CD-1 Text Amendment 138 East 7th Avenue

Statement Watch

Thank you, Mayor and Council. My name is Brad Nickel, owner and resident of Unit 605-133 East 8th Avenue, directly across from the southwest corner of the application site. I oppose the report recommendation. I'm also the Strata President representing 45 owners of Collection 45. We have significant concerns about the scale, massing, and impacts of this proposal, and I ask each of you, if this were your home, how would you respond? The pace of development in the Mount Pleasant area is increasing, and it feels like vertical mining. The higher the buildings go, the happier the investment... companies become. In this case, the property is owned by an investment group leveraging the presence of the Sarah McLachlan School of Music, a valued neighbor, but one whose long-term presence is not guaranteed. When the Broadway plan was adopted, this site was identified for a modest increase of one up to three floors. What's being proposed now is four additional stories plus rooftop amenities with no clear justification for exceeding what was originally contemplated. I would like to highlight three key areas of concern. Proximity, privacy, noise, light, air quality. The city's own guidelines require a 60-foot separation between commercial and residential towers above 60 feet in height. While the applicant claims an average setback of 78.5 feet, that number is misleading. At the southwest corner, the actual distance is 48 feet, and when measured to the railing, it is closer to 43 feet. Another strata owner will speak to this in more detail. The proposed height, proximity, massing will impact our Charter of Rights. Every Canadian is guaranteed the right to privacy, and this development directly threatens that fundamental protection. The increased height and lack of setbacks severely limit Skyward views, and this is a fundamental to why we purchased our homes. The application on page 38 mentions privacy, with vague notes and no specifics. It states, our design is taken... has taken this into consideration and addresses privacy and overlook interest with the provision of additional setback, perforated metal screens, and landscape planting. But there's no explanation how effective they are or how they meaningfully mitigate the direct overlook into our homes from the offices, balconies, and rooftop. Without specifics, these assurances feel more like placeholders than real solutions. Because of our close proximity, we are most concerned with noise, light, and air quality. There is no information about the implications of noise from the music practice rooms, the mechanical systems, or the exhaust vents directed toward our building or from the rooftop. We are concerned about the light pollution from modern high-intensity fixtures that will be on all night from the offices, balconies, and laneway. What will be the impact on the air quality to us? These are not minor issues. They directly affect our quality of life. In concerning to traffic congestion and parking strain, the laneway behind our buildings is already overburdened. Waste trucks struggle to maneuver. Trades and service vehicles have nowhere to stop. Evo car-sharing vehicles occupy scarce permit parking. And now the proposal adds an additional entrance at the southwest-southeast corner, precisely where two narrow laneways intersect, already constrained by power poles and garbage bins. This will worsen congestion, create safety hazards, and make essential services even harder to deliver. The need for design revision, I'm asking the City to require the applicant to revisit the design with the following considerations. A reduction in the building height and aligned with the modest increase originally envisioned. Increased setbacks, especially at the southwest corner. preserve privacy and daylight, noise, lighting, air quality mitigation that protects the nearby homes, and traffic parking strategies that keep the laneways functional.

Statement Watch

Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Sophia. I live in the residential building directly across the laneway from this proposed development, and I'm speaking against the development. What concerns us is how this proposal relies on selective averaging and discretionary leeway that shifts impact directly onto existing buildings. I want to briefly speak to three key issues and conclude each with what we are asking the city to require. I first want to speak about the laneway setbacks and separation standards. The applicant cites an average setback of 78 feet. Yet the applicant's own drawings on page 38 show averages of only 50 to 60 feet. When separation is measured using the city's lane midline standard, the actual distance across from our building is approximately 17 feet, dropping to 12 feet at the southwest corner. even allowing for minor measurement variation, these distances do not align with the setbacks being claimed. These are the actual conditions residents will experience day to day. Not averages, but the closest facing distances across the laneway. I also want to specifically highlight the applicant's reliance on Broadway Plan Policy 11.1.7. which establishes a 60-foot separation benchmark for portions of a building over 60 feet above grade. The issue is not the policy itself, but how it is being used. On page 38, the applicant cites the 60-foot benchmark as a justification, while treating it as flexible when assessing the real separation conditions at the laneway. If 60 feet is a measure of acceptability, it must be applied consistently and measured correctly. at the laneway midline, at the tightest point, and shared equitably between sites. It cannot be averaged out or achieved by relying on setbacks provided by the neighboring property. Privacy and overlook are not experienced as averages. They are experienced at the closest point and across entire facing elevation. What we are asking the city to require is to apply the city's lane midline measurement standard when assessing separation, to evaluate minimum, not average, separation distances across the laneway, and to require the building to be pushed back from the laneway at the pinch points where separation is more constrained. Having worked in architecture offices myself, I want to raise a concern before it becomes a negotiation. These are the patterns in rezonings. There is a pattern in rezonings where setbacks are later proposed in exchange for additional building height. We want to be clear that this will not be appropriate here. Setbacks only mitigate impacts when overall height is held constant. Once height increases, mountain views are permanently lost, shadows lengthen, and overlook becomes more severe due to downward sight lines. This reasoning is discretionary. Design flexibility should occur within a fixed height envelope, not to be used to intensify impacts on neighboring buildings. What we are asking the city to do is to hold the proposed height line and to assure any setbacks occur within the approved height, not in exchange for added stories. Finally, the proposal significantly increases building capacity while relying on the same service laneway. City staff already acknowledged the need for lane upgrades and traffic calming. This confirms the lane is already under pressure. While transit access may reduce commuter parking, it does not eliminate servicing demand. Tripling capacity inevitably increases deliveries, service vehicles, and pickup and drop-off activity in a shared service lane. What we are asking the city to do is to require a binding servicing and operations management plan and to protect the laneway as a shared functional corridor. In summary, this proposal relies on averages that mask tight laneway conditions, benefits from neighboring setbacks rather than providing its own, and defers key livability impacts to later stages. We have made our requests clear. This is not about stopping development. It's about ensuring it is done fairly, transparently, and in line with the city's own policies. Thank you for your time.

Statement Watch

Thank you. Good evening, everyone. My name is Emily Oswald and I am the Director of Development at the Sarah McLaughlin School of Music. Sarah sends her regrets for this evening's council meeting as she's currently out of the country, and so I am here today to represent SOM and to express our organization's complete endorsement for this proposed project at 138 East 7th Avenue. As you may know, the Sarah McLachlan School of Music is a charitable organization founded nearly a quarter century ago by Canadian Grammy and Juno Award-winning artist Sarah McLachlan. For thousands of children and youth across Vancouver, the school has been a place of community, mentorship, and high-quality musical education offered at absolutely no cost to the students. As Sarah always says, SOM is a home away from home for the young artists who need us most. For the past 11 plus years, the Wolverton Foundation has played a pivotal role in helping SOM support young artists to thrive by generously providing us a permanent home at 138 East 7th Avenue. Every day, nearly 200 students facing multiple barriers access free, life-changing musical programming at our school. This is because the Wolverton Foundation has removed one of the most significant obstacles faced by nonprofits in this city, prohibitive rent. Thanks to their support, SOM is able to allocate our funding to be the most impactful to our community, which is providing musical education to the next generation of young Vancouverites who otherwise would not have access to this opportunity. The building at 138 East 7th Avenue is more than just a building. It has been a stable, sustainable home for barrier-free musical learning at SOM. For over a decade, the current building has subsidized the cost of operating a school in the heart of Vancouver, saving us close to $650,000 in rent each year. This approach has worked exceptionally well as it has kept the Sarah McLachlan School of Music financially viable, kept students in the community educated, and ensured that the building is fully used and well maintained. However, to keep the Sarah McLachlan School of Music here for the foreseeable future, the building needs to evolve. From the school's student-centered perspective, this plan is the least disruptive option to our students, our school, and our school community. Retaining the existing building footprint while expanding vertically allows construction impacts to be largely confined to the summer months, minimizing disruption to the students and our programming. For over a decade, this school has been a quiet success story and perhaps even East Van's best kept secret as this proposed construction project is rooted in the city's mission of creating a great city of communities that cares about our people, our environment, our opportunities to live, work, and prosper. I humbly ask that the counselors endorse this project, ensuring that SOM's success of being a free musical education center for at-risk youth continues. And I really wish I had a good Sarah McLachlan pun like you did, but I will just say thank you for the opportunity to speak about this.