UP Express Electrification EA Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Home , Bloor GO Station, Casimir Gzowski, Credit Valley Railway, Draper Street (Toronto), Dundas Street, Flag of Toronto

FINAL

Presented to: Metrolinx

Project No. 1124019.00 March, 2014

Executive Summary

Report Structure

The purpose of this report is to: 1) establish baseline cultural heritage conditions and 2) to assess potential cultural heritage impacts of the proposed Union Pearson Express Electrification project, including proposed mitigation measures and net effects. This Cultural Heritage Assessment Report contains Parts A and B. Part A includes the Cultural Heritage Baseline Conditions Report, and Part B includes the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Report.

Key Findings

Studies conducted as part of the previous Environmental Assessment studies for the Georgetown South Service Expansion were reviewed to identify potential and known cultural heritage resources. Municipal heritage inventories from the City of Toronto and City of Mississauga were also reviewed to confirm accuracy of data presented in studies conducted as part of previous studies with regard to properties which have been listed on municipal registers and/or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act.

Section 1 – UP Express Union Station to UP Express Bloor Station  A total of five cultural heritage resources are expected to be impacted by the proposed work within Section 1. These include the Bathurst Street Bridge, the King Street Subway, the Dundas Street Bridge, the UP Express Rail Corridor, and the Fort York and Garrison Common National Historic Site and Heritage Conservation District;  The Bathurst Street Bridge and the King Street Subway are listed by the City of Toronto as heritage properties. The Bathurst Street Bridge is also listed on the Ontario Heritage Bridge List;  The Dundas Street Bridge and the UP Express Rail Corridor were identified as cultural heritage resources during the field review carried out for the Baseline Conditions phase of this project; o The Dundas Street Bridge was not found to meet cultural heritage criteria. Accordingly, no further work is recommended for this resource; and, o No negative impacts are anticipated to the UP Express Electrification Rail Corridor since the proposed undertaking will not affect any heritage attributes of this resource. Therefore, no further work is recommended for this resource.  The Fort York and Garrison Common National Historic Site is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act and is a national historic site and heritage conservation district.

Section 2 – UP Express Bloor Station to UP Express Weston Station  A total of four cultural heritage resources are expected to be impacted by the proposed work within Section 2. These include the Wallace Avenue Pedestrian Bridge, the Rogers Road Bridge, the Jane Street Bridge, and 3500 Eglinton Avenue West (Kodak Lands);  The Wallace Avenue Pedestrian Bridge is listed as a heritage property by the City of Toronto;  The Rogers Road Bridge and Jane Street Bridge were identified as cultural heritage resources through background research;  3500 Eglinton Avenue West (Kodak Lands) is an industrial complex that has been evaluated and found to be a Provincial Heritage Property of Local Significance (pending conformation from Metrolinx).

o Potential impacts and mitigation measures were previously captured in the Final Eglinton Crosstown LRT EPR Addendum. Therefore there are no new net adverse effects associated with locating the Paralleling Station on the Kodak site.

Section 3 – UP Express Weston Station to Highway 427  One cultural heritage resources, the Humber River Bridge, is expected to be impacted by the proposed work within Section 3.  The Humber River Bridge has been evaluated and found to be a Provincial Heritage Property of Local and Provincial Significance.

Section 4 – Highway 417 to UP Express Pearson Station  No impacts are anticipated to cultural heritage resources within or adjacent to Section 4

Footprint Impacts

From a footprint impacts perspective, cultural heritage net effects are anticipated following the implementation of mitigation measures:

Section 1 – UP Express Union Station to UP Express Bloor Station  Bathurst Street Bridge and King Street Bridge: A Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) should be carried out to identify the heritage attributes of these bridges. If found to retain cultural heritage value, then a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) should be carried out to identify impacts and develop appropriate mitigation measures. The HIA would be carried out during detail design and would be developed in consultation with the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport and City of Toronto Heritage Preservation Services;  Fort York and Garrison Common National Historic Site and Heritage Conservation District: Disruption to identified views would be mitigated through a Visual Impact Assessment (VIA), and disturbance of potential archaeological resources would be mitigated through Stage 1 and/or Stage 2 archaeological assessment. In addition, plans for the proposed Paralleling Station should be submitted to Heritage Preservation Services at the City of Toronto and the Friends of Fort York for review and comment prior to construction.

Section 2 – UP Express Bloor Station to UP Express Weston Station  Wallace Avenue Pedestrian Bridge, Rogers Road Bridge, and Jane Street Bridge: A CHER should be carried out to identify the heritage attributes of these bridges. If found to retain cultural heritage value, then a HIA should be carried out to identify impacts and develop appropriate mitigation measures. The HIA would be carried out during detail design and would be developed in consultation with the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport and City of Toronto Heritage Preservation Services.

measures. The HIA would be carried out during detail design and would be developed in consultation with the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport and City of Toronto Heritage Preservation Services.

Section 4 – Highway 417 to UP Express Pearson Station  No footprint impacts are anticipated to cultural heritage resources within or adjacent to Section 4

Operations and Maintenance Impacts

No negative impacts are anticipated to any cultural heritage resources in the study area resulting from the operation and maintenance of the UP Express Electrification system.

Construction Impacts

From a construction perspective, cultural heritage net effects are anticipated following the implementation of mitigation measures:

Section 1 – UP Express Union Station to UP Express Bloor Station  Bathurst Street Bridge and King Street Bridge: Short-term disruption minimized through selection of non-invasive staging areas, pre-construction vibration studies, post-construction landscape treatments, and avoidance of heritage attributes;  Fort York and Garrison Common National Historic Site and Heritage Conservation District: Short- term disruption minimized through the selection of non-invasive staging areas, post-construction landscape treatments, and if possible, avoidance of heritage attributes.

Section 2 – UP Express Bloor Station to UP Express Weston Station  Wallace Avenue Pedestrian Bridge, Rogers Road Bridge, and Jane Street Bridge: Short-term disruption minimized through selection of non-invasive staging areas, pre-construction vibration studies, post-construction landscape treatments, and avoidance of heritage attributes;

Section 3 – UP Express Weston Station to Highway 427  Humber River Bridge: Short-term impacts mitigated through the careful selection of staging areas, pre-construction vibration studies (if needed), and post-construction landscape treatment).

Section 4 – Highway 417 to UP Express Pearson Station  No construction impacts are anticipated to cultural heritage resources within or adjacent to Section 4

Part A – Baseline Conditions Report

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

TABLE OF CONTENTS – PART A

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 2 GLOSSARY OF TERMS ...... 1 1. BACKGROUND ...... 5

1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS ...... 5 1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ...... 6 1.2.1 Traction Power Distribution System ...... 7 1.2.2 Maintenance Facility ...... 12 1.3 STUDY AREA ...... 14 1.4 PURPOSE...... 14 2. METHODOLOGY ...... 15

2.1 RELEVANT GUIDELINES...... 15 2.2 APPROACH ...... 19 3. BASELINE CONDITIONS ...... 22

3.1 LAND USE HISTORY SUMMARY ...... 22 3.1.1 Exploration, Survey and Settlement ...... 22 3.1.2 Early Economic Activity, Industry and Agriculture ...... 23 3.1.3 Transportation ...... 24 3.1.4 Rail Network Development ...... 25 3.1.5 Nineteenth and Early Twentieth-Century Settlement Centres Near Kitchener Corridor ...... 26 3.2 IDENTIFIED CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES ...... 38 3.2.1 West of Union Station Train Shed to Bloor Station ...... 39 3.2.2 Bloor Station to Weston Station ...... 74 3.2.3 Weston Station to Highway 427 ...... 105 3.2.4 Highway 427 to Terminal 1 (PearsonAirport) ...... 132 3.2.5 Vicinity of Hydro One Horner Substation ...... 135 3.3 MAPPING OF IDENTIFIED CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES ...... 137 4. FUTURE WORK ...... 146

List of Tables

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 3: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Located Within 150 m of UP Express Corridor (Bloor Station to Weston Station) ...... 76 Table 4: Cultural Heritage Resources Previously Identified as Part of Environmental Assessment Studies ...... 99 Table 5: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Located Within 150 m of UP Express Corridor (Weston Station to Highway 427) ...... 107 Table 6: Cultural Heritage Resources Previously Identified as Part of Environmental Assessment Studies ...... 125 Table 7: Cultural Heritage Resources Previously Identified as Part of Environmental Assessment Studies ...... 133

List of Figures

Figure 1-1. UP Express Electrification EA Study Area ...... 6 Figure 2 ...... 6 Figure 1-3. Example of OCS Support Structures (Portals) ...... 8 Figure 1-4. Typical Paralleling Station ...... 9 Figure 1-5.Paralleling Station – Ordnance St...... 10 Figure 1-6.Paralleling Station– 3500 Eglinton Ave. W...... 11 Figure 1-7.Electrified Maintenance Facility – 50 Resources Rd...... 13 Figure 3-1: Portion of the UP Express Corridor and 150 m Buffer Overlaid on 1878 Map of York Township ...... 31 Figure 3-2: Portion of the UP Express Corridor and 150 m Buffer Overlaid on 1878 Map of Etobicoke Township ...... 32 Figure 3-3: Portion of the UP Express Corridor and 150 m Buffer Overlaid on 1878 Map of Village of Weston ...... 33 Figure 3-4: Portion of the UP Express Corridor and 150 m Buffer Overlaid on 1909 Topographic Map...... 34 Figure 3-5: Portion of the UP Express Corridor and 150 m Buffer Overlaid on 1909 Topographic Map...... 35 Figure 3-6: Portion of the UP Express Corridor and 150 m Buffer Overlaid on 1931 Topographic Map...... 36 Figure 3-7: Portion of the UP Express Corridor and 150 m Buffer Overlaid on 1951 Topographic Map...... 37 Figure 3-8: Excerpt from draft HCD Study and Plan showing limits of the designation...... 73 Figure 3-9: Excerpt from draft HCD Study and Plan showing identified views...... 74 Figure 3-10: Properties Listed and Designated under the Ontario Heritage Act Within the City of Toronto ...... 137 Figure 3-11: Cultural Heritage Resources Identified in Previous Studies and Confirmed During Field Survey Activities ...... 138 Figure 3-12: Cultural Heritage Resources Identified in Previous Studies and Confirmed During Field Survey Activities ...... 139 Figure 3-13: Cultural Heritage Resources Identified in Previous Studies and Confirmed During Field Survey Activities ...... 140 Figure 3-14: Cultural Heritage Resources Identified in Previous Studies and Confirmed During Field Survey Activities ...... 141 Figure 3-15: Cultural Heritage Resources Identified in Previous Studies and Confirmed During Field Survey Activities ...... 142 Figure 3-16: Cultural Heritage Resources Identified in Previous Studies and Confirmed During Field Survey Activities ...... 143 Figure 3-17: Cultural Heritage Resources Identified in Previous Studies and Confirmed During Field Survey Activities ...... 144 Figure 3-18: Cultural Heritage Resources Identified in Previous Studies and Confirmed During Field Survey Activities ...... 145

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Glossary of Terms

AREMA The acronym for American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of-Way Association. AREMA is the organization that represents the engineering function of the North American railroads. Autotransformer Apparatus which helps boost the overhead contact system (OCS) voltage and reduce the running rail return current in the 2 X 25kV autotransformer feed configuration. It is a single winding transformer having three terminals. The intermediate terminal located at the midpoint of the winding is connected to the rail and the static wires, and the other two terminals are connected to the catenary and the negative feeder wires, respectively. Catenary An assembly of overhead wires consisting of, as a minimum, a messenger wire, carrying vertical hangers that support a solid contact wire which is the contact interface with operating electric train pantographs, and which supplies power from a central power source to an electrically-powered vehicle, such as a train. CEAA The acronym for Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Class EA Under the EA Act, Class Environmental Assessments are those projects that are approved subject to compliance with an approved class environmental assessment process (e.g., Class EA for Minor Transmission Facilities, GO Transit Class EA, etc.) with respect to a class of undertakings. Contact Wire A solid grooved, bare aerial, overhead electrical conductor of an OCS that is suspended above the rail vehicles and which supplies the electrically powered vehicles with electrical energy through roof-mounted current collection equipment - pantographs - and with which the current collectors make direct electrical contact. Control Centre The building or room location that is used to dispatch trains and control the train and maintenance operations over a designated section of track. DMU Diesel Multiple Unit; a train comprising single self -propelled diesel units. Duct Bank A duct bank is an assembly of electrical conduits that are either directly buried or encased in concrete. The purpose of the duct bank and associated conduit is to protect and provide defined routing of electrical cables and wiring. It also provides a physical separation and isolation for the various types of cables. Electric Traction Facility A traction substation, paralleling station, or switching station. EMU Electric Multiple Unit; a train comprising single self-propelled electric units. EPR The acronym for Environmental Project Report. The proponent is required to prepare an Environmental Project Report to document the Transit Project Assessment Process followed, including but not limited to: a description of the preferred transit project, a map of the project, a description of existing environmental conditions, an assessment of potential impacts, description of proposed mitigation measures, etc. The EPR is made available for public review and comment for a period of 30 calendar days. This is followed by a 35-day Minister’s Decision Period. Feeding Gantry Supporting structures parallel to the tracks, and on both sides of the tracks, at TPS, SWS, and PS used to connect the traction power feeders to the catenary. Grounding Connecting to earth through a ground connection or connections of sufficiently low impedance and having sufficient current-carrying capacity to

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

limit the build-up of voltages to levels below that which may result in undue hazard to persons or to connected equipment. Heavy Maintenance Heavy maintenance includes: replacement of engine traction motors, replacement of diesel engines on DMU’s, replacement of transformers and ac propulsion systems on EMUs and replacement of wheel sets on engines. On railcars, heavy maintenance includes the replacement of wheel sets, repairs to windows and brake lines, and body repairs. Hydro One Hydro One Incorporated delivers electricity across the province of Ontario. Hydro One has four subsidiaries, the largest being Hydro One Networks. They operate 97% of the high voltage transmission grid throughout Ontario. kV Abbreviation for kilovolt and equal to 1000 volts. Maintenance Facility A mechanical facility for the maintenance, repair, and inspection of engines and railcars. Messenger Wire In catenary construction, the OCS Messenger Wire is a longitudinal bare stranded conductor that physically supports the contact wire or wires either directly or indirectly by means of hangers or hanger clips and is electrically common with the contact wire(s). Minister Ontario Minister of the Environment. Mitigation Measure Actions that remove or alleviate, to some degree, the negative effects associated with the implementation of an alternative. MOE The acronym for Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Negative Feeder A feeder running parallel to the tracks and catenary, energized at 25 kV but 180 degrees out of phase with the catenary. The resultant catenary to negative feeder voltage is 50 kV. Net Effect The effect (positive or negative) associated with an alternative after the application of avoidance/mitigation/compensation/enhancement measures. Notice of The Proponent is required to prepare and distribute a Notice of Commencement Commencement, which “starts the clock ticking” for the 120-day portion of the transit project assessment process. Proponents must prepare and distribute a Notice of Commencement to indicate that the assessment of a transit project is proceeding under the transit project assessment process. Proponents must complete their documentation (the Environmental Project Report) of the transit project assessment process within 120 days of distributing the Notice of Commencement. Notice of Completion The Notice of Completion must be given within 120 days of the distribution of the Notice of Commencement (not including any “time outs” that might have been taken). The Notice of Completion of Environmental Project Report signals that the Environmental Project Report has been prepared in accordance with section 9 of the regulation and indicates that the Environmental Project Report is available for final review and comment (for 30 calendar days). Following the 30 day public review period, there is a 35 day Minister’s decision period. Pantograph Device on the top of a train that slides along the contact wire to transmit electric power from the catenary to the train. Paralleling Station (PS) An installation which helps boost the OCS voltage and reduce the running rail return current by means of the autotransformer feed configuration. The negative feeders and the catenary conductors are connected to the two outer terminals of the autotransformer winding at this location with the center terminal connected to the traction return system. The OCS sections can be connected in parallel at PS locations.

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Performance Standards General specifications and criteria that define the parameters and requirements of a particular system. Positive Train Control A signalling system using on board and wayside equipment to automatically reduce the speed, or stop a train depending on the conditions on the track ahead. Potential Effect A possible or probable effect of implementing a particular alternative. Preliminary Design The design of a proposed project (including a detailed cost estimate) to a level that demonstrates that the project is buildable within the given parameters of the design scope. Preventive Maintenance Preventive maintenance includes items such as: replacing brake pads, measuring wheels, inspection of running gear, inspection and repair of central air conditioning, check radios and repair/replace, repair broken windows and doors, etc. Proponent A person who carries out or proposes to carry out an undertaking or is the owner or person having charge, management or control of an undertaking. Screening The process of applying criteria to a set of alternatives in order to eliminate those that do not meet minimum conditions or requirements. Service Maintenance Service maintenance is the light maintenance of engines (i.e., window cleaning, check oil levels and sand levels, clean engine cab, refill potable water, and empty washroom holding tanks). Signal System The rail signal system is a combination of wayside and on board equipment and/or software to provide for the routing and safe spacing of trains or rail vehicles. Spur Is a railroad track that diverges from the main track to service a specific location or industry. Substation or Traction Electric Traction Facility that transforms the utility supply voltage of 230 kV Substation to 50 kV and 25 kV for distribution to the trains via catenary and negative feeders. Switching Station (SWS) Electric Traction Facility located approximately mid-way between traction power substations to split the electrical sections. Also contains autotransformers to boost the catenary voltage the same as the paralleling stations. TPAP The acronym for Transit Project Assessment Process. The transit project assessment process is defined in sections 6 – 17 in Ontario Regulation 231/08: Transit projects and Metrolinx Undertakings. Proponents must complete the prescribed steps of the transit project assessment process within specified time frames. The process allows for a six month assessment process whereby potential environmental effects of the transit project are identified, assessed and documented. The proponent must issue a Notice of Completion within 120 days of issuing the Notice of Commencement. Transit Project A transit project is defined as an undertaking consisting of: (a) An enterprise or activity that is the planning, designing, establishing, constructing, operating, changing or retiring of a facility or service that, aside from any incidental use for walking, bicycling or other means of transporting people by human power, is used exclusively for the transportation of passengers by bus or rail, or anything that is ancillary to a facility or service that is used to support or facilitate the transportation of passengers by bus or rail; or,

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

(b) A proposal, plan, or program in respect of an enterprise or activity described in clause (a) above. Transmission Line Transmission lines electrically interconnect generating power plants and electrical substations located near demand centers for bulk transfer of electrical energy over long distances, at a high voltage generally 115 kV or higher. Transmission of power at high voltage is distinct from the local wiring between high-voltage substations and customers, which is typically referred to as electric power distribution. Transmission lines, when interconnected with each other, are called transmission network or electric grid. TPS The acronym for Traction Power Substation.

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

1. Background

In July 2009, Metrolinx completed an environmental assessment (EA) for the Georgetown South Service Expansion and Union-Pearson Rail Link (GSSE-UPRL). This project included a number of infrastructure improvements along the GO Transit (GO) Kitchener (previously known as Georgetown) corridor, including construction of a new three kilometre spur line (from Highway 427 to Terminal 1 at Pearson Airport), and construction of new tracks along the GO Kitchener corridor. In addition, new stations will be constructed at both Union Station and at Terminal 1 (Pearson International Airport), while the existing Bloor and Weston stations will be upgraded. Portions of this project are currently under construction, and the UP Express service is anticipated to be in operation by 2015.

The UP Express will initially operate using Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs) and will run from downtown Toronto at UP Express Union Station) with stops at Bloor GO Station and Weston GO Station, then terminate at the future UP Express Pearson Station at Pearson International Airport.

Following the 2009 GSSE-UPRL EA, Metrolinx completed the GO Electrification Study in December 2010, which examined electrification of the entire GO Transit rail system as a future alternative to diesel trains currently in service. Subsequently, Metrolinx initiated Phase 1 which includes the EA study for electrification of the UP Express service, development of performance standards for electrification, as well as preparation of the electrification design.

1.1 Environmental Assessment Process

With regard to EA process, the proposed conversion of the UP Express service from diesel to electric power falls under Schedule 1, Subsection 2 (1) 7 of O. Reg. 231/08 - Transit Projects and Metrolinx Undertakings which applies to transit projects including: “Electrification of rail equipment propulsion on existing commuter rail corridor and associated power distribution system.” Therefore, the environmental impact of the traction power distribution system components and new electrified maintenance facility is being assessed by Metrolinx under the Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP), in accordance with Ontario Regulation 231/08 – Transit Projects and Metrolinx Undertakings.

In addition, electrification of the UP Express requires a connection to Ontario’s electrical system. It is proposed that the power be supplied from the existing 230 kV transmission line that runs between Hydro One’s Claireville Transformer Station (located near Highway 407 and Highway 27 in the City of Vaughan) and Richview Transformer Station (located near Highway 401 and Highway 27 in the City of Toronto). Two new cables will deliver power to a new 230 kV Traction Power Substation (TPS). The TPS will convert the voltage from 230 kV to 25 kV so that it can be used to power the electric trains. The power supply portion of the project is being carried out by Hydro One under the Class EA for Minor Transmission Facilities (Class EA).

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

1.2 Description of the Project

The scope of the proposed UP Express Electrification undertaking includes the construction, operation and maintenance of an electrified rail service along the UP Express route. The route includes approximately 25 km of track beginning at the future UP Express Station (west of the Union Station train shed) in the City of Toronto, along the existing Union Station GO rail corridor and Kitchener GO rail corridor to Highway 427, where the route then follows the new UP Express spur link (currently under construction) into the future UP Express Pearson Station (Terminal 1, Toronto Pearson International Airport) in the City of Mississauga (see Figure 1-1). More specifically, the UP Express Electrification project involves converting the UP Express service from diesel power to electric. Therefore, the base case scenario is defined as the UP Express operating with Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) trains.

Electrification of the UP Express service will be achieved through a Traction Electrification System which will provide electrical power to the trains by means of a traction power distribution system (by Metrolinx) and traction power supply system (by Hydro One). The traction power distribution system components (which are being assessed under the TPAP) are further described below.

Figure 1-1. UP Express Electrification EA Study Area

Figure 2

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

1.2.1 Traction Power Distribution System

The proposed traction power distribution system is an Overhead Contact System (OCS)comprised of a wiring system providing power to the trains. The wiring system will be suspended from a number of OCS structures (i.e., portals, cantilevers) placed along and over the track. The traction power distribution system also includes two paralleling stations(PS) to boost the voltage along the UP Express route, as well as 25 kv feeders and gantries (which provide power to the OCS) located in the vicinity of each PS. In addition, a new electrified maintenance facility will need to be built to carry out maintenance on the new electric trains.

The following sections provide an overview of the electrification infrastructure requirements associated with the traction power distribution system as the basis for collecting baseline conditions information within the study area. In addition, Supporting Document #1: Assessment of Alternative Facility Locations provides additional background information on the process followed for identifying the preferred siting locations for each facility. As a result, the preferred locations for siting each facility have been included in this report for the purpose of describing baseline conditions associated with the respective sites.

1.2.1.1 Overhead Contact System

The preferred traction power distribution system for UP Express electrification is an Overhead Contact System (OCS) that is comprised of a wiring system which will provide power to the electric trains. The wiring system will be suspended from a number of new OCS support structures (i.e., portals, cantilevers) placed along and over the track, including on bridges/overpasses where required. It should be noted that the majority of OCS support structures will be situated within the existing Metrolinx owned rail Right-of- Way (ROW) along the UP Express route/corridor, except for a small number of locations where the structures cannot be accommodated within the existing rail ROW.

Specifically, the overhead wires will be supported from galvanized steel structures positioned along the track at a spacing of up to 65 metres. The most common OCS support structures will be portals which span multiple tracks (see Figure 1-2).

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Figure 1-3. Example of OCS Support Structures (Portals)

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

1.2.1.2 Paralleling Stations

A paralleling station helps boost the OCS voltage and reduce running rail current. As the train moves away from the source of power, the OCS voltage drops (see example shown in Figure 1-3). Electric trains can only operate if the OCS voltage remains within acceptable limits. Paralleling stations help raise the OCS voltage and hence, facilitate operation of trains further away from the source of power. Paralleling stations also help reduce flow of return current in rails and thereby, contribute towards safety of passengers and other persons boarding or detraining at train stations.

Figure 1-4. Typical Paralleling Station

In order to ensure reliability of the electrified UP Express system, paralleling stations need to be located approximately every 8-12 kms along the electrified route. There are two PSs required as part of the electrified UP Express system: one at Ordnance St, and one at 3500 Eglinton Ave. W. as shown in Figures 1-4 and 1-5 respectively. The approximate footprint area required for constructing a paralleling station is anticipated to be 900 sq. m. (45 m X 20m).

Gantries and Ductbanks

A set of two gantries (main and strain gantry), as well as 25 kV power supply feeders (routed underground via duct banks) will be located in the vicinity of each PS location. The locations of the gantries and duct banks will be identified as part of the preliminary design phase. Therefore, the potential environmental impacts associated with these components will be assessed and documented within the Natural Environmental Impact Assessment Report.

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Figure 1-5.Paralleling Station – Ordnance St.

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Figure 1-6.Paralleling Station– 3500 Eglinton Ave. W.

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

1.2.2 Maintenance Facility

As part of implementing an electrified UP Express service, the new electric trains will need to be regularly maintained and serviced. As a result, the scope of the UP Express Electrification EA includes consideration of the infrastructure requirements related to a new electrified maintenance facility.

Supporting Document #1: Assessment of Alternative Facility Locations summarizes the process followed for identifying the preferred location for the electrified Maintenance Facility, i.e., 50 Resources Rd. (see Figure 1-6).The approximate footprint size required for constructing the new MF is anticipated to be 5 hectares.

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Figure 1-7.Electrified Maintenance Facility – 50 Resources Rd.

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

1.3 Study Area

Based on the description of the UP Express Electrification project components provided above, the project Study Area (as illustrated in Figure 1-1) is described as follows:

 UP Express route/rail corridor beginning at the future UP Express Union Station in the City of Toronto, along the existing GO Kitchener and GO Union Station Rail Corridors, and terminating at the future UP Express Pearson Station (Terminal 1, Toronto Pearson International Airport) in the City of Mississauga; and  Preferred locations for associated electrification infrastructure/facilities including: two Paralleling Stations, and one electrified Maintenance Facility.

As the EA progresses and potential impacts are identified, the Study Area will be expanded (if required) to capture the full range of potential environmental effects.

1.4 Purpose

The purpose of this report is to document baseline conditions within the UP Express Electrification Study Area related to the natural environment. This Baseline Conditions Report will form ‘Part A’ of the Natural Environment Assessment Report which will become a supporting document to the final Environmental Project Report (EPR). The baseline conditions information collected will establish the basis from which potential impacts of the proposed UP Express Electrification project will be assessed and documented in the Natural Environment Impact Assessment report.

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

2. Methodology

2.1 Relevant Guidelines

For the purposes of this assessment, the term cultural heritage resources was used to describe both cultural landscapes and built heritage features. A cultural landscape is perceived as a collection of individual built heritage features and other related features that together form farm complexes, roadscapes and nucleated settlements. Built heritage features are typically individual buildings or structures that may be associated with a variety of human activities, such as historical settlement and patterns of architectural development.

The analysis throughout the study process addresses cultural heritage resources under various pieces of legislation and their supporting guidelines. Under the Environmental Assessment Act (1990) environment is defined in Subsection 1(c) to include:

• cultural conditions that influence the life of man or a community, and; • any building, structure, machine, or other device or thing made by man.

The Ministry of Tourism and Culture is charged under Section 2 of the Ontario Heritage Act with the responsibility to determine policies, priorities and programs for the conservation, protection and preservation of the heritage of Ontario and has published two guidelines to assist in assessing cultural heritage resources as part of an environmental assessment: Guideline for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental Assessments (1992), and Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component of Environmental Assessments (1981). Accordingly, both guidelines have been utilized in this assessment process.

The Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component of Environmental Assessments (Section 1.0) states the following:

When speaking of man-made heritage we are concerned with the works of man and the effects of his activities in the environment rather than with movable human artifacts or those environments that are natural and completely undisturbed by man.

In addition, environment may be interpreted to include the combination and interrelationships of human artifacts with all other aspects of the physical environment, as well as with the social, economic and cultural conditions that influence the life of the people and communities in Ontario. The Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component of Environmental Assessments distinguish between two basic ways of visually experiencing this heritage in the environment, namely as cultural landscapes and as cultural features.

Within this document, cultural landscapes are defined as the following (Section 1.0):

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

The use and physical appearance of the land as we see it now is a result of man’s activities over time in modifying pristine landscapes for his own purposes. A cultural landscape is perceived as a collection of individual man-made features into a whole. Urban cultural landscapes are sometimes given special names such as townscapes or streetscapes that describe various scales of perception from the general scene to the particular view. Cultural landscapes in the countryside are viewed in or adjacent to natural undisturbed landscapes, or waterscapes, and include such land uses as agriculture, mining, forestry, recreation, and transportation. Like urban cultural landscapes, they too may be perceived at various scales: as a large area of homogeneous character; or as an intermediate sized area of homogeneous character or a collection of settings such as a group of farms; or as a discrete example of specific landscape character, such as a single farm, or an individual village or hamlet.

A cultural feature is defined as the following (Section 1.0):

…an individual part of a cultural landscape that may be focused upon as part of a broader scene, or viewed independently. The term refers to any man-made or modified object in or on the land or underwater, such as buildings of various types, street furniture, engineering works, plantings and landscaping, archaeological sites, or a collection of such objects seen as a group because of close physical or social relationships.

The Transit Project Assessment Process also provides a series of relevant provisions and definitions. The Transit Project Assessment Process Guide (March 2009) includes provisions to consider whether the proposed project may have a negative impact on a matter of provincial importance, which is defined as follows:

A matter of provincial importance that relates to the natural environment or has cultural heritage value or interest.

The Transit Project Assessment Process Guide further notes that identification and assessment of potentially impacted built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes, and protected properties are relevant in determining if a matter is of ‘provincial importance’ (March 2009:8). It should be noted that the Transit Project Assessment Process Guide acknowledges that a built heritage resource, cultural heritage landscape, or protected property does not necessarily need to meet criteria set out under Regulation 10/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act to be considered to be of ‘provincial importance’.

The Minister of Tourism and Culture has also published Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties (April 2010; Standards and Guidelines hereafter). These Standards and Guidelines apply to properties the Government of Ontario owns or controls that have cultural heritage

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

value or interest. They are mandatory for ministries and prescribed public bodies and have the authority of a Management Board or Cabinet directive. Metrolinx is identified as a prescribed public body that is subject to the Standards and Guidelines.

The Standards and Guidelines provide a series of definition considered during the course of the assessment:

A provincial heritage property is defined as the following (14):

Provincial heritage property means real property, including buildings and structures on the property, that has cultural heritage value or interest and that is owned by the Crown in right of Ontario or by a prescribed public body; or that is occupied by a ministry or a prescribed public body if the terms of the occupancy agreement are such that the ministry or public body is entitled to make the alterations to the property that may be required under these heritage standards and guidelines.

A provincial heritage property of provincial significance is defined as the following (14):

Provincial heritage property that has been evaluated using the criteria found in Ontario Heritage Act O.Reg. 10/06 and has been found to have cultural heritage value or interest of provincial significance.

A built heritage resource is defined as the following (13):

…one or more significant buildings (including fixtures or equipment located in or forming part of a building), structures, earthworks, monuments, installations, or remains associated with architectural, cultural, social, political, economic, or military history and identified as being important to a community. For the purposes of these Standards and Guidelines, “structures” does not include roadways in the provincial highway network and in-use electrical or telecommunications transmission towers.

A cultural heritage landscape is defined as the following (13):

… a defined geographical area that human activity has modified and that has cultural heritage value. Such an area involves one or more groupings of individual heritage features, such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites, and natural elements, which together form a significant type of heritage form distinct from that of its constituent elements or parts. Heritage conservation districts designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, villages, parks, gardens, battlefields, mainstreets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries, trails, and industrial complexes of cultural heritage value are some examples.

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Finally, the Planning Act (1990) and related Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) make a number of provisions relating to heritage conservation. One of the general purposes of the Planning Act is to integrate matters of provincial interest in provincial and municipal planning decisions. In order to inform all those involved in planning activities of the scope of these matters of provincial interest, Section 2 of the Planning Act provides an extensive listing. These matters of provincial interest shall be regarded when certain authorities, including the council of a municipality, carry out their responsibilities under the Act. One of these provincial interests is directly concerned with:

2.0 …protecting cultural heritage and archaeological resources for their economic, environmental, and social benefits.

Part 4.5 of the PPS states that:

Comprehensive, integrated and long-term planning is best achieved through municipal official plans. Municipal official plans shall identify provincial interests and set out appropriate land use designations and policies. Municipal official plans should also coordinate cross-boundary matters to complement the actions of other planning authorities and promote mutually beneficial solutions.

Municipal official plans shall provide clear, reasonable and attainable policies to protect provincial interests and direct development to suitable areas.

In order to protect provincial interests, planning authorities shall keep their official plans up-to-date with this Provincial Policy Statement. The policies of this Provincial Policy Statement continue to apply after adoption and approval of a municipal official plan.

Those policies of particular relevance for the conservation of heritage features are contained in Section 2- Wise Use and Management of Resources, wherein Subsection 2.6 - Cultural Heritage and Archaeological Resources, makes the following provisions:

2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved.

Significance is generally defined. It is assigned a specific meaning according to the subject matter or policy context, such as wetlands or ecologically important areas. With regard to cultural heritage and archaeology resources, resources of significance are those that are valued for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people (PPS 2005).

Criteria for determining significance for the resources are recommended by the Province, but municipal approaches that achieve or exceed the same objective may also be used. While some significant resources may already be identified and inventoried by official sources, the significance of others can only be determined after evaluation (PPS 2005).

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Accordingly, the foregoing guidelines and relevant policy statement were used to guide the scope and methodology of the cultural heritage assessment. 2.2 Approach

In the course of the cultural heritage assessment, all potentially affected cultural heritage resources are subject to inventory. This inventory includes all known and potential cultural heritage resources located within and/or adjacent to the proposed undertaking. Short form names are usually applied to each resource type, (e.g. barn, residence). Generally, when conducting a preliminary identification of cultural heritage resources, three stages of research and data collection are undertaken to appropriately establish the potential for and existence of cultural heritage resources in a particular geographic area.

Background historic research, which includes consultation of primary and secondary source research and historic mapping, is undertaken to identify early settlement patterns and broad agents or themes of change in a study area. This stage in the data collection process enables the researcher to determine the presence of sensitive heritage areas that correspond to nineteenth and twentieth century settlement and development patterns. To augment data collected during this stage of the research process, federal, provincial, and municipal databases and/or agencies are consulted to obtain information about specific properties that have been previously identified and/or designated as retaining cultural heritage value. Typically, resources identified during these stages of the research process are reflective of particular architectural styles, associated with an important person, place, or event, and contribute to the contextual facets of a particular place, neighbourhood, or intersection.

A field review is then undertaken to confirm the location and condition of previously identified cultural heritage resources. The field review is also utilized to identify cultural heritage resources that have not been previously identified on federal, provincial, or municipal databases.

Several investigative criteria are utilized during the field review to appropriately identify new cultural heritage resources. These investigative criteria are derived from provincial guidelines, definitions, and past experience. During the course of the environmental assessment, a built structure or landscape is identified as a cultural heritage resource if it is considered to be 40 years or older1, and if the resource satisfies at least one of the following criteria:

Design/Physical Value:  It is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method.  It displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit.

1Use of a 40 year old threshold is a guiding principle when conducting a preliminary identification of cultural heritage resources (Ministry of Transportation 2006; Ministry of Transportation 2007; Ontario Realty Corporation 2007). While identification of a resource that is 40 years old or older does not confer outright heritage significance, this threshold provides a means to collect information about resources that may retain heritage value. Similarly, if a resource is slightly younger than 40 years old, this does not preclude the resource from retaining heritage value.

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

 It demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.  The site and/or structure retains original stylistic features and has not been irreversibly altered so as to destroy its integrity.  It demonstrates a high degree of excellence or creative, technical or scientific achievement at a provincial level in a given period.

Historical/Associative Value:  It has a direct association with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization, or institution that is significant to: the City of Toronto and City of Mississauga; the Province of Ontario; or Canada.  It yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of the history of the: the City of Toronto and City of Mississauga; the Province of Ontario, or Canada.  It demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to: the City of Toronto and City of Mississauga; the Province of Ontario; or Canada.  It represents or demonstrates a theme or pattern in Ontario’s history.  It demonstrates an uncommon, rare or unique aspect of Ontario’s cultural heritage.  It has a strong or special association with the entire province or with a community that is found in more than one part of the province. The association exists for historic, social, or cultural reasons or because of traditional use.  It has a strong or special association with the life or work of a person, group or organization of importance to the province or with an event of importance to the province.

Contextual Value:  It is important in defining, maintaining, or supporting the character of an area.  It is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings.  It is a landmark.  It illustrates a significant phase in the development of the community or a major change or turning point in the community’s history.  The landscape contains a structure other than a building (fencing, culvert, public art, statue, etc.) that is associated with the history or daily life of that area or region.  There is evidence of previous historic and/or existing agricultural practices (e.g. terracing, deforestation, complex water canalization, apple orchards, vineyards, etc.)  It is of aesthetic, visual or contextual important to the province.

If a resource meets one of these criteria it will be identified as a cultural heritage resource and is subject to further research where appropriate and when feasible. Typically, detailed archival research, permission to enter lands containing heritage resources, and consultation is required to determine the specific heritage significance of the identified cultural heritage resource.

When identifying cultural heritage landscapes, the following categories are typically utilized for the purposes of the classification during the field review:

Farm complexes: comprise two or more buildings, one of which must be a farmhouse or barn, and may include a tree-lined drive, tree windbreaks, fences, domestic gardens and small orchards.

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Roadscapes: generally two-lanes in width with absence of shoulders or narrow shoulders only, ditches, tree lines, bridges, culverts and other associated features.

Waterscapes: waterway features that contribute to the overall character of the cultural heritage landscape, usually in relation to their influence on historic development and settlement patterns.

Railscapes: active or inactive railway lines or railway rights of way and associated features.

Historical settlements: groupings of two or more structures with a commonly applied name.

Streetscapes: generally consists of a paved road found in a more urban setting, and may include a series of houses that would have been built in the same time period.

Historical agricultural Landscapes: generally comprises a historically rooted settlement and farming pattern that reflects a recognizable arrangement of fields within a lot and may have associated agricultural outbuildings, structures, and vegetative elements such as tree rows;

Cemeteries: land used for the burial of human remains.

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

3. Baseline Conditions

The following provides a summary of baseline conditions related to cultural heritage. For the purposes of describing the various existing conditions features within the UP Express corridor, this section has been separated into five segments as follows:

 West of Union Station Train Shed to Bloor Station  Bloor Station to Weston Station  Weston Station to Highway 427  Highway 427 to Terminal 1 (Pearson Airport)  Lakeshore West Rail Corridor to Willowbrook

Section 3.1 provides the results of background archival research while Sections 3.2 and 3.3 provide a summary of cultural heritage sensitivities and identified cultural heritage resources within the UP Express corridor.

3.1 Land Use History Summary

3.1.1 Exploration, Survey and Settlement

The earliest European presence along the original Toronto waterfront was largely defined by the area's strategic importance for accessing and controlling long-established economic networks. All of these occupation sites occurred on or near the Lake Ontario shoreline between the Rouge and Humber Rivers, and were located at points that afforded both natural landfalls for Great Lakes traffic and convenient access by means of the various waterways and overland trails into the hinterlands.

Thus, the first European settlement of Toronto was very much a continuation of patterns that had been established at least 100 years earlier, when the Huron and Seneca regarded the area as a pivotal “Carrying Place.” Although the French had established a modest presence at Toronto in the early 1700s, competition with the British for control of the fur trade led to the foundation in 1751 of Fort Rouillé on the lakeshore roughly three miles east of the Humber River. Fort Rouillé was a small, wooden trading post built for the purpose of intercepting Indian traders on the Toronto Portage (via the Humber and Rouge Rivers) before they could cross the lake to trade with the English on the south shore of Lake Ontario at Fort Oswego (Brown 1982:7). After a string of defeats at the hands of the British during the Seven Years War (1756-1763), the French burned and abandoned Fort Rouillé in 1759 (Careless 1984:9). Immediately following British hegemony in the Canada’s at the conclusion of the Seven Years War, settlement in the Toronto area was limited even though its’ potential to serve as an effective link in the transportation and communications network associated with the fur trade was widely recognized (Careless 1984:10). The substantial trading post established by Jean Baptiste Rousseau at the mouth of the Humber was a notable exception to this.

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

At the conclusion of the American War of Independence (1774-1783), however, the British were forced to recognize the emergence of a new political frontier which had to be maintained by a strong military presence. In addition, a number of British Loyalists travelled north in order to remain within British territory. Many of them were eventually given land grants by the Crown partly in exchange for their loyalty and partly as compensation for their estates which had been confiscated in the Colonies. These new developments ultimately led to the purchase of Mississauga land by the Crown in 1787 and the creation of twelve townships along the waterfront, even though the dispute concerning the boundaries of the newly alienated land was not resolved until the signing of a treaty in 1805. In addition, the Town of York was founded in 1793 by Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe on the west side of the outlet and associated wetlands of the Don River, and a military establishment was created further to the west at the mouth of Garrison Creek, one of the numerous watercourses draining the area between the Don and the Humber. This new garrison, Fort York, was intended to control and protect entry to the town’s harbour (Careless 1984:11; 19-21).

To the west of the Garrison lay part of the township of York and the township of Etobicoke (See Figures 3-1 and 3-2). Etobicoke, which was surveyed by Alexander Aitkin beginning in 1788, became an organized township in 1792 and in 1795 Abraham Iredell laid out militia lands along the lakefront. Lieutenant-Governor Simcoe granted officers on half pay and government officials most of the unpatented lands along the shore of the lake between Fort York and the Humber River. The 200 acre lots set aside in Etobicoke for non-commissioned officers and members of the Queen’s Rangers were located along the lake and farther north in the township (Hayes 1974:20).

3.1.2 Early Economic Activity, Industry and Agriculture

Before the townships were permanently settled by successive waves of European and Loyalist emigration, economic activity within the study area was isolated, transient and related exclusively to servicing military outposts and facilitating fur trading. Once they arrived, however, early settlers used the dense mixed hardwood and softwood forests on their land for a variety of purposes. Since a Crown deed was only granted after prescribed settlement duties had been performed, the settler’s first responsibilities were to build a 16 by 20 foot dwelling house and to clear and fence five acres for every hundred acres granted. Cleared lands would then be planted with subsistence crops and then slowly expanded into market gardens. But, before agricultural production could take hold, milling and timber sales were sustaining industries, especially in those areas proximate to the Humber and Don Rivers. Timber tugs drawn over roads by 8 to 10 oxen were a common sight, and in some years in Etobicoke Township alone a half a million feet of lumber was loaded onto rafts at the mouth of the river destined for Britain or the United States. This accelerated rate of de-forestation meant that by 1850, Etobicoke’s forest had been depleted by more than sixty-five per cent (Hayes 1974:27).

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Mills and milling, the primary form of economic activity in the early nineteenth century, provided the locus for community development and the first villages were related to the establishment of mill sites. The Humber River figured prominently in the historic development of the city. On the Humber, villages such as Lambton Mills and Weston grew around mill locations. The first mill on the Humber was the King’s Mill, built around 1793, which was a government owned sawmill on the west side of the river intended to supply lumber to Simcoe’s fledgling community. Trees for the mill came from the King’s Mill Reserve, which stretched from the Humber to Royal York Road between The Queensway and Government Road near Dundas. The King’s Mill was one of three mill-seats located near the Humber’s Dundas Street crossing (Lambton Mills), the other two being William Gamble’s mill, built on the west side in 1837 and re- built in 1848, and William Cooper’s saw and grist mills, built on the east side after 1806 (Etobicoke Historical Board 1985:37-40). In addition, numerous mills were built by the Holly family on both sides of the Humber north of Dundas Street, and these date to about 1810. By 1878, there were 26 grist mills and 37 saw mills along the Humber.

By 1840, York and Etobicoke Townships had passed through the forest clearing stage and had emerged into an era of settled agriculture. Wheat production throughout Upper Canada increased during this time, peaking during the Crimean War (1853-1856) when Russian supplies were cut off. Coinciding with this boom period was the purchase of new labour-saving farm machinery and the construction of substantial brick homes and large frame barns. When post-war wheat production declined, dairying replaced it in importance, with factory cheese being introduced in the 1860s.

Agricultural production in general was, however, adversely affected by the completion of the Canadian Pacific Railway across the Prairies in 1883. After this time, farmers instituted a regular policy of mixed farming, including barley, oats, dairy and livestock, plus orchards and tender fruit production where practicable. Nevertheless, between 1880 and 1900 the ratio of rural to urban dwellers shifted dramatically, with 80% of the population living in rural areas in 1880 compared to 60% only two decades later (Hayes 1974:112). Commercial and industrial development continued to intensify into the second half of the nineteenth century. The decrease in the rural population and the rise of the urban city of Toronto was accompanied by the loss of some industries as well as some village trades and occupations. The ship building that had been carried out at the mouths of Highland Creek and the Rouge and Humber Rivers was suspended and saw mills closed down one by one as timber stocks became depleted.

3.1.3 Transportation

The first transportation routes to be established across the region followed early aboriginal trails, both along the lakeshore and adjacent to various creeks and rivers. This included the Toronto Passage, which connected Lake Ontario (via the Humber River and other waterways and trails) to Georgian Bay. Local roads were initially cleared by the grantees of adjacent land as part of their settlement duties, although the branches and tributaries of the Humber River and the creeks within Etobicoke Township posed a

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

challenge to the gridded road system. Several nineteenth-century maps detail the many jogs and detours necessary to avoid bad crossing points.

After Simcoe established York as the capital of Upper Canada, he commissioned the Queen’s Rangers to build the Dundas Highway (also known as the Governor’s Road) running west to Ancaster and east toward Kingston, hooking up with Kingston Road. This important transportation corridor was intended to provide an overland military route between Lake Ontario, Lake St. Clair and Lake Huron. The road (later known as Dundas Street, now Highway 5) was intended to serve a dual purpose – to support settlement in Upper Canada and as a deterrent to expansionist American interests. Work on the Governor’s Road commenced in 1793 but the rocky and heavily treed landscape made progress slow and the route was still barely passable when Simcoe returned to England in 1796 (Byers et al. 1982). Eventually, Dundas Street served the purpose of supporting settlement in southern Ontario once the colonial government purchased new lands adjacent to it.

Along the lakeshore, the pre-existing trail was widened and improved as a public road by 1798 but there was no bridge across the Humber River at that time (a ferry operated between 1802 and 1815). Lakeshore Road, opened through Etobicoke in 1804, was planked in 1820, and by 1826 a regular stagecoach service ran between York and Niagara. The Toronto Road Company purchased the Lakeshore Road in 1850, turning it into a toll road. Another portage trail leading from Fort York to the north end of Weston was made into a road (most of which is now known as Weston Road), along which flour and other supplies were hauled for the troops during the war of 1812. Albion Road, which stretches from Weston to Claireville, was one of the first roads after Lakeshore to be planked, passing through Thistletown in the 1840s. An early road was depicted on the Goessman map of 1824-1825, which does not correspond to any known road from later historical maps. This road, as shown by Goessman, extended diagonally across Etobicoke approximately from Kipling and Finch at Lot 34 to Lot 40 (at Steeles).

Eventually, villages lost their dependency on river banks when roads were surveyed and improved through the wilderness and crossroads communities sprang up wherever major thoroughfares and concession and line roads intersected. The same was true after 1856 when the construction of railway lines created junction communities adjacent to stops along the route. At first, these crossroads and junction settlement centres existed largely to provide goods and services to travelers on long distance journeys or to aid in the shipment of goods across the province. As resident families settled near the crossroads and created other institutions and amenities of village life, though, factors such as population growth, diversified industries and a consolidation of a strong agricultural base allowed villages to flourish beyond their initially transient economies.

3.1.4 Rail Network Development

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

York Township and the City of Toronto were served by several railway lines during the mid-nineteenth century. They were the Northern Railway, which was fully opened in 1855, the Grand Trunk Railway (GTR) (1856), the Great Western Railway (1855), the Credit Valley Railway (1879), the Toronto and Nipissing Railway (1871), and the Toronto Grey and Bruce (TG & B) Railway (1871). The Great Western entered the township near the mouth of the Humber River at the lakeshore. The Credit Valley line ran through Lambton, while the Grand Trunk and the Toronto, Grey and Bruce line ran through the village of Weston. The Northern Railway ran south through the township, roughly parallel to and midway between Dufferin and Keele Streets. The northern part of the study area was serviced by the Yorkville Loop Line Railway, which was under construction during the late 1870s. It was intended to provide service from the village of Carlton to Scarborough. During the late nineteenth century and into the twentieth century, additional passenger service was provided by the TG & B, which was permitted to use the tracks of the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) railway. Most of these lines of track now constitute part of the Canadian National Railway (CNR) or the CPR, with the exception of the Credit Valley Line. Metrolinx now owns the Weston line.

3.1.5 Nineteenth and Early Twentieth-Century Settlement Centres Near Kitchener Corridor

3.1.5.1 Weston

Weston’s history dates back to the 1790s, when it was a tiny hamlet known simply as ‘The Humber’. Weston's first settlers were mill owners who were attracted to this area by its rich timber resources and the waterpower potential of the Humber River. The Weston name is attributed to the Wadsworth brothers who came to this area in 1828 and purchased a local flour mill and general store. They renamed this community Weston after their ancestral home in Weston-super-Mare, Somerset, England. Weston's early development took place on both sides of the Humber River. However, in 1850, a disastrous flood destroyed the west bank settlement. Weston's fortunes would take a turn for the better when first the Grand Trunk Railway (1856) and then the Toronto Grey and Bruce Railway (1869) began service to this area (Figure 3-3). The railway and associated industry brought great prosperity to Weston. Weston was first incorporated as a village in 1881 and then as a town in 1915 (Figures 3-4 to 3-7). Weston remained an independent town until 1967, when it amalgamated with the former Borough of York. In 1998 York amalgamated with the City of Toronto.

3.1.5.2 Mount Dennis

This community developed east of Jane Street south of Eglinton Avenue to the west of Weston Road (Figures 3-4 and 3-6). It was named in honour of John Dennis, an early landowner. In 1890, the Sawden map of Toronto indicated that the neighbourhood was bounded by Lambton Avenue, while Jane Street

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

remained unopened north of this point (Thomas 1992:45ff). One of the major corporations located in the Mount Dennis area in 1916 was Kodak. A number of landmark structures were constructed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, including:

 Schools: Dennis Avenue School (1893), Bala Avenue School (1913), and Harwood School (1919)

 Churches: Pearen Memorial United Church (congregation established in 1902 and the church built in the 1920s); Mount Dennis Baptist Church (congregation established in 1908 and the church built in 1923); Mount Dennis (Chalmers) United Church (congregation founded in 1913, and the church was located at the corner of Dennis and Guestville Avenues between 1916 and 1921); Our Lady of Victory (Roman Catholic) Church (1923); Church of the Good Shepherd (Anglican) (built between 1912 and 1919); and the Harwood United Church which joined with the Pearen Memorial Church in 1962

 Brickyards: Brown’s Brickyard (established in the 1840s or 1850s); McMaster Brickyard (ca. 1911- 1915); and Hind’s Brickyard (ca. 1900-1927).

3.1.5.3 Silverthorne

This neighbourhood was situated roughly between Rogers Road, Keele Street, Eglinton Avenue and Caledonia Road. The land was bought in 1825 by the Silverthorn family, who were descended from Loyalists who settled at Niagara Falls, Ontario in the late eighteenth century, and named after Francis Silverthorn who became the family patriarch following the death of his father. This farm lot was marked as the “Silverthorn Estate” on a map of 1891, but the area was not fully developed until the early twentieth century. The community grew in three stages. The first area to be built up was at the southern edge, which was incorporated into the village of Carlton. The next area to be developed was the middle section called “Silverthorn Heights” near present day Dunraven Drive, and the last area to be developed around 1913 was at the north end of the community. Long referred to as “the Bush,” this final area was later renamed “Silverthorn Grove.” Probably due to the intervention of the Great War, this area was not heavily built up until the 1920s (Thomas, 1992:67ff). A photograph taken in 1919 of Commodore Avenue, situated near the north end of Silverthorn, shows a scattering of houses and shanties, dirt roads, wooden sidewalks and (as yet) undecayed tree stumps. Municipal services were not extended into Silverthorn until the 1920s. One of the major businesses located in Silverthorne was the Ontario Paving Company. This business was situated on the east side of Weston Road, south of Rogers Road, opposite Cayuga and Seneca Avenues. This company commenced operations in 1894 and was the only paving brick company in Ontario. In 1906, it produced five million paving bricks and four million building bricks, as well as sewer and sidewalk bricks. Bricks produced at this factory were used to pave the Union Stockyards, the tracks of the Toronto Street Railway, and city streets. William Pears was elected president and general manager of the company in 1902 (Toronto Historical Association 2001).

3.1.5.4 Carlton

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Further research is necessary in order to determine the exact date that Carlton was formally established as a village, and the precise boundaries of the village are unknown. The village appears to have occupied parts of Lots 34 and 35, Concession 2 and 3 WYS, at its greatest extent. The community was in existence as early as 1851, as indicated on the Browne map. Part of the west half of the village bounded by St. Clair, Ford, Connolly and Laughton Streets were subdivided by Samuel Thompson between 1855 and 1856. Registered Plans of Subdivision 111 (1855) and 141 (1856) show the layout of streets, as well as the position of Thompson’s own home located south of Connolly and west of Laughton. The house was described in 1896 by John Ross Robertson as a “large rough cast house (since destroyed by fire) standing...in a spacious garden” (Robertson 1896:734). The village contained a gravel ridge that was referred to by an inhabitant in 1853 as the “Carlton Ocean Beach.” In removing some of this gravel his workmen discovered Indian relics and massive animal bones and horns (Lizars 1913:128). It is of interest to note that a map dated 1868 shows a “gravel pit” north of Davenport Road and east of Old Weston Road that corroborates the statements made by Lizars (Sketch Sheets 1868). The population of Carlton was 150 persons in 1873, and the village possessed a telegraph office by that time (Figure 3-1). (Lovell 1873:78) The County Directory for 1876 listed the following names as residents of Carlton: George Townsley (brick maker) Lot 35; James Burfield (brick maker) Lot 35; David Boland (labourer) Lot 34; J. Brown (storekeeper) Lots 34-35 (Fisher and Taylor 1876:156-7, 169). The village contained at least two churches during the nineteenth century. One was St. Mark’s (Anglican), which was built on Lots 11-12 on land donated by Samuel Thompson in 1860, north of Connolly and east of Ford Street. The church was actually constructed the previous year in the “Early English style” and measured 80 by 30 feet. The other was Davenport Methodist, located on the north side of Davenport Road west of the Canadian Northern Railway (CNR) line. This congregation was established in the 1840s and built their church, “a handsome brick edifice,” in 1857. A map of 1886 showed a burial ground attached to the back (north side) of the church, although it is not known if this cemetery was utilized and for how long. A public school was constructed immediately to the east of the Methodist church. A hotel, barn and tollhouse were in existence at the corner of the Old Weston (Plank) Road and St. Clair Avenue in 1857 (Plan of Subdivision 1858). The hotel was originally named the Durham Heifer Hotel, but was renamed the Carlton Hotel when it was bought by Francis Heydon in 1867. It was replaced in 1890 by the 25 room Heydon House, which contained a dining room and ballroom. The tollgate was kept by Henry Royce. Brown notes that the village also contained a carriage factory run by John Alfred Bull, a blacksmith shop owned by Peter Mallaby, the Brown Inn, which was run by a family of ex-slaves from Maryland, and Townsley’s brickyard (Brown 1997:52-53).

In the early twentieth century, it was recorded that when the village of Carlton was laid out in the 1850s, “some of this district was still dense forest, some was only partially cleared, while all of the cultivated portions had been forest land less than two years previous. The only trades carried on were brick making and lime burning, and these only to a very limited extent” (Robertson 1904:113, 420). The Carlton Station was constructed ca. 1856 on the east side of the Grand Trunk Railway (GTR) line nearly opposite to the point of intersection of the old Weston Road and Davenport Road. A green space named Carlton Park had been developed by 1886 bounded by Edwin, Franklin and Edith Avenues south of the Canadian

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Pacific Railway (CPR) line. In 1886, the community was of sufficient importance to warrant an entry in the City Directory (Polk 1886:845).

3.1.5.5 West Toronto Junction

This community was, in essence, an amalgam of portions of farm lots, subdivision developments, and parts of the villages of Carlton and Davenport that were incorporated together as a village in 1888 and then as a town in 1889. Prior to incorporation as a village, the community was already known as “West Toronto Junction” and was described in the 1886 City Directory (Polk 1886:863-865). Factors that contributed to the growth of “the Junction” included the transportation network provided for goods by the intersection of several railways in the Keele-Dundas area, and the progressive vision for the settlement provided by its’ leading citizen, Daniel Webster Clendennan. Municipal services such as waterworks had been constructed in the town as early as 1885-1887. In 1904, the town passed a prohibition by-law which was not repealed by the City of Toronto until the 1990s. In 1908, the short-lived town of West Toronto Junction was annexed to the City of Toronto (Brown, 1997:188-191; Rice, 1986; Robertson 1896:733ff). One of the major businesses in the West Toronto Junction was the Junction Stockyards. This business was established at the intersection of Keele Street and St. Clair Avenue in 1902 as the Union Stockyard Limited, and was created in part due to the influence of the Rowntree family. In 1944, the name was changed to the Ontario Public Stockyards, and this later became the Ontario Stockyards. In 1903, the stockyards, built out of frame and timber construction with brick paving, opened on the southwest corner of the intersection. The stockyards were completely destroyed by fire on August 25, 1908, but they were quickly replaced by concrete structures. The business expanded in 1913-14 and 1917-18, although it was utilized by the army as a corral for horses during World War I. The stockyards were serviced by railroad spur-lines, and attracted Gunn’s packing house, the Harris Abattoir, Maple Leaf, and Swift’s Canadian. When the yards were closed in 1994, the site was razed and the CNR siding and tracks were removed (Toronto Historical Association 2001).

3.1.5.6 Brockton

The name of this village was formerly “Lippincott”. A post office was established here on June 1, 1855, with John Henderson appointed as the first postmaster. The name was officially changed to “Brockton” in December 1865 (Figure 3-1). In 1873, Brockton contained a rope factory and several stores. The population was estimated to number approximately 250. It was annexed to the City in 1889 (Crossby 1873:48.)

3.1.5.7 Parkdale

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Parkdale, formerly part of the village of Brockton, was described in 1885 as a “recently built up suburb, possessing a separate municipal organization” (Figure 3-1). It was “beautifully situated, overlooking the lakeshore, and contain[ed] a number of handsome villa residences” (History of Toronto 1885:86-87). Parkdale soon became a fashionable residential area for those families who did not wish to reside within downtown Toronto. Some manufactories were attracted to this area, with a resultant increase in the village population. In 1881, the population was approximately 1,170 but it was estimated to number 2,700 by 1885. The village was served by seven sub-post offices, the earliest of which was established in January 1908 with H.E. Gibbard as the first postmaster. The other offices were opened in 1912, 1918 and 1954 at locations on King Street, Queen Street, Dundas Street, Close Avenue, Springhurst Avenue and Roncesvalles Avenue. Most of these offices closed between 1965 and 1967.2Parkdale was annexed to the City in 1889 (History of Toronto 1885:86-87).

2 Sub-post office 148, located on Queen Street, closed as early as June 1933. Those outlets located on 2465 Dundas Street and 233 Roncesvalles closed in 1956 and 1960 respectively (www.archivianet.ca).

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Figure 3-1: Portion of the UP Express Corridor and 150 m Buffer Overlaid on 1878 Map of York Township Source: 1878 Illustrated Historic Atlas of York County

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Figure 3-2: Portion of the UP Express Corridor and 150 m Buffer Overlaid on 1878 Map of Etobicoke Township Source: 1878 Illustrated Historic Atlas of York County

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Figure 3-3: Portion of the UP Express Corridor and 150 m Buffer Overlaid on 1878 Map of Village of Weston Source: 1878 Illustrated Historic Atlas of York County

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Figure 3-4: Portion of the UP Express Corridor and 150 m Buffer Overlaid on 1909 Topographic Map. Source: Department of Militia and Defense, 1909

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Figure 3-5: Portion of the UP Express Corridor and 150 m Buffer Overlaid on 1909 Topographic Map. Source: Department of Militia and Defense, 1909

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Figure 3-6: Portion of the UP Express Corridor and 150 m Buffer Overlaid on 1931 Topographic Map. Source: Department of National Defense, 1931.

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Figure 3-7: Portion of the UP Express Corridor and 150 m Buffer Overlaid on 1951 Topographic Map. Source: Department of National Defense, 1951

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

3.2 Identified Cultural Heritage Resources

For the purposes of identifying cultural heritage resources within the UP Express corridor, the following resources were consulted:

 City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties  City of Mississauga Heritage Register  Mississauga Culture on the Map  Existing Conditions and Impact Assessment Report: Transit Project Assessment Process; Georgetown South Service Expansion and Union-Pearson Rail Link, City of Toronto, City of Mississauga and City of Brampton Ontario (Unterman McPhail Associates, July 2009)  Heritage Bridge Assessment: Georgetown South Service Expansion Union-Pearson Rail Link, Railway Subways Queen Street West, Brock Avenue, Lansdowne Avenue, Bloor Street West, and Dupont, City of Toronto, Ontario (Golder Associated, June 2011).  Heritage Impact Assessment: St. Clair Subway to Highway 27 Overpass, Seven Subways, Two Railway Underpasses, One Railway Overpass, Two Residences and Two Cultural Heritage Landscapes; Georgetown South Service Expansion and Union Pearson Rail Link, City of Toronto, Ontario (Golder Associates, June 2011).  Kodak Building #9: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (Final). Prepared for Metrolinx by Taylor Hazell Architects. Electronic copy on file at ASI.  Relevant local history sources and historic maps from the nineteenth and twentieth century.

These documents were reviewed for the purposes of compiling a preliminary inventory of cultural heritage resources potentially affected by the electrification of the UP Express service. Studies conducted as part of previous environmental assessment studies for the Georgetown South Service Expansion were reviewed to identify potential and known cultural heritage resources. In cases were these studies determined that a previously identified feature was confirmed to not retain significant cultural heritage value based on comprehensive evaluation methods, these findings were considered and incorporated into the present report. Municipal heritage inventories from the City of Toronto and City of Mississauga were also reviewed to confirm accuracy of data presented in studies conducted as part of previous environmental assessments with regard to properties which have been listed on municipal registers and/or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. As part of this desk-top analysis, the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties was reviewed in detail to generate a cartographic illustration of heritage sensitive areas within a 150 m buffer of the UP Express corridor (see Figure 3-10). Following compilation of this data, a field review was conducted to confirm the location and presence of features previously identified in related environmental assessment studies and to identify additional cultural heritage resources.

For site-specific infrastructure (i.e. paralleling stations and maintenance facilities), local history resources, historic mapping, data contained on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties, and previously conducted heritage studies were reviewed to confirm the presence of cultural heritage resources within proposed sites. Following, field surveys were conducted to collect data necessary to generate an existing

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

conditions description of each site proposed for specific infrastructure. Full property access was provided on sites proposed for use as a paralleling station (10 Ordnance Street) and maintenance facility (50 Resources Road). Windshield surveys were conducted in relation to sites proposed for northern and southern TPSs (175 City View Drive and 22-24 Magnificent Road/185 Judson Street respectively). Given that extensive heritage investigations have been undertaken on the site proposed for use as a switching station (3500 Eglinton Avenue West), existing reports prepared by Taylor Hazell Architects in 2012 were reviewed to compile and existing conditions description and identify cultural heritage resource sensitivities.

The following sections provide the results of desk-top data analysis and field review. Mapping of identified cultural heritage resources is presented in Section 3.3.

3.2.1 West of Union Station Train Shed to Bloor Station

The portion of the UP Express corridor situated between Union Station and Bloor Station travels through the historic core of the City Toronto and through nineteenth-century settlement centres, some of which became sizeable villages and towns prior to annexation to the City of Toronto at the end of the nineteenth century. It should also be noted that the UP Express corridor itself travels along nineteenth-century rail right-of-ways, part of which were established between the 1850s and 1908 (Andrea 1997). As illustrated on Figure 3-10 this portion of the corridor retains numerous properties that have been listed on the municipal heritage inventory or designated under Part IV or Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) (see Table 1). Specifically, this portion of the study corridor and the Kitchener rail corridor itself pass through three known or potential Heritage Conservation Districts (HCD) which include the Union Station and Draper HCDs (designated under Part V of the OHA) and the proposed West Queen West and Liberty Village HCDs which have been authorized for study by the City of Toronto.

Based on the results of previously conducted environmental studies and recent field survey there are a total of 28 cultural heritage resources located immediately adjacent to the rail corridor and nine within the Union Station Train Shed to Bloor Station section. Table 2 presents preliminary inventory information of these features. As project designs and scope of potential impacts are developed in greater detail, this inventory will be supplemented with additional information regarding potentially impacted cultural heritage resources.

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 1: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Within 150 m of the UP Express Corridor (Union Station Train Shed to Bloor Station) CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto Heritage City of Address Street Name Type of No. Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N) 1 Ward: 14 Status: Listed List Date: May 02, Y 62 BROCK AVE LISTED 1983 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Residential Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Donald Campbell House; 1889-90 -adopted by City Council on May 2, 1983 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 62 BROCK AVE 6 Address: 130 EAST LIBERTY ST Ward: 19 Y 130 EAST LIBERTY LISTED Status: Listed List Date: Feb 02, 2006 Intention ST Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Miscellaneous Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Liberty Storage Warehouse, 1929, Kaplan and Sprachman Architects, incorporating part of Central Prison Paint Shop, c.1879, attr. Kivas Tully Provincial Architect; adopted by City Council on Jan 31, Feb 1 & 2, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 130 EAST LIBERTY ST

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 1: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Within 150 m of the UP Express Corridor (Union Station Train Shed to Bloor Station) CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto Heritage City of Address Street Name Type of No. Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N) 6 Address: 132 EAST LIBERTY ST Ward: 19 Y 132 EAST LIBERTY LISTED Status: Listed List Date: Feb 02, 2006 Intention ST Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Miscellaneous Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Liberty Storage Warehouse, 1929, Kaplan and Sprachman Architects, incorporating part of Central Prison Paint Shop, c.1879, attr. Kivas Tully Provincial Architect; adopted by City Council on Jan 31, Feb 1 & 2, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 132 EAST LIBERTY ST 6 Address: 132 A EAST LIBERTY ST Ward: 19 Y 132A EAST LIBERTY LISTED Status: Listed List Date: Feb 02, 2006 Intention ST Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Miscellaneous Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Liberty Storage Warehouse, 1929, Kaplan and Sprachman Architects, incorporating part of Central Prison Paint Shop, c.1879, attr. Kivas Tully Provincial Architect; adopted by City Council on Jan 31, Feb 1 & 2, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 132 EAST LIBERTY ST

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 1: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Within 150 m of the UP Express Corridor (Union Station Train Shed to Bloor Station) CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto Heritage City of Address Street Name Type of No. Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N) 6 Address: 70 LYNN WILLIAMS ST Ward: 19 Y 70 LYNN LISTED Status: Listed List Date: Feb 02, 2006 Intention WILLIAMS ST Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Miscellaneous Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Liberty Storage Warehouse, 1929, Kaplan and Sprachman Architects, incorporating part of Central Prison Paint Shop, c.1879, attr. Kivas Tully Provincial Architect; adopted by City Council on Jan 31, Feb 1 & 2, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 130 EAST LIBERTY ST 6 Address: 86 LYNN WILLIAMS ST Ward: 19 Y 86 LYNN LISTED Status: Listed List Date: Feb 02, 2006 Intention WILLIAMS ST Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Miscellaneous Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Liberty Storage Warehouse, 1929, Kaplan and Sprachman Architects, incorporating part of Central Prison Paint Shop, c.1879, attr. Kivas Tully Provincial Architect; adopted by City Council on Jan 31, Feb 1 & 2, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 130 EAST LIBERTY ST

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 1: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Within 150 m of the UP Express Corridor (Union Station Train Shed to Bloor Station) CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto Heritage City of Address Street Name Type of No. Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N) 6 Address: 100 LYNN WILLIAMS ST Ward: 19 Y 100 LYNN LISTED Status: Listed List Date: Feb 02, 2006 Intention WILLIAMS ST Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Miscellaneous Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Liberty Storage Warehouse, 1929, Kaplan and Sprachman Architects, incorporating part of Central Prison Paint Shop, c.1879, attr. Kivas Tully Provincial Architect; adopted by City Council on Jan 31, Feb 1 & 2, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 130 EAST LIBERTY ST 6 Address: 22 WESTERN BATTERY RD Ward: Y 22 WESTERN LISTED 19 Status: Listed List Date: Feb 02, 2006 BATTERY RD Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Miscellaneous Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Liberty Storage Warehouse, 1929, Kaplan and Sprachman Architects, incorporating part of Central Prison Paint Shop, c.1879, attr. Kivas Tully Provincial Architect; adopted by City Council on Jan 31, Feb 1 & 2, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 130 EAST LIBERTY ST

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 1: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Within 150 m of the UP Express Corridor (Union Station Train Shed to Bloor Station) CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto Heritage City of Address Street Name Type of No. Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N) 6 Address: 80 LYNN WILLIAMS ST Ward: 19 Y 80 LYNN LISTED Status: Listed List Date: Feb 02, 2006 Intention WILLIAMS ST Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Miscellaneous Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Liberty Storage Warehouse, 1929, Kaplan and Sprachman Architects, incorporating part of Central Prison Paint Shop, c.1879, attr. Kivas Tully Provincial Architect; adopted by City Council on Jan 31, Feb 1 & 2, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 130 EAST LIBERTY ST 11 Address: 61 HANNA AVE Ward: 19 Status: Y 61 HANNA AVE LISTED Listed List Date: Jul 22, 2004 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Hinde and Dauch Paper Company Factory; adopted by City Council on July 20, 21, 22, 2004. As of August 2010, this property is now known as 61 Hanna Ave (formerly known as 43 Hanna Ave). Demolition Date: Primary Address: 61 HANNA AVE

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 1: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Within 150 m of the UP Express Corridor (Union Station Train Shed to Bloor Station) CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto Heritage City of Address Street Name Type of No. Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N) 11 Address: 75 HANNA AVE Ward: 19 Status: Y 75 HANNA AVE LISTED Listed List Date: Jul 22, 2004 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Hinde and Dauch Paper Company Factory; adopted by City Council on July 20, 21, 22, 2004. As of August 2010, this property is now know as 61 Hanna Ave (formerly known as 43 Hanna Ave). Demolition Date: Primary Address: 61 HANNA AVE 17 Address: 1137 KING ST W Ward: 19 Status: Y 1137 KING ST W LISTED Listed List Date: Mar 06, 2007 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Commercial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Gowans, Kent and Company Warehouse, 1912; adopted by City Council on March 5, 6, 2007 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 109 ATLANTIC AVE 23 Address: 1 SNOOKER ST Ward: 19 Status: Y 1 SNOOKER ST LISTED Listed List Date: Jun 16, 2005 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Industrial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Brunswick-Balke- Collender Factory, 1913, Henry Simpson Architect; adopted by City Council on June 14,15, 16, 2005 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 40 HANNA AVE

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 1: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Within 150 m of the UP Express Corridor (Union Station Train Shed to Bloor Station) CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto Heritage City of Address Street Name Type of No. Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N) 40 Address: 91 NIAGARA ST Ward: 19 Status: Y 91 NIAGARA ST LISTED Listed List Date: Jul 19, 2005 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Industrial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: National Casket Company Factories; east end, 1884, William Wallace Blair Architect; directly west 1886; 2 westernmost buildings 1887l; adopted by City Council on June 14, 15, 16, 2005 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 89 NIAGARA ST 40 Address: 95 NIAGARA ST Ward: 19 Status: Y 95 NIAGARA ST LISTED Listed List Date: Jul 19, 2005 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Industrial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: National Casket Company Factories; east end, 1884, William Wallace Blair Architect; directly west 1886; 2 westernmost buildings 1887l; adopted by City Council on June 14, 15, 16, 2005 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 89 NIAGARA ST

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 1: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Within 150 m of the UP Express Corridor (Union Station Train Shed to Bloor Station) CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto Heritage City of Address Street Name Type of No. Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N) 40 Address: 97 NIAGARA ST Ward: 19 Status: Y 97 NIAGARA ST LISTED Listed List Date: Jul 19, 2005 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Industrial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: National Casket Company Factories; east end, 1884, William Wallace Blair Architect; directly west 1886; 2 westernmost buildings 1887l; adopted by City Council on June 14, 15, 16, 2005 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 89 NIAGARA ST 40 Address: 99 NIAGARA ST Ward: 19 Status: Y 99 NIAGARA ST LISTED Listed List Date: Jul 19, 2005 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Industrial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: National Casket Company Factories; east end, 1884, William Wallace Blair Architect; directly west 1886; 2 westernmost buildings 1887l; adopted by City Council on June 14, 15, 16, 2005 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 89 NIAGARA ST

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 1: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Within 150 m of the UP Express Corridor (Union Station Train Shed to Bloor Station) CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto Heritage City of Address Street Name Type of No. Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N) 40 Address: 101 NIAGARA ST Ward: 19 Status: Y 101 NIAGARA ST LISTED Listed List Date: Jul 19, 2005 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Industrial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: National Casket Company Factories; east end, 1884, William Wallace Blair Architect; directly west 1886; 2 westernmost buildings 1887l; adopted by City Council on June 14, 15, 16, 2005 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 89 NIAGARA ST 40 Address: 103 NIAGARA ST Ward: 19 Status: Y 103 NIAGARA ST LISTED Listed List Date: Jul 19, 2005 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Industrial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: National Casket Company Factories; east end, 1884, William Wallace Blair Architect; directly west 1886; 2 westernmost buildings 1887l; adopted by City Council on June 14, 15, 16, 2005 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 89 NIAGARA ST

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 1: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Within 150 m of the UP Express Corridor (Union Station Train Shed to Bloor Station) CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto Heritage City of Address Street Name Type of No. Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N) 40 Address: 109 NIAGARA ST Ward: 19 Status: Y 109 NIAGARA ST LISTED Listed List Date: Jul 19, 2005 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Industrial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: National Casket Company Factories; east end, 1884, William Wallace Blair Architect; directly west 1886; 2 westernmost buildings 1887l; adopted by City Council on June 14, 15, 16, 2005 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 89 NIAGARA ST 40 Address: 101 A NIAGARA ST Ward: 19 Y 101A NIAGARA ST LISTED Status: Listed List Date: Jul 19, 2005 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Industrial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: National Casket Company Factories; east end, 1884, William Wallace Blair Architect; directly west 1886; 2 westernmost buildings 1887l; adopted by City Council on June 14, 15, 16, 2005 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 89 NIAGARA ST

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 1: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Within 150 m of the UP Express Corridor (Union Station Train Shed to Bloor Station) CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto Heritage City of Address Street Name Type of No. Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N) 40 Address: 89 NIAGARA ST Ward: 19 Status: Y 89-109 NIAGARA ST LISTED Listed List Date: Jul 19, 2005 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Industrial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: National Casket Company Factories; east end, 1884, William Wallace Blair Architect; directly west 1886; 2 westernmost buildings 1887l; adopted by City Council on June 14, 15, 16, 2005 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 89 NIAGARA ST 40 Address: 89 NIAGARA ST Ward: 19 Status: Y 89 NIAGARA ST LISTED Listed List Date: Jul 19, 2005 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Industrial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: National Casket Company Factories; east end, 1884, William Wallace Blair Architect; directly west 1886; 2 westernmost buildings 1887l; adopted by City Council on June 14, 15, 16, 2005 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 89 NIAGARA ST 41 Address: 135 NIAGARA ST Ward: 19 Status: Y 135 NIAGARA ST LISTED Listed List Date: Jun 16, 2005 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Residential Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of Niagara Terraces, 1890; adopted by City Council on June 14, 15, 16, 2005 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 135 NIAGARA ST

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 1: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Within 150 m of the UP Express Corridor (Union Station Train Shed to Bloor Station) CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto Heritage City of Address Street Name Type of No. Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N) 41 Address: 137 NIAGARA ST Ward: 19 Status: Y 137 NIAGARA ST LISTED Listed List Date: Jun 16, 2005 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Residential Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of Niagara Terraces, 1890; adopted by City Council on June 14, 15, 16, 2005 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 135 NIAGARA ST 41 Address: 139 NIAGARA ST Ward: 19 Status: Y 139 NIAGARA ST LISTED Listed List Date: Jun 16, 2005 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Residential Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of Niagara Terraces, 1890; adopted by City Council on June 14, 15, 16, 2005 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 135 NIAGARA ST 41 Address: 139 1/2 NIAGARA ST Ward: 19 Y 139 1/2 NIAGARA ST LISTED Status: Listed List Date: Jun 16, 2005 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Residential Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of Niagara Terraces, 1890; adopted by City Council on June 14, 15, 16, 2005 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 135 NIAGARA ST

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 1: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Within 150 m of the UP Express Corridor (Union Station Train Shed to Bloor Station) CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto Heritage City of Address Street Name Type of No. Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N) 41 Address: 141 NIAGARA ST Ward: 19 Status: Y 141 NIAGARA ST LISTED Listed List Date: Jun 16, 2005 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Residential Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of Niagara Terraces, 1890; adopted by City Council on June 14, 15, 16, 2005 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 135 NIAGARA ST 41 Address: 141 1/2 NIAGARA ST Ward: 19 Y 141 1/2 NIAGARA ST LISTED Status: Listed List Date: Jun 16, 2005 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Residential Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of Niagara Terraces, 1890; adopted by City Council on June 14, 15, 16, 2005 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 135 NIAGARA ST 41 Address: 143 NIAGARA ST Ward: 19 Status: Y 143 NIAGARA ST LISTED Listed List Date: Jun 16, 2005 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Residential Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of Niagara Terraces, 1890; adopted by City Council on June 14, 15, 16, 2005 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 135 NIAGARA ST

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 1: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Within 150 m of the UP Express Corridor (Union Station Train Shed to Bloor Station) CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto Heritage City of Address Street Name Type of No. Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N) 41 Address: 145 NIAGARA ST Ward: 19 Status: Y 145 NIAGARA ST LISTED Listed List Date: Jun 16, 2005 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Residential Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of Niagara Terraces, 1890; adopted by City Council on June 14, 15, 16, 2005 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 135 NIAGARA ST 41 Address: 147 NIAGARA ST Ward: 19 Status: Y 147 NIAGARA ST LISTED Listed List Date: Jun 16, 2005 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Residential Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of Niagara Terraces, 1890; adopted by City Council on June 14, 15, 16, 2005 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 135 NIAGARA ST 41 Address: 149 NIAGARA ST Ward: 19 Status: Y 149 NIAGARA ST LISTED Listed List Date: Jun 16, 2005 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Residential Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of Niagara Terraces, 1890; adopted by City Council on June 14, 15, 16, 2005 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 135 NIAGARA ST

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 1: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Within 150 m of the UP Express Corridor (Union Station Train Shed to Bloor Station) CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto Heritage City of Address Street Name Type of No. Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N) 41 Address: 151 NIAGARA ST Ward: 19 Status: Y 151 NIAGARA ST LISTED Listed List Date: Jun 16, 2005 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Residential Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of Niagara Terraces, 1890; adopted by City Council on June 14, 15, 16, 2005 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 135 NIAGARA ST 42 Address: 677 WELLINGTON ST W Ward: 19 Y 677 WELLINGTON LISTED Status: Listed List Date: Jun 16, 2005 Intention ST W Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Industrial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Wellington Destructor, c. 1925, G. W. F. Price City Architect, modified by J.J. Woolnough; adopted by City Council on June 14, 15, 16, 2005 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 677 WELLINGTON ST W 43 Address: 61 FRONT ST W Ward: 28 Status: Y 61 FRONT ST W LISTED Listed List Date: Jun 20, 1973 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Public Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Postal Delivery Bldg., 1913-20, Ross & Macdonald, Hugh G. Jones, John M. Lyle -adopted by City Council on June 20, 1973 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 61 FRONT ST W

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 1: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Within 150 m of the UP Express Corridor (Union Station Train Shed to Bloor Station) CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto Heritage City of Address Street Name Type of No. Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N) 40 Address: 9 TECUMSETH ST Ward: 19 Status: Y 9 TECUMSETH LISTED - SAME Listed List Date: Jul 19, 2005 Intention Date: ST AS 89-109 By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: NIAGARA Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Industrial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: National Casket Company Factories; east end, 1884, William Wallace Blair Architect; directly west 1886; 2 westernmost buildings 1887l; adopted by City Council on June 14, 15, 16, 2005 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 89 NIAGARA ST 2 Ward: 19 Status: Listed List Date: Jun 20, 1973 Y 27 CANNIFF ST PART IV Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Commercial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: SEE 915 King St. West Demolition Date: Primary Address: 100 STRACHAN AVE 2 Ward: 19 Status: Listed List Date: Jun 20, 1973 Y 29 CANNIFF ST PART IV Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Commercial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: SEE 915 King St. West Demolition Date: Primary Address: 100 STRACHAN AVE

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

2 Address: 1 CRAWFORD ST Ward: 19 Status: Y 1 CRAWFORD ST PART IV Listed List Date: Jun 20, 1973 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Commercial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: SEE 915 King St. West Demolition Date: Primary Address: 100 STRACHAN AVE 2 Address: 10 DOURO ST Ward: 19 Status: Y 10 DOURO ST PART IV Listed List Date: Jun 20, 1973 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Commercial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: SEE 915 King St. West Demolition Date: Primary Address: 100 STRACHAN AVE

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 1: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Within 150 m of the UP Express Corridor (Union Station Train Shed to Bloor Station) CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto Heritage City of Address Street Name Type of No. Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N) 2 Address: 12 DOURO ST Ward: 19 Status: Y 12 DOURO ST PART IV Listed List Date: Jun 20, 1973 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Commercial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: SEE 915 King St. West Demolition Date: Primary Address: 100 STRACHAN AVE 2 Address: 26 DOURO ST Ward: 19 Status: Y 26 DOURO ST PART IV Listed List Date: Jun 20, 1973 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Commercial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: SEE 915 King St. West Demolition Date: Primary Address: 100 STRACHAN AVE 2 Address: 28 DOURO ST Ward: 19 Status: Y 28 DOURO ST PART IV Listed List Date: Jun 20, 1973 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Commercial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: SEE 915 King St. West Demolition Date: Primary Address: 100 STRACHAN AVE

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 1: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Within 150 m of the UP Express Corridor (Union Station Train Shed to Bloor Station) CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto Heritage City of Address Street Name Type of No. Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N) 2 Address: 915 KING ST W Ward: 19 Status: Y 915 KING ST W PART IV Designated Part IV List Date: Jun 20, 1973 Intention Date: Jul 17, 2007 By-Law: 82-2008 Part IV Date: Jan 30, 2008 Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: C540536 Registration Date: Feb 02, 1989 Building Type: Commercial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Massey-Harris, later Massey- Ferguson Ltd., c.1899, E.J. Lennox (also known as 100 Strachan Av.) -adopted by City Council on June 20, 1973 (heritage easement agreement, Registered C540536, February 2, 1989); DESIGNATION BY-LAW ENACTED BY CITY COUNCIL on J Demolition Date: Primary Address: 915 KING ST W 2 Address: 92 STRACHAN AVE Ward: 19 Y 92 STRACHAN PART IV Status: Listed List Date: Jun 20, 1973 Intention AVE Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Commercial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: SEE 915 King St. West Demolition Date: Primary Address: 100 STRACHAN AVE 2 Address: 98 STRACHAN AVE Ward: 19 Y 98 STRACHAN PART IV Status: Listed List Date: Jun 20, 1973 Intention AVE Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Commercial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: SEE 915 King St. West Demolition Date: Primary Address: 100 STRACHAN AVE

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 1: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Within 150 m of the UP Express Corridor (Union Station Train Shed to Bloor Station) CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto Heritage City of Address Street Name Type of No. Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N) 18 Address: 222 LANSDOWNE AVE Ward: 18 Y 222 LANSDOWNE PART IV Status: Designated Part IV List Date: Apr 16, AVE 2002 Intention Date: By-Law: 436-2003 Part IV Date: May 23, 2003 Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Commercial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: National Cash Register Company, 1935-36; Thomas E. Muirhead, architect -adopted by City Council on April 16, 17 and 18, 2002; DESIGNATION BY- LAW ENACTED BY CITY COUNCIL on May 23, 2003 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 222 LANSDOWNE AVE 20 Address: 1204 QUEEN ST W Ward: 18 Y 1204 QUEEN ST W PART IV Status: Designated Part IV List Date: Jun 20, 1973 Intention Date: By-Law: 136-2005 369- 2005 Part IV Date: Feb 16, 2005 Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Residential Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Gladstone Hotel, 1889-90, George Miller -adopted by City Council on June 20, 1973; DESIGNATION BY- LAW ENACTED BY CITY COUNCIL on February 16, 2005; BY-LAW AMENDED May 19, 2005 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 1204 QUEEN ST W

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 1: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Within 150 m of the UP Express Corridor (Union Station Train Shed to Bloor Station) CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto Heritage City of Address Street Name Type of No. Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N) 20 Address: 1214 QUEEN ST W Ward: 18 Y 1214 QUEEN ST W PART IV Status: Designated Part IV List Date: Jun 20, 1973 Intention Date: By-Law: 136-2005 369- 2005 Part IV Date: Feb 16, 2005 Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Residential Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Gladstone Hotel, 1889-90, George Miller -adopted by City Council on June 20, 1973; DESIGNATION BY- LAW ENACTED BY CITY COUNCIL on February 16, 2005; BY-LAW AMENDED May 19, 2005 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 1204 QUEEN ST W 24 Address: 363 SORAUREN AVE; Ward: 14 Y 363 SORAUREN PART IV Status: Designated Part IV; List Date: Feb 03, AVE 2005; Intention Date: Jul 17, 2007; By-Law: 81-2008; Part IV Date: Jan 30, 2008; Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A; District Status: N/A; Heritage Easement Ag: AT1013186; Registration Date: Dec 16, 2005; Building Type: Commercial; Architect/Builder:; Construction Yr.; Details: Robert Watson Factory, c.1907; adopted by City Council on February 1, 2, & 3, 2005; Heritage Easement Agreement registered as Instrument No. AT1013186 on Dec. 16, 2005; DESIGNATION BY-LAW ENACTED BY CITY COUNCIL on Jan. 30, 2008; Demolition Date: Primary Address: 363 SORAUREN AVE

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 1: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Within 150 m of the UP Express Corridor (Union Station Train Shed to Bloor Station) CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto Heritage City of Address Street Name Type of No. Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N) 24 Address: 367 SORAUREN AVE Ward: 14 Y 367 SORAUREN PART IV Status: Designated Part IV List Date: Feb 03, AVE 2005 Intention Date: Jul 17, 2007 By-Law: 81- 2008 Part IV Date: Jan 30, 2008 Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: AT1013186 Registration Date: Dec 16, 2005 Building Type: Commercial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Robert Watson Factory, c.1907; adopted by City Council on February 1, 2, & 3, 2005; Heritage Easement Agreement registered as Instrument No. AT1013186 on Dec. 16, 2005; DESIGNATION BY-LAW ENACTED BY CITY COUNCIL on Jan. 30, 2008 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 363 SORAUREN AVE 24 Address: 369 SORAUREN AVE Ward: 14 Y 369 SORAUREN PART IV Status: Designated Part IV List Date: Feb 03, AVE 2005 Intention Date: Jul 17, 2007 By-Law: 81- 2008 Part IV Date: Jan 30, 2008 Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: AT1013186 Registration Date: Dec 16, 2005 Building Type: Commercial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Robert Watson Factory, c.1907; adopted by City Council on February 1, 2, & 3, 2005; Heritage Easement Agreement registered as Instrument No. AT1013186 on Dec. 16, 2005; DESIGNATION BY-LAW ENACTED BY CITY COUNCIL on Jan. 30, 2008 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 363 SORAUREN AVE

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 1: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Within 150 m of the UP Express Corridor (Union Station Train Shed to Bloor Station) CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto Heritage City of Address Street Name Type of No. Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N) 24 Address: 369 SORAUREN AVE Ward: 14 Y 363-369 SORAUREN PART IV Status: Designated Part IV List Date: Feb 03, AVE 2005 Intention Date: Jul 17, 2007 By-Law: 81- 2008 Part IV Date: Jan 30, 2008 Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: AT1013186 Registration Date: Dec 16, 2005 Building Type: Commercial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Robert Watson Factory, c.1907; adopted by City Council on February 1, 2, & 3, 2005; Heritage Easement Agreement registered as Instrument No. AT1013186 on Dec. 16, 2005; DESIGNATION BY-LAW ENACTED BY CITY COUNCIL on Jan. 30, 2008 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 363 SORAUREN AVE 25 Address: 158 STERLING RD Ward: 18 Y 158 STERLING RD PART IV Status: Designated Part IV List Date: Sep 04, 1984 Intention Date: Feb 03, 2005 By-Law: 969-2005 Part IV Date: Nov 24, 2005 Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Commercial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Northern Aluminium Company Building; 1920; J.W. Schreiber, now known as Algoods Building No. 4 -adopted by City Council on Sept. 4 & 7, 1984; DESIGNATION BY-LAW ENACTED BY CITY COUNCIL on Nov. 24, 2005 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 158 STERLING RD

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 1: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Within 150 m of the UP Express Corridor (Union Station Train Shed to Bloor Station) CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto Heritage City of Address Street Name Type of No. Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N) 25 Address: 164 STERLING RD Ward: 18 Y 164 STERLING RD PART IV Status: Designated Part IV List Date: Sep 04, 1984 Intention Date: Feb 03, 2005 By-Law: 969-2005 Part IV Date: Nov 24, 2005 Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Commercial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Northern Aluminium Company Building; 1920; J.W. Schreiber, now known as Algoods Building No. 4 -adopted by City Council on Sept. 4 & 7, 1984; DESIGNATION BY-LAW ENACTED BY CITY COUNCIL on Nov. 24, 2005 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 158 STERLING RD 37 Ward: 28 Status: Designated Part IV List Date: Y 40 BAY ST PART IV Jun 20, 1973 Intention Date: By-Law: 360-90 Part IV Date: Jun 25, 1990 Part V Date: Heritage District: Union Station District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: E047156 Registration Date: Dec 04, 1996 Building Type: Public Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Postal Delivery Bldg., 1939-1941; Charles Dolphin with C.D. Sutherland; addition 1946- 1949 -adopted by City Council on June 20, 1973 Designation By-Law passed by CITY COUNCIL on June 25, 1990 (Heritage Easement Agreement Registered as Instrument No. E047156 on December 4, 1996), located within the Union Station Heritage Conservation District. Demolition Date: Primary Address: 40 BAY ST

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 1: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Within 150 m of the UP Express Corridor (Union Station Train Shed to Bloor Station) CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto Heritage City of Address Street Name Type of No. Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N) 38 Address: 222 BREMNER BLVD Ward: 20 Y 222 BREMNER PART IV Status: Listed List Date: Jun 20, 1973 Intention BLVD Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Miscellaneous Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: John Street Railway Gatehouse, c.1918 -adopted by City Council on June 20, 1973 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 222 BREMNER BLVD 39 Address: 510 FRONT ST W Ward: 20 Status: Y 510 FRONT ST W PART IV Designated Part IV List Date: Mar 15, 1974 Intention Date: By-Law: 758-79 Part IV Date: Sep 17, 1979 Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Commercial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Copp Clark Publishing Co., 1909, 1912, 1924, Wickson& Gregg, -adopted by City Council on March 15, 1974 DESIGNATION BY-LAW PASSED BY CITY COUNCIL on Sept. 17, 1979 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 517 WELLINGTON ST W 35 FORT YORK HCD PART V 36 DRAPER STREET HCD PART V 36 DRAPER STREET HCD Y - PART OF 1 DRAPER ST PART V - DRAPER ST DRAPER ST HCD HCD 36 DRAPER STREET HCD Y - PART OF 3 DRAPER ST PART V - DRAPER ST DRAPER ST HCD HCD 36 DRAPER STREET HCD Y - PART OF 4 DRAPER ST PART V - DRAPER ST DRAPER ST HCD HCD

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 1: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Within 150 m of the UP Express Corridor (Union Station Train Shed to Bloor Station) CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto Heritage City of Address Street Name Type of No. Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N) 36 DRAPER STREET HCD Y - PART OF 5 DRAPER ST PART V - DRAPER ST DRAPER ST HCD HCD 36 DRAPER STREET HCD Y - PART OF 6 DRAPER ST PART V - DRAPER ST DRAPER ST HCD HCD 36 DRAPER STREET HCD Y - PART OF 7 DRAPER ST PART V - DRAPER ST DRAPER ST HCD HCD 36 DRAPER STREET HCD Y - PART OF 8 DRAPER ST PART V - DRAPER ST DRAPER ST HCD HCD 36 DRAPER STREET HCD Y - PART OF 9 DRAPER ST PART V - DRAPER ST DRAPER ST HCD HCD 36 DRAPER STREET HCD Y - PART OF 10 DRAPER ST PART V - DRAPER ST DRAPER ST HCD HCD 36 DRAPER STREET HCD Y - PART OF 11 DRAPER ST PART V - DRAPER ST DRAPER ST HCD HCD 36 DRAPER STREET HCD Y - PART OF 12 DRAPER ST PART V - DRAPER ST DRAPER ST HCD HCD 32 UNION STATION HCD PART V - UNION HCD UNION STATION HCD Y - PART OF 140 BAY ST PART V - UNION HCD UNION HCD 32 UNION STATION HCD Y - PART OF 142 BAY ST PART V - UNION HCD UNION HCD 32 UNION STATION HCD Y - PART OF 55 FRONT ST W PART V - UNION HCD UNION HCD 32 UNION STATION HCD Y - PART OF 65 FRONT ST W PART V - UNION HCD UNION HCD

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 2: Cultural Heritage Resources Previously Identified as Part of Environmental Assessment Studies (Union Station Train Shed to Bloor Station) CHR Location Feature Description Source of Photograph(s) No. Identification/ Level of Protection 1 BATHURST BATHURSTSTREETB LISTED/2009 EA STREET RIDGE CARRYING STUDY SOUTH OF BATHURST OVER FRONT RAIL LINE, SOUTH OF FRONT STREET

2 STRACHAN STRACHAN AVENUE 2009 EA STUDY/ No photo available; crossing under construction at AVENUE LEVEL CROSSING; EVALUATED AS time of field survey (June 2012). SOUTH OF AT GRADE RAIL BEING OF LOCAL WELLINGTON CROSSING LOCATED SIGNIFICANCE STREET BETWEEN (GOLDER 2011) WELLINGTON AND ORDANCE 3 KING STREET KING STREET WEST LISTED/2009 EA WEST, RAILWAY SUBWAY; STUDY BETWEEN 1888 BRIDGE ATLANTIC CARRYING RAIL AVENUE AND OVER KING ST. SUDBURY STREET

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 2: Cultural Heritage Resources Previously Identified as Part of Environmental Assessment Studies (Union Station Train Shed to Bloor Station) CHR Location Feature Description Source of Photograph(s) No. Identification/ Level of Protection 4 QUEEN QUEEN WEST LISTED/2009 EA STREET AT RAILWAY SUBWAY; STUDY/ DUFFERIN 1897 BRIDGE EVALUATED AS CARRYING RAIL BEING OF LOCAL OVER QUEEN ST. SIG6NIFICANCE (GOLDER 2011)

5 LANSDOWNE LANSDOWNE 2009 EA STUDY/ SOUTH OF AVENUE RAILWAY EVALUATED AS DUNDAS SUBWAY; BRIDGE BEING OF LOCAL STREET CARRYING RAIL SIGNIFICANCE OVER LANSDOWNE (GOLDER 2011)

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 2: Cultural Heritage Resources Previously Identified as Part of Environmental Assessment Studies (Union Station Train Shed to Bloor Station) CHR Location Feature Description Source of Photograph(s) No. Identification/ Level of Protection 6 DUNDAS DUNDAS STREET 2009 EA STUDY WEST AT RAIL WEST RAILWAY CROSSING, OVERHEAD; BRIDGE EAST OF CARRYING DUNDAS SORAUREN OVER RAIL, EAST OF SORAUREN

15 805 FORMER 2009 EA STUDY WELLINGTON INDUSTRIAL ST WEST BUILDNG; JOHN B. SMITH & SONS PAINTED ON SOUTH AND EAST BRICK WALLS 15 805A FORMER 2009 EA STUDY WELLINGTON WAREHOUSE ST WEST CONVERTED TO HOUSING; THREE STOREY BRICK STRUCTURE 16 99 SUDBURY FORMER 2009 EA STUDY ST WAREHOUSE CONVERTED TO OFFICES

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 2: Cultural Heritage Resources Previously Identified as Part of Environmental Assessment Studies (Union Station Train Shed to Bloor Station) CHR Location Feature Description Source of Photograph(s) No. Identification/ Level of Protection 28 N/A HISTORIC RAIL BACKGROUND CORRIDORS RESEARCH/2009 EA STUDY

3.2.1.1 Paralleling Station (Ordnance St.)

The proposed paralleling station is located at the east end of 10 Ordnance Street. The subject property forms part of a triangular shaped parcel bounded by Ordnance Street on its west side, rail lines on its north and south sides, and the divergence between the two rail lines on its east side. The subject parcel is situated north of the Fort York and Garrison Common National Historic Site and Heritage Conservation District.

A review of historic maps and aerial mapping from 1851, 1862, 1890, 1931, and 1947 confirm that the subject parcel has antecedents to the early Town of York and to the Garrison at York and has been heavily used and industrialised since the mid-nineteenth century when the railway came to Toronto. Maps confirm that prior to railway development, the subject parcel was located within an undeveloped area

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

known as the ‘Park Reserves’. By the 1860s, the shape of the subject area had been established by the introduction of the Great Western Railway and the Northern Railway.

A site visit to the subject site was conducted by Archaeological Services Inc. in January 2013. The site was accessed through coordination with Metrolinx; ASI staff was accompanied by a TTR flag person. A pedestrian survey was conducted of the subject site to document the existing conditions of the area and to collect photographic documentation. The site survey revealed that the subject study area consists of a small parcel of land that is currently used to provide ancillary services associated with construction activities that are underway within adjacent lands. The subject site is bounded by chain link fencing supported by block concrete foot walls and contains several structures that include two stationary sheds as well as a portable washroom facility. A large advertising tower is located at the western terminus of the site. Lands to the west and outside the limits of the subject site consist of an earthern berm topped by scrubby vegetation and hardwood tree growth. Five man hole covers are located within the subject site and relate to belowground electrical, water treatment, and signalling infrastructure. A review of these man hole covers confirm that two reflect standard grid designs common among sewer covers extant in wide parts of the City of Toronto. Similarly, two man hole covers, providing access to fibre optic cables relating to signalling operations, feature a hexagonal pattern with an interlocking sprocket plate located in its centre, and featuring an engraved figure eight symbol. A fifth man hole cover is located at the western edge of the site and features a woven design and features the words “ONT”. Based on data provided by Morrison Hershfield, these man hole covers are estimated to date to the last quarter of the twentieth century.

The northern boundary of the site is framed by a spur line, which based on topographic mapping, appears to have been in place since 1931. Lands to the north of the site are characterized by the rear elevations of buildings fronting on to Wellington Street and which include the Toronto Civic Abattoir, first established in 1914, and later purchased by Quality Meat Packers in 1960. The Toronto Civic Abattoir was originally oriented towards the rail lines bounding the subject study area, however, with changes in transportation technology, very few vestiges of this original spatial relationship survive today with the exception of a portion of an original brick façade visible from within the study area.

The south side of the site is also framed by a spur line, which based on aerial mapping, appears to have been established between 1931 and 1947. The Fort York and Garrison Common National Historic Site (NHS) and Heritage Conservation District (HCD) are located south of this spur line and adjacent to the rail right-of-way. The northern limit of the NHS and HCD is defined by the rail corridor that frames the southern perimeter of the subject study area (See Figure 3-8). Although no structural heritage attributes associated with the NHS and HCD are located within the study area, a draft copy of the Heritage Conservation District Plan for Fort York (Catherine Nasmith Architect 2010) was reviewed to determine if any significant views identified as part of the HCD Plan may be impacted by proposed works on the subject site. This review confirmed that several views identified in the HCD Plan intersect with the subject site for development. These views include those identified as views 1C, 4, 9E, and 20 (See Figure 3-9). Descriptions of these views are provided in the draft HCD Plan and each reference non-contributory

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

elements, or negative elements that currently characterize the view. These include modern elements that can be seen from a distance such as hydro pylon infrastructure, billboards, and the Toronto Civic Abattoir/Quality Meat Packers.

Although no specific cultural heritage resources were identified within the area proposed for development of a paralleling station, its proximity to the Fort York HCD and NHS make it an area that has the potential to impact the setting of this heritage resource through the introduction of new infrastructure. The draft HCD Plan identifies several views that should be conserved and/or improved. As part of future site planning activities, attention should be paid to minimizing the visual impact of the paralleling station through siting, height, mass, colour, and introduction of visually sympathetic screening devices.

Figure 3-8: Excerpt from draft HCD Study and Plan showing limits of the designation. Source: Catherin Nasmith Architects 2010

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Figure 3-9: Excerpt from draft HCD Study and Plan showing identified views. Source: Catherin Nasmith Architects 2010

3.2.2 Bloor Station to Weston Station

The portion of the UP Express corridor, situated between Bloor Station to Weston Station travels through nineteenth-century settlement centres that first developed as separate communities, part of York Township, and which were later annexed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth-centuries to the growing City of Toronto. It should also be noted that the Kitchener corridor itself travels along nineteenth- century rail right-of-ways, part of which were established between the 1850s and 1908 (Andrea 1997). As illustrated on Figure 3-10 this portion of the corridor retains numerous properties that have been listed on the municipal heritage inventory or designated under Part IV or Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) (see Table 3). Specifically, this portion of the corridor is located in close proximity to two known or potential Heritage Conservation Districts (HCD) which include Phase 1 Weston HCD (designated under Part V of the OHA) and the proposed Phase 2 Weston HCD (authorized for study).

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Based on the results of previously conducted environmental studies and recent field survey there are a total of 28 cultural heritage resources located immediately adjacent to the rail corridor and 10 within the Bloor Station to Weston Station section. Table 4 presents preliminary inventory information of these features. As project designs and scope of potential impacts are developed in greater detail, this inventory will be supplemented with additional information regarding potentially impacted cultural heritage resources.

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 3: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Located Within 150 m of UP Express Corridor (Bloor Station to Weston Station) CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto City of Address Street Name Type of No. Heritage Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N)

4 Address: 2694 DUNDAS ST W Ward: 14 Y 2694 DUNDAS ST W LISTED Status: Listed List Date: Apr 14, 1997 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Commercial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Wardell's Monumental Works; 1911 -adopted by City Council on April 14, 1997 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 2694 DUNDAS ST W 4 Address: 2696 DUNDAS ST W Ward: 14 Y 2696 DUNDAS ST W LISTED Status: Listed List Date: Apr 14, 1997 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Commercial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Wardell's Monumental Works; 1911 -adopted by City Council on April 14, 1997 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 2694 DUNDAS ST W 4 Address: 10 OLD WESTON RD Ward: 14 Y 10 OLD WESTON RD LISTED Status: Listed List Date: Apr 14, 1997 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Commercial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Wardell's Monumental Works; 1911 -adopted by City Council on April 14, 1997 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 2694 DUNDAS ST W

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

5 Address: 1655 DUPONT ST Ward: 18 Y 1655 DUPONT ST LISTED Status: Listed List Date: Apr 27, 2006 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Commercial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Viceroy Factory, c.1929; adopted by City Council on April 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 1655 DUPONT ST 7 Address: 30 EDWIN AVE Ward: 18 Y 30 EDWIN AVE LISTED Status: Listed List Date: Jul 09, 1998 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Industrial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Toronto Hydro Junction Substation; 1911, Robert McCallum, City Architect -adopted by City Council on July 8 & 9, 1998 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 30 EDWIN AVE

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

7 Address: 26 RUSKIN AVE Ward: 18 Y 26 RUSKIN AVE LISTED Status: Listed List Date: Jul 09, 1998 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Industrial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Toronto Hydro Junction Substation; 1911, Robert McCallum, City Architect -adopted by City Council on July 8 & 9, 1998 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 30 EDWIN AVE 9 Address: 64 GEORGE ST Ward: 28 Y 64 GEORGE ST LISTED Status: Listed List Date: Jun 20, 1973 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Commercial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Thomas Thompson Building; altered in 1880, N.B. Dick -adopted by City Council on June 20, 1973 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 185 KING ST E 9 Address: 66 GEORGE ST Ward: 28 Y 66 GEORGE ST LISTED Status: Listed List Date: Jun 20, 1973 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Commercial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Thomas Thompson Building; altered in 1880, N.B. Dick -adopted by City Council on June 20, 1973 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 185 KING ST E

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

13 Address: 20 JEROME ST Ward: 14 Y 20 JEROME ST LISTED Status: Listed List Date: Jan 22, 1979 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Residential Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Clay tile house, c.1890 - adopted by City Council on Jan. 22, 1979 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 20 JEROME ST 14 Address: 14 JOHN ST Ward: 11 Status: Y 14 JOHN ST LISTED Listed List Date: Sep 27, 2006 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Jacob Bull House Demolition Date: Primary Address: 14 JOHN ST 19 Address: 8 OLD WESTON RD Ward: 14 Y 8 OLD WESTON RD LISTED Status: Listed List Date: Apr 14, 1997 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Commercial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Wardell's Monumental Works; 1911 -adopted by City Council on April 14, 1997 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 2694 DUNDAS ST W

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

21 Address: 87-89 ROSEMOUNT Y 87 ROSEMOUNT AVE LISTED AVE Ward: 11 Status: Listed List Date: Sep 27, 2006 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: House, 1893 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 87-89 ROSEMOUNT AVE 21 Address: 87-89 ROSEMOUNT Y 89 ROSEMOUNT AVE LISTED AVE Ward: 11 Status: Listed List Date: Sep 27, 2006 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: House, 1893 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 87-89 ROSEMOUNT AVE 22 Address: 125 ROSEMOUNT AVE Ward: Y 125 ROSEMOUNT AVE LISTED 11 Status: Listed List Date: Sep 27, 2006 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: House, 1894 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 125 ROSEMOUNT AVE

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

28 Address: 14 WILLIAM ST Ward: 11 Y 14 WILLIAM ST LISTED Status: Listed List Date: Sep 27, 2006 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: House, 1870 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 14 WILLIAM ST 3 Address: 65 CHURCH ST Ward: 28 Y 65 CHURCH ST PART IV Status: Designated Part IV List Date: Jun 20, 1973 Intention Date: By-Law: 588-77 Part IV Date: Sep 26, 1977 Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Religious Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: St. James' Cathedral, 1853, F.W. Cumberland & Thomas Ridout; addition c.1874, Henry Langley -adopted by City Council on June 20, 1973 DESIGNATION BY-LAW PASSED BY CITY COUNCIL on September 26, 1977 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 106 KING ST E

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

3 Address: 65 CHURCH ST; Ward: 28; Y 65 CHURCH ST PART IV Status: Listed; List Date: Aug 18, 1976; Intention Date; By-Law: N/A; Part IV Date:;Part V Date:; Heritage District: N/A; District Status: N/A; Heritage Easement Ag:; Registration Date:; Building Type: Miscellaneous; Architect/Builder:; Construction Yr.:; Details: War Memorial, St. James' Cathedral, c.1927 by Sproatt & Rolph -adopted by City Council on August 18, 1976; Demolition Date: Primary Address: 106 KING ST E 3 Address: 65 CHURCH ST; Ward: 28; Y 65 CHURCH ST PART IV Status: Designated Part IV; List Date: Jun 20, 1973; Intention Date: By-Law: 1097- 01; Part IV Date: Jul 24, 2001; Part V Date:; Heritage District: N/A; District Status: N/A; Heritage Easement Ag: CA804537; Registration Date: Sep 24, 2003; Building Type: Residential Architect/Builder:; Construction Yr.:; Details: St. James' Parish Hall & Diocesan Centre, 1909, Darling & Pearson; addition, Mathers & Haldenby -adopted by City Council on June 20, 1973 DESIGNATION BY-LAW PASSED BY City Council on July 24, 25, and 26, 2001; Heritage Easement Agreement CA804537, register; Demolition Date:; Primary Address: 106 KING ST E

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

3 Address: 65 CHURCH ST; Ward: 28; Y 65 CHURCH ST PART IV Status: Listed; List Date: Aug 18, 1976; Intention Date:; By-Law: N/A; Part IV Date:; Part V Date:; Heritage District: N/A; District Status: N/A; Heritage Easement Ag:; Registration Date:; Building Type: Miscellaneous; Architect/Builder:; Construction Yr.; Details: War Memorial, St. James' Cathedral, c.1927 by Sproatt & Rolph -adopted by City Council on August 18, 1976; Demolition Date:; Primary Address: 106 KING ST E 8 Address: 18 FERN AVE Ward: 11 Status: Y 18 FERN AVE PART IV Designated Part IV List Date: Intention Date: By-Law: 580-2004 Part IV Date: Jul 22, 2004 Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Residential Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: John Gardhouse House and Stable; 1913; DESIGNATION BY-LAW ENACTED BY CITY COUNCIL on July 22, 2004; located within the Weston West Heritage Conservation District Demolition Date: Primary Address: 18 FERN AVE

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

15 Address: 55 JOHN ST Ward: 20 Status: Y 55 JOHN ST PART IV Designated Part IV List Date: Jul 27, 2006 Intention Date: Jul 27, 2006 By-Law: 867- 2006 Part IV Date: Sep 27, 2006 Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Public Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Metro Hall Council Chambers, 1992; Brisbin Brook Beynon Architects; adopted by City Council on July 25, 26, 27, 2006;DESIGNATION BY-LAW ENACTED BY CITY COUNCIL on Sept. 25, 26, 27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 55 JOHN ST 16 Address: 64 KING ST Ward: 11 Status: Y 64 KING ST PART IV Designated Part IV List Date: Intention Date: By-Law: 2970-78 Part IV Date: Apr 24, 1978 Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Tyrrell House; DESIGNATION BY-LAW PASSED BY YORK CITY COUNCIL on April 24, 1978 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 64 KING ST

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

29 Address: 28 CHURCH ST; Ward: 11; Y 28 CHURCH ST PART V Status: Designated Part V; List Date:; WESTON Intention Date:’ By-Law: 798-2006; Part IV HCD Date:; Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006; Heritage District: Weston District Status:; Heritage Easement Ag:; Registration Date: ; Building Type:; Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006; Demolition Date:; Primary Address: 28 CHURCH ST 29 Address: 30 CHURCH ST; Ward: 11; Y 30 CHURCH ST PART V Status: Designated Part V; List Date:; WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006; Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006; Heritage District: Weston District Status:; Heritage Easement Ag:; Registration Date:; Building Type:; Architect/Builder:; Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006; Demolition Date:; Primary Address: 30 CHURCH ST

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

29 Address: 33 CHURCH ST; Ward: 11; Y 33 CHURCH ST PART V Status: Designated Part V; List Date: ; WESTON Intention Date:; By-Law: 798-2006; Part IV HCD Date:; Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006; Heritage District: Weston; District Status:; Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date:; Building Type:; Architect/Builder:; Construction Yr.:; Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006; Demolition Date:; Primary Address: 33 CHURCH ST 29 Address: 3 CROSS ST Ward: 11 Status: Y 3 CROSS ST PART V Designated Part V List Date: Intention WESTON Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV Date: Part HCD V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 3 CROSS ST 29 Address: 5 CROSS ST; Ward: 11; Status:; Y 5 CROSS ST PART V Designated Part V; List Date: ; Intention WESTON Date:; By-Law: 798-2006; Part IV Date:; HCD Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006; Heritage District: Weston; District Status:; Heritage Easement Ag:; Registration Date:; Building Type:; Architect/Builder:; Construction Yr.:; Details:; Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006; Demolition Date:; Primary Address: 5 CROSS ST

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

29 Address: 11 CROSS ST Ward: 11 Status: Y 11 CROSS ST PART V Designated Part V List Date: Intention WESTON Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV Date: Part HCD V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 11 CROSS ST 29 Address: 13 CROSS ST Ward: 11 Status: Y 13 CROSS ST PART V Designated Part V List Date: Intention WESTON Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV Date: Part HCD V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston West Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 13 CROSS ST 29 Address: 17 CROSS ST Ward: 11 Status: Y 17 CROSS ST PART V Designated Part V List Date: Intention WESTON Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV Date: Part HCD V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 17 CROSS ST

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

29 Address: 21 CROSS ST Ward: 11 Status: Y 21 CROSS ST PART V Designated Part V List Date: Intention WESTON Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV Date: Part HCD V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 21 CROSS ST 29 Address: 23 CROSS ST Ward: 11 Status: Y 23 CROSS ST PART V Designated Part V List Date: Intention WESTON Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV Date: Part HCD V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 23 CROSS ST 29 Address: 24 CROSS ST Ward: 11 Status: Y 24 CROSS ST PART V Designated Part V List Date: Intention WESTON Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV Date: Part HCD V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 24 CROSS ST

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

29 Address: 30 CROSS ST Ward: 11 Status: Y 30 CROSS ST PART V Designated Part V List Date: Intention WESTON Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV Date: Part HCD V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 30 CROSS ST 29 Address: 31 CROSS ST Ward: 11 Status: Y 31 CROSS ST PART V Designated Part V List Date: Intention WESTON Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV Date: Part HCD V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 31 CROSS ST 29 Address: 32 CROSS ST Ward: 11 Status: Y 32 CROSS ST PART V Designated Part V List Date: Intention WESTON Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV Date: Part HCD V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 32 CROSS ST

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

29 Address: 34 CROSS ST Ward: 11 Status: Y 34 CROSS ST PART V Designated Part V List Date: Intention WESTON Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV Date: Part HCD V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 34 CROSS ST 29 Address: 36 CROSS ST Ward: 11 Status: Y 36 CROSS ST PART V Designated Part V List Date: Intention WESTON Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV Date: Part HCD V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 36 CROSS ST 29 Address: 37 CROSS ST Ward: 11 Status: Y 37 CROSS ST PART V Designated Part V List Date: Intention WESTON Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV Date: Part HCD V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 37 CROSS ST

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

29 Address: 38 CROSS ST Ward: 11 Status: Y 38 CROSS ST PART V Designated Part V List Date: Intention WESTON Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV Date: Part HCD V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 38 CROSS ST 29 Address: 40 CROSS ST Ward: 11 Status: Y 40 CROSS ST PART V Designated Part V List Date: Intention WESTON Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV Date: Part HCD V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 40 CROSS ST 29 Address: 41 CROSS ST Ward: 11 Status: Y 41 CROSS ST PART V Designated Part V List Date: Intention WESTON Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV Date: Part HCD V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 41 CROSS ST

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

29 Address: 43 CROSS ST Ward: 11 Status: Y 43 CROSS ST PART V Designated Part V List Date: Intention WESTON Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV Date: Part HCD V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 43 CROSS ST 29 Address: 44 CROSS ST Ward: 11 Status: Y 44 CROSS ST PART V Designated Part V List Date: Intention WESTON Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV Date: Part HCD V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 44 CROSS ST 29 Address: 34 A CROSS ST Ward: 11 Y 34A CROSS ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 34 A CROSS ST

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

29 Address: 20 FERN AVE Ward: 11 Status: Y 20 FERN AVE PART V Designated Part V List Date: Intention WESTON Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV Date: Part HCD V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 20 FERN AVE 29 Address: 21 FERN AVE Ward: 11 Status: Y 21 FERN AVE PART V Designated Part V List Date: Intention WESTON Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV Date: Part HCD V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 21 FERN AVE 29 Address: 26 GEORGE ST Ward: 11 Y 26 GEORGE ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 26 GEORGE ST

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

29 Address: 28 GEORGE ST Ward: 11 Y 28 GEORGE ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 28 GEORGE ST 29 Address: 30 GEORGE ST Ward: 11 Y 30 GEORGE ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 30 GEORGE ST 29 Address: 32 GEORGE ST Ward: 11 Y 32 GEORGE ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 32 GEORGE ST

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

29 Address: 34 GEORGE ST Ward: 11 Y 34 GEORGE ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 34 GEORGE ST 29 Address: 42 GEORGE ST Ward: 11 Y 42 GEORGE ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 42 GEORGE ST 29 Address: 48 GEORGE ST Ward: 11 Y 48 GEORGE ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 48 GEORGE ST

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

29 Address: 49 GEORGE ST Ward: 11 Y 49 GEORGE ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 49 GEORGE ST 29 Address: 57 GEORGE ST Ward: 11 Y 57 GEORGE ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 57 A GEORGE ST 29 Address: 63 GEORGE ST Ward: 11 Y 63 GEORGE ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 63 GEORGE ST

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

29 Address: 67 GEORGE ST Ward: 11 Y 67 GEORGE ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 67 GEORGE ST 29 Address: 69 GEORGE ST Ward: 11 Y 69 GEORGE ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 69 GEORGE ST 29 Address: 26 A GEORGE ST Ward: 11 Y 26A GEORGE ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 26 A GEORGE ST

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

29 Address: 57 GEORGE ST Ward: 11 Y 57A GEORGE ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 57 A GEORGE ST 30 PART 2 OF WESTON HCD POTENTIAL PART V; PHASE 2 OF WESTON HCD UNDER STUDY 31 PART 3 OF WESTON HCD POTENTIAL PART V; PHASE 3 OF WESTON HCD UNDER STUDY

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 4: Cultural Heritage Resources Previously Identified as Part of Environmental Assessment Studies (Bloor Station to Weston Station) CHR Location Feature Description Source of Photograph(s) No. Identification/ Level of Protection 7 WALLACE PEDESTRIANBRIDGE LISTED/2009 EA AVENUE EAST OF STUDY DUNDAS STREET

8 DENISON ROAD DENISON ROAD LEVEL 2009 EA STUDY No photo available; area under construction and BETWEEN CROSSING; DENISON inaccessible during field survey (June 2012). WESTON RD AND ROAD AND RAIL, JANE ST BETWEEN JANE AND WESTON 17 371 WALLACE FORMERINDUSTRIALBUILD 2009 EA STUDY AVENUE, EAST ING CONVERTED TO SIDE OF TRACKS RESIDENTIAL. THREE STOREY BRICK MASONRY STRUCTURE

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 4: Cultural Heritage Resources Previously Identified as Part of Environmental Assessment Studies (Bloor Station to Weston Station) CHR Location Feature Description Source of Photograph(s) No. Identification/ Level of Protection 18 30 EDWIN TORONTO HYDRO LISTED/2009 EA JUNCTION SUBSTATION STUDY

19 1655 DUPONT VICEROY LISTED/2009 EA STREET MANUFACTURING STUDY COMPANY FACTORY

20 143 OLD WESTON WEST TORONTO PUMPING 2009 EA STUDY No photo available; area under construction and ROAD STATION inaccessible during field survey (June 2012).

100

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 4: Cultural Heritage Resources Previously Identified as Part of Environmental Assessment Studies (Bloor Station to Weston Station) CHR Location Feature Description Source of Photograph(s) No. Identification/ Level of Protection 26 WESTON ROAD MOUNTDENIS HISTORIC 2009 EA STUDY AND EGLINGTON SETTLEMENT; WESTON AVENUE ROAD AND EGLINGTON AVENUE

101

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 4: Cultural Heritage Resources Previously Identified as Part of Environmental Assessment Studies (Bloor Station to Weston Station) CHR Location Feature Description Source of Photograph(s) No. Identification/ Level of Protection 27 EITHER SIDE OF WESTON HISTORIC 2009 EA STUDY TRACKS, SETTLEMENT BETWEEN OAK STREET AND CLOUSTON

102

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 4: Cultural Heritage Resources Previously Identified as Part of Environmental Assessment Studies (Bloor Station to Weston Station) CHR Location Feature Description Source of Photograph(s) No. Identification/ Level of Protection 28 N/A HISTORIC RAIL BACKGROUND CORRIDORS RESEARCH/2009 EA STUDY

29 3500 Eglinton Historic industrial complex Taylor Hazell Avenue West Report (2012)/Evaluated to retain local cultural heritage value.

Bing Map 2012

3.2.2.1 Switching Station (3500 Eglinton Ave. W.)

103

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

An existing conditions description of the KodakHeightssite has been generated based on a review of previously prepared heritage reports. In particular, reports prepared by Taylor Hazell Architects (THA) investigating Building #9 were reviewed in this regard. The former Kodak lands are located at 3500 Eglinton Avenue West in the City of Toronto. Portions of the subject site were acquired by Kodak Canada Inc. as early as 1912 to serve as the company’s manufacturing plant. Previously, Kodak Canada retained office space in downtown Toronto. However, by the second decade of the twentieth century, the company’s operations had grown significantly and by 1914, Kodak Canada Inc. had acquired a full 48 acres on Eglinton Avenue. By 1925 there were over 900 employees working in seven buildings on the site which quickly became known as ‘Kodak Heights’, in part due to its proximity to the Black Creek valley and its siting on a high point of land and its location within the Mount Denis neighbourhood, whose development is closely linked to the company’s operations.

Until 2005, the ‘Kodak Heights’ site contained 12 industrial and office buildings. As of May 2012, only one structure remained on the site and which is known as Building #9. The property itself consists of an irregularly shaped lot and is roughly bounded by Black Creek Drive to the east, Eglinton Avenue West to the south, the Canadian Pacific Railway to the west, and Industry Street and Ray Avenue to the north. Based on the 2012 property inspection conducted by THA, the property is reported to have become overgrown; “little of the hard landscaping visible in historic photographs is evident. The planted landscape between the buildings [has been] completely removed” (THA 2012: 5). The THA site visit also reported a “great deal of debris around the building, and it appears that much of it originated on the site” (THA 2012:5).

Building #9 is reported to represent the only remaining structure on the site and which is associated with the circa 1920s development of the ‘Kodak Heights’ property. The following provides a general description of Building # 9 as per information presented in the THA report:

Kodak Building #9 is a four storey structure with a full basement and flat roof. It is constructed of reinforced concrete in a portal frame structural system. The structure reads as a series of columns and beams with concrete spandrels below window openings which are sized and located in response to program needs. Concrete has been painted and then coated with a polymer-based product. The building has four bays of windows across the front (south) façade, with a central doorway and canopy on the first floor. The rear (north) façade has four bays. The bays are a uniform width, and the bays at either end of the facades are slightly wider. The strong verticality of the columns is balanced by a water table approximately 1m above grade, a concrete cornice with band course, and a varied wall plane formed by concrete spandrels and lintels (THA 2012: 4).

Building #9 has been determined to retain local cultural heritage value based on application of criteria contained in Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Its significance is linked to its design, associative and contextual values. It is noted to display a high degree of

104

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

technical competence and to demonstrate a high degree of craftsmanship. Its associative value is linked to its physical building materials and functional layout as these elements demonstrate the work of noted Canadian engineer Arthur Wells and express the building’s initial development and long-term use by Kodak Canada, an important commercial enterprise in Canada and Ontario in the twentieth century. The building’s contextual value is defined by its contribution to the visual, physical, and historic character of the Mount Denis area and function as a landmark in the local neighbourhood. The building’s existing location, siting on a high piece of land, and massing express these contextual values. A full description of the evaluation process and presentation of the Statement of Heritage Value can be found in the THA report.

For the purposes of this report, the Kodak site has been identified as CHR 29. Based on the results of previous heritage assessments, this property has been determined to retain cultural heritage value. As such, Building No. 9 located within the property limits, should be conserved. It should also be noted that the Taylor Hazell Architects 2012 report identified a series of views associated with the subject property that should be conserved and treated sensitively as part of future site developments. Moreover, as part of impact assessment activities, review of extant landscape features such as vegetation and circulation routes within the entire property limits should be conducted as this activity was outside the scope of assessment prepared by Taylor Hazell Architects.

3.2.3 Weston Station to Highway 427

The portion of the UP Express corridor, situated between Weston Station and Highway 427 generally travels through one history settlement centre which includes Weston. The village of Weston developed in the mid nineteenth century, in part due to its strategic location along the growing rail networks in Etobicoke and York Townships. This village straddled both of these townships and served as the largest community along the historic Grand Trunk Railway corridor that traveled between this community and the Village of Malton in the Gore of Toronto, located within Peel County. Lands surrounding the historic rail corridor right-of-way west of Weston generally remained as agricultural land until the mid-twentieth century. It should also be noted that the UP Express corridor itself travels along nineteenth-century rail right-of-ways, part of which were established between the 1850s and 1908 (Andrea 1997). As illustrated on Figure 3-10 this portion of the corridor, particularly in the vicinity of Weston, retains numerous properties that have been listed on the municipal heritage inventory or designated under Part IV or Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) (see Table 5). Specifically, this portion of the study area and the UP Express corridor itself are located in close proximity to the Phase 1 Weston HCD (designated under the OHA) and the Phase 2 Weston HCD (authorized for study).

The Humber River bridge (CHR 13; Table 6) that carries the rail line over the Humber River has been evaluated to be of local and provincial significance (Golder 2011). The Humber River bridge is a significant cultural heritage resource based on its design, associative, and contextual values. Its physical

105

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

materials, particularly its: brick piers with stone footings, gunite repairs and board finish express its rarity as a survivor of mid-nineteenth-century British engineering practices that were applied to development of transportation infrastructure in Ontario during this period. Its construction is also associated with three prominent Canadian engineers, Francis Shanly, Walter Shanly, and Casimir Gzowski. Its associative value is linked to the role that these engineers played in its construction, and is also linked to early development in the Town of York, York Township, and City of Toronto. This bridge was originally constructed to accommodate high levels of use and as such expresses particular expectations regarding the pace of development in York Township during this period. The bridge’s double track abutments expresses these ideas and reflect on the rate of infrastructure development, population growth, and solidification of particular economies that occurred, or was expected to occur, in York Township in the mid-nineteenth century. Finally, the bridge also retains contextual value at a local and provincial level. This structure’s physically prominent position over a major watershed, and its age, has contributed to its status as a landmark resource. The structure’s earth embankment and steep slope have maintained this physically prominent position over time. The bridge has been discussed by Canadian engineer and architect Frederic Cumberland and photographed by the Notman Studio. William Notman established one of Canada’s most successful and prominent photography studios in the mid-nineteenth century in Montreal and recorded a wide range of important industries and development in Canada during this period. Finally, the Humber River Bridge was identified in 1937 as a significant landmark in a local history book written by F.D. Cruickshank and entitled History of Weston.

The cultural heritage evaluation of the subject structure presented in the 2011 Golder report identified that the following heritage attributes should be conserved: brick piers with their stone footings, gunite repairs and board finish; earth embankment, especially the steep slope; and double track abutments. It should be noted that these attributes were identified as “principal defining elements” and were presented within the context of a specific undertaking in relation to this significant provincial heritage asset. The 2011 report considered impacts to this bridge within the context of a proposed widening on the north side of the bridge to accommodate the introduction of three new tracks. The impact assessment phase of the present study should confirm the status of the Humber River Bridge, as it relates to its provincial heritage significance in the context of Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport Standards and Guidelines for Provincial Heritage Properties. Where a provincial heritage property is determined to be of provincial significance, a strategic conservation plan is required to be prepared and where significant impacts to the resource are expected, the Strategic Conservation Plan should be used to develop appropriate conservation and/or mitigation measures developed as part of the impact assessment.

Based on the results of previously conducted environmental studies and recent field survey there are a total of 28 cultural heritage resources located immediately adjacent to the rail corridor and 11 within the Weston Station to Highway 427 Section. Table 6 presents preliminary inventory information of these features. As project designs and scope of potential impacts are developed in greater detail, this inventory will be supplemented with additional information regarding potentially impacted cultural heritage resources.

106

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 5: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Located Within 150 m of UP Express Corridor (Weston Station to Highway 427)

CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto City of Address Street Name Type of No. Heritage Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N)

3 Address: 65 CHURCH ST Ward: 28 Y 65 CHURCH ST PART IV Status: Designated Part IV List Date: Jun 20, 1973 Intention Date: By-Law: 588-77 Part IV Date: Sep 26, 1977 Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Religious Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: St. James' Cathedral, 1853, F.W. Cumberland & Thomas Ridout; addition c.1874, Henry Langley -adopted by City Council on June 20, 1973 DESIGNATION BY-LAW PASSED BY CITY COUNCIL on September 26, 1977 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 106 KING ST E 3 Address: 65 CHURCH ST; Ward: 28; Y 65 CHURCH ST PART IV Status: Listed; List Date: Aug 18, 1976; Intention Date:; By-Law: N/A; Part IV Date:; Part V Date:; Heritage District: N/A; District Status: N/A; Heritage Easement Ag:; Registration Date:; Building Type: Miscellaneous; Architect/Builder:; Construction Yr.:; Details: War Memorial, St. James' Cathedral, c.1927 by Sproatt & Rolph -adopted by City Council on August 18, 1976; Demolition Date:; Primary Address: 106 KING ST E

107

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 5: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Located Within 150 m of UP Express Corridor (Weston Station to Highway 427)

CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto City of Address Street Name Type of No. Heritage Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N)

3 Address: 65 CHURCH ST; Ward: 28; Y 65 CHURCH ST PART IV Status: Designated Part IV; List Date: Jun 20, 1973; Intention Date:; By-Law: 1097-01; Part IV Date: Jul 24, 2001; Part V Date:; Heritage District: N/A; District Status: N/A; Heritage Easement Ag: CA804537; Registration Date: Sep 24, 2003; Building Type: Residential; Architect/Builder:; Construction Yr.:; Details: St. James' Parish Hall & Diocesan Centre, 1909, Darling & Pearson; addition, Mathers & Haldenby - adopted by City Council on June 20, 1973 DESIGNATION BY-LAW PASSED BY City Council on July 24, 25, and 26, 2001; Heritage Easement Agreement CA804537, register; Demolition Date:; Primary Address: 106 KING ST E 8 Address: 18 FERN AVE Ward: 11 Status: Y 18 FERN AVE PART IV Designated Part IV List Date: Intention Date: By-Law: 580-2004 Part IV Date: Jul 22, 2004 Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Residential Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: John Gardhouse House and Stable; 1913; DESIGNATION BY-LAW ENACTED BY CITY COUNCIL on July 22, 2004; located within the Weston West Heritage Conservation District Demolition Date: Primary Address: 18 FERN AVE

108

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 5: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Located Within 150 m of UP Express Corridor (Weston Station to Highway 427)

CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto City of Address Street Name Type of No. Heritage Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N)

9 Address: 64 GEORGE ST Ward: 28 Y 64 GEORGE ST LISTED Status: Listed List Date: Jun 20, 1973 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Commercial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Thomas Thompson Building; altered in 1880, N.B. Dick -adopted by City Council on June 20, 1973 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 185 KING ST E 9 Address: 66 GEORGE ST Ward: 28 Y 66 GEORGE ST LISTED Status: Listed List Date: Jun 20, 1973 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Commercial Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Thomas Thompson Building; altered in 1880, N.B. Dick -adopted by City Council on June 20, 1973 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 185 KING ST E 12 Address: 6 HUMBERVIEW CRES Ward: Y 6 HUMBERVIEW LISTED 11 Status: Listed List Date: Sep 27, 2006 CRES Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Holley House, c. 1845 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 6 HUMBERVIEW CRES

109

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 5: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Located Within 150 m of UP Express Corridor (Weston Station to Highway 427)

CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto City of Address Street Name Type of No. Heritage Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N)

16 Address: 64 KING ST Ward: 11 Status: Y 64 KING ST PART IV Designated Part IV List Date: Intention Date: By-Law: 2970-78 Part IV Date: Apr 24, 1978 Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Tyrrell House; DESIGNATION BY-LAW PASSED BY YORK CITY COUNCIL on April 24, 1978 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 64 KING ST 22 Address: 125 ROSEMOUNT AVE Ward: Y 125 ROSEMOUNT AVE LISTED 11 Status: Listed List Date: Sep 27, 2006 Intention Date: By-Law: N/A Part IV Date: Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: House, 1894 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 125 ROSEMOUNT AVE 27 Address: 2371 WESTON RD Ward: 11 Y 2371 WESTON RD PART IV Status: Designated Part IV List Date: Intention Date: By-Law: 4097-82 Part IV Date: Mar 30, 1982 Part V Date: Heritage District: N/A District Status: N/A Heritage Easement Ag: TB387812 Registration Date: Feb 03, 1987 Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Plank Road Building; DESIGNATION BY- LAW PASSED BY YORK CITY COUNCIL on March 30, 1982l; Heritage Easement Agreement TB387812, registered on Feb. 3, 1987 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 2371 WESTON RD

110

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 5: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Located Within 150 m of UP Express Corridor (Weston Station to Highway 427)

CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto City of Address Street Name Type of No. Heritage Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N)

29 Address: 28 CHURCH ST; Ward: 11; Y 28 CHURCH ST PART V Status: Designated Part V; List Date:; WESTON Intention Date:’ By-Law: 798-2006; Part HCD IV Date:; Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006; Heritage District: Weston District Status:; Heritage Easement Ag:; Registration Date: ; Building Type:; Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006; Demolition Date:; Primary Address: 28 CHURCH ST 29 Address: 30 CHURCH ST; Ward: 11; Y 30 CHURCH ST PART V Status: Designated Part V; List Date:; WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006; Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006; Heritage District: Weston District Status:; Heritage Easement Ag:; Registration Date:; Building Type:; Architect/Builder:; Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006; Demolition Date:; Primary Address: 30 CHURCH ST

111

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 5: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Located Within 150 m of UP Express Corridor (Weston Station to Highway 427)

CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto City of Address Street Name Type of No. Heritage Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N)

29 Address: 33 CHURCH ST; Ward: 11; Y 33 CHURCH ST PART V Status: Designated Part V; List Date: ; WESTON Intention Date:; By-Law: 798-2006; Part HCD IV Date:; Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006; Heritage District: Weston; District Status:; Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date:; Building Type:; Architect/Builder:; Construction Yr.:; Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006; Demolition Date:; Primary Address: 33 CHURCH ST 29 Address: 3 CROSS ST Ward: 11 Status: Y 3 CROSS ST PART V Designated Part V List Date: Intention WESTON Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV Date: Part HCD V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 3 CROSS ST

112

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 5: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Located Within 150 m of UP Express Corridor (Weston Station to Highway 427)

CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto City of Address Street Name Type of No. Heritage Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N)

29 Address: 5 CROSS ST; Ward: 11; Y 5 CROSS ST PART V Status:; Designated Part V; List Date: ; WESTON Intention Date:; By-Law: 798-2006; Part HCD IV Date:; Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006; Heritage District: Weston; District Status:; Heritage Easement Ag:; Registration Date:; Building Type:; Architect/Builder:; Construction Yr.:; Details:; Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006; Demolition Date:; Primary Address: 5 CROSS ST 29 Address: 11 CROSS ST Ward: 11 Y 11 CROSS ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 11 CROSS ST 29 Address: 13 CROSS ST Ward: 11 Y 13 CROSS ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston West Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 13 CROSS ST

113

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 5: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Located Within 150 m of UP Express Corridor (Weston Station to Highway 427)

CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto City of Address Street Name Type of No. Heritage Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N)

29 Address: 17 CROSS ST Ward: 11 Y 17 CROSS ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 17 CROSS ST 29 Address: 21 CROSS ST Ward: 11 Y 21 CROSS ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 21 CROSS ST 29 Address: 23 CROSS ST Ward: 11 Y 23 CROSS ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 23 CROSS ST

114

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 5: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Located Within 150 m of UP Express Corridor (Weston Station to Highway 427)

CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto City of Address Street Name Type of No. Heritage Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N)

29 Address: 24 CROSS ST Ward: 11 Y 24 CROSS ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 24 CROSS ST 29 Address: 30 CROSS ST Ward: 11 Y 30 CROSS ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 30 CROSS ST 29 Address: 31 CROSS ST Ward: 11 Y 31 CROSS ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 31 CROSS ST

115

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 5: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Located Within 150 m of UP Express Corridor (Weston Station to Highway 427)

CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto City of Address Street Name Type of No. Heritage Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N)

29 Address: 32 CROSS ST Ward: 11 Y 32 CROSS ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 32 CROSS ST 29 Address: 34 CROSS ST Ward: 11 Y 34 CROSS ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 34 CROSS ST 29 Address: 36 CROSS ST Ward: 11 Y 36 CROSS ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 36 CROSS ST

116

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 5: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Located Within 150 m of UP Express Corridor (Weston Station to Highway 427)

CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto City of Address Street Name Type of No. Heritage Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N)

29 Address: 37 CROSS ST Ward: 11 Y 37 CROSS ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 37 CROSS ST 29 Address: 38 CROSS ST Ward: 11 Y 38 CROSS ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 38 CROSS ST 29 Address: 40 CROSS ST Ward: 11 Y 40 CROSS ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 40 CROSS ST

117

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 5: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Located Within 150 m of UP Express Corridor (Weston Station to Highway 427)

CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto City of Address Street Name Type of No. Heritage Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N)

29 Address: 41 CROSS ST Ward: 11 Y 41 CROSS ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 41 CROSS ST 29 Address: 43 CROSS ST Ward: 11 Y 43 CROSS ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 43 CROSS ST 29 Address: 44 CROSS ST Ward: 11 Y 44 CROSS ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 44 CROSS ST

118

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 5: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Located Within 150 m of UP Express Corridor (Weston Station to Highway 427)

CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto City of Address Street Name Type of No. Heritage Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N)

29 Address: 34 A CROSS ST Ward: 11 Y 34A CROSS ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 34 A CROSS ST 29 Address: 20 FERN AVE Ward: 11 Status: Y 20 FERN AVE PART V Designated Part V List Date: Intention WESTON Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV Date: Part HCD V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 20 FERN AVE 29 Address: 21 FERN AVE Ward: 11 Status: Y 21 FERN AVE PART V Designated Part V List Date: Intention WESTON Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV Date: Part HCD V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 21 FERN AVE

119

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 5: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Located Within 150 m of UP Express Corridor (Weston Station to Highway 427)

CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto City of Address Street Name Type of No. Heritage Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N)

29 Address: 26 GEORGE ST Ward: 11 Y 26 GEORGE ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 26 GEORGE ST 29 Address: 28 GEORGE ST Ward: 11 Y 28 GEORGE ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 28 GEORGE ST 29 Address: 30 GEORGE ST Ward: 11 Y 30 GEORGE ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 30 GEORGE ST

120

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 5: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Located Within 150 m of UP Express Corridor (Weston Station to Highway 427)

CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto City of Address Street Name Type of No. Heritage Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N)

29 Address: 32 GEORGE ST Ward: 11 Y 32 GEORGE ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 32 GEORGE ST 29 Address: 34 GEORGE ST Ward: 11 Y 34 GEORGE ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 34 GEORGE ST 29 Address: 42 GEORGE ST Ward: 11 Y 42 GEORGE ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 42 GEORGE ST

121

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 5: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Located Within 150 m of UP Express Corridor (Weston Station to Highway 427)

CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto City of Address Street Name Type of No. Heritage Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N)

29 Address: 48 GEORGE ST Ward: 11 Y 48 GEORGE ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 48 GEORGE ST 29 Address: 49 GEORGE ST Ward: 11 Y 49 GEORGE ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 49 GEORGE ST 29 Address: 57 GEORGE ST Ward: 11 Y 57 GEORGE ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 57 A GEORGE ST

122

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 5: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Located Within 150 m of UP Express Corridor (Weston Station to Highway 427)

CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto City of Address Street Name Type of No. Heritage Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N)

29 Address: 63 GEORGE ST Ward: 11 Y 63 GEORGE ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 63 GEORGE ST 29 Address: 67 GEORGE ST Ward: 11 Y 67 GEORGE ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 67 GEORGE ST 29 Address: 69 GEORGE ST Ward: 11 Y 69 GEORGE ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 69 GEORGE ST

123

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 5: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Located Within 150 m of UP Express Corridor (Weston Station to Highway 427)

CHR Supplemental Info from Toronto City of Address Street Name Type of No. Heritage Inventory Toronto Number Protection Heritage Inventory Check (Y/N)

29 Address: 26 A GEORGE ST Ward: 11 Y 26A GEORGE ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 26 A GEORGE ST 29 Address: 57 GEORGE ST Ward: 11 Y 57A GEORGE ST PART V Status: Designated Part V List Date: WESTON Intention Date: By-Law: 798-2006 Part IV HCD Date: Part V Date: Sep 27, 2006 Heritage District: Weston District Status: Heritage Easement Ag: Registration Date: Building Type: Architect/Builder: Construction Yr.: Details: Part of the Weston Heritage Conservation District, enacted by City Council on Sept. 25-27, 2006 Demolition Date: Primary Address: 57 A GEORGE ST 30 PART 2 OF WESTON HCD POTENTIAL PART V; PHASE 2 OF WESTON HCD UNDER STUDY

124

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 6: Cultural Heritage Resources Previously Identified as Part of Environmental Assessment Studies (Weston Station to Highway 427) CHR Location Feature Description Source of Photograph(s) No. Identification/ Level of Protection 9 JOHN STREET JOHN STREET LEVEL 2009 EA STUDY/ AND RAIL CROSSING EVALUATED AS CROSSING BEING OF LOCAL BETWEEN SIGNIFICANCE WESTON RD AND (GOLDER 2011) ROSEMOUNT AVE.

10 KING STREET KING STREET LEVEL 2009 EA STUDY AND RAIL CROSSING CROSSING BETWEEN WESTON RD AND ROSEMOUNT AVE

125

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 6: Cultural Heritage Resources Previously Identified as Part of Environmental Assessment Studies (Weston Station to Highway 427) CHR Location Feature Description Source of Photograph(s) No. Identification/ Level of Protection 11 CHURCH STREET CHURCH STREET LEVEL 2009 EA STUDY AND RAIL CROSSING CROSSING BETWEEN WESTON RD AND ROSEMOUNT AVE

12 HUMBERRIVER, HUMBERRIVER; 2009 EA STUDY WEST OF CANADIANHERITAGERIVE WESTON ROAD R

13 EAST BANK OF 1856 BRIDGE 2009 EA STUDY/ HUMBERRIVER EVALUTED AS OF AND RAIL LOCAL AND CROSSING, PROVINCIAL NORTH OF SPLIT SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN (GOLDER 2011). WESTON RD AND ST. PHILIPS RD

126

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 6: Cultural Heritage Resources Previously Identified as Part of Environmental Assessment Studies (Weston Station to Highway 427) CHR Location Feature Description Source of Photograph(s) No. Identification/ Level of Protection 14 CARLINGVIEW CARLINGVIEW DRIVE 2009 EA STUDY DRIVE AND RAIL LEVEL CROSSING CROSSING BETWEEN HIGHWAY 427 AND HIGHWAY 27

21 2417 WESTON 19TH C. 1/2 STOREY 2009 EA STUDY/ ROAD EVALUTED AS BEING OF LOCAL SIGNIFICANCE (ASI 2012). AS OF JUNE 2012, IT IS EXPECTED THIS BUILDING WILL REQUIRE DEMOLITION. As

of November 2012, the building has been demolished. 22 6 HUMBERVIEW 1/2 STOREY, 1845 LISTED/2009 EA CRES STUDY/EVALUAT ED AS BEING OF LOCAL SIGNIFICANCE (GOLDER 2011).

127

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 6: Cultural Heritage Resources Previously Identified as Part of Environmental Assessment Studies (Weston Station to Highway 427) CHR Location Feature Description Source of Photograph(s) No. Identification/ Level of Protection 23 50 ST PHILIPS RD WESTON GOLF AND 2009 EA STUDY COUNTRY CLUB 1909

Map courtesy of Bing Maps 2012 27 EITHER SIDE OF WESTON HISTORIC 2009 EA STUDY TRACKS, SETTLEMENT BETWEEN OAK STREET AND CLOUSTON

128

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 6: Cultural Heritage Resources Previously Identified as Part of Environmental Assessment Studies (Weston Station to Highway 427) CHR Location Feature Description Source of Photograph(s) No. Identification/ Level of Protection 28 N/A HISTORIC RAIL BACKGROUND CORRIDORS RESEARCH/2009 EA STUDY

3.2.3.1 Maintenance Facility Site (50 Resources Rd.)

A maintenance facility is proposed at 50 Resources Road. The subject property is located on the east side of Islington Avenue and south of a new Lowes facility that fronts on to Resources Road and the Highway 401 eastbound. The study area borders the north of the Canadian National Railway tracks.

A review of historic maps and aerial mapping from 1860, 1878, 1931, and 1947 confirm that the subject study area remained largely rural made up of farm complexes well into the twentieth century. A review of topographic mapping from 1974 confirms that during this period, lands to the south and west of the study area had been developed with a street grid. The Weston Golf course to the south was established during the early twentieth century, but otherwise, immediately adjacent lands did not evolve from rural land uses until well after construction of Highway 401.

129

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

A site survey was carried out by Archaeological Services Inc. in January 2013. At the time of the site visit the subject property was an active construction site with heavy machinery and was a high traffic area for dump trucks moving soil. Construction activities were well-established on the site and the landscape was highly altered with no visible evidence of the original or even earlier landscape(s). The north limits of the site had been recently moved south (i.e., within the last year) to accommodate a new road alignment of Resources Road and the road access to the Lowes retail complex.

The subject property runs east along the north side of railway tracks from the overpass at Islington Avenue. The property is accessed via construction gates at Resources Road east of Islington Avenue. The west section of the site slopes up to the north from the train tracks; this gentle slope gradually increases near the east end of the site. At this point, the slope is near vertical and is shored up at the base. Throughout this entire area (north of the tracks) the land alteration has been so great that even the late twentieth-century landscape has been obliterated. At the time of the visit, most of this area was covered by very high mounds of dirt which had been and was being relocated throughout the site. There was no evidence of any previous landscape features or built features in this area. It appears that aerial mapping from 2011 shows a spur line located within the site, however, the site survey confirmed that it is no longer extant.

To the south of the tracks on the adjacent property it appears that the slope up to the golf course was established. Ongoing work showed that the stratigraphy was relatively undisturbed. This slope no doubt relates to the railway cut. A fence separates the golf course property from the railway lands and a tree line of established trees, which likely date to the establishment of the golf course in the first half of the twentieth century. North of the east end of the site area there has also been considerable land alteration and, at the time of the visit, the flat land above the slope at the eastern terminus had been modified to create parklands and two holding ponds. This area is also used as an access point for businesses and facilities along Highway 401.

No cultural heritage resources were identified within the study area.

3.2.3.2 Northern TPS (175 City View Drive)

A TPS is proposed at 175 City View Drive. The subject property is located at the southeast corner of Highway 27 and the rail right-of-way. The subject property fronts on to the rail corridor and vehicular access is provided from City View Drive, a recently established road right-of-way. Lands surrounding the subject site contain parcels used for industrial purposes.

A review of historic maps and aerial mapping from 1860, 1878, 1931, and 1947 confirm that the subject study area was developed in the latter half of the twentieth century. A review of mid-twentieth century maps confirms that at this time the subject rail corridor was established, however, the many spur lines

130

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

that presently lead north and south from the rail corridor were not yet established. A review of construction history and development of Highway 427 and Highway 409 confirms that portions of these highways in the vicinity of the study area were established in the early to mid 1970s. Given that the surrounding land uses are largely industrial, it is highly likely that development of the area for industrial purposes was historically linked to the establishment of freeways in the Province of Ontario, which would have served as the primary mode of transportation for the movement of industrial goods during this period.

A site survey was carried out by Archaeological Services Inc. in January 2013. At the time of the site visit, the site was occupied by a large factory. The area immediately adjacent to Highway 27 and west of the site was an active construction zone. It appeared that this area was being used as a staging, lay down and soil storage area for the work being undertaken on the railway overpass (over Highway 27). A power line runs between the construction site and the subject property. Located at the terminus of City View Drive, the subject property consists of a vacant grassy lot; a large two-storey factory occupies the middle of the site and a large parking area and driveway extends eastward from City View Drive and the rear of the factory takes up the remainder of the site. The rail corridor runs along the northern limits of the site and across Highway 27 to the west of the subject property. Much of the site appears to be privately owned and actively used, and as such, it was not possible to access the east half of the property.

The west side of the site is an empty grassy lot with relatively flat topography. The tracks are slightly elevated in this area and sit on top of a small embankment. The tracks and embankment are separated from the site by a narrow ditch which was filled with water at the time of the visit. The factory, formerly occupied by Down Screw Products, was vacant at the time of the site visit. This structure is located at a distance east of City View Drive with a large lawn running between the building and the roadway. A thin strip of grasslands runs between the north elevation of the factory and the tracks.

The subject property sits in an industrial landscape made up of factories some of which may date to the middle or late twentieth century. Within its immediate geographic context, the subject site retains buildings and groupings of buildings that are visually and functionally similar to many sites within the surrounding area. In this sense, the subject site, including the circa mid-twentieth-century industrial building and the adjacent spur line, are typical landscape features and land uses, widely represented in the surrounding area and which do not relate to an early or rare form of industrial development in the City of Toronto.

No cultural heritage resources were identified within the study area.

131

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

3.2.4 Highway 427 to Terminal 1 (Pearson Airport)

The portion of the UP Express corridor situated between Highway 427 and Terminal 1 (Pearson Airport) travels through lands located in both the City of Toronto and the City of Mississauga. The portion of this study corridor segment that is located in the City of Toronto is generally characterized by industrial buildings and land uses, the majority of which were developed in the second half of the twentieth century. Construction of Highway 427, 401, and 409 through this part of the City of Toronto effectively resulted in significant landscape change whereby there remain today very few vestiges of nineteenth-century settlement and development activities. In contrast, the portion of this study corridor segment that is located in the City of Mississauga experienced notable landscape change in the late 1930s with the development of the Malton Airport. Airport land uses developed in the late 1930s continue to dominate the landscape character and built form of the area located west of the Highway 427. As illustrated in Section 3.3, this portion of the study corridor retains few cultural heritage resources within the City of Toronto. It is, however, heavily defined by Pearson International Airport within the City of Mississauga, on the west side of Highway 427. This cultural heritage resource: had its beginning in the 1930s with the development of the Malton Airport; is associated with the nearby Malton cultural heritage landscape; and has been identified by the City of Mississauga as a cultural heritage landscape on their heritage inventory.

Based on the results of previously conducted environmental studies and recent field survey there are a total of 28 cultural heritage resources located immediately adjacent to the rail corridor and three within the Highway 427 to Terminal 1 section. Table 7 presents preliminary inventory information of these features. As project designs and scope of potential impacts are developed in greater detail, this inventory will be supplemented with additional information regarding potentially impacted cultural heritage resources.

132

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

24 MIMICO CREEK PORTIONS OF THE CREEK 2009 EA STUDY THAT RUN THROUGH STUDY CORRIDOR

133

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 7: Cultural Heritage Resources Previously Identified as Part of Environmental Assessment Studies (Highway 427 to Terminal 1) CHR Location Feature Description Source of Photograph(s) No. Identification/ Level of Protection 25 TORONTOPEARS CULTURAL HERITAGE LISTED ON THE ONINTERNATION LANDSCAPE LOCATED CITY OF ALAIRPORT BETWEEN DERRY ROAD MISSISSAUGA AND HIGHWAY 401, WEST HERITAGE OF HIGHWAY 427 INVENTORY AS A CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPE

134

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

3.2.5 Vicinity of Hydro One Horner Substation

3.2.5.1 Southern TPS (Judson or Magnificent)

A southern TPS is proposed at one of two sites located in south Etobicoke: 22-25 Magnificent Road and/or 185 Judson Street. The Magnificent Road property is located on the west side of the road at its southern terminus. The Judson Street property is located at the southwest corner of Islington Avenue and Judson Street.

A review of historic maps and aerial mapping from 1878, 1910, and 1947 confirm that lands surrounding the subject study area were quickly developed between the late nineteenth century and the first decade of the twentieth century. By 1910, the approximate dimensions of the rail line that currently travels along the southern perimeter of parcels located south of Judson Street, between Kipling Avenue and Islington Avenue, was established and a number of residential subdivisions are shown in areas south and north of the subject sites. By 1947, lands surrounding the subject sites had been fully transformed from rural, 100 acre parcels into small scale residential subdivisions and industrial operations. The 1947 aerial confirms that a number of industrial enterprises were established around the subject sites, however the specific parcels proposed for development had not yet been established by this time. For example, the Magnificent Road right-of-way does not appear to have been established by 1947 and the parcel located at the southwest corner of Islington Avenue and Judson had not yet been established according to its present boundary limits; two north-south roads were located within this parcel during this period; neither of these roads exists today.

A windshield survey of the two sites was conducted by Archaeological Services Inc. in January 2013. The field survey confirmed that both sites contain buildings that were likely constructed in the circa 1950 – 1960 period. The Magnificent Road site consists of a vacant lot used to store shipping containers. The rail right-of-way frames the southern perimeter of the site and a small scale, one storey concrete structure is located immediately north of the vacant lot. This concrete structure is faced with brick and appears to have served a light industrial function. Buildings located on the east side of Magnificent Road are of the same scale and construction materials and appear to be currently operated as auto mechanic facilities. Based on the construction materials and scale of these buildings, and based on a review of 1947 aerial photography, it is expected that these operations were developed in the 1950-1960 period. The Judson Street site contains a series of interconnected brick buildings that are currently owned by the Provincial Government. The buildings are labelled ‘A’ through ‘E’, from west to east. Buildings ‘A’ through ‘C’ appear to be identical in terms of layout, building envelope material, and year of construction while Buildings D and E are sited closer to the road right-of-way and appear to have been faced with a slightly different colour of red brick, suggesting that they were constructed after the buildings located to the west. Infrastructure Ontario was contacted to confirm if any information is maintained on these buildings and if they have been subject to heritage investigations. Email correspondence with Infrastructure Ontario confirmed that Buildings D and E, and which comprise one of the proposed TPS site have not been recognized as retaining cultural heritage value.

135

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

No cultural heritage resources were identified within the study area.

136

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

3.3 Mapping of Identified Cultural Heritage Resources

Figure 3-10: Properties Listed and Designated under the Ontario Heritage Act Within the City of Toronto

137

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Figure 3-11: Cultural Heritage Resources Identified in Previous Studies and Confirmed During Field Survey Activities

138

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Figure 3-12: Cultural Heritage Resources Identified in Previous Studies and Confirmed During Field Survey Activities

139

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Figure 3-13: Cultural Heritage Resources Identified in Previous Studies and Confirmed During Field Survey Activities

140

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Figure 3-14: Cultural Heritage Resources Identified in Previous Studies and Confirmed During Field Survey Activities

141

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Figure 3-15: Cultural Heritage Resources Identified in Previous Studies and Confirmed During Field Survey Activities

142

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Figure 3-16: Cultural Heritage Resources Identified in Previous Studies and Confirmed During Field Survey Activities

143

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Figure 3-17: Cultural Heritage Resources Identified in Previous Studies and Confirmed During Field Survey Activities

144

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

Figure 3-18: Cultural Heritage Resources Identified in Previous Studies and Confirmed During Field Survey Activities

145

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

4. Future Work

Based on the preliminary design to be developed for the UP Express service along the Kitchener corridor, an impact assessment will be carried out to identify the potential impacts associated with electrification of the UP Express service (e.g., identification of heritage structures to be removed or altered), develop proposed mitigation measures and/or conservation recommendations to reduce or eliminate potential adverse effects, and identify net (residual) impacts. This information is contained in the “Part B – Impact Assessment” section of this document. Based on the results of baseline conditions data collected to date, the following recommendations have been developed to guide development of preliminary designs:

 The proposed undertaking and development of site-specific infrastructure should be undertaken to avoid identified cultural heritage resources. Where it is expected that acquisition may be required, proposed parcels should be reviewed as early as possible to identify potential heritage sensitivities and appropriate mitigation measures and/or alternative development approaches should be developed where appropriate.

 The impact assessment phase of the present study should confirm the status of the Humber River Bridge, as it relates to its provincial heritage significance in the context of Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport Standards and Guidelines for Provincial Heritage Properties. Where a provincial heritage property is determined to be of provincial significance, a strategic conservation plan is required to be prepared and where significant impacts to the resource are expected, the Strategic Conservation Plan should be used to develop appropriate conservation and/or mitigation measures developed as part of the impact assessment.

 Although no specific cultural heritage resources were identified within the area proposed for development of a paralleling station (10 Ordnance Street), its proximity to the Fort York and Garrison Common National Historic Site and Heritage Conservation District (HCD) make it an area that has the potential to impact the setting of this heritage resource through the introduction of new infrastructure. The draft Fort York Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan identifies several views that should be conserved and/or improved. As part of future site planning activities, attention should be paid to minimizing the visual impact of the paralleling station through sitting, height, mass, color, and introduction of visually sympathetic screening devices.

 Based on the results of previous heritage assessments, the property located at 3500 Eglinton Avenue West has been determined to retain cultural heritage value. As such, Building No. 9 located within the property limits, should be conserved as part of proposed site development plans. It should also be noted that the Taylor Hazell Architects 2012 report identified a series of views associated with the subject property that should be conserved and treated sensitively as part of future site developments. Moreover, as part of impact assessment activities, review of extant landscape features such as vegetation and circulation routes within the entire property limits should be conducted as this activity was outside the scope of assessment prepared by Taylor Hazell Architects.

146

UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage

The results of the impact assessment will be documented via a Cultural Heritage Assessment Report which will be contained in ‘Part B’ of this report. The Cultural Heritage Assessment Report will become a supporting document to the final Environmental Project Report (EPR).

147

Part B - Impact Assessment Report

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

TABLE OF CONTENTS – PART B

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 2 GLOSSARY OF TERMS ...... 1 1. BACKGROUND ...... 5

2.1 RELEVANT GUIDELINES...... 15 2.2 APPROACH ...... 19 3. BASELINE CONDITIONS ...... 22

3.1 LAND USE HISTORY SUMMARY ...... 22 3.1.1 Exploration, Survey and Settlement ...... 22 3.1.2 Early Economic Activity, Industry and Agriculture ...... 23 3.1.3 Transportation ...... 24 3.1.4 Rail Network Development ...... 25 3.1.5 Nineteenth and Early Twentieth-Century Settlement Centres Near Kitchener Corridor ...... 26 3.2 IDENTIFIED CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES ...... 38 3.2.1 West of Union Station Train Shed to Bloor Station ...... 39 3.2.2 Bloor Station to Weston Station ...... 74 3.2.3 Weston Station to Highway 427 ...... 105 3.2.4 Highway 427 to Terminal 1 (Pearson Airport) ...... 132 3.2.5 Vicinity of Hydro One Horner Substation ...... 135 3.3 MAPPING OF IDENTIFIED CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES ...... 137 4. FUTURE WORK ...... 146 GLOSSARY OF TERMS ...... 1 1. PURPOSE ...... 1

1.1 METHODOLOGY ...... 1 2. UP EXPRESS ELECTRIFICATION PRELIMINARY DESIGN ...... 2

2.1 METROLINX INTERIM CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PROCESS ...... 2 2.2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ...... 3

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

3. CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES ...... 5

3.1 SECTION 1 –UP EXPRESS UNION STATION TO UP EXPRESS BLOOR STATION ...... 8 3.1.1 Bathurst Street Bridge ...... 8 3.1.2 King Street Subway ...... 10 3.1.3 Dundas Street Bridge ...... 12 3.1.4 Rail Corridor ...... 12 3.1.5 Fort York and Garrison Common National Historic Site and Heritage Conservation District ...... 13 3.1.6 Summary ...... 22 3.2 SECTION 2 –UP EXPRESS BLOOR STATION TO UP EXPRESS WESTON STATION ...... 26 3.2.1 Wallace Street Pedestrian Bridge ...... 26 3.2.2 Rogers Road Bridge ...... 28 3.2.3 Jane Street Bridge ...... 30 3.2.4 Kodak Heights (3500 Eglinton Avenue West)...... 31 3.2.5 Summary ...... 36 3.3 SECTION 3 - UP EXPRESS WESTON STATION TO HIGHWAY 427 ...... 40 3.3.1 Humber River Rail Overpass ...... 40 3.4 SECTION 4 - HIGHWAY 427 TO UP EXPRESS PEARSON STATION ...... 46 3.5 MONITORING...... 46 4. SUMMARY ...... 46 5. REFERENCES CITED ...... 50

LIST OF FIGURES

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

Figure 3-6: Portion of the UP Express Corridor and 150 m Buffer Overlaid on 1931 Topographic Map.... 36 Figure 3-7: Portion of the UP Express Corridor and 150 m Buffer Overlaid on 1951 Topographic Map.... 37 Figure 3-8: Excerpt from draft HCD Study and Plan showing limits of the designation...... 73 Figure 3-9: Excerpt from draft HCD Study and Plan showing identified views...... 74 Figure 3-10: Properties Listed and Designated under the Ontario Heritage Act Within the City of Toronto ...... 137 Figure 3-11: Cultural Heritage Resources Identified in Previous Studies and Confirmed During Field Survey Activities ...... 138 Figure 3-12: Cultural Heritage Resources Identified in Previous Studies and Confirmed During Field Survey Activities ...... 139 Figure 3-13: Cultural Heritage Resources Identified in Previous Studies and Confirmed During Field Survey Activities ...... 140 Figure 3-14: Cultural Heritage Resources Identified in Previous Studies and Confirmed During Field Survey Activities ...... 141 Figure 3-15: Cultural Heritage Resources Identified in Previous Studies and Confirmed During Field Survey Activities ...... 142 Figure 3-16: Cultural Heritage Resources Identified in Previous Studies and Confirmed During Field Survey Activities ...... 143 Figure 3-17: Cultural Heritage Resources Identified in Previous Studies and Confirmed During Field Survey Activities ...... 144 Figure 3-18: Cultural Heritage Resources Identified in Previous Studies and Confirmed During Field Survey Activities ...... 145

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Within 150 m of the UP Express Corridor (Union Station Train Shed to Bloor Station) ...... 40 Table 2: Cultural Heritage Resources Previously Identified as Part of Environmental Assessment Studies ...... 68 Table 3: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Located Within 150 m of UP Express Corridor (Bloor Station to Weston Station) ...... 76 Table 4: Cultural Heritage Resources Previously Identified as Part of Environmental Assessment Studies ...... 99 Table 5: Properties Listed on City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties Located Within 150 m of UP Express Corridor (Weston Station to Highway 427) ...... 107 Table 6: Cultural Heritage Resources Previously Identified as Part of Environmental Assessment Studies ...... 125 Table 7: Cultural Heritage Resources Previously Identified as Part of Environmental Assessment Studies ...... 133

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

Glossary of Terms

Baseline Conditions The existing conditions that are the physical, chemical, biological, social, economic, and cultural setting in which the proposed project is to be located and where local impacts (both positive and negative) might be expected to occur. Character-defining The materials, forms, location, spatial configurations, uses and cultural Element associations or meanings that contribute to the heritage value of an historic place, which must be retained to preserve its heritage value. Conservation All actions or process that are aimed at safeguarding the character-defining elements of an historic place so as to retain its heritage value and extend its physical life. This may involve Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, or a combination of these actions or processes. Criteria / Criterion A set of principles or standards used to compare and judge alternatives. (plural = "criteria", singular = "criterion") Cultural Environment The ways of living developed by a community and passed on from generation to generation, including customs, practices, places, objects, artistic expressions, and values. Cultural Heritage A defined geographical area of heritage significance that has been modified Resource by human activities. Such an area is valued by a community, and is of significance to the understanding of the history of a people or place. Examples include farmscapes, historic settlements, parks, gardens, battlefields, mainstreets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries, trailways, and industrial complexes of cultural heritage value. Displacement Removal or destruction of a cultural heritage resource. Disruption The introduction of physical, visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that are not in keeping with the original character or setting of a cultural heritage resource. Evaluation A formal process for comparatively assessing the advantages and disadvantages of alternatives and establishing an order of preference among alternatives. Heritage Attribute Physical features or elements that contribute to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest and may include the property’s built or manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water features, and it’s visual setting. Heritage Value The aesthetic, historic, scientific, cultural, social, or spiritual importance or significance for past, present, and future generations. The heritage value of an historic place is embodied in its character-defining materials, forms, location, spatial configurations, uses, and cultural associations or meanings. Historic Place A structure, building, group of buildings, district, landscape, archaeological site, or other place in Canada that has been formally recognized for its heritage value. Impact Assessment The process of studying and identifying the future consequences of a current or proposed action.

Minister of the The Minister of the Environment is responsible under the EA Act for final Environment (Minister) approval of the Terms of Reference and the EA.

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

Ministry of the The Ministry of the Environment is responsible for protecting air, land and Environment (MOE) water to ensure healthy communities, ecological protection, and sustainable development for present and future generations of Ontarians.

Ministry of Tourism, The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport encourages the arts and cultural Culture and Sport(MTCS) industries, protects Ontario's heritage and advances the public library system in order to maximize their contribution to the province's economic and social vitality.

Mitigation Action(s) that remove or alleviate to some degree the negative effects measure/techniques associated with the implementation of an alternative. Net Effect The effect (positive or negative) associated with an alternative after the application of avoidance/mitigation/compensation/enhancement measures. Ontario Heritage Act This legislation outlines the practice surrounding heritage conservation, protection and preservation in Ontario. A section of the Act is dedicated to establishing the conservation of resources of archaeological value. Pantograph Device on the top of a train that slides along the contact wire to transmit electric power from the catenary to the train. Paralleling Station (PS) An installation which helps boost the OCS voltage and reduce the running rail return current by means of the autotransformer feed configuration. The negative feeders and the catenary conductors are connected to the two outer terminals of the autotransformer winding at this location with the center terminal connected to the traction return system. The OCS sections can be connected in parallel at PS locations. Planning Act The Planning Act, RSO 1990 sets out the rules for land use planning in Ontario and describes how land uses may be controlled and who may control them. Potential Effect A possible or probable effect of implementing a particular alternative. Preservation The action or process of protecting, maintaining, and/or stabilizing the existing materials, form, and integrity of an historic place, or of an individual component, while protecting its heritage value. Provincial Policy Updated in 2005, the PPS is issued under the authority of Section 3 of the Statement (PPS) Planning Act. The PPS provides direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development, and promotes the provincial "policy led" planning system. Rehabilitation The action or process of making possible a continuing or compatible contemporary use of an historic place, or an individual component, while protecting its heritage value. Restoration The action or process of accurately revealing, recovering, or representing the state of an historic place, or of an individual component, as it appeared at a particular period in its history, while protecting its heritage value.

Undertaking An enterprise, activity, proposal, plan or program in respect of a commercial

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

or business enterprise or activity of a person or persons that has potential environmental effects and is assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act.

Visual Setting Significant views or vistas to or from a heritage property.

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

1. Purpose

The purpose of this report is to document the cultural heritage impact assessment that was carried out as part of the UP Express Electrification EA. This Impact Assessment Report forms Part B of the Cultural Heritage Assessment Report which will become a supporting document to the final Environmental Project Report (EPR).

1.1 Methodology

The baseline conditions information contained in Part A of the Cultural Heritage Assessment Report was used as the basis from which the potential impacts of constructing and operating/maintaining the electrified UP Express service were identified based on the engineering design provided in the UP Express Electrification Preliminary Design Report. The impact assessment process was based on the following steps:

 Identify potential effects (positive and negative);  Establish avoidance/mitigation/compensation measures to eliminate or minimize potential negative effects (as required); and  Identify net effects (i.e., residual effects after applying avoidance/mitigation/compensation measures).

For purposes of differentiating the various types of potential environmental impacts related to the UP Express Electrification undertaking, they were characterized and grouped as follows:

Footprint Impacts Potential displacement or loss of existing cultural heritage features within the Study Area due to implementation of the physical UP Express Electrification project components/infrastructure (e.g., paralleling stations, EMU Maintenance Facility). Operations and Maintenance Potential (long term) effects on existing cultural heritage features Impacts (including receptors) due to operations and maintenance activities associated with the electrified UP Express service (e.g., operation of the traction power distribution system, operation of EMU Maintenance Facility, etc.). Construction Impacts Potential disruption/disturbance (short term) effects on existing cultural heritage features (including receptors) due to construction activities associated with the UP Express Electrification project (e.g., construction of OCS components, construction of paralleling stations, etc.).

Following identification of potential impacts, mitigation measures were identified based on a combination of best management practices and development of more specific mitigation measures, as appropriate, to address project-specific impacts.

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

2. UP Express Electrification Preliminary Design

As mentioned, the assessment of potential cultural heritage impacts was based on the UP Express electrification preliminary design, which includes the following key components:

 Traction Power Distribution System o Overhead Contact System (OCS) o Two Paralleling Stations . Proposed site configuration . Gantry design/locations . Underground 25 kv feeder (duct bank)design/locations  EMU Maintenance Facility o Proposed site configuration o Description of maintenance activities/operations  Bridge / Rail Overpass Structure Modifications o Protection barriers o Grounding and bonding  GO Station Modifications  Grounding and Bonding Requirements

A detailed project description has been included in the UP Express Electrification Environmental Project Report, Chapter 5.

2.1 Metrolinx Interim Cultural Heritage Management Process

Metrolinx undertakings have the potential to impact significant cultural heritage properties by virtue of interventions with historic railway corridors and train stations, some of which have the potential to be of provincial significance. Metrolinx undertakings, particularly projects in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) and associated with the Big Move Plan, also have the potential to impact locally-significant cultural heritage resources where property acquisitions and/or substantial land clearance activities are required. In response to this, Metrolinx developed an internal heritage methodology to address potential impacts to cultural heritage resources. The Metrolinx Interim Cultural Heritage Management Process (2013) is summarized below:

The Metrolinx Interim Cultural Heritage Management Process involves four steps:  Step 1: Screening o Involves pre-screening all properties that Metrolinx owns, controls, or plans to acquire to identify properties that are 40 or more years old. All known and potential cultural heritage resources will be identified during this stage. A Cultural Heritage Screening Report will be prepared and a screening checklist will be used to identify known and potential cultural heritage resources.

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

. All properties that are 40 or more years old and are owned by Metrolinx will be given the status of “Potential Provincial Heritage Property”. . All properties that are 40 or more years old and are not owned by Metrolinx will be given the status of “Conditional Heritage Property”.  Step 2: Heritage Evaluation o Involves the evaluation of identified heritage properties by a qualified person(s). A Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) will be prepared to identify the heritage value of the subject property. A CHER involves conducting research, gathering documentary evidence, and consultation with appropriate groups/agencies to identify the heritage value of the property. The subject property will then be evaluated against Ontario Regulation 9/06 and 10/06 to determine whether the property has local and/or provincial significance under the Ontario Heritage Act. If found to have cultural heritage value, a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value will be prepared to set out a description of the property, a statement of its heritage value, and a list of heritage attributes.  Step 3: Interim Heritage Management o Involves the development of a Conservation Plan based on the Statement Cultural Heritage Value prepared for all properties found to have cultural heritage value during the Heritage Evaluation Stage. In cases where the undertaking is not contemplated in the Conservation Plan or where one does not yet exist, a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) will be prepared by a qualified person(s). A HIA identifies the potential impacts to the heritage value of a property resulting from the undertaking and proposes mitigation measures to mitigate negative impacts.  Step 4: Review and Approval for Metrolinx Properties of Provincial Significance o All Conservation Plans prepared for Metrolinx Properties of Provincial Significance will be reviewed by the President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Metrolinx. Following this review, the Conservation Plan will be forwarded to the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) for review and approval. Once a Conservation Plan has been approved by the MTCS, no further MTCS approval is required for modifications to Metrolinx Heritage Properties of Provincial Significance provided that the proposed modifications follow the approved plan. In addition, all proposals for the demolition or removal of heritage properties will be forwarded to the CEO of Metrolinx, and in turn, the MTCS for review and approval.

In addition to the Metrolinx Interim Cultural Heritage Management Process, Metrolinx has also established a heritage committee to administer this process and ensure that decisions affecting Cultural Heritage are made in an open, accountable, and responsible way.

2.2 Assessment Methodology

To assess the potential impacts of the undertaking, identified cultural heritage resources (CHR) were considered against a range of possible impacts as outlined in the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

document entitled Screening for Impacts to Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes (September 2010), which include:

 Destruction, removal, or relocation of any, or part of any, significant heritage attribute or feature;  Alteration, which means a change in any manner and includes restoration, renovation, repair or disturbance;  Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the visibility of a natural feature of plantings, such as a garden;  Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context, or a significant relationship;  Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas from, within, or to a built and natural feature;  A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces; and,  Soil disturbance such as a change in grade, or an alteration of the drainage pattern or excavation.

A number of additional factors are also considered when evaluating potential impacts on identified cultural heritage resources. These are outlined in a document set out by the Ministry of Culture and Communications (now Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport) and the Ministry of the Environment entitled Guideline for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental Assessments (October 1992) and include:

 Magnitude: the amount of physical alteration or destruction which can be expected;  Severity: the irreversibility or reversibility of an impact;  Duration: the length of time an adverse impact persists;  Frequency: the number of times an impact can be expected;  Range: the spatial distribution, widespread or site specific, of an adverse impact; and  Diversity: the number of different kinds of activities to affect a heritage resource.

Cultural heritage resources may be affected in a variety of ways: resources may experience displacement (i.e., removal), if they are located within the project footprint; they may also be indirectly impacted through disruption by the introduction of physical, visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that are not in keeping with their character and/or setting. As such, appropriate mitigation measures for the undertaking need to be considered. Where any identified, above ground, cultural heritage resources may be affected by direct or indirect impacts, appropriate mitigation measures should be developed. This may include completing a heritage impact assessment and/or documentation report, or employing suitable measures such as landscaping, buffering or other forms of mitigation, where appropriate. In this regard, provincial and federal guidelines should be consulted for advice and further heritage assessment work should be undertaken as necessary.

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

3. Cultural Heritage Resources

The Baseline Conditions Report identified 28 cultural heritage resources within or adjacent to the UP Express study area. All 28 cultural heritage resources were considered against the Screening for Impacts to Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes (MTCS 2010) document. The results of this evaluation are included in Table 1. Eight of the 28 identified cultural heritage resources are expected to be impacted in some form by the proposed work. These resources include CHR 1, 3, 6, 7, 13, 28, 29, and 35.

Based on information provided by Metrolinx, it was established that three heritage resources have been removed since the Baseline Conditions phase was carried out for this study. Resources that are no longer extant include: CHR 9, CHR 10, and CHR 11. Accordingly, no negative impacts are anticipated to these resources resulting from the proposed undertaking.

It should be noted that several resources have been previously evaluated (see Golder Associates2011a; Golder Associates 2011b; Taylor Hazell Architects 2012). This report uses the information gathered in these reports to identify cultural heritage attributes and evaluate the potential impacts posed to these resources.

In addition to the cultural heritage resources identified in the Baseline Conditions Report, 15 bridges over 40 years old are expected to be impacted in some form by the proposed work. These bridges were not included in the Baseline Conditions Report but are listed in Table 2. Fourteen of these bridges were subject to Heritage Impact Assessments (HIA) in 2011 and were found to not retain cultural heritage value (CHR B1-B4, B6-B7 and B9-B15) (Golder Associates 2011a and 2011b). These bridges are not included in this report since they were evaluated against O.Reg 9/06 and 10/06 are were found to not retain cultural heritage value. Two of the 15 bridges were not subject a HIA (CHR B5 and B8) and are addressed in this report.

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 1: Potential Impacts to Cultural Heritage Resources (CHR) in the UP Express Electrification study area Section CHR Description Level of Recognition Metrolinx Status Potential Impact* 1 1 Bathurst Street Bridge Listed Heritage Property (City of Toronto); Listed on the Ontario Heritage Conditional Heritage Property Alteration Bridge List 2 Strachan Avenue Level Crossing3 N/A N/A None 3 King Street Subway Listed Heritage Property (City of Toronto) Potential Provincial Heritage Property Alteration 4 Queen Street Subway Evaluated, Local Significance (Golder Associates 2011a) Potential Provincial Heritage Property None 5 Lansdowne Avenue Subway Evaluated; Local Significance (Golder Associates 2011a) Potential Provincial Heritage Property None 6 Dundas Street Bridge Identified during Baseline Conditions field review n/a Alteration 15 805 Wellington St W (Industrial Building) Identified during Baseline Conditions field review Conditional Heritage Property None 16 99 Sudbury St (Industrial Building) Identified during Baseline Conditions field review Conditional Heritage Property None 28 UP Express Corridor Identified during Baseline Conditions field review Potential Provincial Heritage Property Alteration 32 Union Station Heritage Conservation District Designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act Conditional Heritage Property None 34 Proposed West Queen West Heritage Conservation District Under study by the City of Toronto Conditional Heritage Property None 35 Fort York and Garrison Common Heritage Conservation District Designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act Conditional Heritage Property Obstruction of views; Soil disturbance 2 7 Wallace Avenue Pedestrian Bridge Listed Heritage Property (City of Toronto) Conditional Heritage Property Alteration 8 Dennison Road Level Crossing Identified during Baseline Conditions field review Conditional Heritage Property None 17 371 Wallace Avenue (Industrial Building) Identified during Baseline Conditions field review Conditional Heritage Property None 18 30 Edwin (Industrial Building) Identified during Baseline Conditions field review Conditional Heritage Property None 19 1655 Dupont Street (Industrial Building) Listed Heritage Property (City of Toronto) Conditional Heritage Property None 20 143 Old Weston Road (Industrial Building) Identified during Baseline Conditions field review Conditional Heritage Property None 26 Mount Denis Historic Settlement Identified during Baseline Conditions field review Conditional Heritage Property None 27 Weston Historic Settlement Identified during Baseline Conditions field review Conditional Heritage Property None 29 3500 Eglinton Ave West (Kodak Lands) Evaluated, Local Significance (Taylor Hazell Architects 2012) Potential Provincial Heritage Property Alteration 3 9 John Street Level Crossing (demolished) Evaluated; Local Significance (Golder Associates 2011b) n/a (demolished) None 10 King Street Level Crossing (demolished) Identified during Baseline Conditions field review n/a (demolished) None 11 Church Street Level Crossing (demolished) Identified during Baseline Conditions field review n/a (demolished) None 12 Humber River Identified; Canadian Heritage River Conditional Heritage Property None 13 Humber River Bridge Evaluated; Local and Provincial Significance (Golder Associates 2011b) Potential Provincial Heritage Property Alteration 14 Carlingview Drive Level Crossing Identified during Baseline Conditions field review Conditional Heritage Property None 21 2417 Weston Road (Residence; demolished) Evaluated, Local Significance (ASI 2011) n/a (demolished) None 22 6 Humberview Crescent (Residence) Evaluated; Local Significance (Golder Associates 2011b) Conditional Heritage Property None 23 50 St. Philips Road (Golf Course) Identified during Baseline Conditions field review Conditional Heritage Property None 27 Weston Historic Settlement Centre Identified during Baseline Conditions field review Conditional Heritage Property None 4 24 Mimico Creek Identified during Baseline Conditions field review Conditional Heritage Property None 25 Pearson Airport Listed Heritage Property (City of Mississauga) Conditional Heritage Property None *See Section 2.2 of this report for definitions of potential impacts

3 The Strachan Avenue Grade Separation is currently under construction as part of the Metrolinx Georgetown South Project.

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

Table 2: Potential Impacts to Additional Bridges in the UP Express Electrification study area Section CHR Description Level of Recognition Metrolinx Status Potential Impact 1 B1 Brock Avenue Subway Evaluated; No heritage significance** n/a None B2 Bloor Street Subway Evaluated; No heritage significance** n/a None 2 B3 Dupont Street Subway Evaluated; No heritage significance** n/a None B4 St. Clair Avenue Subway Evaluated; No heritage significance*** n/a None B5 Rogers Road Bridge Identified through background research Conditional Heritage Property Alteration B6 Eglinton Avenue Subway Evaluated; No heritage significance*** n/a Alteration B7 Ray Avenue Subway Evaluated; No heritage significance*** n/a None B8 Jane Street Bridge Identified through background research Conditional Heritage Property Alteration 3 B9 Lawrence Avenue Subway Evaluated; No heritage significance*** n/a None B10 Weston Road Subway Evaluated; No heritage significance*** n/a None B11 Islington Avenue Bridge Evaluated; No heritage significance*** n/a Alteration B12 Kipling Avenue Subway Evaluated; No heritage significance*** n/a None B13 Martin Grove Subway Evaluated; No heritage significance*** n/a None B14 Highway 401 Bridge Evaluated; No heritage significance*** n/a Alteration B15 Highway 27 Overpass Evaluated; No heritage significance*** n/a None *See Section 2.1 of this report for definitions of potential impacts **See Golder Associates 2011a ***See Golder Associates 2011b

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

3.1 Section 1 –UP Express Union Station to UP Express Bloor Station

Section 1 of the study area includes the rail corridor between UP Express Union Station and UP Express Bloor Station and a Paralleling Station located on Ordnance Street. This segment of the alignment runs through the historic core of the City of Toronto and numerous nineteenth-century settlement centres. As noted in Section 3.2.1 of the Baseline Conditions Report, this portion of the corridor retains numerous properties that have been listed on the municipal heritage inventory or designated under Part IV or Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. This section of the corridor also passes through three known or potential Heritage Conservation Districts (HCD), which include the Union Station and Draper HCDs (designated under Part V of the OHA) and the proposed West Queen West and Liberty Village HCDs, which have been authorized for study by the City of Toronto, and the Fort York and Garrison Common National Historic Site and Heritage Conservation District (designated under Part V of the OHA).

Section 1 also includes a Paralleling Station located on the east side of 10 Ordnance Street. This property forms part of a triangular shaped parcel bounded by Ordnance Street on its west side, rail lines on its north and south sides, and the divergence between the two rail lines on the east side. As discussed in Section 3.2.1.1 of the Baseline Conditions Report, this property is situated north of the Fort York and Garrison Common National Historic Site and Heritage Conservation District.

The Baseline Conditions Report identified nine cultural heritage resources within the Section 1 study area. Five of these resources will be impacted by the proposed undertaking. These include:

 Bathurst Street Bridge (CHR 1)  King Street Bridge (CHR 3)  Dundas Street Bridge (CHR 6)  UP Express Corridor (CHR 28)  Fort York Heritage Conservation District (CHR 35)

This section provides detailed descriptions of these resources and builds on the research conducted for the Baseline Conditions phase of this project. This section also uses information from previous studies carried out by Golder Associates (2011a; 2011b) and Catherine Naismith Architects (2010).

A summary of anticipated impacts and net effects is provided in Table 3 and feature mapping of these resources in provided in Appendix A.

3.1.1 Bathurst Street Bridge

The Bathurst Street Bridge (CHR 1) is listed as a cultural heritage resource by the City of Toronto (City of Toronto 2013a) and is listed in the Ontario Heritage Bridge List. The Bathurst Street Bridge was originally known as the Humber River Bridge. It was constructed in 1903 but was later moved to its present location in 1916. The direction of the bridge was adjusted in 1931.

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

3.1.1.1 Footprint Impacts

The footprint impacts to Bathurst Street Bridge (CHR 1) will be assessed at a future date, once drawings of the bridge are complete. Further, a resource specific CHER and HIA are needed to identify the heritage attributes of the Bathurst Street Bridge, establish potential impacts, and develop appropriate mitigation measures.

Proposed Overhead Contact System Method: Bridge protection barrier to be added.

Potential Effect: Displacement of heritage attributes and/or disruption of setting.

Avoidance/Mitigation/Compensation Measures: A CHER should be prepared prior to construction to evaluate the cultural heritage value of the bridge and identify heritage attributes. If the Bathurst Street Bridge is found to retain cultural heritage value then a HIA should be conducted to identify potential impacts and propose appropriate mitigation measures. During detail design, the HIA should be developed in consultation with the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport and City of Toronto Heritage Preservation Services.

Net Effects: Displacement and/or disruption to the Bathurst Street Bridge would be minimized by carrying out a CHER to identify heritage value and attributes and, if needed, a HIA to identify impacts and appropriate mitigation measures. The HIA would be carried out during detail design and would be developed in consultation with the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport and City of Toronto Heritage Preservation Services.

3.1.1.2 Operations and Maintenance Impacts

No long-term effects are anticipated to the Bathurst Street Bridge (CHR 1) due to the operation and maintenance of the UP Express Electrification system.

Proposed Operations and Maintenance Activities: Operation of the UP Express Electrification system.

Potential Effect: There are no anticipated negative effects to the Bathurst Street Bridge resulting from the operation and maintenance of the UP Express Electrification system.

Avoidance/Mitigation/Compensation Measures: None.

Net Effects: No negative operations and maintenance impacts anticipated.

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

3.1.1.3 Construction Impacts

The construction of the bridge protection barrier, OCS infrastructure, and grounding grid has potential short-term effects on the Bathurst Street Bridge (CHR 1) due to construction related activities.

Proposed Construction Activities: Typical construction period of the bridge barriers/overhead contact system will be 2-3 months. Construction activities will include the installation of physical UP Express Electrification project components.

Potential Effect: Short-term disruption to the setting of the Bathurst Street Bridge resulting from construction activities though the introduction of physical, visual, noise-related, and atmospheric elements that are not in keeping with the character of the bridge.

Avoidance/Mitigation/Compensation Measures: Staging areas should be carefully selected so that they are non-invasive and avoid all heritage attributes. Pre-construction vibration studies may be required to mitigate any potential vibration related impacts. Pre-construction conditions should be re-established through post-construction landscape treatments.

Net Effects: Short-term disruption to the Bathurst Street Bridge would be minimized through appropriate mitigation measures. Potential mitigation measures may include the selection of non-invasive staging areas, pre-construction vibration studies (if needed), post-construction landscape treatments, and avoidance of heritage attributes.

3.1.2 King Street Subway

The King Street Subway (CHR 3) is listed as a cultural heritage resource by the City of Toronto. It was constructed in 1888 with Charles Sproatt as the Engineer and B. Gibson as the contractor. The bridge originally had a wooden deck, which was replaced with a concrete deck in 1975 (City of Toronto 2013b).

3.1.2.1 Footprint Impacts

The footprint impacts to King Street Subway (CHR 3) will be assessed at a future date, once drawings of the bridge are complete. Further, a resource specific CHER and HIA are needed to identify the heritage attributes of the King Street Subway, establish potential impacts, and develop appropriate mitigation measures.

Proposed Overhead Contact System Method: Span with attachment to bridge;

Potential Effect: Displacement of heritage attributes and/or disruption of setting.

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

Avoidance/Mitigation/Compensation Measures: A CHER should be prepared prior to construction to evaluate the cultural heritage value of the bridge and identify heritage attributes. If the King Street Subway is found to have cultural heritage value, then a HIA should be conducted to identify potential impacts and propose appropriate mitigation measures. During detail design, the HIA should be developed in consultation with the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport and City of Toronto Heritage Preservation Services.

Net Effects: Displacement and/or disruption to the King Street Subway would be minimized by carrying out a CHER to identify heritage value and attributes and, if needed, a HIA to identify impacts and appropriate mitigation measures. The HIA would be carried out during detail design and would be developed in consultation with the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport and City of Toronto Heritage Preservation Services.

3.1.2.2 Operations and Maintenance Impacts

No long-term effects are anticipated to the King Street Subway (CHR 3) due to the operation and maintenance of the UP Express Electrification system.

Proposed Operations and Maintenance Activities: Operation of the UP Express Electrification system.

Potential Effect: There are no anticipated negative effects to the King Street Subway resulting from the operation and maintenance of the UP Express Electrification system.

Avoidance/Mitigation/Compensation Measures: None.

Net Effects: No negative operations and maintenance impacts anticipated.

3.1.2.3 Construction Impacts

The construction of the bridge protection barrier, OCS infrastructure, and grounding grid has potential short-term effects on the King Street Subway (CHR 3) due to construction related activities.

Potential Effect: Short-term disruption to the setting of the King Street Subway resulting from construction activities though the introduction of physical, visual, noise-related, and atmospheric elements that are not in keeping with the character of the bridge.

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

Net Effects: Short-term disruption to the King Street Subway would be minimized through appropriate mitigation measures. Potential mitigation measures may include the selection of non-invasive staging areas, pre-construction vibration studies (if needed), post-construction landscape treatments, and avoidance of heritage attributes.

3.1.3 Dundas Street Bridge

The Dundas Street Bridge was identified as a cultural heritage resource in the Baseline Conditions Report (Metrolinx 2013). However, further study revealed that the bridge was constructed in 1983. Accordingly, this bridge does not require further study since it is less than 40 years old and does not meet criteria set out in the MTCS Screening for Impacts to Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes checklist. As set out in the Metrolinx Interim Cultural Heritage Management Process (2013), this resource should be documented/filed and no further action taken in regards to the preservation/conservation of the property.

3.1.4 Rail Corridor

The rail corridor (CHR 28) between UP Express Union Station and UP Express Bloor Station was identified as a cultural heritage resource in the Baseline Conditions Report (Metrolinx 2013). Unterman McPhail Associates also identified the rail corridor as a cultural heritage resource in their 2009 report on the Georgetown South Service Expansion and Union-Pearson Rail Link. Both reports recognize that the rail corridor is a linear cultural heritage landscape that is comprised on the former Grand Trunk Railway (1865), Toronto, Grey and Bruce Railway (1867) (now part of Canadian Pacific Railway), and the Credit Valley Railway. Golder Associates noted that the width of the right-of-way and the arrangement of the tracks in the rail corridor are defining characteristics of this cultural heritage landscape (2011b:65).

As identified in previous reports, the heritage attributes of the rail corridor consist of the alignment, width of the right-of-way, and arrangement of tracks. It should be noted that the infrastructure within the rail alignment is not considered to have heritage value since it has been continually upgraded and replaced for safety reasons. Accordingly, the installation of portal structures associated with the UP Express Electrification EA will not impact the heritage value of the rail corridor since the proposed work will not alter the alignment, width of the right-of-way, or track arrangement. Therefore no negative footprint, operations and maintenance, or construction impacts are anticipated to the rail corridor.

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

3.1.5 Fort York and Garrison Common National Historic Site and Heritage Conservation District

The proposed Paralleling Station is located at the east end of 10 Ordnance Street. The property forms part of a triangular shaped parcel bounded by Ordnance Street on the west, rail lines on the north, east, and south. The Fort York and Garrison Common National Historic Site and Heritage Conservation District (CHR 35) is located in close proximity to the Paralleling Station site, immediately south of the rail lines. While the Fort York and Garrison Common National Historic Site and Conservation District is not within the proposed Paralleling Station site, three heritage attributes associated with Fort York and Garrison Common are located within the limits of the Paralleling Station site.

3.1.5.1 Fort York and Garrison Common National Historic Site and Heritage Conservation District

The Fort York site is well studied and has numerous recommendations on how to handle development in the vicinity of the fort. A review of Fort York planning documents revealed that the planned Paralleling Station has the potential to disrupt heritage attributes such as established viewpoints, the former alignment of Garrison Creek, and the darkness of the fort (see Catherine Naismith Architects 2010:67; du ToitAllsopp Hillier 2004; The Friends of Fort York and Garrison Common, and The Fork York Review Board 2000). It should be noted that the Fort York Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan is in draft form and is not yet complete. Accordingly, the following text uses this plan as a guide but recognizes that the impacts and proposed mitigation measures should be submitted to Heritage Preservation Services at the City of Toronto and the Friends of Fort York for review and comment.

The Fort York and Garrison Common National Historic Site and Heritage Conservation District is bounded to the north by the Canadian National Railway lines, to the east by Bathurst Street, to the south by York Boulevard and to the west by Strachan Avenue, although portions of the district extend past Strachan Avenue and Bathurst Street on the east and west. The Heritage Conservation District boundaries relate to city owned land directly connected with Fort York (Catherine Naismith Architects 2010:25). It should be noted that there are associated sites and attributes within a broader cultural heritage landscape outside the boundaries of the Heritage Conservation District. These attributes include views to and from the fort in addition to landscape features.

Adjacent lands, as defined in the draft Fort York Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan, are approximately bounded by Portland Street/Dan Leckie Way the east, Lake Shore Boulevard and Coronation Park in the south, the first line of Exhibition Grounds and Crawford Street in the west, and King Street to the north. The lands within this boundary are also known as Fort York Precinct. The Fort York Precinct encompasses the original Garrison Common Reserve and the lake-fill lands to the south. The proposed Paralleling Station is adjacent to the Fort York site and falls within the Fort York Precinct.

The proposed Paralleling Station is located within and adjacent to identified heritage attributes of Fort York (see Catherine Naismith 2010). Impacted heritage attributes include identified viewpoints to and

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

from the fort, the natural course of Garrison Creek, and the darkness of the fort. Potentially impacted heritage attributes are shown in Figure 1. Descriptions of these attributes are provided below in Section 3.1.5.2 of this report.

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

Figure 1: Heritage attributes within the Paralleling Station Site (Ordnance Street)

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

3.1.5.2 Heritage Attributes within the Fort York Precinct

Garrison Creek and Garrison Creek Ravine

Both the original alignment of Garrison Creek and the former Garrison Creek Ravine are identified as heritage attributes in the Fort York Precinct (Catherine Naismith Architects 2010:87) and are located within the planned footprint for the Paralleling Station (Ordnance Street). These features are described below:

 Garrison Creek: Garrison Creek was a small watercourse that emptied into Lake Ontario east of Fort York. Although the creek has now largely been captured by various city sewers, a number of parks and topographic features north to Dupont Street still reflect the character and route of this watercourse. The creek was probably broad and marshy where it emptied into the lake, a feature that would have been seen as a strategic benefit when the original fort and present fort were sited. The exact location of the creek is difficult to map since the creek meandered and the mouth of this watercourse was moved south as the lands adjacent to the fort were filled and modified. Garrison Creek was channelized and buried when the area was developed for industrial and railway uses.

 Garrison Creek Ravine: Garrison Creek was located in a ravine between two embankments. Paintings of the first Fort, which was developed on the east embankment give an impression of the east embankment as a steep, muddy cliff with a pebbly beach at its base. Numerous features were located within the Garrison Creek Ravine (i.e. stables, dwellings, blacksmith shop, carpenter’s shop/forge/stables/ordnance house). The Garrison Creek Ravine was filled and leveled to create a flat plain when the area was developed for industrial and railway uses in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.

It should be noted that the Garrison Creek and Garrison Creek Ravine are identified as archaeological attributes in addition to being heritage attributes. Accordingly, recommendations for these resources will include provisions for archaeological assessment since these resources are located below ground.

Darkness/No light

The draft Fort York Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan identifies that there is a no-light policy at Fort York that was first established as a military priority. As described by the plan, “Today, the Fort is an oasis of darkness in the centre of the city” (Catherine Naismith Architects 2010:79). The darkness of Fort York is considered a heritage attribute due to its association with the military origins of the Fort (Catherine Naismith Architects 2010:120).

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

Viewpoints

The Paralleling Station is located within viewpoints 4, 9e, and 20. These viewpoints are described below:

 Viewpoint 4: Framed views through twinned embrasures in the ramparts (Northeast of the Officers’ Barracks) looking northwest up the valley of the Garrison Creek. The view conveys the elevated position of the Fort and the Fort’s relationship to Garrison Creek Valley. The view is most notably impacted by the foreground vegetation, the abattoir, billboards, and the railway (Catherin Naismith Architects 2010:72).

 Viewpoint 9e: Looking northwest across the dry moat to the Garrison Creek Valley and the earliest sub-division of the Garrison Reserve associated with Fort York. The view conveys the elevated position of the Fort and its relationship to Garrison Creek. Non-contributory features include the metal security fence, vegetation along the railway embankment and the abattoir (Catharine Naismith Architects 2010:74).

 Viewpoint 20: Representative view from a sequence along Wellington Street looking down the Garrison Creek Valley and across the railway tracks to the Fort. This view is critical in that it conveys the relationship of the Fort to Garrison Creek. Non-contributory features include the public works yard, abattoir, railway tracks, billboards as well as miscellaneous vegetation. This view may also be impacted by the proposed Fort York Pedestrian Bridge (Catharine Naismith Architects 2010:78).

The protection and enhancement of the identified views of Fort and its context have been recognized in all Fort York related planning initiatives over the past several years, including the draft Fort York Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan (Catherine Naismith Architects 2010: 67), the Fort York Neighbourhood Public Realm Plan (du ToitAllsopp Hillier 2004) and Fort York: Setting it Right (The Friends of Fort York and Garrison Common and the Fort York Management Board 2000)

3.1.5.3 Recommendations for Heritage Attributes in the Fort York Precinct

Since development in the Fort York Precinct creates the immediate setting for the Fort, development proposals within this area should be referred to Heritage Preservation Services at the City of Toronto (http://www.toronto.ca/heritage-preservation/) and to the Friends of Fort York (http://www.fortyork.ca/contact.html) for review and comment prior to construction.

The draft Fort York Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan puts forth a number of specific recommendations to management of cultural heritage features located within the Fort York Precinct (Catherine Naismith Architects 2010:130-133). Recommendations regarding the Fort Precinct and Lands Adjacent to the District are provided in Section 8.2.3 of the draft report (Catherine Naismith Architects

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

2010:130-133). All mitigation measures presented below in Sections 3.1.5.5-3.1.5.7 follow the recommendations set out in the draft Fort York Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan. All preservation and restoration measures must follow the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Canada’s Historic Places 2010).

3.1.5.4 Recommendations for Archaeological Attributes in the Fort York Precinct

The following recommendations are proposed to guide the conservation of archaeological resources in the Fort York Precinct:

 If not already completed, a Stage 1archaeological assessment should be carried out to determine the archaeological potential of these lands;

 Should these lands retain archaeological potential, then Stage 2 test excavations and/or Stage 2 construction monitoring may be required to document any archaeological resources that may be present; and,

 All archaeological investigation should be undertaken in accordance with the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011).

3.1.5.5 Footprint Impacts

As discussed above, the Paralleling Station is located within the Fort York Precinct and contains heritage attributes (Garrison Creek, former Garrison Creek Ravine, identified view points, darkness). Further, the Fort York Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan identified a number of specific recommendations for new development within the Fort York Precinct (Catherine Naismith Architects 2010:130-133). These recommendations are used here to guide avoidance/mitigation/compensation measures needed to mitigate footprint impacts.

Plans for the Paralleling Station should be reviewed by Heritage Preservation Services at the City of Toronto and by the Friends of Fort York. Any conservation activities will be undertaken in conformance with the National Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada.

Proposed Method: The footprint of the proposed Paralleling Station (Ordnance Street) will be approximately 40m x 25m with additional space required for parking setbacks, landscaping, and construction staging. Fencing will be provided around the Paralleling Station at a height of approximately 2 to 3m. In addition, a gantry will be constructed over the rail line near the western portion of the site. The gantry will be located outside the current rail right-of-way but within Metrolinx owned lands.

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

Potential Effect: Displacement and/or disruption of the original alignment of Garrison Creek, obstruction/disruption of identified/protected views (Viewpoints 4, 9e, and 20, and/or disruption of setting through the introduction of light sources.

Avoidance/Mitigation/Compensation Measures: A Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) should be carried out to determine the impact of the Paralleling Station on identified viewpoints to and from Fort York; Stage 1 and/or 2 Archaeological Assessment should be carried out for all lands affected by the Paralleling Station; Lighting within the Paralleling Station should be designed to have minimal impact to the darkness of Fort York; and, the plans for the Paralleling Station should be submitted to Heritage Preservation Services at the City of Toronto (http://www.toronto.ca/heritage-preservation/) and to the Friends of Fort York (http://www.fortyork.ca/contact.html) for review and comment prior to construction.

Net Effects: Displacement and/or disruption of the original alignment of Garrison Creek would be mitigated through archaeological assessment to determine the presence or absence of archaeological resources in the Paralleling Station study area. The disruption of identified viewpoints would be mitigated through the implementation of a VIA. It is expected that the recommendations of this report would provide appropriate mitigation measures for the potential impacts of the Paralleling Station on views to and from Fort York. Disruption to the setting of Fort York through the introduction of light sources would be mitigated through the sensitive design of lighting within the Paralleling Station.

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

Figure 2: Site Layout of Ordnance Street Paralleling Station

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

3.1.5.6 Operations and Maintenance Impacts

No long-term effects are anticipated to the Fort York and Garrison Common National Historic Site and Heritage Conservation District (CHR 35) due to the operation and maintenance of the UP Express system.

Proposed Operations and Maintenance Activities: Operation of the UP Express system.

Potential Effect: There are no anticipated negative effects to the Fort York and Garrison Common National Historic Site and Heritage Conservation District resulting from the operation and maintenance of the UP Express system.

Avoidance/Mitigation/Compensation Measures: None.

Net Effects: No negative operations and maintenance impacts anticipated.

3.1.5.7 Construction Impacts

The construction of the Paralleling Station (Ordnance Street) has the potential to impact the Fort York and Garrison Common National Historic Site and Heritage Conservation District (CHR 35) resulting from construction activities associated with the UP Express Electrification project.

Proposed Method: Construction activities for the Paralleling Station will take place during day time hours (7am to 7pm). Construction of the Paralleling Station will involve the clearance of the site, removal of contaminated soil (if any), installation of concrete pads, installation of pre-packaged equipment, installation of a security fence, the construction of ductbanks, and installation of cable. Heavy truck and machinery will be required to carry and install the pre-packaged equipment to the site. The estimated construction period will be between 6-9 months.

Potential Effect: Short-term disruption of the heritage attributes within the Fort York Precinct due to the introduction of physical, visual, audible, and atmospheric elements resulting from construction related activities. Potential disturbance/displacement of the original alignment of Garrison Creek and the original topography of Garrison Creek Ravine through the removal of soil.

Avoidance/Mitigation/Compensation Measures: Staging areas should be carefully selected so that they are non-invasive and, if possible, avoid heritage attributes, including views. Pre-construction conditions would be re-established or improved upon through post-construction landscape treatments. If possible, construction activities should avoid the removal of soil in the vicinity of Garrison Creek and the former Garrison Creek Ravine. Stage 1 and/or 2 archaeological assessments should be carried out prior to construction to determine the archaeological potential of these lands. Stage 2 test excavation and/or

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

Stage 2 construction monitoring may be required to document any archaeological resources that may be present. Net Effects: Short-term disruption to Grade I heritage attributes within the Fort York Precinct should be minimized through the selection of non-invasive staging areas, post-construction landscape treatments, and avoidance of heritage attributes. Disturbance/displacement of potential archaeological resources should be minimized through Stage 2 archaeological monitoring during construction.

3.1.6 Summary

A summary of the foot print impacts, operations and maintenance impacts, and construction impacts for Section 1 of the UP Express Union Station to UP Express Bloor Station is provided in Table 3.

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

CHR Description Construction Footprint Impacts Operations and Maintenance Impacts Construction Impacts Net Effects Method

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

Potential Effect Avoidance/Mitigation/ Potential Effect Avoidance/Mitigation/ Potential Effect Avoidance/Mitigatio Compensation Compensation n/Compensation 1 Bathurst Bridge protection  Displacement of  Carry out a CHER  No negative  None.  Short-term  Staging areas  Foot print impacts to the Bathurst Street Street Bridge barrier to be heritage attributes to identify heritage impacts disruption resulting should be selected Bridge would be mitigated through the and/or disruption value and attributes; anticipated. from construction so that they are implementation of a CHER and, if added. of setting.  If found to have activities (i.e. non-invasive and needed, a HIA. These studies will be (Potential cultural heritage introduction of avoid heritage used to identify heritage attributes, Provincial value, conduct a construction attributes; identify impacts, and develop appropriate Heritage HIA to identify related physical,  Pre-construction mitigation measures; Property) potential impacts visual, noise- vibration studies  The HIA would be carried out during and appropriate related, and should be carried detail design and would be developed in mitigation atmospheric out (if needed); consultation with the Ministry of Tourism, measures; and, elements). and, Culture and Sport and City of Toronto  During detail  Post-construction Heritage Preservation Services; and, design, the HIA landscape  Construction impacts would be mitigated should be treatments carried through the careful selection of staging developed in out to restore pre- areas, pre-construction vibration studies consultation with construction (if needed), and post-construction the Ministry of conditions. landscape treatments. Tourism, Culture and Sport and City of Toronto Heritage Preservation Services.

3 King Street Span with  Displacement of  Carry out a CHER  No negative  None.  Short-term  Staging areas  Foot print impacts to the King Street Rail attachment to heritage attributes to identify heritage impacts disruption resulting should be selected Subway would be mitigated through the and/or disruption value and attributes; anticipated. from construction so that they are implementation of a CHER and, if Overpass bridge. of setting.KI  If found to have activities (i.e. non-invasive and needed, a HIA. These studies will be cultural heritage introduction of avoid heritage used to identify heritage attributes, (Potential value or interest or construction attributes; identify impacts, and develop appropriate Provincial of Provincial related physical,  Pre-construction mitigation measures; Heritage Significance, visual, noise- vibration studies  The HIA would be carried out during conduct a HIA to related, and should be carried detail design and would be developed in Property) identify potential atmospheric out (if needed); consultation with the Ministry of Tourism, impacts and elements). and, Culture and Sport and City of Toronto appropriate  Post-construction Heritage Preservation Services; and, mitigation landscape  Construction impacts would be mitigated measures; and, treatments carried through the careful selection of staging  During detail out to restore pre- areas, pre-construction vibration studies design, the HIA construction (if needed), and post-construction should be conditions. landscape treatments. developed in consultation with the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport and City of Toronto Heritage Preservation Services.

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

6 Dundas Bridge protection  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A Street Bridge barrier to be added 28 UP Express Portal structures  None  None  None  None  None  None  None Corridor to be erected approximately every 50-65 m along the rail corridor. 35 Fort York and Construction of  Displace the  Carry out Stage 1  No negative  None.  Short-term  Staging areas  Impacts to potential archaeological Garrison Parallel Station, original alignment (completed) and/or impacts disruption of should be carefully resources would be mitigated through of Garrison Creek Stage 2 anticipated. heritage attributes selected so that Stage 1 (completed) and/or Stage 2 Common fencing, parking (archaeological archaeological due to introduction they are non- archaeological assessments; National facilities, feature); and, assessments as of physical, visible, invasive and avoid  Disruption to the visual setting of Fort Historic Site grounding and  Disrupt the visual appropriate; audible, and heritage attributes; York would be mitigated through a VIA; and Heritage bonding setting of Fort  Conduct a VIA to atmospheric  Pre-construction  Short-term disruptions would be elements resulting Conservation infrastructure. York. identify potential conditions re- minimized through careful selection of impacts to from construction established or staging areas, avoidance of heritage District viewpoints/visual related activities; improved through attributes (if possible), and post- setting and develop  Potential post-construction construction landscape treatments; and, (Conditional appropriate displacement of landscape  Design concerns to be addressed Heritage mitigation measures heritage attributes treatments; through coordination with Heritage through removal of Property) (if required); and,  If possible, avoid Preservation Services at the City of  Coordinate with soil in the vicinity the removal of soil Toronto. Heritage of Garrison Creek in the vicinity of Preservation and the Former Garrison Creek Services at the City Garrison Creek and Former of Toronto to review Ravine. Garrison Creek design concerns. Ravine.

Table 3: Summary of Impacts for Section 1 UP Express Union Station to UP Express Bloor Station

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

3.2 Section 2 –UP Express Bloor Station to UP Express Weston Station

Section 2 of the UP Express Corridor includes the rail line from Bloor Station to Weston Station and a new Paralleling Station located at 3500 Eglinton Avenue West. This section of the study area includes nineteenth century settlement centres that first developed as separate communities in York Township and were later annexed to the City of Toronto in the late nineteenth and early twentieth-centuries. As discussed in Section 3.2.2 of the Baseline Conditions Report, Section 2 of the UP Express Electrification corridor retains numerous properties that are listed on Toronto’s municipal heritage inventory or are designated under Part IV or Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. In addition, this section of the corridor is located in close proximity to two known or potential Heritage Conservation Districts (HCD), which include the Phase 1 Weston HCD and Phase 2 Weston HCD.

Section 2 also includes a new Paralleling Station, located at 3500 Eglinton Avenue West. As discussed in Section 3.2.2.1 of the Baseline Conditions Report, 3500 Eglinton Avenue West is a well documented site that is known to retain cultural heritage value (see Taylor Hazell Architects 2012). Specifically, Building No. 9 on the Kodak Site is noted as having cultural heritage value. It is noted that potential effects on Building 9 were assessed as part of the Eglinton Crosstown LRT EA and is to be preserved as part of the Eglinton LRT project. Therefore, potential impacts and mitigation measures associated with this feature have not been addressed in this report.

The Baseline Conditions Report identified nine cultural heritage resources within the Section 2 study area. Four of these resources will be impacted by the proposed undertaking. These include:

 Wallace Avenue Pedestrian Bridge (CHR 7)  Rogers Road Bridge (CHR B5)  Jane Street Bridge (CHR B8)  3500 Eglinton Avenue West/Kodak Heights (CHR 29)

A summary of anticipated impacts and net effects is provided in Table 4 and feature mapping of these resources in provided in Appendix A.

3.2.1 Wallace Street Pedestrian Bridge

The cultural heritage significance of the Wallace Street Bridge (CHR 7) is yet to be evaluated since this bridge was not included in previous studies. The Wallace Street Bridge is listed as a cultural heritage resource by the City of Toronto. It was constructed in 1907 with Frazer Matthews (Chief Engineer), C.H.

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

Rust (City Engineer), and the Ontario Bridge Company (contractor). The City of Toronto Works Department constructed the footings (City 2013c).

3.2.1.1 Footprint Impacts

The footprint impacts to Wallace Street Footbridge (CHR 7) will be assessed at a future date, once final drawings of the bridge are available. Further, a resource specific CHER and HIA are needed o identify the cultural heritage value of the bridge and identify heritage attributes, establish potential impacts, and develop appropriate mitigation measures.

Proposed Overhead Contact System Method: Grounding grid to be attached; Bridge protection barrier to be added; Bridge deck to be altered.

Potential Effect: Displacement of heritage attributes and/or disruption of setting.

Avoidance/Mitigation/Compensation Measures: A CHER should be prepared prior to construction to evaluate the heritage attributes of the Wallace Street Pedestrian Bridge. If the Wallace Street Bridge is found to retain cultural heritage value then a HIA should be conducted in conjunction with detail design to identify potential impacts and propose appropriate mitigation measures. During detail design, the HIA should be developed in consultation with the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport and City of Toronto Heritage Preservation Services.

Net Effects: Displacement and/or disruption to the Wallace Street Pedestrian Bridge would be minimized by carrying out a CHER to identify heritage attributes and, if needed, a HIA to identify impacts and appropriate mitigation measures. The HIA would be carried out during detail design and would be developed in consultation with the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport and City of Toronto Heritage Preservation Services.

3.2.1.2 Operations and Maintenance Impacts

No long-term effects are anticipated to the Wallace Avenue Pedestrian Bridge (CHR 7) due to the operation and maintenance of the UP Express system.

Proposed Operations and Maintenance Activities: Operation of the UP Express system.

Potential Effect: There are no anticipated negative effects to the Wallace Avenue Pedestrian Bridge resulting from the operation and maintenance of the UP Express system.

Avoidance/Mitigation/Compensation Measures: None.

Net Effects: No negative operations and maintenance impacts anticipated.

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

3.2.1.3 Construction Impacts

The construction of the bridge protection barrier, OCS infrastructure, and grounding grid has potential short-term effects on the Wallace Avenue Footbridge (CHR 7) due to construction related activities.

Proposed Construction Activities: Typical construction period of the bridge barriers/overhead contact system will be 2-3 months. Construction will include the attachment of bridge protection materials, grounding grid, and alteration of bridge deck.

Potential Effect: Short-term disruption to the setting of the Wallace Street Pedestrian Bridge resulting from construction activities though the introduction of physical, visual, noise-related, and atmospheric elements that are not in keeping with the character of the bridge.

Net Effects: Short-term disruption to the Wallace Street Pedestrian Bridge should be minimized through the selection of non-invasive staging areas, pre-construction vibration studies (if needed), post- construction landscape treatments, and avoidance of heritage attributes.

3.2.2 Rogers Road Bridge

The cultural heritage significance of the Rogers Road Bridge (CHR B5) is yet to be evaluated since this bridge was not included in the Heritage Impact Assessment of previous studies. The Rogers Road Bridge was constructed in 1934 and is a reinforced concrete deck and girder bridge. This bridge is not listed on the Toronto Heritage Inventory and requires further research.

3.2.2.1 Footprint Impacts

The footprint impacts to Rogers Road Bridge (CHR B5) will be assessed at a future date, once drawings of the bridge are complete. Further, a resource specific CHER and HIA are needed to identify the cultural heritage value of the bridge and identify heritage attributes, establish potential impacts, and develop appropriate mitigation measures.

Proposed Overhead Contact System Method: Grounding grid to be attached; Bridge protection barrier to be added.

Potential Effect: Displacement of heritage attributes and/or disruption of setting.

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

Avoidance/Mitigation/Compensation Measures: A CHER should be prepared prior to construction to evaluate the heritage attributes of the Rogers Road Bridge. If the Rogers Road Bridge is found to retain cultural heritage value then a HIA should be conducted in conjunction with detail design to identify potential impacts and propose appropriate mitigation measures. During detail design, the HIA should be developed in consultation with the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport and City of Toronto Heritage Preservation Services.

Net Effects: Displacement and/or disruption to the Rogers Road Bridge would be minimized by carrying out a CHER to identify heritage attributes and, if needed, a HIA to identify impacts and appropriate mitigation measures. The HIA would be carried out during detail design and would be developed in consultation with the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport and City of Toronto Heritage Preservation Services.

3.2.2.2 Operations and Maintenance Impacts

No long-term effects are anticipated to the Rogers Road Bridge (CHR B5) due to the operation and maintenance of the UP Express system.

Proposed Operations and Maintenance Activities: Operation of the UP Express system.

Potential Effect: There are no anticipated negative effects to the Rogers Road Bridge resulting from the operation and maintenance of the UP Express system.

Avoidance/Mitigation/Compensation Measures: None.

Net Effects: No negative operations and maintenance impacts anticipated.

3.2.2.3 Construction Impacts

The construction of the bridge protection barrier, OCS infrastructure, and grounding grid has potential short-term effects on the Rogers Road Bridge (CHR B5) due to construction related activities.

Proposed Construction Activities: Typical construction period of the bridge barriers/overhead contact system will be 2-3 months. During construction, local traffic will be impacted. Traffic lanes may be reduced. Pedestrian walk ways may be temporarily closed. Construction will include the attachment of bridge protection materials and a grounding grid.

Potential Effect: Short-term disruption to the setting of the Rogers Road Bridge resulting from construction activities though the introduction of physical, visual, noise-related, and atmospheric elements that are not in keeping with the character of the bridge.

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

Net Effects: Short-term disruption to the Rogers Road Bridge should be minimized through the selection of non-invasive staging areas, pre-construction vibration studies (if needed), post-construction landscape treatments, and avoidance of heritage attributes.

3.2.3 Jane Street Bridge

The cultural heritage significance of the Jane Street Bridge (CHR B8) is yet to be evaluated since this bridge was not included in the Heritage Impact Assessment of previous studies. The Jane Street Bridge was constructed in 1961 and is a reinforced concrete deck on steel girders. This bridge is not listed on the Toronto Heritage Inventory and requires further research.

3.2.3.1 Footprint Impacts

The footprint impacts to Jane Street Bridge (CHR B8) will be assessed at a future date, once drawings of the bridge are complete. Further, a resource specific CHER and HIA are needed o identify the cultural heritage value of the bridge and identify heritage attributes, establish potential impacts, and develop appropriate mitigation measures.

Proposed Overhead Contact System Method: Bridge protection barrier to be added.

Potential Effect: Displacement of heritage attributes and/or disruption of setting.

Avoidance/Mitigation/Compensation Measures: A CHER should be prepared prior to construction to evaluate the heritage attributes of the Jane Street Bridge. If the Jane Street Bridge is found to retain cultural heritage value then a HIA should be conducted to identify potential impacts and propose appropriate mitigation measures. During detail design, the HIA should be developed in consultation with the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport and City of Toronto Heritage Preservation Services.

Net Effects: Displacement and/or disruption to the Jane Street Bridge would be minimized by carrying out a CHER to identify heritage attributes and, if needed, a HIA to identify impacts and appropriate mitigation measures. The HIA would be carried out during detail design and would be developed in consultation with the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport and City of Toronto Heritage Preservation Services.

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

3.2.3.2 Operations and Maintenance Impacts

No long-term effects are anticipated to the Jane Street Bridge (CHR B8) due to the operation and maintenance of the UP Express system. Proposed Operations and Maintenance Activities: Operation of the UP Express system.

Potential Effect: There are no anticipated negative effects to the Jane Street Bridge resulting from the operation and maintenance of the UP Express system.

Avoidance/Mitigation/Compensation Measures: None.

Net Effects: No negative operations and maintenance impacts anticipated.

3.2.3.3 Construction Impacts

The construction of the bridge protection barrier and OCS infrastructure has potential short-term effects on the Jane Street Bridge (CHR B8) due to construction related activities.

Proposed Construction Activities: Typical construction period of the bridge barriers/overhead contact system will be 2-3 months. Construction will include the attachment of bridge protection barrier.

Potential Effect: Short-term disruption to the setting of the Jane Street Bridge resulting from construction activities though the introduction of physical, visual, noise-related, and atmospheric elements that are not in keeping with the character of the bridge.

Net Effects: Short-term disruption to the Jane Street Bridge should be minimized through the selection of non-invasive staging areas, pre-construction vibration studies (if needed), post-construction landscape treatments, and avoidance of heritage attributes.

3.2.4 Kodak Heights (3500 Eglinton Avenue West)

Section 2 of the UP Express Corridor includes a planned Paralleling Station at 3500 Eglinton Avenue West. This property is the former Kodak lands, which once contained 12 industrial and office buildings. All of the buildings on site were demolished in 2005 with the exception of Building #9, which still remains. Kodak Building #9 was built in 1940 and is a four storey poured concrete portal frame building. The

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

building was designed to serve Kodak employees and contains an auditorium, cafeteria, lounges, library, and billiard room. Taylor Hazel Architects prepared a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report of Building #9 in 2012. This report contained a heritage evaluation of the building and provided a statement of cultural heritage value and list of heritage attributes (Taylor Hazel Architects 2012). The report found that Kodak Building #9 has cultural heritage value and has local significance under O. Reg 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act. It should be noted that Building 9 is being preserved as part of the Eglinton Crosstown LRT Maintenance and Storage Facility project being carried out by Metrolinx.

The heritage attributes identified by Taylor Hazel Architects only identified building elements and did not look at the larger context of the site. The Baseline Conditions Report recommended that the circulation routes and remnant features of the Kodak lands should be outlined to fully assess impacts to the site. Remnant circulation routes and landscape features are depicted in Figure 3.

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

Figure 3: Remnant cultural heritage features on the Paralleling Station Site (3500 Eglinton Avenue West)

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

The site plan and layout for the Paralleling Station (3500 Eglinton Avenue West) are shown in Figure 4. As discussed above, identified heritage attributes on the site are limited to Building #9, which is located in the southwest portion of the site (see Taylor Hazell Architects 2012). There are no anticipated negative impacts to Building #9 since the potential impacts and mitigation measures have been previously captured and addressed as part of the Eglinton Crosstown LRT EA Addendum.

The former Kodak property located at 3500 Eglinton Avenue West was identified by Metrolinx as the preferred site for the new Maintenance and Storage Facility (MSF) to be constructed as part of the Eglinton Crosstown Light Rail Transit project (Metrolinx Eglinton Crosstown LRT EPR Addendum, October 2013). As per the October 2013 EPR Addendum, the proposed MSF will require the entire Kodak property area. As a result, the potential footprint impacts and associated mitigation measures associated with construction and implementation of the MSF were captured and documented as part of the Eglinton Crosstown LRT Environmental Assessment process via the EPR Addendum.

Subsequently, in coordination with the Eglinton MSF team, it was confirmed that the Kodak site will accommodate the MSF as well as the Paralleling Station required for UP Express electrification. As a result, a provision for the proposed Paralleling Station will be incorporated into the detailed design/build plans for the Eglinton LRT MSF. Therefore, the final location of the Paralleling Station within the Kodak property limits (owned by Metrolinx) will be determined as part of the detailed design phase for the Eglinton LRT MSF. Notwithstanding this, since the potential impacts and mitigation measures related to developing the entire Kodak property were previously captured in the Final Eglinton Crosstown LRT EPR Addendum, there will be no new net adverse effects associated with locating the Paralleling Station facility on the Kodak site.

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

Figure 4: Site Layout of Paralleling Station (3500 Eglinton Avenue West)

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

3.2.5 Summary

A summary of the foot print impacts, operations and maintenance impacts, and construction impacts for Section 2 of the UP Express Bloor Station to UP Express Weston Station is provided in Table 4.

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

7 Wallace Grounding grid to Displacement of  Carry out a CHER  No negative  None.  Short-term  Staging areas  Foot print impacts to the Wallace Avenue be attached; heritage attributes to identify heritage impacts disruption resulting should be selected Street Pedestrian Bridge would be value and attributes; anticipated. from construction so that they are non- mitigated through the implementation Pedestrian Bridge protection and/or disruption of  If found to have activities (i.e. invasive and avoid of a CHER and, if needed, a HIA. Bridge barrier to be setting. cultural heritage introduction of heritage attributes; These studies will be used to identify added; Bridge value, conduct a construction  Pre-construction heritage attributes, identify impacts, (Conditional deck to be altered HIA to identify related physical, vibration studies and develop appropriate mitigation measures; Heritage potential impacts visual, noise- should be carried and appropriate related, and out (if needed); and,  The HIA would be carried out during Property) mitigation atmospheric  Post-construction detail design and would be developed measures; and, elements). landscape in consultation with the Ministry of  During detail treatments carried Tourism, Culture and Sport and City design, the HIA out to restore pre- of Toronto Heritage Preservation should be construction Services; and, developed in conditions.  Construction impacts would be consultation with mitigated through the careful the Ministry of selection of staging areas, pre- Tourism, Culture construction vibration studies (if and Sport and City needed), and post-construction of Toronto Heritage landscape treatments. Preservation Services.

B5 Rogers Grounding grid to Displacement of  Carry out a CHER  No negative  None.  Short-term  Staging areas  Foot print impacts to the Rogers Road Bridge be attached; heritage attributes to identify heritage impacts disruption resulting should be selected Road Bridge would be mitigated value and attributes; anticipated. from construction so that they are non- through the implementation of a Bridge protection and/or disruption of  If found to have activities (i.e. invasive and avoid CHER and, if needed, a HIA. These (Conditional barrier to be setting. cultural heritage introduction of heritage attributes; studies will be used to identify Heritage added value, conduct a construction  Pre-construction heritage attributes, identify impacts, Property) HIA to identify related physical, vibration studies and develop appropriate mitigation potential impacts visual, noise- should be carried measures; and appropriate related, and out (if needed); and,  The HIA would be carried out during mitigation atmospheric  Post-construction detail design and would be developed measures; and, elements). landscape in consultation with the Ministry of  During detail treatments carried Tourism, Culture and Sport and City design, the HIA out to restore pre- of Toronto Heritage Preservation should be construction Services; and, developed in conditions.  Construction impacts would be consultation with mitigated through the careful the Ministry of selection of staging areas, pre- Tourism, Culture construction vibration studies (if and Sport and City needed), and post-construction of Toronto Heritage landscape treatments. Preservation Services.

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

B8 Jane Street Bridge protection Displacement of  Carry out a CHER  No negative  None.  Short-term  Staging areas  Foot print impacts to the Jane Street Bridge barrier to be heritage attributes to identify heritage impacts disruption resulting should be selected Bridge would be mitigated through value and attributes; anticipated. from construction so that they are non- the implementation of a CHER and, if added and/or disruption of  If found to have activities (i.e. invasive and avoid needed, a HIA. These studies will be (Conditional setting. cultural heritage introduction of heritage attributes; used to identify heritage attributes, Heritage value, conduct a construction  Pre-construction identify impacts, and develop Property) HIA to identify related physical, vibration studies appropriate mitigation measures; potential impacts visual, noise- should be carried  The HIA would be carried out during and appropriate related, and out (if needed); and, detail design and would be developed mitigation atmospheric  Post-construction in consultation with the Ministry of measures; and, elements). landscape Tourism, Culture and Sport and City  During detail treatments carried of Toronto Heritage Preservation design, the HIA out to restore pre- Services; and, should be construction  Construction impacts would be developed in conditions. mitigated through the careful consultation with selection of staging areas, pre- the Ministry of construction vibration studies (if Tourism, Culture needed), and post-construction and Sport and City landscape treatments. of Toronto Heritage Preservation Services.

29 3500 Construction of None  None  None  None.  None.  None.  None. Eglinton Paralleling Station Avenue and fencing. West (Kodak Heights)

(Potential Provincial Heritage Property)

Table 4: Summary of Impacts for Section 2 UP Express Bloor Station to UP Express Weston Station

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

3.3 Section 3 - UP Express Weston Station to Highway 427

Section 3 includes the rail corridor between Weston Station and Highway 427 and a new EMU Maintenance Facility Site at 50 Resources Road. As discussed in Section 3.2.3 of the Baseline Conditions Report, this portion of the corridor includes one historic settlement centre and retains numerous properties that have been listed on Toronto’s municipal heritage inventory or designated under Part IV or Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. In addition, this section of the corridor is located in close proximity to two known or potential Heritage Conservation Districts (HCD), which include the Phase 1 Weston HCD and Phase 2 Weston HCD. The Baseline Conditions Report noted that the Humber River Bridge (CHR 13) is a significant cultural heritage resource based on its design, associative, and contextual values. The report also noted that a Strategic Conservation Plan should be used to develop appropriate conservation and/or mitigation measures should this resource be impacted by the proposed development.

Section 3 also includes an EMU Maintenance Facility Site located at 50 Resources Road. As discussed in Section 3.2.3.1 of the Baseline Conditions Report, this site is currently an active construction site with heavy machinery and was in use as a high traffic area for dump trucks. No cultural heritage resources were identified within the 50 Resources Road site.

The Baseline Conditions Report identified 11 cultural heritage resources within the Section 3 study area. One of these resources will be impacted by the proposed undertaking. This includes:

 Humber River Rail Overpass (CHR 13)

This section provides a detailed description of this resource and builds on the research conducted for the Baseline Conditions phase of this project. This section also uses information from previous studies carried out by Golder Associates (2011a; 2011b).

A summary of anticipated impacts and net effects is provided in Table 5 and feature mapping of these resources in provided in Appendix A.

3.3.1 Humber River Rail Overpass

The Humber River Rail Overpass dates to 1856. This resource has been previously evaluated, as a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was completed in 2011 (by Golder Associates on behalf of Metrolinx) as part of fulfilling the EA approval conditions associated with the Georgetown South Service Expansion and Union-Pearson Rail Link EA, and documented in a report entitled: Heritage Impact Assessment, St. Claire Subway to Highway 27 Overpass, Seven Subways, Two Railway Underpasses, One Railway Overpass, Two Residences, and Two Cultural Heritage Landscapes, Georgetown South Service Expansion and Union Pearson Rail Link, City of Toronto, Ontario. (Golder Associates, 2011).

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

The 2011 HIA recommended that the bridge be classified as a Provincial Heritage Property of Provincial Significance. This assessment included information on the background history, description, and assessment of significance of the Humber River Rail Overpass (Golder Associates 2011). Golder’s 2011 report also included a statement of cultural heritage value and a list of heritage attributes for the Humber River Rail Overpass. The 2011 HIA found that the Humber River Rail Overpass retains cultural heritage value and has local and provincial significance (Golder, 2011).

It is further noted that a CHER for the Humber River Bridge is to be undertaken following completion of Georgetown South construction works, in order to identify heritage attributes. The CHER will then be reviewed by the Metrolinx Heritage Committee (as outlined in Section 6.6.1.1 above).

Accordingly, the Humber River Bridge is currently considered to be a Potential Provincial Heritage.

Potential effects to this CHR include displacement of heritage attributes and/or disruption of setting (i.e. brick piers with stone footings, gunite repairs and board finish on the south side of the bridge) due to the proposed attachment of OCS portal structures to the bridge piers (via wall brackets).

3.3.1.1 Footprint Impacts

Drawings for the proposed alteration of the Humber River Rail Overpass (CHR13) are shown in Figure 5. As mentioned above, the heritage attributes of the Humber River Rail Overpass include the brick piers with stone footings; gunite repairs and board finish; earth embankment, especially the steep slope; and, double track abutments (Golder Associates 2011b). While heritage attributes of the bridge are known, a HIA is needed to establish the current conditions of the Humber River Bridge, identify impacts resulting from the UP Express Electrification project infrastructure, and develop appropriate mitigation measures.

Proposed Overhead Contact System Method: Attach 4 Track portals to the bridge piers via wall brackets (see Figure 9 as example).

Potential Effect: Displacement of heritage attributes and/or disruption of setting (i.e. brick piers with stone footings, gunite repairs and board finish on the south side of the bridge).

Avoidance/Mitigation/Compensation Measures: A HIA should be prepared to identify impacts and propose appropriate mitigation measures.

Net Effects: Displacement and/or disruption to the Humber River Rail Overpass would be minimized by carrying out HIA to identify impacts and appropriate mitigation measures.

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

3.3.1.2 Operations and Maintenance Impacts

No long-term effects are anticipated to the Humber River Rail Overpass (CHR 13) due to the operation and maintenance of the UP Express system.

Proposed Operations and Maintenance Activities: Operation of the UP Express system.

Potential Effect: There are no anticipated negative effects to the Humber River Rail Overpass resulting from the operation and maintenance of the UP Express system.

Avoidance/Mitigation/Compensation Measures: None.

Net Effects: No negative operations and maintenance impacts anticipated.

3.3.1.3 Construction Impacts

The construction of the bridge protection barrier, OCS infrastructure, and grounding grid has potential short-term effects on the Humber River Rail Overpass (CHR 13) due to construction related activities.

Proposed Construction Activities: Typical construction period of the bridge barriers/overhead contact system will be 2-3 months. Construction will include the attachment of brackets and portal structures that span the length of the bridge. Access to bridge piers will conducted via ropes or scaffolding.

Potential Effect: Short-term disruption to the setting of the Humber River Bridge resulting from construction activities though the introduction of physical, visual, noise-related, and atmospheric elements that are not in keeping with the character of the bridge. Potential impacts to bridge piers resulting from the use of scaffolding and attachment of brackets.

Avoidance/Mitigation/Compensation Measures: Staging areas should be carefully selected so that they are non-invasive and avoid all heritage attributes. Pre-construction vibration studies may be required to mitigate any potential vibration related impacts. Pre-construction conditions would be re-established through post-construction landscape treatments. Rehabilitation of piers should be carried out should they be impacted by the use of scaffolding or attachment of brackets.

Net Effects: Short-term disruption to the Humber River Rail Overpass should be minimized through the selection of non-invasive staging areas, pre-construction vibration studies (if needed), post-construction landscape treatments, and post-construction rehabilitation of piers. .

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

Figure 5: Plan of the Humber River Bridge

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

Figure 6: Example of attachments to be used on the Humber River Bridge

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

CHR Description Construction Footprint Impacts Operations and Maintenance Impacts Construction Impacts Net Effects Method Potential Effect Avoidance/Mitigation/ Potential Effect Avoidance/Mitigatio Potential Effect Avoidance/Mitigation Compensation n/Compensation /Compensation 13 Humber Attach 4 track Displacement of  A HIA should be  No negative  None.  Short-term  Non-invasive  Foot print impacts to the Humber River River Rail portal structures to heritage attributes carried out to impacts disruption resulting staging areas Rail Overpass would be mitigated through identify impacts and anticipated. from construction should be selected the implementation a HIA. This studies will Overpass the bridge via wall and/or disruption of propose appropriate activities (i.e. to avoid damage to be used to identify impacts and develop brackets setting (i.e. heritage mitigation introduction of bridge piers. appropriate mitigation measures; (Potential attributes on south measures. construction  Pre-construction  Construction impacts would be mitigated Provincial side of bridge) related physical, vibration studies through the careful selection of staging Heritage visual, noise- should be carried areas, pre-construction vibration studies (if related, and out (if needed); needed), and post-construction landscape Property) atmospheric  Post-construction treatments and bridge rehabilitation (if elements); landscape required).  Short-term treatments carried displacement out to restore pre- and/or disruption construction of bridge piers due conditions; to use of  Post-construction scaffolding and rehabilitation of attachment of piers if damaged by brackets. the attachment of brackets. Table 5: Summary of Impacts for Section 3 UP Express Weston Station to Highway 427

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

3.4 Section 4 - Highway 427 to UP Express Pearson Station

Section 4 includes lands in both the City of Toronto and the City of Mississauga. As noted in Section 3.2.4 of the Baseline Conditions Report, the section of the corridor in Toronto is generally characterized by industrial buildings and land-use, which mainly dates to the second half of the twentieth-century. The section of the corridor has undergone dramatic change due to the construction of Highway 401, 409, and 427. In contrast, the section of the corridor located in the City of Mississauga dates to the 1930s when the Malton Airport was developed. Airport land-use continues to dominate this landscape in the form of Pearson Airport.

It should be noted that the rail corridor (CHR 28) between Highway 427 and Pearson Airport was identified as a cultural heritage resource in the Baseline Conditions Report (Metrolinx 2013). Despite this, this portion of the rail corridor in Section 4 is comprised of a new spur line that will be constructed from the junction of the Georgetown Line near Highway 427 running generally southward to Pearson International Airport, a distance of 2975 m. Drawings show that the new spur line will branch off from the existing rail line before Highway 427 and will then generally follow the alignment of Highway 427 and Highway 409 to Pearson Airport. Accordingly, no impacts are anticipated to the rail line or other cultural heritage resources located within or adjacent to the proposed work in Section 4 since the physical project components are located within the new spur line only.

The Baseline Conditions Report identified three cultural heritage resources within the Section 4 study area. None of these resources are expected to be impacted by the proposed work since the physical project components for Section 4 of the study area will be contained within new spur line.

3.5 Monitoring

No environmental effects monitoring for cultural heritage resources is proposed in the UP Express Electrification study area based on the proposed mitigation measures and resultant net effects.

4. Summary

This report assesses the impacts of the UP Express Electrification EA from a cultural heritage perspective and identifies potential effects to cultural heritage resources, establishes avoidance/mitigation/compensation measures, and identifies net effects. The footprint impacts, operations and maintenance impacts, and construction impacts are outlined for all potentially impacted cultural heritage resources within and adjacent to the UP Express Electrification study area. A summary of findings is provided below:

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

Key Findings

Section 1 – UP Express Union Station to UP Express Bloor Station  A total of five cultural heritage resources are expected to be impacted by the proposed work within Section 1. These include the Bathurst Street Bridge (CHR 1), the King Street Subway (CHR 3), the Dundas Street Bridge (CHR 6), the UP Express Rail Corridor (CHR 28), and the Fort York and Garrison Common National Historic Site and Heritage Conservation District (CHR 35).  The Bathurst Street Bridge and the King Street Subway are listed by the City of Toronto as heritage properties. The Bathurst Street Bridge is also listed on the Ontario Heritage Bridge List;  The Dundas Street Bridge and the UP Express Rail Corridor were identified as cultural heritage resources during the field review carried out for the Baseline Conditions phase of this project; o The Dundas Street Bridge was not found to meet cultural heritage criteria. Accordingly, no further work is recommended for this resource. o No negative impacts are anticipated to the UP Express Electrification Rail Corridor since the proposed undertaking will not affect any heritage attributes of this resource. Therefore, no further work is recommended for this resource.  The Fort York and Garrison Common National Historic Site is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act and is a national historic site and heritage conservation district;

Section 2 – UP Express Bloor Station to UP Express Weston Station  A total of four cultural heritage resources are expected to be impacted by the proposed work within Section 2.These include the Wallace Avenue Pedestrian Bridge (CHR 7), the Rogers Road Bridge (CHR B5), the Jane Street Bridge (CHR B8), and 3500 Eglinton Avenue West (Kodak Lands) (CHR 29);  The Wallace Avenue Pedestrian Bridge is listed as a heritage property by the City of Toronto;  The Rogers Road Bridge and Jane Street Bridge were identified as cultural heritage resources through background research;  3500 Eglinton Avenue West (Kodak Lands) is an industrial complex that has been evaluated and found to be a Provincial Heritage Property of Local Significance (pending conformation from Metrolinx). o Potential impacts and mitigation measures were previously captured in the Final Eglinton Crosstown LRT EPR Addendum. Therefore there are no new net adverse effects associated with locating the Paralleling Station on the Kodak site.

Section 3 – UP Express Weston Station to Highway 427  One cultural heritage resources, the Humber River Bridge (CHR 13), is expected to be impacted by the proposed work within Section 3.  The Humber River Bridge has been evaluated and found to be a Provincial Heritage Property of Local and Provincial Significance.

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

Section 4 – Highway 417 to UP Express Pearson Station  No impacts are anticipated to cultural heritage resources within or adjacent to Section 4 Footprint Impacts

From a footprint impacts perspective, cultural heritage net effects are anticipated following the implementation of mitigation measures:

Section 3 – UP Express Weston Station to Highway 427  Humber River Bridge: Foot print impacts to the Humber River Bridge would be mitigated through the development/implementation of a Conservation Plan. If the Conservation Plan does not account for impacts resulting from the current undertaking, or if a Conservation Plan does not yet exist, then a HIA should be carried out to identify impacts and propose appropriate mitigation measures. The HIA would be carried out during detail design and would be developed in consultation with the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport and City of Toronto Heritage Preservation Services.

Operations and Maintenance Impacts

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

No negative impacts are anticipated to any cultural heritage resources in the study area resulting from the operation and maintenance of the UP Express Electrification system.

Construction Impacts

From a construction perspective, cultural heritage net effects are anticipated following the implementation of mitigation measures:

Environmental Effects Monitoring

No environmental effects monitoring is required for cultural heritage resources within the UP Express Electrification study area.

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

5. References Cited

Archaeological Services Inc (ASI) 2011 Heritage Impact Assessment: 2417 Weston Road, City of Toronto, Ontario. Report on file at ASI.

Canada’s Historic Places 2010 Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada: A Federal Provincial, and Territorial Collaboration.

Catherine Naismith Architects 2010 Fort York Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan (DRAFT). Draft on file at ASI.

City of Toronto 2000 Toronto Union Station National Historic Site of Canada. City of Toronto. Available at . Last accessed 18 September 2013.

2001 Union Station: Heritage Guidelines. City of Toronto. Available at . Last accessed 18 September 2013.

2003 Plan to restore, develop and operate Union Station, Union Station Revitalization. City of Toronto. Available at . Last accessed 18 September 2013.

2006 Union Station District Plan. City of Toronto. Available at . Last accessed 18 September 2013.

2013a Bathurst St, Heritage Property Detail. City of Toronto Heritage Inventory. Available at . Last accessed 21 August 2013.

2013b King St W, Heritage Property Detail. City of Toronto Heritage Inventory. Available at . Last accessed 20 August 2013.

2013c Wallace Ave, Heritage Property Detail. City of Toronto Heritage Inventory. Available at . Last accessed 22 August 2013.

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

2013d 65 Front St W, Heritage Property Detail. City of Toronto Heritage Inventory. Available at . Last accessed 18 September 2013. duToitAllsopp Hillier 2004 Fort York Neighbourhood, Public Realm Plan. Available at . Last accessed 25 October 2013.

Golder Associates 2011a Heritage impact assessment, Georgetown South Service Expansion, Union-Pearson Rail Link, Railway Subways, Queen Street West, Brock Avenue, Lansdowne Avenue, Bloor Street West, and Dupont Street, City of Toronto, Ontario. Report Number 10-1151-0241- R01

2011b Heritage Impact Assessment, St. Claire Subway to Highway 27 Overpass, Seven Subways, Two Railway Underpasses, One Railway Overpass, Two Residences, and Two Cultural Heritage Landscapes, Georgetown South Service Expansion and Union Pearson Rail Link, City of Toronto, Ontario. RQQ-201t No: RQQ-2010-TS-007

Metrolinx 2013 UP Express Electrification, Cultural Heritage Report, FINAL DRAFT. Project Number 1124019.00

Ministry of Culture, Ontario (MCL) 2005 Ontario Heritage Act 2006 Ontario Heritage Tool Kit 2010 Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties 2010 Check Sheet for Environmental Assessments: Screening for Impacts to Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes

Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. First published under the Cultural Programs Branch. Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC), Toronto.

Ministry of Culture and Communications, Ontario 1992 Guidelines for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental Assessments

Ministry of Culture and Recreation, Ontario (MCR) 1981 Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component of Environmental Assessments

UP Express Electrification EA Impact Assessment Report – Cultural Heritage

Ministry of Environment, Ontario 2006 Environmental Assessment Act

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ontario (MMAH) 2005 Ontario Planning Act 2005 Provincial Policy Statement

Ministry of Transportation (MTO) 2006 Environmental Reference for Highway Design 2007 Environmental Guide for Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes

Ontario Realty Corporation 2007 Heritage Management Process

Taylor Hazell Architects 2012a Kodak Building #9, Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Final

2012b Kodak Building #9, Interim Maintenance Plan, Final

The Friends of Fort York and Garrison Common and The Fort York Management Board

2000 Fort York: Setting it Right, Fort-Centred Planning and Design Principles. Available at . Last accessed 25 October 2013.

Unterman McPhail Associates 2009 Existing Conditions and Impact Assessment Report: Transit Project Assessment Process; Georgetown South Service Expansion and Union-Pearson Rail Link, City of Toronto, City of Mississauga and City of Brampton Ontario. Electronic copy of study on file with report author.

2013 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report, Cultural Heritage Landscapes & Built Heritage Resources, Eglinton Crosstown LRT, West Section Jane Station to Keel Street, City of Toronto, Ontario. Available at . Last assessed 7 January 2014.