ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT APPENDIX L12 Draft EA Review Table of Contents Disposition Table for Public Comments ................................................. L12-1 Disposition Table for Agency Comments ........................................... L12-106 Disposition Table for Indigenous Comments ..................................... L12-116 SCARBOROUGH WATERFRONT PROJECT Toronto and Region Conservation Public Comments Comment # Comment Response DP1 My suggestion is create a larger beach instead of a walkway by replacing the stones that were As noted in Chapter 6 of the EA a larger beach will be created at taken from the lake resulting in the erosion to bluffs many years ago. Bluffer’s Park and the existing sandy shoreline will be maintained from Grey Abbey Ravine eastward. Unfortunately, simply replacing the stones in the lake will not address the need to provide sufficient space for a safe trail at the bottom of the bluffs. Please see Chapter 5 of the EA. DP2 Will any new greenery be added/restored? Trees, Solar Panels... Please see section 6.2.2 for a detailed description of the naturalization that will occur as part of the SWP. Also note that Table 7-5 details the net gains and losses with respect to habitat. Solar panels are not part of this project. DP3 This is to acknowledge receipt of your email with respect to the notice of submission of the Draft With respect to construction traffic TRCA acknowledges in Environmental Assessment (EA) for public review and comment from August 17, 2017 to October Section 7.3.4.1 that construction traffic associated with SWP is a 2, 2017. Having read the (latest) Draft EA at www.trca.ca/swp, I can assure you that my husband negative effect to the Guildwood neighbourhood residents. Other and I most decidedly do not share your “pleasure”. It is incredible that your team – and access routes were considered; however, they would have presumably your management, advisors, political associates, etc. – would be so arrogant as to yet significantly more impact. TRCA will work with Metrolinx and the again propose using Morningside and Galloway as the approved access route for the construction City of Toronto to ensure effects are minimized to the extent trucks. For many more years than we care to remember, the homeowners and residents along possible. With respect to the Metrolinx proposal, TRCA is aware these same two major rights-of-way have already had to deal with the noise, vibration, dust, and of the project and participates in regular meetings. The Metrolinx general disruption to normal life that such construction traffic inflicts, while the TRCA constructed project is referenced in Sections 2.2, 3.3, 5.4.4 and 7.3.4. the Initial [Meadowcliffe] Phase of the SWP. Several years ago, I sent written notice to the TRCA Section 10.6.3.4 details meetings held with Metrolinx. Please recording the damage caused to our property’s interior by the heavily-laden trucks (carrying note that the SWP EA was commenced in 2014 not 1990 as you everything from massive stone boulders to landfill and equipment) as they proceeded along have indicated. Guildwood Parkway (in both directions) between Morningside and the Navarre Crescent access road to the lakefront. To our dismay, we have been unable to make arrangements for the repair of said damage during the recent (temporary) hiatus in the SWP, since the same route has been used for construction traffic involved in the Guild Inn refurbishment. And now you have the utter gall to glibly advise that we must put up with the same nonsense for a FURTHER 12 YEARS! Moreover, I would direct your attention to the appended Metrolinx planning notice, regarding which no mention whatsoever is made in your EA. Metrolinx Regional Transit Planning Metrolinx made a presentation at this meeting regarding their plans to add a third track between the Guildwood and Pickering stations. A 3rd track is needed in anticipation of introducing all-day 15 minute GO service and electrifying the trains. The project is being assessed under the Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP). TPAP is an expedited Environmental Assessment (EA) process involving a pre-consultation phase followed by a regulated 120-day phase that examines potential environmental effects from the project and how to address or mitigate potential impacts. The Guildwood to Pickering project will require two bridges and three grade separations. Bridges will be required over Highland Creek and the Rouge River, and grade separations are contemplated on Scarborough Golf Club Rd., Morningside Ave., and Galloway Rd. Construction is tentatively scheduled to start in 2017 and be completed by 2023. It is clear that the TRCA staff, various members of which have been working on the SWP for more L12-1 Public Comments Comment # Comment Response than 27 years (at least since the spring of 1990 when we attended the first public meeting regarding the project), are anxious to retain their well-paid employment, and thus are ignoring all efforts to bring about an end to this massive outpouring of money – funded, at least in part, by revenue from Toronto Water, billed to consumers. Absolutely NOTHING in the latest version of the EA can bring any comfort or consolation to residents of the eastern portion of Guildwood Parkway. DP6 I fully support the project. The trail will be an awesome amenity for Comment noted the city. DP7 Further to the message I sent a few minutes ago I should add that I agree with the preferred Comment noted alternatives, though all alternatives except for "do nothing" are acceptable. I fully support the project. The trail will be an awesome amenity for the city. DP8 I would like to submit a couple of suggestions in regards to the Scarborough Waterfront Project, Section 6.2.4.1 of the EA details the changes to Brimley Road to and specifically the Bluffers Park section. My suggestions and requests are the following: provide enhanced pedestrian/cycling access. 1) The most pressing issue is the access to the Bluffers Park via/along the Brimley Road. We Multi-level parking garages are not part of the SWP. desperately need a PEDESTRIAN/CYCLING access along the Brimley Road from Kingston Road going South (down the hill) towards the Bluffers Park. As a long term resident, I have In 2017 a fishing node and launch for kayaks and canoes was observed (and utilized myself) a shoulder of Brimley Road, but it is not very safe. For the constructed in Bluffer’s Park by the City of Toronto as part of their past several years I walked, cycled, and even walked my kayak down and back up the gathering node initiative. Brimley Road, and though most of drivers are attentive to the pedestrians, it is at times Policies with respect to dogs is a City of Toronto responsibility, horrific to feel cars going by so close. Perhaps, we could consider adding a lane for this comment will be passed to them. pedestrians and cyclists just along one side of the road (that can be utilized in both directions), or build an elevated boardwalk-type paralleling the Brimley Road? 2) I completely disagree that we need to build a multi-level parking garage for vehicles at the Bluffers Park. In my eight years as a local resident, not once I saw a parking lot completely full (perhaps, big holidays are exceptions). Do not waste the resources on building multilevel parking lots here - it is a nature park, not a shopping mall! If anything, add a frequent shuttle connecting Kingston Road and Bluffers Park (perhaps, similar to the shuttle used at Broadview station connecting Brickworks). 3) At the Bluffers Park, please consider adding several launching and re-entry points for kayakers. Currently, kayaks have to be pushed off the boulders, which is not the easiest. 4) Please require "dogs on leashes" policy - running dogs along the shoreline represent a danger to a local fauna. If necessary, have the "off-the-leash areas", but the Bluffers Park and Waterfront project should be about connecting with the nature, not destroying it. Please do not hesitate to contact me via this email if I may be of any further assistance. Thank you for passing my suggestions to the appropriate entity. If possible, I would like to be kept updated on the status of the above. DP9 How and when can I formally submit my feedback about this project? Commenter was provided link to SWP website for information and details on how to respond. L12-2 Public Comments Comment # Comment Response DP10 I left a voicemail message for you this afternoon regarding a notice that I received in my postal We are aware of the discrepancies you pointed out in the mailbox during the last week or so. The notice is titled, "NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DRAFT Notice. All efforts were made to correct these discrepancies prior ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) FOR THE SCARBOROUGH WATERFRONT PROJECT to distribution, unfortunately some were missed. You are correct TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION." that while the Draft EA for the Scarborough Waterfront Project is Below are a few concerns that I have about the notice. As I noted in my voicemail message, I had complete there a still a number of approval steps to get wanted to reveal my concerns to you/the TRCA last week, but I unfortunately was not able to do through. You will note that the information on the website is the so at that time. At your earliest convenience, could you please address in red or blue my corrected information. As noted on the Notice, below the concerns below? addresses, all comments should be sent to Nancy Gaffney I thank you kindly for your time, and I look forward to your response.