Ministry review of the Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East reconfiguration environmental assessment

Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, Subsection 7(1)

This Review is subject to the provisions of Ontario Regulation 616/98 which sets out a deadline for the completion of this document. This paragraph and the giving of the Notice of Completion are the notices required by subsection 7(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA).

The Review documents the ministry’s evaluation of the Environmental Assessment (EA) and takes comments from government agencies, the public, and Indigenous communities into consideration.

Executive summary

Who

The City of Toronto and Waterfront Toronto

What

Ministry Review of an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed undertaking which includes:

1. The removal of the existing Gardiner Expressway east of Cherry Street to the Don Roadway, and the construction of a new elevated expressway link with the Don Valley Parkway.
2. The construction of a realigned Lake Shore Boulevard East (to be moved further north from its current location) from Cherry Street to Don Roadway, with new ramps to and from the Gardiner Expressway.
3. Reconstruction of Lake Shore Boulevard East of the Don River to Logan Avenue including a reconstructed Don River Bridge.
4. Public Realm Improvements that would extend the full length of the corridor from Jarvis Street to Leslie Street (e.g. streetscaping, multi-use trail, landscaping, etc.).

When

EA submitted: January 27, 2017

EA amended: April 28, 2017

Construction period is estimated to occur between 2018 and 2025. The project is expected to meet transportation demand until 2031 and beyond.

Where

The 2.4 kilometre portion of the Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East, from approximately Lower Jarvis Street to approximately Leslie Street, north of the Keating Channel, in the City of Toronto.

Why

For decades there have been calls to consider reconfiguration options for this transportation corridor that would better balance modes of transportation and create new and improved connections between the City and the waterfront. More recently, urgency to manage deteriorating components of the elevated structure and to invest significant money in the long-term rehabilitation of the Gardiner Expressway have ignited interest to consider alternative configurations for this infrastructure. The expressway surface (deck) and concrete barriers east of Jarvis Street are in poor condition and are considered to be at the end of their service life.

Conclusions

The Ministry Review concludes that the Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared in accordance with the approved Terms of Reference (ToR) and contains sufficient information to assess the potential environmental effects of the proponents’ undertaking. The EA demonstrated that the City of Toronto and Waterfront Toronto will be able to meet the objectives set out in various City land use plans and transportation plans. Most of the issues raised by government agencies during the EA process were addressed in the EA and future commitments. A number of standard conditions are proposed in order to ensure that the project proceeds as outlined and persons and agencies with an interest in the project will continue to be consulted.

Environmental assessment process

The Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) provides a proponent driven planning process designed to incorporate the consideration of the environment into decision-making by assessing the effects of an undertaking on the environment. In Ontario, the EAA sets out the general contents for the preparation of an Environmental Assessment, as well as the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change’s (MOECC or ministry) evaluation process. For those proponents and undertakings subject to the EAA, approval under the EAA is required before the undertaking can proceed.

Proponents address a wide range of potential effects on the natural, social, cultural, and economic environments to ensure the protection, conservation, and wise management of the environment. An EA determines, on the basis of the environmental effects, if an undertaking should proceed, and if so, how environmental effects can be managed or mitigated.

EAs may identify a problem or opportunity, consider alternative ways of addressing the problem or opportunity, evaluate the environmental effects of the alternatives and select a preferred undertaking from the alternatives. The proponent must consider actions to avoid, reduce and mitigate potential environmental effects. While preparing the EA, the proponent completes various studies and consults with interested stakeholders including government agencies, the public and affected Indigenous communities to evaluate the alternatives and determine the preferred undertaking. Once the undertaking is approved, the proponent is required to monitor and demonstrate compliance with standards, regulations and guidelines of the EAA approval.

1.1 Terms of reference

Preparing an EA is a two-step application to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change (Minister). The first step requires the proponent to prepare and submit a Terms of Reference (ToR) to the ministry for review and approval. The ToR is the work plan or framework for how the EA will be prepared.

On November 30, 2009, the Minister approved the City of Toronto’s and Waterfront Toronto’s (proponents’) ToR. The ToR established the purpose of the study, which was to determine the future of the eastern portion of the elevated Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard from approximately Lower Jarvis Street to just east of the Don Valley Parkway (DVP) at Logan Avenue. The rationale for the undertaking was identified, and included five project goals: to revitalize the waterfront, reconnect the City with the lake, balance modes of travel, achieve sustainability, and create value.

The ToR identified problems and opportunities to be addressed. Problems to be addressed include a deteriorated Gardiner Expressway that needs major repairs and a disconnected waterfront. Key opportunities include revitalizing the waterfront through city building, creating new urban form and character, and new public realm space.

The ToR identified four study lenses—transportation and infrastructure, urban design, economics and environment—through which the EA study was to be prepared. The ToR provided an overview of the existing environment and potential effects, identified “alternatives to” the undertaking which included the Maintain, Improve, Replace and Remove alternatives, and identified that alternative methods (locations and designs) of carrying out the undertaking would be developed as part of the EA.

The ToR set out how the proponents would evaluate alternatives and assess potential environmental effects and benefits of the alternatives.

The ToR included a monitoring strategy and monitoring schedule, and included a consultation plan for consultation with the public, Indigenous communities, and government agencies during the preparation of the EA.

1.2 Environmental assessment

Once the ToR is approved by the Minister, the proponents can proceed to the second step of the EA process and carry out the EA. The EA must be prepared in accordance with the approved ToR and the requirements of the EAA. Once the proponents have carried out the EA, including consultation, the EA is submitted to the ministry for review and a decision.

A draft EA was made available to the public and agencies between July 21, 2016 and September 6, 2016. On January 27, 2017, the proponents submitted the Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration EA and Urban Design Study to the ministry for approval for the proposed undertaking. The EA submission comment period ended on March 17, 2017.

The EA was circulated for review to local government agencies known as the Government Review Team (GRT). The GRT, including federal, provincial, and local government agencies, reviewed the EA to ensure that the information and conclusions of the EA were valid, based on their agencies’ mandates. The public and Indigenous communities also had an opportunity to review the EA and submit their comments to the ministry. All comments received by the ministry are considered by the Minister before a decision is made about the undertaking.

Based on comments received from the ministry, the proponents amended the EA to clarify the net environmental effects (after mitigation) associated with the consideration of the various “alternatives to” (the Maintain, Improve, Replace and Remove alternatives), update the Indigenous communities consultation record, provide additional studies on cultural and archaeological resources, and include additional commitments to further work and consultation. The EA was amended by the proponents in April 2017 and a copy of the amended EA and supporting documents were included on the proponents’ web site.

1.3 Ministry review

The EAA requires the ministry to prepare and publish a review of the EA, known simply as the Ministry Review (Review). The Review is the ministry’s evaluation of the EA. The purpose of the Review is to determine if the EA has been prepared in accordance with the approved ToR, meets the requirements of the EAA, and whether the evaluation in the EA is sufficient to allow the Minister to make a decision about the proposed undertaking.

The Review outlines whether the information contained in the EA supports the recommendations and conclusions for the selection of the proposed undertaking. Ministry staff, with input from the GRT, evaluates the technical merits of the proposed undertaking, including the anticipated environmental effects and the proposed mitigation measures. The Review also provides an overview and analysis of the public, government agency, and Indigenous community comments on the EA and the proposed undertaking.

The Minister of the Environment and Climate Change considers the conclusion of the Review when making a decision. The Review itself is not the decision-making mechanism. The Minister’s decision on the undertaking described in the EA will be made following the end of the five-week comment period on the Review. The Minister’s decision is subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

The Review comment period allows the GRT, the public, and Indigenous communities to see how their concerns with the EA and the proposed undertaking have been considered. During the Review comment period, anyone can submit comments to the ministry on the EA, the undertaking, and the Review. In addition, anyone can request that the Minister refer the EA, or any matter relating to the EA, to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a hearing if they believe that there are significant outstanding environmental effects that the proponents have not considered in the EA. Requests for a hearing can only be made during this comment period. The Minister will consider all requests and determine if a hearing is necessary.

A Notice of Completion of the Review was published indicating that the Review has been completed and is available for a five-week comment period. Copies of the Review have been placed in the same public record locations where the EA was available as well as the ministry website. Copies have been distributed to the GRT members and potentially affected or interested Indigenous communities. Those members of the public who submitted comments during the EA comment period have been notified where to view copies of the Review.

The proposed undertaking

Historical context

Construction on the Frederick G. Gardiner Expressway began in 1955, a time when Toronto’s waterfront was still considered a heavy industrial area. Since the late 1980s, the City of Toronto has taken interest in reducing the barrier effect of expressway on the waterfront through the downtown area. In 1991, the Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront produced a study which examined the retention, removal, or burial of the expressway between Dufferin and Leslie streets. Between 1999 and 2001, the 1.3 kilometre segment of expressway between the Don River and Leslie Street was dismantled.

In 2003, Toronto City Council approved the Central Waterfront Secondary Plan which identified the reconfiguration of the Gardiner expressway as one of 23 key priorities. As a result, the City asked Waterfront Toronto (previously Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation) to review three alternatives for the existing expressway:

1. replace the entire elevated expressway with a combination of tunnels and at-grade roads
2. retain the elevated expressway with enhancements and relocate Lake Shore Boulevard from beneath it
3. remove the elevated expressway east of Spadina Avenue and replace it with a “great street” similar to University Avenue

In 2004, Waterfront Toronto’s third alternative (identified above) was recommended for further consideration, however a detailed review found that the cost of this alternative had risen significantly from earlier estimates. This resulted in the proponents identifying that the less developed eastern waterfront area offered a greater opportunity to shape new city development patterns. In July 2008, City Council authorized the proponents to jointly undertake an Individual EA for the 2.4 kilometre section of the Gardiner Expressway east of Jarvis Street).

Study area and purpose

Two study areas were identified: an urban design and environmental effects study area, which includes lands in the vicinity of the proposed undertaking, and the system study area, which includes the broader area that would be affected by changes in traffic patterns and volumes. Please see Figure 1 for a map of these areas.

The study area is highly urbanized with a mixture of uses located east of downtown Toronto. The existing local air quality and noise in the study area are typical of a highly urbanized environment and are similar to other areas with major transportation features such as the Gardiner Expressway, Lake Shore Boulevard, and the rail corridor.

The study area is traversed by a major east/west rail corridor used by Metrolinx/GO Transit for commuter rail and also includes Metrolinx/GO Transit’s storage train yard to the north of the Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard. Also, Hydro One has transmission facilities within a north/south transmission corridor to the west of the Don River.

North of the rail corridor, a mix of well established land uses include residential, commercial and retail, recreational, and office space. South of the rail corridor, land uses mainly consist of underutilized low density employment, industrial, and commercial uses. The Keating Channel Precinct is currently underutilized and contains no active land uses that support the population or employment.

The study area is also traversed by the Don River which flows south then west into the Keating Channel to Lake Ontario. The approved Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project EA proposed by the Toronto Region and Conservation Authority, the City of Toronto and Waterfront Toronto proposes major improvements to the southern Don River involving relocating the mouth of the river south of the Keating Channel and providing flood protection from more frequent and intense storm and rainfall events expected due to climate change. Numerous infrastructure projects as well as secondary plans are proposed for future developments associated with the Keating Channel area in the southern study area and the Port Lands area south of the study area.

Due to the heavy urbanization of the area in the past, there is little native natural habitat and wildlife in the study area. Some habitat has regenerated on former industrial sites along the banks of the Don River and along the shoreline of Lake Ontario. In recent years, improvements to parks, open space, and the waterfront have contributed to improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat. The approved Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection project will result in further aquatic and terrestrial habitat enhancement in the long term (until 2031).

The Gardiner Expressway is considered to be an important transportation corridor for the City of Toronto. It traverses the length of the downtown area and connects to the Queen Elizabeth Way and Highway 427 to the west, and to the DVP and Lake Shore Boulevard east of the downtown area and the central waterfront area. Lake Shore Boulevard spans the city limits from the West (to Mississauga) to Woodbine Avenue in the east, where it connects to Kingston Road.

The purpose of the EA is to address the deteriorating condition of the elevated sections of the Gardiner Expressway that extends 2.4 kilometres from Jarvis Street to east of the DVP at Logan Avenue (see Figure 1). The deck and concrete barriers are in poor condition and considered to be at the end of their service life. Since 2012, incidents of falling concrete have occurred along the corridor, including the area east of Jarvis Street. Several project goals have also been identified as part of the undertaking, which include: revitalize the waterfront, reconnect the City with the lake, balance modes of travel, achieve sustainability, and create value. Under the sustainability goal, the project is proposed to accommodate City plans for flood protection and flood conveyance in the study area which will build resiliency to climate impacts.

Description of the proposed undertaking

As stated in Section 6 of the EA, the Gardiner East Project includes five distinct components (refer to Figures 2 and 3 in the Review):

1. Removal of the existing elevated expressway east of Cherry Street and the construction of a new elevated expressway link with the DVP located to the north of its current location.
2. Construction of a realigned Lake Shore Boulevard from Cherry Street to Don Roadway with new ramps to and from the Gardiner Expressway. The road will be relocated north of its current location west of the Don River to free lands for land use development on the north side of the Keating Channel.
3. Reconstruction of Lake Shore Boulevard east of the Don River to Logan Avenue including a reconstructed Don River Bridge on Lake Shore Boulevard.
4. Public Realm Improvements from Jarvis Street to Leslie Street (e.g. streetscaping, multi-use trails including bike trails, greenspaces, landscaping, etc.).

In addition, other works the proponents are doing which do not require an approval under the EAA include the rehabilitation of the existing elevated Gardiner Expressway surface from Jarvis Street to Cherry Street.

The description of the undertaking was provided in Section 5.2.2 of the EA. The preferred alternative, Hybrid 3, includes:

• Remove ramps that extend over the east of the Don River to Logan Avenue
• Remove the existing DVP-Gardiner connection and rebuild it to run through the Keating Channel Precinct further north (closer to the rail corridor) and construct a new “tighter” (130 m radius) ramp connection to the DVP with a lowered speed limit
• Widen the Metrolinx Don River/DVP Rail Bridge underpass to the east to allow for a more northern DVP-Gardiner ramp location
• Construct a new two-lane Lake Shore Boulevard-Gardiner ramp westbound on and eastbound off connections east of Cherry Street
• Construct a new Lake Shore Boulevard alignment that runs mid-block through the Keating Channel Precinct plan area

If EAA approval is granted, the undertaking will be completed in accordance with the terms and provisions outlined in the EA proposed conditions of approval, and will include the details outlined above. In addition, the proponents must still obtain all other legislative approvals it may require for the undertaking.

Construction timing and cost

Construction is expected to be staged, commencing in 2018 and lasting until 2025. The capital cost of the project is 569 million dollars.

Figure 1: Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East reconfiguration EA and urban design study areas

Download Figure 1 (JPG)

This map displays the two study areas for the project. The Transportation System study area extends from Spadina Avenue to the west, Woodbine Avenue to the east, Dundas Street East to the north and the shore of Lake Ontario to the south (Port Lands area). The Urban Design and Environmental Effects study area extends from Jarvis Street to the west, Logan Avenue to the east, King Street to the north and Commissioner’s street to the south. The map also identifies features such as the Don River, Lake Ontario and the Toronto Harbour.

Figure 2: The preferred alternative

Download Figure 2 (JPG)

This figure illustrates the preferred alternative for the undertaking. There are seven numbered areas identifying what component of the undertaking would be implemented in each area. For example, from Jarvis to Cherry Street, public realm improvements would be implemented along Lake Shore Boulevard. The figure illustrates the location for the proposed realignment of the elevated Gardiner expressway link to the Don Valley Parkway, the reconfigured Lake Shore Boulevard, and the adjacent neighbourhoods and parkland.

Figure 3: Conceptual illustration of the preferred alternative

Download Figure 3 (JPG)

Figure 4: Alternative methods/designs

Download Figure 4 (JPG)

An illustration of the three alternative methods of implementing the undertaking. Hybrid 1 option is the furthest south alignment, closest to the Keating Channel. The Hybrid 2 option mostly follows along Lake Shore Boulevard. The Hybrid 3 alignment is furthest north, or closest to the rail tracks. All three options curve north to connect to the Don Valley Parkway.

Results of the ministry review

The Review provides the analysis of the EA. The Review is not intended to summarize or present the information found in the EA. For information on the decision making process, refer to the EA. The EA and supporting documentation outlines the EA planning process and demonstrates how the proponent has selected the preferred undertaking and made the final decision.

3.1 Conformance with ToR and EAA

3.1.1 Ministry analysis

The ministry coordinated an analysis of the EA with the GRT that looked at whether the requirements of the ToR have been met. The ministry has concluded the EA followed the framework outlined in the ToR and has addressed the commitments made in the ToR. In addition, the EA as amended has satisfied the requirements of the EAA.

Appendix A summarizes this analysis and identifies how the ToR requirements have been addressed in the EA.

3.1.2 Consultation

One of the key requirements of the EAA is pre-submission consultation completed during the preparation of the EA. This consultation is the responsibility of the proponent and must be taken prior to the submission of the EA to the minister. It must be in accordance with the consultation plan outlined in the ToR.

Once the EA is submitted to the ministry, additional ministry driven consultation occurs during the EA comment period. The GRT, the public, and affected Indigenous communities are provided with the opportunity to review the EA and to submit comments to the ministry on whether the requirements of the ToR had been met, on the EA itself, and on the proposed undertaking. All comments received by the ministry during the EA comment period were forwarded to the proponents for a response. Summaries of the all comments received along with the proponents’ responses are included in Tables 1-2. Copies of the submissions are also available in Appendix B.

Government Review Team

Consultation with the GRT was conducted throughout the EA process. This included pre-submission discussions, technical meetings with ministry staff, four meetings with the Technical Advisory Committee and key members of the GRT, and providing an opportunity to review the draft EA. Many of the comments provided on the draft EA were incorporated into the final EA.

Members of the GRT were provided copies of the final EA for their review during the seven-week EA submission comment period. Comments on the final EA were received from the MOECC, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), Metrolinx, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS), and Hydro One.

The GRT commented on species at risk, cultural heritage, coordination with existing and proposed future infrastructure projects, and acceptance by the ministry of the air quality assessment undertaken for the project. Refer to Section 3.3 for discussion on these comments.

All comments received by the ministry were forwarded to the proponents for a response. A summary of the comments and the proponents’ responses can be found in Table 1.

Public consultation

The proponents used a variety of consultation methods to consult with the public including public notices, public forums, a Stakeholder Advisory Committee consisting of 40 key interest groups, stakeholder workshops and working groups, individual stakeholder meetings, online engagement, and a Facilitator’s Office which acted as the “one-window” point of contact for the project. Five rounds of public consultation based on the technical work completed for each phase of the study were held between May 2013 and January 2016. Nearly 30,000 points of contact were achieved with citizens (including website visits).

The proponents made the draft EA and its supporting documents available on the project website for members of the public to comment. Forty-five individuals and stakeholders submitted feedback as part of the voluntary review of the draft EA report. Stakeholder organizations that provided comments included the West Don Lands Committee, First Gulf, Lafarge Canada Inc., Castlepoint Numa, and the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers. Comments were made on the Remove alternative, the preferred alternative (Hybrid 3), the importance of public realm improvements, balancing transportation modes, public consultation, project cost and use of public funds, the role of the Gardiner East in the GTA transportation network, and construction phasing and impacts. A summary of participant feedback is included in Appendix B of the EA. It outlines the concerns that were voiced and the proponents’ responses. The EA was revised to reflect the public input received on the draft EA.

The Notice of Submission of the final EA was published on January 17, 2017 in the Toronto Star. A contact database was maintained throughout the EA process. Fifty-three interested persons and three interested parties (Castlepoint Group, the West Don Lands Committee, and the St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association) submitted comments on the EA. These comments largely mirrored comments on the draft EA with the selection of the preferred alternative, its cost and its effects on the environment being the most prominent concerns. Refer to Section 3.3 for discussion on these comments.

Indigenous community consultation

In addition to the EAA requirement that interested persons be consulted, proponents are required to consult with Indigenous communities who have credibly asserted or established Aboriginal or treaty rights that may potentially be negatively impacted by the proposed undertaking.

The proponents developed a list of potentially impacted Indigenous communities and provided them with information on the EA throughout the process. The initial list of Indigenous communities that were contacted included:

• Alderville First Nation
• Beausoleil First Nation
• Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation
• Chippewas of Rama First Nation
• Curve Lake First Nation
• Hiawatha First Nation
• Mississaugas of Scugog First Nation
• Moose Deer Point First Nation
• Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation

This list was developed in consultation with MOECC, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, and Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

Formal study notices were circulated to Indigenous communities. Correspondence invited the communities to participate during the ToR phase of the study and each round of EA consultation. Also, an opportunity to meet one-on-one was provided to each community. During preparation of the EA, the above communities were kept informed of the progress of the EA, and received a copy of the Draft EA to review and provide comments on. The following is a summary of the comments received by Indigenous communities during the preparation of the EA.

The Hiawatha First Nation corresponded with the project team and advised that they had an interest in the project. Project materials were provided and an offer to meet was made by the proponents, however, a meeting was never held as the community did not request to meet.

Curve Lake First Nation sent a letter to the proponents on July 11, 2013 acknowledging receipt of the notice of Public Information Centre (PIC) 1 and broadly outlined what the Curve Lake First Nation’s interest may be in the project (limited to archaeological interests). The Curve Lake First Nation was sent a copy of the draft EA as requested. The First Nation subsequently advised that they did not require to be sent any further meeting notices.

Alderville First Nation sent a letter on October 7, 2013 to the proponents advising that the Gardiner East EA is deemed as having minimal potential to impact First Nations' rights. Accordingly, they have requested to be kept apprised of any archaeological findings, burial sites, or any environmental impacts should they occur. The proponents agreed to further consult in this regard as may be appropriate.

The Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation provided a letter in early 2016 to the proponents stating an interest in the project. A meeting was held on May 5, 2016 at the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation reserve. A copy of the draft EA was also sent to the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation on July 29, 2016. The proponents followed up with the community, however further comments were not provided by the community.

On October 5, 2016, the MOECC provided additional direction about the Indigenous communities and identified that the Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation should be contacted. The proponents then sent correspondence to the Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation to determine whether they had an interest in the EA. No response has been received to date. The proponents will continue their efforts to confirm if the Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation has any interest in the project.

The Mississaugas of Scugog indicated on February 1, 2017 that they were satisfied and had no comments on the EA.

3.1.3 Conclusion

The EAA requires that the proponent consult with all interested persons during the preparation of the EA and report on the results of that consultation. The EA adequately describes the consultation that was undertaken and the outcomes of the various consultation activities and events. The EA documents how input received throughout the consultation program influenced the study, and ultimately the preferred alternative. The proponents have undertaken an extensive consultation program as part of the ToR and EA.

The ministry is satisfied that the level of consultation undertaken with the public, Indigenous communities, and GRT was appropriate for this proposed undertaking.

Overall, the ministry believes that the proponents provided sufficient opportunities for the public, interested stakeholders, government agencies, and Indigenous communities to be consulted during the preparation of the EA. The proponents have committed to continue to engage Indigenous communities, interested stakeholder groups, and agencies during detail design, construction, and operation of the proposed undertaking.

The ministry is satisfied that the consultation carried out meets the requirements of the EAA and is consistent with the approved ToR.

3.2 EA process

Alternatives and evaluation process

The EAA provides a planning process that requires a proponent to identify a problem or opportunity, consider alternative ways of addressing the problem or opportunity, evaluate the potential effects of those alternatives against select environmental criteria (noise, air quality including greenhouse gas emissions, cultural heritage, water quality, etc.) and then select a preferred alternative.

Through the review of the final EA, staff of the ministry determined whether or not the proponents followed the EA process and incorporated commitments in the approved ToR into the final EA that was submitted for review and a decision.

The EA was prepared in accordance with section 6.1(2) of the EAA. This included an analysis of “alternatives to” (functionally different ways to solve the problem/opportunity) and alternative methods (locations and designs) for the proposal as outlined in the ToR.

The “alternatives to” that the proponents examined in the EA were:

• Maintain (or “Do Nothing”)
• Improve
• Replace
• Remove (or Boulevard)
• Other alternatives (the Optimized Remove and Hybrid options)

The initial evaluation of alternative solutions resulted in the identification of the Remove alternative as the technically preferred alternative. This technical recommendation was then reviewed by the City’s Public Works and Infrastructure Committee (PWIC) in March 2014. Through EA consultation activities stakeholders and members of the public identified an interest in considering a solution that could maintain the Gardiner Expressway–DVP connection while also achieving removal of the Gardiner Expressway east of the Don Roadway.

After considering the City Staff report and public input, the PWIC recommended that the proponents review the recommended “alternative to” (Remove) to mitigate traffic congestion concerns (Optimized Remove option), prepare an additional “alternative to” that combined the Maintain and Replace alternatives, and evaluate these alternatives against the EA environmental criteria (Hybrid option).

The Hybrid “alternative to” (a combination of the Maintain and Replace alternatives) was developed, and evaluated against the Optimized Remove alternative. This work was undertaken and reported in the May 2015 Interim Report that was made publically available. Consultation was undertaken with the public, government agencies, and stakeholders during the development and evaluation of the “alternatives to”. Stakeholders were highly divided regarding their preferred solution as the Hybrid alternative performed better for transportation movement of goods (goods movement) and automobile travel times, maintained a connection with the DVP, and had less construction impacts. The Remove alternative was preferred on the basis of urban design, cost, and environmental effects. Regardless of which alternative was selected, both met the goals of revitalizing the waterfront and enabling planned development and transit improvements in the study area. Additionally, the public realm improvements described in the EA such as the multi-use pathway and additional greenspace were proposed for both alternatives.

As both alternatives offered different advantages and disadvantages, the 2015 Interim Report recommended that the decision on the preferred “alternative to” should be made by City Council, which the proponents considered to be appropriate as Council represented the citizens of the City of Toronto. After significant Council debate on the advantages and disadvantages of the two “alternatives to”, City Council endorsed the Hybrid as the preferred alternative and directed City staff to develop and evaluate alternative methods (locations and designs) that would mitigate any negative impacts associated with a Hybrid alternative.

Upon direction by City Council, three alternative methods were selected from a broader list of concepts, some of which were not carried forward following public and stakeholder input and an analysis of issues and constraints. The alternative methods (designs and locations) carried forward are (please see Figure 4):

1. Hybrid 1, which includes maintaining the existing elevated Gardiner Expressway through the Keating Channel Precinct along the north edge of the Keating Channel
2. Hybrid 2, which includes rebuilding the DVP-Gardiner connection further north than Hybrid 1
3. Hybrid 3, which includes rebuilding the DVP-Gardiner connection further north than Hybrid 2

For all three alternative methods, streetscaping, intersection improvements, and other public realm improvements were proposed for Lake Shore Boulevard. From Cherry Street to the Don Roadway, a new Lake Shore Boulevard alignment would be constructed, that would be situated farther north to run mid-block through the future Keating Channel Precinct. All alternative methods include the removal of the Logan Avenue on-off ramps and improvements to the existing multi-use pathway.

The evaluation approach for the alternative methods can be found in Section 5.3 of the EA report. The comparative evaluation of the alternative methods can be found in Section 5.4 of the EA. From this evaluation, Hybrid 3 was found to be the preferred alternative to the undertaking as it has less potential to impact Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection sediment management activities area, provides greater land value creation (development opportunity) than the other two alternatives, and opens up a greater section of Lake Shore Boulevard to light and air, allowing for additional public realm improvements in this area (e.g. additional tree planting).

The ministry found that the proponents followed a logical and transparent decision making process that was outlined in the EA. The proponents assessed a reasonable range of alternatives and outlined the advantages and disadvantages of each “alternative to” and alternative method. As the proponents went through each stage of assessment and “alternatives to” and alternative methods were developed, an increasing level of detail was provided on potential effects, proposed mitigation, and net effects of the proposed undertaking. The mitigation measures are commitments that the proponents made to reduce potential negative effects and enhance potential positive effects of the undertaking.

Refer to Appendix A of this Review for the ministry’s analysis of how the EA met the requirements of the EAA and the approved ToR.

Source water protection

The proponents’ consideration of source water protection is described in Section 6.6. In the study area, there are no source wellhead protection areas or issue contributing areas, as defined in the Source Protection Plan for the Credit Valley-Toronto and Region-Central Lake Ontario. The footprint of the Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard are expected to remain approximately the same, so substantial increases to the permeable area are unlikely. The conceptual design has no material impact on the Don River flood conveyance. This will be confirmed during the detailed design phase by the TRCA and the proponents.

Climate change and cumulative effects

The proponents’ consideration of climate change and cumulative effects was outlined in Section 6.7 and 6.8 of the EA.

Climate change

Several climate change related initiatives have been undertaken by the proponents over the past 10 years including the 2007 Toronto’s Climate Change Action Plan, 2008 Climate Change Adaption Strategy, and 2012 Future Weather and Climate Driver Study. The City developed a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050. Specific to the undertaking, the proponents considered effects of the undertaking on climate change and effects of climate change on the undertaking. The project is not expected to increase the use of automobiles, so this is not expected to contribute to a greater amount of greenhouse gases over the existing and future conditions. The project provides upgraded non-motorized (pedestrian and cycling) infrastructure which may promote a shift to using these modes of travel. The project would create new development opportunities in the Keating Channel precinct by providing transit-accessible urban housing close to downtown. Corridor greening would increase the vegetation in the area which may have a positive effect on human health and species habitat. The increased tree canopy along Lake Shore Boulevard may also help offset the urban heat island effect that the existing and planned paved surfaces in the area contribute to.

From Cherry Street to Don Roadway, a key climate change consideration is regional flood protection and flood protection for the built form. The frequency, intensity, and duration of rainfall and storm events is anticipated to increase due to climate change, which will make flood protection and flood conveyance more critical in the future. Flood protection is being considered in the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project EA which is planned in the study area. For the proposed Gardiner project, stormwater management options to improve water quality and address water quantity would be considered during detail design. Existing stormwater drainage from the Gardiner Expressway is collected and discharged to the ground beneath the expressway in some areas or discharged to City sewers in other areas. East of Cherry Street, there are eight stormwater outfalls without any stormwater management quality or quantity controls. The project would result in additional stormwater controls that would contribute to managing the effects from climate change and extreme weather in the study area and result in an overall improvement of stormwater management along the project right-of-way. Stormwater management measures recommended in the EA for the project right-of-way include using low impact development (LID) measures such as stormwater planters, enhanced grass swales, and perforated pipes to meet enhanced level sediment removal (80% of total suspended solids). This commitment is documented in Section 6.5.2.6 of the EA Report.

The reconstruction of the new Gardiner Expressway-DVP connection through the Keating Channel Precinct would consider the use of more sustainable construction materials than what currently exists. For example, the project would be constructed using the latest advancements in concrete use and manufacturing. It would be built to withstand extreme weather events and better withstand roadway salting effects, and is expected to have a lifespan of 100 years. By increasing the lifespan of the undertaking, greenhouse gas emissions (from making new concrete, trucking materials to the site, from using construction equipment etc.) would be reduced compared to an undertaking with a shorter life span. The reuse of demolition debris to reduce the use of new material would also be considered.

Cumulative effects

The proponents considered cumulative effects of the project as part of the assessment. The project is not anticipated to negatively contribute to cumulative effects in the study area during operation as it will not provide additional auto capacity, therefore greenhouse gas emissions will not increase. Noise, dust and vibration are not anticipated to increase from the future existing conditions (the Maintain or ‘Do Nothing’ alternative). However, increased pedestrian and cycling infrastructure and green space from the project would result in a positive effect over existing conditions.

There are several projects and activities in the project study area that are planned to be carried out at the same time including the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project, future development as identified in City Precinct and Master Plans, and the realignment of Cherry Street. Cumulative effects are mostly anticipated to be construction based (e.g. disturbance from dust, noise and/or traffic delays) and would subside during operation. Cumulative effects from construction will be minimized through coordination with other construction projects. For example, the construction of the Gardiner East project and the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection project would be coordinated to ensure that erosion and sediment management are minimized.

Considerations and commitments

Section 9 of the EA outlines conclusions, next steps, and commitments to future work. Some key considerations to be taken into account during detail design include the Metrolinx Rail Bridge, the new Gardiner/DVP ramp crossings of the Don River, Don Roadway, Lake Shore Boulevard and Rail Spur crossing of the Don River, realignment of Cherry Street, and safety measures for the ramps with tighter turn radii. This section also describes how traffic would be addressed during construction and how the undertaking would be coordinated with other infrastructure/planning projects such as the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project EA and Villiers Island Precinct Plan.

Commitments and monitoring for the proposed undertaking can be found in Section 6.10 of the EA.

3.2.1 Conclusion

Overall, the ministry in consultation with the GRT is satisfied with the proponents’ decision making process, including demonstrating the rationale for the preferred alternative. The EA contains an explanation of the problem that prompted the EA and the opportunities that can be realized as part of the proposed undertaking. A reasonable range of “alternatives to” and alternative methods were considered and it is evident that public and agency input was considered in creation, evaluation, and selection of these alternatives.

The EA provides a description of the potentially affected environment in the study area and identifies the potential effects of the alternatives. Net effects are identified and commitments to monitoring and contingency made to ensure any potential negative effects from the undertaking are minimized. The proponents have considered the effects of climate change, cumulative effects on the undertaking, and considered the effects the project has on climate change and source water protection.

The EA adequately described the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed undertaking to the environment based on potential environmental effects. Requirements of the EAA for consultation with the public, GRT, and Indigenous communities have been met. The ministry is satisfied that the EA has been completed in accordance with the approved ToR and meets the requirements of the EAA.

3.3 Comments on the undertaking

Comments on the proposed undertaking were submitted to the ministry by the GRT and interested persons during the 7-week EA submission public, government agency, and Indigenous community comment period. The ministry made follow-up phone calls with the Indigenous communities identified as having an interest in the project, to find out whether they received the EA and had any comments. However, no comments were received from Indigenous communities during this comment period.

Public comments

A total of 53 interested persons submitted comments on the EA. Additionally, comments were submitted from Castlepoint Group (developers), West Don Lands Committee (which includes a number of neighbourhood associations), and St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association. For more information on the proponents’ responses to these comments and the ministry’s conclusions, please see Table 2 in the Review appendices.

Selection of the preferred alternative to

The majority of comments received cited concerns with the process for selecting the preferred “alternative to” and concern that the Remove alternative should have been selected as it was superior in meeting the goals of the study, such as connecting the City with the waterfront, balancing transportation modes, protecting human health, and is more cost effective. Members of the public are concerned that the decision on the preferred alternative was politically biased and not based on transparent decision-making.

The EA demonstrates how a wide range of stakeholders and members of the public were engaged in the development of the “alternatives to” including the Hybrid option. The ToR allowed for other alternatives to be identified, therefore the Hybrid alternative is consistent with the approach provided in the approved ToR.

The proponents’ rationale for the selection of the Hybrid alternative over the Remove alternative was documented in the EA Report. Please see section 3.2 of the Review for more information. The ministry is satisfied that the preferred alternative is linked to the goals of the EA study. The preferred alternative was selected by City Council, who believes it provides an appropriate balance between the goals of waterfront revitalization/development and accommodating goods movement and traffic flow. The proposed undertaking is anticipated to improve connectivity with the waterfront by:

1. Realigning the Gardiner Expressway further north to allow for a better connection between future development in the Keating Channel Precinct and the waterfront
2. Improving intersections along Lake Shore Boulevard and adding a multi-use trail, enabling better and safer pedestrian and cycling facilities between the City and waterfront

The proponents were required to make a difficult decision about what preferred alternative to select to proceed through the EA process while considering the various trade-offs with the two alternatives and considering the stakeholder input provided.

The proponents are ultimately responsible for the selection of the preferred alternative. The ministry considers these concerns to be addressed in the EA. Please see Section 3.2 and the proponent’s response in Table 2 in the appendices for more detailed responses to these concerns.

Environmental and human health effects from the project

Members of the public are concerned with the air quality impacts from dust and noise on the Gardiner as it exists today and also concerned that these impacts would occur due to the proposed undertaking. The impact to air quality from greenhouse gas emissions compared to the Remove “alternative to” was also stated as a concern. Members of the public commented that they were concerned with the safety of pedestrians crossing intersections on Lake Shore Boulevard below the elevated Gardiner Expressway currently, and wanted to ensure an improvement to safety was part of the undertaking.

An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment Report was prepared as part of the EA. The report adequately describes the existing and future predicted air quality conditions. During operation of the proposed undertaking, traffic levels will be similar to conditions that currently exist, and as a result no additional air quality impacts or greenhouse gas emissions over the future existing conditions are expected from the proposed undertaking. The ministry reviewed this report and has no outstanding concerns with its findings.

During construction, the preferred alternative is anticipated to result in air quality effects from the operation of construction equipment, excavation of soils and demolition of the existing expressway and ramps. Mitigation such as applying water and dust suppressants to minimize dust, good maintenance of equipment, minimizing idling, and using on-site concrete making to minimize concrete truck traffic are proposed.

The existing noise levels in the study area are typical of a major transportation corridor in a highly populated urban area.

Construction activities such as pile driving and drilling will generate noise and vibration effects. Between Cherry Street and the Don River, the closest sensitive receptors are approximately 300 metres away. From the Don Roadway to Logan Avenue some warehouse businesses could experience noise and vibration effects during construction. The proponents propose to follow municipal noise by-laws, install vibration monitoring equipment, as well as monitor and follow up on noise and vibration complaints. During operation, traffic volumes would be similar to existing conditions therefore additional noise and vibration effects are not anticipated. Future development proposals near the proposed project will need to meet the City of Toronto noise study requirements to assess noise effects on new residents or businesses and propose mitigation to reduce noise impacts.

With respect to the potential project’s impact to the natural environment and species habitat, approximately 2.5 hectares of low quality vegetation (e.g. invasive species) will be removed due to the proposed undertaking. Based on preliminary estimates, an area of approximately 3 hectares will be planted within the roadway corridor. This amount would be confirmed during the design process for the public realm improvements (currently ongoing). Mitigation such as avoiding construction during the bird breeding season is proposed, and the proponents have committed to complete a Species at Risk (SAR) screening as part of the future design work and to apply mitigation where required. Additional trees would be planted along the Lake Shore Boulevard corridor, improving existing terrestrial habitat. The MNRF indicates that is has no outstanding concerns with the EA.

The proposed undertaking includes the creation of significant improved and new green space and a multi-use trail that would lie north of Lake Shore Boulevard. The multi-use trail is anticipated to improve pedestrian and cyclist safety and promote walking and cycling. Intersections would be improved along Lake Shore Boulevard to increase pedestrian safety. These improvements could include reducing pedestrian crossing distances, reducing turn lanes, and adding visual aids for crossing.

Regarding water quality, the proposed project would allow for an improvement in stormwater management that would contribute to an improvement in local surface water quality (see Section 3.2).

Considering the responses from government review agencies and the proponents, review of the EA, and supporting documentation, the ministry is satisfied that the undertaking is not expected to contribute to greater environmental effects than currently experienced in the study area, which is a busy urban environment. The project proposes to increase greenspace and stormwater management measures. Therefore, the ministry is satisfied that concerns with the potential environmental and health impacts from the project have been considered.

As a number of commitments have been made by the proponents in the EA to monitor and mitigate the environmental effects of the undertaking where required, the ministry recommends that standard conditions of approval on monitoring and reporting be imposed on the undertaking if approved to ensure that the commitments in the EA are honoured.

Other comments

Other comments were made regarding: support of the Hybrid (preferred) alternative, consistency of mapping throughout the EA report, traffic study results, accessibility of the EA documents, consideration of health impacts, proponents’ issuing of non-competitive contracts, assurance of implementation of the public realm improvements, Metrolinx’s involvement in the EA, significance of the Gardiner Expressway as a transportation corridor in the City, and the EA report’s inherent bias towards the value of automobile travel over other modes of travel. Some requests were made for a hearing with the Environmental Review Tribunal. Responses to these concerns can be found in Table 2 in the appendices.

Government Review Team comments

Species at risk

The MNRF recorded several Species at Risk in the study area, and indicated that the proponents must notify the MNRF if any work may cause harm to these listed species. The proponents committed to completing a Species at Risk screening in advance of any construction disturbance and keeping MNRF informed of this work. The proponents committed to incorporating any required mitigation measures into contract documents, as appropriate.

The MNRF indicated that it is satisfied with the proponents’ response.

Archaeology and built/cultural heritage

The MTCS had raised concerns that the EA relied on an Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report which was not intended to satisfy Archaeological Assessment requirements and was not consistent with Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment requirements. The MTCS commented that leaving formal Archaeological Assessment work to the preliminary or detailed design stage does not allow for potential effects on archaeological resources to be evaluated based on full information of those resources.

The MTCS also commented that it was not clear from any of the EA documentation whether any attempt had been made to determine the existence of previously unrecognized cultural heritage resources in the study area.

As a result, the proponents submitted a revised Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment which focused on the lands in the vicinity of the preferred design alternative being completed (Hybrid 3). The MTCS reviewed this report and it received clearance. The report concluded that the potential for Indigenous archaeological resources was essentially nil, due to extensive disturbance from past developments. Potential for the presence of significant Euro-Canadian archaeological resources exist, related to the 1870 Don Breakwater and the circa 1880 Toronto Dry Dock. The report recommends that construction excavations in the area of potential for these features be subject to a program of archaeological monitoring to document their remains, if any, prior to their removal.

A Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment for Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Resources was completed in April 2017 for the proposed preferred alternative (Hybrid 3) and sent to the MTCS. A total of ten cultural heritage resources were identified within and/or adjacent to the Hybrid 3 study area. Four of these ten cultural heritage resources—which include a bridge, rail corridor, and the Keating Channel—may be impacted by the proposal. The report concluded that during detail design, the identified resources should be further evaluated to assess impact, and appropriate mitigation measures applied if necessary. Regarding the four resources potentially impacted, the report recommends that these should be evaluated during detail design to confirm that there are no further effects that cannot be mitigated.

On April 25, 2017 the MTCS accepted this report and provided follow-up comments which the proponents addressed through commitments.

The MOECC requested that both of these studies be available on the project website. The ministry is satisfied that the commitments made by the proponents address the comments made by the MTCS.

Coordination with other projects in the study area

Metrolinx recommended coordination of planning and construction schedules to ensure that any conflicts are avoided or at least minimized. Metrolinx also stated that the proposed plans for Metrolinx’s Union Station Rail Corridor East Enhancements project include public realm improvements associated with retaining walls and bridge modifications (i.e. extensions) in the study area, which would need to be coordinated with the Gardiner undertaking.

Hydro One is also concerned about the impacts to several of its planned infrastructure and development projects in the area and how these could affect their transmission infrastructure if not planned and coordinated in consultation with Hydro One.

The proponents committed to continue to engage with Metrolinx and Hydro One in the advancement of the design for the project to determine how all of the various proposed projects can be coordinated and accommodated. Both agencies have indicated that they are satisfied with the proponents’ responses.

Air quality

The MOECC reviewed responses in the EA provided by the proponents on the ministry’s comments on the draft EA about the air quality impact assessment including the modelling and data used. The MOECC indicated that its comments were addressed in the final EA.

Indigenous community consultation

Some comments were made by the MOECC and the TRCA on the documentation of Indigenous community consultation activities in the EA, and consideration of the project’s potential to impact Indigenous communities. The proponents responded by amending the EA documentation to include more information on consultation undertaken with Indigenous communities. The proponents also included a commitments table outlining their commitments to continue dialogue with Indigenous communities as the project progresses.

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority comments

Detailed comments on the EA were received from TRCA regarding potential impacts to TRCA’s Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection EA. This included the sediment management area, mapping errors, proposed features of TRCA’s project which should be identified during the detailed design, the potential impacts of the new ramps and piers on flow conveyance of the Don River through the area between the railway embankment and Lake Shore Boulevard, habitat restoration, further permits required from TRCA, and the need for ongoing consultation with the conservation authority.

TRCA suggested a meeting with the proponents be held once this project reaches detailed design to discuss implementation, phasing, TRCA approvals, and next steps. The proponents agreed to work with TRCA to address any issues and coordinate the two projects during the detailed design phase.

The TRCA indicated that it is satisfied with the proponents’ responses for the purposes of the EA.

3.3.1 Conclusion

Ministry staff are satisfied that the proposed Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration would be designed and operated to comply with the ministry’s standards. Ministry staff are also satisfied that the environmental effects of the proposed undertaking can be managed through the commitments made in the EA, through proposed conditions of approval or through additional work that must be carried out by the proponents in support of future approval applications if the undertaking as described in the EA is approved.

Summary of the ministry review

The Review has explained the ministry’s analysis for the Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration.

This Review concludes:

• The EA complies with the requirements of the approved ToR and has been prepared in accordance with the EAA. The amended EA has provided sufficient information to enable a decision to be made about the application to proceed with the undertaking.
• The amended EA has assessed and evaluated “alternatives to” and alternative methods to arrive at the preferred undertaking, assessed the potential environmental effects of the “alternatives to”, alternative methods, the proposed undertaking, and provides a description of mitigation and monitoring measures to address the potential negative environmental effects of the proposed undertaking or a commitment has been made to address them through additional work that would be completed as part of future approval requirements.
• If the proposed undertaking is approved under the EAA, there are several standard conditions imposed such as the requirement to conduct and report on the results of compliance monitoring and to develop a protocol for responding to complaints received during all the phases of the undertaking.

What happens now

The Review will be made available for a five-week comment period. During this time, all interested parties, including the public, GRT, and Indigenous communities can submit comments to the ministry about the proposed undertaking, the EA and/or the Ministry Review. At this time, anyone can make a written request that the Minister refer either all or part of the EA to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a hearing if there are significant outstanding environmental concerns that have not been considered.

At the end of the Review comment period, ministry staff will make a recommendation to the Minister concerning whether the EA has been prepared in accordance with the ToR, the requirements of the EAA, and whether the proposed undertaking should be approved. When making a decision, the Minister will consider the purpose of the EAA, ToR, EA, the Review, comments submitted during the EA, Review comment periods, and any other matters the Minister may consider relevant.

The Minister will make one of the following decisions:

• Give approval to proceed with the undertaking
• Give approval to proceed with the undertaking subject to conditions
• Refuse to give approval to proceed with the undertaking

Prior to making that decision, the Minister may also refer either part of or the entire EA to mediation or to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a decision.

If the Minister approves, approves with conditions, or refuses to give approval to the undertaking, the Lieutenant Governor in Council must concur with the decision.

5.1 Additional approvals required

If EAA approval is granted, the City of Toronto and Waterfront Toronto will still require other legislative approvals to design, construct, and operate this undertaking. Section 1.4 of the EA outlines additional approvals that may be required. These approvals may include:

• MOECC Permit to Take Water under the Ontario Water Resources Act
• Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Regulation of Development, O. Reg. 166/06 Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses regulations
• Aquatic Habitat Toronto Project Review
• City of Toronto Road Occupancy Permit, Road Cut Permit, Tree Removal Permits, Permit for Installation/Relocation of Public Utilities, Local Hydro Utility Building Permit, Toronto Sewer Use Bylaw, and Noise Bylaw Exemption

These approvals cannot be issued until approval under the EAA is granted.

The undertaking is not subject to Canadian Environmental Assessment Act requirements. A Navigation Protection Act permit may be required from Transport Canada due to construction of new piers for the reconstructed Expressway.

5.2 Modifying or amending the proposed undertaking

Chapter 8 of the EA describes the modifying or amending procedures for the proposed undertaking. If approved, proposed changes to the undertaking will be documented by the proponents and in consultation with MOECC staff would be classified as minor or major changes. Minor changes to the undertaking would include proposed project design refinements that do not trigger additional regulatory approval, although they may require consultation meetings with directly impacted stakeholders. Major changes to the project are more significant changes to the undertaking that may require additional regulatory approval and/or additional stakeholder consultation. Major changes may require an amendment to the undertaking approved in the EA and approval by the ministry.

In addition, the proponents may use the Municipal Engineers Association’s Municipal Class EA to consider and document changes to components of the undertaking that are listed as activities under the Municipal Class EA. Project changes may be considered as part of separate Municipal Class EA studies or as individual activities under the Municipal Class EA. In either case, the minimum consultation requirements outlined in the Municipal Class EA will be required to be met.

Public record locations

The public record for this environmental assessment can be reviewed during normal business hours at the following ministry office:

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Environmental Approvals Branch
135 St. Clair Avenue West, 1^st floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5V 1P5

• Tel: 416-314-8001
• Toll-free: 1-800-461-6290
• Fax: 416-314-8452

The Review and Notice of Completion are also available at the following locations:

Toronto City Hall Library
100 Queen Street West, Main Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 2N3

Waterfront Toronto
20 Bay Street, Suite 1310
Toronto, Ontario
M5J 2N8

Making a submission

A five-week public review period ending on July 28, 2017 will follow publication of this Review. During this time, any interested parties can make submissions about the proposed undertaking, the environmental assessment or this Review. Should you wish to make a submission, please send it to:

Director
Environmental Approvals Branch
Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
135 St. Clair Avenue West, 1^st floor
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 1P5

• Fax: 416-314-8452

Re: Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration
Environmental Assessment and Urban Design Study
Attention: Ms. Dorothy Moszynski, Project Officer

All personal information included in a submission—such as name, address, telephone number and property location of requester—is collected, maintained and disclosed by the ministry for the purpose of transparency and consultation. The information is collected under the authority of the Environmental Assessment Act or is collected and maintained for the purpose of creating a record that is available to the general public as described in s.37 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Personal information that is submitted will become part of a public record that is available to the general public unless a request is made that personal information remain confidential. For more information, contact the ministry’s Freedom of Information and Privacy Coordinator.

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Act and terms of reference requirements of the environmental assessment

Analysis of the EA

The purpose of the EA study is to determine the future of the Gardiner Expressway from approximately Lower Jarvis Street to east of the Don Valley Parkway (DVP) at Logan Avenue.

The purpose of the undertaking is to address the deteriorating condition of this 2.4 km section of the Gardiner Expressway. The deck and concrete barriers of the elevated sections of the Gardiner Expressway are in poor condition, and considered to be at the end of their service life. Since 2012, incidents of falling concrete have occurred along the corridor, including the area east of Jarvis Street. Additionally, the purpose of the undertaking is to address a waterfront disconnected from the city in this area.

The undertaking is proposed to address several opportunities:

• Revitalize the Waterfront
• Create a Sustainable Waterfront
• Generate and Capture Economic Value
• Balance Transportation Modes

Chapter 2.0 of the EA presents the purpose of and rationale for the undertaking. The ministry is satisfied that the EA clearly identifies the existing problem and opportunities and clearly indicates the purpose of the undertaking.

Analysis of the EA

The EA included a description and rationale for the study focused on the development and evaluation of alternative solutions for the deteriorating Gardiner Expressway East.

The ToR explained that alternative solutions and designs to be considered in the EA would be limited to “land based” travel modes and to those physically located in the study area. They would be developed to accommodate a transportation planning horizon year of 2031.

The City of Toronto and Waterfront Toronto (proponents) have undertaken studies in the past to examine potential “alternatives to” for the reconfiguration of the Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard. These studies have included the development of conceptual designs to better understand the technical feasibility and challenges to implementing the “alternatives to”. Further, as part of this study, a case study analysis was completed in March 2009 that examined how other cities around the world have dealt with their aging elevated roadways.

Based on this past work and input obtained through the EA ToR public and agency consultation process, the “alternatives to” were identified to include:

• Maintain (or “Do Nothing”)
• Improve
• Replace
• Remove (or Boulevard)
• Other alternatives

An explanation of each alternative to the undertaking can be found in Chapter 4: Description and Evaluation of Alternative Solutions.

The assessment and evaluation of the alternative solutions was based on a set of evaluation criteria such as transit impact, safety for pedestrians, commuter travel time, aquatic and terrestrial environment, life cycle cost, and measures that represent the broad definition of the environment and consider both qualitative and quantitative (i.e., numerical) data. These criteria and measures are organized on the basis of the four study lenses and 16 criteria groups. The four study lenses, as outlined in the EA ToR are: Transportation and Infrastructure, Urban Design, Economics, and Environment.

Once potential effects of each alternative were identified, the proponents used a three-part process to evaluate alternatives and select the preferred alternative to as identified in the ToR. First, the relative importance of each criteria group/criteria was identified. While public was asked to provide input on the relative importance of criteria groups, relative weighting was not applied to the criteria groups. Second, the order of preference ranking of the alternatives by criteria group/criteria was determined. Table 4.2 of the EA presents the criteria and measures, compares the advantages and disadvantages of each “alternative to” or solution, and identifies the preference ranking of the alternatives to.

Third, the appropriate evaluation methodology was selected and applied. The ToR identified that the proponents would use a qualitative paired comparison approach to make trade-offs through reasoned argument. Tables 4.4 to 4.6 of the EA contain paired comparisons of the Maintain vs. Improve alternatives to, Improve vs. Replace alternatives to, and Improve vs. Remove alternatives to.

The initial evaluation of “alternatives to” resulted in the identification of the Remove alternative as the technically preferred alternative. This technical recommendation was presented to the Toronto Public Works and Infrastructure Committee (PWIC), who directed the proponents to consider additional mitigation of auto travel time impacts associated with the Remove alternative, and develop and evaluate an additional “alternative to” – the Hybrid.

Chapter 4.4 of the EA describes how the Hybrid and Optimized Remove “alternatives to” were identified. Chapter 4.4.5.4 describes how both of these “alternatives to” were evaluated in a final paired comparison, which considered a similar set of criteria used to originally compare the four “alternatives to”. Additional studies (goods movement, economic competitiveness) and input from the public, agencies, and interested parties were considered as part of the evaluation.

The transportation model results for both “alternatives to” were compared to the future ‘maintain’ baseline (which is the Do Nothing alternative). The advantages and disadvantages of the Do Nothing were understood from the first comparison of “alternatives to”, and the Remove alternative was also in a paired-comparison with the Do Nothing/Maintain alternative. The Hybrid “alternative to” could be considered as a combination of past “alternatives to” (Maintain and Replace).

Table 4.9 illustrates the comparison between the Hybrid and Optimised Remove alternatives and provides an explanation on how both alternatives had comparable benefits and trade-offs. While the number of evaluation lens/criteria group preferences appears to be in favour of the Remove alternative, the EA states that selecting the alternative based only on the number of evaluation lens/criteria group preferences was not appropriate as this approach would not consider the variation in the magnitude and period of the effect/benefit, scale of users affected, certainty of forecast, and mitigation measures available. Due to highly divisive opinions and no clear preference for either alternative, the decision regarding the preferred alternative was forwarded to Toronto City Council, the elected representatives of the citizens of Toronto. After significant deliberations Council selected the Hybrid “alternative to” as preferred, as detailed in Chapter 4.5 of the EA. This alternative was considered by Council to achieve an appropriate balance between the goals of city building and accommodating the City’s transportation demands.

The ministry is satisfied that a reasonable range of alternatives were studied and that the “maintain” option satisfies the requirements of the EAA and ToR as the “Do Nothing” baseline. The ToR allowed for other alternatives to be identified (Chapter 6.1), thus the identification and evaluation of “alternatives to” in the EA is consistent with the approach provided in the approved ToR.

Analysis of the EA

Chapter 5: Design Alternatives of the EA explains how the alternative methods were formulated, and describes the methodology followed to identify the preferred alternative method for implementing the undertaking.

Three alternative methods were selected from a broader list of concepts, some of which were not carried forward following public/stakeholder input and an analysis of issues and constraints. These three Hybrid alternative methods were then compared:

• Hybrid Design Alternative 1: this method involves removing the existing Logan Avenue ramps, maintaining the existing Gardiner Expressway through the Keating Channel Precinct along the north edge of the Keating Channel Precinct; constructing new two lane eastbound off-ramp and westbound on-ramp connections east of Cherry Street, constructing new approach roads to the new ramps east of Cherry Street, and realigning Lake Shore Boulevard mid-block through the Keating Channel Precinct.
• Hybrid Design Alternative 2: Similar to Hybrid 1, however the new ramps would connect with a planned Munitions Street extension, and the DVP-Gardiner connection would be rebuilt further north than Hybrid 1.
• Hybrid Design Alternative 3: Similar to Hybrid 2 but the Gardiner/DVP connection would be further north, and the rail bridge underpass (south-east of Corktown Common park) would be widened to the east.

Table 5-2 in Chapter 5 outlines the decision making process used in evaluating the alternative methods to determine the preferred undertaking. The methodology used to evaluate alternatives is consistent with the approved ToR.

The ministry is satisfied that an adequate description of the different ways of implementing the alternative solution was provided, and a reasonable range of alternative methods were evaluated using a broad range of environmental criteria and measures.

Analysis of the EA

The section of the Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard that is being examined for reconfiguration extends 2.4 kilometres from approximately Lower Jarvis Street to east of the DVP at Logan Avenue. Two study areas were considered in the EA:

1. Urban Design and Environmental Effects Study Area: includes the lands in the vicinity of the section of the Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard that is being considered for reconfiguration. These are the areas that could potentially experience disruption effects and be transformed through redevelopment opportunities. This is expected to include lands south of King Street to the waterfront, and from Lower Jarvis Street to approximately Leslie Street. This study area includes the precincts of East Bayfront, West Don Lands, and Keating Channel, as well as portions of the Port Lands and South of Eastern areas.
2. Transportation System Study Area: includes the area that could be affected by changes in traffic patterns and volumes. The lands that extend from Dundas Street to Lake Ontario and from Spadina Avenue to Woodbine Avenue will be subject to a detailed level transportation assessment. The study area includes the transportation network of transit (subway, streetcar, and GO Transit service), and vehicular traffic including goods movement and emergency vehicles, and the pedestrian and cycling networks. Transportation initiatives, traffic behaviours and modal splits at a city-wide or regional level were also considered in the transportation assessment. This study area is also referred to as the “Transportation Study Area” in the EA Report.

The proponents followed a planning approach for the EA whereby environmental constraints and opportunities were considered within the context of the environment as broadly defined under the EAA (i.e., the natural environment as well as the social, economic and cultural heritage and other “environments” relevant to the undertaking). The description of the potentially affected environment (otherwise known as the baseline conditions) was prepared based on this approach.

Chapter 3 of the EA outlines the potentially affected environment. The baseline conditions document the natural, social, economic, urban design, infrastructure and transportation environments of the various precincts and neighbourhoods that exist in the study area.

To assess and evaluate the alternatives, two baseline condition horizon years were established: 1) 2013 representing existing or near term conditions and 2) 2031 representing the long term future operating condition.

The ministry is satisfied that a broad definition of the environment was considered and a description of existing environmental conditions in the study area provided. Additionally, a reasonable planning horizon was considered in the EA, and the studies found in the appendices are complete.

Analysis of the EA

The EA clearly identified the potential effects of the project activities for the preferred undertaking on the environment.

Chapter 6: Description of Undertaking Effects Assessment, along with detailed studies in the appendices, outline the potential effects of the proposed undertaking and preferred design. The studies undertaken as part of the EA include:

• Cultural heritage
• Archaeology
• Natural environment
• Soils and groundwater
• Stormwater management
• Air quality
• Noise
• Existing infrastructure
• Transportation/goods movement
• Urban design and public realm
• Economics/economic competitiveness
• Land valuation

The EA assesses both positive and potential negative effects of the undertaking. The evaluation method included identifying proposed monitoring and mitigation measures to minimize or avoid any potential negative environmental effects of the preferred undertaking being considered as part of the EA process. The EA Report identifies the net effects of the undertaking during both construction and operation.

Table 6-1 in the EA describes construction period project/environmental component interaction, Table 6-2 describes construction period net effects, and Table 6-3 describes net effects during operation of the undertaking.

The assessment of the undertaking was based on environmental evaluation criteria and measures that were developed by the proponents and consulting team that reflect the study area, project characteristics and input from stakeholders throughout the course of the EA. The criteria reflect the four study lenses (transportation and infrastructure, urban design, economics, and environment) and for each criterion, one or more measures were developed. Potential effects to source water protection, cumulative effects, effects from climate change, and effects to climate change were discussed.

A list of connected key plans and studies considered in the EA are found in the EA Report and additional studies are referenced in Appendix L including:

• Lower Yonge Transportation Master Plan
• Lower Don Lands (Master Plan EA and Villiers Island Precinct Plan
• Don Mouth Naturalization and Flood Protection EA
• Port Lands and South of Eastern Transportation and Servicing Master Plan EA
• Metrolinx Expansion Plans/Projects
• First Gulf Development Official Plan Amendment (OPA)
• City of Toronto Official Plan
• Central Waterfront Plan
• Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront: Report 15—The Toronto Central Waterfront Transportation Corridor Study
• Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront Final Report: Regeneration—Toronto’s Waterfront and the Sustainable City
• Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Task Force: Our Toronto Waterfront—Building Momentum
• Toronto Staff Report: Review of the Gardiner/Lake Shore Corridor Proposal Contained in the Central Waterfront Secondary Plan
• Provincial Policy Statement
• Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe
• King-Parliament Secondary Plan
• West Don Lands Precinct Plan
• East Bayfront Precinct Plan
• Keating Channel Precinct Plan (in progress)
• Lower Yonge Precinct Plan (in progress)
• PATH Pedestrian Network Master Plan
• York/Bay/Yonge Gardiner Interchange Reconfiguration EA (in progress)

The evaluation method in the EA was clear, traceable, replicable, and appropriate for a major transportation project in an urban area.

Analysis of the EA

Overall, the EA provides a description of the commitments to prevent, change, mitigate, or remedy potential environmental effects.

The ministry during its review of the EA recommended that the proponents amend the EA to include more information on mitigation that was proposed and considered for the alternatives to. The proponents included this information (Table 4-1a) in the revised EA which was posted to the project website.

Based on the construction period interactions presented in Table 6-1 and Table 6-2 presents a summary of the project’s potential construction-related effects and proposed mitigation measures, and identifies the net residual effects. Table 6-3 presents a summary of the projected project operations period related effects, proposed mitigation and monitoring measures, and net residual effects.

As the proponents went through each stage of assessment and alternatives to and alternative methods were developed, an increasing level of detail was provided on potential effects, proposed mitigation, and net effects of the proposed undertaking.

Commitments to monitoring are discussed in Chapter 6.10 of the EA. An effects monitoring strategy has been developed and is summarized in Chapter 6.10.1. Table 6-5 summarizes proposed construction effects monitoring and Table 6-6 summarizes EA commitments and compliance monitoring.

A commitments summary table (Table 6-7 in the EA) was added by the proponents as requested by the ministry, to address comments made by agencies during the ministry Review.

Commitments to future work are also contained in Chapter 9.1, and include detailed design work, completion of a detailed constructability and staging plan, the need to consider the advancement of other projects and plans in the project area, an update of the Keating Channel Precinct Plan and Public Realm Plan development.

Analysis of the EA

Chapter 4.3.1 describes the evaluation approach used to identify the advantages and disadvantages of the “alternatives to”. To compare advantages and disadvantages, both construction effects and long-term operations effects were identified and assessed based on the criteria and definitions noted in the EA. Quantitative and qualitative data was collected and considered.

Chapter 4.3.2 describes the results of the assessment and evaluation of the four initial alternative solutions. The evaluation matrix was presented in Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 summarized alternatives preference ranking by criteria group. A detailed review of the results followed, and Chapter 4.3.2.2 outlined how public input was considered in decision making. To identify a trade-off among alternatives, a paired comparison approach was used and results were presented in Table 4.4 to Table 4.6.

While the majority of those consulted (approximately 60%) indicated support for the Remove alternative, the City of Toronto Public Works and Infrastructure Committee in March 2014 advised the proponents to develop and analyze additional alternatives. The Optimized Remove and Hybrid alternatives were developed and studies on Goods Movement and the City’s Economic Competiveness were undertaken to evaluate these alternatives’ advantages and disadvantages to the environment. Table 4.9 in Chapter 4.4.5.4 compares the Optimized Remove and Hybrid Alternatives to.

Advantages and disadvantages of the three alternative methods: Hybrid 1, 2, and 3 were presented in Chapter 5.

The proponents have clearly demonstrated how the advantages and disadvantages of the alternative solutions and designs were evaluated to identify the preferred undertaking.

Analysis of the EA

Chapter 7 of the EA provides a consultation program overview; documenting key consultation activities, and summarizing major consultation events. The detailed record of consultation can be found in Appendix B.

Between 2009 and 2016, nearly 30,000 connections were made on the project in a variety of in person and online engagement opportunities. Five rounds of public consultation, based on the technical work completed for each phase of the EA study, were held between May 2013 and January 2016. Key consultation methods included public forums, a Stakeholder Advisory Committee, public notices, a project website, a Technical Advisory Committee, Toronto Committee and Council meetings, Waterfront Toronto Board meetings, and the creation of a Facilitator’s Office.

Chapter 7.2.6 describes consultation with Indigenous communities. The potentially-interested communities were identified as:

• Alderville First Nation (FN)
• Beausoleil FN
• Chippewas of Georgina Island FN
• Chippewas of Rama FN
• Curve Lake FN
• Hiawatha FN
• Mississaugas of Scugog Island FN
• Moose Deer Point FN
• Mississaugas of the New Credit FN

Letters and emails were sent to each of the communities advising of the five public information centres. The proponents corresponded with several communities (Hiawatha FN, Alderville FN, Curve Lake FN and met with the Mississaugas of the New Credit FN.

Chapter 7.2.7 summarizes the release of the draft EA for voluntary review. Stakeholders and the public were invited to review the draft EA Report during the 45-day voluntary review period, between July 21, 2016 and September 6, 2016, and provide comments to the project team via the Facilitator’s Office. Forty-five individuals and groups/agencies submitted feedback as part of the Voluntary Review of the Draft EA Report, including the West Don Lands Committee, First Gulf, Lafarge Canada Inc., Castlepoint Numa, and the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers.

Chapter 7.3 describes the influence of consultation on the EA. For example, two alternative solutions were proposed by two third-party teams which were further refined and evaluated by the proponents/consultants.

The EA demonstrates how public and agency input received throughout the EA process informed the results of the EA.

In response to comments made by agencies on the EA and advice from the MOECC the proponents conducted additional studies (a Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment and Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment) which were completed in April 2017. The proponents also included additional commitments to coordination with agencies on other projects in the study area as the proposed Gardiner project advances, and ongoing consultation with agencies and Indigenous communities. In addition, the proponents committed to completing a Species at Risk Screening and applying any required mitigation. These additional studies and commitments were included in the amended EA and appendices, which are available on the project website.

The EAA requires that the proponents consult with all interested persons during the preparation of the EA and report on the results of that consultation. The ministry is satisfied that the proponents appropriately carried out the consultation plan that was outlined in the approved ToR.

Overall, the ministry is satisfied that the proponents provided sufficient opportunities for the public, interested stakeholders and Indigenous communities to be consulted during the preparation of the EA.

Analysis of the EA

The evaluation process in Chapters 4 and 5 of the EA explains why alternatives were chosen and why the preferred undertaking was selected.

Chapter 6 provides a description of the preferred undertaking.

The EA documents how the preferred undertaking addresses the problem and opportunity statement.

In the EA, Chapter 6.10 outlines commitments to monitoring. Chapter 9.1 details commitments of future work. For example, in Chapter 9.1.1-detail design, effects to features such the Metrolinx Rail Bridge, Don River, the Don Roadway, and Cherry Street would need to be considered, and minimized. A review of safety measures for tight ramps and recommendations would be undertaken. Chapter 9.1.2 outlines a construction detour route review and Chapter 9.1.3 outlines coordination with other infrastructure and planning projects. A commitment to completing a public realm implementation phasing and funding strategy is described in Chapter 9.1.4.

The EA was amended as suggested by the ministry to include additional commitments to consultation, coordination with agencies and future work.

Standard conditions including compliance monitoring and reporting, and public recordkeeping are recommended by the ministry to ensure all commitments in the EA are carried out.

Analysis of the EA

Waterfront Toronto and the City of Toronto committed to preparing a comprehensive list of commitments during the EA process. These commitments are detailed in Table 1-1 of the EA, which references the section of the ToR in which the commitment was made and the corresponding chapter in the EA where the commitment was addressed. These included preparing a comprehensive list of commitments and a monitoring plan for the undertaking, how consultation will be undertaken, and how alternatives would be evaluated.

If approved, next steps for the project include detailed design and construction staging plans, the completion of a Public Realm Phasing and Implementation Strategy, and construction and effects monitoring.

Analysis of the EA

If EA approval is granted, the proponents will still require other legislative approvals to construct and operate the undertaking. Chapter 1.4 of the EA outlines additional municipal and provincial approvals that may be required, including:

• MOECC Permit to Take Water under the Ontario Water Resources Act (for digging during construction)
• Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Regulation of Development, O. Reg. 166/06 Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulations
• Project Review by Aquatic Habitat Toronto
• City of Toronto Road Occupancy Permit, Road Cut Permit, Tree Removal Permits, Permit for Installation/Relocation of Public Utilities, Local Hydro Utility Building Permit, Toronto Sewer Use Bylaw, and Noise Bylaw Exemption

The proponents have also committed to undertaking a Species at Risk Screening.

Appendix B: Submissions received during the initial comment period

Submissions are available in hard copy at the public record locations listed in this ministry review.

Table 1: Government Review Team comment summary table

Comment #1

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF)

Summary of comments

Species at Risk (SAR) recorded in the vicinity include Piping Plover (endangered), Peregrine Falcon (special concern), Chimney Swift (threatened), and Eastern Whip-poor-will (threatened). There is potential for endangered bats (i.e. Eastern Small-footed Myotis, Little Brown Myotis, Northern Myotis, and Tri-Coloured Bat) in cavities.

Additional natural heritage information including information on wetlands and Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) can be obtained through Land Information Ontario (LIO).

Absence of information from MNRF does not mean the absence of species/features.

Approval from MNRF may be required if work proposed could cause harm to any species that receive protection under the Endangered Species Act, 2007.

Proponent’s response

The proponents will complete a SAR screening well in advance of any disturbance to the project footprint to determine the need for any additional mitigation, investigations, or permitting. The MNRF will be kept informed of this work. Should mitigation measures be required, the proponents will ensure that these measures are incorporated into contract documents as appropriate.

The commitment to complete a SAR screening prior to construction and continuing to consult with MNRF has been noted in the revised EA which will be placed on the project web site.

Status

The MNRF indicated that it is satisfied with this response.

Comment #2

Submitter

Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) & Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration

Summary of comments

Archaeological Resources

This EA report relies on an “Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report” to identify potential for archaeological impacts. This baseline conditions report notes the archaeological sites that have already been documented in the study area, and recommends a comprehensive Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report be completed if any work involving subsurface impacts be required as part of project implementation. While this baseline conditions report was submitted to the MTCS archaeological review team and entered into the register, it was not subjected to technical review, since it recommended further work and was not intended to satisfy the Archaeological Assessment requirements.

During an EA study, archaeological fieldwork should be completed up to such a stage as is necessary to fully determine the archaeological resources to be potentially impacted by the alternative(s) being carried forward. It is possible that the typical approach of carrying out Stage 2 and if necessary Stage 3 work is not appropriate to this context given the highly disturbed study area and well-documented archaeological resources. However, at the very least, Stage 1 should be completed to fully determine whether archaeological potential exists in parts of the study area that may be subjected to ground disturbance. Leaving formal Archaeological Assessment work to the preliminary or detailed design stage does not allow for potential effects on archaeological resources to be evaluated based on full information of those resources.

Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes

The Cultural Heritage Baseline Conditions Report for this EA study lists cultural heritage resources in the study area that have existing recognition such as the properties designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act or listed on the municipal register. It is not clear from any of the EA documentation that any attempt has been made to determine the existence of previously unrecognized cultural heritage resources. An EA study in an area with cultural heritage potential would normally include a Cultural Heritage Assessment Report and/or Heritage Impact Assessment that would screen the study area for potential cultural heritage resources, assess each potential resource according to the criteria in Ontario Regulation 9/06 to determine whether they indeed have cultural heritage value or interest, determine whether the proposed undertaking has the potential to impact cultural heritage resources, both newly and previously identified, and recommend mitigation measures for these impacts.

As this process has not been carried out, determinations regarding potential effects on built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes are made solely based on municipally recognized resources, and may not capture all potential impacts on the cultural environment.

Proponent’s response

A call with MTCS was held on March 30, 2017 to discuss these comments. A Revised Stage 1 Archaeological assessment has been prepared and has been submitted to MTCS. This report will be posted on the project web site. As well, the Stage 2 work commitments have been included in a commitments table that will be included in the revised EA and also be posted on the project web site.

Regarding built cultural heritage resources, a full Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment (CHRA) report has been prepared and submitted to MTCS. Recommendations from this report are included in an EA commitment table in the revised EA. The CHRA Report and revised EA will be placed on the project web site.

Status

MTCS has reviewed and cleared the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment completed for the project. The MTCS indicates that its comments have been addressed.

In the revised EA the proponents have committed to subjecting construction excavations in the area of the potential Euro-Canadian archaeological resources to a program of archaeological monitoring to document any remains, if any, prior to their removal.

MTCS has reviewed the Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment report and offers the following comments: While the assessment has identified properties within the Keating Channel Precinct as having potential cultural heritage value of interest, the report states that the Hybrid Design Alternative 3 is unlikely to directly impact these properties. That being said, the report recommendation that if the project designs change significantly further site-specific impact assessment may be appropriate, should be followed.

MTCS note the EA commitment to conducting further assessment to identify opportunities to document on the elevated expressway structure for archival purposes. MTCS supports this commitment.

Comment #3

Submitter

Metrolinx

Summary of comments

Metrolinx has provided comments throughout the Gardiner East project, and most recently in a letter dated May 12, 2016.

As previously stated, Metrolinx (as well as other organizations) have numerous initiatives currently underway or planned for this area, and these works may overlap with the Gardiner project. Coordination of planning and, ultimately, construction schedules will be required to ensure that any conflicts are avoided or at least minimized. The intent will be to ensure that existing and planned Metrolinx infrastructure, expansion programs, and operations are not adversely impacted by the Gardiner East EA proposed works. To be specific, this would include (but is not limited to) the following:

• Current and future railway service and operations (mainline tracks and track speeds to be maintained at all times)
• Railway corridor expansion work for additional mainline track(s)
• Track alignments (vertical and horizontal)
• Electrification infrastructure (e.g. gantry, overhead contact system portals, Don Yard paralleling station, grounding) and signal system requirements
• Signal bridge and turnouts west of the Don Rail Bridge
• Any infrastructure (buried or otherwise) supporting rail corridor operations (including but not limited to railway signals, communications and fibre optics)

In June 2016 Metrolinx and the Government of Ontario announced that a new integrated Regional Express Rail/SmartTrack station (East Harbour) will be constructed at the former Unilever site (northeast corner of Lake Shore Boulevard and Don Roadway). The preferred design for this station has station platforms on all four future mainline tracks servicing local and express GO service. There will also be consideration for yard tracks leading west into Don Yard, pedestrian walkways, and other ‘add-on’ station components. Metrolinx will continue to work with the proponents as the design and funding commitments of this station progresses.

The Gardiner East project includes public realm improvements that extend from Jarvis Street to Leslie Street. Within this area, Metrolinx has proposed expansion and modifications within the portion of the Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) east of Yonge Street west to the proposed Canal Track south of Eastern Avenue, and south of the rail corridor for the planned expansion of Don Yard and acquisition of Wilson Yard (USRC East Enhancements project). The proposed plans for the USRC East Enhancements project include public realm improvements associated with retaining walls and bridge modifications (i.e. extensions) in the study area. The proponents are currently finalizing their Public Realm Phasing and Implementation Plan for the Gardiner East corridor. Metrolinx is committed to working closely with the proponents to coordinate plans for both the Gardiner East and USRC East Enhancements projects.

Proponent’s response

The proponents acknowledge Metrolinx’s plans as outlined in their letter including the proposed East Harbour rail station.

The proponents will continue to engage with Metrolinx in the advancement of the design for the Gardiner project to determine how all of the various proposed projects can be coordinated and accommodated. This commitment has been included in the revised EA which has been posted to the project website.

Status

Metrolinx indicated that it is satisfied with this response.

The ministry recommends standard conditions such as annual reporting where project updates, including consultation with agencies, will be documented to further address Metrolinx’s comments.

Comment #4

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, Central Region

Summary of comments

A review of the air quality impact assessment supporting the Final Gardiner EA was conducted.

Overall, previous comments were addressed in Section 3.1.5.1 “Air Quality” and Table 3-3 of the final EA.

The only comments that were not addressed in Appendix H “Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment Report” are as follows:

1. All references to Canada Wide Standard should be replaced by Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) as it was done in the EA document.
2. Section 3 “Background Air Quality” of Appendix H refers to the Dillon Consulting memo dated August 22, 2013 which is supposed to be included in Appendix H. This memo is not attached, and should be included, since it should be part of the air quality impact assessment report.

In summary, the proponents have addressed previous comments and provided a rationale as to why certain aspects of an air quality impact assessment were not presented in Appendix H, such as cumulative impacts and concentrations at the most impacted receptor. No further comments are provided at this time.

Proponent’s response

The August 22, 2013 memo was included in the revised EA and posted on the project website.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with this response.

Comment #5

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change: Aboriginal Consultation Advisor, Environmental Approvals Access and Service Integration Branch

Summary of comments

The proponents have clearly carried-out an extensive engagement program, including informative notifications, follow-up communications, and meetings or repeated attempts to arrange meetings with all potentially affected communities.

It is requested that the summary of consultation in Chapter 7 and/or the record of consultation in Appendix B be updated to be aligned and consistent with each other (e.g. July 2013 letter from Curve Lake First Nation not in record of consultation, clarify October 2013 letter or email from Alderville First Nation, early 2016 letter from the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation not in record of consultation). It is also requested that all individual issues (questions, comments, and concerns) raised in these correspondences, and at the May 6, 2016 meeting with the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, including responses to them, be included in the Record of Consultation in Appendix B, and summarized accordingly in Chapter 7.

Finally, it is recommended that First Nation-specific issues and responses be presented in tables separate from local residents, community groups, and government agencies, etc.

Further, the MOECC acknowledged that the proponents have amended the EA and record of consultation

The proponents also added the following paragraph to the Consultation Section:

No specific comments on the EA study or the project have been received by First Nations at the time of the completion of this EA Report. As such, no summary of comments has been prepared. The project co-proponents are committed to engaging with interested First Nation communities as part of the future project design and construction stages.

MOECC still recommend that the proponents include a summary table, by community, identifying key issues raised and how they have been or will be addressed. For example, Curve Lake First Nation states in their July 11, 2013 letter:

Should excavation unearth bones, remains or other evidence of a native burial site or any archaeological findings, we must be notified without delay…

This is an example of an issue raised that should be addressed in the EA or included in the conditions of approval and should be included in a summary of such issues.

Proponent’s response

The noted letters that were not included in Appendix B to the EA Report have been included as part of the revised EA appendix, which is posted on the proponents’ website. Also included in the revised appendix are the notes from the meeting that was held with the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation.

No specific issues or concerns regarding the EA study or the project have been submitted by any First Nation communities. As a result, the preparation of a comment-response table is not applicable.

Status

The EA has been amended to state:

The project co-proponents will continue to engage with indigenous communities who have expressed an interest in the project and will notify these communities of any archaeological findings that may be encountered during construction.

The ministry is satisfied with this response.

Comment #6

Submitter

Ministry of Economic Development and Growth

Summary of comments

We are satisfied with the EA and we have no comments.

Proponent’s response

No response required.

Status

N/A

Comment #7

Submitter

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)

Summary of comments

The Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project environmental assessment (DMNP EA) is misidentified in a number of ways throughout the document. To be more accurate, please represent the appropriate terminology when referencing this project. Please use the acronym ‘DMNP EA’ once defined the first time at the beginning of the document.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted. The appropriate terminology for the DMNP will be used in the future in the advancement of the design for the project.

Status

The TRCA has indicated that it is satisfied with the proponents’ response. The TRCA acknowledged that some of the comments made were advisory only, without editing the final EA, and those other comments should be considered as the project proceeds through the detail design stage.

Comment #8

Submitter

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)

Summary of comments

On page 3-28 of the EA, references are made to components of the DMNP EA. Similar references are made in Figure 3-34. TRCA suggests additional emphasis be placed on the sediment management area, dockwall and operations required north of Lake Shore Boulevard, in the vicinity of the Gardiner. A map developed during the due diligence of the area may be helpful. This sediment management area is a critical issue for the intersection of the DMNP with the Gardiner, as it must function properly to allow for the DMNP to proceed. Without an effective area to operate the sediment facility, critical flood protection will not be achieved.

Proponent’s response

The project proponents acknowledge TRCA’s request for additional emphasis be placed on the sediment management area, dockwall and operations required north of Lake Shore Boulevard, in the vicinity of the Gardiner. This proposed infrastructure will be considered in future design stages of the undertaking.

Status

The TRCA has indicated that it is satisfied with this response.

Comment #9

Submitter

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)

Summary of comments

On page 3-38 of the EA, regarding the Don Valley Parkway (DVP), the report should mention that grade separations are required to the immediate east of the DVP previously connected the former Unilever operations on the north and south side of the railway embankment. These are critical for flood conveyance and as part of the impacts for the selection of the preferred alternative for the Gardiner. Please clearly identify this requirement, either in this part of the report or in its own subsection.

Proponent’s response

The noted required grade separations are being considered in the ongoing work to advance the design of the Gardiner East project.

Status

The TRCA has indicated that it is satisfied with this response.

Comment #10

Submitter

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)

Summary of comments

With reference to Figure 3-23 (similar to Figures 3-27, 4.6, 4.10, 5-8 to 5-10), the map does not recognize the necessary widening of the Don River north of Lake Shore Boulevard. Nor does the map depict the sediment and debris management operating yards: it was simply identified as the part of the Keating Precinct. Portraying this area as green public use incorrectly depicts the footprint required for the sediment management area, and under represents the issue for relocation or modification of the future crossings. The maps from the due diligence report should be used for this area. In addition to the figures noted above, Figure 3-30, bullet 27, should consist of bullets 21 and 27 combined, until such time the area is deemed not required for sediment management.

Proponent’s response

The proponents recognize the importance of the Don River mouth widening as well as the need for sediment debris management yards.

The maps developed through the recent due diligence work for the DMNP, includes advancing the facility design, will be considered in the advancement of the design for the Gardiner East project.

Status

The TRCA has indicated that it is satisfied with this response.

Comment #11

Submitter

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)

Summary of comments

Further to the above, in Figures 5-3 to 5-6, the sediment management area should be expanded in dashed lines to reflect the area shown in the due diligence report. The combined sewer overflow shaft is no longer on the west side of the Don River.

Proponent’s response

The maps developed through the recent due diligence work for the DMNP will be considered in the advancement of the design for the Gardiner East project.

Status

The TRCA has indicated that it is satisfied with this response.

Comment #12

Submitter

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)

Summary of comments

In Figure 3-30, bullet 22, please note the proposed pedestrian bridge is not in conformance with the due diligence report. Please remove the bridge, as no bridge is proposed for this location.

Proponent’s response

The pedestrian bridge over the Keating Channel as shown in the noted figure is not part of the undertaking.

Status

The TRCA has indicated that it is satisfied with this response.

Comment #13

Submitter

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)

Summary of comments

In Figure 3-30, bullet 24, the hydro transformer station location is incorrect. It is actually located south of the hydro bridge crossing. Additionally, in bullet 25, it should be mentioned that this needs relocation and removal, since other DMNP EA items are being shown in this map.

Proponent’s response

Comments noted.

Status

The TRCA has indicated that it is satisfied with this response.

Comment #14

Submitter

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)

Summary of comments

In Figure 3-30, bullet 29, the pedestrian bridge crossing should be removed with the implementation of the DMNP EA. The depicted pedestrian bridge over Keating Channel, east of the Munition Street crossing, is not in the due diligence report.

Proponent’s response

Included in the revised EA is a revised Figure 3-30 that notes that this pedestrian bridge is no longer proposed.

Status

The TRCA has indicated that it is satisfied with this response.

Comment #15

Submitter

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)

Summary of comments

The depicted infilling of Keating Channel to the east from Munition Street, on the south side of the channel, is not in conformance with the due diligence report.

Proponent’s response

The maps developed through the recent due diligence work for the DMNP will be considered in the advancement of the design for the Gardiner East project.

Status

The TRCA has indicated that it is satisfied with this response.

Comment #16

Submitter

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)

Summary of comments

The weir on the north side of Lake Shore Boulevard is no longer being depicted in a semi-circular configuration. Please see the due diligence report.

Proponent’s response

The maps developed through the recent due diligence work for the DMNP will be considered in the advancement of the design for the Gardiner East project.

Status

The TRCA has indicated that it is satisfied with this response.

Comment #17

Submitter

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)

Summary of comments

Figure 5-7 as above, while there is a small industrial dockwall area depicted in these renderings for the sediment management area, it is likely to be too small to accommodate the sediment operations. These operations will likely need to extend further south on the west bank to address dredging and debris management operations.

Proponent’s response

Comments noted. The renderings are conceptual and were developed to illustrate the difference in the general alignments of the three Hybrid designs.

Status

The TRCA has indicated that it is satisfied with this response.

Comment #18

Submitter

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)

Summary of comments

Regarding hybrid options 2 and 3, opportunities to further improve conveyance and sediment management operations if Lake Shore Boulevard and the adjacent Harbour Lead could be raised. This option should be a possible consideration, given the phased approach.

Proponent’s response

Comments noted. The potential to raise the grade of the Lake Shore Boulevard and Harbour Lead crossing of the Don River will be examined in future design stages of the project.

Status

The TRCA has indicated that it is satisfied with this response.

Comment #19

Submitter

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)

Summary of comments

Further to the above and to page 9-5, TRCA requests confirmation the Gardiner team will be exploring opportunities for realigning and reconfiguring the Lake Shore Boulevard crossing, in coordination with the DMNP EA and the Port Lands team.

Proponent’s response

Yes, the proponents will consult with TRCA in the future design work for the Lake Shore Boulevard crossing of the Don River.

Status

The TRCA has indicated that it is satisfied with this response.

The proponents have committed to continuing to consult with TRCA in the amended EA, which is posted on the project website.

Comment #20

Submitter

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)

Summary of comments

Figures 5-14 to 5-16 depict more accurately the Keating Channel conditions east of the future Munition Street, and are more reflective of the due diligence report. TRCA suggests text be provided earlier in the EA where those features were noted, and the elimination of these elements from the design.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted.

Status

The TRCA has indicated that it is satisfied with this response.

Comment #21

Submitter

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)

Summary of comments

On page 5-48, the potential impacts of the new ramps and piers on flow conveyance through the area between the railway embankment and Lake Shore, is not clearly discussed. The structure of the ramps potentially creates an impediment to flood conveyance. It is possible Hybrid 3 does cause such an impact, hence the above direction to widen the grade separation of the railway embankment. This grade separation would ensure sufficient space for the new ramps to be raised above the future regulatory flood event level. Also of concern is the vertical clearance provided in the sediment management area to allow for dredging and management of the debris and sediment on the west bank of the river and the adjacent sediment management operations yard. These key issues were touched on in the write-up, but not discussed in any detail.

Proponent’s response

Comments noted. The proponents will consult with TRCA in the future design work regarding the new Gardiner-DVP ramps to address the noted concerns.

TRCA will also be invited to participate in the multi-agency coordinating committee that has been established to plan the various projects on the Don Mouth area. One of the goals of this committee will be to minimize impact and disruption to TRCA’s planned initiatives.

Status

The TRCA has indicated that it is satisfied with this response.

The proponents have committed to continuing to consult with TRCA in the amended EA, which is posted on the project website.

Comment #22

Submitter

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)

Summary of comments

Page 6-5 begins to discuss the configuration of the new ramps over the Don River, however specific discussion related to the need to raise the soffit of the ramps on the east side of the river is missing. Doing so would ensure no conflict with the regulatory flood levels, and that soffit elevations over the river and west bank (the sediment management dockwall area) are sufficient to permit dredging and dockside removal of debris from the river. As the final equipment needs have not been defined, allowing vertical clearances for manual dredges and loaders on the river and on the dock beneath the ramps is important.

Proponent’s response

Comments noted. The proponents will consult with TRCA in the future design work regarding the new Gardiner-DVP ramps to address the noted concerns.

Status

The TRCA has indicated that it is satisfied with this response. The proponents have committed to continuing to consult with TRCA in the amended EA, which is posted on the project website.

Comment #23

Submitter

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)

Summary of comments

Page 6-33 discusses the loss of terrestrial habitat features. Suggested mitigation measures include the creation of new green space north of Lake Shore Boulevard, on the west of the Don River. The amount of habitat that can likely be created in this area is limited as much of the area will be required for sediment and debris management operations. While a trail connection will be required with some associated greenspace, the extent of functional habitat in that area may be limited.

Proponent’s response

Comments noted. The location of new greenspace areas will be confirmed in future public realm design work that is committed to by the proponents.

Status

The TRCA has indicated that it is satisfied with this response.

Comment #24

Submitter

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)

Summary of comments

Page 6-38 discusses microclimate, however the detailed discussion table is not consistent with the summary table that identified removal of vegetation as a negative impact on microclimate during construction. Similarly, as noted on page 6-23, the removal of the elevated decks will change the microclimate in the area permanently, as well during construction.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted. Potential vegetation removal in the Keating Channel Precinct during construction has the potential for effects on micro-climate in that area. It is noted that much of this same vegetation would also be removed by other planned projects in the area. The planned landscaping that is included as part of the undertaking will offset vegetation removal and possible microclimate effects.

Status

The TRCA has indicated that it is satisfied with this response.

Comment #25

Submitter

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)

Summary of comments

Page 6-39 discusses impacts on First Nations Communities. The new Water Claim submitted in September 2016 by the Mississaugas of the New Credit should be noted for consideration during detailed design.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted. The proponents are open to continued engagement activities with the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation. To date, specific comments on the project have not been received.

Status

The TRCA has indicated that it is satisfied with this response.

Comment #26

Submitter

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)

Summary of comments

Page 6-43 discusses consistency/impacts on other projects. While TRCA agree that the Gardiner preferred alternative can be implemented with little to no effect on the approved DMNP EA, it should be noted that continued engagement with the Port Lands project team is required as a mitigation measure. Continued engagement will ensure effective design and implementation to maximize opportunities between both projects, to confirm the design process of the Gardiner improves conveyance through this reach, and to provide for effective and efficient sediment and debris management operations. The concept as shown currently provides the potential for no impacts. Continued integration and modeling during design will ensure this conclusion remains true.

Proponent’s response

The proponents will consult and engage with TRCA in the future design work regarding the new Gardiner-DVP ramps to address the noted concerns.

Status

The TRCA has indicated that it is satisfied with this response. The proponents have committed to continuing to consult with TRCA in the amended EA, which is posted on the project website.

Comment #27

Submitter

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)

Summary of comments

Page 6-46 discusses impacts on Don River flood conveyance operations. This discussion should also involve the new Lake Shore Boulevard bridge alignment and railway spur conditions. Opportunities for improved conveyance and sediment management access were previously discussed in the EA. As noted above, continued engagement with the Port Lands team is important to determine all the efficiencies and synergies in design and implementation of the Lake Shore crossing location, and soffit clearances from a flood conveyance and sediment management perspective.

Proponent’s response

In advancing the design for the Lake Shore Boulevard crossing of the Don River the potential to improve river conveyance will be explored in consultation with TRCA.

Status

The TRCA has indicated that it is satisfied with this response. The proponents have committed to continuing to consult with TRCA in the amended EA, which is posted on the project website.

Comment #28

Submitter

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)

Summary of comments

Similar to the remarks above, page 6-60 of the EA states the Gardiner project will not have material impact on Don River flood conveyance. This is overstated, as the level of detail does not allow for such a strong statement. TRCA agrees the preferred alternative allows for flood conveyance and sediment management based on the existing high level of concept design. It is the commitment from the Gardiner team, however, to ensure an integrated design process will proceed between the DMNP Project and Gardiner in this area, to ensure the conveyance and sediment management considerations continue to be addressed.

Proponent’s response

The proponents will consult and engage with TRCA in the future design work for the Gardiner project and are committed to undertaking an integrated design process to ensure that the objectives of the DMNP are not negatively impacted.

Status

The TRCA has indicated that it is satisfied with this response. The proponents have committed to continuing to consult with TRCA in the amended EA, which is posted on the project website.

Comment #29

Submitter

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)

Summary of comments

Please develop comprehensive plans for erosion and sediment control (ESC), grading, and phased construction at detailed design. Please, refer to the Greater Golden Horseshoe Conservation Authorities’ Erosion and Sediment Control Guideline for Urban Construction for guidance (https://trca.ca/planning-permits/procedural-manual-and-technical-guidelines/).

Proponent’s response

Comment noted. A comprehensive ESC plan will be developed in advance of construction. This plan is committed to in the EA Report (Tables 6.2 and 6-6).

Status

The TRCA has indicated that it is satisfied with this response.

Comment #30

Submitter

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)

Summary of comments

Although natural heritage within the study area is limited, please develop a restoration plan that will provide a net ecological gain for these works. TRCA has guidelines for restoration that should be referenced. As noted above, any restored natural areas should incorporate the need for sediment removal operations.

Proponent’s response

As outlined in Table 6.2, the project proponents are committed to the development of new green space and will integrate with the Port Lands Biodiversity Strategy. The noted guideline document will be considered.

Status

The TRCA has indicated that it is satisfied with this response.

Comment #31

Submitter

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)

Summary of comments

Permits in accordance with Ontario Regulation 166/06 are required from TRCA prior to project construction in TRCA regulated areas. During detailed design, a pre-design brief should be composed, summarizing all TRCA requirements and technical commitments made during the EA stage. This pre-design brief, together with the comments in this letter, should be used to develop the permit submission. For further information, please refer to TRCA’s Planning and Development Procedural Manual, as well as our web page on infrastructure planning.

Proponent’s response

The proponents will seek the required permits from TRCA under Ontario Regulation 166/06.

Status

The TRCA has indicated that it is satisfied with this response.

Comment #32

Submitter

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)

Summary of comments

TRCA suggests a meeting with the proponents be held once this project reaches detailed design, to discuss implementation, phasing, TRCA approvals, and next steps.

Proponent’s response

Agreed. The proponents will consult with TRCA in the future design work for the Gardiner project.

Status

The TRCA has indicated that it is satisfied with this response. The proponents have committed to continuing to consult with TRCA in the amended EA, which is posted on the project website.

Comment #33

Submitter

Hydro One

Summary of comments

Hydro One deferred commenting on the Gardiner Expressway Reconfiguration EA pending a meeting with the proponents. On April 3, 2017 Hydro One met with the proponents and discussed opportunities to work together as the design progresses. There are underground and above ground transmission facilities within the Expressway study area and the proposed footprint of the expressway reconfiguration.

Hydro One understands that the project design is in its early stages, and that there will be opportunities to discuss potential effects on Hydro One’s facilities including possible relocation.

The proponents informed us that there are several other projects in the same immediate area including the Coxwell Bypass, new Metrolinx yards and station, and Donlands Rehabilitation. These projects may also impact our facilities and possibly conflict with decisions about needed Expressway accommodation. Hydro One does not want to relocate facilities and then find further changes are necessary for subsequent projects.

At this point, it is unclear to what extent the cumulative effects of multiple projects will be addressed by this EA process. Given the different planning horizons and state of progress, formation of a coordinating body that could develop a long term plan for the area does seem prudent (i.e. and could be a reasonable outcome of this assessment).

Hydro One will be providing drawings to the proponents showing the location of our facilities and expect to meet with them at regular intervals as the project develops.

Proponent’s response

The proponents will consult with Hydro One as part of future design phases to ensure that impacts to Hydro One assets in the study area are minimized. Hydro One will also be invited to participate in the multi-agency coordinating committee that has been established to plan the various projects on the Don Mouth area. One of the goals of this committee will be to minimize impact and disruption to Hydro One’s assets.

Status

Hydro One has indicated that it is satisfied with this response. The proponents have committed to continuing to consult with Hydro One in the amended EA, which is posted on the project website.

Table 2: Public comment summary table

Selection of the preferred alternative

Summary of comments

The West Don Lands Committee and the St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association, along with many members of the public who commented on the EA, strongly supported the Remove “alternative to”.

A member of the public is concerned that the Hybrid 3 undertaking was selected, when the Remove alternative to was originally recommended earlier by City Councilors, City of Toronto staff, former Mayors, the former City Head Planner, respected architects and various other experts.

A member of the public is concerned that the outcome of the EA process does not reflect the ToR.

Several members of the public believe that the Remove alternative best meets the Gardiner East EA goals and is the only possible choice under the ToR. The EA clearly demonstrates the economic, environmental, and social benefits of removing the expressway and enhancing the existing Lake Shore Boulevard.

A member of the public is concerned with poor precedent setting by selecting an alternative, despite clear and overwhelming evidence that another alternative is better on all accounts laid forth by an EA.

A member of the public is concerned that the preferred alternative has inequitable impact/benefit distribution.

A member of the public commented that it has been seen in other North American cities (such as San Francisco, Portland, and Milwaukee) that expressway removals are generally beneficial along multiple axes.

Several members of the public are concerned that the decision to pursue another alternative, not originally considered while carefully establishing the original list of considered alternatives, seems to have come out of a submission from a private developer to essentially modify the Maintain alternative. The way this was inserted into the Provincially mandated EA process is problematic, and risks undermining public confidence in the EA process if private interests can subvert the evaluation of alternatives at such a late stage.

Several members of the public are concerned that the preferred solution was chosen for political reasons as opposed to good evidence and planning.

Several members of the public are concerned that the cost of the preferred Hybrid alternative is greater than the Remove alternative.

Proponents’ response

The EA process followed for the Gardiner project is consistent with the ToR, has been rigorous, thorough and well documented involving a wide range of stakeholders and members of the public.

During the course of the EA study many alternatives were offered by stakeholders and reviewed and assessed. After an initial technical recommendation for the Remove alternative in 2014, the EA study team was directed by Toronto City Council to determine if the travel times of the Remove alternative could be improved and to develop and assess a Hybrid alternative.

Both alternatives are technically viable although offer different advantages and disadvantages. Public and stakeholder opinions on the alternatives varied with some comments stating that the Gardiner infrastructure is integral to the City’s transportation system while others noting that the east Gardiner largely only serves as a DVP ramp and presents a barrier between the City and the Waterfront.

The evaluation of the Remove alternative to against the Hybrid alternative to (as documented in the publicly-released May 2015 Interim Report and the final EA Report), considered all study goals. The key trade-offs as identified in the reporting included:

• Remove (Boulevard) has a lower cost, higher revenue to the City from public land redevelopment, creates a lively Lake Shore Boulevard, facilitates better connections to the waterfront and is to result in less greenhouse gas emissions.
• Hybrid maintains an expressway connection function and level of service between the Gardiner Expressway and DVP, has lower auto travel and goods movement times, and less construction disruption.

Through the EA process a strong technical case to select one alternative over the other was not identified. With or without the Gardiner Expressway, the waterfront/downtown core will grow just as it has in the recent past, and traffic congestion in the City will increase even with new transit projects being developed.

The rationale for the selection of the Hybrid alternative to over the Remove alternative to has been fully documented in the EA Report. This decision required a trade-off between two very important (and related) City priority issues: traffic congestion and City building/prosperity (understanding that traffic congestion is a product of City growth and prosperity).

As documented in Section 6.9 of the EA Report, the preferred undertaking contributes to the achievement of all the study goals presented in the ToR. Ultimately it provides an appropriate balance between the important goals of City building and accommodating the City’s transportation demands.

The decision regarding the two alternatives (Optimized Remove and Hybrid) was presented to City Council which was considered to be appropriate as they are representatives of the community. City Council reviewed and considered the technical evaluation results at their June 10-12, 2015 meeting. After significant Council debate on the trade-offs and advantages and disadvantages of the two alternatives, as presented in the technical reports, City Council endorsed the Hybrid as the preferred solution and further directed City staff to develop and evaluate alternative methods that would mitigate any negative impacts associated with the Hybrid solution.

The undertaking includes measures to improve future City place-making, which will contribute to the promotion of active transportation modes though a new multi-use trail and is consistent with and will accommodate transit plans along the waterfront.

Status

The ministry is satisfied that the alternatives identified in the EA conform to the ToR, which allowed other alternatives to be considered in the EA process.

The ministry is satisfied that the City of Toronto and Waterfront Toronto (proponents) in their EA documented their decision-making process for alternatives selection in a transparent manner.

While the number of evaluation lens/criteria group preferences appears to be in favour of the Remove alternative, the EA notes that selecting the alternative based only on the number of evaluation lens/criteria group preferences was not appropriate as this approach would not consider the variation in the magnitude and period of the effect/benefit, scale of users affected, certainty of forecast, and mitigation measures available.

The proponents consider Toronto City Council as a democratically-elected representation of the people of the City of Toronto, and thus found it appropriate to task Council with selecting the preferred alternative, as recommended in the May 2015 Alternative Solutions Interim Evaluation Report—Addendum and May 6, 2015 Toronto City Staff report to the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee.

Impact of connectivity with the waterfront

Summary of comments

A few member of the public are concerned that a raised expressway cuts the city off from the new development expected in the port lands.

A member of the public commented that between Jarvis Street and Cherry Street, the preferred alternative maintains the physical and psychological barrier between the city and the water to a significant degree. East of Cherry Street, the Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East diverges from a stacked roadway configuration to a parallel arrangement that increases the roadway footprint, which actually worsens the physical and psychological barrier.

A member of the public commented that even with public realm improvements, the preferred alternative is inferior to how better connectivity could be achieved by the Optimized Remove alternative to.

Proponents’ response

Under the Hybrid 3 design, the Gardiner Expressway east of Cherry Street will be realigned further north allowing for a better connection between future development in the Keating Channel Precinct and the waterfront (Keating Channel).

As described in Section 6.4 of the EA report, the undertaking is to include significant improvements to the public realm, streetscape and intersections along Lake Shore Boulevard. Furthermore, Section 9.1.4 of the EA Report outlines a public realm implementation strategy. These proposed improvements will directly address the issue of pedestrian and cyclist movement along and across the corridor to improve the connection between the waterfront and the rest of the City.

Status

The ministry is satisfied that the proponents appropriately considered the effects of the preferred alternative on connectivity.

In support of hybrid alternative

Summary of comments

A member of the public commented that the Gardiner Expressway East EA should conclude and be approved as soon as possible. The hybrid design as approved by Toronto Council should proceed as recommended.

Castlepoint Numa (developers) commented that Hybrid 3 appropriately addresses several of the criteria outlined in the ToR, including promoting stronger access to the waterfront.

Proponents’ response

Comment and support for the preferred undertaking is noted.

Status

The ministry acknowledges support for the project.

Accessibility

Summary of comments

A member of the public commented that:

• The website is not very accessible to the public.
• It is not reasonable to expect the public to review extensive EA documents with a 15 page overly-technical Executive Summary.
• To properly engage with the public the proponents need to create a digestible summary of key issues that should be evaluated by the layman without requiring technical expertise or the amount of time that is needed to review these EA documents.

A member of the public commented that democratic participation hinges upon an accessible sharing of information by the government. This request to “participate” is frankly set up to not receive commentary rather than to truly engage the public.

Proponents’ response

The EA study has included an extensive consultation process that included multiple public engagement opportunities (face to face and on-line) and information releases. The study has involved significant amount of work and as such, to properly summarize the work undertaken, and to meet EAA requirements for the executive summary, this length of document was required. An attempt was made to prepare the executive summary in plain language. The proponents continue to be available to respond to any questions of a technical nature that the public or stakeholders may have.

Status

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent undertook a robust consultation program and attempted to address concerns with website accessibility. The ministry is satisfied with this response.

Effect on human health and safety

Summary of comments

Several members of the public are concerned that the “Hybrid alternative to” has a larger impact on human health than the Remove “alternative to”.

A member of the public is concerned that it is currently dangerous to cross Lake Shore Boulevard under the Gardiner Expressway, and comment that slowing traffic is preferred.

Members of the public are concerned with the noise and dust from the Gardiner Expressway.

Proponents’ response

A key health related issue that was raised and considered in the EA was air emissions. Future air emissions of the alternatives were determined through quantitative modelling. The reduction in road capacity associated with the Remove alternative (i.e. fewer roadway lanes) would result in a corresponding decrease in vehicles in the study area. As a result, the air quality modeling work showed a reduction in future vehicle air emissions over the future baseline or “Do Nothing” scenario. This health benefit of the Remove alternative was considered in the EA process along with many other considerations.

Through the consideration of all the evaluation criteria, including those that are health related, the Hybrid alternative was determined to be the preferred alternative. The key alternatives trade-offs that were considered in the decision process leading to the selection of the Hybrid alternative as preferred are documented in Section 4.5 of the EA Report.

The Hybrid alternative was considered, for the most part, to be a continuation of the existing condition with respect to future vehicle volumes. The Hybrid is expected to attract a similar number of vehicles in the study area as would the future “Do Nothing” alternative. The attraction of vehicles to the downtown area is a result of growth and prosperity in the City, including the downtown area.

To contribute to improved health conditions, the Gardiner East project includes a new multi-use pathway along Lake Shore Boulevard that will support active modes of transportation within the downtown. In addition, the City continues to pursue enhancements to the transit system that is to include capacity improvements to surface and sub-surface rail systems, which will reduce dependence on the automobile for downtown access.

Finally, as outlined in Section 6.9 of the EA Report, the project involves the creation of significant improved/new green space that would lie north of the Lake Shore Boulevard creating a new green ribbon, which will support improved air quality and provide stormwater quality and quantity controls. In addition, tree plantings and other landscaping are proposed along the Lake Shore Boulevard corridor, particularly from the future Munition Street intersection east where the overhead structure and at-grade boulevard will be newly separated, thereby improving planting conditions and overall streetscape environment.

It is expected that the public realm improvements that are planned for Lake Shore Boulevard and committed to in the EA Report will address issues with dust and noise. The improvements could include landscaping, measures to address traffic noise and improvements to the intersections to facilitate an easier and more enjoyable crossing of Lake Shore Boulevard for pedestrians.

Status

The ministry is satisfied that the proponents’ response addresses the concerns raised.

The EA documents the project’s potential effects to the environment, including human health and safety; proposed mitigation; and makes commitments to future monitoring, mitigation and consultation.

The ministry is recommending that conditions of approval be imposed which will require monitoring and reporting on how the commitments made in the EA are being met as the project progresses, if approved.

Environmental sustainability

Summary of comments

A member of the public commented that in the later stages of the study, the comprehensive sustainability and environmental component of the EA ToR was reduced to only consider the Don River naturalization, but this is only one small part of what the Gardiner East EA was intended to consider at the outset of the project.

A member of the public commented that the preferred alternative to will worsen public health, air and water quality, noise pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions when compared with other alternatives that were recommended in previous stages of the EA. These issues seem to have been increasingly neglected as the EA progressed, with no effort made to even attempt to meaningfully mitigate these environmental effects in the final submission.

Proponents’ response

The proposed undertaking will not add to roadway capacity or result in additional vehicles operating in the study area. As described in Table 6.3 and Section 6.7 of the EA Report, the preferred undertaking will result in similar future air emissions, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and noise effects as the future “Do Nothing” alternative.

In regards to contributing to the sustainability goal of the ToR, as outlined in Section 6.9 of the EA Report, the project involves the creation of significant improved/new green space that would lie north of the Lake Shore Boulevard creating a new green ribbon. In addition, tree plantings are proposed along the Lake Shore Boulevard corridor, particularly from the future Munition Street intersection east where the overhead structure and at-grade boulevard will be newly separated, thereby improving planting conditions and overall streetscape environment. In regards to water quality, the rebuild of the Gardiner will allow for an improvement in the manner in which stormwater runoff is managed that should contribute to an improvement in local surface water quality. This commitment is documented in Section 6.5.2.6 of the EA Report.

Finally, the rebuild of the new Gardiner Expressway-DVP connection through the Keating Channel Precinct will consider the use of more sustainable construction materials as outlined in Section 6.9 of the EA Report.

Status

The ministry is satisfied that the proposed undertaking’s effects to the environment were documented in the EA and considered in decision-making, including the selection of alternatives to and alternative methods.

The EA details mitigation measures that were applied to the potential effects assessment to determine the project’s proposed net effects. The proponents’ commitments to monitoring and mitigation were outlined in the EA, and additional commitments were added in the amended EA which is publicly available on the project website.

The ministry is recommending conditions of approval be imposed that would require the proponents to monitor and report on the commitments made in the EA.

Through the commitments to mitigation and monitoring and recommended conditions of approval, the ministry is satisfied that the project’s potential effects on the environment and environmental sustainability would be addressed.

Alternatives assessment and selection

Summary of comments

A member of the public commented that, given the clarity of the ToR and the subsequent rigorous review in the EA, why was there not a strong technical case to choose one alternative over the other?

A member of the public was concerned that assumptions and projections regarding implementation of new higher order transit alternatives to driving were calculated to favour the desired option.

A member of the public is concerned that the remaining rail corridor still represents a significant barrier, which was ignored or discounted in all evaluations. Strange given “Reconnect the City with the Lake” was one of the five ToRs. How can the goal of reconnecting the City with the lake be addressed when a huge and busy rail corridor is to remain?

A member of the public was concerned that the option of burying the controlled access expressway from Jarvis all the way to Dundas (on the DVP) was not presented for consideration. This option would have by far the greatest positive impact on the public realm and on land values, satisfying 3 of the stated ToR objectives to an extent no other option could come close to.

Proponents’ response

The rationale for the selection of the Hybrid alternative over the Remove alternative has been fully documented in the EA Report. This decision required a trade-off between two very important (and related) City priority issues: traffic congestion and City building/prosperity (understanding that traffic congestion is a product of City growth and prosperity). Through the EA process a strong technical case to select one alternative over the other was not identified.

The noted preference to retain the elevated expressway is consistent with the preferred undertaking.

With or without the Gardiner, the waterfront/downtown core will grow just as it has in the recent past, and traffic congestion in the City will increase – even with new transit projects being developed. Both alternatives are technically viable although offer different advantages and disadvantages. Public and stakeholder opinions on the alternatives varied with some comments stating that the Gardiner Expressway infrastructure is integral to the City’s transportation system while others noting that the east Gardiner largely only serves the DVP and presents a barrier between the city and the waterfront.

As documented in Section 6.9 of the EA Report, the preferred undertaking contributes to the achievement of all the study goals. Ultimately it provides an appropriate balance between the important goals of City building and accommodating the City’s transportation demands.

The rail corridor and the street underpasses were not part of the EA scope of work. The proponents remain committed to improving the connection to the waterfront. Opportunities to improve the underpasses in regards to pedestrian experience and personal security are being considered in the advancement of public realm in the area by public and private partners.

Burying the highway was examined during the ToR phase and it was determined not to be technically desirable for the defined project study area. Due to the relatively short distance of the corridor section under study, with a tunnel, much of its length would include open cuts for the transition area between at/above grade expressway and the tunnel sections. These open cut sections would result in a greater barrier to the waterfront. Burying the expressway was also found to have a significant cost over the other alternatives.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the proponents’ responses.

Public realm improvements

Summary of comments

Castlepoint Numa (developers) commented that they understand that the proponents have begun to develop a Public Realm Phasing and Implementation Strategy. It is important that the public realm strategy be considered and implemented at the same time as the EA. This will properly address all of the issues in proceeding with Hybrid 3 since there is significant crossover between the public realm and other matters, including pedestrian crossings, intersection design, stormwater and other services management, amongst other things, and there will be efficiency and potential cost savings in reviewing these in a comprehensive manner.

The West Don Lands Committee commented that intersection reconstruction at Jarvis, Sherbourne, Parliament and Cherry to address both pedestrian safety and aesthetic concerns is an issue of critical importance to the community. The creation of a multi-use trail along the north side of Lake Shore Boulevard, which includes a much needed commuter bike route and the introduction of green infrastructure, is a welcome initiative.

A high priority must be placed on identifying and implementing additional public realm improvements in order to maximize the opportunities to ameliorate the negative effects of the Hybrid 3 decision on this segment.

The St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association commented that this project has a significant impact on the St. Lawrence neighbourhood as well as new neighbours to the south of the waterfront lands as they continue to be developed. It must be stressed that public realm, though costly, is of utmost importance and cannot be compromised.

Proponents’ response

Improving the public realm within the Gardiner East EA study area is an important component of the undertaking. A commitment to integrating public realm into the design and delivery of this project was first made as part of the 2009 ToR for the Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard Reconfiguration. This commitment is repeated in the final EA and Urban Design Study’s formal “Purpose and Rationale of the Undertaking”, which includes Revitalizing the Waterfront, and Reconnecting the City with the Lake, as two of five key project goals.

On March 30, 2016, Toronto City Council again re-affirmed this commitment to enhancing the public realm, when Council directed City staff to prepare an implementation strategy for proposed Gardiner East EA public realm improvements, and to report back to Council with recommended funding, delivery and phasing options.

As directed by Council, the proponents are presently collaborating on creation of the Gardiner East public realm implementation strategy, and have begun a process of stakeholder consultation to review draft recommendations respecting funding, delivery and phasing options. Furthermore, the proponents have recently engaged a specialized consultant team to advance the public realm concepts illustrated within the EA report to a level of design detail proportionate to preliminary engineering design work also getting underway. Stakeholders will be engaged as part of this public realm design process.

This early coordination of engineering and public realm design decisions will help to ensure the proponents meet their commitment to both rehabilitating the Gardiner and Lake Shore Boulevard corridor’s transportation infrastructure, while simultaneously assisting to revitalize the waterfront by improving connectivity and creating an enhanced urban environment.

Status

The ministry is satisfied that the EA documents the proponents’ commitment to improving the public realm in the study area and engaging stakeholders as the project progresses.

Ongoing consultation

Summary of comments

The St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association commented that a robust community consultation strategy should continue through the detailed design and implementation phases, should the EA Report be approved.

Proponents’ response

Comment noted. The proponents intend to continue with community engagement through to project implementation stage as is committed to in Table 6.6 of the EA Report.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with this response. Commitments to ongoing consultation are made in the revised EA which is publicly available on the project website.

Refer to EA tribunal

Summary of comments

Members of the public request that the Minister refers the EA to the Environmental Review Tribunal for consideration in an apolitical setting.

Proponents’ response

The EA has followed a process that was consistent with the ToR, was thorough and rigorous, and provided extensive opportunities for public consultation and engagement. The EA Report has fully documented the process that was undertaken and includes a rationale for the undertaking.

Status

A request that the Minister refer the EA for the Environmental Review Tribunal can be made after the Ministry Review is published.

Auto transport bias

Summary of comments

A member of the public commented that the Transportation and Infrastructure study lens has an inherent bias towards the value of automobile travel. Whereas its analysis of impacts of the four alternatives on walking and cycling is limited to movement patterns and safety, the analysis of automobile impacts has a number of additional criteria that confer more value on auto trips. The EA has two separate criteria focused on impacts on travel time, including one for “commuters”, as well as one on the overall road network and choices for drivers. This analysis completely negates the impact of the project on utilitarian pedestrian and cycling trips. The preconception that driving trips are the only ones with utilitarian value is a significant flaw in the structure of the analysis.

Proponents’ response

A total of 17 criteria were considered in the evaluation under the Transportation and Infrastructure Lens. These were organized by criteria groups that reflected major modes of transportation: Automobiles, Transit, Pedestrians, Cycling and Movement of Goods. As such, all modes of transportation were considered in the evaluation of alternatives. The difference in impact on travel times for the two alternatives (Remove and Hybrid) was most significant on the auto commuter. The impact of the alternatives on commuters using other modes of travel (pedestrian, cyclists, transit) would be similar. As well, both alternatives include a new proposed multi-use pathway along the corridor and as such, both have the potential to facilitate increased active modes of commuting.

Status

The EA and supporting documentation demonstrate that potential effects to all road users (cyclists, pedestrians, motorized vehicle users, and transit users) were considered in the evaluation of potential effects, proposed mitigation and net effects of the alternatives to and alternative methods. The ministry is satisfied with this response.

Travel time increase and traffic studies

Summary of comments

A member of the public understands that one of the main reasons that the Hybrid alternative was selected over the Remove alternative was the belief that the Remove alternative could lead to travel time increases of up to 10 minutes for some commuters. However, it appears the 10 minute travel time is based on a Canadian Automobile Association-commissioned study conducted by the University of Toronto and is significantly at odds with the 2-3 minute increase stated in studies commissioned by the City of Toronto. This demonstrates that the EA studies were vulnerable.

A member of the public is concerned that the Gardiner Expressway East is currently underutilized.

A member of the public is concerned that the sole objective in the ToR regarding vehicular traffic capacity was to "balance modes of travel." This objective completely ignores the maintenance of existing traffic capacity. Moreover, it embeds in the objectives of the entire EA the assumption that there will be decreased dependence on the private automobile, which has no basis in fact.

Proponents’ response

The traffic modelling completed for the EA was undertaken by Dillon Consulting Ltd. It utilized the City’s regional transportation model that is consistent with industry standard approaches to traffic forecasting and is consistent with other City traffic modelling exercises. The EA team met and engaged with the University of Toronto modelling team. The differences in results were largely attributed to different assumptions used in the modelling and how the results were reported.

A consultant report was released in May 2015 that identified all of the trade-offs between Remove and Hybrid alternatives. The decision between these two alternatives required a trade-off between two very important (and related) City priority issues: traffic congestion and City building/prosperity (understanding that traffic congestion is a product of City growth and prosperity). Through the EA process a strong technical case to select one alternative over the other was not identified. With or without the Gardiner, the waterfront/ downtown core will grow just as it has in the recent past, and traffic congestion in the City will increase, even with new transit projects being developed. Both alternatives are technically viable although offer different advantages and disadvantages. Public and stakeholder opinions on the alternatives varied with some comments stating that the Gardiner infrastructure is integral to the City’s transportation system while others noting that the east Gardiner largely only serves as a DVP ramp and presents a barrier between the city and the waterfront.

The traffic modelling completed for the EA study was done for future conditions (2031), with the demand in existing roadways projected to increase because of City growth. As such, the use that we see today on the East Gardiner will increase (more vehicles will be in the road) as the waterfront and downtown further develops.

Status

The proponents have provided a satisfactory response to address the comments made regarding traffic studies.

Medical officer of health study

Summary of comments

A few members of the public raised concerns with the report prepared by the City of Toronto’s Medical Officer of Health and how it was considered in the EA process.

The City of Toronto’s Medical Officer of Health prepared a report, “Rapid Health Impact Assessment on the Alternative Solutions for the Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration”. The report assessed the relative impacts of the two alternative solutions from a public health lens. The findings of this assessment overwhelmingly supported the Remove alternative, which was preferred or equally preferred in 10 of the 11 health impact criterion.

The Board of Health, however, voted not to adopt the report, thereby ensuring it would not come before Council as part of the consideration of alternative solutions. The vote not to adopt was led by Councillors supportive of the Hybrid alternative. In a fair and unbiased process, decisions should be made with as much information as possible, not through the suppression of valuable information.

Accepting the health impact analysis would have added no additional time to the process, but would have added another valuable input to inform decision-making.

Proponents’ response

In May 2015, the Chair of the Toronto Board of Health requested completion of a health impact assessment (HIA) for the “alternatives to” in the Gardiner EA by the Medical Officer of Health. In June 2015, the Toronto Medical Officer of Health submitted a HIA report to the Board of Health. It included recommendations that the findings in the HIA report be submitted to City Council and that a health lens be considered in Phase 2 of the EA. The HIA report provided a high level assessment of the health benefits of the Remove and Hybrid alternatives to.

The HIA summary from the report was distributed to all Council members as a communication at the City Council meeting of June 10, 2015 during consideration of the City staff report on the updated evaluation of Gardiner EA alternatives to. As such, through the distribution of the HIA report summary to Council as well as the interim EA reporting that included the consideration of many health related issues (e.g. air emissions), Council was well informed of the potential effects to health from the alternatives under examination.

The issues raised in the HIA report were largely considered in the EA, including the evaluation of the alternatives. In the HIA report, “health” was interpreted in the broadest sense including the consideration of transportation, urban design, environment and economic criteria. These same criteria were considered in the EA alternatives evaluation process along with other non-health related criteria such as environmental, construction, movement of goods, cost, etc. In total the evaluation considered 60 different measures.

A key health related issue that was raised in the HIA and considered in the EA was air emissions. Future air emissions of the alternatives were determined through quantitative modelling. The reduction in road capacity associated with the Remove alternative (i.e. fewer roadway lanes) would result in a corresponding decrease in vehicles in the study area. As a result, the air quality modeling work showed a reduction in future vehicle air emissions over the future baseline or “Do Nothing” scenario. This health benefit of the Remove alternative was considered in the EA decision process along with many other considerations.

Through the consideration of all the evaluation criteria, including those that are health related, the Hybrid alternative was determined to be the preferred alternative. The key alternatives trade-offs that were considered in the decision process leading to the selection of the Hybrid alternative as preferred are documented in Section 4.5 of the EA Report.

The Hybrid alternative was considered, for the most part, to be a continuation of the existing condition with respect to future vehicle volumes. The Hybrid is expected to attract a similar number of vehicles in the study area as would the future “Do Nothing” alternative. The attraction of vehicles to the downtown area is a result of growth and prosperity in the City, including the downtown area.

To contribute to improved health conditions, the East Gardiner project does include a new multi-use pathway along Lake Shore Boulevard to support active modes of transportation to the downtown. In addition, the City continues to pursue enhancements to the transit system that is to include capacity improvements to surface and sub-surface rail systems, which will reduce dependence on the automobile for downtown access.

Finally, as outlines in Section 6.9 of the EA Report, the project involves the creation of significant improved and new green space that would lie north of the Lake Shore Boulevard creating a new green ribbon.

Status

The ministry is satisfied that the proponents have clearly explained how issues raised in the HIA were largely considered in the EA. The ministry is satisfied with this response.

Metrolinx involvement

Summary of comments

A member of the public is surprised that the EA is not co-presented by Metrolinx.

Proponents’ response

Metrolinx is a stakeholder in the EA process and has been consulted with throughout the study process. It has also provided comments on the EA Report.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with this response. Please see Table 1 in this appendix for Metrolinx’s comments and the proponents' responses.

False claim

Summary of comments

A member of the public commented that the EA report falsely claims that the Gardiner is one of the "most significant transportation corridors in the city". This is false, as the expressway is only used by a small fraction of commuters and businesses, inaccessible to most transit users, pedestrians and cyclists.

Proponents’ response

Based on traffic volume data, the Gardiner Expressway is a significant transportation corridor in the City.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with this response.

Mapping

Summary of comments

A member of the public is concerned with the general consistency of the mapping throughout the report.

Proponents’ response

Comment noted.

Status

The proponents provided some additional mapping, which the ministry has included in its review.

Non-competitive contract

Summary of comments

A member of the public requested and received a copy of PW 19.2 report dated February 15, 2017, to Public Works and Infrastructure Committee “Non-competitive Contract with MMM Group for Engineering Design Services for the Deck Replacement of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway from Jarvis Street to Cherry Street, including Associated Public Realm Improvements”.

This person asks how frequently “non-competitive” contracts are issued.

Proponents’ response

The procurement process referenced was conducted in accordance with all applicable clauses of the Toronto Municipal Code, and received unanimous City Council approval on March 29, 2017.

Please see the following link for additional details: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2017.PW19.2

Status

The ministry is satisfied with this response.