Small Business Development Pressure Amendment (Meiszner)

Yeah, thank you. So I did send in an amendment to address that staff feedback. I just wanted to get clarity for council on that staff feedback, which was pretty clear that staff do not recommend the directions in the motion as development of a comprehensive framework would be resource intensive. to develop and implement and require significant staff resources over multiple departments and unfortunately would not be achievable at this time. That said, I also share the concerns raised in this motion and the impact that we see on small businesses and arts and culture organizations in our city. As we work to deliver a new housing supply, we also need to ensure that we're protecting and preserving arts and culture spaces in our cities, and in many cases, creating new ones through that development. So I have provided this amendment language. I think there are thoughtful improvements that could be made to provide more effective supports for those impacted by development in the arts and culture sector. And my amendment aims to explore those options. So it does strike the integrated policy framework piece in B, which we've heard is not possible for staff to undertake at this time, but it preserves with a focus on identifying unintended impacts through development that can undermine resilience and vibrancy in neighborhoods, and that council directs staff to report back on options for more durable and permanent approaches beyond short-term and pilot programs to mitigate development-related pressures on existing small businesses, arts, and non-profit users. drawing on lessons learned from the DR, DPRP, Development Potential Relief Program, and other initiatives. So fairly straightforward. Thanks, Councillor. Councillor Maloney?

Thank you very much. I can't support this amendment to the motion. I do note that the comments of the Deputy City Manager saying that this is a big-time commitment from staff, particularly planning staff, but I note that we've got Member Motion 8 coming up, which also requires a huge time capacity. and capacity commitment from staff. So I guess I'm interested to see whether we're going to take a consistent approach with deprioritising managing and mitigation development pressure on existing small businesses, arts and non-profit uses, and whether we do prioritise winding back the City of Vancouver's climate leadership and taking the first steps to reversing the ban on methane gas heating in new buildings. So I'm looking forward to seeing what happens. Okay, thanks. Councillor Orr.

Thanks, yeah, it's sort of similar comments in terms of it just seems like, you know, when certain members of the council come up with motions, we never have enough resources, but we can have other resources for other motions. It doesn't seem kind of consistent across the board. and I'll let Councillor Fry speak more to the amendment, but just a question through the chair to the mover. Do you mean, so for council direct staff to engage with other municipal jurisdictions, do you mean like a jurisdictional scan? Because I think engaging with municipal jurisdictions versus doing a jurisdictional scan, I think are two different things. I think that's a lot more work, having to engage with different municipalities. I think that's adding work.

I think I'll leave that up to staff. Staff were really crystal clear in their feedback that development of this framework is just not feasible at this time.

The reason for the change is that the original motion was very specific about New York, San Francisco, Montreal, Toronto. Those are much larger cities with different revenue sources, additional revenue sources, and I think that it's better to take a more open approach in the language of the motion as opposed to stipulating those much larger cities for comparison purposes.

Okay, fair enough. I'll let Councillor Fry speak to the amendment.

Councillor Fry. Yeah, thank you. And I will say on a positive note, I do appreciate this amendment doesn't completely derail the intention here, although I don't support the amendment as it's written. I will say that with regard to staff comments on our motions, it's not really a two-way conversation. There's no ability for us to rebut and say, well, I think you've misinterpreted this. I was very... careful and judicious in my use of a thesaurus to find the appropriate words to convey the work without saying that we have to do actual direction. So really, when the operative enactment is that council directs staff to explore an integrated policy framework, that's not getting them to create an integrated policy framework. It's just like... hey, explore it. Look at the ideas. That really doesn't quantify how much work or how little work is involved. The hope here and the reality, and by providing some examples from other cities, it's not a comparison that Vancouver is the same as Montreal necessarily. It's that, hey, look, this is something that is happening in another city. It's effective. Can we do it at a different scale in Vancouver? Is there something that we can take as a lesson from it? I do appreciate that you know, Councillor Mosner seems to be on the same page as far as seeking out other jurisdictions. But I want to be clear that everything and the way that I wrote this motion was very clear that it wasn't actually directing significant work. It was report back. So yes, there's obviously work to compile that. And yes, you know, it takes resources. But I will say that this is a critically important issue. This is a file that, you know, If folks get wind of the idea that the DPRP is expiring next year and there will not be that kind of relief for a lot of businesses that are struggling. And, you know, we hear regularly from many of them who talk about how they cannot sustain their space without that kind of assistance. It will be an election issue and it will certainly be an issue for the future council. I would prefer that we didn't pursue this particular amendment and just went with the motion as is. I think it's taken a fair amount of research and work that I put into it to suggest these opportunities to explore, to evaluate, and to report back on. So I'm kind of happy with it as it is, and I won't be supporting the amendment. Thank you.

Okay, thanks. All right, Councillor Meisler. Just quickly. Councillor Frye's right. We are on the same page. I don't want to see the loss of arts and culture spaces across our city. I don't think anyone on council does. And in my eyes, the exploration was, while it says exploration, there were specific bullet points underneath that. And I know staff interpreted it that way as well, based on the motion feedback. I want to get this report back. I agree there's a sense of urgency here. There's the DPRP expiring next year. But also, you know, this is an urgent issue in our city. We can't continue to lose arts and culture spaces in our city. So we need to get, in my eyes, the staff report back as soon as possible. And by just streamlining this a little bit, I think we'll... be able to get it back in a timely manner, and then council can move forward with actions to protect these important arts and culture spaces in our city.

Okay, sorry, I just realized that we need a seconder for Councillor Meiszner's amendment. Seconded by Councillor Domonado. Okay. All right, seeing no one else on the queue, so let's go to the vote for the amendment. We are voting on Councillor Meiszner's amendment. Councillor, please register your vote.

Sir, Chair, can I please get a vote of system in favor?

Yeah, no, thanks, Mayor.

Thank you.

Okay, so the amendment passed with Councillor Bligh, Fry, Orr, and Maloney in opposition.

Going back to the main queue, Councillor Meister?

Nothing further to add, but just want to see this work move forward. Thanks.

Thanks. Okay, so anyone else? Okay, seeing no one else on the queue, I'm going to call the vote. So we're going to vote for the main motion as amended. So, Councillor, please register your vote.