MEMORANDUM

Date: November 18, 2020

To: Council

From: Danielle Manton, City Clerk

Re: Items further to the November 18, 2020 Special Council Agenda

Notes

1. Report 20-267(CRE)-FED Dev Ontario Funding Support-Waterloo Regional Tourism

Marketing Corporation has been moved to the consent agenda.

Presentations

Delegations

1. Robert Walters, Weston Consulting re: 20-256(CD) 0 Main St – Main & Nottinghill2. Al Allendorf, Greengate Village Limited re: 20-256(CD) 0 Main St – Main & Nottinghill

3. Jessica Whitehead, House of Friendship re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment ServicesPlanning Study

4. Jan Klotz, Guelph Community Heath Centre re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment

Services Planning Study

5. Carla Johnson, Citizens for Cambridge re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services

Planning Study

6. Jennifer Boyd re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning Study

7. Kevin Hiebert re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning Study

8. David Mossey re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning Study

9. Bill Cassidy re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning Study

10. Linda and Andrew Foster re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning

Study

11. June Anderson re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning Study

12. Dino Viara re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning Study

13. Adam Cooper re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning Study

14. Ruth, The AIDS Committee of Cambridge, Kitchener, Waterloo and Area re: 20-279(CD)

Consumption Treatment Services Planning Study

15. Connie Cody re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning Study

16. Jesse Burt re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning Study

17. Brian Kennedy, Downtown Cambridge BIA re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning Study

18. Amanda Roorda, Citizens for Cambridge re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning Study

19. Robert Gutcher re: 20-236 (CRE) Future Outdoor Pool Operating Strategy Correspondence

1. Pauline Brittenden re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning Study

2. Eva R. Murphy re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning Study

3. Dan Clements re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning Study

4. Ann Van Norman re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning Study

5. Norman Warren re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning Study

6. Joanne Clements re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning Study

7. Julie Currie re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning Study

8. Kate Fraser re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning Study

9. Marsha Hill re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning Study

10.Oscar Vianao re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning Study

11.Sherri Wing re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning Study

12.Linda Foster re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning Study

13.Bob Howison, Citizens for Cambridge re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services

Planning Study

14.Joanne Kitzman re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning Study

15.Dean Vieira re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning Study

16.Jenny Devoe re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning Study

17.Pat Stager re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning Study

18.Claire Jennings re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning Study

19.Leanne Shanks re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning Study

20.Karin Devries re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning Study

21. Kathy Davies re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning Study

22. Gordon and Celia Chaplin re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning

Study

23.Sandra Sutherland re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning Study

25. Robin Thomas re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning Study

26. Kelly Mills re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning Study

27. Carol Thorman re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning Study

28. Diane Scott re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning Study

29. Cambridge Shelter Corporation re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services

Planning Study

30. Laura Manning, Lyle S. Hallman Foundation re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment

Services Planning Study

31. Christina Edwards and Gail Hill re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services

Planning Study

32. Roger Will re: 20-279(CD) Consumption Treatment Services Planning Study

33. Zvonimir and Vesna Restek re: 20-256(CD) 0 Main St – Main & Nottinghill

34. Sheldon Meyers re: 20-256(CD) 0 Main St – Main & Nottinghill

35. Manahel Polis, Basam Yousif, Sabah Dawd and Ansaf Farjo re: 20-256(CD) 0 Main St

–Main & Nottinghill

36. Ed Nova re: 20-256(CD) 0 Main St – Main & Nottinghill

37. Julia Beniusis re: 20-256(CD) 0 Main St – Main & Nottinghill

38. Harun Mulla re: 20-256(CD) 0 Main St – Main & Nottinghill39. Murray Gignac re: 20-236 (CRE) Future Outdoor Pool Operating Strategy

40. Sarah Bourbonniere re: 20-236 (CRE) Future Outdoor Pool Operating Strategy

41. Sandy Falkiner re: 20-236 (CRE) Future Outdoor Pool Operating Strategy

42. Joanne Kitzman re: 20-236 (CRE) Future Outdoor Pool Operating Strategy

43. Gayle Hobson re: 20-236 (CRE) Future Outdoor Pool Operating Strategy

44. Rob and Sue Fox re: 20-236 (CRE) Future Outdoor Pool Operating Strategy

45. Lynda Ward re: 20-236 (CRE) Future Outdoor Pool Operating Strategy

46. Kristine Dearlove re: 20-236 (CRE) Future Outdoor Pool Operating Strategy

47. Sharron Chandler re: 20-236 (CRE) Future Outdoor Pool Operating Strategy

48. Connie Cody re: 20-236 (CRE) Future Outdoor Pool Operating Strategy

49. Gloria Majich re: 20-236 (CRE) Future Outdoor Pool Operating Strategy

50. Janet Collins re: 20-236 (CRE) Future Outdoor Pool Operating Strategy

51. Shirley Wells re: 20-236 (CRE) Future Outdoor Pool Operating Strategy

52. Janice Tytaneck re: 20-236 (CRE) Future Outdoor Pool Operating Strategy

53. Brad Walker re: 20-236 (CRE) Future Outdoor Pool Operating Strategy

54. Paul Demarte re: 20-236 (CRE) Future Outdoor Pool Operating Strategy

Notice of Motion

1. Councillor Mann- Regional Council Composition Review

THAT the current composition of Regional Council, being a 16 Member Council consisting of 1 Regional Chair, 7 Mayors, 2 Cambridge Councillors, 4 Kitchener Councillors, and 2 Waterloo Councillors in accordance with Section 218 (6) of the Municipal Act as outlined in the Region of Waterloo report PDL-CAS-20-11, dated October 14, 2020, be approved; and,

THAT City Clerk be directed to notify the Regional Clerk of the Region of Waterloo accordingly following the November 18, 2020 Cambridge Council Meeting; and,

THAT the City of Cambridge request the Region of Waterloo to include public engagement on alternative representation methods, including, but not limited to, the double-direct model, in the next Regional Composition Review (following the 2026 election); and,

THAT this resolution be sent to the Honourable Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario, the Honorable Steve Clark, Minister of Municipal Affairs & Housing, the Region of Waterloo, and Region of Waterloo MPPs and local municipalities.

2. Councillor Reid- Unsolicited Flyers

Direct city staff to look at options to address community concerns around graphic unsolicited flyer deliveries to residential properties.

3. Councillor Devine- Hespeler Intersection

THAT staff be directed to remove the stop control sign at Harvey Street and that two stop control signs be installed on Sunnyhill Road.

AND THAT Traffic & Parking By-Law 187-06, Schedule 11, Through Highways, be amended accordingly.

Dear Council Members,

I urge you to vote for a placement of a much needed CTS in Cambridge. Follow the other close municipalities of Kitchener and Guelph who have had very positive results in their centres. While the opioid crisis can not be eliminated by these centres overdose deaths and the cost of the unsafe use of opioids to the taxpayer can be greatly reduced. Please do the right thing and allow a site in Cambridge.

Ann Van Norman

Hello Council My feelings are well summed up in the article in today's Record: It reads"the decision was made more than 2 years ago, and has given rise to the voices of people who do not see harm reduction as an effective way to help people with additions, even though it is a widely accepted, evidence-based approach" So why are we listening to people who deny facts and research??? As has been mentioned by others you can not help people who have died. It is embarrassing to read and experience how far Cambridge is falling behind the other cities in the region with help for this vulnerable segment of our city.

-- Bob Howison Chair: Affordable Housing Citizens For Cambridge www.citizensforcambridge info@citizensforcambridge.org Twitter:@For_Cambridge Facebook:@CitizensForCambridge Improving the future of Cambridge as a community

1

To the Mayor and Councillors, An acquaintance informed me that the fate of the outdoor pools in Cambridge, Soper Park and Hancock, were on the agenda of the November 18, 2020 Council Meeting. To say the least I was somewhat confused. It was only last year that the citizens gave, what I thought was, a clear message that they wished the outdoor pools to remain open and Council at that time concurred. When I reviewed the Special Council Meeting agenda, I noted that pages 254 - 267 of a 538 page agenda was a report to Council: Future Outdoor Pool Operating Strategy. The report consisted of 8 options. The recommended option was to close Soper at the end of the swim season in 2021 and Hancock at the end of the 2024 season. At the top of the agenda was an invitation to the public to submit written comments or requests to delegate via telephone related to items on the agenda. I’m not sure how citizens would be able to comment given the fact that the fate of the pools was not made public. I am not certain why the fate of such vital recreation facilities would be decided when the citizens are not able to address Council in person regarding this decision. Also, I am not certain why the haste in making the decision. The pools, as a result of COVID restrictions, were not able to be opened last year and may again this year have to remain closed. However, the COVID experience has reinforced the need for healthy outdoor activities to support our community. I would hope, given the importance of this decision to the citizens, that Council will defer the item until such time that a full public consultation can take place. Yours sincerely, Brad Walker

2

November 16, 2020 To Whom It May Concern, The Cambridge Covid-19 Response Committee is an ad hoc committee with representation from 10 front-line service agencies in Cambridge. The Committee was formed to respond to the Covid-19 pandemic in an organized way, to ensure that vulnerable populations had access to service and support and to provide isolation space for those experiencing homelessness, both sheltered and unsheltered. The pandemic has also further isolated those individuals who are active substance users, and we are on target for an all-time high number of overdoses in our region this year. Many addiction support services have been cut back, or been unavailable altogether, because of Covid. The Committee is in support of the staff recommendation that Consumption and Treatment Services be permitted anywhere in Cambridge. CTS sites are an important piece of the harm reduction framework and are often the entry to other addictions supports and services. We would encourage Cambridge City Council to adopt the staff report. Yours sincerely,

Bill Davidson Anne Tinker Co-Chair Co-Chair

3

Good morning: Since I am unable to attend the special meeting as scheduled, I ask that my letter be read instead. This issue is far too important to our community. Council: As you are likely aware, I remain adamantly opposed to a CTS in our community. Council has repeatedly referred to this as a polarizing issue when in fact, both “sides” agree that we want to help our most vulnerable, through better mental health supports, rehabilitation and detox services, affordable housing and living wages. Very few agree that can be achieved by supporting the use of illegal drugs of unknown origin. There is something very wrong when our Waterloo Regional Police Services issue a warning about the circulation of potentially lethal strains of drugs on the street, yet urges users to take those same drugs to consumption sites where hopefully they can be revived when they use them! One of the requirements for the establishment of a consumption site is that it includes defined pathways to wrap around services including primary care, mental health, housing and/or other social supports. As a member of CWAC and a frequent visitor to council I am fully aware that those services are woefully inadequate to meet current or foreseeable needs. A defined pathway needs to be more than a phone number or contact information for ever growing wait lists. The current pandemic is only going to make the need for those services greater. I note in the report to council that once council gives approval for a site and it is granted federal and provincial exemption, annual renewal will not allow you to voice objections as a community. You have one chance to get this right so I urge you NOT to take this path because it is the only model currently funded by the provincial government. Instead, join forces with a growing number of communities demanding better services that will make a real difference. We currently offer a number of harm reduction services including primary care, large quantities of clean supplies and free Naloxone kits. What we don’t offer is hope beyond the immediate relief they seek to numb their pain. We are so much better than this and our most vulnerable deserve our best response. Without a defined pathway out, the best we are doing is just washing, rinsing and repeating. The report further points out that you effectively have one chance to get this decision right. Once a CTS is granted federal and provincial approval, there is no further need to consult with the local community no matter what problems arise as a result. We are just expected to live with the inevitable fall out. Violent crimes in our community are already disturbingly more frequent, as are nightly trespassers, vandalism and theft. Those of you who think there won’t be additional fall out when dealers are aware of a new target market for their illegal drugs need only check police statistics for the areas around our new temporary shelters. I predict there will also be a corresponding connection to new “heat zones” in those areas, despite the opening of the Kitchener CTS site. Not a single community with an established CTS can claim an overall reduction in overdose deaths and in fact, the average life expectancy for males in BC has dropped two years because of overdose deaths . Yet that province’s drug strategy is still held as the gold standard we are all expected to follow. As every level of government is feeling the financial fallout of the pandemic it will be even more important to spend money more wisely on long term solutions. Please, listen to your community and do

4

not accept that this is the best we can do! We will happily help use our voices to advocate for services that will make a lasting difference. Carol Thorman

5

Dear Ms Liggett and fellow Councillors, The time has come to act regarding the selection and implementation of a CTS site here in Cambridge. For too long Cambridge has buried it's head in the sand, hoping the problem will go away, while Kitchener and Guelph have faced the situation and found solutions, with very positive results, that work for those in need and the wider community. I have lived at 64 Wellington Street and paid city taxes on that property for 23 years. I live in the downtown core. I have seen the city tackle difficult social problems in the past. What to do about the Royal Hotel? What to do about locating Argus House on Wellington Street? In the case of Argus House, citizens' worst fears never materialized because the facility is SUPERVISED. What is proposed is a SUPERVISED facility. Cambridge has the ability to make good decisions sometimes we lack courage. Let us take this crisi and turn it into an opportunity to show that Cambridge has the guts, the smarts and the humanity to reach out and make our community safe for everyone. We need a CTS with wraparound services in Cambridge now! Yours sincerely, Christina Edwards and Gail Hill

6

I have read that November 18, 2020 there is a meeting regarding a safe injection site in Cambridge. As a resident and tax payer I am strongly opposed to this site. I am angry and frustrated for the mayor's inability to do what the Cambridge residents want as opposed to her pleasing the region's agenda. My taxes have increased more this year than any other year. And with this increase I cannot safely enjoy the parks and riverside walkways. If the mayor is going to consistently do what the region wants Cambridge to do instead of the people who elected her, I think it would be fair to eliminate your positions and just let the region do what they like with Cambridge. I do not like that solution, but why do we need to pay your salaries which are paid by our taxes if you are just going to ignore the majority of Cambridge residents wishes for the city. I know most people in Cambridge do not want a CTS. Claire Jennings

7

November 16, 2020

Re: Item 12 – Future Outdoor Pool Strategy

(Please include this email within the agenda item for Nov 18th Special Council Meeting)

Dear Council;

Firstly, I would like to make the request that this matter be deferred to such a time where the Councillor for Ward 4 can be present, as the matter of Soper Park, directly impacts residents within this ward.

Being born and raised in Cambridge, I have had the opportunity to use all of the pools within the city. I competed as a team member of the Cambridge Aquajets and the need for an accessible location to practice was critical when also having to attend school. Traveling longer distances between home, pool and school would not work unless it was within short distances of each other, as the hours available to travel in a day are minimal when training. The same remains true today. My granddaughter, until covid shut things down, was also a competitor on the Cambridge Aquajets team. They had to compete outside of the city, as there was no local provision of a 150m pool. Not having a local 150m pool centrally in Cambridge is a huge disadvantage and disservice to our local team.

Swimming is a low-impact activity that has many physical and mental health benefits. This is very important to many seniors and those suffering disabilities or injuries. Many of these people utilize the pools as they are unable to walk the trails or ride bikes. Exercise is critical and helps to reduce the burden on our health care systems. In a report “Conversations of Substance”, recreation, including swimming, is considered high value as a preventative measure. The report notes that youth who are farthest from opportunities, is a major cause for them to become substance dependent. These outdoor pools, spread throughout the city are critical for residents, from young to old, to be able to participate in a healthy and active lifestyle.

As we can now see, when it comes to having one larger sports complex, bigger is not always better, and the ability to have multiple venues available throughout our city, rather than in the far outskirts of our city, could have been a better alternative.

The cost difference between the staff preferred option and 1a is around $522,000.00. While I understand that council needs to be responsible stewards of taxpayers dollars, I also see that this need to community and residents is something that can be supported within reason, and where the positive outweighs the negative.

Are there ways to offset these costs? Definitely. We have a great opportunity to look at fund raising. This has worked in many other cities. Perhaps some of the funding set aside for the trail system could be allocated towards keeping these venues open indefinitely.

Council approved a new library, adjacent to the new recreation facility on the far East side of Cambridge. Currently, we have 6 Idea Exchange locations for a population of 135,000. Review of other cities shows Toronto has 3.4 libraries and Montreal has 3, in relation to 100,000 people. I love libraries and they are a

8

necessity within every city, but as we are moving in to a very digital world, brick and mortar libraries are not the highest priorities.

The city’s operating costs for libraries in past years budgeted around 7.5 million dollars, a price tag of $113/household based on a 310,000 assessment and yet in the same year, there was only $12 for Older Adult Services.

This is very unbalanced and comes at a time where we need to invest in our seniors well being a lot more. Containment to fund a 7th Idea Exchange could offer the ability to have money available in keeping the pools open and contribute to the health and wellbeing of our residents.

All the above, and more, is why I strongly support and politely request that council will also support, the option of 1a, to keep both Hancock and Soper Park open indefinitely.

Respectfully,

Connie Cody

9

Good morning councillors,

I continue to support council’s current position regarding CTS - we need a CTS but not in our downtown cores.

As I understand it, the decision you will make on Wednesday involves choosing one of 6 options for how to move ahead.

Option 5 - Permit As a Public Use seems the best option to me, as it allows our community complete control going forward.

This option also avoids tying the hands of future councils that will no doubt live in times with different challenges and opportunities.

Hope this helps, stay well!

Thanks,

Dan Clements

10

I would like my email added to the agenda. Other cities who have had a CTS show up have had increased problems to the community at large, more theft, more crime, more assault, and has done nothing to reduce the needles found in parks. Again we are asking you to listen to the community and say NO to a CTS in Cambridge.The citizens have come forward multiple times and have said we do not want this here, show us that you are listening and say No to CTS and never bring it forward again. Lethbridge has shown increased problems, Kitchener has increased issues, and Vancouver increases the number of sites they have and have more issues than ever. Dean Vieira

11

Please vote YES for a safe consumption site in Cambridge Wednesday. Diane Scott

12

November 16, 2020 Re: File OR04/20 – 0 Main St – 2370826 Ontario Inc. Resident: Ed Novoa 84 Sparrow Avenue Cambridge, ON N1T0C5 I am writing to document my opposition to the Development Proposal for the Plan Amendment as per File Number referenced above. My objections are fall into five major areas of concern: 1) The Spirit of the Original Development Plan; 2) Infrastructure; 3) Solar Impact; 4) Site Implementation Effects; 5) Property Value Effects Please refer to Appendix A for supporting Photos and the separately attached Map A. 1) Development Amendment encroaches on the spirit of the community building plan as indicated at time of purchase for all residents. No mention or possibility of high-rise, high-population density construction was indicated in any plans for expansion (see attached Photo A). The construction of high-rise, multi-unit buildings with commercial retail is counter to the spirit of the commitment and plan provided to the residents of the area at the time of purchase. In other words, we purchased these properties because the outlook was of a residential community with no high-rises. I personally take exception to the manner in which this process has been approached by the builder/investor. The notification by mail, I understand, is standard practice for these kinds of proceedings. However, the lack of transparency (numbered company is shown as the applicant as described in the Notice of Complete Application – 2370826 Ontario Inc.) and the low visibility of signage to notify the residents. (See Map A and photos B, C, D, E – they show that the signage is very small, not highly visible and suggests that the investor is executing minimal efforts to bring much attention to the project). 2 Infrastructure a) Automobile Traffic Franklin Avenue has undergone a tremendous restructure over the last four years. The implementation of traffic circles was undertaken in order to alleviate the increase in traffic over the period of development and growth in this area. Even with the traffic flow improvements, the automobile traffic during peak times is already heavily congested, especially the intersections at Main/Franklin and Dundas/Franklin. Adding at minimum 367 new vehicles will make the road construction obsolete. And would likely result in more accidents due to the impatience that already is prevalent in drivers during peak times. b) Pedestrian Traffic More traffic makes drivers more impatient, and this will put pedestrians crossing at the traffic circles at risk. 3. Solar impacts (shadowing) The residents that paid premiums for ravine lots will be in almost perpetual shadow in their back yards due to the height and placement of these proposed buildings.

13

4) Site implementation effect The density of the population increase will have an affect on the current safety of the community; the increased traffic will increase the danger on the road for kids at play and pedestrians alike. There will be an overcrowding of park areas, trails – as well as the increased workload for emergency response units (police, fire department and ambulance). The Zehr’s plaza is already quite crowded with parking traffic and patrons. Adding 367 new units across the street is going to create more problems with congestion. 5) Loss of Value Adding 367 new units in a high-rise structure will have adverse effects on existing property values, causing a financial ripple effect on the residents within this community. Additionally, the safe and family-oriented environment that exists between current residents will be lost. As well as the freedom that wildlife enjoys – humans and animals cohabitating in good balance presently. I would also like to emphasize the increase in air pollution and ground pollution (see photos F, G, H). The developers in the area, and the City have done a very poor job in the clean up from construction. Garbage and leftover construction materials are thrown into the fields. With a project of this size, it would start to resemble a landfill site. Conclusion It is my sincere hope that these proceedings are being conducted in good faith; that this meeting to hear our concerns is more than a formality; the prospect of profits must not supersede the needs and concerns of the existing community. I close by requesting that you take each and all of these concerns under consideration before coming to a decision on the future of this site. Sincerely, Ed Novoa Resident 84 Sparrow Ave

14

APPENDIX A – PHOTOS AND MAP

PHOTO A:

PHOTO B:

15

PHOTO C:

PHOTO D:

16

PHOTO E:

PHOTO F:

17

PHOTO G:

PHOTO H:

18

Photo D, Photo E:Sign placed facing perpendicular to the street, 2’ x 3’; hardly visible.

Photo B, Photo CSign placed facing an ATV trail (also 2’ x 3’), not visible from the any street.Note: No visible signs in the residential area of Sparrow Avenue

19

20

As a tax paying citizen and business owner in this city, I strongly implore you all to select Option 6 NO to CTS! I moved to Cambridge nearly 20 years ago and I fell in love with the charm and safety offered here. It was a beautiful safe city to raise a family. This is no longer the case. Over the years the city has been on the decline in safety and it’s a reflection of every politician, Mayor and Councilman that has let it happen. You all believe that CTS is the answer because money is at the root of this decision. What you are failing to see and choosing to ignore, is the big picture. The facts are clear and don’t lie! CTS have failed in many other cities. Cambridge will not be the exception to that rule. To keep repeating the same mistake is the true definition of insanity. Choosing a CTS is asking for bigger logistical issues that will be even harder to fix down the road. The truth is that your money problems will continue to increase, as hard working tax paying citizens and business owners are forced to move out and bring their money elsewhere. Election time is in less than two years, keep this in mind if your not selecting option 6. Your solution of placing CTS in Cambridge is as temporary as those bike lanes and as the seats you will occupy if you sell us out. Listen to your constituents. It’s a hard resounding NO from the majority. Crime is already out of control in this town and every City that has selected to open a CTS has failed. We can and should do better. We all have choices to make in life. Please make the right and moral one. Stand up for Cambridge and stop the insanity. Don’t let greed make the choice for you. The citizens of Cambridge urge you all to make the honourable Choice! Let’s find a better way to help these citizens, other than feeding addictions for free! Sincerely, Eva R. Murphy

21

Hello everyone, This is to address the subject of outdoor pools in Cambridge. I couldn't be more enthusiastic for anything that promotes safer, healthier and happier families. Outdoor pools are great places for supervised summer fun and active recreation- learn to swim, keep fit, make friends and beat the summer heat. These are not just recreational but for exercise such as swimming laps and water aerobics in the refreshing open air. As my old neighbour and former councillor, Fred Kent always said about Ed Newland's Pool where he and his family swam every day, "it's the best little treasure in Cambridge". Youth absolutely require a place to go and meet friends, have fun and be physically active. So yes we not only need to keep the pools we have but we need to add one in North Cambridge (Hespeler). Hopefully with regular maintenance to our pools and arenas, these can offer many years of recreation in our community. This would be the right thing for Cambridge. Location is an important consideration when adding a new pool. A number of years ago a pool was added to the extreme rear of Riverside Park and widely parents did not find this an appropriate or safe location to allow their youngsters to visit on their own and it was removed. However if it was located at the front of the park, it may have been very different. Thank you for your consideration, Gayle Hobson. Sent from my iPhone

22

Mayor McGary and Councillors: Thank you for your decision to maintain the Ed Newland outdoor pool which is very good. The one big concern that we have with that pool is the availability, or lack, of parking. It’s very disappointing to once again hear that there is consideration that both Soper and Hancock outdoor pools may be closed. I think that it is an absolute necessity to keep the outdoor pools open during the months of July and August. At first, I thought that it was just beneficial to seniors but that was until I was at Soper Park pool in August, 2019 and had an opportunity to read the post-it notes that were left on the walls there. It brought to my attention that there are many people who will be affected by these closures – children, parents and grandparents, children who go there for their swimming lessons and families who take advantage of the outdoor pools. For everyone they are a welcome respite from the heat of the summer where backyard pools or summer cottages are not available for many. Another advantage of these two pools is that they are within walking distance of residential areas. Then I also heard about the lane swimmers who were disappointed to hear about the closures. There is nothing more refreshing than being outdoors exercising, looking at a blue sky, beautiful green trees and smelling the fresh air. Now that we are in the midst of a pandemic it is far more critical that everyone gets to spend as much time as possible in the outdoors. Please reconsider your decisions to close these essential ‘outdoor’ pools. In closing, I want to say that splash pads are a good idea to some degree but, unfortunately, I cannot see myself exercising in a splash pad. Gloria Majich

23

We would like to support the site but we are concerned where the site will be located as are a number of downtown merchants . Gordon and Celia Chaplin . Sent from my iPhone

24

Hi, My name is Harun Mulla and I am a home owner residing at 47 Nottinghill drive in Cambridge. I am writing this letter in regards to zoning By-law Amendment changing from (H)R4 to RM2 and C2. This Zoning by-law amendment would significantly increase the density, will have a negative impact on my family and modify the overall aesthetics of the neighborhood.

At present time, there are no high density buildings (residential and commercial) and the addition of a 10 storey and another 12 storey building is not contextually relative to the surrounding area. Furthermore, Nottinghill drive and Sparrow Avenue is home to many families with young children. I have three young kids aged 8, 7 and 2 year old and I have chosen to live in this quiet neighbourhood to allow my children to play safely. A zoning amendment change will increase the traffic on our small street, create a crowded area and negatively impact on mine and other families of young children’s well-being and their overall quality of life. There is also a lack of green space and parks in the proposal. The residences on Nottinghill dr and Sparrow ave use the park located on the opposite end of Nottinghill drive and Maple Bush Drive. It is the only park in our community and is shared by the entire community and is usually over crowded. With the change in zoning by-law amendment to a high density residential, there will be a larger crowd at the parks and its equipment and it will impact social and outdoor lives for my family.

There is also a lack of details on the target market for the proposed buildings as nothing has been mentioned if the building units will be rental units or purchased. These details will have an impact on my home value.

I am deeply concerned regarding the zoning by-law amendment. Please take the reasons above into consideration and I hope these concerns are addressed during the Public Meeting scheduled for November 18th 2020. Thank you Harun Mulla

25

Please consider very carefully the closing of our outdoor pools, and the impact on the children of Cambridge, and the adults who have no hope of spending time in an outdoor pool other than the city run ones. Thank you Janet Collins Cambridge Sent from my iPhone

26

Hello City Council, Please keep our outdoor pools open. They are a wonderful place for people of all ages to go, exercise, cool off, have some fun and learn to swim. The outdoor pools provide a safe place where kids and teens can be active, play and gain positive experiences. It is a place to go and something to do. Similarly for adults, the pools provide a way to cool off in the summer, a place for exercise or just relaxation. Swimming outdoors in summer is a wonderful feeling, and an indoor swim just doesn’t give one the same experience. There are plenty of residents in Cambridge who do not have the financial luxury to pay for a private pool in their own back yards, but many Cambridge residents still love to swim outside in the summer. The pools are amenities that the city should maintain for everyone. Only one outdoor pool for a city of our size is inadequate. As a 9 year resident and tax-payer it disappoints me to think our city council would be closing 2 of 3 pools within 4 years. In my eyes, you are taking away from our city, and part of why I enjoy living here. Replacing the pools with splash pads does not compare, and I disagree with my tax dollars being used in this way. I would much rather support the refurbishment and development of the outdoor pools as a local attraction for all residents. Thanks for your time. Janice Tytaneck Sent from my iPad

27

I am behind you 100%. If we don’t start saving these lives what does it say about us? Many of these people are caught in a trap that only a CTS could pull them out of. My personal experience told me this was the right direction 2.5 years ago. Now with my own volunteering at different agencies in the community and having 2 daughters in community service jobs this has allowed me to see that most of these people are caught in a circle of hell that screams death and the sad part is they know it. I have been screaming for a CTS since 2018 These folks who are against it do not see these individuals as people who are worth saving. They do not see addiction as a disease and I believe they feel most users are in it by choice. Thier violent voices are certainly not the answer. The city needs to step up and put something in place. Kitchener has had tremendous success and now it’s our turn to save lives. Jenny Devoe

28

I feel a CTS site in Cambridge is necessary to help save lives and help addicts find a way forward to recovery from their addiction & mental health issues, if they so desire.

Regards, Joanne Clements

29

Good evening all members,

I am writing with two concerns this evening.

2) The other issue of concern is the continued consideration for a CTS in Cambridge. I am absolutely convinced that this is not something that we should entertain in Cambridge. We need more mental health supports in the way of affordable/free access to inpatient and outpatient facilities at the hospital, counselling services, outreach programs, back to work programs, help with finance management, affordable housing, etc. etc. Rather than granting building permits to owners that want to build condos that are upwards of $700,000, why not encourage or source out owners that want to build affordable housing or, conversely, provide housing from the city? I’m not sure if that makes sense but the rents right now are absolutely ridiculous. Let’s be forward thinking and do something different and amazing with our most needy residents rather than just covering up the problem with a bandaid solution like a CTS that will end up just snowballing into more problems.

Thank you for considering my opinion.

Joanne Kitzman

30

Good evening all members, I am writing with two concerns this evening. 1) I understand that the closure of Soper Park is once again on the table. I had recently emailed regarding the closure of a pool in Cambridge because of the impact I feel it would have on people like my grandson who thoroughly enjoyed swimming at the pool with his family as well as participating in summer camp through the City. One of their outings involved a trip to the local swimming pool. My grandson Brycen is autistic and is now nine years old. His family has limited income, so swimming in a neighbourhood pool is one of the few things that is affordable to them. My other concern with the closure of Soper park pool is that I feel it will only compound the current issues that we have with homelessness and homeless camps in that area. If there isn’t a continued community presence in the park and at the pool, I feel it will be overrun with this problem of homelessness and tent cities (another topic for discussion). Please consider keeping all of our swimming pools open and available for use. Once Covid-19 is under control, I am certain people will be eager to get out in their community to enjoy these facilities. Thank you for considering my opinion. Joanne Kitzman

31

Dear Bryan, We are writing to you as concerned residents of Sparrow Avenue & Nottingham Drive, to voice our concerns against the development proposal for “0”Main Street located at the southwest corner of Main Street and future extension of Nottinghill Drive.

Our concerns are as follows:

• The proposed zoning by-law amendment from (H)R4 (single detached) to RM2 (multiple residential) and C2 (commercial) would significantly increase the density and alter the overall aesthetics of the neighbourhood. There are presently no high density buildings in our neighbourhood and the addition of two (2) 10 and 12 storey buildings is not contextually relative to our surrounding area. In referencing the “Cambridge Official Plan” for city growth, our neighbourhood is not currently within the noted “Main and Dundas Community Node” which would allow for increased density. • Increased traffic to our street and the impact on young families: Sparrow Avenue is home to many families with young children, and we have chosen to live in this quiet neighbourhood to allow our children to play safely. The addition of a minimum of approx. 200+ owner vehicles due to this development would impact all families and children’s well-being and safety. • Lack of green space and parks in the proposal: There is no allocated green space/ parks outlined in the concept plan. It is evident this proposal is not taking into account the well-being of the current, or future residents of this neighbourhood. The only park in the neighbourhood, Green Gate is three blocks away and already services all of the Dundas & Franklin residential area. • Lack of details regarding target market for apartment buildings: The proposal lacked critical details regarding the targeted demographic plan. For example – critical information would include whether the apartments are rental or purchased units, and income level (ie. geared towards lower income or higher end). These details are important to homeowners in our neighbourhood given the addition of these apartment buildings could greatly impact our home value.

We are asking for these concerns to be addressed during the Public Meeting scheduled for November 18th.

Sincerely,

Julia Beniusis & Kyle Innis along with fellow residents of Sparrow Avenue & Nottingham Drive

** Please see attached for 28 signatures in support of this letter, addresses are also listed **

32

33

34

35

36

(I would like the following to be included as part of the agenda package for the Cambridge city council meeting on Wednesday November 18, 2020) Dear Mayor and City of Cambridge Councillors, My name is Julie Currie and I am a life long resident of Cambridge. As you may be aware, I have been actively involved on the issue surrounding the CTS and the interim bylaw process. My knowledge on this matter comes from extensive review of reports, research and connecting with people across the country where similar issues exist. I am asking that you do not approve option #5 on the CTS Planning Study. At the Planning and Development Committee meeting held on February 11, 2020, it was stated that by selecting option #5, council would have more control. This does not seem to be the case. By choosing yes to option #5, council will have less control on being able to say NO to a CTS anywhere in Cambridge. The Meridian consultant thought it would be very unlikely for any proponent to submit an application without the need to apply for provincial funding. As the Region has already stated in the past that they would fund a site, this needs to be part of the consideration with the decision making. Having the bylaw stay the same as public use zoning anywhere in Cambridge, would give anyone the opportunity to submit a request for a site and to be approved as there would be nothing to stop it. In addition, there is a possibility that agencies will collaborate and pool their dollars together so they could jointly fund a site on their own. With these possibilities, council needs to be cautious on how they proceed. Why does Council refuse to listen and continue to only have conversations leading to consumption sites coming to Cambridge, even after the public consultation in early 2019 have already reported that there was an overwhelming response of “NO” to having a site anywhere in Cambridge? In the directive given to the Well-being Advisory Committee as well as the purpose of the site selection committee, there was zero option for residents to select NO to a site anywhere in Cambridge. This limited scope in the direction neglects to give the community full options, which proves their is a hidden agenda to ensure that the outcome is to have a site somewhere in Cambridge. At this time, the definition of “need” in our community supports rehab and preventative education, so I urgently request that Council respect the community as a whole and select option #6, to not have a CTS allowed anywhere in Cambridge, but instead advocate for mental health supports, rehab and preventative education. Kind regards,

37

Julie Currie

38

Hello, My name is Karin Devries. I live in Ward 7 and have lived in Cambridge for 10 years. I am sending an email to city council to encourage you to look at the research for CTS'. I think that the research and successes of other cities with CTS' (including ones in our own Region), should be the basis for which city council makes their decision. I realize there is risk involved but, I believe with the proper risk assessment, city council will see that a CTS is a proper fit for Cambridge. I had the opportunity to read the articles in the Record regarding the difficulty outreach workers are experiencing in our city. It is so discouraging to hear that people who are trying to help people who are homeless are experiencing harassment and fear for their safety. Something has to change and that change can only happen if city council is willing to look at the facts and take a few risks. Regards, Karin

39

Please add my letter to the agenda on Nov 18, 2020. I am totally opposed to having any CTS anywhere in Cambridge. Already I fear going out on my own. I do not feel particularly safe in my own neighbourhood. I think we would be enabling more drug abuse and less help for addicts and homeless people.

Thank you

Kate Fraser

Cambridge, Ontario.

40

To Cambridge Council Members Here we are again, I find myself hearing about Council deciding to vote on a injection site for Cambridge through Neighboroughood Watch. When I look on Cambridge Council website I see “Special Council Meeting, but mentions nothing of what it’s about, WHY? We see it everywhere now, spread throughout the city, you don’t have to look far. Get out of your offices/homes and take a walk around Cambridge Galt, talk to the people, and see what everyone else sees, except you. Have a look at the garbage and people in the empty lot behind 150 Main Street. Take a walk along the trails or in the parks, if you dare. Have a coffee outside Coffee Culture, go on, I dare you. Just take a walk around the corner from City Hall, take a walk, open your eyes. See and listen to the residents that deal with this daily. Council voted against small homes in Churchill Park. You voted it down because you didn’t want it in your back yard. Yet..., you would open a site to encourage users to shoot up in the down town core, sleeping and relieving themselves on the streets in the downtown core, not to mention the terrorizing of it’s businesses and residents. The residents who voted you in to protect them. I hope you back the residents of Cambridge and vote against an injection site and refuse to be part of aiding and abetting in the addiction of those who need the proper help that can only come from Federal government. I hope you vote against and not destroy the small community of Galt and the rest of the city of Cambridge. As stated by Mayor McGarry on TV, 3 small communities of appox. 25,000 population in each. Addiction has destroyed a lot of lives, families. No one wants to see a drug addict dead, instead give them help they need to lead somewhat of a normal life. Help them by forcing government to come up with a better solution to getting addiction under control. Take the blinkers off and really help. Do the right thing, vote against an injection site. If you vote yes for an injection site, than... Kathy Davies

41

Hello, I am sending this email to show my support of the CTS sites in the city of Cambridge. I hope there are others that feel the same. Good luck! Thank you Kelly Mills Sent from my iPhone

42

Good afternoon, I hope you are staying safe, staying healthy, and staying grounded as these challenging times continue. I recognize that it's a tough time for everyone, the changing nature of this global pandemic, winter is approaching, and budget decisions are not easy decisions to make. I would like to add a few thoughts, considerations and a few compelling reasons to repair, maintain and keep Soper Park Pool open - and through this one budget line I'd like to nudge our minds towards what we do well here in Cambridge, what we need to hold onto, to celebrate, to continue to focus on. One of the things people love about Cambridge is our green spaces which allow families, friends, and neighbours an opportunity to connect often in informal ways.

Soper Park is a large green space in the heart of East Galt. It is a walkable park, with fields of open space, baseball diamonds, a creek, tennis courts, a playground, a splash pad and an outdoor pool. Each element brings people to the park. Different people come for different reasons. And at times all people for all reasons.

Having the pool outdoors makes it special - being outside in the sun with the breeze, listening to the birds - it has a very different feel than an indoor pool.

Families come to the pool together, parents with their children - their young kids, their middle schoolers and their teenagers. Middle schoolers, teenagers and adults don't use a splash pad. Grandparents come to the pool with their adult children and their grandkids – a pool encourages multi-generational interactions and these interactions, parents with children of all ages, grandparents with children of all ages are different then the interactions at other park activities. You are all in the pool, you all swim together, takes turns diving for rings at the bottom of the pool, handstands in the pool, somersaults together - playgrounds and splash-pads don't encourage this type of play. Adults sit and watch the children play. These opportunities, these interactions are what build community.

An outdoor pool is also a place where people of all ages, toddlers to seniors can take lessons, learn or enhance new skills and be active in the fresh air and sunshine. Even in non-pandemic years people want to be outside during the summer months.

Pools are a great summer job for our youth - they can earn a decent income for the summer, the youth earn a sense of responsibility, they figure out how to work with others, and they learn new skills. Providing good summer jobs - is a good thing for the city to encourage.

I can't connect these thoughts to the new Strategic Plan - I don't believe a draft has been shared with the public yet - but the previous Strategic Plan had a number of goals focused on community wellbeing - where people can make strong connections with others and lead safe, healthy and productive lives. Another was to facilitate and deliver a wide range of accessible and diverse community recreation opportunities - to provide the right mix of recreational opportunities that meet the needs of a changing and diverse population. I'm sure I don't need to

43

connect the dots between what I said above, and each point meets the objectives within the last Strategic Plan.

To conclude Soper Park Pool is an investment, absolutely. It is an investment of some capital costs for repairs and regular maintenance and it is an ongoing investment to staff it. But it really is an investment in community and that is worth it.

I am open to a conversation if you have any questions or concerns before the meeting on Tuesday. Thank you for your time.

Kristine Dearlove

44

Councillors, As both a resident of Cambridge and the leader of an organization that invests in the wellbeing of Waterloo Region, I strongly urge you to approve the creation of a Consumption Treatment Site in Cambridge. The rate of overdose deaths in our community is rising exponentially, and the realities of the pandemic make such a site more important than ever. There is extensive, comprehensive evidence on the success of CT sites and the positive results they bring, of which council is well aware. Many peer municipalities have implemented CTSs with wraparound services, recognizing them as an important element in addressing the opioid crisis. It is time for Cambridge to do the same. The role of council is to speak and work for all of the citizens of Cambridge, not just some of them. As councillors, you have a moral obligation to act on credible evidence that demonstrates lives can be saved. I urge you to step up, show leadership, and immediately approve a CTS for Cambridge. Every life has value. It is time to provide this valuable service to those who desperately need it.

Laura Manning --------------------------------------- Laura J. Manning (she/her) Executive Director Lyle S. Hallman Foundation 20 Crestview Place Kitchener, ON N2B 0A2

Office: (519) 579-7351 x110

45

I am writing to communicate my support of a provincially-funded CTS, more mental health support, detox, rehab and treatment facilities.

Please let me know if there is anything I can do in support of this initiative.

Leanne Shanks Cambridge resident

Sent from my iPhone

46

Dear Council Members, The time has come for Cambridge to come to grips with the addiction problems that are affecting Ontario, North America, and the rest of the world. Leaving addicts for someone else to look after simply results in more deaths. It wastes the valuable time of emergency workers like police and hospital workers and leaves vulnerable people in the hands of bewildered citizens who don't know what to do. Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away. Cambridge should join with other municipalities to find better ways to tackle the complicated issues of addiction, mental illness, and homelessness. More can be done if we work together and share ideas. Sincerely, Linda Foster

47

Councillors, I would like to add my voice to the call to keep Soper Park Pool open. I think this pool is a very integral part of our community. I have lived in this area for the better part of 50 years and used this pool through the years, particularly as a child. I'm a bit flummoxed that with the move towards core densification in this area that this great service to the community is on the chopping yet block again. Hancock is much too far away to expect families from this area to traverse across town to use a public pool. Please push to keep this pool open! Thank you. Lynda Ward Ward 4 Resident

48

November 15, 2020 Re: File OR04/20 – 0 Main St – 2370826 Ontario Inc. Residents: Manahel Polis and Basam Yousif And Sabah Dawd and Ansaf Farjo We are writing to document my opposition to the Development Proposal for the Plan Amendment as per File Number referenced above. Our objections are fall into five major areas of concern: 1) The Spirit of the Original Development Plan; 2) Infrastructure; 3) Solar Impact; 4) Site Implementation Effects; 5) Property Value Effects 1) Development Amendment encroaches on the spirit of the community building plan as indicated at time of purchase for all residents. No mention or possibility of high-rise, high-population density construction was indicated in any plans for expansion. The construction of high-rise, multi-unit buildings with commercial retail is counter to the spirit of the commitment and plan provided to the residents of the area at the time of purchase. In other words, we purchased these properties because the outlook was of a residential community with no high-rises. We personally take exception to the manner in which this process has been approached by the builder/investor. The notification by mail, I understand, is standard practice for these kinds of proceedings. However, the lack of transparency (numbered company is shown as the applicant as described in the Notice of Complete Application – 2370826 Ontario Inc.) and the low visibility of signage to notify the residents. (See Map A and photos B, C, D, E – they show that the signage is very small, not highly visible and suggests that the investor is executing minimal efforts to bring much attention to the project). 2 Infrastructure a) Automobile Traffic Franklin Avenue has undergone a tremendous restructure over the last four years. The implementation of traffic circles was undertaken in order to alleviate the increase in traffic over the period of development and growth in this area. Even with the traffic flow improvements, the automobile traffic during peak times is already heavily congested, especially the intersections at Main/Franklin and Dundas/Franklin. Adding at minimum 367 new vehicles will make the road construction obsolete. And would likely result in more accidents due to the impatience that already is prevalent in drivers during peak times. b) Pedestrian Traffic More traffic makes drivers more impatient, and this will put pedestrians crossing at the traffic circles at risk. 3. Solar impacts (shadowing) The residents that paid premiums for ravine lots will be in almost perpetual shadow in their back yards due to the height and placement of these proposed buildings.

49

4) Site implementation effect The density of the population increase will have an affect on the current safety of the community; the increased traffic will increase the danger on the road for kids at play and pedestrians alike. There will be an overcrowding of park areas, trails – as well as the increased workload for emergency response units (police, fire department and ambulance). The Zehr’s plaza is already quite crowded with parking traffic and patrons. Adding 367 new units across the street is going to create more problems with congestion. 5) Loss of Value Adding 367 new units in a high-rise structure will have adverse effects on existing property values, causing a financial ripple effect on the residents within this community. Additionally, the safe and family-oriented environment that exists between current residents will be lost. As well as the freedom that wildlife enjoys – humans and animals cohabitating in good balance presently. We would also like to emphasize the increase in air pollution and ground pollution (see photos F, G, H). The developers in the area, and the City have done a very poor job in the clean up from construction. Garbage and leftover construction materials are thrown into the fields. With a project of this size, it would start to resemble a landfill site. Conclusion It is our sincere hope that these proceedings are being conducted in good faith; that this meeting to hear our concerns is more than a formality; the prospect of profits must not supersede the needs and concerns of the existing community. I close by requesting that you take each and all of these concerns under consideration before coming to a decision on the future of this site. Sincerely, Manahel Polis and Basam Yousif Sabah Dawd and Ansaf Farjo

50

Good Evening I’m an actual citizen in Cambridge, I understand our voted in mayor doesn’t even live in our community !? All CTS sites bring more crime and do not help the users other than more drug overdoses and a rise in crimes. You must and will vote no to CTS sites in our community!! No to more drugs and more crime with those CTS sites!!!!This is a no brainer!!! Add this email to your agenda For this vote on November 18/20. These sites do absolutely nothing for our community!!! Accept more crime!!! Warm regards Marsha Hill

51

I an writing to let you know how much the outdoor pools were to me when i was a kid. My family had little money and so we were at home in the hot summers. When i would go to the Hancock pool it was a real joy. Most people i new were in the same situation with little money and no car to travel. The outdoor pool was a blessing to most low income families. With everything so expensive now a days closing these outdoor pools would be a real financial blow to low income people. The YMCA is to expensive for most families nowadays and low income families can not afford to travel. Closing of these swimming pools would put more children on the streets and more burden on the family. The little it would cost each property to maintain these swimming pools is very little compared to the cost of having children out on the streets. The job of the city council is to provide parks and recreation for our young people no matter the cost. This is why we pay taxes. If all we think about at budget time is money and not the people we serve then there is no hope for the less fortunate people in our city. We need to remember when we were kids and what it was like to go to a swimming pool and cool off in the long hot summer days especially when our families could not afford to pay for more expensive items like the YMCA. Murray Gignac

52

Consumption site As the pandemic is here and no one can really get together to make their voices heard they sure made their voices heard in the two previous years with numerous meetings at City Hall churches and the theatre downtown and The majority voice their opinions not to have a consumption site and put the resources into recovery for those in need . Norman Warren Ps not just a loud few

As a member of the economic business development committee from years past .Our object was to create a viable downtown .Recommendations were put forward and excepted by counsel to give development charges and tax exemptions for people who wanted to invest and developed our three downtown cores. This has been done quite successful over the last number of years . A destination for wedding . movie maker’s. educating students , Grand river parklands, walkways. A beautiful spot . I am saddened to see the Safety issues of our downtown core. We should be working to making our core areas safe for you and our children and try to move our drug addiction facilities out of the core area away from our tourist industry ,weddings facilities ,Condo developments.Let’s look at the big picture for you your family and all the other Cambridge residence who deserve a safe and prosperous downtown core and still provide a good service for people in need.I understand why there are calls for overdose victims downtown-because our downtown is a beautiful spot we developed . Let’s not undo all the hard work we’ve done in the past. Let’s keep it safe.As a real estate broker for the past 33 years And past president of the real estate board of Cambridge I’ve always proud to sell homes in this beautiful city to all that arrived. Norman Warren. I choose to live here .Sent from my iPhone

53

Hello, I would like to voice my concern about the installation of a CTS site in Cambridge. This is an ill-conceived plan that will be detrimental to the law abiding citizens of this city. Cambridge does not need a CTS site, where the taxpayer is for all effects becoming a de facto drug dealer. What Cambridge needs is a way to get these drug addicted residents off of drugs. A Center to get them clean, instead of a bandaid solution that keeps on feeding these addictions and destroying their and their families’ lives. Further, as a tax paying citizen who effectively pays your own salary, I expect that you would do what is in the best interests of the law abiding citizens of this city, including myself. I can’t express any more strongly my disapproval of a CTS site. Please come up with a better plan. This isn’t it. Regards, Oscar

54

Mayor and Council Members, This email is in regards to the above report. Council at its meeting of February 18, 2020 deferred a decision on the CTS Planning Study until after the ward 7 bi-election. The bi-election has been held and Council will now be looking at the CTS Planning Study by Meridian Planning Consultants “Option 5 - CTS to permit anywhere in the City as a public use”. Over the past year or so, Council has asked for the public’s input with respect to specific locations of a CTS and if there should be such a facility at all within the City. The public has responded by email, phone, texts, appearing as delegations, social media, petitions, one on one ward meetings and protests. The resounding response is a hard NO. Citizens of Cambridge do not want this kind of facility anywhere in our City. The majority of citizens do realize that mental health issues exist and that the Region of Waterloo and cities within sorely lack in this assistance with little or no programming. These people require help, not being enabled by going to a CTS or offered free drugs/needles or legalizing illegal drugs through harm reduction programs. Council has accepted Option 5 of the Planning Study. This option already exists in Cambridge’s O.P. And Zoning by-law as long as the Province or Region runs the facility. The question is, not withstanding the Consultant’s Study, can not the Province or Region establish a CTS location without Council’s permission/resolution? If it is Council’s contention that they can still say no, why then was Option 2 not selected? Perhaps the funds allocated to transforming the core areas could be directed to establishing some programs that would actually offer help to these people. Partnering with the CM Hospital seems logical as this Council and previous Councils have donated considerable amounts of money to a Provincial/Regional health body. As a result, wrap around services are already present at the Hospital. It is imperative that discussions take place, questions asked and a firm understanding of choosing Option 5 and what it could mean for the City. Cambridge citizens and businesses deserve to feel heard and deserve to be able to conduct business and to use the areas in Cambridge safely. We do not need to be labeled as insensitive or addict haters. Please add this email to the agenda and/or other business memo for public record. Thank you, Pat Stager

55

Simple ! Keep the pools open . DO NOT CLOSE THEM . Paul Demarte

56

I am writing to you as my elected officials regarding the decision to put a CTS in the Cambridge area. This harm reduction initiative has been proven not to work in other provinces. The results speak for themselves with increased overdoses, crime and unsafe communities. Cambridge already has enough problems with drugs and crime and I do not feel the a CTS is a viable compassionate, solution. I am asking you to vote for option 6 (to not allow any CTS or other injection sites anywhere in Cambridge) at the upcoming council meeting on November 18, 2020. On this very important topic I would like my voice to be heard and I look forward to your support. *Please add my email to the agenda. Thank you, Pauline Brittenden

57

Dear Councillors, Sue and I believe that the Soper, Hancock, and Newland outdoor pools are a significant part of Cambridge’s history, so important to our Canadian culture, to not remove. As life long Cambridge residents, my wife and I find it very sad every time Cambridge council removes a major player in the life and times of our city. Whether be a park, a building, a bridge, or a single tree, if it has lasted a generation or more, nurture it, not destroy it. My wife grew up living on Second Ave., one block from the Hancock pool. She continues to tell stories of all the fun she had on that property in the summer and winter. There was time when you could swim at the Hancock in the evening under the lights, and every summer day, it was super crowded. While I was living on McNaughton St. close to Lincoln Ave. school and playing daily in Soper Park, she was making life long friends on the west side of town too. I have told my children and grandchildren that I want my ashes spread around the giant radical rock close to the pool in Soper. That’s how important Soper pool is to me. I swam as a child in the cement pool that was part of Mill Creek very close to the pool on the hill there. I swam in the creek down by the tennis courts that we called, “the Sandbar”. I jumped off the Dundas St. bridge into the Soper Creek too. Those were the best times ever, and the pool made me who I am today … a old man who loves Cambridge! We will be watching our councillors closely and hope that all 3 pools remain in our community for many many years to come. Rob and Sue Fox

58

Please vote option 6 on the injection site matter as I believe money would be better spent on detox and rehabilitation sites and please add this email to council vote agenda.

Tax payer

Robin Thomas

I vote no to an injection site that enables drug use at our tax payers expense without real wrap around services!

59

I would like to express my objection to an injection sites in Cambridge. Besides enabling a person with their addiction when they are not capable to make sound judgments, there are additional cost that you may not have considered. I just retired from my career as a firefighter. In the last ten years or so, PTSD was recognized and found growing among personnel in the emergency services. During my time, I have had witnessed many deaths. Although having a child die in my arms, the most disturbing call occurred when we went to a medical call where a known drug user not only overdosed, but hung himself at the same time. His parents heard a disturbance and immediately cut him down so we did have a patient to deal with. It's the first time in my career I began questioning why I was trying to save a life. These type of calls are where PTSD and suicides within the service is created. What is the price tag on that. I respectfully request the money and effort be put into rehabilitation and treatment centers. Sincerely Roger Will

60

Dear Cambridge city council members, Thank you for your service to the city, and for your ongoing consideration to the needs of the marginalized within our community. This letter pertains to the discussion about the region’s proposed consumption and treatment centre in Cambridge. While a vocal group has opposed a CTS from the first suggestion of its development, there are others who have looked at the data resulting from this life-saving service in Kitchener, and who support its implementation. A pragmatic approach, not based on the emotions of fear and anger, is what is needed here. There is no doubt that lives will be saved, and that needle debris in the community will decrease if people are given a safe place to use the substance to which they are addicted. In addition, the opportunity to access wrap-around services will be more accessible to those who choose to do so. I live in the core, and support downtown business regularly with my purchasing power. I sympathize with business owners who have experienced vandalism. Nevertheless, evidence does not suggest that a humane and wholistic approach to drug addiction will further hinder commerce downtown. The issue of small business decline cannot be attributed solely to the rise in homelessness and addiction. It is much more complex than that. A CTS will not prevent addiction, any more than a hospital will prevent illness. It is, however, a big piece of the practical way to address the rising death count. I have attached a link to the article I wrote for the Cambridge Times on this matter. https://www.cambridgetimes.ca/opinion-story/10232329--expansive-and-compassionate-approach-needed-for-new-war-on-drugs/ Thank you for giving this matter your consideration, and I wish you well in all your deliberations. Sincerely, Sandra Sutherland, M.S.W., R.S.W.

61

Good evening…. I was just made aware that this issue is coming up again and wish to express my opinion. As a long-time Cambridge resident, I grew up swimming and playing in our local parks and outdoor pools. My children experienced the same childhood joy at Hancock pool over the years. While I recognize the significant cost of maintaining these pools, I believe community pools need to be available for our children. I think we all know that this year has wreaked havoc on the mental health of our children, and perhaps in many ways has shone the light on the needs in our community and actually across our country. Accessible and affordable community recreation must become a priority if we are to make headway with mental health. Hearing the laughter and shouting of the children splashing in our pools and splash pads is healthy not only for them but for the adults that hear it. Please keep our pools open in our communities. Our children need them, we need them. Sandy Falkiner

62

Mayor McGarry and Council Members, I urge you not to close Soper and Hancock pools. I am a mother of two young children living in Galt and Hancock Pool is our closest and most cost efficient way of ensuring my children know the life saving skill of swimming. It is already incredibly difficult to procure community centre swimming lessons, the demand is so high and the options are already so limited. Closing two community pools without any alternatives would leave many families without the opportunity to have access to swimming lessons. Having recreation activities available in your own community removes the barrier to access that centralizing so many of these centres will create. It is so important to supporting the community as a whole and the physical, social and mental well being of its neighbourhood. Please consider what the future of Cambridge will look like if we continue to close community spaces and compound the issue of creating barriers to access. Thank you, Sarah Bourbonniere

63

Dear Madam Mayor and Council Members

I write to you as a resident of Ward 4 who has lived in Cambridge since 1976. We made Cambridge our home, raised our family here and now we watch our grandchildren grow up in this community. Soper Park and Soper Park Pool are our neighbourhood park and pool and we use this facility regularly.

When I heard about the possible closure of Soper Park pool again, I wrote to my Councillor Jan Liggett and also Councillor Scott Hamilton who represents Ward 7, as Soper Park is within their jurisdiction. On further thought I felt it necessary to address my concerns to the Mayor and our full council as this is not just a Ward 4 & 7 issue, it goes to the heart of our city and supporting all its residents as we know that while the majority of participants are from Wards 4 and 7, this pool is used by folks all over the city, whether participating in lane swims, fitness classes or taking their children and or grandchildren to an outdoor pool on a warm summer day. It is also the source of summer employment for young adults who live all over the city, not just in Wards 4 and 7.

While many of you were on Council when we last visited this issue in 2017 (I spoke personally with many of you), some of you are new to this discussion. At that time there was a groundswell of support both from users of the Soper Park pool and general city residents who didn't use the pool but they told the city during the various budget meetings that council needed to find a way to keep the pool open, the benefits far outweighed the cost.

At the time of the previous decision it was thought that the Capital Plan would be updated to provide a spray pad in place of the pool. If that is an action you are considering this time around as well, the only residents that benefit from this will be our youngest, children under the age of 8. A spray pad will not provide any benefit to our older children, youth, summer camp programs, community groups, aqua fit for seniors, families and individual folks who use a pool for fun, recreation and exercise. The elimination of this pool also affects the many young adults, many attending post secondary institutions, whose summer employment is providing swimming lessons and life guarding during the general swim programs. The money they earn by working at the pool in the summer provides some if not all the money to pay for their education and living costs while at school.

For my grandchildren this park and pool have helped develop their independence, arranging to meet friends there for a swim and social time. This

64

past summer during the Covid pandemic it helped them stay safely connected and they will need it this coming year as well.

In 2017 documents stated that the elimination of the pool would result in savings of $48,000 annually which I suspect has gone up marginally. I respectfully suggest that this is a false savings not to mention a minuscule amount of money given the size of the city budget. The closing of the pool provides a very small financial benefit which is far outweighed by the community benefits of keeping the pool. Not having the pool fulfilling its role in supporting Cambridge residents this coming summer given that we will still be living with the effects of the Covid pandemic is another factor that must be added to the discussion. While we may have a vaccine this coming summer it will not have been administered to all who want the vaccine. An open air pool provides the best access to many folks. This will also benefit those who can walk to the pool, being able to social distance. I also realize that the number of people in the pool will have to be controlled but that is a concession we understand and it was not a significant issue last summer.

In summary by eliminating the Soper Park pool, no one wins, we all lose. Both my husband and I respectfully request that you vote to keep this pool for the citizens of Cambridge.

Regards

Sharron Chandler

65

November 16, 2020

Re: File OR04/ - 0 Main St. – 2370826 Ontario Inc.

Resident

Sheldon Meyers

I am writing this letter on my opposition to the development and plans for the High Rise building which are planned in my community.

Development of these plan of the high-rise building was not in the plans when the community purchased these homes. The community who purchased these homes were promised parks and a school around the area. We as a community have paid premium prices for these lots and were promised that there were not going to be high structured buildings around.

Safety is also a key concern in our community which is a very big factor because there are very young kids. In recent years round-abouts were put in because there was traffic in the community. Imagine with 367 units what kind of traffic there would be, every unit having 1 or 2 cars. The density of the people in that location will also affect the safety of this community.

I walk out of my garage I see blue skies, but with a building right in front there is no view and lots of shadow falling on homes and backyards. We as a community would not have any privacy in our homes if these high-rises are planned for development.

These are the concerns our community have against the High-rises which are planned for development. There are 2 photos in the attachment for viewing. Thanks.

Sincerely,

Sheldon Meyers

66

67

Photo D, Photo E:Sign placed facing perpendicular to the street, 2’ x 3’; hardly visible.

Photo B, Photo CSign placed facing an ATV trail (also 2’ x 3’), not visible from the any street.Note: No visible signs in the residential area of Sparrow Avenue

68

I select option 6 which is to not have a CTS site anywhere in Cambridge. Sherri Wing

69

I oppose the closing of these much needed pools. I, along with my siblings grew up using the Soper Park pool on almost a daily basis. Growing up in a single parent home, we had few activities that were affordable. Somehow our mother always made sure we got a summer’s pass to the pool. I don’t know what our summers would have been like without the Soper Park pool experience. Please reconsider the closing of this extremely important recreational sport. Thanks for your consideration, Shirley Wells Sent from my iPhone

70

Resident complaint against File OR04/20- 0 Main St - 2370826 Ontario Inc.

Dear Bryan,

We are writing you as concerned residents of Sparrow Avenue, to voice our concerns against the development proposal for “0”Main Street located at the southwest corner of Main Street and future extension of Nottinghill Drive.

Our concerns are as follows:

• The proposed zoning by-law amendment from (H)R4 (single detached) to RM2 (multiple residential) and C2 (commercial) would significantly increase the density and alter the overall aesthetics of the neighbourhood. There are presently no high density buildings in our neighbourhood and the addition of two (2) 10 and 12 storey buildings is not contextually relative to our surrounding area. In referencing the “Cambridge Official Plan” for city growth, our neighbourhood is not currently within the noted “Main and Dundas Community Node” which would allow for increased density.

• Increased traffic to our street and the impact on young families: Sparrow Avenue is home to many families with young children, and we have chosen to live in this quiet neighbourhood to allow our children to play safely. The addition of minimum of approx. 200+ owner vehicles due to this development would impact of all families and children’s well-being and safety.

• Lack of green space and parks in the proposal: There is no allocated green space/ parks outlined in the concept plan. It is evident this proposal is not taking into account the well-being of the current, or future residents of this neighbourhood. The only park in the neighbourhood, Green Gate is three blocks away and already services all of the Dundas & Franklin residential area.

• Lack of details regarding target market for apartment buildings: The proposal lacked critical details regarding the targeted demographic plan. For example – critical information would include whether the apartments are rental or purchased units, and income level (ie. geared towards lower income or higher end). These details are important to home owners on Sparrow Avenue given the addition of these apartment buildings could greatly impact our home value.

We are asking for these concerns to be addressed during the Public Meeting scheduled for November 18th.

Sincerely,

Zvonimir and Vesna Restek

71