Outstanding Council Motions Update

I'll go first.

This is a question directed to our team.

Thank you very much. And I know we asked you to do a lot of work on one of the motions, but can city staff confirm that in their analysis and discussions with the province, we as a municipality do not have the regulatory authority to hold Bitcoin. Is that correct?

Thank you very much. Councillor Kirby Young.

Yeah, thanks, Mayor. I'll go back on after I see Councillor Maloney's there. I'll go after. Thanks.

Councillor Maloney?

Thanks. I've got a question about the truckside guard motion. I'm interested to know the exact number and percentage of the city's fleet that's had this retrofit in the last three and a half years since this motion was passed. You know, a cost estimate is the remainder and an explanation for why this simple life-saving intervention is proposed to be stopped.

Is there a plan to... buy trucks with sideguards as the fleet is replaced, turned over?

And given that this, if this is passed, we stop work on the member motion, but that doesn't necessarily mean that that potential funding exist at all, let alone that it will be put towards other road safety measures?

Thanks. I'm going to hop off for now because I might want to move an amendment.

Thanks. Councillor Blay.

Sorry about that. Just coming off mute. Thanks very much. I appreciate the answers to Councillor Maloney's questions. I'm curious about... What happens with the advocacy element of this motion related to the side guards? There was the city-owned fleet component, but it also extended to traffic planning, transportation planning, generally speaking. So that's not any sort of expenditure on upgrades to our city fleet, but more in terms of how we're traffic planning and high-risk intersections. And then also the advocacy. both through Transport Canada and also the Federal Minister of Transport.

OK, I'll just move along and maybe appreciate that update. I don't agree. I think there is significant evidence that there was an event that proved it to be a high risk, but as particularly in such an urban centers. But we can take that offline for now. I just have a question around process. So. If there's a preference to sever out some motions that have been recommended to stop work or refer in the appendix, what is the process to pull those motions? Specifically, I'm interested in pulling the motion around the safety upgrades on Cornwall, the Granville Bridge suicide prevention barriers and the truck side guards.

I don't want to alter them. I want to vote separately on them.

Thanks.

Okay, so just submit that as an amendment? Yes. Okay. Thank you. That's all for me.

Thank you, Councillor Maloney.

Yeah, thank you. I'm... I'm going to ask for an amendment queue, which I'm just going to send through. Sure.

Yep.

I have a point of procedure, or a point of order, is that we don't have it moved. We have two speakers from the public, and this hasn't been moved or seconded, so we are not at the point of proceedings where we can table amendments.

Thank you very much. Okay. Councillor Maloney, so you'll hold off on that? Yes. Councillor Frye?

Yeah, I was hoping for some clarity around the means prevention barriers on the Granville Street Bridge. I mean, we've heard time and time again that this is a pretty pressing issue, and it seems that we are spending money on the Granville Bridge rehabilitation now, and I'm curious if there's not room to move forward on this in a meaningful way, because I hate to think that we're not prioritizing this.

Okay, but we're definitively saying that this is the two-thirds senior government funding that is getting in the way of this?

Okay, okay. Totally shifting to a different item altogether. I'm curious about item number 23, the expanding ownership options for laneway and backyard homes. In particular, as we're contemplating this sort of ODP coming forward, where this would seemingly be a part of what we could imagine in some of these single family home zones that are framed out in the ODP. I'm curious if we're... We're missing a big opportunity here to achieve some missing middle housing that has been articulated for, and if this could be reconsidered.

those deliverables by mid-2026 and then proceed with the full suite of review around r11 or multiplex related motions including this one shortly thereafter so i realized jumping into maybe some gray area as far as the public hearing that's before us with the odp and and where this um i appreciate it's an interim odp so It doesn't necessarily preclude this from being on the table sooner than later.

And just to be... These may be questions for later, but the ODP amendment's not going to require provincial assent or anything like that. That's entirely on us that we can... Correct. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Councillor Orr? Yeah, just a more high-level thing.

Okay, and is there, I know there's not one specific reason, but is there a lot of this, I see a lot of reprioritization of staff resources. This is in response to sort of the recent budget.

I see, I see. And then just a quick question on 17. What is exactly staffing recommends exploring potential for a public event? Could you just read out the name? I don't have the report. Unlocking community potential, collaborating with faith-based groups for affordable housing and social impact in Vancouver. And it's for, and then it's, yeah.

Thank you, Councillor Domenato.

Thank you. My questions are for Jimmy. I wanted to ask and just clarify what I think I understand here is just with the protecting people on Cornwall Avenue, it was the direction of this council to address some of the safety concerns there. Speed limit reductions have been implemented along Cornwall. I noticed that last time I was driving there. But I did note here that work is being prioritized through the city's Vision Zero strategy. So could you just comment on that? Because I think there's a misunderstanding in the public that we aren't continuing safety measures. But what I'm seeing here is indeed it is.

Can you just comment on that more?

Okay. Okay, so it's still ongoing and being studied. And then, sorry, could you just clarify, when is the renewed Vision Zero strategy coming to Council?

Mid-year this year?

Okay, so just a couple of months away. Yeah. Okay, thank you. My other question is for you as well. Sorry, don't go, Jimmy. Just around the... Oh, sorry, I lost my spot here. On the means prevention fencing, I noted in the update here that we have a consultant in place doing the conceptual design and we're costing, we committed funding for that. What's the timeline for that consultant report to come back to council?

Can we get clarification before the end of the meeting as to whether, like, several years seems a long time for a study. Yeah, I can get the answer. Advocacy for the funding, and I think that's... So if we could get an answer on the time frame of the consultant's report, I'd appreciate that. And then I wanted to ask... Sorry, just bear with me.

Um...

I'll leave it there, actually. But yeah, if we could get that before we conclude this item. Sure. Thank you.

Councillor Frye.

Yeah. So one of the items I don't see in here is from December, 2023, the motion from the mayor amendments to the Vancouver charter, which was to eliminate the park board. Is that no longer a priority on the.

Thank you very much. Okay, so we're now going to hear from registered speakers to this report. Public speakers should state whether they are in support or opposition of the recommendations and may only speak once. And I will also ask speakers if they're residents of Vancouver, if it's not so noted on the speakers list. So our first public speaker is Matthew Thiessen.

And thank you very much for coming in. Our next public speaker is speaker number two, Adam Hawk.

Okay. Okay, so that is the end of our speakers list. And once again, Matthew, thank you very much for coming in. Um, and speaking to council, would someone like to move a motion?

Okay.

Second. Perfect. Um, council, is there any, uh, discussion, uh, counselor Kirby young.

Sorry.

I'll wait.

Okay. Okay.

And I will go next. And so I have to see the chair. Thank you very much. Okay. I'm just going to make my comment pretty brief, actually. Thank you very much for, first of all, I want to acknowledge the team's work that they've done on researching Bitcoin and what we can and cannot do. And the effort is very much appreciated. It's leading-edge stuff, so thanks. But this council was elected with a clear mandate to focus on back-to-basics budgeting and the essential services that fall within our jurisdiction. And for that reason, I will be supporting pausing this work and redirecting our team members' capacity towards priorities that will deliver more immediate value for the residents of Vancouver. So thank you. Councillor Bligh.

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.