RE: Letter of the Week, March 28, 2012 by Chris Vollan, vice-president development for RIZE.
If RIZEs way of setting the record straight is by providing more spin, falsehoods, and little to substantiate their claims with, then they have succeeded in their attempts.
First, they continue to use an aerial shot of a visually misleading artist rendering instead of providing an accurate computer model of the building at street level. Second, the proposal does not conform to the 2010 Mount Pleasant Community Plan. Third, community input has not significantly shaped this project. Despite consistent community opposition to height throughout the entire consultation process, it was reduced once. The supposed 7-storey reduction in height is only 30 ft. The current proposal stands at the 23rd storey of the originally proposed 26-storey tower. Fourth, RIZE claims that the proposal is only six storeys taller than the adjacent Stella building at Kingsway and 12th. It is 8-9 storeys taller.
I ask RIZE to substantiate their claim that their property has been anticipated inthe 1987 MPC Plan as a heavy lifting site by providing sections and page numbers directly from the plan. The 2010 MPC Plan does see opportunity for additional height and density in select locations but does not explicitly state going beyond the existing zoning on the RIZE site, as it does for the other two sites. It also states additional height and density is contingent on two factors: further urban design analysis and important public benefits, which have not been resolved at this stage.
Furthermore, RIZE states the $6.25 million community amenity contribution (CAC) is a contribution to the community not achieved for similar projects, citing the Stella as an example. At 13 storeys and 3.0 fsr, the Stella is not a similar project. It was built under the existing C-3A zoning and did not require a public hearing because it was not a rezoning. The RIZE proposal on the other hand, requires a public hearing because it is a rezoning. It must provide CACs because of the increased height and density.
Last, RIZEs stated list of supporters include the Mount Pleasant BIA, of which a RIZE employee sat on the board. TransLink has been contacted regarding RIZEs claim of support. The TransLink spokesperson stated that although TransLink generally favoUrs densification in transit corridors, it rarely supports specific private development proposals. Next, the Mount Pleasant Food Coop Memorandum of Agreement is only a temporary measure, not a solid contract. Id like to add that MP Libby Davies and MLA Jenny Kwan have written an open letter to council supporting their Mount Pleasant constituents in their opposition to this proposal.
Sandeep Johal, Vancouver
