campus resident november 2011

Published monthly by the University Neighbourhoods Association

Volume 2, Issue 11 NOVEMBER 22, 2011


Friends and relatives of the late Iva Mann walk in Pacific Spirit Park following church service commemorating life of Ms Mann and her 38 years work campaigning for creation of the park. Daughter Shelley Page, front row left, kneeling, led the walk. Please turn to Page 6 for story.

Late Iva Mann was Force behind Creation of Pacific Spirit Park

Residents to Get More Face Time With UNA, Says

New ChairProd Laquian, of Hampton

Place, is acclaimed UNA Chair at November meeting;

retired professor is expert in community and regional planning

RESIDENTS continued on Page 5.

Maria Harris Re-elected

November 19 Election.

Results Page 5

Prod Laquian, new chair and president of the University Neighbourhoods Asso-ciation, says residents will have more op-portunity to express concerns about their community under his leadership. “I am looking forward to the residents suggesting certain measures that we can try out to improve our community,” Mr. Laquian says. “We will hold more town hall meetings and community events where the residents can clearly voice their concerns.”

Special Report on Rates UBC Residents Pay For Metro Water

Second - and Larger - Surcharge

Surfaces in UBC Water Story

First surcharge of 10% was reported in October issue of The Campus Resident;

further surcharge of 20% is reported here

The mysterious story of water rates at the University of British Columbia has deep-ened in a month. In October, The Campus Resident re-ported a 10% mark-up on the rate at which the University Endowment Lands (UEL) sells water to UBC, and since Oc-

tober, we have learned of a 20% mark-up on the rate at which the Greater Vancou-ver Water District, an arm of Metro Van-couver, sells its water to the UEL in the first place. The 20% mark-up in favour of Metro Vancouver has existed—unchanged and unchallenged—for 62 years. The 10% mark-up in favour of the UEL has existed at least since the first residents moved to UBC to live in the early 1990s—and as far as UBC as an institution is concerned, it has probably existed longer. The origin of the 20% surcharge on the rate at which Metro Vancouver sells its water to the UEL lies in a letter agree-ment dated 1949 between the two orga-nizations. While The Campus Resident has not yet obtained a copy of this letter agreement, Metro Vancouver staff mem-bers have assured us of its contents, and have promised to deliver a copy of the letter in due course.

WATER continued on 2.

Spillway at Seymour Falls Dam (Photo Metro Vancouver)

Governors Get Set To Approve

Doubling Popula-tion of Wesbrook Neighbourhood

Concerned residents are seeking review of proposed densification: quality of life

in Wesbrook may be ad-versely affected, says UNA

Expect the UBC board of governors to vote December 1 for an amended Wes-brook Place neighbourhood plan that will least double the projected population of residents living there. The UBC property and planning com-mittee made clear November 22 it is in favour of the plan, and the full board in-variably follows the direction of its com-mittees. This sets back the hopes of Wesbrook Place residents who feel the projected population of their neighbourhood should not exceed the figure of 5,000 cited in the original Wesbrook Place Neighbourhood Plan of 2005. They argue they bought homes on the strength of the original fig-ures, and they feel UBC has no right to double the density of housing there to the point that its projection population in 10-15 years will be 12,500.

WESBROOK continued on Page 9.

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT NOVEMBER 22, 2011page 2

Profile: Marie EngelbertMs. Engelbert, who intro-duces herself here, is new manager of the University Endowment Lands (UEL), home to over 5,000 neigh-bours of campus residents

I’m very happy to introduce myself as Manager, University Endowment Lands. My career background is in public ser-vice in London, UK, where I have held posts in a variety of Ministries, including HM Treasury, and have led the central policy function at the Audit Commission for England, the independent watchdog for local public services. As part of the firm KPMG’s public advisory practice, I have also worked extensively as an advisor to public sec-tor organizations on their strategic and operational challenges. This experience spans work with national government, local government and police forces. My academic background is in econom-ics at the University of Cambridge, UK. I am excited at the prospect of applying this varied experience to the operations of the UEL. Before taking up the post of Manager, I attended the Union of British Colum-bia Municipalities annual convention, framed around its “new 3 Rs: rethink; replace; rejuvenate.” I was struck by the commonality of the challenges faced by local government of all shapes and sizes and particularly by how these themes re-flect the strategic challenges that we face here at the UEL; to take just a few ex-

amples:• rethinking our approach on garbage, with the introduction of curbside recy-cling in area C (one of four areas in the UEL), and the commitment to do more; • replacement of our aging capital infra-structure, fundamental to the basic ser-vices provided by the UEL; and • rejuvenating (or at least reviewing) the UEL’s policies (as set out in the 2005 Of-ficial Community Plan) and Bylaw. My arrival as new Manager, coinciding as it does with elections to the Commu-nity Advisory Council (CAC) and Advi-sory Design Panel (ADP), also presents an opportunity for a fourth R: reflect. A brief period of reflection will be impor-tant in setting the agenda for the future work of the UEL administration. I look forward to discussing the strate-gic priorities of the UEL with the CAC, and to continuing the productive discus-sions that have been initiated between the CAC and UEL staff on the development of the annual budget. In recent years the UEL has seen significant levels of devel-opment activity, within the framework set by relevant Bylaws. I expect to see these levels of development applications continue, making the role set out for the ADP—providing advice, recommenda-tions and comments on land use planning issues; development permit applications and the associated Bylaw—an important one. Again, I look forward to working with the Panel on these issues. On a personal note, I view myself as very fortunate in relocating to the Lower Mainland and having the opportunity to contribute to public service in the UEL. I look forward to getting to know the com-munity and its residents.

A team of seven children from the Old Barn Community Centre at UBC com-peted in 14 different events at the 2011 B.C Taekwondo Masters Cup Champion-ships October 29 at Capilano University, and achieved the enviable goal of bring-ing home 14 medals. The team consisted of Aidan Murphy

Taekwondo TeamTakes Big Crop of Medals

Rao, HaiNuo Xu, Juliet Feng, Yike Ma, Rebeca Dong, Tony Yu and William Lin. Yike Ma, Aidan Murphy Rao and HaiNuo Xu won gold medals in Gyoroo-gi (sparring), while Yike Ma and Rebeca Dong won gold medals in Poomsae (pat-terns). Rebeca Dong won a silver medal in Gyoroogi, while William Lin, Aidan Murphy Rao, Juliet Feng, Tony Yu and HaiNuo Xu won silver medals in Poom-sae. William Lin, Juliet Feng and Tony Yu won bronze medals in Gyoroogi. Coach Nathan Ma said, “We were also still the only community centre there; all of the rest were from Taekwondo specific schools.”

Team of 14 from Old Barn Community Centre at UBC is entered; 2011 Taekwondo

championships are held Oct 29 at Capilano U

Successful taekwondo team from The Old Barn Community Centre

Marie Engelbert, manager, University Endowment Lands

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT NOVEMBER 22, 2011 page 3

Letter to the Editor

Editor & Business Manager

University Neighbourhoods Association

#202-5923 Berton Avenue,

Vancouver, BC V6S OB3

Published by:

John Tompkins

604.827.3502 [email protected] Page

Eric Mazzi

UBC long-term residents, as well as oth-er campus users, are justified in concerns about water usage on the campus. Water is one of the critical resources for a sus-tainable community. However I suggest that spending money for another study of water rates, name-calling our UEL neighbours, or considering installation of an expensive new supply pipeline are not the most constructive solutions. Moving forward to implement sustainable water management is the most constructive so-lution. The Comprehensive Community Plan (CCP) in the year 2000 identified 1.5 million cubic metres of potential roof-top rainwater collection for use in toilets and irrigation. The CCP also identified greywater* recycling and conservation measures such as suite meters as viable options to further reduce purchases and consumption. The CCP was in effect for a full decade and I know of no perfor-mance measurements of CCP sustain-ability targets. But I am reasonably cer-tain that less than 0.1% of the rooftop rainwater potential was implemented. Other than CK Choi (built in 1996) and the new Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability building, there are no known greywater recycling systems at UBC, and it’s unknown to what extent metering of individual residents has been implemented. UBC purchases roughly 5 to 6 million cubic metres of water annu-ally (it’s difficult to find the current fig-ure). If even one-third of just the rooftop rainwater potential alone was realized

Engineer Urges Use of ‘Greywater’, Rooftop

Rainwater to Cut Water Bill

Letter to the Editor

over the past decade, the reduced annual water purchases would offset the annual mark-up fees by UEL. The past cannot be undone. Under the new Land Use Plan, I suggest that UBC Campus Planning as the sole authority exercising full control over development has the responsibility to take leadership and ensure water management moves forward in a constructive, real, and sus-tainable manner.

Eric Mazzi, Vancouver Mr. Eric Mazzi is PowerSmart Instruc-tor at the UBC Clean Energy Research Centre, while from 1998-2004, he was senior engineer and operations man-ager for the UBC water distribution, storm-water, and sanitary system. *Greywater is wastewater generated from domestic activities such as laundry, dishwashing, and bathing. Greywater dif-fers from water from the toilets which is designated sewage or ‘black-water’ to in-dicate it contains human waste.

I attended the University planning meet-ing at the MBA house November 1. It is clear that the UBC Planning Com-mittee is intending to proceed with the revised community plan for Wesbrook Place. To do so in the face of growing public opposition to this plan is, in my estimation, a serious violation of public trust in the University. We need to mount a much more diligent and well-organized opposition to this proposed development plan. We purchased a residential suite in this development area after due diligence. We were assured by the representatives of UBC planning that their plan for devel-opment of the area was based upon the initial agreed-upon plan of development.

Amendments Amount to Violation of Public Trust,

Says Wesbrook Home-Buyer

This included only five high-rises. West-brook was then under development. Currently, under the new proposed de-velopment, much greater densification of the area is proposed. Some 15 or so high-rises are proposed in this new submission allowing for much greater densification. There are a number of reasons why we, as residents who purchased properties in the UBC development area, should resist this new proposed development. 1. With the increased density, land val-ues will decrease. The entire area will be-come less attractive to potential buyers as it becomes a concrete jungle rather than a beautiful area with winding paths, beau-tiful trees and open areas. As residents who have purchased here because of its environmentally-friendly nature, we will be faced with concrete structures rising high into the sky, blacktop roads, high traffic volumes and noise. 2. The high-rises will cast shadows over

the adjacent properties. 3. The spectacular views provided by the existing high-rises will be obstructed by the new construction despite assur-ances by the representatives of the Uni-versity planning department that this would not happen. 4. The beautiful walkways at the pe-rimeter of the forests will be destroyed as new concrete high-rises are constructed. This will not only be unattractive for po-tential purchasers but also be a severe hardship on local residents who pur-chased in good faith and trust. 5. It could be anticipated that small changes in the zoning of the affected area would be undertaken. The current pro-posed development is a gigantic change in the future of our properties and ne-glects entirely the promises made by the University planning consortium. To pro-ceed with this proposed development is a serious violation of the trust and goodwill

between the residents and the University. It is a violation of the commitments to the owners of these properties.

John Friesen, Hampton Place Resident

Due to an error on the part of The Campus Resident, a notice ad-vertising the November 1st Open House and Q&A on the revised amendments to the South Campus (Wesbrook Place) Neighbourhood Plan did not run in the October 24th edition. The Campus Resi-dent apologizes for any inconve-nience this may have caused our Readers.

Editor’s Note

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

Letters to the Editor & Opinions

The election season has concluded at UBC and the University Endowment Lands (UEL). We note it was the best season on record for both local gover-nance bodies and regional government. Maria Harris won re-election to the Metro Vancouver board seat for Electoral Area A (which includes both UBC and the UEL). Though still a painfully low turnout, at least 900 local people showed up to vote November 19 for either Ms. Harris (who got 50% of the votes) or one of the four candidates who ran against her—a voter turnout double what it was three years ago; as well, the fact that five candidates ran for this position in region-al government in 2011 speaks well for community engagement in the political process for only six years ago, Gary Gib-son had no opposition in becoming Elec-toral Area A director on the Metro board In the UEL, where they vote only once every three years for two local gover-nance bodies, the Community Advisory Council (CAC) and the Advisory Design Panel (ADO), both the number of CAC

A Good Year for Electionsand ADP candidates running and the number of people who turned out No-vember 19 to vote for them far exceed-ed the numbers in 2008 and 2005. UEL resident John O’Donnell—who has won each of the three times he has run for a CAC seat—says elsewhere in this issue that “this was the best election” in the field of UEL local governance ever. Not be outdone by either the Metro Vancouver election in Electoral Area A election or the CAC and ADP elections in the UEL, the University Neighbourhoods Association (UNA) election scored well on the UBC campus. This election takes place annually, and in the September 28 election, an unprecedented six candidates ran for two seats on the UNA board, and voters cast an unprecedented 1,000-plus votes for one or other candidate. To be clear, the voter turn-out in none of these elections broke any records other than their own poor records in the past, and unfortunately, poor records persisted in some areas. Take for example the multi-family area of the UEL—one of four UEL areas, the other three areas being restricted to single-family homes. The number of residences in this multi-family area (UEL Area D) approximates 956. Alas, only 18 Area D voters turned out to vote in per-son or send in their votes by mail for eit-ehre CAC or ADP candidates. Over-all, however, the message comes across clearly that a measure of interest has grown in both local governance and regional government in the UBC and UEL lands. Good men and women living in the area will seek to encourage the fur-therance of this interest.


UBC’s vision in developing South Campus was to create a “village in the woods,” featuring Wesbrook Mall as a pedestrian-friendly village street with cobble stone-type road surface. So far this vision is being achieved with the existing plan except that existing traf-fic is creating noise and pollution prob-lems for seniors resident in Tapestry complex which should be addressed. 1. Campus Planning argues that the proposed changes to the Plan does not change the overall density of South Campus but would relocate it in a smaller area. But density equates to the number of people. More people in an area create more traffic. So while the overall density may be the same, there will be more traffic in the “village street” of Wesbrook Mall, including more buses. That is the impact of the proposed changes in the plan.If the village vision of Wesbrook Mall is to be maintained, there are several options:• discouraging through traffic by posting Local Traffic Only at the in-tersection of Southwest Marine and Wesbrook Mall and again at 16th and Wesbrook Mall by the round about and adding speed bumps:• closing that portion of the Mall to all traffic;• diverting the increased traffic cre-ated by the increased density by open-ing other roads to either Southwest Marine, in the old BC Research area which has been added to the plan or by opening up another road on West 16th opposite Hampton Place.• Campus Planning’s suggestion of paving over the cobblestone-type road with asphalt is self defeating and inap-propriate and must be rejected. 2. Building as many as 15 high rise

The South Campus Neighbourhood Plan

is not Carved in StoneBy Pat Carney, PC, CM,

Hampton Placebuildings to accommodate increased densities in Wesbrook Place, as the proposed changes indicate, is not the only solution. This approach should be balanced against the probable costs of the planned development. Infra-structure and services for the high rise buildings will be very high. If these costs exceed the expected value of the developments, the project will not be economically viable. It may be more cost effective to reduce the number of units relocated in South Campus to off-set the probable increased costs. Campus Planning suggests the changes in density will make the de-velopment more energy efficient. But the increased cost of traffic and the im-pact on the natural environment of the “village in the woods” have not been reflected in the proposed changes. 3. The quality of life envisioned for the Wesbrook Place neighbourhood re-flects the rich natural environment. If the human-made structures will gross-ly overshadow the natural environ-ment, potential buyers may not want to buy units there. Thus, instead of the Plan indicating the maximum number of units that can be built in the commu-nity and then reducing the number of units as the marketability of the units goes down, it may be better to reduce the number of planned units at this early stage. As improvements to the traffic and development are made and the mar-ketability of units in Wesbrook Place increases, the Plan may be amended to increase the number of units. After all, the plan is only a framework at this stage -- it can be adjusted over time to balance benefits to residents against development costs. The neighbour-hood plan is not carved in stone. UBC Campus and Community Planning should listen to residents and make changes as needed. We live and love it here.

Recent events in the UNA remind one of the ancient Chinese curse “May you live in interesting times.” At the last UNA annual general meeting, residents complained about higher taxes, spiking water bills and delays in passing parking, noise and animal control by-laws. The September election for Board members attracted six candidates for the first time in UNA history. The UNA lead-ership election saw a 3-3 tie, the use of secret ballots and took a month to finally resolve. In the neighbourhoods, there are renewed mutterings about a “democracy deficit, “taxation without representa-tion,” and a characterization of UBC as an “18th century monarchy”. Wesbrook Place residents are questioning amend-ments to the neighbourhood plan and in Chancellor Place, there is impatience at the lack of parking controls. A group calling itself “Residents for Change” has even launched a campaign to “Reform the UNA.” Perhaps, the restiveness in the UNA communities may just be a stage in the exciting evolutionary development of UTown. The UNA is now almost ten years old. The UTown population has grown to about 16,500, made up of 8,000 resi-dents in five neighbourhoods and 8,500 students in dorms and other accommoda-tions. It is probably only natural for this larger population to generate demands and complaints about how things are run in the community. On one side, the larger UTown popula-tion is making it possible for positive de-velopments to occur. UTown now has a big grocery store, coffee shops and other services that are becoming economically viable because of the larger demand. It has been rapidly shifting from a com-muter campus to a vibrant community combining elements of town and gown. Residents, students and UBC faculty and staff are increasingly interested and in-volved in creating a sustainable life style on campus. The UBC Land Use Plan for the whole campus approved last year envisions the development of mixed use “hubs” or “commons” where students, residents and

Ancient Chinese Curse Comes Timely to Mind

By Prod Laquian faculty and staff can interact as involved stakeholders in thriving and vibrant communities. The development of Gage South as the “gateway” to the university is being planned with the collaboration of students, UBC and residents. UBC Farm is being developed as an integral part of the UTown community even as the den-sity transferred from it is upsetting some residents of Wesbrook Place. Ironically, these positive developments are also gen-erating the “interesting times” that now confront us. Change, after all, no matter how positive, can be upsetting. So what can the UNA do to cope with issues that are percolating in these inter-esting times? One obvious option is to move away from griping, complaining and finger pointing. Residents, students and UBC can collaboratively strive to find pragmatic solutions. The new lead-ership at UNA needs to reach out to residents, listen to them and understand what they are unhappy about. Then, the residents, UBC and UNA officials can calmly go about solving problems. Some of the issues facing our commu-nity are easier to solve (implementation of interim regulations on parking, im-proving communication by augmenting e-mail blasts with articles in The Campus Resident and talking directly to groups of stakeholders). Others are more compli-cated (how to encourage residents to par-ticipate in UNA affairs, integrating new Canadians into the community, getting more residents to volunteer in UNA ac-tivities, increasing voting turnout in elec-tions). We can either allow the more diffi-cult issues to increase tensions and upset developments in UTown or take them as a challenge that will inspire us to strive harder. Surely, with residents, UBC and the UNA joining forces, it should be pos-sible for the community to get through these interesting times. Together, we can effectively deal with the issues confront-ing us in a neighbourly, respectful and cooperative manner that will make it possible for us to build a community that enhances our quality of life.

Prod Laquian is the newly elected board chair and president of the UNA

OP-ED PAGE


A resident of Hampton Place since 1993, a retired professor of community and re-gional planning at UBC, and a former official of the United Nations, Mr. Laqui-an—acclaimed new leader of the UNA at the November meeting of directors—has served as a director of the UNA since Sep-tember, 2008. At the start of his tenure as chair, Mr. Laquian has put forward a four-point plan of action he feels will improve the community. To start with, he says the highest prior-ity in the UNA is involving residents in the affairs of the association. “A situation

RESIDENTS continued from Page 1. where less than half of residents eligible for membership are registered UNA mem-bers is not acceptable. A voting turnout of 21% is a poor indicator of a democratic system. The UNA officials have to reach out and meet people face to face to engage them in community activities.” Beyond that, the new chair says the UNA should have more authority. “For the past ten years, it has been saddled with respon-sibilities to deliver municipal-like servic-es and manage local affairs without com-mensurate authority. We should be able to pass parking, noise, animal control and other bylaws as soon as possible.” Beyond that again, he points to the grow-

ing population of the residential commu-nity on campus and the concerns of its residents. “The University Town popu-lation is now about 16,500, and it is not surprising that the residents are loudly raising concerns about how things are be-ing run. The UNA—and for that matter, UBC—should listen more and consult with residents. At the same time, the UNA has to be more pro-active; it should antici-pate emerging issues and form strategies to deal with these.” Before joining UBC in 1991 as a tenured full professor at the School of Community and Regional Planning (SCARP) and Di-rector of the UBC Centre for Human Set-

tlements, Mr. Laquian—born in the Phil-ippines—worked with the United Nations in the South Pacific, China and New York. After retiring from UBC, he became a vis-iting scholar and acting director of Special Programs in Urban and Regional Studies (SPURS), at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, MA. The following year, the Woodrow Wil-son Center for International Scholars in Washington, DC awarded him a fellow-ship to write a book on the planning and governance of the 14 largest cities in Asia. In 2007-2008, he was a consultant with the Asian Development Bank on the de-livery of urban services (water, sewerage, transport, waste management, and hous-ing) in China and India. As the chair of the Board’s standing committee on governance, he focused on the UNA’s complex relationships with UBC, its students (through the Alma Ma-ter Society) and—until its departure from the UBC scene a year ago—Metro Van-couver. He is chair of the UNA animal control bylaws development committee and a member of the noise bylaw devel-opment committee and the parking bylaw development committee. In a final point in his four-point plan of action, Mr. Laquian says, “These are ex-citing times to be in UTown, a ‘living lab’, where the ‘guinea pigs’ themselves and not scientists are doing the experimenting. We in the UNA communities have the op-portunity to craft a local governance sys-tem that suits our unique situation.” Also by acclamation at the November meeting of the UNA board, Thomas Beyer became UNA vice-chair and Ian Burgess became treasurer. Directors may serve for up to six years. (Please turn to Page 4 for article by Mr. Laquian on UNA)

My first comment is to thank the voters in Electoral Area A for re-electing me as their representative at Metro Vancouver for another three years. I know what this job entails, and consequently, I have been able to hit the ground running: the inau-gural Metro Vancouver Board meeting is scheduled for December 16th and I look forward to continuing to work hard on your behalf. Ours is a diverse and stimu-lating community, and together, we can make this place we call home the very best that it can be. At every opportunity throughout this campaign, students and residents alike expressed concern about transit to UBC, and my initial priority as Director is to work towards resolving these problems. We need transit improvements and a clear strategy as to how these will be funded.

UEL Neighbours Notch“Best Election” Under Ward SystemElections are held every

three years Residents are entitled to

vote for candidates in two local governance bodies

Local governance elections on the Uni-versity Endowment Lands (UEL) don’t look much like their counterparts at UBC, but just as the campus-based University Neighbourhoods Association enjoyed its most successful election September 28, so did the UEL on November 19. More candidates ran for office in the UEL (which borders UBC to the north and east) and more voters turned out to vote for them than ever before. John O’Donnell, a veteran of three suc-cessful local governance campaigns in the UEL, offered a possible explanation of why more voters turned out this year than in 2005 when local governance elections started on the UEL, and the second set of elections in 2008. “This could be attrib-uted to our ward system, unique in British Columbia,” he said. In the UEL, everyone enjoys the right to vote every three years for candidates run-ning for two local governance bodies, the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) and Advisory Design Panel. Candidates run in four areas. Mr. O’Donnell said, “The candidates have a smaller area to campaign for and can realistically try to reach all their vot-ers.”

We in Electoral Area A also require full voting representation on the Mayors’ Council for Regional Transportation, and I expect that the necessary legislative change will occur in the coming year. I also heard a wide range of views con-cerning water rates, governance, afford-able housing for UBC students, staff and faculty, and non-academic development in the UBC area, and indeed, the role that I can play as the elected representative at Metro Vancouver. To this end, I would like to build on the momentum established during this campaign, and I welcome op-portunities to meet with as many individu-als and groups as possible. Finally, I extend my sincere thanks to my fellow candidates and to the many vol-unteers who shared their time and talents with me on my re-election campaign

Of the recent, vigorous campaign which resulted in five candidates being elected or acclaimed to the seven-member CAC and eight members being elected or acclaimed to the ADP (which consists of a maximum of eight elected or acclaimed candidates plus several professional members), he said, “All the door knocking, increased signage and phone calls brought out more voters.” “The increased number of ADP candi-dates is likely due to the fact that the UEL is reviewing and planning to update our zoning and building bylaw. A number of meetings were held in the last 18 months and this likely increased the awareness of the CAC and ADP.” In e-mail correspondence with The Campus Resident, Mr. O’Connell ex-plained that what prompted a number of candidates to run for CAC was the desire to change how the ADP functions. “A few of the current ADP members believed that the elected ADP members should have a veto over the professional panel members, and they ran for CAC to work for a change since the CAC Bylaws set out how the ADP functions.” Meanwhile, Mr. O’Donnell—who was elected to the CAC in one of three single-family residence areas—recounted that the fourth UEL area in which all multi-family residences re located again provid-ed meager turn out of voters. With 1,593 residences in UEL and 956 in this area, “it is surprising that we cannot elicit inter-est,” he said.

CANDIDATE ELECTED INCUMBENT RESULTS

ANDREWS, Scott 175

DESJARLAIS, Colin 17

HARRIS, Maria ELECTED ● 466

MAKORTOFF, Mischa 114

MITCHELL, Alexandria 159

ELECTORAL AREA A ELECTION RESULTS

Re-elected in Electoral Area A, Maria Harris Hits

Work Trail Running


IVA MANN continued from Page 1.

Relatives and friends of the late Iva Mann gathered at St. Anselm’s Church in the University Endowment Lands on Saturday, November 12 to recall the life of someone without whose work Pacific Spirit Park might not have come into be-ing. Following a well-attended morning ser-vice in the church, a group led by Shelley Page, daughter of Ms. Mann, set out to walk in part the Iva Mann Trail, a series of trails officially designated in honour of Ms. Mann to recognize the pivotal role she played in the establishment of Pacific Spirit Park. Users of the 50 kilometres of park trails

have Ms. Mann—who died a few weeks before her 96th birthday—to thank for the opportunity for had she not persevered in her relentless goal of creating the park, it might have become an upscale housing estate twice the size of the University of British Columbia. Under the jurisdiction of Metro Vancouver, the park—almost twice as big as Stanley Park—greets hundreds of thousands of visitors annu-ally, and provides habitat for numerous species of wildlife. Ms. Mann came out to British Co-lumbia with husband Ken—a physicist heading to UBC to teach—from Ontario shortly after the end of the Second World War, and the couple built one of the first houses on Acadia Road. Among many

contributions to the then-nascent Univer-sity Endowment Lands (UEL) commu-nity, Ms. Mann raised funds and planted the original flowering cherry trees on Acadia Road. The provincial government had launched the UEL in the 1920s in the hopes that profit from land sales there would finance development of UBC. However, the Great Depression first and then the war had severely hampered this development with the result that when the Manns arrived from Ontario, a few thousands acres of forest—mostly ne-glected—lay virtually abandoned around them. Ms. Mann had ideas for it, and 38 years after she began campaigning for it to be designated a park, the government con-sented. Politicians from Victoria to Ot-tawa publicly acknowledged the role Ms. Mann had played in fetching about this significant contribution to the quality of outdoor life in the Lower Mainland. In pursuit of her goal of turning aban-doned forest into a nature park, Ms. Mann ran for Greater Vancouver Region-al District director for Electoral Area A (which includes both UBC and the UEL). She would serve on the GVRD board and

the GVRD parks committee for 17 years until her goal of seeing the park created was achieved. Daughter Shelley says of her mother that she lived a long and fulfilling life, rich with adventure and purpose. “She was flying an airplane long before she learned to drive a car. She was generous with her time and resources and never missed an opportunity to help a friend or stranger in need. She had a strong sense of what needed to be done, and she took the lead on many initiatives in service of her community. She never shied away from tackling even the most daunting of projects or facing the most difficult of circumstances. Despite her petite stature, Iva was a giant. She was almost unstop-pable. “ Assisted by a band of followers, Ms. Mann helped clear many of the trails that are so popular in the park today. Shelley says, “Iva had a beautiful smile and a great sense of humour. She was a loving and dedicated wife and mother. She was a champion of social justice; she loved all living creatures; she was an avid horticul-turalist and a strong advocate for protec-tion of the environment.”

Walk in Park

Iva Mann

Iva Mann and supporters celebrate government decision to establish and name Pacific Spirit Park in 1989


Look for a copy in your mailbox, pick one up from the Community Centre or visit our website to view online

www.oldbarn.ca 604.827.4469

Look for a copy in your mailbox, pick one up from the Community Centre or visit our website to view online

www.oldbarn.ca 604.827.4469

The community services card issued by the University Neighbourhoods Asso-ciation to campus residents appears en route to turning the world-class UBC Botanical Garden into a community garden as well. Patrick Lewis, director of the UBC Biodiversity Collections, told a meeting of UNA directors in November that the number of visits by residents using their community services cards to access the UBC Botanical Garden (and its associ-ated Nitobe Memorial Garden) is pro-jected to jump 40% this year over last. Mr. Lewis provided the directors with what they hope is quantifiable proof a funding agreement between the UNA and UBC is working. Under the terms of this agreement, the UNA provides the gardens with financial support, and in return UBC Botanical Garden allows residents—using their community ser-vices cards—to access the gardens for free as many times a year as they want. Mr. Lewis said that while the num-ber of visits by campus residents “hav-ing their cards swiped” in fiscal 2010-2012 was 1,094 (790 at the main garden and 304 at Nitobe), it is projected to be 1,440 in fiscal 2011-12. He said to October 31, the total num-ber of visits ran to 1,203 (758 in the

Residents Respond Well to Card Use in Accessing GardenCampus residents are allowed

free access to UBC Botani-cal Garden using community

service cards; number of these visits is up 40% in a year

main garden and 445 in Nitobe); he added the totals do not include the num-bers of campus residents with UNA-is-sued cards who use the UBC Botanical Garden in the evenings. The director of the newly formed UBC Biodiversity Collections (which oversees administration of both the UBC Botanical Garden, Nitobe Gar-den and Beaty Biodiversity Museum) also produced encouraging figures for community involvement in his facilities on the special events front. He referred to three family-oriented events in re-cent months: Magic from the Land of Hogwarts at the Botanical Garden on August 16 which attracted 50 families; Pumpkin-Carving at the Botanical Gar-den on October 25 which attracted 40 families; and Halloween at the Beaty Museum which attracted about 450 people. The UNA-issued community services cards - to which all residents living in UNA Neighbourhoods are entitled - covers community access not only to the UBC Botanical Garden. The UNA has similar funding agreements with the Vancouver Public Library and UBC Athletics. About 8,000 people live on campus. UBC and the UNA have a joint policy of combining community use of facili-ties with institutional use wherever pos-sible.

(Please turn to inaugural column ‘Biodiversity in Your Backyard’ by Patrick Lewis on Page 12.) Glendon Scott, UNA Operations Manager and Jan Fialkowski, UNA Executive

Director get into the spirit of Halloween, dressed to the theme of Davy Jones’ locker at the UNA presented Halloween Party, which was held at The Beaty Biodiversity Museum on October 31, 2011.


Sustainability Corner

UNA Community News

Ralph Wells, UNA Sustainability Manager

A Sustainable UNA Christmas

In anticipation of the Christmas season which will soon be upon us, I thought I’d focus on ideas for making your Christmas joyful and more sustainable. A simple Google search will lead you to many great ideas, but I was particularly struck by a list of tips created by Carlye Malchuk and available on the homemak-ers.com website. I’ve thought I’d share some ideas for a sustainable Christmas inspired in part by Carlye’s list, but with a local twist. Consider using a live tree service for your Christmas tree. Evergrow Christ-mas Trees (evergrowchristmastrees.ca) is a local business started by UBC stu-dents that will deliver a tree to you and then pick it up and ensure that it’s plant-ed or keep it live for use next year. A cut tree can be a sustainable choice too, since the re-grown trees will sequester green house gases. If you use a cut tree be sure to take it to the UBC Botanical Gardens after Christmas for free chip-ping, so that your tree becomes a locally used landscaping resource instead of waste. Make a Christmas wreath using fallen branches and pinecones from our local parks. I know of a group of residents who did this last year, they had a great time, and ended up with very attractive wreaths for home and gifts. Local craft stores will sell frames and wiring for this and a Google search will provide helpful instructions. Afterwards, you can return unpainted branches or pinecones to the forest floor where you found them. Gift choices that provide experiences (such as tickets to a show) will leave a gift of memories instead of waste. Christmas baking in re-usable gift tins are another great choice. Our family recently found Christmas gift bags from a previous generation (when Christmas wrapping was considered a luxury). We use them for family gifts and treasure their heirloom value. LED Christmas lights are highly ener-gy efficient, attractive, long lasting and durable, making them a very sustainable and cost effective choice. On the topic of electronics, consider giving recharge-able batteries along with your electronic gift. This will reduce waste, and save a great deal of money, since rechargeable

batteries can be used up to 2500 times, depending on model. As well, new powerbars can reduce ‘vampire loads’, by ensuring your device is truly off in-stead of drawing standby power. If you are moving out old electronics to make way for the new, be sure to use the UNA e-waste program to ensure proper recy-cling of your old device (find out more at www.myuna.ca/service/recycling). Finally, as you enjoy your great holi-day meals, be sure to use the UNA com-posting program when you’re cleaning up, if your building has this service (if not, find out how your building can par-ticipate at www.myuna.ca/service/recy-cling). However you choose to prepare for the holidays, I hope everyone has a happy (and sustainable) holiday season!

UNA residents donated old bikes at a bike drop organized with the student run UBC Bike Co-op in October. Residents are reminded they can donate bikes any-time and get bike supplies, repairs and advice at the Bike Kitchen at UBC Student Union Building (find out more at bikecoop.ca)

A Christmas wreath made from fallen materials found locally on the forest floor

Co-op Keeps Donations of Old Bikes Rolling in

中侨社区、语言与安顿服务部的专业工作人员为不同文化背景的人提供移民安顿服务。广泛的移民安顿服务让移民获得所需的知识和资源，得以适应加拿大的生活方式。

通过电话预约或者亲自前往，我们将对您提供一对一的协助。服务包括: 提供有关房屋，医疗，教育，考车牌，税制，加国福利, 就业市场介绍，具体行业分析等信息和转介服务。填写新移民所需申请的表格：医疗卡，牛奶金，成人英语学习（ELSA）等；定期开办新移民讲习班，讲座，以及联欢会。

从11月7日起，中侨互助会社会外展辅导员会在每周一Old Barn社区中心办公室办公。全天服务分两个时段：1.）预约时段：早上10点 - 下午1点；以及下午4点 - 5点，欢迎预先致电预约。电话： 604-408-7274分机2072 ，或者电邮到： [email protected].）自由时段：下午2点 4点，无需预约。

SUCCESS Settlement, Languages, and Community (SLC) Services Division provide services for new immigrants from diverse cultural backgrounds. The comprehensive settlement services help immigrants gain the knowledge and resources necessary to adapt to the Canadian way of life.We provide: One on one enquiries (drop in/appointment) on immigration, citizenship, housing, customs, medical and health, education, legal, family, employment, social benefit, transportation, and travel documents… etc. Assistance in form filling, making referrals and connecting to services and resources in the community. Conduct new immigrant orientation sessions, workshops, and welcoming parties.

Outreach program at the Old Barn Community Centre start on November 7, every Monday. 1.) By appointment: 10:00am - 1:00pm; and, 4:00 - 5:00pm. To make an appointment, please call 604-408-7274 ext 2072, or, Email: [email protected].) Drop-in: 2:00 – 4:00pm.

Settlement Introduction services NOW AT THE OLD BARN COMMUNITY CENTRE!

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT NOVEMBER 22, 2011


Advertise with us!

email

[email protected]

page 9

WESBROOK continued from Page 1.

Claire Robson, chair of the Keenleyside strata council, told The Campus Resi-dent before the November 22 committee meeting, “We are asking that members of the UBC board place the November 2011 amended Wesbrook Place Neighbour Land Use Plan under further review. The residents need more time to understand the impact and discuss their concerns with Campus & Community Planning. Meanwhile, on November 17, the University Neighbourhood Association (UNA) advised UBC in its strongest of-ficial note yet that the University risks negatively affecting the quality of life of Wesbrook residents unless it addresses a number of their concerns. In a report delivered to the committee meeting, UBC planning staff had scaled back some of their earlier proposals for amending the Wesbrook Place Neigh-bourhood Plan. For example, the staff report talks of re-ducing the number of high-rise buildings in Wesbrook Place and restricting their construction to the eastern (Pacific Spirit Park) edge of the neighbourhood “where the shadowing impact on community livability is minimized.” However, the report does not specify the reduced num-ber of high-rises, and residents remain appalled that UBC would even consider hiking the number of proposed high-rises to 15 compared to the five proposed when they bought property in South Campus a few years ago. The UBC staff report also offers resi-dents some relief by proposing a policy which requires minimum separation of 30 metres between these 15 (or less) high-rise buildings for privacy and views of the forested edge. This separation ex-ceeds the City of Vancouver’s standard of 24 metres, according to the report, which states, “It is expected that the average separation will be 45 metres with a range from 30 to 70 metres.” In a third concession to the concerns of residents and the UNA, the UBC planning document offers to address traffic-congestion concerns, by introduc-ing three new transportation measures. These measures would include opening a new road exit to West 16th Avenue at the north east corner of the neighbouhood (across 16th Avenue from the entrance to Hampton Place). Other concessions include a proposal to document the parks and green space in the neighbourhood to maximize livabil-ity there; a proposal to more closely tailor the capacity of the proposed new com-munity centre to meet the needs of the neighbouhood; and a proposal to build a new elementary school in the neighbour-

hood. Finally, the UBC planners pulled back from recommending that Wesbrook Place, facing population growth due to the shift of housing density from UBC Farm (now off limits to housing devel-opment), should accommodate a second shift of density—this time from a part of campus called Gage South. UBC students have strongly protested housing going up in Gage South, site of the current UBC bus depot and neigh-bour to such student-oriented institutions as the Student Union Building, War Me-morial Gym and the Student Recreation Centre. To the horror of Wesbrook resi-dents, UBC planners had floated the idea of adding 310,000 square feet of housing (from Gage) to the massive shift of den-sity from UBC Farm. Given the concerns of residents, the planning team concluded that “the 310,000 square feet from the Gage area cannot be accommodated in Wesbrook Place”. In voting in favour of sending the amended neighbouhood plan to the full board for approval, the UBC property and planning committee aligned itself with staff comments that “the proposed amendments strike a balance between im-proving housing choice and affordability through development of six-storey wood frame buildings, and distributing the transferred floorspace in the neighbour-hood in a way that supports livability.” The original neighbourhood plan had not referred to six-storey wood frame buildings because they were not legal then. However, British Columbia recent-ly amended its Building Code, and UBC seems destined to move aggressively into this area of multiple-family housing con-struction. Over-all, the committee agreed, “The amendments bring the Wesbrook Place neighbourhood plan in alignment and consistency with the Land Use Plan and Board of Governors’ policies for land use and development on the Vancouver cam-pus.” Only one governor opposed the mo-tion to approve planning changes in Wes-brook Place. UBC student Sean Heisler recommended more consultation with the public, including another open house. “What’s the rush” Mr. Heisler asked, echoing the call of Wesbroook resi-dents. “We could put this off another few months.” Another governor asked, “Where’s the UNA?” Indeed, governor Richard John-ston asked the question twice. A third di-rector referred to the UNA note.(See stories elsewhere on this page about positions of residents and the UNA.)

Mr. Joe StottDirector, PlanningUBC Campus & Community Planning2210 West Mall Vancouver, B.C., V6T 1Z4

Dear Mr. Stott,The UNA Board of Directors acknowl-edges and appreciates the special role it plays as an advisory board to the UBC Board of Governors. The UNA Board also acknowledges the opportunity given to UNA residents to become members of the Wesbrook Place (formerly South Campus Plan) Neighbourhood Plan Amendments Planning Committee. In a letter to you as Director of Cam-pus +Community Planning, on October 27, 2010, the UNA Board wrote that it strongly supported the designation of the UBC Farm from Future Housing Re-serve to Green Academic which the UNA Board understood would necessitate the transfer of density originally meant for the Farm to other areas on campus in-cluding Wesbrook Place, Acadia and Sta-dium Road. The UNA Board also strongly support-ed four main proposals in the UBC Cam-pus Land Use Plan that would contribute to housing affordability on campus: to in-crease the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) from 1.2 to 2.5 FSR, to allow 6 storey wood frame construction, to eliminate the re-quirement of providing 40% of housing units at ground level, and to eliminate the housing unit cap to encourage the build-ing of smaller, and more affordable hous-ing. The UNA Board continues to support the objectives of the UBC Campus Land Use Plan and supports amendments to the Wesbrook Place Neighbourhood Plan that are consistent with the Land Use Plan’s objective of creating a University Town with a high quality of life. However, the UNA Board also acknowledges that the proposed amendments to the Wesbrook Place Plan have caused serious concerns amongst some UNA residents that the proposed density transfer to Wesbrook Place might negatively affect their ‘qual-ity of life’. To address these concerns, the UNA Board of Directors strongly en-courages the UBC Board of Governors: 1. To maintain and preserve green space in Wesbrook Place by minimizing site coverage on high rise sites and maxi-

Board Bids UBC Communicate More with Residents on Wesbrook ProposalsUNA Letter to UBC Director of Planning, Nov.17

mizing green space within the public realm; and to this end, to reconsider the amount of gross buildable area in Wes-brook Place to achieve the “village in the woods” character of the community; 2. To implement a policy in the Plan that sets a minimum of 30 metres for sep-aration between high-rise buildings; 3. To develop a design vision for Wes-brook Place that will enhance the built environment in a natural setting; 4. To aggressively engage the appro-priate provincial ministries to resolve and confirm the regulatory authority that will allow the UNA to regulate, control and enforce parking bylaws. 5. To vest authority to the UNA to re-view the parking stall ratios in the UBC Development Handbook to assess the ad-equacy of these ratios; 6. To pace the build out of the Wes-brook Place neighbourhood to not more than 400 units per year to minimize nega-tive impact on residents and the environ-ment; 7. To transfer Gage South density cur-rently being considered for Wesbrook Place to other sites on campus including academic sites; 8. To commit to maximizing the num-ber of housing units dedicated to UBC’s work: live ratio to ensure affordable fac-ulty/staff accommodation; 9. To ensure that the sustainability of the Wesbrook Place neighbourhood con-tinues to evolve and improve through the upcoming review of the Residential Envi-ronmental Assessment Program (REAP) and the development of the Community Energy and Emissions Plan (CEEP), with special attention to inspiring and sustain-able design and public transportation, in-cluding rapid transit. The UNA Board strongly recommends that Campus + Community Planning conducts more thorough and effective communication with campus residents. We wish to reaffirm that the UNA is committed to the creation of a model University Town that is liveable, vibrant, and sustainable and at the same time we firmly support the university’s academic mission.

Sincerely,

Prod LaquianChair and President

By Claire Robson

We are asking that Members of the Board place the November 2011 amended Wes-brook Place Neighbour Land Use Plan under further review. The residents need more time to understand the impact and discuss their concerns with Campus & Community Planning (C+CP). We fully support the concept of a live-able, vibrant community on the UBC Campus. A community whose population includes the academic world and the gen-eral population is an ideal we share. As

Residents Request More Time for Review of Planning Report

owners, we have invested in the concept of affordable housing and the value of housing based on a work: live ratio. The shift in “farm’ density to Wesbrook Place dramatically changes the character of our neighbourhood. Residents of Wesbrook Place and the wider community are con-cerned. The amendments are, in reality, a completely new neighbourhood plan. We support our resident’s right to be heard and their right to have a ‘determin-ing say’ in issues that affect their neigh-bourhood. The desired outcome is one of informed citizenry and the consideration

of different points of view. This is lack-ing; C+CP’s communication has been incomplete. The Board’s acceptance of this new neighbourhood plan in the face of resi-dent opposition would send a wrong sig-nal to the resident community. Further review is reasonable.

Claire Robson, Wesbrook Place, is chair of the Keenleyside strata council


Thomas Beyer, newly-elected director of the University Neighbourhoods Asso-ciation, wants to see the pace of building homes in South Campus slowed. At the same time, he wants the height of at least one proposed high-rise building there in-creased dramatically. At the November board meeting of the UNA directors, Mr. Beyer—who has a business background—called for “a signa-ture building” in the large chunk of South Campus land being converted into a resi-dential neighbourhood called Wesbrook Place. This signature building would tow-er over its neighbours in Wesbrook Place, and Mr. Beyer says its erection would al-low UBC to slow down development to a point that residents who have bought homes there might find comfortable. “This signature building would rise 20 storeys, 40 storeys, 60 storeys,” Mr. Beyer said. “It would have views over all of the Lower Mainland and a view of Vancou-ver Island. People looking at this building should say, ‘Wow’.” Mr. Beyer said the ability of a signature building to house a vast number of resi-dents would reduce the need of UBC to mass-produce smaller buildings at a faster pace on what he referred to as the “larg-

Beyer Bids UBCBuild Slower, Taller

‘Signature building’ in South Campus could be

60 storeys, says new UNA director; with focus on

this building, development overall in South Campus

would be slowed

est piece of land under development in the Lower Mainland”. In recent months, Wes-brook residents have expressed anger at proposed UBC plans to densify Wesbrook Place such that its projected population on build-out will be 12,000, not 5,000 as originally projected. This growing concern of Wesbrook home-owners and others at the UBC plan for doubling the density of Wesbrook Place—comes as the UBC board of gov-ernors prepares to debate the issue. Over the last three or four months, UBC has held three Open Houses with structured question-and-answer sessions as a way of consulting with the public. Attendance has swelled with succes-sive Open Houses—the last one a packed house. At this last Open House, held on November 1, residents and others cheered the call of Claire Robson, chair of one of the condominium strata councils in Wes-brook Place, when Ms. Robson called for “a moratorium on development in South Campus.” Above and beyond the 17 sites cleared for development—and in some cases al-ready built on—under the existing neigh-bourhood plan, UBC proposes another 21. An amended plan would allow up to five more high-rises between 15 and 18 sto-ries; four more high-rises between 14 and 16 storeys; and 12 low-to-medium-rises between four and six storeys. Most of the new high-rises would stand in a line running just west of Pacific Spirit Park. A spokesman for the Pacific Spirit Park Society said her group was “not im-pressed in the least” with UBC plans for the proposed wall of high-rises on the east side of Wesbrook Place. Mr. Beyer attended the November 1

meeting, organized by the UBC campus and community planning department, and he offered to refer the concerns of local residents to the UNA board, which he did on November 8. He then urged the board to take up the matter with the UBC ad-ministration before the UBC board meets

December 1 to debate whether the densi-fication plan should go ahead. “The UNA should lobby UBC on behalf of the resi-dents,” he said. “We have failed todo this over the last couple of years.” A resident of Chancellor Place (at the opposite end to campus from Wesbrook Place), Mr. Beyer steps into this debate about property development in South Campus with experience in the steward-ship of real estate. In running for UNA office in Septem-ber, he listed some of his qualifications as follows: “As the president of Prestigious Properties and chairman of the board of the property management firm Fireside Property Group I am the chief steward for now close to 2,000 rental apartments in western Canada and Texas, co-owned by 500-plus investors, managed by a team of approximately 25 employees. Respon-sible governance, cost control, revenue improvements, property enhancements, and customer/tenant/ investor/employee satisfaction is my daily bread.” He gained the most votes of six candidates for the two vacant positions of resident-director.

Thomas Beyer


Members of a church at the University of British Columbia have appealed to Pre-mier—and local MLA—Christy Clark for relief from what they see as a draco-nian ‘No Parking’ rule imposed by UBC on the campus roadway outside the cha-pel where they worship on Sundays. The church-goers belong to St. Ignatius Parish, a Catholic church that has—for 55 years—held Sunday mass in the Cha-pel of St. Mark’s College which stands at 5935 Iona Drive in what was once called the theological precinct on campus. Other theological buildings standing in this northern corner of UBC include Chapel of the Epiphany, belonging to the Vancouver School of Theology (VST), St. Andrew’s Chapel in St. Andrew’s Hall, a Presbyterian facility, and Carey Theological College, a Baptist institu-tion. However, in recent years, the area—dominated architecturally by the Iona Building, belonging to the VST—has also become a compact residential neigh-bourhood called ‘Chancellor Place’, and responding to the many complaints of Chancellor Place condominium owners that Iona Drive was often cluttered with improperly parked cars, especially on Sundays, UBC recently erected a host of ‘No Parking’ signs compliant with the Motor Vehicle Act, a BC statute. St. Mark’s College stands at the east-ern end of Iona Drive, and until the new ‘No Parking’ signs went up, parishio-ners attending mass on Sunday morn-ings between 9 AM and noon routinely

parked cars on the north side of this nar-row roadway outside the Chapel. While UBC offers no paid or free parking on Iona Drive, it does offer paid parking at various removes, including on Walter Gage Road a few hundred yards away to the south and at a large parkade north of the Student Union Building, a half mile away. Parishioners—many of them elderly—say they do not find the prospect of park-ing at these alternate locations appealing. They also find the new no-parking re-gime galling since UBC seems not to im-pose the same regime elsewhere on cam-pus—at least judging by the high number of cars seen parked in its other residential neighbourhoods. Speaking with one voice in a series of ‘Open Letters’ to Premier Clark, the pa-rishioners say UBC should find a way to waive the new no-parking regulations on Iona Drive—with their threat of cars being towed while the congregation wor-ships—for the short duration in which mass is held on Sunday mornings and at other times of religious observance. The church-goers feel the threat of tow-ing while they worship has already had a significant negative impact on Sunday attendance. While many residents may welcome sight of the new ‘No Parking’ signs UBC has erected on Iona Drive as a means of reducing traffic on the narrow roadway, not all do. In October, The Campus Resi-dent printed a Letter to the Editor from resident Elizabeth Hawthorne in which Ms. Hawthorne commented: “I find the large new ‘No Parking’ signs around my Chancellor Place neighbourhood appear intimidating and ugly. A ‘police-state’ atmosphere is surely not necessary in the refined environs of UBC.” Please see ‘Open Letters’ of parishio-ners to Premier Christy Clark appeal-ing new ‘No Parking’ signs on Iona Drive elsewhere on this page.

Letters Re Parking on Sundays in Chancellor Place

This is to request that the current blan-ket ‘No Parking’ regulation along Iona Drive be amended to permit parking on Iona Drive by parishioners of St. Ignatius Church (at the UBC Chapel of St. Mark’s College) during Mass hours, normally Saturdays at 5PM and Sundays and other holidays of obligation from 9AM to 12 Noon and weekdays between 12Noon and 1PM. Religious worship has always been con-sidered a sacred human right. Religious services have been held at the site for the past 55 years (since 1956) and consider-ing that the site is not easily accessible by public transport, this request is to permit parishioners to park on the road for very limited periods during the services. Please note that the church and congregation are relatively small, and based on my obser-vation, street parking would probably be limited to only about five to 12 cars at any one time. We trust that, as the MLA for this dis-trict, you will take the necessary steps to grant this request by your constituents.Antonio and Cecilia Carpio, 14th Ave W, VancouverMarissa Peña, Newton Wynd, UEL

I write to humbly request your attention to a situation that has recently crept up in our St. Ignatius Parish, located within the UBC campus area at 5935 Iona Drive. The chapel at which we worship, in conjunc-tion with St. Mark’s and Corpus Christi Colleges, has had limited parking within its area from their inception. As a result, our worshippers on Sundays from 9:30am – 12:30pm have parked along the side of the relatively narrow Iona Drive from time immemorial. We are not aware of any par-ticular difficulty this fact has imposed on anyone. Quite a few of the parishioners attend from a significant distance and some others are disabled and so the use of a personal automobile has usually been necessary to allow them to attend Sunday worship. Very recently within the past month, the signage on Iona Drive has been changed to indicate “No Parking” at any time with a risk of violators being towed away. This untimely change has already had a signifi-cant negative impact on our Sunday atten-dance. We feel strongly that our Christian worship adds significantly to community building and creating social capital. We are mindful that Parking Regula-tions in many areas often allow parking at certain times such as on weekends, af-ter 6:00pm etc. Allowing parking on Iona drive on the side of the chapel for the 9:30am – 12:30 AM time window on Sun-days and on Holy Days of Obligation such as Good Friday can be selective without creating inconvenience to any! The total prohibition of parking at all times seems unduly strict! We are informed that the Ministry of Transport bears jurisdiction over this mat-ter, so this letter is being so copied. We humbly request your good graces in look-ing into this matter as our elected repre-sentative.Felix Durity, Chancellor Boulevard Res-ident

We are writing to protest the change in parking enforcement on Sunday morn-ings along Iona Drive in the theological part of the UBC campus. It is clear that al-lowing unlimited parking during the week would cause a problem because some of the people spending the day at UBC would

park their cars for the day along Iona. There is no need to forbid parking com-pletely, however, since the problem could be solved by limiting parking on Iona to a maximum of two hours. We can testify that parking on Iona on Sunday mornings causes little or no prob-lem. We attend 9:30 AM mass in the chapel shared by St. Ignatius parish, St. Mark’s college and Corpus Christi Col-lege. We park legally elsewhere on cam-pus and walk to the chapel. Sometimes we choose a walking route that runs along most of Iona Drive, and we see no conges-tion at that time. Our parish serves seniors and people with health issues that make it difficult for them to attend services without parking nearby. The same applies to families with very young children. Remember the multiple references on the webpage http://www.bcliberals.com/ to “putting families first.”John and Frances Fournier, West Ninth Avenue. Vancouver

As parishioners of St. Ignatius of Anti-noch at UBC, we wish to have the new parking regulations waived on the south side of Iona Drive for the hours of wor-ship (9:00AM to 1:00PM) on Sundays. Our parishioners have been parking there since 1956 and feel we should be ‘grand-fathered’ in respect to the new parking regulations. Many of the churches in Vancouver ei-ther do not have any regulations or mini-mal regulations if they are on local streets. Or the streets are widened to accommo-date added lanes. But total prohibition of parking on narrow streets like Iona Drive is discriminatory particularly when the Parish and the College preceded all the residential development.Gerard and Elizabeth Farry, Balsam St. Vancouver

Mea Culpa. I am an illegal parker on Sun-days. Years ago, there used to be several small pay parking lots near the church my family attends on Sundays. Those lots be-came high price condominiums and now the churchgoers’ cars are an inconve-nience to residents. I would like to make two points: 1. Regardless of the posted signs, what law or bylaw am I breaking? Please tell me the exact bylaw, and under which ju-risdiction is it illegal to park a vehicle on the road in the area in question. 2. This towing threat seems very targeted against churchgoers. Sunday worshipers park for about an hour on Sundays. Yet there are hundreds of illegally parked cars in other neighbourhoods. Here are some examples (yes I counted them):• Between 150 to 200 cars parked daily from Monday to Friday in the Wesbrook Place neighbourhood south of 16th Ave. • Around 100 cars in the Hawthorn Place neighbourhood. Just look how empty of cars those roads are, ironically, on Sun-days. The point is: Why are Christians being singled out? It will be heavy-handed to start towing cars from people attending a religious service for a short period of time, particularly if there are no clearly defined bylaws, and there are worse offenders in your neighbourhoods.J. D. Jimenez, UEL Resident

(Note from Editor. UBC advises that parking on Iona Drive between the “no-parking” signs is a violation of the Mo-tor Vehicle Act, which is a BC statute.)

St Mark’s (Roman Catholic) College stands at the entrance to Iona Drive, UBC. Parishioners seek exemption from no-parking rules on Sundays when attending church there.

Parishioners Plead for Exemption from New ‘No Parking’ Rule

Parking has not been regu-lated outside Chapel of St.

Mark’s College at UBC in 55 years; now, UBC is threatening to tow parked cars while congregation

worships

Call for volunteersfor the UNA Emergency Preparedness Committee

Please contact [email protected].


A Metro representative said the rationale for Metro marking up the rate at which water is sold to the UEL has to do with location of the UEL outside the Metro water district. The Metro staff member also said the 20% mark-up has to be seen in the light of the UEL having no liability for debts incurred by the water district as it finances improvements in its facilities, which fetch top-quality water from the North Shore Mountains and filtrate it. History aside, the double mark-up ac-counts for UBC residents paying 30% more for a cubic metre of water than residents of, say, Vancouver, and this has some asking whether the grounds for one or other mark-up (or both) should be reviewed. Maria Harris, re-elected on November 19 as Metro Vancouver direc-tor for Electoral Area A (which includes UBC and the UEL) thinks the idea of a review is good, at least as far as the 20% mark up is concerned. In a report to the November meeting of the University Neighbourhoods Association (UNA), Ms. Harris says, “The 20% mark-up has been in place since 1949. The circum-stances that exist today are very different from those in 1949.” As an example of circumstances being different today than in 1949, Ms. Harris points to “the large number of people who now live on the UBC peninsula, the majority of them on UBC lands.” In con-trast, no one lived at UBC in 1949 and only a few hundred lived in the UEL. While Ms. Harris offered comments on the 20% mark-up, she declined to do so on the 10% mark-up, which she called “a private arrangement between UBC and the UEL. “It would not be appropriate for me to comment,” she said. As a result of the price structure which supports these two mark-ups, The Cam-pus Resident understands Metro will sell water to its member municipalities (Vancouver, Surrey, Richmond, etc) at

a rate of $0.5437 per cubic meter in the off-peak period starting January 1, 2012. In contrast, it will sell water to the UEL at $0.6524 per cubic meter (reflecting the 20% rate hike), and the UEL will then charge UBC for water at a rate of $0.7176. Meanwhile in the summer season, Met-ro will sell water to its member munici-palities at a rate of $0.6796. In contrast, it will sell then to the UEL at a rate of $0.8155, and the UEL will sell some of this water to UBC at a rate of $0.8971 per cubic meter. Metro water rates have more than dou-bled in the last five years. They are ex-pected to rise by more than 50% in the next five years.

WATER continued from Page 1.

Aerial of region’s Seymour-Capilano Filtration Plant (Photo Metro Vancouver)

Contributing a column to The Campus Resident about UBC Biodiversity Col-lections is a great opportunity for me to keep your community informed about the exhibits, events, programming, and much more available to you at our facili-ties. More than that, it opens the door to a dialogue that can benefit all of us. First, let me introduce “UBC Biodi-versity Collections”. In April, the UBC Botanical Garden and Centre for Plant Research was transferred from its long-time home (Land and Food Systems) to the Faculty of Science to join UBC’s new natural history collection, the Beaty Biodiversity Museum (aka “the Whale”) within a new unit, UBC Biodiversity Collections. Understanding biodiversity is among the most pressing scientific challenges of our time. Bringing these two research and public facilities togeth-er reflects the University’s commitment to meeting the challenge. As many of you know, the Garden just

Biodiversity in your backyardhosted the 21st annual Apple Festival. We are still tallying the results but there is no question that the event was a success, introducing many new visitors to the gar-den and raising funds that will contribute significantly to our research, education, conservation and public outreach goals. I suspect it is less widely known that this year the Garden saw the first of what we hope will be seasonal UNA/Garden events, a late summer Magic Show and Pumpkin carving at the Pavilion the week before Halloween. All UNA members are entitled to a free yearly membership on presentation of your community services card at our front gate. botanicalgarden.ubc.ca will keep you up-to-date about upcoming events and courses. The Garden’s new sister facility, the Beaty Biodiversity Museum, is a state-ment of the majesty and intimacy of life here on Earth. Committed to a shared sense of community and wonder, “the Beaty” is Vancouver’s only museum dedicated to just natural history. Among its treasures are a 26-metre-long blue whale skeleton suspended in the Djavad Mowafaghian Atrium, the third-largest

Patrick Lewis, Director, UBC Biodiversity Collections

fish collection in the nation, and myriad fossils, shells, insects, fungi, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and plants from the province and the world. This unique combination of a world-class, university-based research collection and compelling exhibits aims to make research at UBC more accessible to the public. UNA members receive a pre-ferred rate on yearly membership. The Beaty celebrated its first birthday this October by introducing new fam-ily and children programming, installing Phase One of a timeline marking geologi-cal and biological events, and equipping the museum for art shows and temporary exhibits. The UNA closed out the month with a Halloween bash at the Beaty that drew over 400 people. I am also pleased to announce that we are now able to show the documentary “Raising Big Blue” in the museum audi-torium. The film follows the whale from the red earth of PEI to enzyme baths in Victoria to the atrium ceiling. Drama to keep you engaged. Please consult the UNA website or speak to one of our staff for more information. beatymuseum.ubc.ca gives a full list of programs. Patrick Lewis

Ultraviolet light disinfection units in Seymour-Capilano Filtration Plant (Photo Metro Vancouver)

campus resident november 2011

Documents

rates ubc residents

ubc water storyfirst

favour of metro vancouver

ubc property

metro watersecond

ubc board of governors

results page

university endowment