Public Information Centre summary

Public Information Centre, held Wednesday, March 1, 2023 6:00 – 8:00pm at Moses Springer Community Centre

A Public Information Centre (PIC) was held in-person on March 1^st from 6:00pm to 8:00pm to give the public a chance to view and comment on the intent for the Brighton Street Trailhead and Lighting of the Laurel Greenway between Weber and Peppler Streets. The PIC was hosted by Emily Brown, Senior Landscape Architect / Public Realm Specialist, The City of Waterloo, and Michael Barker & Christian Stewart of SHIFT Landscape Architecture.

The option for an in-person PIC was offered for the purpose of equitable engagement by providing a way for those who may not have access to the internet or prefer to view physical panels a chance to share their opinion. The in-person PIC also provided community members the opportunity to have more in-depth discussions and for those who had more elaborate questions which may have required a direct response. A notice of the PIC was delivered to residences and businesses in the surrounding neighbourhood 2 weeks before the event; a sign was posted at the location of the Brighton Street trailhead and additionally, information about the event and the project were posted on the Engage Waterloo site.Three comments were left on the engage site prior to the meeting taking place.

The PIC had 16 attendees sign in; however, in a few instances one person signed for a group of 2 or 3 people and some people did not sign in. It is estimated that 25 people attended the event.

Participants were encouraged to fill out a comment sheet providing their feedback on the project intent. 15 comment sheets were completed.

Comment Sheets and Online Comments

Overall, most of the discussion submitted on the comment sheets and which took place in person was very positive. There was a general consensus that lighting the trail from Weber to Bridgeport is necessary and the idea was well received. A few people noted concern that light would shine into homes, but the intent is to have the lighting directed at the trail only with minimal to no spillage.

There was discussion at the meeting which was reiterated on the comment sheets about the importance of Brighton Park to the neighbourhood and that it should be considered for redesign. Although outside the scope of this current project there is a strong rationale for updating this park in the future both for its ability to support the Laurel Greenway and the proposed trail head.

Several people commented on the location of the proposed path that will connect Brighton Street to the LGW. The currently proposed location does not account for the existing desire line which is present on the site. The suggested location, shown in the concept plan, creates a logical transition from the LGW to Brighton Street, but picking up the desire line as part of the design intention is also beneficial. SHIFT will review the current layout and find a solution that accommodates both things.

Prior to the meeting there was uncertainty of whether lighting should be included along the stretch of the trail from Bridgeport Street to Peppler Street for two reasons. First there is lighting from a few of the surrounding uses (namely Christian Horizons) that can be considered ‘borrowed light’ for the LGW and second, because it is not feasible to introduce lighting to the area of the trail that requires it the most (just south of Bridgeport Street). The reason for this is because of the presence of a Butternut tree. Butternut is a regulated and protected tree in the Province of Ontario and no construction of any kind can take place within 30m of any one tree. However, at the meeting a representative of Christian Horizons stated he would be in favour of lighting being installed adjacent to his property. This area will be studied further so the City can make a decision of whether or not to light this section.

There were several people who commented in all forums about the crossing of the LGW at Weber Street. It has been suggested that the crossing is unsafe and people do not feel safe crossing at this point. This seems to be especially true for people who have bicycles. As part of the LGW study a proposed crossing was designed that would alleviate these issues. This will be implemented in the future as part of other planned projects. At this point, however, there is no specific known timeline for when this project will take place.

One resident was unhappy with the plan as currently illustrated because no seating has been extended north and south along the LGW from the Brighton Street Trailhead. Their reason for wanting this was so that people who feed ducks present in the creek have a place to sit. It is currently unknown whether feeding the ducks is actually desired by the City or not. This will be discussed and if it is something that the City wants to encourage than benches could potentially be added in a few locations north and south from the proposed trail head.

A few other suggestions made on the comment sheets were: replace words on the concrete bands with graphics (this will be studied as it could present interesting options); Dog waste disposal bins and/or trash bins (currently uncertain if City operations would support this or if the existing garbage bin at Brighton Park would suffice); drinking fountain (not anticipated) mosquito control; indigenous history (the concept is intended to tell the story of the creek and area pre-colonialization however there will not be explicit reference to indigenous terms, language or similar); ensure the space is inclusive for all physical abilities (it is intended that the space will meet AODA standards at a minimum and be universally accessible if possible); Include an eco passage under the trail; Do not add seating at the trailhead but instead place seating in Brighton Park (the trailhead space will support Brighton Park adding a new dimension to it and a future revitalization of Brighton Park will support the trail head and the LGW) and plant native trees & plants (this is planned and will be included).

There were several comments made online, in person and on the comment sheets stating ‘don’t cut anymore trees down’. There will be limited or no tree removal for this project, but the comment is noted here for the City’s information.

Conclusions

The responses received in person, online and on the comment sheets indicate a very favourable opinion of the project in general and the intended concept specifically. All comments heard will be reviewed in the context of the concept plan and those that support a stronger final project will be implemented if possible. Some of the comments received are either outside the scope of the project or not feasible given budget constraints and operational limitations.

SHIFT will develop a final iteration of the concept plan for review by the City prior to beginning the development of detailed design and contract documents.