Outstanding Motions Amendment – Transfer Items to Appendix A

Thanks very much, Mayor. Can you hear me okay? Yeah, I've submitted an amendment.

Okay, I'm going to move you to the amendment queue.

Great, thank you. The amendment is pretty straightforward, and it's drafted in a way that avoids sort of components of work that's being scaled back or moving forward or what's been done just to sort of... move the identified items from Appendix B to Appendix A so that work continues in whatever stage it can do without sort of being not deprioritized, but seems to, I think what we've heard from staff is that some components are happening, some are not. I just like to keep these on the current motion plan in terms of prioritizing what I think are... important public safety infrastructure motions that have come through and they've come through the Vision Zero work. A number of them, not all of them. So it's highlighting the requirement for the side guards. I think that advocacy work is ongoing. It is something that I think we can show some leadership on. That isn't just unique to Vancouver and particularly around the advocacy. I think that we have a priority or a responsibility to continue to look at Cornwall Avenue, particularly around the new configuration of the Henry Hudson School. And there are a number of ongoing concerns there in terms of traffic safety. And so I think it sends the wrong message to to. not have a motion related to that sort of thoroughfare east-west connector in terms of not just the speed limit, but also the other ways that we can traffic calm that area. And also new pedestrian crossing, I think, is a priority where the school gate opens. And we've highlighted that already. So I just think we need to keep this one as a priority and an appendix A. And same with the Granville Street Bridge. We obviously have done a tremendous amount of work on the bridge itself that I think it's still a major concern. And similarly, with the faith based groups for affordable housing, there has been a lot of movement in regionally and across the country in terms of formalizing more of the opportunity. And I think that the Metro Vancouver. A faith-based alliance is ready to lean in more. And so we should not be sending the message that this is no longer a priority. And I don't want to relitigate each motion, but I'd just like to have these put back on Appendix A as a way to both send a signal to many of the community groups that have been working hard on these motions, but also to our staff and our work plan to keep these. current and make sure that the updates continue to come in to council in the coming months. So I'll leave it there on the amendment.

Thank you very much, Councillor Maloney.

I'd like to second this amendment and then I'll speak to it.

That's the normal procedure, though.

Mayor, can we just follow the normal procedure?

Yeah, so I think, you know, when you... Sorry, clerk, just...

I think the clerk just needs to put Councillor Maloney back on and she can just continue and complete her.

Yeah, so once you're on the queue, you just... I think that the conversation...

So the conversation is, can you just put yourself on cue and then just jump and then... Maybe I can clarify a point of procedure if I might, Mayor, is that when a counselor says, I'd like to second the amendment and speak to it, and they still have the floor, we should not take them off the cue. We should just let them finish. That's all that happened there. So we just need to put Counselor Maloney back on the cue and let her complete her piece for normal procedure.

Mayor, just from a point of procedure, I appreciate I'm virtual. What I heard is that Councillor Maloney seconded and will speak to it when she's ready. And it's her entitled right to come off the list.

Chair, we also have to be on the queue for point of procedure. I was when I brought it up. Councillor Bligh is not. And other councillors are ahead of her. As I know, Councillor Bligh knows.

Just want to make sure our new councillor, not new, but may not.

Okay, sorry, Councillor Blighth, if you want to make a comment, if you can just please get on the queue.

Thank you. I appreciate Councillor Blighth moving this amendment and, in fact, it covers the areas of concern I had, so I'm quite happy to just go with this one. I absolutely support it and...

The clerk also brought to our attention that Karen sent an email to all councillors in response to the question asked on the floor. Jimmy indicates that the Granville Bridge means prevention fencing studies target completion date is Q2 2027. So with that, Councillor Montague.

Yeah, thanks, Mayor. I'll be brief. I think there are motions in here that we each have an interest in, every single one of us. I think there is – and there's something on this list that – they all have arguably have some level of merit to them. But this isn't about deprioritizing this work. It's about being realistic. It's about coordinating work. It's about pausing some of it, not just shelving it. It's about avoiding duplication. It's about capacity issues. And I think staff have actually given some very logical and realistic... rationale for why they're making these recommendations. And I appreciate staff actually coming to us officially rather than what used to go on and just quietly shelve motions. We actually are getting rationale and reasoning and being told very transparently that some things are just going to have to be either put on pause or be put in place with other work. Like I said, I think we all have a vested interest in one or two or multiple motions that are on this list. But I think we need to listen to staff and really think about what's realistic, what can be done with other work that's ongoing already.

Listen to the capacity issues. and just follow the recommendations. So I'm going to, while I sympathize with, and I understand this amendment, I'm going to vote in opposition of it. I'm actually going to vote in opposition of any amendment that comes forward that cherry picks motions out, because I think all 10 of us or all 11 of us could cherry pick a couple of motions and just have all these things back on the plates of our staff, which is, just a waste of everybody's time. So I'm going to follow the staff recommendation. I'm going to oppose this amendment. I'm going to oppose every amendment that comes forward. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Dominato.

Thank you, Mayor. Just speaking to the amendment, I just want to reflect a couple of things that I heard. Appreciating that Council did move, I think it might have been Councillor Klassen, a motion around the protecting people on Cornwall Avenue. and appreciate that staff have implemented a number of measures related to that. Wanting to acknowledge, as we have with many intersections and streets across the city, there continue to be demands for changes, whether it be zebra lines, pedestrian crossings, LPIs. speed humps and so on and what I heard very clearly is that staff are coming back in just a few months time with a renewed vision zero strategy with respect to safety measures and they're looking to integrate this as part of all of that work and to look at the city holistically and so Maybe Council has heard things differently, but I did not hear that this work isn't continuing. I indeed heard it was continuing and part of the broader strategy, which we all endorsed. And then with respect to the means prevention fencing, I have continued and continue to advocate for this. I've had a number of conversations with the Granville Council. the Granville Island community and others. And what I would like, I was asking about the timeline, which I appreciate, Mayor, that you daylighted that, is that the consultant report will be coming back in Q2 2027. I think that there is an opportunity there once we have that report. to reinforce our advocacy. And I certainly take this offline with the mayor as well, but around with the provincial government. And we'll have a clear costing of what's necessary for that work. But I want to clearly indicate this is still a priority and it continues to be embedded there. But look forward to that report coming back to council. So again, just trying to make sure that there's, I think there's been some misunderstandings around some of the work taking place. So I just wanted to daylight that as well. Thank you.

Thanks, Mayor. I've been on council for my second term now, and I think I had to sort of really read through this report carefully because I hadn't seen one come forward previously for some of the earlier questions that were asked. I actually do think that this is a positive step in terms of daylighting for the public, the status of specific projects and motions. It used to be... a bit of a black hole. And if you're a council, you're trying to find it, you are sending in inquiries to staff or interested members and stakeholder groups who are asking where is something at. And I think what this does is sort of lay out the status and sort of this intended sequencing of the work. And I think that's how I'm reading this report. The city has a lot of ongoing work. I think if report references, there was 181 motions are brought forward between 2018 and 2025, that is a significant number. So it seems sort of incumbent to sort of put some prioritization around the work. I think it's important to recognize, too, and to clarify that something being Appendix B does not mean it is not happening. It may mean that it is the proposed execution is changing it's being pulled into other additional work that is happening so that things can be sort of brought together holistically and or there's a recognition of where the city can be most effective so to that point I know on some of the discussion points that were raised particularly around really important topics like the suicide prevention fencing. It says very clearly that the funding has advanced to create the conceptual design, as was mentioned. This will give us a sense of what a cost would look like and allow that advocacy to happen to the province. Similarly, with sidecars and trucks, it recognizes that if that's going to have widespread impact, that's provincial and federal jurisdiction to change legislation. It's not something that the city can do. So I think what it's trying to do is to provide clear and transparent information around where and when the city can advance some of this work and play a role in that. And that's what I see here. I appreciated the question from Councillor Fry, who asked about the affordable, the options for stratification and layaway housing, which is a motion from Councillor Klassen and myself. And I thought, oh, no, that's in Appendix B. I wish it was there earlier. I'm happy some of the work on single egress stairs is there. But I also recognize that we are subject, we are trying to work through at OCP and our housing staff have an unprecedented level of work with respects to dealing with TOA designations. And as we often hear, it's not always a question of budget. It's a question of bandwidth and capacity in the staff who have expertise in specific areas and their ability to do the work. So So I think in simple terms, it's really important to kind of just walk through what Appendix A and B means. B doesn't mean cancel. It might mean that it's being, as I said, aligned with something else. It might mean the city is zeroing in on where it can be effective. It might mean that work is being sequenced in terms of timing. Things like the pet-friendly advocacy piece, I think, which was brought up by our first speaker, wrapping that into the TRPP. There's a question around when is that happening. Well, now it's very clear for the public that work is commencing in Q4 2026, and there will be some parameters and information around that. What that consultation process is like and how people can participate and blend their great input and expertise so I I think it's not there's no easy task to do all the regular work of the city and to kind of Wrestle and rally all the counselor motion so I actually appreciate the initiative from staff coming forward and I'm not gonna get into sort of cherry-picking them back and forth similarly on the bus priority work Which I'm very passionate about There's a reference that we're going to do the first four corridors, moving forward on those as quickly as possible, and we're waiting for translate funding. And I have every confidence when translate funding is ready for that, then our staff will jump on that opportunity and be ready to go. So I do think, like, you know, providing some, having a bit of perspective around what this report means is probably very helpful for everybody. So I just wanted to make those observations. Thanks.

Thank you. Councillor Frye.

I appreciate all the comments around this. In particular, I appreciate Councillor Montague's comments about cherry-picking motions that matter to us and that kind of thing. That being said, I do think that, you know, a couple of these specifically are around life safety. And I appreciate Councillor Kirby Young's reference around staff prioritization and stuff, but these all clearly articulate financial constraints. In fact, the advocating for requirement of side guards on heavy trucks in urban areas specifically talks about funding constraints and retrofitting the entire city truck fleet would require substantial funding. Now, there's no indication what that funding is. And our job is often about making choices. And so we've, you know, this council has made a choice to go with a zero means zero budget. And that means tradeoffs and sacrifices on what we invest in as a city. Now, in the absence of any kind of articulation, what side guards cost and what price tag we are putting on life safety, I do struggle with making these decisions based on prioritization when, in fact, it is clearly articulated that on at least two of these very critical life safety issues... And motions that reflected like real dire consequences on the very residents of the city that we are tasked to protect and enhance the lives of that. That maybe, you know, at the very least, we deserve a more fulsome articulation of why we are making these tradeoffs. especially when it talks about funding constraints. So I appreciate that this amendment likely may not pass, but I am supportive of it, in particular on those two very specific life safety pieces that I struggle putting a price tag on without even having an accurate reckoning of what that price tag is. Thank you.

Mr. Meisner.

Yeah, thanks. I wasn't going to comment, but I just want to respond to Councillor Fry because I had the same question around the sideguards. So I did send in a question to staff yesterday and received a response. So the response that I got just for council's information was we have 500 vehicles in the city fleet that would need sideguards. This is 25% of the city fleet. We conducted a pilot of three different suppliers on three different identical trucks. The parts and install was $10,000 per truck. Retrofitting the whole fleet would be $5 million and would take multiple years due to the time-consuming nature of the work. So I just wanted to share that piece of information. I'm not making a values judgment around whether or not this expenditure makes sense, but I just want to share that with council.

Thank you very much. All right, seeing no one else in the queue, we will put the amendment to a vote.

And that fails with myself, Councillor Kirby-Young, Dominato, Montague, Classen, Meisner, and Joe in opposition.

So we'll go back to the main queue. Seeing no one else in the queue, I'm going to call the vote.