bremner cable tunnel class … cable tunnel class environmental assessment ... railway lands east...

Toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited

BREMNER CABLE TUNNEL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT

APRIL, 2012

Toronto-Hydro Electric System Limited ii

Class EA – Bremner Cable Tunnel – Final Environmental Study Report April, 2012

10.11017.001.P01

Toronto-Hydro Electric System Limited iii


10.11017.001.P01

Executive Summary

Toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited (THESL) completed this Class Environmental Assessment Study to

address the development of a 600 m (approximate) cable tunnel that will link the proposed Bremner

Transformer Station (TS) to the existing electric system. A separate Class Environmental Assessment (EA)

is currently underway for the proposed Bremner TS; however, both projects are integral to each other

and are needed to serve the downtown core to increase electrical system reliability. Both studies are

being completed under the Environmental Assessment (EA) for Minor Transmission Facilities process,

which was developed by Ontario Hydro (now Hydro One), in consultation with the Ministry of

Environment (MOE) and approved, with conditions, through Order-in-Council No. 3436/80 on December

27, 1980.

The following problem statement was been developed to guide this Study:

Toronto's existing Windsor TS at John and Wellington Streets is nearing capacity, and

includes obsolete equipment. There is a need to increase reliability and to provide future

growth of the electricity supply in Toronto's downtown to support planned population

and employment growth. This requires replacing the obsolete equipment and providing

additional capacity through the proposed Bremner TS.

In addition to the ‘do nothing’ alternative, four alternative designs for the cable tunnel connection were

developed for comparison against the problem statement and evaluation criteria, addressing potential

effects on the natural environment, the social / cultural environment, and financial and technical

factors. Except for the ‘do nothing’ alternative, which is required under the EA Act, all are cable tunnel

options that follow a similar alignment along Bremner Boulevard and Lower Simcoe Street. The primary

differences between the cable tunnel options are the shaft locations. Due to property issues, the tunnel

route must remain within the Municipal right-of-way, or on land owned by Toronto Hydro. The design

alternatives consist of:

Alternative Summary Description

‘Do Nothing’ Alternative in which no action is taken. The cable tunnel is not built. Under the EA Act, this alternative must be included for evaluation against the other alternatives as a ‘sober second thought’ on the project as a whole.

Alternative 1 Shaft location on property at the southeast corner of Bremner Boulevard and Rees Street. (John Street corridor right-of-way)

Alternative 2 Shaft location on Bremner Boulevard, north of the proposed Bremner TS, immediately southeast of Alternative 3.

Alternative 3 Shaft location on the north of Bremner Boulevard, directly north of the proposed Bremner TS, within City of Toronto land.

Alternative 4 Shaft location on Rees Street, immediately west of the proposed Bremner TS.

Toronto-Hydro Electric System Limited iv


10.11017.001.P01

Figure Ex1. Proposed Route Alternatives.

With the exception of the ‘do nothing’ alternative, all alternatives are compatible with existing land uses

and consistent with anticipated growth and the overall planning vision for the area. The depth of

tunnelling will be sufficient to avoid disturbing archaeological resources in the study area; however

there is a high potential for the discovery of mid to late nineteenth and early twentieth century

archaeological remains during shaft construction. The extent and magnitude of archaeological and

cultural heritage effects are comparable for all alternatives. Maintenance costs are also expected to be

comparable across these alternatives, and overall effects on the study area are expected to be minimal.

Alternative 1, however, was evaluated as posing the least cumulative effects to the surrounding area

under the evaluation criteria. This option will result in the least construction effects, and although the

option will require the removal of the greatest number of street trees relative to the other alternatives,

it will have fewer impacts to the travelling public as a result of the shorter duration and extent of

construction necessary. It is also the financially and technically preferred option owing to the shorter

length of tunnel and alignment required. All street trees will be replaced post-construction.

Toronto-Hydro Electric System Limited v


10.11017.001.P01

Contents

1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1

2 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 About Toronto Hydro .................................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Project and Study Area Description .............................................................................................. 2

2.3 Problem / Opportunity Statement ................................................................................................ 3

2.4 Class EA for Minor Transmission Facilities .................................................................................... 4

2.5 The Environmental Study Report .................................................................................................. 6

3 The Need for Additional Capacity ......................................................................................................... 7

4 Description of the Existing Natural and Socio-economic Environment ................................................ 8

4.1 Land Use ........................................................................................................................................ 8

4.2 Terrestrial Environment .............................................................................................................. 17

4.3 Aquatic Environment .................................................................................................................. 18

4.4 Natural Hazards........................................................................................................................... 18

4.5 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage ............................................................................................. 18

4.6 Socio-economic Overview ........................................................................................................... 19

5 Description of Alternatives ................................................................................................................. 22

5.1 Do Nothing .................................................................................................................................. 23

5.2 Alternative 1 ................................................................................................................................ 23

5.3 Alternative 2 ................................................................................................................................ 24

5.4 Alternative 3 ................................................................................................................................ 25

5.5 Alternative 4 ................................................................................................................................ 26

6 Evaluation of Alternatives ................................................................................................................... 27

6.1 Do Nothing .................................................................................................................................. 33

6.2 Alternative 1 ................................................................................................................................ 33

6.3 Alternative 2 ................................................................................................................................ 33

6.4 Alternative 3 ................................................................................................................................ 34

6.5 Alternative 4 ................................................................................................................................ 34

6.6 Preferred Alternative .................................................................................................................. 34

Toronto-Hydro Electric System Limited vi


10.11017.001.P01

7 Environmental effects and Recommended Mitigation Measures ...................................................... 36

7.1 Water / Hydrology ...................................................................................................................... 36

7.2 Erosion and Sedimentation ......................................................................................................... 36

7.3 Vegetation, Wildlife / Habitat ..................................................................................................... 37

7.4 Noise / Vibration / Air Quality .................................................................................................... 37

7.5 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage ............................................................................................. 38

7.6 Human Health and Safety ........................................................................................................... 39

7.7 Transportation ............................................................................................................................ 39

8 Follow-up Commitments .................................................................................................................... 44

8.1 Permits and Approvals ................................................................................................................ 44

8.2 Monitoring .................................................................................................................................. 44

9 Public Consultation ............................................................................................................................. 45

9.1 Notices ........................................................................................................................................ 45

9.2 Public Information Centre and Community Meeting ................................................................. 45

9.3 Summary of Issues and Resolutions ........................................................................................... 46

9.4 Notice of Completion .................................................................................................................. 47

10 References ...................................................................................................................................... 48

Toronto-Hydro Electric System Limited vii


10.11017.001.P01

Table of Figures Figure 1. Location Key Map (City of Toronto, 2011) ..................................................................................... 1

Figure 2. Study Area Map (IBI Group, 2011) ................................................................................................. 3

Figure 3. Class EA Study Process (Ontario Hydro, 1992, pp. 3-2) ................................................................. 5

Figure 4. 2010 Forecast Percentage Loading at Windsor TS (Toronto Hydro, 2010). .................................. 7

Figure 5. Toronto Urban Growth Centre (Ontario Ministry of Infrastructure, 2008). .................................. 9

Figure 6. Excerpt from Toronto Official Plan Land Use Map (City of Toronto, 2009). ................................ 10

Figure 7. Railway Lands Secondary Plan Areas (City of Toronto, 2009). .................................................... 11

Figure 8. Railway Lands East Secondary Plan Streets, Blocks & Routes Map (City of Toronto, 2009). ...... 12

Figure 9. Railway Land Central Secondary Plan Parks and Open Space Map (City of Toronto, 2009). ...... 12

Figure 10. Railway Lands East Secondary Plan Land Use Map (City of Toronto, 2009). ............................. 13

Figure 11. Railway Lands Central Secondary Plan Land Use Map (City of Toronto, 2009). ........................ 13

Figure 12. Railway Lands East Secondary Plan Park and Open Space Uses (City of Toronto, 2009). ......... 14

Figure 13. Key Map of Land Uses in the Study Area. .................................................................................. 16

Figure 14. Map of Census Tract 5350012.00 (Statistics Canada, 2009). ..................................................... 19

Figure 15. Alternative 1 Concept. ............................................................................................................... 23




Figure 19. Proposed Route Alternatives. .................................................................................................... 28

Table of Tables Table 1. Population (Statistics Canada, 2011)............................................................................................. 20

Table 2. Occupied Dwellings (Statistics Canada, 2011). ............................................................................. 20

Table 3. Employment Rates (Statistics Canada, 2011). ............................................................................... 20

Table 4. Employment by Industry (Statistics Canada, 2011). ..................................................................... 20

Table 5. Place of Work Employment by Industry (City of Toronto, 2001). ................................................. 21

Table 6. Bremner Cable Tunnel EA – Evaluation Matrix. ............................................................................ 29

Table 7. Relative Score for Each Design Alternative based on Study Evaluation Criteria. .......................... 33

Table 8. Overview of Effects and Related Mitigation Measures. ................................................................ 40

Table 9. Summary of Comments / Correspondence Received. .................................................................. 47

Toronto-Hydro Electric System Limited viii


10.11017.001.P01

Appendices Appendix A – Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

Appendix B – Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment

Appendix C – Consultation Record

Toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited 1


10.11017.001.P01

1 INTRODUCTION

Toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited (THESL) is the municipal electrical power distribution company

for the City of Toronto, which is located in south central Ontario (see Figure 1). THESL is reviewing

various options to meet current and future electrical distribution needs in the City’s downtown area.

Figure 1. Location Key Map (City of Toronto, 2011)

A separate, but related, Class Environmental Assessment (EA) is underway to add a transformer station

(TS) to the downtown core, the proposed Bremner TS, which will serve the downtown core and increase

electrical system reliability. This EA Study specifically addresses the cable tunnel that will be required to

connect the proposed TS to the existing electric system.



10.11017.001.P01

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 ABOUT TORONTO HYDRO With 1,700 employees serving over 700,000 customers, THESL is one of the largest municipal electricity

distribution companies in Canada. Taking into account the six municipal electric utilities of the former

Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, which were amalgamated to create THESL in 1998, the company

has over 100 years of service history.

2.2 PROJECT AND STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION Transformer Stations and cables are integral components of the electricity supply system. Once

generated, electricity is transmitted via high-voltage transmission cables to transformers stations. These

stations then reduce or step down the high voltage electricity to a lower level that can be safely

distributed via feeder cables for use by electricity customers.

This Class EA study addresses the development of a subterranean cable tunnel, approximately 600 m in

length that will link the proposed Bremner Transformer Station to the existing electric system via the

recently completed Hydro One John – Esplanade cable tunnel. Provisions were made for the proposed

connection at Front Street West and Lower Simcoe Street when Hydro One constructed the John –

Esplanade cable tunnel to facilitate a connection to the proposed Bremner TS.

Electric power in Toronto’s downtown core is supplied almost exclusively through the Windsor

Transformer Station, which steps down 115 kV power to 13.8 kV. Itis located at the intersection of

Windsor and Wellington Streets. Utilization levels at this station are high due to the concentrated nature

of electric power load in the downtown, and it has been determined that a facility expansion is not

feasible. As a result, THESL has initiated a separate Class EA to construct the proposed Bremner TS. In

addition to providing additional transformer capacity, development of the new station will introduce

sufficient system redundancy to allow THESL to replace obsolete equipment at the existing Windsor TS.

The new Bremner Station will initially step down from 115 kV to 13.8 kV power; however, the

equipment will be upgradeable to permit 230 kV to 13.8 kV operation in anticipation of future needs.

Similarly, the incoming high-voltage circuits feeding the station will initially be operated at 115 kV, but

rated at 230 kV.

As shown in Figure 2, the study area surrounds the course of the proposed cable tunnel, running from

the intersection of Front Street West and Lower Simcoe Street, turning west along Bremner Boulevard

and terminating near the proposed Bremner TS at the southeast corner of the intersection of Bremner

Boulevard and Rees Street. The new tunnel will be located approximately 30 m underground. More

detailed information on the proposed Bremner Station may be obtained from the Environmental Study

Report (ESR) for the Station, prepared by IBI Group (August, 2011).



10.11017.001.P01

Figure 2. Study Area Map (IBI Group, 2011)

2.3 PROBLEM / OPPORTUNITY STATEMENT The following problem / opportunity statement was prepared in consultation with THESL:

Toronto's existing Windsor TS at John and Wellington Streets is nearing capacity, and

includes obsolete equipment. There is a need to increase reliability and to provide future

growth of the electricity supply in Toronto's downtown to support planned population

and employment growth. This requires replacing the obsolete equipment and providing

additional capacity through the proposed Bremner TS.



10.11017.001.P01

2.4 CLASS EA FOR MINOR TRANSMISSION FACILITIES The Class Environmental Assessment (EA) for Minor Transmission Facilities was developed as a “parent”

Class EA by Ontario Hydro (now Hydro One1), in consultation with the Ministry of Environment (MOE)

and approved, with conditions, through Order-in-Council No. 3436/80 on December 27, 1980. Once

approved, a “parent” Class EA, such as the Class (EA) for Minor Transmission Facilities, provides a

process for approving a defined class of projects under the Environmental Assessment (EA) Act, i.e.

“…any project subsequently proposed that falls within the defined class is automatically approved

provided it is planned in accordance with the environmental planning process described in the parent

document” (Ontario Hydro, 1992, p. iii).

The parent Class EA document, which was last updated on April 6, 1992, defines this class of projects to

include undertakings “…which will occur frequently, will be relatively small in scale, will have acceptable

environmental effects, and can be planned and constructed in accordance with a common process”

(Ontario Hydro, 1992, pp. 1-1). The parent Class EA also provides an opportunity for members of the

public or agencies to request that the Minister of the Environment issue a Part II Order to escalate the

project from a Class EA to a full Individual Environmental Assessment. The Minister may approve the

request in circumstances where project concerns are considered to be inadequately addressed under

the parent Class EA process, thereby warranting a more extensive Individual EA process. In cases where

a Part II Order request has not been received at the completion of the Class EA, THESL may proceed to

implementation, provided that all other required permits and approvals have been obtained.

In accordance with the parent Class EA document, the proposed undertaking is classified as a Type B

project. This type of project is defined as:

The planning, property acquisition, design and construction required to modify or

upgrade a transmission line, and the subsequent operation, maintenance and

retirement of the revised line where:

1) the work requires replacement of poles or towers (other than angle poles or

towers) and/or changes in the right-of-way for existing transmission lines capable

of operating at a nominal voltage of 115kV or higher and not more than 500 kV;

and,

2) the upgraded existing lines would operate at a nominal voltage of 115 kV or

higher and not greater than 500 kV.

(Ontario Hydro, 1992, pp. 1-1)

1 Ontario Hydro was restructured on April 1, 1999, into five separate entities, including Hydro One Incorporated

which assumed Ontario Hydro’s transmission operations and assets.



10.11017.001.P01

Figure 3. Class EA Study Process (Ontario Hydro, 1992, pp. 3-2)



10.11017.001.P01

2.5 THE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT The Class EA for Minor Transmission Facilities requires that an Environmental Study Report (ESR) be

prepared, which, in accordance with Section 3.6 of the Class EA document, would typically include the

following information:

A description of the undertaking.

A description of and the need (justification) for the project.

The location of the selected project.

The expected effects on the environment.

The alternatives, mitigation and predicted net effects.

A description of any required environmental monitoring.

In addition, Section 3.6 of the document stipulates that any concerns that were raised, and steps taken

to address concerns during the study be documented in the ESR. Furthermore, upon completion of the

ESR, Section 3.6 requires that a copy of the document be filed with the Ministry of the Environment and

Hydro One’s local area office for information purposes and that the document be made available for

public review and comment and to any party that requests a copy.



10.11017.001.P01

3 THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL CAPACITY

As stated in Section 2.2, electric load in Toronto’s downtown core is highly concentrated, and electrical

demand is increasing. In fact, population and employment growth in the area has been both

tremendous and rapid as detailed in Section 4.6 of this report. In addition, the only existing TS for the

downtown core, the 60 year-old Windsor TS at Windsor Street and Wellington Street West, is reaching

service capacity (See Figure 4) with equipment that is itself reaching end-of-life. As a result, both new

and replacement transformer capacity is needed to meet current and future needs in the downtown

core.

Figure 4. 2010 Forecast Percentage Loading at Windsor TS (Toronto Hydro, 2010).

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Summer 83% 83% 84% 86% 88% 89% 91% 93% 95% 97% 99%

Winter 65% 66% 67% 69% 70% 71% 73% 74% 76% 77% 79%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Pe

rce

nt

Load

ing

(Fir

m M

VA

Cap

)

2010 Percent Loading Forecast Windsor TS



10.11017.001.P01

4 DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING NATURAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC

ENVIRONMENT

A desktop and on-site review of information on the natural and socio-economic environment was

completed for the study area. This task included reviews of relevant policy documents and aerial

imagery, and site reconnaissance. Observations and findings are provided under the headings of Land

Use, Terrestrial Environment, Aquatic Environment, Natural Hazards, Archaeological and Cultural

Heritage and Socio-economic Overview.

4.1 LAND USE The land use review for this study included a literature review of relevant Provincial, Municipal and

agency planning policy documents to determine the policy context of the study area.

4.1.1 Current Policy Context

A variety of information was compiled to develop an accurate understanding of the current policy status

for the study area. This included a review of the Provincial Policy Statement and Places to Grow Growth

Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, and the City of Toronto Official Plan.

4.1.1.1 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2005

The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) is issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act and provides

Provincial direction on land use planning under the three umbrella principles of building strong

communities, wise use and management of resources, and protecting public health and safety. The

policies of the PPS may be implemented by Provincial plans and municipal policies on matters of

municipal interest.

Section 1.6 of the PPS requires that planning for infrastructure and public service facilities be integrated

with planning for growth to accommodate current and projected needs and that infrastructure and

public service facilities be provided in a coordinated, efficient and cost-effective manner (1.6.1). Existing

infrastructure and public service facilities should be utilized, where feasible, before considering new

construction (1.6.2).

4.1.1.2 Places to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH), 2006

The Places to Grow Act (2005) furnishes the Province with the authority to establish growth plans,

containing policies regarding urban expansion and settlement growth boundaries, to which all

municipalities within the Growth Plan area must conform. In this case, the entire City of Toronto is

located within the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH), 2006, and, the study area itself

is identified as “Downtown Toronto Urban Growth Centre” by the Plan.



10.11017.001.P01

Figure 5. Toronto Urban Growth Centre (Ontario Ministry of Infrastructure, 2008).

The Growth Plan for the GGH directs growth for much of Southern Ontario to the year 2031. In

particular, the Plan requires the coordination of land use and infrastructure investment (3.2.1). Urban

Growth Centres are to be the focal point for population and employment growth, supported by major

transit infrastructure (2.2.4.4.a,b,d).

4.1.1.3 City of Toronto Official Plan

The Toronto Official Plan provides a vision for the direction of growth and development in the City of

Toronto. Our review is based on the May 2009 office consolidation of the City’s official Plan, which

includes the Railway Lands Secondary Plans applicable to the study area.

We note that the Official Plan is not fully consistent with the Growth Plan as the implementing Official

Plan Amendment, OPA 72, adopted by Council on May 25, 2009, was struck down by the Ontario

Municipal Board on June 10, 2010. The City has since abandoned OPA 72, and will be addressing its

Growth Plan requirements as part of the next Official Plan Review.



10.11017.001.P01

The Official Plan contains a number of general policies of relevance to Hydro and Hydro facilities in the

City. Section 2.2.1 on downtown investment, for instance, explicitly recognizes the importance of

providing adequate infrastructure to support the downtown core. Policy 2d of this Section specifies, in

particular, that the City will seek direct and indirect investment to maintain high-quality business

infrastructure, including a stable and secure hydro-electric grid (Policy 2d). With respect to balancing

utility and pedestrian needs in the public realm, Policy 6b of Section 3.1.1 furthermore specifies that

sidewalks and boulevards will be designed to accommodate pedestrians by locating and designing

utilities within streets or buildings or underground, in a manner that will minimize negative impacts on

the natural pedestrian and visual environment.

Figure 6 indicates that General Land Use designations in the study area include Mixed Use Areas, Utility

Corridors, and Parks.

Figure 6. Excerpt from Toronto Official Plan Land Use Map (City of Toronto, 2009).

The Mixed Use Areas Designation (Section 4.5) permits a broad array of uses that focus on walking,

entertainment and culture. These areas are expected to absorb the majority of the anticipated

employment and residential growth in the City. The policies also place an emphasis on ensuring high

quality urban design and focus on pedestrian amenities.



10.11017.001.P01

The Utility Corridors Designation (Section 4.4) is used to identify linear corridors for the transmission of

energy, communication and the movement of people and goods. Non-utility related development is

generally prohibited; however, compatible recreational and open space purposes such as parkland,

sports fields, pedestrian and cycling trails and public transit facilities are permitted.

The Parks and Open Space Areas parent designation (Section 4.3) identifies lands comprising part of

Toronto’s green open space system. These lands are intended to offer people a recreational experience

and may include natural features such as valleys, watercourses and ravines. Development is generally

prohibited in these areas except for recreational and cultural facilities, conservation projects, cemetery

facilities, public transit and essential public works and utilities where supported by appropriate

assessment. Where Hydro Corridors overlap with this designation, Hydro uses will prevail.

As Figure 7 illustrates, the study area is also subject to the Railway Lands East and Central Secondary

Plans under the Official Plan, which set out more specific local area policies.

Figure 7. Railway Lands Secondary Plan Areas (City of Toronto, 2009).

Both of these Secondary Plans are intended to ensure that the area is developed as an integral part of

the downtown, and that the barrier effects of the road and rail corridors are minimized in order to

foster waterfront integration with the rest of the City. New development is to be mixed use and serviced

by effective and efficient transportation services, including rail and other transit services. Private

development is also subject to a high standard of urban design. Related to this, both districts are to be

generally structured on a grid-like public street system to facilitate a high-quality pedestrian

environment and street connectivity, including under and over-ground pedestrian connections, as

shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9. Both Plans also contain policies relating to facilitating district energy

systems.



10.11017.001.P01

Figure 8. Railway Lands East Secondary Plan Streets, Blocks & Routes Map (City of Toronto, 2009).

Figure 9. Railway Land Central Secondary Plan Parks and Open Space Map (City of Toronto, 2009).



10.11017.001.P01

Figure 10 shows that the majority of the proposed cable tunnel route overlaps with districts L, I and J of

the Railway Lands East Secondary Plan, sharing the Designations of Mixed Use Area, Utility Corridors and

Parks and Open Space Areas. Each of these Designations is generally consistent with the Designation in

the parent Official Plan.

Figure 10. Railway Lands East Secondary Plan Land Use Map (City of Toronto, 2009).

Figure 11 shows that the northern and western portions of the study area, along Bremner Boulevard,

overlap with Districts F and I of the Railway Lands Central Secondary Plan. These land use districts are

Designated Mixed Use Area, and Parks and Open Space Areas, and are generally consistent with their

counterparts in the parent Official Plan.

Figure 11. Railway Lands Central Secondary Plan Land Use Map (City of Toronto, 2009).



10.11017.001.P01

The Railway Lands East Secondary Plan identifies future Hydro sites, including proposed Bremner TS site.

Further to this, Section 6.11 of that Plan states that such lands may be used for public park purposes and

that, after the construction of an electrical facility, the lands may contain an ancillary park use

compatible with said facility.

Figure 12. Railway Lands East Secondary Plan Park and Open Space Uses (City of Toronto, 2009).

4.1.1.4 City of Toronto Zoning

The study area falls within four separate Toronto Zoning By-law areas, and Ontario Hydro uses are

generally permitted in all zones, subject to common site regulations. As a result, the tunnel shaft

buildings at, or above, street-level will be need to address these regulations.

4.1.1.4.1 City of Toronto Zoning By-law No. 438-86

Ontario Hydro uses are permitted in all use districts under Section 11, regulation 1-1 provided that there

is no open storage, site-specific regulations are met and all buildings are designed and maintained in

general harmony with surrounding buildings.

4.1.1.4.2 City of Toronto Railway Lands East Area A Zoning By-law No. 168-93

Ontario Hydro uses are permitted in all use districts under Section 4, regulation 7a, provided that there

is no open storage, common outdoor space and height regulations are met and all buildings are

designed and maintained in general harmony with surrounding buildings.



10.11017.001.P01

4.1.1.4.3 City of Toronto Railway Lands Central Zoning By-law No. 1994-0806

Ontario Hydro uses are permitted in all use districts under Section 10, regulation 1 provided that there is

no open storage, common outdoor space and height regulations are met and all buildings are designed

and maintained in general harmony with surrounding buildings.

4.1.1.5 Other Relevant Policy Documents / Initiatives

A large number of infrastructure and policy initiatives have recently been completed or remain

underway in the surrounding downtown area. However, the study area overlaps directly with:

The York-Bay-Yonge Interchange Reconfiguration Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Schedule C) which is currently underway;

The CEAA study boundary for the TTC’s Second Platform and Concourse Improvements Project Revitalization Project, completed in 2005, and which is currently under construction; and,

The Union Station District Plan, which set out a number of policies and infrastructure improvements necessary to support the enhancement of the public realm and improvement to the pedestrian environment surrounding Union Station.

John Street Revitalization Class EA, which is on-going and examining potential improvements to the public realm of John St. that are consistent with the concepts outlined in the Toronto Entertainment District Master Plan.

The proposed development is not expected to affect or be affected by any of these initiatives or policy

documents.

4.1.2 Adjacent Land Uses

This section describes adjacent and nearby land uses within the study area. A key map is provided as

Figure 13.



10.11017.001.P01

Figure 13. Key Map of Land Uses in the Study Area.

4.1.2.1 Intersection of Front Street and Lower Simcoe Street

a) The northwest corner of the intersection is occupied by the 33-storey, 70,000 m2 Simcoe Place office tower (200 Front Street West), which includes retail and restaurant uses.

b) The northeast corner is a commercial parking lot and sales centre for the recently completed Ritz Carleton development at 181 Wellington Street West.

c) The 8-storey, 30,000 m2 TOREX building (151 Front Street West) is located at the southeast corner of the intersection. This is a telecommunications carrier hotel and data centre that contains office, retail and restaurant uses.

d) The southwest corner includes the north block of the Metro Toronto Convention Centre (255 Front Street West,) which is primarily a hotel use. The building is roughly 56,000 m2 in size.

4.1.2.2 Lower Simcoe Street between Front Street and Bremner Boulevard

e) South of the intersection of Front Street and Lower Simcoe Street, a large railway corridor passes above Lower Simcoe Street. Above the railway corridor are a pair of PATH Sky Walk pedestrian bridges which, respectively, link the north and south Convention Centre buildings and the Convention Centre complex to Union Station.

4.1.2.3 Intersection of Bremner Boulevard and Lower Simcoe Street

f) The northwest corner of the intersection is occupied by the landscaped open space in front of the Convention Centre south building.

g) The northeast corner is under construction. A 26-storey, 60,000 m2 office tower, which will also include retail commercial uses, has been approved.

h) The southeast corner is occupied by the 35-storey, 407-unit Infinity 3 condominium tower, which is part of the Infinity complex.



10.11017.001.P01

i) The southwest corner is occupied by the Roundhouse Park (255 Bremner Boulevard) which includes the Steam Whistle Brewery, a park and a railway museum.

4.1.2.4 Bremner Boulevard between Lower Simcoe Street and Rees Street

j) The north side of Bremner Boulevard includes the CN Tower and Metro Convention Centre lands, and is the future site of a new aquarium

k) The south side of Bremner includes the Roundhouse Park.

4.1.2.5 Intersection of Rees Street and Bremner Boulevard

l) The north side of the intersection of Rees Street and Bremner includes the Rogers Centre (1 Blue Jays Way) sports stadium.

m) The southeast corner of the intersection includes Roundhouse Park. n) The southwest corner of the intersection includes an overpass over an underground parking

access and the City of Toronto’s John Street Pumping Station.

4.2 TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT This subsection provides an overview of existing vegetation communities, wildlife and wildlife habitat

and Designated Species and Areas within the study area.

4.2.1 Vegetation Communities

The vegetation communities within the study area comprises of trees planted in an urban setting.

Natural or cultural vegetation communities are absent within the cable tunnel study area, but there is a

Cultural Woodland (CUW) vegetation community located south of Bremner Boulevard and east of Rees

Street.

Vegetation Communities were identified using air-photo interpretation, aided by the Google Earth-Street View tool. Significant species including provincially rare species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), federally rare species listed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), and species given protection priorities by the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) are not expected within the study area due to its highly impacted state." The street trees and adjacent vegetation communities are documented in the table below.

4.2.1.1 Impacted Trees

Trees in the study area include Oak (Quercus sp.), American Basswood (Tilia americana) and Freeman’s

Maple (Acer X freemanii). All the trees are isolated and located within an urban setting.

4.2.1.2 Adjacent Vegetation Community - CUW1 Cultural Woodland:

This vegetation community represents vegetation of cultural origin with tree cover ranging from 35% to

60% dominating on mineral soils. The species composition within this community is dominated by

canopy trees including Freeman’s Maple (Acer X freemanii), Black Pine (Pinus nigra), Norway Maple

(Acer platanoides) and Oak (Quercus sp.); and ground cover including Kentucky Bluegrass (Poa

pratensis), Common Burdock (Arctium minus) and Tufted Vetch (Vicia cracca). This ecosite is common in

the urban areas of the City of Toronto.



10.11017.001.P01

4.2.1.3 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

The lack of vegetation communities and the existing urban conditions limit wildlife habitat within the

study area. Mammals and reptiles are mostly absent. Birds common in urban areas including Rock

Pigeon, European Starlings and occasional House Finch are expected to be found within the cultural

setting of the study area.

4.2.2 Designated Species and Areas

There are no Significant Natural Features and Significant Species within and adjacent to the study area.

The NHIC records indicate that there were 28 significant species with historic, extirpated and verified

existent records for 2 birds including Piping Plover and Least Bittern; 21 plants including Stiff Gentian,

Oil-field Toadflax, Red Mulberry, Biennial Gaura, Black Cohosh, Round-leaved Monkey –flower, White

Wood Aster, Woodland Flax, Sundial Lupine, Stiff Yellow Flax, Erect Knotweed, American Gromwell,

Unicorn Clubtail and Broad Beech Fern; 1 historic red side dace fish record (1924); and 5 reptiles

including Spiny Softshell, Blanding’s Turtle, Eastern Musk Turtle, Queensnake and Eastern Ribbonsnake.

Historic, extirpated and verified existent records of endangered species including Piping Plover, Red

Mulberry, Redside Dace and Queensnake; threatened species including Least Bittern, White Wood

Aster, Spiney Softshell, Blanding’s Turtle and Eastern Musk Turtle; and species of Special Concern

including Broad Beech Fern and Eastern Ribbonsnake were present near the City of Toronto lakeshore

area as per NHIC (1858 to 1941).

The urbanization in the lakefront area within the City of Toronto and lack of natural features within the

study area rules out the possibilities of existence of these existent and historic species within the study

area.

4.3 AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT There are no permanent or intermittent watercourse features within the study area.

4.4 NATURAL HAZARDS There are no natural hazards present in the study area, based on the definition provided in the

Provincial Policy Statement.

4.5 ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE Stage 1 Archaeological background research was conducted to evaluate the study area’s potential to

contain archaeological resources.

Consultation of the records for listed and designated heritage properties within the City of Toronto’s

Inventory of Heritage Properties, as well as the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture’s database,

confirmed the presence of twohree designated heritage properties within 100 metres of the proposed

shaft locations, including the Part IV Designated CP Roundhouse at 222 Bremner Boulevard and the Part

V Designated CP Roundhouse at 255 Bremner Boulevard, as well as the entire study area, which falls



10.11017.001.P01

within the Union Station Heritage Conservation District, designated under Part V of the OHA by City of

Toronto Designation By-Law passed in 2006.

Regarding the cable tunnel alignment, tunnelling will occur minimally 30 m below the ground surface.

These impacts will be too deep to harm any overlying archaeological resources. The study area does

include an area of high archaeological potential for the discovery of mid to late nineteenth and early

twentieth century archaeological remains. The original and later CP Roundhouse have been identified as

culturally significant archaeological resources.

Although the study area has been disturbed from intensive land filling activities as well as the recent

construction of roadways and sidewalks, within this urban context, deeply buried archaeological

resources can remain sealed and, thus, entirely preserved within this fill layer. This statement is

supported by the discovery of remnants of the old roundhouse when the Metro Toronto Convention

Centre expansion project occurred in 1995.

4.6 SOCIO-ECONOMIC OVERVIEW This section provides an overview of key socio-economic conditions within the study area, as

represented by Census Tract 5350012.00, in the City of Toronto, using data from the 2001 and 2006

Census of Canada. A map of the census tract is provided as Figure 14.

Figure 14. Map of Census Tract 5350012.00 (Statistics Canada, 2009).

4.6.1 Demographics

As shown in Table 1, Census results for the tract indicate that significant and rapid population growth

has occurred in the area with an increase of 169% between 2001 and 2006. By contrast, the Census

Metropolitan Area (CMA) underwent an average of 9% growth over the same period. Rapid and

significant residential development is consistent with the planning policy context for the area described

in Section 4.1.1.3 of this report.



10.11017.001.P01

Table 1. Population (Statistics Canada, 2011).

Census Year Census Tract CMA

2001 2,995 4,682,897

2006 8,053 5,113,149

Percent Change 169% 9%

4.6.2 Economic Development

Economic indicators also portray a rapidly developing area. In line with residential population growth,

the total number of occupied dwellings by usual residents increased by 178% between 2001 and 2006,

in contrast with the Census Metropolitan Area, which grew by 10% (see Table 2). Table 3 indicates that

employment rates have also remained higher than the CMA average over both Census years. Both

growth trends are consistent with the planning policy context for the area described in Section 4.1.1.3 of

this report. These trends are also consistent as the area transitions from predominantly industrial uses,

such as the former railway yards, to mixed uses such as the Infinity residential condominium

development, the Air Canada Centre and the proposed Aquarium.

Table 2. Occupied Dwellings (Statistics Canada, 2011).


2001 1,805 1,634,755

2006 5,015 1,801,255

Percent Change 178% 10%

Table 3. Employment Rates (Statistics Canada, 2011).


2001 78% 65%

2006 77% 64%

Employment by industry results for the Tract, as tabulated by place of residence, indicates significant

overall employment growth of 173% between 2001 and 2006 (see Table 4). The largest proportional

shift in the employed population has been to the other services industries. Significant growth has also

occurred across many sectors, particularly in transportation and warehousing, health and education.

This growth trend is consistent with the planning policy context for the area described in Section 4.1.1.3

of this report.

Table 4. Employment by Industry (Statistics Canada, 2011).

Industry 2001

(% Share) 2006

(% Share) 2001 – 2006 (% Increase)

All industries 2,275 (100%) 6,210 (100%) 173%

Agriculture, forestry, fishing & hunting 0 (0%) 65 (1%)

Construction 25 (1%) 65 (1%) 160%

Manufacturing 160 (7%) 325 (5%) 103%

Wholesale trade 120 (5%) 275 (4%) 129%

Retail trade 165 (7%) 380 (6%) 130%

Transportation and warehousing 365 (16%) 1,145 (18%) 214%

Health care and social assistance 160 (7%) 515 (8%) 222%

Educational services 60 (3%) 245 (4%) 308%



10.11017.001.P01

Other services (except public admin.) 50 (2%) 920 (15%) 1,740%

2006 summary Census results, as tabulated by place of work, have not been released by the City.

However, the City’s 2001 tabulation indicated that 11,570 workers were working in the census tract in

2001 (Table 5), and that overall employment had grown by 34.1% between 1991 and 2001. Table 5 also

shows that the largest industries in the tract, at the time, included the: finance and insurance;

accommodation and food services; professional scientific and technical services; and arts, entertainment

and recreation industries. These employment shifts are consistent with the planning policy context for

the area described in Section 4.1.1.3 of this report.

Table 5. Place of Work Employment by Industry (City of Toronto, 2001).



10.11017.001.P01

5 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

This study examines alternative options for connecting Hydro One Networks’ existing electricity supply

at Front and Lower Simcoe Streets to the proposed Bremner TS. Without this connection, the proposed

Bremner TS would be unable to operate, and the study’s Problem / Opportunity Statement (to increase

the supply and reliability of electricity in Toronto’s downtown to support planned population and

employment growth) would not be adequately addressed.

As the cable connection is required in an urban environment, transmission techniques such as overhead

cables and shallow direct buried cable are not feasible due to conflicts with existing utilities and safety

concerns. Four cable tunnel design alternatives are identified and described in this Section. All are cable

tunnel options that follow a similar alignment along Bremner Boulevard and Lower Simcoe Street. The

primary differences between the cable tunnel options are the shaft locations. Due to property issues,

the tunnel route must remain within the Municipal right-of-way, or on land owned by Toronto Hydro.

Given right-of-way and ownership limitations, the route along Lower Simcoe Street and Bremner

Boulevard has been selected.

The Class EA for the Bremner TS has ruled out the potential replacement, upgrade and/or expansion of

the existing Windsor TS, as there is insufficient space for an expansion and insufficient system capacity

available to permit Windsor Station to be taken offline for equipment upgrade or replacement. Load

transfer to a nearby station has also been ruled out as THESL demand forecasts indicate that the

Windsor TS, and the four nearest substations, will all require additional service capacity by 2018

(Toronto Hydro, 2010). Furthermore, the two substations with expansion room in this group are also the

furthest, and would require extensive cable tunnelling across a dense urban area to connect to feeder

cables supplying the Windsor TS.

THESL has acquired the site for the proposed Bremner TS, which the City, Hydro One and THESL have

long intended for an electric substation use that would reduce demand on the Windsor TS and increase

overall system capacity and reliability in the downtown. As a result, a significant amount of background

work and a number of facilitating steps have been undertaken over the past several decades. The

Bremner site is located within the existing supply area of the Windsor TS, and was expressly designated

to accommodate an ‘electrical facility’ use with the adoption of the Railway Lands East Secondary Plan in

1991. THESL also installed cable ducts along Bremner Boulevard as part of another project in the area in

order to facilitate a feeder cable connection between the proposed station and the grid, recognizing the

suitability of the site and anticipating future electricity needs in the downtown.

A detailed description, with illustrations, of the Design Alternatives considered as part of this Class EA

study follows:



10.11017.001.P01

5.1 DO NOTHING As part of the EA process, the ‘do nothing’ option – in this case, not constructing the cable tunnel – has

been considered, and is evaluated in Section 6. The “do nothing” alternative describes a “business as

usual” scenario in which no action is taken to address the problem statement.

5.2 ALTERNATIVE 1 As shown in Figure 15, Alternative 1 has a shaft location on property at the southeast corner of Bremner

Boulevard and Rees Street.

Figure 15. Alternative 1 Concept.



10.11017.001.P01

5.3 ALTERNATIVE 2 Alternative 2, illustrated in Figure 16, has a shaft location on Bremner Boulevard, north of the proposed

Bremner TS, immediately southeast of Alternative 3, and directly north of Bremner TS.




10.11017.001.P01

5.4 ALTERNATIVE 3 Alternative 3, illustrated in Figure 17, has a shaft location on the north side of Bremner Boulevard,

directly north of the proposed Bremner TS.




10.11017.001.P01

5.5 ALTERNATIVE 4 Figure 18 shows that Alternative 4 has a shaft location on Rees Street, immediately west of the

proposed Bremner TS.




10.11017.001.P01

6 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

This section evaluates the four identified cable tunnel alternatives, shown in Figure 19, as well as the do

nothing alternative, that were considered as part of this Class EA study. The alternatives were evaluated

using the following criteria:

Natural environment;

Social / cultural environment;

Financial factors; and,

Technical factors.

A hybrid qualitative / quantitative approach was employed in evaluating each of the cable tunnel design

alternatives against the evaluation criteria. In some cases, this required a subjective judgement on the

relative merits and constraints for each design alternative relative to the evaluation criteria. A detailed

breakdown of the evaluation can be found in the matrix provided in Table 6. A score range of 0 to 4

points were assigned to each criteria group for each Alternative, as follows:

0 points: major negative impact/ no positive impact 1 point: some negative impact/ very little positive impact 2 points: fair – little negative or positive impact 3 points: very little negative impact/ some positive impact 4 points: no negative impact/ major positive impact More points were assigned to Alternatives with fewer projected impacts; therefore a higher score

indicates a ‘better’ ranking in terms of fewer impacts.



10.11017.001.P01

Figure 19. Proposed Route Alternatives.



10.11017.001.P01

Table 6. Bremner Cable Tunnel EA – Evaluation Matrix.

Alternative Shaft Locations Evaluation Criteria

Do Nothing Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Score 4 2 2 2 2

Natural Environment

Water quality & quantity

No impact over existing conditions





Aquatic habitat No impact over existing conditions





Designated features No impact over existing conditions

Significant Species and Significant Natural Features absent




Terrestrial habitat No impact over existing conditions

Removal of 3 trees within an urban setting

Removal of 1 tree within an urban setting

Removal of 2 trees within an urban setting

Removal of 1 tree within an urban setting



10.11017.001.P01



Score 2 2 2 1 3

Socio-economic/Cultural Environment

Conformity to local planning policies

Does not allow for planned growth in Toronto’s downtown

Conforms to planning policies




Archaeological and heritage resources (archaeological features, built heritage, and cultural heritage landscapes)


30 m tunnel depth is sufficient to avoid encountering or disturbing any artifacts that may exist in the study area Shaft excavation has the potential to disturb object of archaeological significance




Nuisance impacts (noise, pedestrian, traffic, visual, disruption during construction)


Minimal noise and vibration effects. Some impacts on pedestrian traffic on Rees Street Will require 1 traffic lane to be closed on Rees

Minimal noise and vibration impacts Significant impact on pedestrian traffic. Some effect on vehicular traffic

Minimal noise and vibration impacts Impact on pedestrian traffic. Some impact on vehicular traffic

Minimal noise and vibration impacts. Minimal pedestrian impacts Significant vehicular traffic impacts

Land acquisition No impact over existing conditions

Land acquisition / easement from City required

No land acquisition / easement required

Land acquisition required

No land acquisition / easement required



10.11017.001.P01



Score 4 4 3 3 2

Financial Factors

Estimated capital and O&M costs and total estimated cost (25 year planning horizon)


Least expensive construction costs (smaller area, property costs may be minimal). Operations and maintenance the same for all alternatives

Construction cost more expensive than the other alternatives Operations and maintenance the same for all alternatives

Requires lease / purchase of land Construction cost similar to Alternative 2 Operations and maintenance the same for all alternatives

More expensive construction costs than Alternative 1. Less expensive than Alternatives 2 and 3 Operations and maintenance the same for all alternatives

Cable connection from tunnel to station

No cable connection with the do nothing alternative

Minimal cable connection

Short shallow tunnel required across Bremner Boulevard

Short, shallow tunnel required across Bremner Boulevard

Short, shallow tunnel required across Rees Street, more congested with shallow utilities

Access to tunnel No tunnel required Able to provide at-grade access from proposed Bremner TS

Able to provide access at grade on roadway

Able to provide at-grade access off of roadway

Able to provide access at-grade on roadway



10.11017.001.P01



Ranking Not Applicable 4 1 3 4

Technical Factors

Location of shaft No shaft. Not applicable

In Boulevard 200 mm sanitary relocation. Abandoned watermain reinstatement required

In Roadway, significant relocation required of 400 mm watermain

Outside of ROW. No conflicts with utilities. Circular construction possible

In Roadway, minimal relocation required for Rees Street construction

Cable tunnel route No tunnel required. Not applicable

Under Rees Street. Minimum radius of +/-62 m. Difference in length is negligible

Under Bremner Blvd. Minimum radius of 62 m. Difference in length is negligible

Under Bremner Blvd. Minimum radius of +/-62 m. Difference in length is negligible

Under Rees Street. Minimum radius of +/-62 m. Difference in length is negligible

Cable connection from tunnel to station

No tunnel required. Not applicable

Simpler connection Very close proximity

Requires shallow tunnel Requires shallow tunnel Requires shallow tunnel

Access to tunnel No tunnel required. Not applicable

Both at grade, and on Blvd

At grade, on roadway At-grade, outside of ROW

At-grade, on roadway

Conflicts with / relocation of existing infrastructure

None 200 mm sanitary sewer. Relocate abandoned watermain

400 mm watermain relocation required

No relocation required Minor relocation required on Rees Street

Potential effects on existing structures/ infrastructure

None Minimum probability Minimum probability

Unlikely however, proximity to Rogers Centre increases probability of potential effects

Minimum probability

Addresses problem statement

No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Total 10 12 8 9 11


Class EA – Bremner Cable Tunnel – Final Environmental Study Report August, 2011

10.11017.001.P01

As summarized in Table 7, Alternative 1 performed best in relation to the study evaluation criteria. A

discussion of the relative merits and key constraints for each alternative follows as well as a summary

regarding of key points regarding the selection of the preferred alternative..

Table 7. Relative Score for Each Design Alternative based on Study Evaluation Criteria.


10 12 8 9 11

6.1 DO NOTHING The ‘do nothing’ alternative takes no action to address the problem statement, and would therefore not

support Toronto Hydro in meeting the projected future electricity needs of the City of Toronto. This

option was, therefore, not pursued as a viable alternative. This alternative attained a ranking of 10 in

the evaluation matrix.

6.2 ALTERNATIVE 1 This alternative is consistent with the broader local vision for the downtown and anticipated needs. The

alternative is generally supportive of local planning policies, and will assist the City to accommodate

anticipated growth in the downtown. This alternative is also expected to be the least expensive to build,

owing to the minimal land acquisition costs and the shorter length and simpler configuration of the

tunnel required. Implementation is generally not expected to result in increased nuisance effects over

those levels already present; however, one lane will need to be closed on Rees Street during the

construction period. Three trees will need to be removed adjacent to the exit point of Alternative 1. The

depth of tunnelling will be sufficient to avoid disturbing archaeological resources in the study area;

however, there is a high potential for the discovery of remains during shaft construction. The extent and

magnitude of archaeological effects are comparable for all alternatives. Alternative 1 attained a ranking

of 12 in the evaluation matrix.

6.3 ALTERNATIVE 2 Alternative 2 is also consistent with the broader local vision for the downtown and anticipated needs. It

is generally supportive of local planning policies, and will assist the City to accommodate anticipated

growth in the downtown. Land acquisition will not be needed. However, construction costs are

expected to be more significant, especially as a 400 mm watermain will need to be relocated. A short

and shallow tunnel will be required to cross Bremner Boulevard. Although the alternative is expected to

generate minimal noise and vibration effects during construction, pedestrian traffic will be significantly

affected, as will vehicular traffic, to a lesser extent. Only one tree will need to be removed. The depth of

tunnelling will be sufficient to avoid disturbing archaeological resources in the study area; however,

there is a high potential for the discovery of remains during shaft construction. The extent and

magnitude of archaeological effects are comparable for all alternatives. This alternative attained a

ranking of 8 in the evaluation matrix.



10.11017.001.P01

6.4 ALTERNATIVE 3 Alternative 3 is consistent with the broader local vision for the downtown and anticipated needs. It is

generally supportive of local planning policies, and will assist the City to accommodate anticipated

growth in the downtown. Land acquisition will be needed, and construction costs are expected to be on

par to those expected from Alternative 2. Construction nuisance effects on pedestrian traffic will be

significant and moderate effects are also expected for vehicular traffic. A short and shallow tunnel will

be required to cross Bremner Boulevard. This alternative is also more likely to affect existing structures

and/or infrastructure owing to its proximity to the Rogers Centre. Two trees will need to be removed

adjacent to the exit point of Alternative 3. The depth of tunnelling will be sufficient to avoid disturbing

archaeological resources in the study area; however, there is a high potential for the discovery of

remains during shaft construction. The extent and magnitude of archaeological effects are comparable

for all alternatives. This alternative attained a ranking of 9 in the evaluation matrix.

6.5 ALTERNATIVE 4 As was the case with Alternatives 1 through 3, Alternative 4 is consistent with the broader local vision

for the downtown and anticipated needs. It is generally supportive of local planning policies, and will

assist the City in accommodating anticipated growth in the downtown core. It will require a short

shallow tunnel across Rees Street, which is more congested with utilities, but minimal infrastructure

relocations are expected to be needed. The alternative will not require additional land acquisition;

however, construction costs are expected to be lower than Alternatives 2 and 3, higher than those

expected for Alternative 1. Significant vehicular traffic effects are expected during construction, but

pedestrian traffic effects are expected to be minimal. Only one tree will need to be removed adjacent to

the exit point of the Alternative 4. The depth of tunnelling will be sufficient to avoid disturbing

archaeological resources in the study area; however, there is a high potential for the discovery of

remains during shaft construction. The extent and magnitude of archaeological effects are comparable

for all alternatives. This alternative attained a ranking of 11 in the evaluation matrix.

6.6 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE With the exception of the ‘do nothing’ alternative, all options are compatible with existing land uses and

consistent with anticipated growth and the overall planning vision for the area. The depth of tunnelling

will be sufficient to avoid disturbing archaeological resources in the study area; however, high potential

will exist for the discovery of mid to late nineteenth and early twentieth century archaeological remains

during shaft construction. The extent and magnitude of archaeological effects are comparable for all

alternatives. Maintenance costs are also expected to be comparable across these alternatives, and

overall effects on the study area are expected to be minimal.



10.11017.001.P01

Relative to all the options evaluated, Alternative 1 attained the highest score in the evaluation matrix.

This option will result in the least construction effects, and although the option will require the removal

of the greatest number of street trees relative to the other alternatives, it will least affect the travelling

public as a result of the shorter duration and extent of construction necessary. The road closure to

accommodate construction will be on Rees Street, not Bremner Boulevard. It is also the financially and

technically preferred option owing to the shorter length of tunnel and alignment required. Furthermore,

all street trees will be replaced post-construction.



10.11017.001.P01

7 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION

MEASURES

This Section of the report addresses environmental effects associated with the preferred design

alternative and provides recommendations regarding mitigation. A summary table of effects and related

mitigation measures is also provided as Table 8.

7.1 WATER / HYDROLOGY

7.1.1 Effect

There are no surface water features in the study area. The potential exists, however, for localized

groundwater quality impacts as a result of spills and/or tunnelling operations. Work on the undertaking

may require the taking of ground water particularly due to the construction of the main tunnel shaft.

7.1.2 Mitigation

All water used for construction or tunnelling purposes will drain into the main construction shaft

bottom, and along with any groundwater infiltration into the shaft, will be pumped into a

holding/settling tank at the ground surface prior to being discharged to the sanitary sewer system.

There should be no, or minimal, surface water permitted to leave the construction area. All refuse,

debris, and miscellaneous items to be removed will be legally disposed of off-site by the general

contractor. All waste, including contaminated materials, will be handled in accordance with the

requirements of existing legislation.

Refuelling operations and fuel storage should be conducted in designated areas with spill protection

measures. The contractor will be required to develop spill prevention and contingency plans for the

operational phases of the project. Personnel should be trained to use the plans, and the plans should be

reviewed to strengthen their effectiveness and to ensure continuous refinement and improvement.

Spills should be immediately contained and cleaned-up in accordance with Provincial regulatory

requirements and the contingency plan. A hydrocarbon spill response kit should be on-site at all times

during construction. Spills must be reported to the Ontario Spills Action Centre at 1.800.268.6060.

The Ministry of the Environment must be contacted should groundwater sources be affected as a result

of tunnelling operations in order to determine whether a Permit to Take Water will be required.

7.2 EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION

7.2.1 Effect

Construction activities and removal of vegetation may affect the site terrain and topography, exposing

soil to erosion.

7.2.2 Mitigation

An erosion and sediment control plan should be developed and implementation measures should

comply with recognized standards such as the Ontario Provincial Standards Specification (OPSS).



10.11017.001.P01

Sediment and erosion control measures, such as silt curtains and fences, should be installed and

maintained, around the perimeter of the construction site prior to construction, for containment. All

maintenance and preventative measures, such as daily inspections and repairs, will be undertaken to

ensure that containment and control measures operate in good order. Should problems with these

measures occur, work on the undertaking should be suspended until resolved.

Construction activities should be avoided where there is a potential to release airborne particulates

during windy and prolonged dry periods. Loose construction materials that have the potential to release

airborne particulates during their transport, installation or removal should be covered and contained.

The construction site, adjacent and adjoining public and private property, and all City streets should be

kept clear of dripped, tracked and blown material. During dry periods, the contractor should also hire a

water truck for dust control.

7.3 VEGETATION, WILDLIFE / HABITAT

7.3.1 Effect

Natural or cultural vegetation communities are generally absent within the study area in the vicinity of

the proposed shaft alternatives; however, isolated urban trees are present within the study area and a

Cultural Woodland (CUW) vegetation community is in proximity (approx. 10 m) to the preferred shaft

location. The CUW vegetation community will be impacted by the Bremner Transformer Station

construction. Additional details on construction and vegetation replacement can be found in the

Bremner Transformer Station Environmental Study Report (IBI Group, August, 2011).

The lack of vegetation communities and the existing urban conditions limit wildlife habitat within the

study area. Mammals and reptiles are mostly absent; however, birds common in urban areas including

Rock Pigeon, European Starlings and occasional House Finch, are expected to be found within the

cultural setting of the study area. Effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat are not anticipated.

7.3.2 Mitigation

Construction work should avoid the Cultural Woodland (CUW) vegetation community located south of

Bremner Boulevard and east of Rees Street. Permission will be required from the City’s Parks, Forestry

and Recreation department in order to remove City-owned trees. A replanting plan should also be

prepared, and implemented in accordance with City requirements to address any trees lost or damaged

during construction.

7.4 NOISE / VIBRATION / AIR QUALITY

7.4.1 Effect

Construction will result in vibration and noise effects. The majority effects are expected to be generated,

however, from the shaft excavation process and through the disposal of spoils via trucks.



10.11017.001.P01

7.4.2 Mitigation

As necessary, sensitive areas will be monitored via spot checks or continuous monitoring (whichever is

appropriate for the situation). This will determine if the vibration effects from the tunnel construction

are within the acceptable threshold of the typical industry limit or specific stakeholder requirements (if

requested). For cases where the threshold is passed, alternative construction techniques or a slower

rate of construction should be implemented. All construction equipment and heavy vehicles should be

subject to the sound emission standards set forth by the Ministry of Environment. Consistent with

municipal standards, working hours should also be limited to between 07:00 and 19:00 hours, from

Monday to Friday, and to between 09:00 and 19:00 hours on weekends and holidays. Noise dampening

products should be applied to construction hoarding materials to further mitigate any noise issues that

arise from the shaft excavation or tunnel boring operations. Tunnelling will be done entirely through

rock with generally 20m of rock cover, (except where the tunnel will pass under the MTCC South

structure where rock cover will be about 10 m) and this will significantly reduce any vibration effects.

7.5 ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE

7.5.1 Effect

Both a cultural heritage resource assessment for built heritage and cultural heritage landscapes and a

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment have been undertaken for this Study. The cultural heritage resource

assessment has highlighted the former John Street Roundhouse, now known as the Roundhouse Park,

on the south side of Bremner Boulevard, as a Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL). A relocated coaling

tower and sand house, designated as a National Historic Site by Parks Canada, is also situated beside the

roundhouse. The cultural heritage resource assessment has concluded that construction is not expected

to displace any above ground cultural heritage resources. There remains, however, the risk of disruption

to cultural heritage resources as a result of tunnelling. Vibration from tunnelling operations may result

in conditions that can affect the integrity of the brick masonry of the roundhouse structure. This is of

particular concern to those sections of the building located in the northwest corner of the park, and it

may also affect the concrete and brick coaling and sand house structures.

The Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment has identified potential for the discovery of mid-to-late

nineteenth and early twentieth century archaeological remains within both shaft locations.

7.5.2 Mitigation

Detailed close-up photography of the Roundhouse building located adjacent to Bremner Boulevard and

the coaling tower and sand house elevations will be compiled and a report describing the existing

condition of the roundhouse, coaling tower and sand house masonry prepared. The report will

document the physical integrity of the masonry prior to construction to note any existing masonry wall

and detail failures against potential failures that may result from project-related vibration impacts.

If archaeological resources are discovered during construction, work must stop and a licensed

archaeologist will need to be retained prior to recommencement of the work and / or to supervise

further excavation. If artefacts are found, provincial authorities must be notified.



10.11017.001.P01

7.6 HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY

7.6.1 Effect

Although not directly related to the cable tunnel and associated construction, the transformer station

will be a high voltage plant, completed with associated equipment that may pose a potential threat of

electrocution if accessed during construction.

7.6.2 Mitigation

Toronto Hydro will be required to implement a Health and Safety Plan (OHSA 1990), and install secure

fencing and post signage as required by law. Access to the site during construction will be restricted to

authorized personnel only. The site will also be secured at night and on weekends when construction is

not active.

7.7 TRANSPORTATION

7.7.1 Effect

One lane of traffic will need to be closed on Rees Street during construction.

7.7.2 Mitigation

Notice will be provided to area residents and businesses regarding construction-related restrictions so

that the local community is aware of traffic and transportation impacts from construction. Construction

will be scheduled such that construction traffic is minimized when large events are scheduled in the

area.



10.11017.001.P01

Table 8. Overview of Effects and Related Mitigation Measures.

EFFECT MITIGATION STRATEGY / MEASURES Permits / Approvals

WATER / HYDROLOGY

Risk of localized groundwater quality impacts from spills and / or tunnelling.

General contractor will legally dispose waste materials.

Contain and treat/filter water used for construction on site for later discharge to sanitary sewer.

Conduct refuelling operations and fuel storage in designated areas with spill protection measures.

Spill prevention and contingency plans will be required and spills will be immediately contained and cleaned-up in accordance with Provincial regulatory requirements (‘Ontario Regulation 675/98 - Classification and Exemption of Spills and Reporting of Discharges’ and the 'Ontario Regulation 224/07 - Spill Preventions and Contingency Plans' of the Ontario Environmental Protection Act) and the contingency plan.

Contact the Ministry of the Environment should groundwater sources be affected as a result of tunnelling to determine if a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) is needed.

A Permit to Take Water (PTTW) from the Ministry of the Environment will be needed if groundwater taking estimates indicate that 50,000 l/day will be exceeded

EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION

Erosion and sedimentation risk due to construction / construction-related activities exposing soil.

Develop and implement an erosion and sediment control plan in compliance with recognized standards.

Install and maintain sediment and erosion control measures around the perimeter of the construction site, prior to construction.

Avoid construction activities where they may release airborne particulates.

Cover and contain loose construction materials that may release

Not applicable.



10.11017.001.P01


airborne particulates during transport, installation or removal.

Contractor will hire a water truck for dust control when and where required.

VEGETATION, WILDLIFE/HABITAT

Isolated urban trees and a Cultural Woodland (CUW) vegetation community in study area.

Construction work will avoid the Cultural Woodland (CUW) vegetation community.

Permission to remove City-owned trees will be required from the City’s Parks, Forestry and Recreation department.

Prepare and implement a replanting plan in accordance with City requirements.

Permission to remove City-owned trees from the City’s Parks, Forestry and Recreation department.

NOISE/VIBRATION

Construction will result in vibration and noise effects.

Effects will mostly relate to shaft excavation and trucked waste disposal operations.

Monitor sensitive areas via spot checks or continuous monitoring (as appropriate) to determine if vibration effects from the tunnel construction are within acceptable limits. Where limits are exceeded, use alternative construction techniques or a slower rate of construction.

All construction equipment and heavy vehicles are subject to the sound emission standards set forth by the Ministry of Environment (Ontario Environmental Protection Act).

Limit working hours to between 07:00 and 19:00 hours, from Monday to Friday, and 09:00 and 19:00 hours on weekends and holidays, consistent with municipal regulations.

Apply noise dampening measures to construction hoarding materials to mitigate noise issues arising from shaft excavation or tunnel boring.

Not applicable.

ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE



10.11017.001.P01


Cultural Heritage Resources

Roundhouse Park (formerly the John Street Roundhouse), is a Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL).

Relocated coaling tower and sand house next to Roundhouse is a Parks Canada National Historic Site.

Risk of disruption to both resources from tunnelling vibration.

Compile detailed close-up photography of the Roundhouse building and the coaling tower and sand house elevations.

Prepare a report describing the existing condition of the Roundhouse, coaling tower and sand house masonry to document existing structural conditions, prior to construction.

Not applicable.

Archaeology

Low potential for discovery of mid-to-late nineteenth and early twentieth century archaeological remains at shaft locations.

If archaeological resources are discovered during construction, work must stop and a licensed archaeologist will need to be retained prior to recommencement of the work and / or to supervise further excavation. If artefacts are found, provincial authorities must be notified.

Not applicable.

HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY

High voltage plant Toronto Hydro will be required to implement a Health and Safety Plan Not applicable.



10.11017.001.P01


and equipment poses electrocution risk.

(OHSA 1990), and install secure fencing and post signage as required by law.

Access to the site during construction will be restricted to authorized personnel only.

Site will also be secured at night and on weekends when construction is not active.

TRANSPORTATION

One lane traffic closure on Rees Street during construction.

Notice will be provided to area residents and businesses regarding construction-related restrictions so that the local community is aware of traffic and transportation impacts from construction.

Construction traffic will be scheduled to be minimized when large events are scheduled on the local area.

A Road Cut Permit and a corresponding Road Occupation Permit will be required from the City.



10.11017.001.P01

8 FOLLOW-UP COMMITMENTS

8.1 PERMITS AND APPROVALS Prior to construction, THESL will require a Road Cut Permit from the City of Toronto and a corresponding

Road Occupation Permit. The City of Toronto’s Parks, Forestry and Recreation department will also be

consulted to determine the ownership of trees to be removed and to confirm required approvals,

permits and compensation measures.

8.2 MONITORING THESL will undertake soil settlement monitoring during construction to document any potential

structural issues. If applicable, this will be undertaken at regular intervals along the route.

Vibration monitoring will also be undertaken during construction at specifically designated receptors.



10.11017.001.P01

9 PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Public consultation is a key component of the Class EA process for Minor Transmission Facilities.

Consultation activities for this Class EA Study included the publication of a Notice of Study

Commencement, direct notification to agencies, one Public Information Centre (PIC), one community

meeting and the publication of a Notice of Completion.

9.1 NOTICES The joint Notice of Study Commencement / Notice of Public Information Centre, which was issued for

both this Class EA Study and the Bremner TS Class EA Study, was published in the Toronto Star on April

13, 2011, and was posted on Toronto Hydro’s website (www.torontohydro.com). The Notice of Study

Commencement provided a brief introduction to the studies, and encouraged interested individuals to

contact the respective Project Teams directly for more information. A copy of the Notice of Study

Commencement is provided in Appendix #.

In addition to the public notice, a Notice of Study Commencement and letter of introduction were sent

to the following departments / agencies:

Algonquin Consultation Office

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada o Litigation Management and Resolution Branch o Office of the Interlocutor for Métis and non-status Indians o Specific Claims Branch, Ontario Research Team o Assessment and Historical Research Directorate o Environmental and Natural Resources Lands and Trust Services o Lands and ART Lands and Trust Services

Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs o Consultation Unit

Métis Nation of Ontario

Mississaugas of the New Credit

Ministry of the Environment o Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch o Central Region Office

GO Transit

Fairmont Hotels and Resorts

City of Toronto o Structures and Expressways Group

9.2 PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE AND COMMUNITY MEETING The Public Information Centre was held on April 27, 2011, from 4:30 to 7 pm, at the Metro Toronto

Convention Centre. Representatives from Toronto Hydro, and both MMM Group (the consultant for this

Study) and IBI Group (the consultant for the Bremner TS Study) attended to provide background

information and preliminary concepts for both the proposed Bremner TS and the proposed adjoining

cable tunnel that is the subject of this report. Seventeen (17) members of the public attended and were



10.11017.001.P01

invited to engage in discussions with the project representatives. A series of display boards were

presented to share project information.

The community meeting was held on May 19, 2011, from 4:30 to 7 pm at the Metro Toronto Convention

Centre. Again, representatives from Toronto Hydro, MMM Group and IBI Group all attended. Seven (7)

members of the public attended. A series of display boards were presented to share project

information. Project staff were also present to answer questions and discuss the project with members

of the public. A formal presentation was also delivered by Toronto Hydro.

9.3 SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND RESOLUTIONS While a number of issues were raised at the PICs, most were directed at the Bremner TS EA. On the

comment sheets submitted after PIC No. 1, one issue was raised about the cable tunnel, which is

detailed below.

Question:

The new tunnel will be bored underneath the Metro Toronto Convention Centre (MTCC). Will there be

vibration, noise or other issues that disrupt our client events?

Toronto Hydro Response:

Based on our experience with other similar tunnels recently constructed along various public ROW’s

within the Toronto downtown core, we expect that any vibration resulting from the tunnel boring

machine will be negligible, and will not be noticeable from within the MTCC. The bottom of the

foundation of the Convention Centre is at about elevation 61 m, and it is anticipated that the tunnel roof

will be situated somewhere between elevation 51.5 m and 52 m on Bremner Boulevard, where it is

proposed to pass under the Convention Centre. Therefore, there will be a minimum of about 9 m of

shale bedrock between the tunnel and the underside of the structure, and this thickness of bedrock

mass will insulate the building from any sounds due to the tunnel boring work. MMM has retained

Terraprobe as their Geotechnical Sub-consultant to assess any potential effect to the Convention Centre

structure and to advise on any mitigation measures, if required. We are also able to provide vibration

monitoring, include an initial baseline reading prior to construction, and then vibration monitoring

during construction of the tunnel under the structure in order to assess any effect or impact.

Correspondence was also received from six (6) agencies. The correspondence and required follow-up

are identified in Table 10 below.


Class EA – Bremner Cable Tunnel - Environmental Study Report August, 2011

10.11017.001.P01

Table 9. Summary of Comments / Correspondence Received.

Date Agency Comment THESL Response

May 4, 2011

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)

By way of letter, acknowledged receipt of Notice of Study Commencement, and does not have concerns with the study.

No response required.

May 19, 2011

Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs

By telephone, acknowledged receipt of Notice of Study Commencement, and does not have concerns with the study.


May 30, 2011

Ontario Realty Corporation

By way of letter, acknowledged receipt of Notice of Study Commencement. ORC does not manage property in the study area, and therefore has no concerns with the study.


June 28, 2011

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Consultation and Accommodation Unit (now Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada)

By way of letter, acknowledged receipt of Notice of Study Commencement. Noted the obligation to consult with First Nations, Métis and Inuit people.

No response required. First Nations and Métis have been contacted.

June 29, 2011

Bell Canada By letter, expressed interest in the study. Wishes to be in contact with THESL throughout the detailed design phase of the project.

THESL to coordinate with Bell during detailed design.

June 30, 2011

Ministry of Tourism and Culture

By telephone and follow-up letter, MTC has expressed interest in the study and reviewing the Archaeological Assessment and Cultural Heritage Assessment.

THESL (via MMM) to provide these assessments to MTC.

9.4 NOTICE OF COMPLETION A Notice of Completion was issued on August 2, 2011.



10.11017.001.P01

10 REFERENCES

City of Toronto. (2001). 2001 Census Tract Place of Work Profiles. Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

City of Toronto. (2009, May). Toronto Official Plan. Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

City of Toronto. (2011). Toronto's Location. Retrieved June 7, 2011, from City of Toronto:

http://www.toronto.ca/ourcity/location01.htm

IBI Group. (2011, April 13). Notice of Study Commencement and Public Information Centre. Toronto,

Ontario, Canada.

Ontario Hydro. (1992). Class EA for Minor Transmission Facilities (Rev. 6). Toronto: Ontario Hydro.

Ontario Ministry of Infrastructure. (2008). Size and Location of Urban Growth Centres in the Greater

Golden Horseshoe. Toronto: Queen's Printer for Ontario.

Statistics Canada. (2009, February 16). Census Geography - Geosearch 2006. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Statistics Canada. (2011, June). Census of Canada. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Toronto Hydro. (2010). 2010 SU and WN Table A1. Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Toronto Hydro. (2010). Emerging Requirements. Retrieved June 28, 2011, from Toronto Hydro:

http://www.torontohydro.net/sites/electricsystem/Documents/2011EDR/D1_T09_S06_STATIO

NS%20SYSTEM%20ENHANCEMENT_V01.pdf