Campus Resident July 2016

Published by the University Neighbourhoods Association Volume 7, Issue 7

JULY 18, 2016

UNA Community Gets Ready to Run

Fire Tax: Should UBC Residents Pay? No withdrawals from UNA reserves for now; UBC will be invited to meet UNA directors to explain fire protection agreement with Province John Tompkins, Editor

The unhappy subject of continuing Fraternity Village noise came up for discussion at the July 12 meeting of the UNA Board, and directors wondered what actions might be taken to address it.

Discussion centered on a recent complaint about noisy Fraternity Village student parties received from a resident of East Campus.

In a letter released by the UNA, the resident—who rents a townhouse on Wesbrook Mall—writes: I am writing to let you know that my family and I along with many other home-owners, renters and community members are experiencing repeated and serious disturbances / noise violations from a fraternity house in the 2700 block of Wesbrook Mall.

Roughly three nights a week, there are outdoor parties with loud, booming music, a lot of drunken yelling, typically until 2:00 or 3:00 am.

The University Neighbourhoods Association has set aside the planned withdrawal of $500,000 from two reserves funds to pay for 2016 fire protection services costs for now.

At a July 12 meeting, directors initially considered a motion to approve withdrawal of $250,000 from the Rate Stabilization Reserve and $250,000 from the Access Reserve in 2016 to cover the fire protection costs for the five UNA neighbourhoods levied by the Province on UBC residents for 2016, but after long and spirited discussion at the Wesbrook Community Centre, they decided to strike it from the agenda.

At the same time, they withdrew a motion to approve the March 2016 UBC– UNA Finance Task Force proposal that recommends a phased plan to manage the financial pressures faced by the UNA in fiscal years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 201819. The plan for Phase 1 proposes: • using the Neighbours’ Fund Reserves to cover the $0.5M budget shortfall for fire costs in 2016-17.

• reducing $0.8M in expenses in 201718 and using $0.8M from the Neighbours’ Fund Reserves.

• generating additional revenues in 2018-19.

Directors indicated they would like to meet with senior UBC officials to discuss why UBC residents should be made to pay fire costs; they also indicated they would like to meet with the UBC Neighbourhoods Working Taxation Group of residents who claim there is no basis for the fire costs since these costs have already been paid by residents out of their rural taxes.

In late 2015, the UNA was advised that the Province of British Columbia was going to download the cost of fire protection for the UNA neighbourhoods to residents. In February 2016, representatives from the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development met with the UNA Board of Directors. The Province believes that UNA residents have not been paying for the cost of providing fire protection services to the neighbourhoods.

NOISE continued on Page 8

FIRE continued on Page 2

Record number of campus residents assemble in Wesbrook Place for start of Canada Day Fun Run. Photo credit Edward Chang.

Fire Protection Services Costs – a Difficult Issue A ship is always safe at shore but that’s not what it was built for – Albert Einstein Richard Alexander Chair, UNA Board of Directors A number of different opinions were expressed at our July 12 UNA Board of Directors meeting. As always, when dealing with a difficult issue, it is useful to follow the mantra ‘Keep the problem simple’.

Let’s look back at what information we have.

In 2015, the Province informed UBC of a new policy—namely that UBC market properties will now pay a separate fee for fire protection services. UBC accepted this new policy, and in February 2016, the Province met with the UNA Board to

Richard Alexander

explain their decision.

In managing the Province’s decision on fire protection fees, both UBC and the UNA acknowledge that UNA market property taxes will not change. The financial impact on the UNA operating budget will be managed largely by a reduction in UBC service fees in the two areas of recreation and infrastructure. No change in service levels is contemplated.

The implementation of this new policy came with two options: fire protection costs would be paid directly from the rural tax, or it could be paid from the UBC services levy. The Province accepted the UNA Board’s request that it be managed through the services levy.

The implications of managing this new fire protection fee through the services levy will be discussed again at the September UNA Board meeting, specifically as they apply to the next two budget years. If the fire fee is not paid through the Services Levy, the UNA understands that each household will pay the fire fee as an extra line item on their rural tax notice.

The Province’s new fire protection services fee is only one of the budget pressures the UNA is facing. As outlined in the February edition of The Campus Resident, the UNA is impacted by the declining City of Vancouver tax rates which are used to set services levy. Over the past few years, as Vancouver singledetached house values increased, the effective property tax (mill) rate declined.

This lower tax rate explains the 33% drop in the services levy since 2012.

No Peace at Night for East Campus Neighbours Noise from late-night fraternity house parties on Wesbrook Mall is discussed at board meeting; long history of noise complaints by nearby residents is reviewed

page 2 FIRE continued from Page 1 Meanwhile, UNA Chair Richard Alexander says that collectively, through the rural tax and UBC services levy, UNA residents pay the same tax as that paid by city of Vancouver residents—who receive fire protection services.

UNA Resident Director Charles Menzies led opposition to the two motions that were subsequently set aside.

If the UNA Board passes a motion to pay a bill campus residents either

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT JULY 18, 2016 shouldn’t pay or have already paid, “we are capitulating,” Mr. Menzies said. “We are getting nothing in return.”

Mr. Menzies moved that the two motions should be taken off the agenda— which they were.

Mr. Alexander explained that the $1 million a year the Province expects UBC residents to pay for fire protection services is based on the following formula: $100 per person times 10,000 persons living on campus with $500,000 discount for the first year.

Mr. Menzies said, “We are being overcharged.” He further argued that UBC does not have the “moral authority” to make residents pay this bill.

“It’s time for us to stand up and tell UBC this is not reasonable. We’re being asked to pay for something we’ve already paid for. What comes next? Police costs? Road costs?”

UNA Resident Director Laura Cottle said, “We should not be paying. Vancouver people don’t have to pay extra for fire costs. We’re trying to be transparent.

Where is UBC transparency?”

Both Ms. Cottle and Mr. Menzies said that UBC went over the heads of UNA residents in making them liable for a $1,000,000 a year payment for fire protection costs to the Province—either as part of or separate from their rural taxes.

Following the July 12 UNA Board meeting, Michael White, Associate VicePresident, Campus and Community Planning, issued a statement about fire protection services cost on behalf of UBC. Please see UBC Statement below.

UBC Statement on Fire Services Costs Michael White, Associate Vice-President, Campus and Community Planning Over the past seven months, the UBC– UNA Financial Task Force has worked diligently to find a solution to manage the financial pressures posed by the provincial fire services download along with recent downward pressures on UNA revenue. The Task Force, with the participation of UBC, UBC Properties Trust and the UNA, has developed a shared solution that manages the new fire service cost without affecting resident taxes or impacting neighbourhood service levels.

The provincial government first approached the University to discuss campus neighbourhood fire protec-

tion costs in mid-2015. The provincial government determined that UNA residents should pay a separate fee for fire protection, like all other jurisdictions in the province. The provincial government believes the current UNA rural tax rate (general levy) provides insufficient funding for fire services. As a result, the government has decided to restructure its funding model for fire services. In December 2015, UBC met with the UNA Board of Directors to discuss the Province’s decision. Provincial officials then met with the UNA Board of Directors in February 2016 to discuss the rationale and implementation options.

UBC is committed to working with the UNA to manage current financial pressures. We look forward to meeting with the UNA over the summer to discuss continued management of the fire service costs download.

Open Letter to MOTI and Others Re: Road Safety on NW Marine Drive at Chancellor Blvd.

Thomas Beyer, UBC Resident

Due to increased population and bike use at UBC, as well as in Metro Vancouver in general, the overall traffic along Chancellor Blvd. and NW Marine Drive has steadily increased over the last decade.

I am a resident at the top of the hill on UBC grounds, at the edge of UEL, very close to the intersection of NW Marine Drive with Chancellor Blvd.

We have noted the following issues on July 10.

On Chancellor Blvd.: • Cars speeding excessively near the intersection due to slight downhill roadway in both directions with no traffic circle or stop sign at the NW Marine Drive intersection.

• Pedestrians crossing road to end up on grass or sidewalks generally unkempt with missing lines.

On NW Marine Drive: • Cars frequently exceed the 50 km/h speed limit, especially on the downhill lane.

• Bicyclists use the pedestrian path as well as the road.

• Walkers conflict with slow bikes on the pedestrian path, and thus, fast bikers have to share a narrow road with buses, motorcycles and cars—in both directions—making this road very dangerous.

• High-end car speed races occur infrequently but often enough to be very dangerous, often late at night.

MOTI continued on Page 4

page 3

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT JULY 18, 2016

Editor & Business Manager John Tompkins phone: 604.827.3502 email: jtompkins@myuna.ca

Design Production Rebecca Ind phone: 604.822.9675 email: rind@myuna.ca

Published monthly by the University Neighbourhoods Association #202-5923 Berton Avenue, Vancouver BC, V6S 0B3

Advertising enquiries email: advertising@myuna.ca

Letters to the Editor Noise of Rooftop Mechanical Equipment at UBC Re: UBC Asks for Understanding as It Tackles Industrial Noise Issue, The Campus Resident, June issue I can sympathize with the UNA’s difficulty in dealing with UBC on the noise issue from the rooftop air handlers.

In March of 2016, I measured the noise levels at the Sitka residences on Agronomy Road over a 24-hour period, and they exceeded World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations by a substantial amount. The daytime levels at Sitka were about 62 dBA and the night-time levels were about 55 dBA. WHO guidelines do not exceed 55 dBA during the day and 45 dBA at night.

Over the last few years, I have dealt with UBC Campus and Community Planning (C+CP) and have found them to show little regard for the impact of noise on nearby residents as well as their own on-campus residents. There will be a substantial amount of development on campus in the future, and the noise issue will only get worse as the facilities are built and additional rooftop mechanical equipment is installed. Documents provided by UBC C+CP about the University Boulevard Precinct development (at the main entrance) to UBC and its impact on the UEL residents across Wesbrook in an acoustical noise study showed that noise levels from that development would reach 65 dBA for the residents be-

tween Wesbrook Crescent and Western Parkway. In that same report, they address the indoor noise impacts on future residents of the Precinct development by saying “The noise sensitivity of residents at the possible rental housing site is anticipated to be more tolerant than the noise sensitivity of residents at existing UEL housing due to the demographic of younger, one and two person households more sympathetic to university activities and related noise, frequent turnover, and the assumption that tenants could be prescreened through forewarning them of surrounding noise in rental agreements.”

These and other issues have been raised with UBC C+CP, but they have not responded in any positive way.

In a recent Draft Bylaw Referral by the Musqueam Capital Corporation (MCC) for the development of the Block F site in the UEL, MCC proposed a far more responsible approach to the impact of noise on existing UEL residents and future residents of the development. In the Draft, they put forward noise limits for three types of areas that are very similar to those adhered to in the City of Vancouver and other surrounding cities. The responsible thing they have done is state that “all properties surrounding the Block F site are to be considered as quiet areas” where the acceptable continuous noise levels are 45 dBA at night and 55 dBA during the day. These are the maximum

Rooftops fans of the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences building and the Centre For Blood Research. noise levels recommended by the World Health Organization. They have gone even further to specify noise levels for new building interiors within the site.

The Draft specifies limits of 35 dBA for bedrooms and 40 dBA for living, dining and recreation rooms.

The Block F developers approach is to address the noise problem early on in the site specifications with the completed development meeting specific requirements that are in line with accepted health standards and those standards used in most

municipalities.

In the case of UBC C+CP developments they seem to ignore the noise, as has been witnessed with the roaring roof top machines. Eliminating the noise at this stage will prove to be more difficult and expensive than if had been done early on in the planning stages.

Pete McConnell, University Endowment Lands Community Advisory Council

Design of Crosswalk at 16th Avenue and Hampton Place We are writing to express our concern about the design of the recently completed pedestrian crossing at West 16th Avenue and Hampton Place. As we noted in our previous letter, we support the crossing but are still concerned about the traffic speed at and beyond the new crossing. As you recall we had requested 30 km/h at the crossing and 50 km/h east of the crossing (currently 50 and 70 km/h respectively). This is consistent with the Provincial Health Officer’s 2016 Annual Report and B.C.’s 2015 Road Safety Strategy both of which recommend a Safe Systems Approach to road design.

Heather Nichol, Chair of the Pacific Spirit Park Society Bob Meyer and I presented at the June 14 UNA Board meeting and asked them to consider a motion of support to request that MOTI reduce traffic speed. We have also asked MOTI to clarify the policy and process for reducing the speed on West 16th Avenue.

We have yet to receive a response from MOTI. We also have some concerns regarding the crossing design, specifically the lack of flashing lights facing pedestrians to indicate that the signal is working. Three of the four crosswalks on Wesbrook Mall

and the crosswalk in front of University Hill School have flashing lights facing pedestrians that indicate when it is safe to cross. These pedestrian-oriented signals are a typical feature of most crosswalks in high traffic areas, and their omission in the new crossing creates an unsafe situation for pedestrians.

In addition, last week, a black chain link fence was installed at the south side of the road. This fence is an unsightly feature that may be intended to protect pedestrians from cars, but would not be necessary if the sidewalk was set back from the roadway, and a raised curb installed, as is usually done. The ‘Copenhagen jog’ in the crossing is also an awkward arrangement for pedestrians. It seems intended to facilitate car movement by delaying the pedestrian crossing at the median. The proliferation of confusing signage is also an eyesore and potential safety issue.

As noted at the March 29 meeting with UBC Campus and Community Planning (C+CP), we would have appreciated some consultation on the design before this went ahead. We hope that UBC and MOTI are open to discussing some changes to improve the safety and appearance of the crossing.

The new crosswalk located on 16th Avenue at Binning Road and Hampton Place is open. The crosswalk connects Wesbrook Place in South Campus to Hampton Place and East Campus neighbourhoods. The construction of the crosswalk marks the end of 16th Avenue road improvements as identified in the Wesbrook Place Neighbourhood Plan.

We would welcome opportunities for further discussion regarding measures to improve the crossing and road design and appreciate UBC C+CP’s efforts to date.

Heather Nichol, Tom Ainscough, Hampton Place residents

Letters to the Editor Include name, address and telephone number. Maximum lengths: Letters 400 words. Opinions 750 words. We may edit or decline to publish any submission.

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT JULY 18, 2016

page 4

Residents “Mere Pawns” in Fire Services Charge Decision Behind the scenes of the fire service charge for UBC Neighbours Bill Holmes Hampton Place Resident The new fire service charge to be imposed by the Province on the UBC neighbourhoods is unfair and unjustifiable, as anyone with an understanding of taxes can readily see. To try to learn more about how and why the Province reached its decision to impose the charge, I made a freedom of information (FOI) request in mid-March.

The response, which arrived early this month, is a 130-page package of documents, mostly emails between officials and briefing notes to Minister Fassbender, the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development (CSCD). The documents are heavily redacted, but do at least give what realtors call a ‘peeka-boo’ view. The response is posted on www.ubcresidents.ca.

Three points stand out from the documents. One is that the process has been under way for a long time, without UBC residents being told about it. Back on August 5, 2014, the Cabinet Working Group for Core Review directed Minister Fassbender’s predecessor to recover costs for the provision of fire protection service to the UBC neighbourhoods.

The second point is that Minister Fassbender decided (in mid-January of this year) to impose the charge without any consultation with residents or with anyone who would have been able to inform him that his officials had given him mis-

leading information regarding taxation in the University Endowment Lands and inadequate information regarding taxation in our community.

The third point is that UBC has been involved for much of the process. Government officials kept UBC apprised of developments, and UBC worked with those officials to evaluate cost recovery mechanisms. It is clear that UBC acquiesced in the fire service charge. Was that because UBC failed to identify the flaws in the government’s rationale for imposing the charge? Or was it because the UBC Board of Governors is mandated (by section 19.1 of the University Act) to act in the best interests of the University, and UBC’s own interests conflicted with those of residents? This statement from a ministerial briefing note is revealing: “UBC administration understands that based on the principles of fairness, market properties should pay for their share of fire protection costs.” UBC does not seem to have appreciated that we already do so, through the $2 million per year in rural property tax that we pay to Victoria.

The UNA has stated that it was advised in late 2015 (presumably by UBC) of the Province’s intention to impose the fire service charge. It was formally notified of the charge by government officials in February of this year. Instead of critically examining and challenging the province’s rationale for the charge, the UNA agreed to it and merely asked that it be delayed for a year. Here’s what the UNA Chair said in his March 10, 2016 letter to the government: “In our meeting, CSCD officials laid out a fair and principled rationale for recovering fire service costs from UBC’s taxable neighbourhood properties.” (This letter has not been made public by the UNA but is in

the FOI package.)

The government recognized the serious financial impact that the fire service charge would have on our community.

Listed as a “con” in a briefing note to Minister Fassbender is that the charge “ will significantly reduce funds available to the UNA to provide other community services”.

The FOI documents show a concern about communicating the fire service charge, first to the UNA and then to residents. The government and UBC determined that the UNA was to be “the communication conduit to residents”. The UNA website’s Frequently Asked Questions on this topic were provided by the government. Shortly before the UNA’s communications materials were made public, UBC sent a copy to government officials at their request. This included the UNA Chair’s letter in the March issue of this newspaper. In sending the material, UBC included the comment that “UBC is supporting the UNA but they’re running the communications effort, so we don’t always have control over the final message” [emphasis added].

As is plain to see, residents have not had effective representation. UBC and the UNA (some directors excepted) have been only too willing to go along with the Province. That is why a group of residents have formed the UBC Neighbourhoods Taxation Working Group to oppose the Province’s unfair and unjustifiable decision to extract another million dollars a year from our community (in addition to the $2 million a year we already send to Victoria, which is more than enough to pay for fire protection service).

An issue that has recently arisen also needs to be mentioned. We have been assured by the UNA Chair that our aggre-

gate taxes (including the services levy) will not increase as a result of the fire service charge. However, this may not be the case. Buried in material that was recently put on the UNA’s website is a proposal to delink our tax rates from the Vancouver tax rate so that we pay more taxes than we would if we were residents of Vancouver. The intention is to raise an additional $600,000 per year from the services levy (see “UBC – UNA Finance Task Force Report” under “Withdrawal from UBC Reserves”). Since UBC cannot make such a change to our leases unilaterally, it must be assumed that UBC has obtained, or believes it can obtain, the Province’s agreement to override our leases by legislation to increase the services levy.

Firehall No. 10 on Wesbrook Mall

Second UNA Resident Director Joins Taxation Group

Laura Cottle

MOTI continued from Page 2 • Motorcycle enthusiasts use this road to showcase their raw power and rev up noise of their engines, often on weekends or afternoons; as a result, we have a speed and noise issue.

• Tour buses now clog the road on occasion.

Generally speaking, the allotted space for traffic flow is far too generous to highspeed vehicles such as cars and motorcycles. There is not nearly enough room for bikes especially. This is a dangerous road due to speed. This problem is com-

A second resident director of the University Neighbourhoods Association has joined the UBC Neighbourhoods Taxation Working Group founded by campus residents.

UNA Resident Director Laura Cottle, of Hawthorn Place, joins UNA Resident Director Ying Zhou, of Chancellor Place, one of three founding members of the group along with Hampton Place residents Bill Holmes and George Mackie.

While Ms. Zhou is UNA Treasurer and Chair of the UNA Finance and Audit Committee, she is taking part in the taxa-

tion initiative as a resident.

Likewise, Ms. Cottle is participating as a resident, not in her capacity as an elected UNA director.

At its website, the UBC Neighbourhoods Taxation Working Group provides information relating to “the B.C. government’s unfair and unjustifiable decision to impose an annual $1 million fire service charge on the UBC neighbourhoods.”

Members of the group consider the Province’s fire service charge a serious financial issue for the community, which currently pays $3.5 million through a ser-

vices levy to fund its operations.

“The fire service charge will reduce that to $2.5 million — a huge reduction,” the group website statement reads.

In the May 23 letter to the Minister of Finance Michael de Jong, the group states, “The imposition of a fire service charge on property owners in the UBC neighbourhoods is inequitable. Instead of levying a new charge, the provincial government should apply a portion of the rural property tax revenue collected from us to pay our share of the cost of fire protection service”.

pounded in summer months, weekends or afternoons.

As such, I propose that MOTI, in coordination with other constituents, consider the following implementations or options as outlined: • Reduce the speed on NW Marine Drive by installing speed bumps and/or road curvatures / waving, so that high speed is not physically possible.

• Eliminate or move the concrete barrier that separates the narrow pedestrian path from the road, and clearly delineate road from bicycle lane and pedestrian path.

This would mean a far narrower road

that forces far slower car and motorcycle speeds, or better still, consider one-way direction for cars and motorcycles, with speed bumps or speed reducing curves or waving, or consider closing NW Marine Drive altogether for cars and motorcycles past the parking lot for Pacific Spirit Park to Chancellor Blvd.

• Install a traffic circle—or at the very least a 4-way stop—at the intersection of Chancellor Blvd. and NW Marine Drive to force speed reduction on Chancellor Blvd.

• Forbid bus or truck traffic.

• Paint or install proper pedestrian cross-

walks and sidewalks at this intersection.

Since this road is a road straddling multiple jurisdictions (MOTI, UEL, UBC, UNA, Electoral Area A, Metro Vancouver Pacific Spirit Park, City of Vancouver), I have copied numerous stakeholders and invite them for their opinion as well.

Thank you for your coordinated efforts and consideration to accommodate multiple road users for a win-win solution that does not have to cost a lot.

page 5

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT JULY 18, 2016

Hello, We Are Community!

Krysta Wallbank Writer and Digital Content Creator for the UNA

To all members of this wonderful UBC community and beyond: We here at the University Neighbourhoods Association: Parks & Recreation are undergoing an exciting transformation. A rebranding, an evolution, a make-over, if you will! We are evolving in order to better serve and connect with those not only in our community, but to everyone across Vancouver. Ultimately, we want to become a better version of who we are and build off of what we started over a decade ago.

How are we changing to make this happen, you ask? To get things started, we had to ask ourselves two very important questions, “Who are we? And who do we want to be?” because in order to create a better version of ourselves, we first have to establish our identity. If you ask anyone around the neighbourhood to describe us, you might get a vague response, something about how we operate the Old Barn Community Centre and Wesbrook Community Centre. While this is certainly true, we want to be more than a mysterious organization and certainly more than ‘Parks & Recreation’. That being said, please bid farewell to ‘UNA: Parks & Recreation’ and say hello to ‘We are Community’! Along with our new name, we have re-designed our visual look and logo, and we are launching a new website, www.wearecommunityvan. ca, to be more efficient and accessible!

You may be wondering why we have decided to revamp and re-style. Our new branding is actually only the first

step in our transformation. It will be the foundation upon which we will enhance and grow. We have high hopes and big dreams for our ‘new’ Community. We aim to be a centre for excellence, and we will be bold and innovative. We will provide services and facilities that are just as vibrant and unique as the community that we have the pleasure of serving.

You can create, socialize, play, and engage with us, because we want to be the third pillar in your lives. There’s Home, there’s Work, and with us, there’s Community. But we want to go even further than the surrounding UBC area. We want the whole world – all right, at least all of Vancouver, to know that we are here and that we are an inclusive community for everyone. “We are Community” is not simply ‘we’ at Wesbrook Village, or even ‘we’ at all of UBC. It means you at Hawthorn Place, your friend who lives in East Vancouver, your friend’s Grandma living in Burnaby, and even your friend’s Grandma’s dog named Peaches. Here at the UNA, we want to connect with you, and connect you with others in order to truly create a welcoming and dynamic community.

You may now be thinking about what you can expect from us from this point forward. We here at the University Neighbourhoods Association: We are Community can tell you with pride that you can expect an inclusive, engaging, and vibrant UNA. From programs for toddlers all the way to seniors; from ESL

courses to yoga to cartooning lessons; you can expect a truly special place to work, play, and live. You can expect a centre for excellence, for you, and for everyone. So come and introduce, or reintroduce yourselves to us, and let’s make this community even more amazing.

UNA Youth Outdoor Adventure Club (OAC)

Fitness Fun at Wesbrook Community Centre

On July 9, the UNA took 17 enthusiastic adventurers out to Eagle Bluffs for a day hike as part of the Youth Outdoor Adventure Club (OAC). Despite the persistent rain and muddy trails, the group remained enthusiastic and spent 4 hours exploring the trails of Cypress Mountain. More summer hikes are happening on July 23, August 13 and August 27. Space is limited, so register today by phoning Wesbrook Community Centre at 604.822.4227 or visit www.bit.ly/29O5t8L.

Fitness instructor Dee Clarke with participants of the Fitness Fun program at Wesbrook Community Centre Gymnasium. Dee also coordinates the Fit 4 Two® Prenatal Yoga (Mondays, 7:00 pm-8:00 pm), and she was recognized as the 2016 Top Vancouver Mom Blogger by VancouverMom.ca. Dee will be teaching the following classes in the fall: Fitness Fun for Women (Mondays, 6:00 pm-7:00 pm) and Fit 4 Two® Mom and Baby Fitness (Mondays, 11:30 am-12:30 pm).

page 6

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT JULY 18, 2016

Saving Community Green Space in t Plans for Metro Service Yard Concern Residents of Little Australia Pacific Spirit Park needs new site for service yard; community green space in UEL is one of three locations proposed by Metro Vancouver John Tompkins, Editor The residents of Little Australia in the University Endowment Lands emphatically do not want Metro Vancouver to locate a new service yard for Pacific Spirit Park in their midst.

Metro Vancouver has proposed to spend $2 million building this new service yard for Pacific Spirit Regional Park, but not at its current location in the University Endowment Lands.

Metro has instead listed several locations at which the yard might be built.

One possible location is the acre of green space at the foot of 6th and 7th Avenues.

Neighbours in the area of this patch of greenery wholeheartedly oppose the idea. They insist the land be left as rare and open green space—a place for walking their dogs and greeting other members of the community, which otherwise lacks a community centre.

The residents of Little Australia—so named because its streets bear such Australian place names as Queensland Road, Adelaide Street, etc.,—learned only recently that Metro Vancouver is considering possible conversion of the small green space into a new service yard for Metro Vancouver staff personnel who look after Pacific Spirit Regional Park.

Pacific Spirit Park personnel currently work from a 25-year-old facility behind the UEL administration building on Chancellor Boulevard a mile away. The provincial government, which owns the land and leases it to Metro, has indicated it does not wish to renew the lease.

The existing service yard is at the end of its operational life and no longer meets the minimum needs of the park and stewardship activities in the park. A new service yard is required, Metro says, to

provide a safe and efficient work space for park staff and to ensure a continued high level of public service, secured equipment and supplies, natural resource protection, facility maintenance, park patrols, park improvements, resource management and stewardship.

The Electoral Area A Director’s Update from Maria Harris issued in July says, “Regional Parks staff are reviewing a number of potential locations within the park for suitability. Based on analysis to date, three sites have been identified for further study: two sites along Imperial Road and one in the open green space adjacent to Little Australia”. The locations for the service yard are analyzed according to impacts to park ecology, existing park facilities, cultural resources and visitor experience as well as adjacent land use, servicing and cost.

In support of its plan for the new service yard, Metro Vancouver has posted a fact sheet at its website.

On its fact sheet, Metro poses the pertinent question, “What is going to be in the service yard?” Its answer is as follows: “Within the service yard will be facilities and storage required to service and maintain the park, e.g., secure storage for shovels, loppers, mowers, forest fire-fighting equipment, storage sheds for wheelbarrows, lumber, fencing material, signage, yard/outdoor storage for gravel, garbage and recycling bins, vehicles, workshop and facilities for staff, and room for storing native plants for restoration projects.”

At its website, Metro also poses the question, “Why does the park need a service yard?”

The answer: “While you might not see it when you go for a walk or bike ride in the park, there’s a lot of work going on behind the scenes to keep the park clean, safe and healthy.”

Courtesy of Metro, here’s a look at Pacific Spirit Regional Park by the numbers to give people a sense of everything that needs to be monitored, maintained and/ or serviced.

• Size of the park: 874.4 hectares (twice

Metro Vancouver workers in Pacific Spirit Regional Park. the size of Stanley Park) • Number of visits in 2015: 2.32 million • Kilometres of trail: 73 • Kilometres of shoreline: 7.5 • Number of bridges: 54 • Number of wooden stairs and fences: too many to count • Number of signs: hundreds • Number of toilets: 29 • Number of garbage or recycling bins: 75 • Amount of waste collected in 2015: 24,000 kg • Portion of waste collected in 2015 that was dog poop: 18,000 kg (75%) • Number of stewardship parties in the park in 2015: 92 • Number of native plants planted in restoration projects: 2,374 The Campus Resident interviewed local residents about the prospect for redevelopment of their pristine Little Australia meadow into a bustling Metro Vancouver service yard, and most seemed stunned to hear—for the first time—what the future may hold for this natural amenity in their midst.

The family of Sissy and Ulf von Dehn has lived in Little Australia for over 45 years, and they have walked their dogs on the green space at the foot of 6th and 7th Avenues in all this time.

Sissy, whose family currently has five dogs, recalls how “our children walked the dogs there, and our grandchildren are walking the dogs there.” Ulf, who is retired, does not walk there with the dogs as much any more. However, he speaks fondly of times doing this in the past.

Public Reminded of Fire Risk in Park While the risk of fire in Pacific Spirit Regional Park is low, the probability of it rising as the weather heats up is high.

Tom McComb, Supervisor of Park Operations, Metro Vancouver Regional Parks/West Area, asks people to remember this as they make use of the largest regional park in the Lower Mainland.

The threat of wildfires is something Metro Vancouver takes very seriously in its regional parks, Mr. McComb says.

“One key aspect in mitigating fire risk is how the general public and parks staff behave during elevated fire risk.”

Each week during fire season, Metro

Vancouver updates its website identifying the fire danger risk by each park.

Click on this link: http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/parks/temporaryclosures/Pages/default.aspx.

To educate and enforce the appropriate behaviour, Metro staff patrol the parks regularly reminding the public of potential fire risk. Mr. McComb says Metro Vancouver has trained staff in fire suppression along with equipment at each park site to respond quickly in the event a fire was to start.

“While Metro staff are trained in fire suppression, the cooperation and coor-

dination with local fire departments and other emergency service agencies is paramount to our fire response. In the case of Pacific Spirit Park, the Vancouver Fire Department would take the lead role in extinguishing a fire.”

Typically during extreme fire danger rating, Metro Parks closes Sword Fern trail behind Hampton Place, and patrols are increased in this area.

In July 2013, Metro Vancouver staff removed a considerable amount of dead or dying vegetation in the area of Hampton Place to reduce the overall fuel load.

The shocking thought of this green space in Little Australia being selected for use as a service yard has pushed Sissy to join a growing movement of residents opposed to this use and presenting their concerns to Metro. The residents were given little to no notice of possible development, Sissy said.

She recounted how useful the green space had been in serving as a sort of a community centre for Little Australia residents. “People go there with their dogs, and talk and meet.”

UEL residents as a whole lack a community centre, and Little Australia residents are even more isolated from the main UEL community given their distant location from it. So the lush meadow beside them has proved in part a wonderful substitute.

Gord McQueen lives in Vancouver just across Blanca from the UEL, and he walks his dog Murphy down to the green patch at the foot of 6th and 7th every day.

Gord has nothing good to say about the possible relocation of the Metro service yard to Little Australia. “I’m definitely on the negative side,” he said.

UEL resident Pete McConnell, an elected representative of the community, is also on the negative side, and he wondered why Metro did not give better notice of the proposed relocation of the service yard. Pete said that so far, Metro has not consulted with the seven-member Community Advisory Council (CAC) which represents residents and to which he belongs.

Dave Forsyth, President of the UEL Community Advisory Council, said, “The ‘public consultation’ process undertaken by Metro Parks was severely flawed. I believe they now understand this and will in attendance at the upcoming CAC meeting. I feel the best location is at the UEL works yard, but unfortunately Metro and the provincial government don’t seem to be able to come to some sort of arrangement. I know Maria (Harris) is working that angle, and I’m hopeful that she can broker a deal.”

Metro Vancouver organized a public information session on service yard replacement on June 22. Metro says additional work on plans for site selection, site feasibility analysis and concept design will take place over the summer and fall. A second public information session is anticipated in September. Detailed design work will take place after that.

Implementation of the service yard replacement is anticipated to start in 2017.

page 7

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT JULY 18, 2016

the University Endowment Lands Open Letters to the Province from David Eby, MLA Vancouver-Point Grey Re: Metro Vancouver works yard for Pacific Spirit Park at University Endowment Lands

Letter to Minister Steve Thomson, Forests, Land and Natural Resources July 14, 2016 Dear Minister Thomson: My constituents have been advised that your Ministry is responsible for deciding whether or not to grant tenure to Metro Vancouver to continue to operate their works yard adjacent to the University Endowment Lands Administration building.

I have written to Minister Peter Fassbender about this issue as he is the notional “mayor” of the University Endowment Lands, please find that letter attached.

If your department is, in fact, responsible for this decision, can you please look into why Metro Vancouver is being refused tenure? The impact of this decision is that Metro Vancouver is now looking at removing land from Pacific Spirit Park or from a local community park for a new works yard, instead of simply continuing operations on the existing (and most appropriate) site.

I have my suspicions that this decision is more a matter of miscommunication than long-term land use strategy; however, if I’m incorrect, I would greatly appreciate knowing what the plans are for the Metro Vancouver Works Yard site if they do not involve Metro Vancouver.

Thank you in advance for any assistance you can offer.

Letter to Minister Peter Fassbender, Community, Sport and Cultural Development July 6, 2016 Dear Minister Fassbender: For more than a decade, Metro Vancouver Parks department has leased property from the Province of B.C. adjacent to the University Endowment Lands administration and operations building for the purposes of operating a work yard.

I understand that Metro Vancouver needs to upgrade the buildings on the site, but that the Province is not willing to grant the length of tenure requested by Metro Vancouver to justify the cost of the upgrades to permanent buildings on what would be, essentially, a temporary site.

As a result, Metro Vancouver has been seeking alternative sites for this works yard, which include a community park and could potentially include taking land out of Pacific Spirit Park itself.

I am sure that you agree that losing a park or taking land out of Pacific Spirit Park is hardly an ideal solution for Metro Vancouver’s public works yard given that they already occupy an appropriate site.

Can you advise why the Province is refusing to grant a longer tenure to Metro Vancouver for this site? Does the Province intend to sell or repurpose this land?

If so, what is the new purpose?

If there is no intention to sell or repurpose this land, can you advise why the Province believes that land should be removed from a regional park, or taken from a community greenspace, instead of the work site being left where it is, generating revenue for the provincial government through a lease?

My constituents are very concerned about this matter. I look forward to your response.

Residents enjoy daily walk in community green space in Little Australia.

Leslie Sadownik, who lives nearby, plays with her dog Pluto.

Community Green Space in Little Australia Not Suitable Venue for Metro Service Yard Maria Harris Director, Electoral Area A, Metro Vancouver

I fully agree with the residents of Little Australia that the open green space is not a suitable location for the service yard. It is a valued and rare open space that needs to be preserved. I also agree that it is inappropriate and unnecessary for access to a service yard to be through a residential neighbourhood.

The inclusion of the open green space as a preferred site caught me by surprise.

Once I became aware of this, I began taking steps to assist residents in having it removed as a candidate for the service yard.

I am seeking a meeting with the UEL Manager, Jonn Braman, and Metro Van-

couver Parks staff to determine whether an arrangement can be reached to keep the service yard in its present location adjacent to the University Endowment Lands administration and operations buildings. That is my first preference.

Also, I have requested that Metro Vancouver Parks staff meet with residents this month to give them an opportunity to provide input. While there was an information session on June 22, staff did not let it be known before that session that the open green space in Little Australia was a candidate for the service yard. I am hoping that the meeting will occur in conjunction with the CAC’s meeting on July 18.

In addition, I am taking every opportunity to ensure that Metro Vancouver Parks staff are aware that the open green space is not a suitable venue for the service yard, and that residents strongly oppose the use of the space for that purpose.

page 8

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT JULY 18, 2016

UNA Briefs UNA Election 2016

Society Act

At its July 12 meeting, the UNA Board accepted a report and approved a set of six recommendations about the upcoming 2016 UNA General Election. The board directed UNA staff to begin implementing the terms of the proposals as presented in time for the UNA September 2016 Annual General Meeting. The board variously: • Agreed to delegate their authority to regulate election’s decisions to a dedicated Independent Electoral Committee (IEC) chaired by the Chief Returning Officer (CRO) at the earliest convenience.

• Empowered the Committee to establish a new electoral protocol for general election 2016 to be approved no later than July 29, 2016.

• Empowered further exploration for extending advanced voting to physical satellite polling places in the residential communities.

• Approved a $30,000 funding release to administer both the election and the Annual General Meeting.

• Approved a pilot program, to be determined by the IEC, for campaign finance restrictions and a public financing program not to exceed $250.00 per candidate who receives at minimum 25% of the total general vote.

• Approved the ordering of 4,000 ballots for general election 2016.

At its July 12 meeting, the UNA Board of Directors accepted the recommendations from staff to begin the process of ensuring the UNA’s bylaws are compliant with the new B.C. Society Act (2016) and approved the following: • An expense up to $21,000 for the purposes of conducting the work associated with bringing the UNA into compliance.

• Entering into an agreement with Borins & Co. to undertake the work as indicated in their proposal document under the supervision of staff.

• Constituting a Bylaw & Governance Review Committee with a term ending December 2016.

Vista Point YMCA Child Care Centre The Grand Opening of the Vista Point Child Care Centre was held on June 15.

Gradual entry for children into the centre began the first week of July. There are currently 10 children who are enrolled.

The YMCA anticipates the centre will be at capacity in September as families in the neighbourhoods have expressed interest for child care in the fall.

WESBROOK & THE OLD BARN COMMUNITY CENTRES

FALL PROGRAM GUIDE 2016

LOOK FOR THE PROGRAM GUIDE IN YOUR MAILBOX IN THE COMING WEEKS!

SPORTS - FITNESS - YOGA - ARTS - EDUCATION & MORE!

REGISTER 7:00am August 15 - Online STARTING: 7:00am August 16 - In Person

Iona Green Playground Noise Mitigation

Use of UNA Parks by on-campus schools

In April 2016, the UNA Board of Directors approved the retention of the play equipment at its current location in Iona Green. Staff was directed to work with stakeholders to find possible solutions to mitigate ongoing noise issues. Staff presented a draft engagement plan at the June 2016 UNA Board of Directors meeting. The first event that is part of the engagement plan – Healthy Play, Healthy Living, a summer meet-n-greet at Iona Green Park – is scheduled for July 23. All Chancellor Place residents are invited.

This event will explore different opportunities and forms of activities that enhance the living experience of residents in Chancellor Place. Residents will be encouraged to share their ideas of how to make Iona Green Park an enjoyable place for everyone. There will be an idea board to collect feedback, along with activities suitable for all ages including face painting, crafts, Bocce, chess, yoga and bean toss.

Recently, a complaint was received by the UNA related to the use of UNA parks by a private school located on UBC campus. This is not a new complaint. The UNA Board discussed a similar concern in 2011. Staff has spoken with the school, and together, they have requested a meeting with UBC and UBC Properties Trust, who is the landlord of the school.

Vancouver United Football Association Contribution The UNA is pleased to announce the addition of team dugouts to the UNA Community Field in Wesbrook Place. These were made possible by a very generous contribution from the Vancouver United Football Association.

NOISE continued from Page 1 I have spoken with the RCMP who informed me they cannot enforce noise violations on the UBC Endowment Lands.

They told me to call the UBC Endowment Lands, but they do not work in the evenings or weekends.

The RCMP also told me that most of the noise offenders are not UBC students but summer residents.

I would be grateful for your assistance with this matter.

At the meeting, directors learned about attempts by staff over the years to address the issue of noise generated by late-night and boisterous Fraternity Village parties.

These attempts “have largely been unproductive.”

Directors also learned that in October 2015, UNA staff produced a report that outlined the governance situation at Fraternity Village as it relates to noise mitigation after numerous similar complaints were made to the UNA from a period dating back to 2009.

The report outlined that Fraternity Village is a Strata Corporation that was formed when the Fraternity Village was developed on land owned by UBC. In 2003, a Conduct Agreement was entered into between the Strata Corporation and UBC, the agreement governing

We are Community UNA Parks and Recreation has rebranded to become ‘We are Community’ to celebrate the creation of a centre of excellence at the UNA community centres.

In order to increase awareness, traffic and revenue, the UNA has launched this new brand, website and format for the program guide. As well, the UNA has increased event outreach in and around the community.

Website: www.wearecommunityvan.ca

Community Conversations The UNA and Campus and Community Planning hosted Community Conversations on Wednesday, June 22 at the Wesbrook Community Centre. Thirty one people attended the event. This Community Conversations event presented information on the UNA’s finances, the new West 16th Avenue crosswalk, outcomes from the UNA Child Care Needs Survey and fall public consultation on UBC’s Athletics and Recreation Facilities Strategy. A report on issues heard and responses will be posted this month at: http://planning.ubc.ca/vancouver/projectsconsultations/ consultations-engagement/ubc-community-conversations.

expectations of behavior within the Fraternity Village. The Conduct Agreement is administered by the Office of the Vice President, Students at UBC. UNA staff report they have expressed concerns to UBC Campus and Community Planning and the Office of the Vice President, Students related to these noise complaints. The UNA Noise Bylaw does not apply to areas outside the UNA neighbourhoods.

In discussing ways of addressing improper behavior and noise violations at Fraternity Village, directors considered such ideas as contacting the national chapters of each fraternity at UBC to file an official complaint or obtain legal counsel to review the UNA’s options going forward.

In the end, directors accepted the offer of Kathleen Simpson, the Alma Mater Society (AMS) appointed director on the UNA Board, to review—with assistance from UNA staff—the Fraternity Village noise issue with AMS administration.

page 9

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT JULY 18, 2016

Director of Planning Joe Stott Retires A Retrospective of 13 years with UBC

In May, Joe Stott retired from UBC, leaving a legacy that can be seen and experienced in every corner of campus.

He joined the University’s planning department in 2003 having worked in local government in the Lower Mainland for 25 years. From 1989 to 1999, he was a senior planner with the Greater Vancouver Regional District (Metro Vancouver).

In the 1980s, Joe worked in planning departments in three Lower Mainland municipalities: Vancouver, Richmond and Langley. He developed the economic development strategy for Langley, the town centre neighbourhood plan for Richmond, and, as part of the Vancouver Coreplan team, he worked on the successful shift in the development program in downtown Vancouver, setting the stage for the establishment of a new urban residential neighbourhood in the heart of the city. During this period, he served on the council for the Planning Institute of British Columbia.

Joe is a member of the Society of College and University Planning (SCUP) and served on the SCUP Awards committee in 2008-2009. He completed his graduate degree in planning at the University of Toronto in 1979.

Q: What was your first job, and what life-long lesson did you learn from it?

When I was in high school in Inuvik NWT, my first job was with the Hudson’s Bay Company store. I worked in the grocery department for $1.00 an hour. The job confirmed for me that an education was key to a future career.

Q: What are some memories of your early days at UBC? Campus and Community Planning was a small unit within the old Land and Building Services. There were four neighbourhood planning processes underway simultaneously and many evening and weekend hours of campus community consultation.

Q: Out of all the projects you have worked on, which has been the most inspiring to you?

I would have to say the realization of the vision for mixed-use student housing, academic, and service hubs in the Vancouver Campus Plan. The idea took root

New Director of Planning at UBC Grant Miller Introducing UBC’s New Director of Planning, Development Services

Joe Stott during the middle phases of the multiyear (2006-2010) campus planning exercise. We are completing the first of these hubs, Ponderosa Commons, with the second, Orchard Commons, well underway.

Q: As a leader in the planning profession, what advice would you give a person interested in a planning career?

There is a reasonably wide spectrum of planning roles, so try to find the stream you will be most comfortable. And, if you are working with residents, make sure you have a thick skin.

Q: What might someone be surprised to know about you?

That I toured the UK and France on a motorcycle in 1971 and I have two collector motorcycles in my garage.

Q: You are known to enjoy a good prank. What is the best prank from your time at UBC? When we were doing workshops for the Campus Plan a group of protesters appeared dressed in costumes of common garden vegetables. Their issue was the UBC Farm. After they finished their chants and slogans, and an outright challenge to define sustainability, they settled down and we were able to keep the workshop focused on its purpose.

Q: What are you looking forward to most during retirement?

I hope that I can work with the “gruntled” now that my job of dealing with the “disgruntled” is over.

Source of information:UBC Campus and Community Planning Newsletter, June 2016.

Grant Miller joined UBC’s Campus and Community Planning team in 2015 as the new Director of Planning, Development Services. Grant and his team are responsible for ensuring that buildings at UBC are built to be safe, and that campus projects contribute to a complete community where people can live, work, learn and play.

Grant joins UBC with 18 years of municipal planning experience in Vancouver. His background includes current planning, policy development, area planning and transit oriented development.

Q: What was your first job, and what life-long lesson did you learn from it?

I was a gas jockey in high school. “Can I check your oil sir?” That job taught me that gasoline can cause catastrophic damage to a diesel engine and that draining a fuel tank seems to take forever when an unhappy customer is watching.

Q: Before joining UBC, where did you work?

I spent many years with the City of Vancouver Planning Department developing area plans and policies and managing a team of Planners responsible for assessing rezoning applications.

Q: How would you describe your role at UBC to a student?

My responsibilities are focused on ensuring all buildings and open spaces follow theVancouver Campus Plan, which provides a guide for current and future development on campus.

Q: What makes working at UBC different from working for a municipality?

In the municipal environment private developers are motivated to bring projects to market as quickly as possible to minimize financing costs. UBC’s ambitious development timelines are adapted to the rhythms of the academic calendar and are ultimately in service of the academic mission.

Grant Miller

Q: What projects are you most excited to work on at UBC? I am very excited to see the staff and faculty rental units being developed on University Boulevard. They will bring additional energy to the campus core by creating a social and academic hub that includes housing, services, retail outlets, recreation facilities and great access to transit. I have been hearing from people who appreciate the increasing energy in the area and want to live close to the action.

Q: As a leader in the planning profession, what advice would you give a person interested in a planning career?

While planning contemplates a diversity of subject matters, central to the majority of the work is communication and collaboration. Listen actively, be curious, and enjoy the people you will be fortunate to meet along the way.

Q: What might someone be surprised to know about you?

I am a designer and maker of things when time permits. From furniture and cabinetry to a tent mounted to the roof of my old Subaru wagon.

Source of information:UBC Campus and Community Planning Newsletter, July 2016.

EVENING PARK IN THE

August 12 FEATURING BUCKMAN COE jim taylor park, hawthorn plACE

page 10

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT JULY 18, 2016

Strata-Sphere Illuminates UBC New student light/art installation can be spotted suspended from oak tree on west side of Main Mall outside Belkin Art Gallery; Strata-Sphere explores unique characteristics of wood Chuka Ejeckam Creative Coordinator, UBC Faculty of Arts There is a new addition to the Arts and Culture District at UBC, one that has won praise from the deserts of Black Rock, Nevada, to the forests of Bergen, Norway.

The addition is called a Strata-Sphere: an illuminated wooden sphere produced by students of UBC’s School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture (SALA) in collaboration with the SEEDS Sustainability Program Project (Social Ecological Economic Development Studies).

The Strata-Sphere project began in the fall of 2014, part of an architecture studio founded and operated by SALA students.

Set up by five MLA students—Christopher Szymberski (lead), Stephanie Aitken, Heather Scott, Kristina Streckner and Vanessa Goldgrub—the studio aimed to explore the novel characteristics of wood in its various material forms and expand on its use as a building mate-

rial through the application of traditional wood joinery augmented by contemporary digital modeling and fabrication technologies.

Mr. Szymberski, who recently graduated, is currently in placement as a Greenest City Scholar in Vancouver’s social policy department, working on urban farming design.

Last year, the studio produced the Frame of Mind installation: illuminated spheres constructed from bent plywood and assembled with artful use of wood joinery and no metal hardware.

These orbs were featured as an art installation in the 2015 Burning Man Festival in Black Rock, Nevada. The studio found its next success overseas, taking second place this May in the Bergen International Wood Festival 2016 Competition in Construction Spatial Structures in Wood.

Now they’ve brought their work home.

A Strata-Sphere orb has been installed at the top of UBC’s Arts and Culture District, at the north end of Main Mall between the Morris and Helen Belkin Art Gallery and Frederic Lasserre Building.

SALA faculty member Scot Hein expressed support for the installation. “We like this location given its cross-axial position, playful announcement of the Arts Quad: Learning Courtyard between the Belkin and Lasserre, and benefit towards improving the general lighting levels for the area.”

Strata-Sphere lights up the night at UBC Arts and Culture District. Photo credit Ricardo Seah.

The Strata-Sphere on campus was hung with great care to ensure no harm was done to the tree. It is composed of two bent-plywood geometric spheres held together entirely by wood joinery and encircling a central light that slides from green through teal and aquamarine blue, and finally a rich purple hue, over and over throughout the night. It is an intricate outdoor chandelier that adds a touch of surreal colour to the campus environment at night.

To learn more about the project, visit www.landarchycollective.com.

Strata-Sphere suspended from oak tree.

UBC Campus Landmark as Seen through the Eyes of a Chinese Artist

C. K. Choi Building for The Institute of Asian Research at 1855 West Mall on UBC campus. The painting is the work of Chinese artist Shize Li. The Campus Resident has published a series of works by Mr. Li, a Hampton Place resident: UBC Clock Tower (March 2014), Entrance to Hampton Place (January 2015) and Old Barn Community Centre (August 2015).

page 11

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT JULY 18, 2016

Biodiversity in your backyard How to Identify a Coniferous Tree Taisha Mitchell UBC Botanical Garden volunteer Is that pine cone you see on the ground really from a pine tree? It’s common to call any tree that stays green a pine tree, but in fact, pines are only one of a number of coniferous (cone-bearing) trees native to the Southwest Coast of British Columbia.

Here’s a quick guide to identifying the conifers in your neighbourhood.

Native pine trees have needles that grow in bundles of twos, threes or fives.

Just count the needles: bundles of twos indicate shore pine (Pinus contorta var. contorta); bundles of threes, the ponderosa pine (P. ponderosa); and bundles of fives, the western white pine (P. monticola).

Hemlocks have flat, solitary needles of unequal length, with two silver-white stripes on the underside. At lower elevations, you’ll find western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), while at higher elevations you’ll see mountain hemlock (T. mertensiana). Mountain hemlocks have longer cones (3-8 cm) than western hemlock (~2 cm).

True fir trees have soft, flat, solitary needles with two silvery stripes on the

lower side. The needles grow spirally but twist to become comb-like on either side. Cones of fir trees grow upright on the branch, and they disintegrate before they fall to the ground. There are three main types of true fir: grand fir (Abies grandis), amabilis fir (A. amabilis) and subalpine fir (A. lasiocarpa).

Douglas fir trees (Pseudotsuga menziesii) have flat, spirally arranged needles that leave a raised, oval scar on the twig.

Douglas fir cones have a three-forked bract that extends beyond the cone scales.

These cones look like mice are hiding in them, with their hind legs and tail sticking out!

Spruce trees have short, sharp needles attached to the branch, each on a peg-like projection. When the leaves are shed, these pegs remain on the branch. You can find Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) with sharp, flat needles on B.C.’s South Coast. At higher elevations, you’ll see Engelmann spruce (P. engelmannii) with finer, four-sided needles.

Western yew (Taxus brevifolia) is a shrub-like tree with flat, soft-pointed needles and papery bark. Look at the cones: are they surrounded by bright red, fleshy cups? If yes, then you’re likely looking at a Western yew. Note that all parts of the yew are poisonous.

Cedars have distinct overlapping scalelike leaves that look like flattened braids.

From top-left, clock-wise: amabilis fir, yellow cedar, mountain hemlock, western hemlock, western red cedar, Douglas fir. Photo credit Taisha Mitchell.

The bark tears off in long strips. You can find both western red cedar (Thuja plicata) and yellow cedar (Cupressus nootkatensis) on B.C.’s coast. To distinguish between the two, smell the bruised leaves—if it smells unpleasant, it’s likely a yellow cedar.

So the next time you see a pine tree, ask yourself: What size are the needles? Are you at a low or high elevation? How do the needles grow on the branch? With a little practice, you’ll soon be able to iden-

tify a whole range of conifer trees!

In the Collections Family Art Workshop: Scrolls. Saturday, July 30 at 2:00 pm. Add your own unique artistic touch to a collaborative art piece with the artist behind From Meadows Woodlands Far and Near, Brigitte Potter-Mael. This workshop will take place at the Beaty Biodiversity Museum and is included with museum admission or membership. Learn more at beatymuseum.ubc.ca/scrolls.

page 12

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT JULY 18, 2016