The document provides information about a public drop-in event to discuss water servicing alternatives for the Downsview Area in Toronto. It summarizes the following: - The study considered alternatives to address low water pressure issues and future growth, including doing nothing, long and short transmission watermain options, and storage. - Alternative 2A, a realigned pressure district with a long transmission watermain along Keele Street, was identified as the preferred solution due to its ability to improve water pressure over a large area, flexibility for growth, and minimal impacts and costs compared to other options. - Upgrades to the existing Keele Pumping Station are proposed to support the recommended solution.

1. 1
Welcome
Downsview Area
Long Term Water Servicing
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Public Drop-In Event
View display boards and speak one-on-one with staff

2. Why Are We Here?
• Provide an update on the Downsview Area Long
Term Water Servicing Municipal Class
Environmental Assessment (EA) Study
• Present alternatives and evaluation of water
servicing alternatives
• Present the recommended long term water
servicing strategy for the Study
• Gather feedback on the recommended strategy
The Purpose of Tonight’s Drop-In Event is to:
Please take a Comment Form and a pen.
As you review the information presented today, we encourage you to
ask questions and provide feedback.
2

3. Purpose of the Study
What is the problem?
• Significant near and long term growth is expected in the
Downsview Area (the Study Area)
• Residents and businesses are experiencing low water pressure
in the Study Area, particularly in the northwest portion (near
Keele Street and Finch Avenue West)
• There is a need to enhance infrastructure for sustainable water
supply and water pressure to service the current and projected
future population within the Downsview Area
What is the opportunity?
• Improve the overall level of water servicing to meet the needs of
the existing customers and the projected future growth
• Coordination with other projects in the area such as the
Downsview Area Major Roads Project can minimize
construction impacts and provide efficiency
The City of Toronto is developing a long term water servicing strategy for the Downsview Area
to provide a sustainable water supply and water pressure to 2041.
3

4. MunicipalClassEA
Process
4
TheProjectisfollowinga“ScheduleB”MunicipalClassEA
PlanningandDesignprocesswhichrequiresfollowingthe
processoutlinedbelow:
Phase1:Problemor
Opportunity
Phase2:Alternative
Solutions
Implementation
Identifyproblemoropportunity
Identifyalternativesolutionsto
problemoropportunity
Completedrawingsanddocuments
Inventorynatural,socialand
economicenvironment
Proceedtoconstructionand
operation
Identifyimpactsofalternative
solutionsontheenvironment,and
mitigationmeasures
Evaluatealternativesolutionsand
identifyrecommendedsolutions
Consultthepublicandagencies
regardingtherecommended
solution
Selectpreferredsolution
Monitorforenvironmental
provisionsandcommitments
Weare
here!
Consultthepublic,agenciesand
otherstakeholdersregarding
problemoropportunityandhigh
levelalternativesolutions
NoticeofCompletionissuedfor
Schedule‘B’Projects,30Day
ReviewPeriod
ProjectFileplacedonpublic
record

5. What We Heard From You
5
The first public drop-in event was held on
Thursday November 17, 2016

6. Alternative 1:
Do Nothing
This alternative involves no
changes to the existing
water network.
This alternative is carried
forward for further evaluation
as a baseline comparison for
other alternatives.
Alternatives 2A 2B 2C:
A Realigned Pressure
District + Long
Transmission
Watermain
There are three (3) long
transmission watermain routing
options under consideration.
Each option will also require
other additional upgrades for the
water network in the Study Area.
Alternatives 3A 3B 3C:
Booster Pumping
Station + Short
Transmission
Watermain
There are three (3) booster pumping
station + short transmission watermain
options under consideration. Each
option will also require other additional
upgrades for the water network in the
Study Area. Alternative 3C is
screened out for further evaluation
as the site has limited land for a
pumping station and there are long
term plans for Works Yard
Operations and Improvements.
Overview of Alternatives
6
Alternative 4:
Storage (Elevated
Tank)
The alternative to provide
additional storage was
considered.
This alternative is screened out
for further evaluation as the
technical / hydraulic study
showed that the addition of a
new storage tank would not
meet water servicing needs.

7. 7
Alternative2ALong
TransmissionWatermainRoute

8. 8
Alternatives2Band2CLong
TransmissionWatermainRoutes

9. 9
Alternatives3Aand3BPumping
Station+ShortTransmission
WatermainRoutes

10. Alternative 2A: Keele – West Route
10

11. 11
Alternative 2B: Chesswood-Alness-Steeles – Central
Route & Alternative 2C: Dufferin – East Route

12. Alternative 3A: Pumping Station Site K –
Bombardier Airstrip & Alternative 3B: Pumping
Station Site L – 35 Vanley Cres.
12

13. EvaluationCriteria
13

14. Legend
Least Preferred Most Preferred
Evaluation of Alternative Solutions
Do Nothing 2A: Keele
2B:
Chesswood-
Alness-
Steeles
2C: Dufferin
3A:
Pumping
Station Site
K
3B:
Pumping
Station Site
L
Category Ranking Rationale
Land Use
• Do Nothing does not align with municipal and provincial growth plans
• Do Nothing, 2A, 2B and 2C do not have any known negative impacts on the
Keele Reservoir.
• 3A and 3B have the potential to conflict with current and future site
operations (Bombardier Airport, Solid Waste Management facility).
Technical
• Do Nothing does not address problem/opportunity statement, meet fast in-
service date or accommodate future growth beyond 2041.
• 2B and 2C likely to meet fast in-service date but will have longer construction
duration than Alternative 2A.
• 3A and 3B are unlikely to meet fast in-service date (negotiations, site
remediation, site plan coordination, and special design requirements).
• 3B provides limited flexibility to accommodate future growth beyond 2041
(limited land for pumping station expansion).
• 2B and 2C have more complex construction requirements (additional
trenchless crossings, require temporary easements and complex utility
conflicts).
• 2B, 2C, 3A and 3B have potential risk associated with timing of East-West
Transit Road. 2A does not.
Natural
Environment
• 2C has greatest potential impact to terrestrial and aquatic species and
habitat (G. Ross Lord Pak – West Don River/tributaries).
• 2A, 2B, 2C and 3B all have potential to impact street trees.
• 2A and 2C have potential to impact Species at Risk (SAR) and SAR habitat
(Danby Woodlot and G. Ross Lord Pak – West Don River).
• 2C has high potential for significant dewatering (crossing of West Don River).
• 3A and 3B have high potential for encountering soil contamination (historical
industrial land use).
14
The “Do Nothing” alternative is not a viable option, however, it was considered as a base case comparison to other alternative solutions.

15. Legend
Least Preferred Most Preferred
The evaluation was completed using professional judgement, experience based on other similar projects and the results of studies conducted during the planning process. Quantitative results from the studies were also used to substantiate the ranking
rationale where possible and applicable.
Do Nothing 2A: Keele
2B:
Chesswood-
Alness-
Steeles
2C: Dufferin
3A:
Pumping
Station Site
K
3B:
Pumping
Station Site
L
Category Ranking Rationale
Climate
Change
• 3A and 3B require significant energy for pumping and have higher CO2
emissions associated with pumping stations.
• 2C does not avoid watercourses and is vulnerable to weather and fluvial
processes.
• 3A and 3B pumping stations are more vulnerable to extreme weather events.
Socio-
Economic
Environment
• Do Nothing affects use and enjoyment of property (continued low water
pressure. 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A and 3B address low water pressure).
• 2A, 2B and 2C have potential temporary disruptions to businesses,
recreational facilities and travelling public. 2A has fewer businesses than 2B
and 2C.
• 3A and 3B could potentially disrupt Bombardier/Solid Waste Management
operations
• 2A does not require temporary easements or property. Other alternatives do.
• 2C has the highest overall traffic volumes compared to other alternatives.
Cultural
Environment
• 2B, 2C, 3A and 3B have potential impact to archaeological resources based
on using future East-West Transit Road.
• 3A has potential to impact cultural heritage landscapes (Bombardier
Aerospace and CFB Downsview).
Cost
• 2C has highest total capital cost ($81.2M), followed by 2B ($75.5M) and 3A
($60M). 2A and 3B have comparable costs ($57.4M and $56M respectively).
• 3A and 3B have higher operations and maintenance costs compared to other
alternatives.
Overall • 2A is identified as the preferred water servicing alternative.
Evaluation of Alternative Solutions
15
The “Do Nothing” alternative is not a viable option, however, it was considered as a base case comparison to other alternative solutions.

16. 16
Rationale
• Improves water pressure for a larger area
• Maximum flexibility to accommodate growth beyond
2041
• Marginal impacts to natural environment
• Does not require temporary/permanent easements
or property
• Shortest construction and implementation timeline
• Least disruption to businesses, including vehicular
and pedestrian/cyclist traffic (Compared to
Alternatives 2B and 2C)
• Lowest capital cost
• Uses existing Keele Pumping Station and avoids
building and operating a new pumping station
compared to Alternatives 3A and 3B
• Lower energy consumption, green house gas
emissions and lifecycle cost compared to
Alternatives 3A and 3B
• Upgrades at the Keele Pumping Station are simple
Recommended Water Servicing Solution:
Alternative 2A: Keele – West Route

17. Keele Reservoir Connection and Pumping
Station Upgrades for the Recommended
Strategy
17
Keele Pumping Station Upgrades
• Pump No. 1 to be used as standby
and replaced with a larger pump
• No expansion of the building is
required
• No major electrical upgrades
• All upgrade work to be undertaken
inside the pump building – no impact
on residents and businesses
• Remaining 3 pumps replacement can
be phased over next 15 years
• Estimated total cost for all work: $12.5
million

18. 18
Alternative 2A – Approach to Traffic Management
and Proposed Construction Compounds
2
1

19. 19
Construction Overview
• It is proposed that the majority of the long transmission
watermain will be constructed by open cut methods
using backhoes and cranes to dig a trench and lay the
watermains in the trench.
• Special consideration will be given to minimizing
impacts on, or avoiding existing natural features,
schools and businesses, commuters and existing
utilities.
• Where existing trees and / or vegetation are disturbed
or lost as a result of watermain construction, the area
will be restored and / or enhanced with suitable native
species.
Open Cut Trench
Typical Backhoe

20. 20
Construction Overview
At major crossings (e.g. Finch Avenue), it is expected
that construction will take place using trenchless
methods:
• The only surface works involved with trenchless construction
are access and exit shafts located on both sides of a
crossing.
• Each access shaft will require a staging area or compound
area where construction equipment can be stored and
excavated material can be brought to the surface for disposal
(i.e., hauled away in trucks).
• Compound areas will typically be no more than 30 by 10
metres and will be fenced off.
• Once trenchless operations are completed, the staging area
will be restored to original or better condition.
• Compound locations will consider constructability and
potential effects to adjacent properties and
vehicular/pedestrian/cyclist traffic.
Construction Compounds
Trenchless Construction

21. Noise / Vibration / Dust
• Restrict construction operations
to day shift where required
• Adhere to noise by-laws
• Complete preconstruction
building structure surveys
• Dust control by spraying water /
street sweeping
• Fence / hoarding of
construction site along
property limits and access
roadway
Traffic Management and Access
• Prepare Traffic Management Plan
• Minimize access disruption
• Provide alternate pedestrian access
• Provide advanced notification
Impacts and Mitigation
Trees and Vegetation
• Minimize tree and vegetation
removal
• Prepare Tree Protection Plan
• Relocate trees where possible
• Replace removed trees with
new ones if possible
Groundwater Management
• Minimize dewatering by
appropriate trenchless
construction method
• Implement dewatering plan
based on hydrogeological
assessment
21

22. Next Steps / Expected Time Frame
22
*Dates subject to change pending all necessary regulatory approvals and permits, budget approval, etc.

23. Thank You for Attending
Next Steps:
• Record all questions and comments received and provide
follow-up as needed.
• Use your feedback from this meeting to finalize the
recommended water servicing strategy.
• Commencement of the 30-Day public review period.
23
*Kindly drop off your completed Comment Form in the comment box before you
leave or mail it to us before May 26, 2017
Contact us:
Mae Lee
Public Consultation Unit, City of Toronto
Metro Hall, 19th Fl., 55 John St., Toronto, ON M5V 3C6
Tel.: 416-392-8210; Fax: 416-392-2974; TTY: 416-338-0889
E-mail: mae.lee@toronto.ca
We appreciate the time you have taken to learn more about
the Study!
• We value your input to this study and encourage you to
stay connected.
• Please visit the Study website: toronto.ca/downsviewwm
• Join our mailing list – leave us an email or mailing address