nickel cadmium), lithium-ion, button cell, and small sealed lead-acid batteries. 4.3 Facility Locations Collection containers will be installed at existing supervised municipal facilities, including: • Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex • Don Beer Arena • Pickering Central Library • George Ashe Community Centre • East Shore Community Centre • Dorsay Community & Heritage Centre • City Fire Halls These locations were selected for visibility, accessibility, and routine municipal staff oversight. - 480 - SUS 04-26 June 22, 2026 Page 4 4.4 Service Integration This program complements Durham Region’s biannual household hazardous waste events by providing continuous year-round local access within the City. It also helps reduce gaps in service between regional collection events and supports improved diversion outcomes. 5.0 Operational Considerations: City responsibilities are limited to hosting and monitoring collection containers within existing facilities. The program’s operational details include: • facility staff conduct visual checks during routine inspections; • Call2Recycle manages all servicing, pickup, and logistics; and, • no dedicated staffing or new service contracts are required. All program activities are accommodated within existing municipal operations. 5.1 Risk Management and Public Safety Battery disposal presents a known fire risk, particularly from lithium-ion batteries, which can experience thermal runaway if damaged, mishandled, or improperly stored. These risks are mitigated through: • certified fire-resistant collection containers; • controlled placement within supervised municipal facilities; • regulated transport by approved carriers; and, • processing at certified recycling facilities. Public misuse risks are further reduced through standardized container design and program- provided education materials. Facility staff and Fire Services have reviewed the proposed approach and confirmed it is appropriate for municipal use. The agreement includes standard insurance and indemnification provisions, and the City retains oversight and termination rights in accordance with the agreement. While a residual level of risk remains inherent to battery collection activities, the program is considered low risk and appropriate for implementation within existing municipal operations. - 481 - SUS 04-26 June 22, 2026 Page 5 5.2 Program Promotion and Public Awareness The program will be promoted through the City’s website, social media, community events, digital signage, print materials, media releases, and the Sustainable Pickering eNewsletter to increase resident awareness and encourage participation. 6.0 Conclusion: Entering into a Battery Recycling Agreement with Call2Recycle Canada would enable the battery recycling program to continue and would restore a safe, accessible, and year-round household battery recycling program at no cost to the City or taxpayers. The program complements existing regional services, improves diversion performance, reduces improper disposal and associated fire risk, and aligns with Ontario’s Extended Producer Responsibility framework and the City’s environmental and strategic objectives. Attachment: 1. Draft Call2Recyle Batteries Agreement Prepared By: Kristy Gagen, Coordinator, Environmental Engagement Prepared By: Lalita Paray, Acting, Manager, Sustainability & Strategic Environmental Initiatives Approved/Endorsed By: Kyle Bentley, Director, City Development & CBO Approved/Endorsed By: Laura Gibbs, Director, Community Services KG:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 482 - Page 1 of 15 Attachment 1 to Report SUS 04-26 USED CONSUMER-TYPE PORTABLE BATTERY RECYCLING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made as of the ___ day of ______ (the “Commencement Date”). BETWEEN: CALL2RECYCLE CANADA, INC. (hereinafter referred to as “Call2Recycle”) -and - THE CITY OF PICKERING (hereinafter referred to as the “Local Government”) (hereinafter referred to as the “Parties” or singularly as a “Party”) WHEREAS: A.Call2Recycle is a not-for-profit, stewardship organization which carries on business nationally, collecting, transporting, and recycling consumer batteries; B.Call2Recycle is a registered Producer Responsibility Organization operating a stewardship program in the Province of Ontario under Batteries Regulation 30/20 (the “Province”) (such stewardship program, as may be amended from time to time, being the “Plan”), and C.The Local Government collects Collected Materials (as defined below) for recycling and wishes to provide them in bulk to Call2Recycle for further handling. NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the promises and mutual agreements contained herein and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the Parties covenant and agree as follows: 1.0. Definitions and Interpretation 1.1 In this Agreement: (a)“Agreement” means this Agreement and includes all schedules and amendments hereto; (b)“Business Day” means Monday through Friday, excluding statutory holidays and any other day that the Government of the Province has elected to be closed for business; - 483 - Page 2 of 15 (c) “Collected Materials” means any Used Consumer-Type Portable Battery, and/or Used Cellphone provided under this Agreement and includes materials collected by the Local Government via depot collections, curbside collections and event days, among other methods; (d) “Designated Facility” means an approved Call2Recycle sorting facility; (e) “Non-Conforming Battery(ies)” means any Used Consumer-Type Portable Battery that: (i) weighs in excess of five (5) kilograms (eleven (11) pounds); or (ii) is not identifiable by Call2Recycle, in its sole discretion, as a battery or such battery’s chemistry is not identifiable, or (iii) is not intact, defective or otherwise damaged; or (iv) is corroded, or otherwise has been exposed to the elements; or (v) is considered non-confirming pursuant to the Plan; or (vi) is an Other Covered Battery, or (vii) has been recalled by the manufacturer or other distributor; or (viii) is otherwise deemed not safely recyclable or handled in accordance with standard protocols and procedures as determined by Call2Recycle in its sole discretion”; (f) “Non-Conforming Materials” means any liquids, refuse, litter, junk, trash, garbage, needles, medication, or any other materials deemed by Call2Recycle to be non-conforming materials; (g) “Non-Conforming Shipment” means any Shipment(s) made by the Local Government where any container included in that Shipment: (i) contains more than five (5%) percent by weight of materials that are Non-Conforming Materials; (ii) contains more than five (5%) percent by weight of materials that are Non-Conforming Batteries; or (iii) contains any amount of MHSW (other than hazardous waste comprising any eligible Used Consumer-Type Portable Battery), which is subject to any applicable laws or regulations in the Province, or any province where a Designated Facility may be located from time to time; (h) “MHSW” means municipal hazardous or special waste; (i) “Other Covered Battery(ies)” means batteries that are sold in or packaged with electric or electronic devices or equipment that are covered under any stewardship plan or extended producer responsibility plan, other than the Plan; (j) “Regulation” means the applicable recycling act or regulation as is in effect in the Province, as amended, including, but not limited to Ontario Regulation 30/20 under the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2016 (Ontario); - 484 - Page 3 of 15 (k) “Service Provider” means a third party that provides services to the Local Government in relation to MHSW; (l) “Shipment” means any conforming shipment of eligible Used Consumer-Type Portable Batteries that are shipped by the Local Government to a Designated Facility; and (m) “Used Consumer-Type Portable Battery” means a used battery or battery pack not considered to be a Non-Conforming Battery, including dry cell rechargeable and primary batteries weighing less than five (5) kilograms (eleven (11) pounds), that are sold for replacement purposes for use in electronic or electrical devices sold without batteries, containing no liquid electrolyte, and employing one of nickel cadmium, nickel metal hydride, lithium ion, nickel zinc, sealed lead, alkaline-manganese, zinc- carbon, zinc-air, silver oxide and/or and lithium; and 1.2 The Parties acknowledge that the recitals to this Agreement are true and correct. 2.0. Term of Agreement, Amendment and Assignment 2.1 The term of this Agreement shall commence as of the Commencement Date and shall remain in effect for one year from date of signing, unless terminated in accordance with this Agreement or upon the termination of the Plan, in which case this Agreement shall automatically terminate. This Agreement shall automatically renew thereafter for subsequent one-year terms, unless either Party notifies the other at least ninety (90) days in advance of any renewal term commencement date that the Agreement shall not be renewed. 2.2 If, in the reasonable opinion of either Party, there has been a breach of this Agreement by the other Party (the “Defaulting Party”), the non-Defaulting Party may give the Defaulting Party written notice to remedy the breach or default within sixty (60) days, failing which the Agreement may be terminated. 2.3 Unless agreed to in writing by the Parties, or as otherwise provided for in this Agreement, this Agreement may not be amended, provided that in the event of any changes to the Regulation, Call2Recycle may unilaterally amend this Agreement as may be necessary to comply with the Regulation. 2.4 Neither Party shall subcontract or assign any of its rights or obligations under this Agreement or any part thereof without the prior written consent of the other Party, which consent shall not unreasonably be withheld. - 485 - Page 4 of 15 3.0. Shipments of Collected Materials 3.1 Unless otherwise designated by Call2Recycle, the Local Government shall ship all Collected Materials to the Designated Facility in open top UN rated steel drums (1A) with a plastic liner and an open head and lever lock ring lid (“Steel Drums”), UN rated polyethylene drums (1H) with an open head and level lock ring lid (“Polyethylene Drums”), or any other Call2Recycle certified and/or approved box, receptacle, or containers, which may be designated and/or changed from time to time (collectively, “Approved Containers”). All Steel Drums and/or Polyethylene Drums must be completely full and must be sealed with their corresponding lever locking ring lid, prior to any Shipment to a Designated Facility. Approved Containers may be placed on a pallet and should be properly secured with shrink wrap prior to any Shipment to a Designated Facility. All lithium, lithium ion, button cells, or lead acid batteries placed in any Steel Drums, Polyethylene Drums or Approved Containers shall be terminally protected by either placing each such battery in an individual plastic bag, or have their terminals securely covered with tape to prevent any possible short circuits. Packaging of any Used Consumer-Type Portable Batteries may not under any circumstance contain any Non-Conforming Batteries, Other Covered Batteries, or other Non- Conforming Material. All Steel Drums, Polyethylene Drums and Approved Containers used for Shipment must be provided or otherwise approved by Call2Recycle and properly secured by the Local Government prior to Shipment. 3.2 The Local Government shall ship all Used Consumer-Type Portable Batteries collected to Call2Recycle only. In order to participate in this reimbursement program, the Local Government cannot ship Used Consumer-Type Portable Batteries to another service provider, program, or entity. All Shipments to the Designated Facility by the Local Government shall use a Call2Recycle designated freight provider and shall comply with the shipping instructions to be provided to the Local Government prior to its first Shipment. Call2Recycle shall notify the Local Government of its list of designated freight providers on or before the Commencement Date. 3.3 If Call2Recycle or a Designated Facility determines within thirty (30) days after receipt of a Shipment from or on behalf of the Local Government that such Shipment is a Non-Conforming Shipment, Call2Recycle or its Designated Facility shall (i) arrange with the Local Government for the satisfactory disposition of the materials that are not Used Consumer-Type Portable Batteries, on mutually agreeable terms and conditions, or (ii) reject and return Non-Conforming Materials to the Local Government without further obligation. In either event, Call2Recycle shall invoice the Local Government for out-of-pocket costs and expenses of receiving and handling any Non-Conforming Materials in a Non-Conforming Shipment, and such - 486 - Page 5 of 15 invoice shall be paid by the Local Government within thirty (30) days of the date of issuance. 3.4 All Local Government collection sites, whether fixed or temporary, may accept up to 15 kilograms of Used Consumer-Type Portable Batteries per day from any one person. If any Local Government collection site accepts more than 15 kilograms of Used Consumer-Type Portable Batteries per day from any one person, the Local Government shall ensure that certain information be collected from such a person, including: the person’s name, contact information and the total weight of Used Consumer-Type Portable Batteries accepted. 4.0. Financial Arrangements 4.1 For each Shipment of Collected Materials that is shipped by the Local Government to the Designated Facility: (a) Call2Recycle shall pay Local Government: (i) a fee of $0.95 per kilogram for Used Consumer-Type Portable Batteries or any other eligible battery under the Regulation which are collected by Local Government through bulk depot collections (“Depot Collections”), to cover the cost of materials required for Shipments, including: supplies, materials, and handling of Approved Containers; and (ii) a fee of $1.42 per kilogram for Used Consumer-Type Portable Batteries, or any other eligible battery under the Regulation which are collected by Local Government through any household hazardous waste event day performed by a contracted third party (“HHWE Collections/Event Collections”), to cover costs associated with running such events, including: supplies, materials, and handling of Approved Containers; (b) Call2Recycle shall directly compensate the Local Government’s designated freight provider(s) for Shipment of bulk depot collections to the Designated Facility, provided that designated freight provider is approved by Call2Recycle, as set out in Subsection 3.2 herein. 4.2 For Collected Materials from Depot Collections, Local Government will receive a payment summary along with payment on a monthly basis within sixty (60) days following receipt and sorting of Collected Materials, and according to Call2Recycle payment terms. The Local Government is not required to submit an invoice to receive payment for Collected Materials from Depot Collections. Prior to payment, Call2Recycle may also take steps to - 487 - Page 6 of 15 verify that the Collected Materials shipped by the Local Government were received at the Designated Facility. The Local Government shall provide Call2Recycle, or such other parties as Call2Recycle shall direct, with all the necessary information as may be reasonably required by Call2Recycle or its designee(s) to verify any claim by the Local Government for reimbursement of expenses pursuant to this Agreement. 4.3 For Collected Materials from HHWE Collections, the Local Government must submit an invoice, including a bill of lading and/or any other applicable shipping documentation to Call2Recycle within thirty (30) days of any Shipment. Prior to payment, Call2Recycle may also take steps to verify that the Collected Materials shipped by the Local Government were received at the Designated Facility. The Local Government will receive a payment summary and payment for materials from HHWE Collections within (60) days following receipt of invoice, supporting documentation and receipt and sorting of Collected Materials The Local Government shall provide Call2Recycle, or such other parties as Call2Recycle shall direct, with all the necessary information as may be reasonably required by Call2Recycle or its designee(s) to verify any claim by the Local Government for reimbursement of expenses pursuant to this Agreement. HHWE Collections submitted without the necessary documentation will be compensated at the Depot Collections rate set out at Subsection 4.1(a)(i). 4.4 Local Government shall keep and preserve all applicable records and shipping documents for a period of not less than sixty (60) months following delivery of each applicable Shipment, as necessary to verify Shipments. 5.0. Regulatory and Compliance 5.1 Authority. The Local Government hereby represents and warrants that it has the legal power and authority to enter into this Agreement, and that there are no outstanding contracts, commitments, or legal impediments which may limit, restrict, or otherwise impair its ability to perform its obligations hereunder. 5.2 Title to products: The Local Government shall be the owner of all right, title, and interest in all Collected Materials from the time when the Local Government collects and/or accepts them until such point in time that title has been transferred, conveyed, and assigned to any RPRA registered third party service provider or Designated Facility pursuant to a Shipment. At no time will Call2Recycle possess any right, title, or interest in or to any Collected Materials unless possessed and handled directly by designated Call2Recycle employees, notwithstanding any Shipment made to a Designated Facility. 5.3 Regulatory compliance: In performing their obligations under this Agreement, each party shall obtain all permits, licenses, authorizations, and approvals required by applicable law and observe and comply with all - 488 - Page 7 of 15 applicable laws, including, if applicable in the Province, any certificates or approvals issued to the Local Government. The Local Government shall assist Call2Recycle, as required, in providing information and reports to satisfy regulatory and reporting requirements relating to the Plan. The Local Government shall take all reasonable steps to ensure any Service Providers meet the same requirements. 5.4 Site visits and audits: Upon reasonable notice, Call2Recycle or its agent shall have the right to enter upon any collection facility utilized by the Local Government for the purpose of conducting inspections or compliance audits. The Local Government shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that Call2Recycle has the same rights in respect of any Service Provider used by the Local Government. Call2Recycle or its agent shall be accompanied by a representative of the Local Government for any such visits or audits. 6.0. Indemnity and Insurance Indemnity: Each Party (the “Indemnifying Party”) hereby indemnifies and saves harmless the other Party (the “Indemnified Party”), its directors, officers, employees, and agents, from and against any and all manner of actions or causes of actions, damages (but not including consequential damages), costs, loss or expenses of whatever kind (including related legal fees on a full indemnity basis) which the Indemnified Party, its directors, officers, employees, and agents may sustain, incur or be put to by reason of or directly or indirectly arising out of any willful misconduct or negligence of the Indemnifying Party or any person for whom the Indemnifying Party is, at law, responsible, in relation to matters arising out of this Agreement. This indemnification clause shall be in addition to and not in lieu of insurance to be provided in accordance with this agreement and shall survive this agreement. 6.1 Limitations of Liability. In no event will either party claim any exemplary, aggravated, or punitive damages in connection with this Agreement, and under no circumstances will a party be liable to the other party for any indirect, special or consequential damages, compensation or loss of profits, anticipated revenue, savings or goodwill, or any other economic loss arising out of or in any way related to this Agreement, even if advised of the possibility thereof. 6.2 Insurance. Each party shall, during the term of the Agreement, maintain at its expense Commercial General Liability coverage with limits of not less than $5,000,000 (five million dollars) per occurrence / aggregate. Such insurance shall include, but is not limited to bodily injury and property damage including loss of use; personal injury; contractual liability; premises, property & operations; non-owned automobile; broad form property damage; owners & contractors protective; occurrence property damage; products & completed operations; employees as Additional Insured(s); contingent employers liability; tenants legal liability; cross liability and severability of interest clause. - 489 - Page 8 of 15 Each party shall add the other party as Additional Insured. This insurance shall be non-contributing with and apply as primary and not as excess of any insurance available to the additional Insured. 6.3 Each party shall keep their property / assets insured. Failure to do so shall not impose any liability on the other party. 6.4 Any and all deductibles applicable to the above-noted insurance policy shall be the sole responsibility of the Named Insured, and other shall bear no cost towards such deductibles. 6.5 The Township reserves the right to assess exposures and add additional insurance requirements where deemed necessary, if agreed upon by Call2Recycle. 6.6 Each party shall provide the other party with a certificate of insurance evidencing coverage as noted above. Such policies shall not be cancelled, changed, or lapsed unless the Insurer notifies the additional Insured in writing. The insurance policy will be in a form and with a company licensed to write business in the Province of Ontario and which are, in all respects, acceptable to both parties. Each party is responsible for maintaining the required insurance for the entire contract period. 7.0. Assignment 7.1 During the term of this Agreement, the Local Government hereby expressly covenants and agrees that it shall not subcontract or assign any of its rights or obligations under this Agreement or any part thereof without the prior written consent of Call2Recycle, which consent shall not unreasonably be withheld. 7.2 The Local Government hereby expressly acknowledges and agrees that Call2Recycle may subcontract or assign any of its rights or obligations under this Agreement or any part thereof to any affiliated company or successor, or otherwise in connection with the sale of all or substantially all of its assets, only where the subcontractor or assignee agrees in writing to assume all of Call2Recycle’s obligations under this Agreement. 8.0. Notices 8.1 Any notice, request, demand or other instrument or communication herein provided, permitted, or required to be given by either Call2Recycle or the Local Government shall be in writing and sufficiently given if delivered personally, by facsimile transmission or other electronic means of written communication tested prior to transmission to the extent such testing is available, or if sent by registered mail to the following respective address hereinafter set out, namely: - 490 - Page 9 of 15 Notices to Call2Recycle shall be delivered to: Notices to the Local Government shall be delivered to: 100 Sheppard Avenue East Suite 800 Toronto, Ontario M2N 6N5 Attention: President 1 The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 Attention: Clerk 8.2 Any such notice if delivered personally, by facsimile transmission or by other electronic means of written communication on a Business Day before 5:00 p.m. local time at place of receipt, shall be conclusively deemed to have been given on the day of personal delivery, or facsimile transmission or electronic communication (and if after 5:00 p.m. local time at place of receipt the next following Business Day), or, if mailed as aforesaid, shall be conclusively deemed to have been received on the fifth Business Day following the day on which such notice is mailed (except during a postal strike in which case such notice shall be delivered personally). Either Party may, at any time, give written notice to the other of any change of address of the Party giving such notice and from and after the giving of such notice the address therein specified shall (in the absence of knowledge to the contrary) be deemed to be the address of such Party for the giving of notices thereafter. 9.0. Dispute Resolution 9.1 If any dispute arises between the Parties pursuant to this Agreement, the Parties shall attempt to resolve the dispute within 30 days upon which written notice of the dispute was first given, or as otherwise agreed upon. If the Parties are unable to resolve the dispute within 30 days, the Parties shall jointly select an arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute. The arbitrator shall render a decision on the dispute and the award arising therefrom, in accordance with the applicable arbitration legislation in effec t in the Province , and as amended from time to time. 10.0. Term and Termination 10.1 This Agreement is effective as of the Commencement Date and shall continue in full force and effect until otherwise terminated. - 491 - Page 10 of 15 10.2 Either Party may terminate this Agreement for any reason whatsoever upon not less than Ninety (90) days prior written notice to the other Party. 10.3 Notwithstanding Section 10.2, Call2Recycle may terminate this Agreement immediately at any time, and without prior written notice to Local Government, if: (a) In any province that has an extended producer responsibility plan, in the event such a plan is cancelled, Call2Recycle may terminate this Agreement as it relates to that province; (b) The Local Government subcontracts or assigns any rights or obligations under this Agreement, or any part thereof; (c) Any Shipments made by Local Government are repeatedly deemed by Call2Recycle or any Designated Facility, to be a Non-Conforming Shipment; or (d) A receiver or trustee is appointed for any part of the assets of Call2Recycle. 10.4 Call2Recycle expressly reserves the right, in its sole discretion and without prior written notice, at any time, and for any reason whatsoever, to amend, suspend or terminate all or any portion of the Plan. The Township shall have the right to review the Plan changes and elect within 30 days of notice of the change to terminate the agreement if the change is unacceptable. 10.5 On the date of termination neither party shall have any obligations, financial or otherwise, hereunder save and except for matters arising prior to termination, which may involve obligations of the parties after termination. All sections of this Agreement which by their nature should survive termination, including, without limitation, accrued rights to payment, indemnities, and limitations of liability. 11.0. General Provisions 11.1 This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous understandings or agreements, written or oral, regarding such subject matter. 11.2 All of the terms, covenants, conditions, and other provisions contained herein, and all of the obligations under or pursuant to this Agreement, shall be binding upon and shall ensure to the benefit of the Parties hereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns. 11.3 There are no representations, warranties, collateral agreements, or conditions affecting this Agreement, other than those expressed in writing herein. - 492 - Page 11 of 15 11.4 This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Province. Each of the Parties attorn to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Province. 11.5 This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, the counterpart copies of this Agreement together constituting a full, valid, and binding Agreement among the Parties hereto. 11.6 In the event that any provision of this Agreement is determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or invalid or unenforceable for any reason whatsoever, such provision shall be severed from this Agreement and will not affect the legality or validity or enforceability of the remainder of this Agreement or any other provision hereof. 11.7 The rights, remedies, and privileges in this Agreement given to the Parties: (a) are cumulative, and any one or more may be exercised; (b) are without prejudice to and are in addition to and apply notwithstanding any other provisions in this Agreement; and (c) are not and shall not be dependent or conditional upon, or in any way lessened, restricted, or affected by any other provisions of this Agreement. 11.8 Either Party may, from time to time, waive the performance of the other Party of any provision of this Agreement, either before or after that performance is done, but a waiver is not effective or binding upon the Party providing the waiver, unless it is in writing and signed by the Party providing the waiver or under its authority, and does not limit or affect the Party providing the waiver’s right with respect to any other breach or non-performance, whether prior or subsequent thereto. 11.9 Any Service Providers engaged by the Local Government to assist in providing MHSW services shall be required by the Local Government to comply with and adhere to the terms and conditions, as applicable, of this Agreement. 11.10 Each Party shall perform the acts, execute and deliver the writings, and give the assurances necessary from time to time to give full effect to this Agreement. 11.11 This Agreement supersedes and replaces all oral and written communications between the Parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement. - 493 - Page 12 of 15 12.0. Confidentiality 12.1 The provisions of this Agreement and any information disclosed by Call2Recycle or the Local Government to the other in the furtherance of this Agreement shall be regarded as confidential. Such confidential information may only be disclosed to individuals within Call2Recycle and the Local Government with a "need to know" in order to carry out the services under this Agreement, and may only be disclosed to a third party upon the written consent of the other party, provided, however, that the obligation to keep information confidential shall not apply to information which: (i) is already known to the recipient when disclosed; (ii) becomes part of the public domain without breach of this Agreement; (iii) is developed by the recipient independently or without reference to the received confidential information; or (iv) is required to be disclosed under operation of law. 12.2 The Local Government shall abide by the provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“MFIPPA”), other applicable privacy or data protection laws, and the Local Government’s privacy policies in respect of its collection, use, disclosure, retention, and disposal of personal information as defined by MFIPPA. <Signature page follows> - 494 - Page 13 of 15 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. CALL2RECYCLE CANADA, INC. Per: ____________________________ Name: Deborah Poon Title: Director, National Account Management I have authority to bind Call2Recycle THE CITY OF PICKERING Per: ____________________________ Name: Kevin Ashe Title: Mayor I have authority to bind the Municipality Per: ____________________________ Name: Susan Cassel Title: Clerk I have authority to bind the Municipality - 495 - Page 14 of 15 SCHEDULE “A” Compensation Rates Effective Date Depot Collections Fee (per kilogram) Household Hazardous Waste Event Collections Fee (per kilogram) $0.95 $1.42 Document Revision History: REVISION # REVISION DATE CHANGE(S) CHANGED BY - 496 - Page 15 of 15 SCHEDULE “B” Contact Details City of Pickering Contact information: Kristy Gagen Coordinator, Environmental Engagement Phone: 905.420.4660 ext. 2043 Email: kgagen@pickering.ca Lauren Gregory Manager, Facilities Maintenance, Community Services Phone: 905.420.4660 ext. 3227 Email: lgregory@pickering.ca Call2Recycle Canada Contact information: Samuel Li Account Manager, Central (Canada) at Call2Recycle Phone:416-881-0460 Email: Sli@call2recycle.ca - 497 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. 8273/26 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 1, Schedule 2, and Schedule 7 to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation of parking, stopping, and stop signs on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of the Corporation of the City of Pickering, specifically to address the proposed installation of parking and stopping restrictions on Azalea Avenue, Canso Drive, Earl Grey Avenue and Twyn Rivers Drive and, for the inclusion for an all-way stop at the intersection of Palmers Sawmill Road and Four Seasons Lane. Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1.Schedule 1 to By-law 6604/05, as amended, is hereby further amended thereto by the following: Schedule 1 No Stopping Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Highway Side Limits (From/To) Prohibited Times or Days Add Azalea Avenue South Carina Terrace to Hibiscus Drive Anytime - 498 - By-law No. 8273/26 Page 2 Schedule 1 No Stopping Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Highway Side Limits (From/To) Prohibited Times or Days Add Canso Drive East Central Street (R.R.#5) to 160 metres south thereof 7:30 am to 9:30 am, 2:30 pm to 4:30 Monday to Friday, September 1 to June 30 2.Schedule 2 to By-law 6604/05, as amended, is hereby further amended thereto by the following: Schedule 2 No Parking Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Highway Side Limits (From/To) Prohibited Times or Days Add Canso Drive West 95 metres south of Central Street (R.R.#5) to 110 metres south of Central Street Anytime Earl Grey Avenue East/South 85 metres east of William Jackson Drive to Calico Mews Anytime Twyn Rivers Drive North 300 metres west of Ashwood Gate to the City limit Anytime Twyn Rivers Drive South 285 metres west of Ashwood Gate to the City limit Anytime - 499 - By-law No. 8273/26 Page 3 3.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 Palmers Sawmill Road @ Four Seasons Lane Palmers Sawmill Road, eastbound and westbound Four Seasons Lane @ Palmers Sawmill Road Four Seasons Lane, northbound (plaza) and southbound 4.By-law passed this 22nd day of June, 2026. ____________________________ Kevin Ashe, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 500 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. 8274/26 Being a By-law to adopt Amendment 58 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering (OPA 25-004P) Whereas pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.p. 13, subsections 17(22) and 21(1), the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering may, by by-law, adopt amendments to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1.That Amendment 58 to the Official Plan for the Region of Durham and Official Plan for the City of Pickering, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, is hereby adopted; and 2.That this By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of the final passing hereof. By-law passed this 22nd day of June, 2026. __________________________ Kevin Ashe, Mayor __________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 501 - Exhibit “A” to By-law 8274/26 Amendment 58 to the Region of Durham Official Plan and the City of Pickering Official Plan - 502 - Recommended Amendment 58 to the Durham Official Plan and Pickering Official Plan Purpose: The purpose of this Amendment is to amend both the Durham Regional Official Plan and the City of Pickering Official Plan for lands located in the Brock Road and Highway 407 area, within the Thompson’s Corners Neighbourhood in the Seaton community. The Amendment proposes to redesignate lands currently designated as Prestige Employment Node and Community Node to Community Node, Mixed Corridor, Low and Medium Density Areas, and Seaton Natural Heritage System designations. The Amendment also proposes to permit additional employment uses on lands designated as Prestige Employment. The proposed Amendment is intended to ensure consistency with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS). Location: This Amendment applies to lands located in the vicinity of Brock Road and Highway 407, situated on the north and south sides of Highway 407 and on the east and west sides of Brock Road, within the Thompson’s Corners Neighbourhood 20. The location of the subject lands is shown on the attached Location Map. The Location Map is provided for information purposes only and does not form part of this Amendment. Basis: Through the review of Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 25 -004P, City Council has determined that the policies proposed by the Amendment will facilitate a broader range of land uses, including mixed -use development, commercial and residential uses, as well as community, cultural, and recreational facilities. The Amendment also permits medical offices, laboratories, and institutional uses, such as hospitals. Collectively, these land uses will support the efficient use of existing and planned infrastructure and services, maintain the area’s role as a gateway into Seaton, contribute to the development of a complete community, and ensure appropriate land use transitions and compatibility with the adjacent Hamlet of Brougham. The Prestige Employment Node lands located in the Brock Road and Highway 407 area were originally intended to develop primarily as corporate office business parks. The policy framework permitted office development together with limited supporting commercial, cultural, and institutional uses. Recent changes to the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024, including the revised definition of “employment area”, no longer permit standalone office, public service, limited retail or institutional uses within employment areas. As a result, the designation of the subject lands as Prestige Employment Node no longer fully aligns with the current provincial policy framework for employment areas. Amendments were required to address this change, including the addition of a - 503 - broader range of permissible uses to provide greater flexibility for long-term development opportunities within the Brock Road and Highway 407 area. Accordingly, City Council is satisfied that the proposed Official Plan Amendment is consistent with the policies of the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, and conforms with the intent and objectives of both the Durham Regional Official Plan and the Pickering Official Plan. Actual Amendment: The Region of Durham Official Plan “Envision Durham” is hereby amended by: 1.Amending Map 1, Region Structure – Urban and Rural Systems by redesignating the subject lands from “Urban System – Employment Lands” to “Urban System – Community Areas”, as illustrated on Schedule ‘A’ attached to this amendment. Actual Amendment: The City of Pickering Official Plan is hereby amended by: (New text is shown as underlined text, deleted text is shown as strikeout text, and retained text is shown as unchanged text.) 1.Amending Schedule I – Land Use Structure, by replacing the “Employment Areas – Prestige Employment” designation with “Mixed Use Areas – Community Nodes”, “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas”, “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas”, and “Open Space System – Seaton Natural Heritage System” designations as illustrated on Schedule ‘B’ attached to this Amendment. 2.Amending Schedule XII – Neighbourhood 20: Thompon’s Corners Neighbourhood Plan by replacing the “Prestige Employment Node” with “Community Node”, “Mixed Corridor Type 2”, “Medium Density Area”, “Low Density Area Type 1”, and “Seaton Natural Heritage System”, and replacing “Community Node” with “Mixed Corridor Type 2”, and adding a Village Green symbol, as illustrated on Schedule ‘C’ attached to this Amendment. 3.Revising City policy 12.22, Thompson’s Corners Neighbourhood Policies, in Chapter 12 – Urban Neighbourhoods, by removing and replacing sub-section (e), (f) and (g), with a new sub-section (e), so that it reads as follows: (e)shall provide greater direction on employment uses and densities in the Prestige Employment designation by applying two subcategories to the Prestige Employment land use category set out in Tables 2 and 7 as follows: (i)Prestige Employment General: (A)in addition to the prohibited uses in Section 11.32, warehousing shall be prohibited except for warehousing accessory to a permitted use; (ii)Prestige Employment Node: - 504 - (A)in addition to the prohibited uses in Section 11.32, warehousing, and light manufacturing, assembly and processing of goods shall be prohibited except in combination with a permitted use in the same building; and (B)a minimum density of 2.0 FSI shall be required for freestanding office buildings which shall be directed to locations close to the interchanges within the Prestige Employment Node. However interim development of no less than 0.5 FSI may be permitted provided a development concept and intensification plan is submitted demonstrating how the property can be intensified including: (1)the siting and orientation of buildings which do not preclude future intensification; (2)the location of parking for the initial development and changes to parking to accommodate the intensification process; and (3)the phasing of the intensification of the site to realize the ultimate built form; (f)shall require appropriate transitional design, compatibility and buffering from the Prestige Employment designation to the Hamlet of Brougham and its existing character through the implementing draft plan of subdivision, zoning by-law and site plan approval. The implementing draft plan of subdivision shall also provide for adequate road and pedestrian connections between Brougham and the surrounding Prestige Employment lands; (g)shall facilitate the long-term intensification of Highway 407 ETR/Transitway station located at Brock Road and Highway 407 ETR/Transitway based on the underlying land use of Prestige Employment Node; (e)shall provide greater direction on uses and development parameters in the Community Node land use subcategory as follows: (A)for lands located on the north side of Highway 407, east and west sides of Mowbray Street, south of Highway 7: (i)despite Section 11.4 and Table 5, all residential uses are prohibited; (ii)permitted uses in the Community Node shall include community, cultural and recreation uses, medical offices, laboratories, as well as institutional uses such as hospitals; (ii)shall require appropriate transitional design, compatibility and buffering between the Community Node designation and the Hamlet of Brougham to protect and maintain its existing character, - 505 - and through the implementing draft plan of subdivision, zoning by-law amendment, and site plan approval shall provide for appropriate setbacks and adequate road and pedestrian connections between the Hamlet of Brougham and the surrounding Community Node lands; (B)for lands located on the south side of Highway 407, north of Dawes Road and west of Brock Road: (i)shall facilitate the long-term intensification of the area adjacent to the Highway 407 ETR/Transitway station located at Brock Road and the Highway 407 ETR/Transitway based on the underlying land use of Community Node; (ii)adding permitted uses in the Community Node, including mixed- use development that includes high density residential, retailing of goods and services, offices, restaurants, and hotels; (C)for lands located on the east side of Brock Road, south of Highway 407: (i)despite Section 11.4 and Table 5, permitted uses shall be limited to retailing of goods and services. The intent of the designation is to facilitate the development of a neighbourhood commercial development. Redevelopment for residential uses may be considered in the future only through an Official Plan Amendment. Any such amendment shall be supported by an economic feasibility and market demand analysis demonstrating that retail uses and services are no longer needed to serve the neighbourhood or can be satisfactorily incorporated within a mixed use residential redevelopment, that the proposed residential use is appropriate, having regard to current and projected market conditions, and that it will not adversely impact the planned function of the area; and, renumbering sub-sections (h), (i), (j), (k), and (l) to sub-sections (f), (g), (h), (i), and (j) so that it reads as follows: (f)shall require the proponent, prior to submission of draft plans of subdivision for development adjacent to the Brougham Pioneer Christian Cemetery to seek confirmation from the Brougham United Church to acquire additional lands in the area of the current cemetery, or not, as described in the CPDP; (g)shall, along Type A and Type B Arterial Roads, as shown on Schedule II, not permit direct access to lots but will encourage the Region to allow for full movement intersections at the locations shown on Schedule XII Neighbourhood 20: Thompson’s Corners and allow for right-in/right-out intersections at a shorter intersection spacing in order to promote walkability and connectivity; - 506 - (h) shall along Collector Roads require direct access to be minimized, due to traffic volumes and built forms, through a range of alternatives including rear lanes, slip lanes, shared drives, hybrid local roads, connector lanes or other means to limit direct access to individual lots. Where direct access is proposed, Council shall require applicants to demonstrate through appropriate transportation studies that direct access can be supported; (i) shall establish a pedestrian and bicycle systems plan for the neighbourhood, which is illustrated on Schedule XII – Neighbourhood 20: Thompson’s Corners and consists of the road network, bikeways, trails and trailheads. Further details on how cyclists will be accommodated in the road network shall be set out in the Sustainable Placemaking Guidelines; (j) shall identify the location of existing Heritage Lots on Schedule XII – Neighbourhood 20: Thompson’s Corners and require Heritage Lots to be integrated into the design of the surrounding employment area through appropriate landscaping and built form transition as per the policies set out in Sections 11.62, 11.63 and 11.64 where applicable; and, renumbering subsection (m) to subsection (k), and adding new subsections (vi) and (vii) so that it reads as follows: (k) shall recognize that the locations of: (i) local roads constructed through the Seaton Natural Heritage System will be subject to satisfying the Environmental Assessment process; (ii) Type A and Type B Arterial Roads are currently the subject of an Environmental Assessment, and the road alignments will be confirmed through that process, which may require further refinements to Schedule XII – Neighbourhood 20: Thompson’s Corners; (iii) local roads, school sites, parks and village greens may be refined through the draft plans of subdivision without an amendment to this Plan, provided the location, size and layout are consistent with the design intent shown on Schedule XII – Neighbourhood 20: Thompson’s Corners and the policies of this Plan; (iv) the number, size and location of stormwater management facilities will be confirmed through the Neighbourhood Functional Servicing and Stormwater Report and may change without an amendment to this Plan; and (v) a district energy facility on Schedule XII – Neighbourhood 20: Thompson’s Corners is conceptually shown and its location is to be determined by a feasibility study that demonstrates such a facility can be successfully operated and integrated into the community in consultation with the landowners and utility providers; v) a district energy facility on Schedule XII – Neighbourhood 20: Thompson’s Corners is conceptually shown, and its location is to be determined by a feasibility study that demonstrates such a facility can - 507 - be successfully operated and integrated into the community in consultation with the landowners and utility providers; (vi)the Village Green symbol located in the Medium Density Area designation immediately south of Highway 407, west of Elsa Storry Avenue, may be refined through the draft plan of subdivision process without an amendment to this Plan; and (vii)the need for an elementary school site, in addition to those sites designated on Schedule XII, shall be determined through the draft plan of subdivision process. If required, such a site may be located anywhere in Neighbourhood 20 consistent with the design intent shown on Schedule XII; And renumbering sub-section (n) to sub-section (l), and adding a new subsection (m) so that it reads as follows: (l)shall require applicants for draft plan of subdivision, rezoning or site plan approval to submit to the satisfaction of the City: (i)a Sustainability Report that demonstrates how the proposal ranks against the sustainable checklist in the Sustainable Placemaking Guidelines; and (ii)a Design Brief that demonstrates how the proposal is consistent with the urban design components of the Sustainable Placemaking Guidelines. (m)despite the Prestige Employment permitted uses in Table 7, City Council shall permit the following uses on lands designated Prestige Employment located on the north side of Highway 407, west of the Hamlet of Brougham: (i)light manufacturing, assembly and processing of goods, light service industries, warehousing, equipment and vehicle suppliers, and retail sales and office as accessory and minor components of an industrial operation; and (ii)prohibit the uses identified within Section 11.32 and convenience commercial uses. Implementation: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amend ed, regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. Interpretation: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. Seaton TFPM Inc. OPA 25-004P - 508 - [7 -04;6/- PlCKERlNG City Development Department Location Ma File: OPA 25-004P Applicant: Seaton TFPM Inc. © Th e Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under li cense from:© Kin g's Printer, Ontario Min istry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Hi s Majesty the King in Right of Canada , Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Teranet Enterprises In c. and its suppli ers. All rights reserved.;© Municipa l Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. l:\PLANNING\01 -MapFiles\02 -Applications\OPA\2025\OPA 25-004PIOPA 25-004P.aprx N A Date: May. 19, 2026 SCALE : 1 :15,000 - 509 - Schedule 'A' to Amendment '58' Existing Official Plan of the Regional Municipality of Durham , , , , , Redesignate from "Urban System - Employment Areas" to "Urban System - Community Areas" I I I TownsNpoflJxoodge Area Shown on Th is~ City of Pickering City Development Department ~May, 2026 This Map Forms Part of Map 1: Regional Structure - Urban & Rura l Systems Official Plan of the Regional Municipality of Durham and Must Be Read in Conjunction with the Other Maps and the Text Extract of Map 1 to the Official Plan of the Regional Municipality of Durham Hi --------- BR.©l!J G f.t~M Regional Structure -Urban & Rural Systems Urban System Urban Area Boundary "'f. Regional Corridor Community Areas -Employment Areas Greenlands System Major Open Space Areas .......... Greenbelt Boundary (excluding Urban River Valleys) Rural System -Hamlets Prime Agricultural Areas Infrastructure I (±) I Future Airport Special Areas !__ ______ ! Special Study Areas D Specific Policy Areas rom "Urban System - reas" to "Urban System II - 510 - es1gnate rom mp restige Employment" to reas -Medium Density Edition 9 TownsNpoflJxoodge Area Shown on This~ City of Pickering City Development Department ~April, 2026 This Map Forms Part of Edition 9 of the Pickering Official Plan and Must Be Read in Conjunction with the Other Schedules and the Text Extract of Schedule I to the Pickering Official Plan Schedule 'B' to Amendment '58' Existing Official Plan Redesignate from "Employment Areas - Prestige Employment" to "Open Space System - ~"?~~~..;;J==::J Seaton Natural Heritage Land Use Structure Open Space System -Seaton Natural Heritage System -Natural Areas Rural Settlements Rural Hamlets Urban Residential Areas Low Density Areas ~ Medium Density Areas Mixed Use Areas Community Nodes Employment Areas ~ Prestige Employment Freeways and Major Utilities ~ = I Controlled Access Areas System" Redesignate from "Employment Areas - Prestige Employment" to "Mixed Use Areas - Community Nodes" Other Designations Prime Agricultural Areas :-••~ Federal Lands ···-· ~ Greenbelt Boundary [52] Airport Lands - 511 - City of Pickering City Development Department © May, 2026 This Map Forms Part of Edition 9 of the Pickering Official Plan and Must Be Read in Conjunction with the Other Schedules and the Text. Schedule 'C’ to Amendment '58' Existing Schedule XII - Neighbourhood 20: Thompson’s Corners Extract of Schedule XII to the Pickering Official Plan NEdition 9 Land Use Structure Subject Lands Remove the "Pedestrian Predominant Street" designation “Prestige Employment Node” to “Community Node” “Prestige Employment Node” to “Seaton Natural Heritage System” “Prestige Employment Node” to “Community Node” “Prestige Employment Node” to “Mixed Use Corridor Type 2" “Prestige Employment Node” to “Medium Density Area” “Community Node” to “Mixed Use Corridor Type 2" “Prestige Employment Node” and “Community Node” to “Mixed Use Corridor Type 2" “Prestige Employment Node” to “Medium Density Area” “Prestige Employment Node” to “Low Density Area Type 1" Added “VG” symbol - 512 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. 8275/26 Being a by-law designate the lands legally described as that Plan 65 Block D Lot 6 (the “Mansfield House”) and municipally known as 681 Pleasant Street, Pickering, as being cultural heritage value or interest. Whereas the Ontario Heritage Act authorizes the Council of a municipality to enact a by-law to designate real property, including all buildings and structures thereon, to be of cultural heritage value or interest; and Whereas on June, 22, 2026, Council endorsed the recommendations of its Heritage Advisory Committee to designate 681 Pleasant Street as being of cultural heritage value or interest; and Whereas the Reasons for Designation are set out in Schedule “A” to this by-law; and Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering has caused to be served on the owners of 681 Pleasant Street and upon the Ontario Heritage Trust, Notice of Intention to designate the property and has caused the Notice of Intention to be published in a newspaper having general circulation in the municipality as requested by the Ontario Heritage Act; and Now therefore, the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering enacts as follows: 1.The Mansfield House, known municipally as 681 Pleasant Street, is designated as being of cultural heritage value or interest for reasons set out in Schedule “A” attached hereto. 2.The City Solicitor is hereby authorized to cause a copy of this by-law to be registered on title to 681 Pleasant Street (the Mansfield House). 3.The City Clerk is authorized to cause a copy of this by-law to be served upon the owners of 681 Pleasant Street (the Mansfield House) and the Ontario Heritage Trust and to publish notice of this by-law in a newspaper having general circulation in the City of Pickering as required by the Ontario Heritage Act. By-law passed on this 22nd of June, 2026. ________________________________ Kevin Ashe, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 513 - Schedule “A” By-law No. 8275/26 Reasons for Designation Description of Property The Mansfield House, located at 681 Pleasant Street, is located on Plan 65, Block D, Lot 6 in the historic hamlet of Fairport, now part of the City of Pickering in the Region of Durham. The property is on the east side of Pleasant Street between Commerce Street to the north and Annland Street to the south. The property is approximately 0.1 hectares (0.25 acres) in size and contains a c.1872 one-and-a-half-storey red-brick dwelling constructed in the vernacular Gothic Revival style, and includes the surrounding residential lot, rear yard, and associated landscape. Reason for Designation 681 Pleasant Street is of cultural heritage value or interest as a well-preserved example of a nineteenth-century Gothic Revival farmhouse, significant for its architectural design, direct associations with prominent historical figures in Fairport’s development, and integral role in defining the character of the village core. The property exhibits the design/physical value required by Ontario Regulation 9/06. Its red- brick construction, T-shaped plan, steeply pitched gable with a pointed-arch window, segmental-arched openings, and original massing and proportions illustrate craftsmanship, stylistic expression, and architectural integrity. The property also has historical/associative value by virtue of its connections with Thomas Mansfield Sr., a key merchant and community leader in Fairport, and its long-term relationship with the nearby Mansfield General Store. The house embodies the nineteenth-century pattern of merchant-residence integration in small lakeport villages. Description of Heritage Attributes Key exterior elements that contribute to the property’s cultural heritage value include the following: Exterior Design/Physical Attributes: •Original form, scale, and massing; •Red brick construction with buff brick detailing; •Steeply pitched front gable with pointed-arch window; •Segmental-arched window openings with decorative voussoirs; •Tall, narrow windows and symmetrical front façade; and •Bracketed eaves; •Orientation of the house towards Pleasant Street with a shallow setback consistent with the historic village grid; and •The property’s visual and historical relationship with the Mansfield General Store at 1291 Commerce Street. - 514 - Historical/Associative Attributes: •Association with Thomas Mansfield Sr., a prominent early local merchant in Fairport; and •Historical associations between Thomas Mansfield Sr., his place of residence at 681 Pleasant Street and his place of work nearby at 1291 Commercial Street. Contextual Attributes: •Proximity and visual relationship to 1291 Commercial Street; •Location within the historic core of Fairport; •Contribution to the streetscape and understanding of village life in the late 1800s. - 515 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. 8276/26 Being a by-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 8149/24, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, for land City wide (A 03/25) Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering initiated an application to rezone the subject lands, being Part of Lot 17 and 18, Concession 8, Now Parts 1 to 3, 40R-16072 in the City of Pickering, to restore residential zoning permissions for a Detached Dwelling containing two dwelling units that were previously allowed under the “A/GC” – Agricultural/Golf Course zoning which existed prior to the passing of By-law 8149/24; And whereas the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering also initiated the application to rezone the subject lands to recognize an existing Dwelling Unit within the golf course club house as an accessory to activities normally considered incidental and subordinate to a golf course; And whereas the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering considers it appropriate to amend Zoning By-law 8149/24 to recognize the use of the subject lands for the purposes of a golf course inclusive of ancillary uses and activities, and these three existing dwelling units, as accessory to activities normally considered incidental and subordinate a golf course; And whereas an amendment to By-law 8149/24, as amended, is therefore deemed necessary; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1.Schedule 1 of By-law 8149/24, as amended, is hereby amended to delete the existing notation “GC” and replaced by the notation X446 (GC) as depicted on Schedule I to this By-law. 1.The provisions of this By-law shall apply to the lands being Part of Lot 17 and 18, Concession 8, Now Parts 1 to 3, 40R-16072, in the City of Pickering, designated “X446 (GC)” on Schedule I to this By-law. 2.Section 15, Exceptions, of By-law 8149/24, as amended, is hereby further amended by adding a new Exception Zone X446 as follows: Exception Zone 446 (By-law 8276/26) 1.Provisions (“X446 (GC)” Zone) No person shall within the lands zoned “X446 (GC)” on Schedule I attached hereto use any lot or erect, alter or use any building or structure for any purpose except the following: a)Permitted Uses - 516 - By-law No. 8276/26 Page 2 i.Golf Course inclusive of an ancillary special events tent and banquet facility, having an area of not greater than 465 square metres and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, is used for golf tournaments, wedding ceremonies and receptions, and, other similar functions and activities. ii.Detached Dwelling, containing two dwelling units, provided that the total gross floor area of the detached dwelling does not exceed 300 square metres. iii.Dwelling Unit, having a gross floor area of not greater than 90 square metres, within a portion of the golf course club house. iv.Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures as are considered incidental and subordinate to the uses permitted in subsections (i), (ii) and (iii) above inclusive of a maintenance building, which includes an office and meeting room together with facilities intended to serve the daily needs of persons employed on the property, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes the use of shipping containers for the storage of equipment, goods and materials utilized in association with the operation and maintenance for the golf course and related ancillary facilities. b)Zone Regulations i.Minimum Lot Area – 30 hectares ii.Minimum Lot Frontage – 500 metres iii.Minimum Yard Requirements – All Buildings and Structures: a.Front Yard – 30 metres b.Interior Side Yard – 15 metres c.Rear Yard – 370 metres iv.Maximum Lot Coverage – 5 percent v.Maximum Height of Buildings and Structures – 12 metres c)Special Provisions i.notwithstanding Section 2(b)(iii)(b) above, the minimum required interior side yard between the easterly property line and the easterly wall of the club house shall be 6 metres. ii.Shipping Containers a.the maximum gross floor area of all shipping containers shall not exceed 300 square metres in area. - 517 - By-law No. 8276/26 Page 3 b.notwithstanding the provisions of Section 4.37 of By-law 8149/24, no shipping container shall be located within 30 metres of the front lot line or within 6 metres of an interior side lot line or rear lot line. 3.By-law 8149/24, as amended, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 8149/24, as amended. 4.This By-law shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. By-law passed this 22nd day of June, 2026. ________________________________ Kevin Ashe, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 518 - "'O ro 0 0:: � (.) e ((l I ' E <Xl ..... ..... 45. Sm E C"') � � 201.07 m 350.47 m E r-- LC) Cf) 0 LC) X446(GC) l-1nnTn rnnl"''"'""'ll"\n Rne>rl � 561.08 m 59.56 lin - Schedule I to By-Law 8276/26 Passed This 22nd Day of June, 2026 Mayor Clerk E O"l Cf) Cf) ..... E .....� 0 .,.... E O"l <Xl -.::I" t N - 519 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. 8277/26 Being a by-law to confirm the Appointment of Boghosian + Allen LLP as the Integrity Commissioner and Lobbyist Registrar for the City of Pickering Whereas Section 223.3 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 (the “Act”), authorizes a municipality to appoint an Integrity Commissioner who reports to Council and who is responsible for performing in an independent manner the functions assigned by the municipality; And Whereas Section 223.11 of the Act, authorizes the City of Pickering to appoint a Lobbyist Registrar who is responsible for performing in an independent manner the functions assigned by the City of Pickering with respect to a Lobbyist Registry; And Whereas Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act, authorize the City of Pickering to pass by-laws that are necessary or desirable for municipal purposes, and in particular paragraph 2 of subsection 10(2) authorizes by -laws respecting the accountability and transparency of the municipality and its operations; And Whereas the current contract for Integrity Commissioner and Lobbyist Registrar services for the City of Pickering will expire on November 14, 2026; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1.That Boghosian + Allen LLP, is hereby appointed as the Integrity Commissioner and Lobbyist Registrar for the City of Pickering; and, 2.That in accordance with the agreement between Boghosian + Allen LLP , as the City of Pickering’s Integrity Commissioner and Lobbyist Registrar, and the City of Pickering, the following roles and services shall be provided: Role: In accordance with Section 223.3(1) of the Municipal Act, the role of the Integrity Commissioner is: (a)The application of the Code of Conduct for Members of Council and for members of local boards; (b)The application of any procedures, rules and policies of the City and local boards governing the ethical behaviour of Members of Council and local boards; (c)The application of sections 5, 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act to Members of Council and local boards; - 520 - By-law No. 8277/26 Page 2 (d)Respond to requests from Members of Council and of local boards for advice respecting their obligations under the Code of Conduct applicable to the member; (e)Respond to requests from Members of Council and of local boards for advice respecting their obligations under a procedure, rule or policy of the City or of a local board, governing the ethical behaviour of members; (f)Respond to requests from Members of Council and of local boards for advice respecting their obligations under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act; and, (g)Provide educational information to Members of Council, local boards, the City and the public about the City’s Code of Conduct and the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. Duties: The Integrity Commissioner shall cause to perform, in an independent manner, the functions of an Integrity Commissioner pursuant to Part V.1 of the Municipal Act, with respect to the application of the Code of Conduct for Members of Council and of local boards, of the City of Pickering, including any legislation, procedures, rules and policies of the City governing the ethical behaviour of the Members. The mandate of the Integrity Commissioner includes: (a)Providing advice and education upon request by a Member or by Council or the local board as a whole, regarding ethical obligations and responsibilities under their Code of Conduct, and any other legislation, rules or policies governing their ethical behaviour; (b)Receiving, assessing and investigating where appropriate, complaints may by Council, a Member of Council, a local board, a member of a local board, a member of staff, or a member of the public respecting an alleged breach of the City’s Code of Conduct through the provisions of the Code of Conduct and any Procedures for complaints; (c)Receiving, assessing and conducting an inquiry, where appropriate, with respect to requests for inquiry made by an elector, or a person demonstrably acting in the public interest concerning an alleged contravention of section 5, 5.1, 5.2 or 5.3 of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act; (d)Giving advice on policy issues and the workings of the City’s Integrity Commissioner’s office; and, (e)All advice being provided in writing in accordance with the requirements of Section 223.3(2.2) of the Municipal Act; The Integrity Commissioner shall cause to perform, in an independent manner, the functions of a Lobbyist Registrar in accordance with section 223.11 of the Municipal Act, and By-law 8003/23 which includes but is not limited to: - 521 - By-law No. 8277/26 Page 3 (a)providing advice, opinions and interpretation pertaining to the administration, application and enforcement of the Lobbyist Registry By -law; (b)conducting inquiries in respect of a request made about compliance with the Lobbyist Registry By-law, which may include requesting that a Public Office Holder gather information concerning Lobbying of themselves and provide that information to Lobbyist Registrar; (c)enforcing the Lobbyist Registry By -law; (d)suspending, revoking or refusing a Registration or Return; (e)advising Council on Lobbying matters and recommending improvements to the Lobbyist Registry By-law; and, (f)providing an annual report to Council and any other reports as the Lobbyist Registrar considers appropriate. Reporting to Council: (a)The Integrity Commissioner will report directly to Pickering City Council with a report containing the results of investigations and one annual report summarizing the year’s activities, observations, and any resulting general recommendations including reporting on matters pertaining to the City’s Lobbyist Registry; and, (b)The Integrity Commissioner may recommend that City Council impose penalties in accordance with the Municipal Act if in the opinion of the Integrity Commissioner, a Member has contravened the Code of Conduct. Other General Provisions: (a)Should the Integrity Commissioner conduct an investigation or provide any other service, it shall do so in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement executed between it and the City of Pickering and shall adhere to all applicable laws, applicable statutes, and established City Policies; and, (b)All services provided by the Integrity Commissioner shall conform to all the statutory requirements of Section 223.3 to 223.12 of the Municipal Act. 3.That By-law 7956/22 be repealed effective November 14, 2026. 4.That this By-law shall come into effect as of November 15, 2026. By-law passed this 22nd day of June, 2026. ________________________________ Kevin Ashe, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel , City Clerk - 522 - Memo To: Mayor Ashe and June 22, 2026 Members of Council From: Susan Cassel City Clerk Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Deputy Clerk Coordinator, Records, Elections & Privacy Subject: By-law to Establish the 2026-2030 Municipal Election Joint Compliance Audit Committee and Appoint a Roster of Individuals to Serve on the Committee File: A-1400 At its Meeting held on March 23, 2026, through Resolution #965/26, Council approved the establishment of the 2026 Municipal Election Joint Compliance Audit Committee (the “Committee”), along with the Committee’s Terms of Reference, and authorized the City Clerk to recruit and bring forward a by-law for the remuneration and appointment of a roster of individuals to serve on the Committee. Since the March 23rd Council Meeting, a joint recruitment process was undertaken by the Region of Durham and participating lower tier municipalities (the “Participating Bodies”). The recruitment consisted of an application process and individual interviews for qualified candidates. A total of 25 applications were received and of those 25 applications, 12 candidates were interviewed based on their qualifications and experience. The attached By-law represents the roster of individuals, as agreed upon by all Participating Bodies, which is being presented to Council for enactment. In accordance with the approved Terms of Reference for the Committee, all Participating Bodies are bringing forward the same roster of names for appointment to their respective Municipal Councils. It should be noted that due to Bill 100, Better Regional Governance Act, 2026, that reached Royal Assent on May 7, 2026, the Regional Chair for The Regional Municipality of Durham is - 523 - no longer an elected position. Therefore, the Region of Durham no longer needs to engage the services of a Compliance Audit Committee. A letter advising such from the Regional Clerk is included as Attachment 2 to this Memo. Due to these legislated changes, the Compliance Audit Committee Terms of Reference has been updated to remove any references to the Region of Durham. The updated Terms form part of the By-law before Council for adoption. Upon enactment of the attached By-law, the 2026 Municipal Election Joint Compliance Audit Committee is deemed to be established in accordance with the Municipal Elections Act. SC:ks Attachment 1 Draft By-law Attachment 2 Letter from the Region of Durham dated May 28, 2026 - 524 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. 8278/26 Being a by-law to establish the 2026-2030 Municipal Election Joint Compliance Audit Committee and appoint a roster of individuals to serve on the Committee Whereas Section 88.37 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 32 (the “Act”), requires a council or local board to establish a compliance audit committee before October 1 of an election year; And Whereas at its Meeting held on March 23, 2026, through Resolution #965/26, Council approved the establishment of the 2026 Municipal Election Joint Compliance Audit Committee (the “Committee”), the Committee’s Terms of Reference, and authorized the City Clerk to recruit and bring forward a by-law for the remuneration and appointment of a roster of individuals to serve on the Committee; And Whereas a joint recruitment process was undertaken by the Participating Bodies in accordance with the approved Terms of Reference for the Committee; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1.That a Municipal Election Joint Compliance Audit Committee is hereby established in accordance with the Act for the 2026-2030 Term of Council; 2.That the following individuals are hereby appointed to the roster of members for the Committee, at least three (3) of whom shall be selected to deal with each compliance audit application, or report of the Clerk, in accordance with the approved Terms of Reference set out in Schedule “A” attached hereto and forming part of this By-law: •Kalli Chapman •Robert Freedman •Kelly Gravelle •David Nusko •Evan Read •Daphne Simon •Kelly Yerxa 3.That the remuneration of each Committee Roster Member be set at a $400.00 retainer fee (with such costs being shared equally amongst the Participating Bodies), a $400.00 fee per meeting attended for each Committee Member, an additional $100.00 for any additional Application and report being considered after the first one, during the same meeting, and mileage in accordance with the rate normally paid to employees of the City of Pickering; 4.That By-laws 7949/22 is hereby repealed; and, Attachment 1 - 525 - By-law No. 8278/26 Page 2 5.That this By-law shall come into force and effect on the date of passage. By-law passed this 22nd day of June, 2026. ________________________________ Kevin Ashe, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 526 - 1 2026 Municipal Election Joint Compliance Audit Committee Terms of Reference Name: The name of the Committee is the “2026 Municipal Election Joint Compliance Audit Committee” (“the Committee”). Definitions: Act means the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 32, as amended from time to time. Applicant means the individual who submitted the Application requesting a Compliance Audit. Application means an Application accepted by the Clerk under sections 88.33(2) and 88.35(2) of the Act. Candidate means the Candidate whose election campaign finances are the subject of an Application for a Compliance Audit. Clerk means the Clerk or secretary of the Participating Body, or their designate. Participating Bodies means the Town of Ajax, City of Oshawa, City of Pickering, the Town of Whitby and the Durham District School Board. Registered Third Party means an individual resident in Ontario, a corporation carrying on business in Ontario or trade union who has filed with the clerk of the municipality responsible for conducting an election, a notice of registration to be a Registered Third Party for the election pursuant to Section 88.6 of the Act, and whose election campaign finances are the subject of an Application for a Compliance Audit. Mandate: The Committee is established pursuant to the requirements of section 88.37 of the Act for the Participating Bodies. The powers and functions of the Committee are set out in section 88.33 to 88.37 of the Act. Schedule "A" to By-law 8278/26 - 527 - 2 Term of Committee: The term of appointment for the Committee shall be concurrent with the term of office of the council or local board elected in 2026 and shall therefore serve for four (4) years commencing on November 15, 2026 and concluding on November 14, 2030 or until such time the applicable Committee has disposed of any remaining matters in accordance with the Act, whichever is later. Composition: When a compliance audit Application from an elector or a report from the Clerk indicating a Candidate or Registered Third Party has contravened any of the contribution limits under section 88.9 of the Act is received, the Committee comprised of three (3) members shall meet and consider the Application and/or report in accordance with the Act. Members forming the Committee shall be selected by the Clerk from a roster of qualified individuals, who have been jointly recruited and appointed by the Participating Bodies. The following persons are ineligible for appointment: • Employees or officers of any of the Participating Bodies, • A member of council or of a local board of any of the Participating Bodies, • Any persons who are candidates in an election of any of the Participating Bodies for which the Committee is established; or • Any persons who are Registered Third Parties in an election of any of the Participating Bodies for which the Committee is established. Should an appointed Committee Member accept employment or become an officer with any of the Participating Bodies, become a member of council or of a local board of any of the Participating Bodies, or register as a Candidate or a Third Party with any of the Participating Bodies, they will have been deemed to have resigned. All Committee Members shall agree in writing that they will not work or volunteer for, or contribute to, any Candidate or Registered Third Party in any capacity in an election of any of the Participating Bodies. If a person on the roster to serve on the Committee is identified as having participated or contributed to a Candidate's campaign or Registered Third Party, that person shall not be eligible to be selected as a Member with respect to an Application within the applicable Participating Body where the participation or contribution to a Candidate’s campaign or Registered Third Party occurred. Conduct of Members: - 528 - 3 Members of the Committee shall comply and conduct themselves in accordance with the Joint Compliance Audit Committee Administrative Practices and Procedures for the Participating Bodies. Members shall not use their position on the Committee for any personal or political gain. Remuneration: Remuneration for Committee Members will be as follows: • $400.00 retainer fee (costs will be shared equally by the Participating Bodies) for those individuals on the roster. The retainer fee shall cover attendance at a mandatory training session and review of periodic updates or information supplied by the Clerk of any of the Participating Bodies. The retainer fee will also cover any conversations which occur outside of a formal meeting of the Committee, for example virtual meetings with the Clerk. Payment of the retainer fee does not denote membership on a committee and covers the four (4) year term; and • $400.00 per meeting attended, plus an additional $100.00 for any additional Application and report being considered after the first one, during the same meeting; plus mileage in accordance with the rate normally paid to employees of the applicable Participating Body. The per meeting rate shall cover review of background or agenda materials as required in preparation for a meeting. Membership Selection: At a minimum, the recruitment of persons to be included on the roster of individuals shall be advertised on the websites of the Participating Bodies. Other targeted recruitment measures may be initiated by the Clerks of the Participating Bodies. All applicants will be required to complete an application and may be subject to further screening and an interview. The selection process will be determined by the Clerks of the Participating Bodies. Applicants must have the ability to understand and apply the election campaign finance provisions of the Act and must remain impartial in order to fulfill their responsibilities. Preference will be given to candidates that have experience related to compliance audit activities or investigative or adjudicative processes. The following criteria will be considered when considering members: • Demonstrated knowledge and understanding of municipal election campaign finance rules, • Proven analytical and decision-making skills, • Experience working on committees, boards, adjudicative bodies, task forces or similar settings, - 529 - 4 • Experience in accounting and audit, law, law enforcement, academics, or municipal administration from related fields, • Demonstrated knowledge of quasi-judicial proceedings, • Availability and willingness to attend meetings; and, • Excellent oral and written communication skills. Meetings: Meetings will occur as needed and shall be conducted in accordance with the Joint Compliance Audit Committee Administrative Practices and Procedures for the Participating Bodies. Chair: At the first meeting of a Committee on a particular report or Application, the members shall appoint one member to act as Chair for the duration of the Committee’s deliberations. Role of Clerk: The Clerk will act as the main contact between the Committee, compliance audit Applicant, Candidate and Registered Third Party. In accordance with section 88.37(6) of the Act, the Clerk shall carry out any duties required under the Act to implement the Committee’s decisions. Where the Clerk or Committee determines that the Committee requires legal assistance in respect of a specific report or Application, or for other matters such as the Committee’s role, interpretation of legislation, procedure, or other matters of a general nature pertinent to the Committee’s business, the Clerk, in consultation with the Participating Body’s solicitor, shall retain legal counsel to provide advice that may be subject to solicitor client privilege to the Committee. Administrative Practices and Procedures: The Clerk(s) of the Participating Bodies shall establish administrative practices and procedures for the Committee in accordance with s. 88.37(6) of the Act and shall carry out any other duties under the Act to implement the Committee’s decisions. The Clerk(s) of the Participating Bodies may be required to make administrative changes to these Terms of Reference or the administrative practices and procedures from time to time due to legislative changes, or if, in the opinion of the Clerk(s), the amendments do not change the intent of the Terms of Reference or the administrative practices and procedures. - 530 - If you require this information in an accessible format, please contact Legislative Services at clerks@durham.ca or at 1-800-372-1102 ext. 2097. The Regional Municipality of Durham Corporate Services Department – Legislative Services Division 605 Rossland Rd. E. Level 1 PO Box 623 Whitby, ON L1N 6A3 Canada 905-668-7711 1-800-372-1102 durham.ca Alexander Harras M.P.A. Director of Legislative Services & Regional Clerk THIS LETTER HAS BEEN FORWARDED TO ALL PARTICIPATING BODIES May 28, 2026 Susan Cassel Clerk City of Pickering 1 The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Dear Susan: RE: Correspondence regarding Administrative changes arising from Bill 100, Better Regional Governance Act, Our File: A00 Council of the Region of Durham, at its meeting held on May 27, 2026, adopted the following resolution: That the Terms of Reference for the Region’s Municipal Election Compliance Audit Committee be repealed, and that the other Participating Bodies on the Joint CAC be so advised. Alexander Harras Alexander Harras, Director of Legislative Services & Regional Clerk AH/nb c: N. Pincombe, Commissioner of Finance Attachment 2 - 531 - CAO 50-26 Memo To: Mayor Ashe and June 22, 2026 Members of Council From: Jason Litoborski Division Head, Municipal Law Enforcement Services Copy: Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Subject: Appointment By-law - Tariq Mahmood, Gavin Irvine, Anthony Karabulut, Jackson Colquhoun, and Kaley Lam File: 2000-003-26 Please find attached a draft By-law to appoint Tariq Mahmood, Gavin Irvine, Anthony Karabulut, Jackson Colquhoun, and Kaley Lam as Municipal Law Enforcement Officers for the City of Pickering. These staff members are confirmed in positions enforcing the various licensing and regulatory By-laws within the City of Pickering. This Appointment By-law is to recognize that based on their dates of hire there is the need for these Officers to be appointed pursuant to the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, S.O 2019, c.1, Sched. 1. This draft By-law is attached for the consideration of City Council at its meeting scheduled for June 22, 2026. Attachment 1 Draft Appointment By-law - 532 - Memo To: Susan Cassel June 22, 2026 City Clerk From: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Copy: Director, City Development & CBO Division Head, Water Resources & Development Services Subject: Request for Road Establishing By-law Part Lots 46 and 47, RCP 1051, being Parts 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, Plan 40R-33081 and Part Lot 48, RCP 1051, being Part 22, Plan 40R-23842 Goldenridge Road File: Roadded.624/LD 16/2024 & LD 17/2024 Heading 2 The Owners have applied to the Land Division Committee to divide their property located at 1610 Goldenridge Road, creating three development lots fronting on Goldenridge Road. A condition of the severance is the establishment of Parts 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, Plan 40R- 33081 and Part 22, Plan 40R-23842 as public highway. As the owner has complied with all of the other conditions of LD 16/2024 and LD 17/2024, it is now appropriate to pass a by-law establishing Parts 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, Plan 40R-33081 and Part 22, Plan 40R-23842 as public highway, providing legal frontage to the newly created lots. Attached are a location map and a draft by-law for the consideration of City Council at its meeting scheduled for June 22, 2026. PB:ca Attachment 1 Location Map Attachment 2 By-law - 533 - af:j of PlCKERlNG City Development Department ""CJ cu 0 0::: Q) Ol ""CJ ·.:: C Q) ~ 0 (9 Part 22, 40R-23842 Goldenridge Road File: Roadded.624 ""CJ cu 0 0::: Q) Ol ""CJ ·.:: C Q) ""CJ 0 (9 Legal Description: Part 22, 40R-23842 and Parts 7 to 12, 40R-33081 Date: Jun. 11, 2026 © The CorpOfatioo oflhe City of Pickerir,g Produced (in part) under license from: © Kir,g's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resoorces . Al l rights rese;ved .: © His Majesty the King in SCALE: 1:500 I Right of Canada, Oepartmoot of Natural Resources . All rights reserved.:© Teraoot En16fprises Inc. and i1s suppl iers. Al l righ1s reser...ed : @M unic ipal Property Assessment Corporal ion and itssuppl iers.All rightsreserved THIS ISNOTAPLANa= SURVEY. L:\PLANNI NG\O 1-MapFiles\02 -Applications\Legal\Roadded\Roadded 624\Roadded624 .aprx Attachment 1 - 534 - Attachment 2 The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. 8280/26 Being a by-law to establish Part of Lots 46 and 47, RCP 1051, being Parts 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, Plan 40R- 33081 and Part of Lot 48, RCP 1051, being Part 22, Plan 40R-23842, as public highway. Whereas The Corporation of the City of Pickering is the owner Part of Lots 46 and 47, RCP 1051, being Parts 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, Plan 40R-33081 and Part of Lot 48, RCP 1051, being Part 22, Plan 40R-23842 and wishes to establish it as public highway. Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1.Part of Lots 46 and 47, RCP 1051, being Parts 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, Plan 40R- 33081 and Part of Lot 48, RCP 1051, being Part 22, Plan 40R-23842 are hereby established as public highway (Goldenridge Road). By-law passed this 22nd day of June, 2026. ________________________________ Kevin Ashe, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 535 -