The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004-10-25 Workshop Agenda and ReportsCORPORATION OF THE MAPLE RIDGE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: Her Worship Mayor Kathy Morse DATE: October 20, 2004 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Council Workshop SUBJECT: Additional Bank Signing Officers Required EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: To add two additional bank signing officers to our approved list for banking transactions. RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Manager of Revenue & Collections/Business Analyst be appointed as an additional signing officer for the Municipality's general and payroll accounts until the return to work of one of the other signing officers; and further That the Leisure Centre Customer Service Supervisor be appointed as a signing officer for the Parks and Leisure Services Department Imprest Fund Account. BACKGROUND: General and Payroll Accounts: The Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge requires two signing officers for bank transfers, cheques, bank drafts and financial investment transactions. One signing officer must be a Council member while the other is a non-elected employee from the Finance Department. At the moment the Director of Finance, Jake Sorba, is our only non-elected employee available for our banking transactions. One of our signing officers, Dennis Sartorius, is on medical leave and it is uncertain when he-wii-1 be-able to return to work. Our other signing officer, Laura Benson, is currently on maternity leave. It is extremely important that another signing officer is appointed in the event that Jake Sorba becomes unavailable as well. Upon full return to work by one of the other signing officers, the Manager of Revenue & Collections/Business Analyst will be removed from our approved list for banking transactions. Imprest Fund Account: There should be three signing officers for this account and now there are only two as Melanie Wozniak no longer works for the District. As the Leisure Centre Customer Service Supervisor can also sign cheques, it is recommended by the Manager of Marketing & Customer Service to appoint this employee as the additional approved signing officer. 16 ft- dtdd2d CONCLUSION: With the addition of both signing officers, there would be less risk in completing our banking transactions in a timely matter. Prepared by: Arlene Oosten-Weils Clerk H Approved 4Sorba, C.G.A. Director of Finance Approved by: 1 Paul Gill, B.B.A., C.G.A., F.R.M. General Manager, Corporate and Financial Services Concurrence:Aief. (Jim) Rule Administrative Officer A0:ao Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge COUNCIL WORKSHOP A GENDA October 25, 2004 9:00 a.m.. Blaney Room, 1st Floor, Municipal Hall The purpose of the Council Workshop is to review and discuss policies and other items of interest to Council. Although resolutions may be passed at this meeting, the intent is to make a consensus decision to send an item to Council for debate and vote or refer the item back to stafffor more information or clarification. REMINDERS October 25 Closed Council Following Audit & Finance Committee Audit & Finance Committee 2:00 p.m. October 26 Council, The ACT 7:00 p.m. ADOPTION OF THE A GENDA MINUTES - October 18, 2004 PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQ UEST OF COUNCIL UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS 4.1 GVRD Extended Producer Responsibility, Nancy Knight (9:00 a.m. - 9:30 a.m.) 4.2 OCP Review (9:30a.m. - 12:00 noon) -'4 Council Workshop October 26, 2004 Page 2 of 3 4.3 Third Quarter Performance Review (l:OOp.m. - 2:00p.m.) Presentation by Finance Department 5. CORRESPONDENCE The following correspondence has been received and requires a response. Staff is seeking directionfrom Council on each item. Options that Council may consider include: Acknowledge receipt of correspondence and advise that no further action will be taken. Direct staff to prepare a report and recommendation regarding the subject matter. Forward the correspondence to a regular Council meeting for further discussion. Once direction is given the appropriate response will be sent. 6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL 7. MA TTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT 8. ADJOURNMENT Checked by Date: r Council Workshop October 26, 2004 Page 3 of•3 Rules for Holding a Closed Meeting A part of a council meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to one or more of the following: personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is being considered for a position as an officer, employee or agent of the municipality or another position appointed by the municipality; personal information about an identifiable individual who is being considered for a municipal award or honour, or who has offered to provide a gift to the municipality on condition of anonymity; labour relations or employee negotiations; the security of property of the municipality; the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality; (0 law enforcement, if the council considers that disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the conduct of an investigation under or enforcement of an enactment; litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality; an administrative tribunal hearing or potential administrative tribunal hearing affecting the municipality, other than a hearing to be conducted by the council or a delegate of council the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose; information that is prohibited or information that if it were presented in a document would be prohibited from disclosure under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act; negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are at their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the council, could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality if they were held in public; (1) discussions with municipal officers and employees respecting municipal objectives, measures and progress reports for the purposes of preparing an annual report under section 98 [annual municipal report] a matter that, under another enactment, is such that the public may be excluded from the meeting; the consideration of whether a council meeting should be closed under a provision of this subsection of subsection (2) the consideration of whether the authority under section 91 (other persons attending closed meetings) should be exercised in relation to a council meeting. information relating to local government participation in provincial negotiations with First Nations, where an agreement provides that the information is to be kept confidential. One large truck trailer (called a B-Train) from a ~, station holds about ®rL,~ transfer 37 tonnes (the equivalent garbage produced by 1,000 homes in one week). Transfer Station Garbage and recyclables are dropped off by local residents, businesses and garbage collection contractors. [II' Landfill Incinerator What are They? As part of the Greater Vancouver Regional District's (GVRD) integrated waste management system, transfer stations provide a vital link between the flow of waste that begins at our curb and the garbage that ends up at a waste disposal facility. Transfer stations have two primary functions: 1 . They provide convenient locations for local waste to be dropped off, loaded intolarge trucks and hauled to disposal sites. This reduces travel distances, traffic and air pollution. 4 - - jj • • - . • . o -o 2. They screen incoming garbage for hazardous wastes and recyclable materials prior to disposal. This lessens the impact on the environment by reducing the amount of garbage to be disposed of and helps recover valuable resource material. Minimal Environmental !mpact. Unlike most waste disposal sites, transfer stations have fewer negative impacts, such as methane gas, odours or leachate. OPENED: First transfer station in 1983, replacing the Coquitlam landfill Existing transfer stations opened between 1986- 1989. SCOPE: Transfer stations annuallyréceive approximately 850,000 metric tonnes of garbage and recyclables - about 70%of the municipal solid waste stream (the rest going direct to landfill or incinerator). Transfer stations are operated and maintained by independent contractors, by way of public, private partnership agreements or contracts. Greater Vancour Regional District Where Does Your Garbage Go? GVRD SYSTEM I Cache Creek FMatsqui 1 apIeRidge _J Landfill -_ Transfer Station Transfer Station] r North Shore - urna y TransferStationj Incinerator Icoquitlam - I Resource Langley Vancouver __________ Vancouver Recovery Transfer South Transfer j Landfill Plant -- -- L'°----- Recycling Services All transfer stations have a recycling depot on-site or nearby for residents and small businesses to drop off recyclables free of charge. In most cases, the recycling depots are operated by non-profit or municipally sponsored organizations. Call the numbers shown below for information on recyclables accepted. Not all transfer stations accept the same kind of recyclables, so don't waste a trip! p. Materials Normally Accepted Free of (barge from Residents Only: Plastics, newsprint, cardboard, glass bottles and jars, metals and appliances. There is a charge for accepting gypsum wallboard, lead acid batteries and oil filters. Materials Not Accepted: Hazardous, extremely large, dusty, or hot materials (for example, barbecue coals) liquids and sludges. Other materials may also be restricted. If you have questions, please contact your local transfer station. Handle with Care! When delivering old refrigerators and freezers to a transfer station for recycing,be careful not to damage the units. This may cause chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) to release into the air. The GVRD has a program for the safe removal and recycling of CFCs, which are con- sidered to pose a significant risk to the ozone layer. • North Shore Transfer Station 30 Riverside Drive, North Vancouver •, • (604) 929-5471 Open Monday to Saturday,8 a.m.- 5p.m. __ Dollarton Open Sundays,10a.m.-5p.m. Closed Christmas, News Year's Day, Good Friday. A recycling depot, operated by the North Shore Recycling Program (phone 981-3124), is located adjacent to the station. I -. • oquitIarn Resource Recovery Plant_________ 1200 United Boulevard,Coquitlam I (604) 521-1715 .,.L. Highway I OpenMondaytoFriday,6:3Oa.m.-p.m. -r OpenSaturdays,8a.rn.-5p.m. - - OpenSundays,lOa.m.-5p.m. Closed Christmas, New Year's Day and Good Friday - United Blvd. • A recycling depot,operated on behalf of the City of coquitlani,is located at the station. Vancouver South Transfer Station 377 West Kent Avenue North, Vancouver, t .- • (604)323-7737 . Open Monday to Friday,6:30 a.m.- 5p.m. Open weekends and some holidays,9 am.- 5p.m. Closed Christmas and New Year's Day - A recycling depot, operated by the City of Vancouver, is located at e station. Kent Ave. N. Maple Ridge Residential Transfer Station 10092- 236th Street, Maple Ridge (604) 466-9277 Open Monday, Thursday to Saturday,8 a.m.- 5p.m. Open Tuesday and Wednesday, 10 am.- 7p.m. Open Sundays, 10a.m.- 5p.m. Closed all statutory holidays Loads larger than one tonne directed to the Matsqui station A recycling depot, operated by the Ridge Meadows Recycling Society (phone 463-5545), is located on site. Albion 0 Mats qui Transfer Station 33621 Valley Road, Abbotsford (604) 853-0508 Vlley Rd. Open Monday to Friday, 7a.m.- 5p.m.Hazelnod Open Saturdays, 8 am.- 5p.m. - ' Closed Sundays, Christmas, Boxing Day, New Year's Day, and Good Friday. • A recycling depot, operated bythe Matsqui/Abbotsford ' Community Services (phone (604) 850-3551), is located adjacent to the station... Langley Residential Transfer Station__________ 1070-272nd Street, Aldergrove (604) 856-3225 Fraser Hihway Al Open Monday to Saturday, 8 a.m.-5 p.m. Open Sunday,lOa.m.5 p.m. Closed all statutory holidays. Loads larger than one tonne directed to the Matsqui station. Accepts limited recyclables. 8 Ave For more information and waste. Or call: disposal rates, please call: The B.C. Recycling Hotline Greater Vancouver Regional District (604) RE-CYCLE (7329253) Contracted Services (toll-free outside the Lower Engineering and Construction Department Mainland 1-800-6674321) The Consumer Products Stewardship Program Hotline (Paint, Solvents, Pesticides, Gasoline) (604) 878-8700 gjjee outside the Lower - Burnaby, B.C. V5H 4G8 Phone (604) 451-6185 Fax (604) 451-6180 Web site: www.gvrd.bcc • e-mail: comm_edgvrd.bc.cá - 2.000/03/00 - - 1 -UU-5O5-0139 The GVRD includes the municipalities of Anmore, Belcarra, Bowen Island Municipality, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Delta, Langley City, Langleylownship, Lions Bay, Maple Ridge, New Westminster, North Vancouver City, North Vancouver District, Pitt Meadows, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Richmond, Surrey,Vancouver, West Vancouver and White Rock and Electoral Area A. The GVRD also serves the City of Abbotsford for the parks function. • Extended Producer Responsibility October 25, 2004 Presentation to Maple Ridge Council iI?JTiTi['[.(.i {.X.]i11I1llL •''.ee,,* , I Also known as: •Manufacturers' Responsibility •Product Stewardship EPR Fundamental Principles -1 • Those who produce, sell or use a Droduct take responsibility for the management and impacts of that product from "Cradle to Cradle" • EPR shifts financial and operational responsibility for managing wastes from government & taxpayers to manufacturers & consumers. 1 EPR Fundamental Principles - 2 • All infrastructure and operation fully provided by industries, not governments • Systems fully funded by fees collected from consumers - i.e. "user pay" • Provides drivers for improved product design EPR and Solid Waste Management Plans • Integrated parts of regional SWMP5 by: - Addressing some of the most toxic and difficult to handle products - Moving management out of municipal responsibility - Integrating province & product stewards as key partners in SWMPs Evolution of EPR Programs 1. Governments finance, administer and operate 'Historic' method waste material management system. I E.g. Organic waste and operate waste material management system. I Eg. Tires, l,4tmi1es waste material management system. 2 BC's EPR Programs • Beverage containers (1970) ' • Tires & auto batteries (1991) s. A • Used motor oil (1992) • Paint (1994) • Solvents, flammable liquids, - pesticides, medications (1997) • Expanded beverage containers (1998) • Expanded oil, fllters, containers (2003) Paint, Pesticides, Solvents • 1994 Paint Care Product C'e • 1997 Solvent Care, Consumer Product Care • 1999, 2001 amalgamations into - - Product Care - • Depots province-wide A• Paint, Pesticides, Solvents • 'Loophole' exempts 'poison' labeled products from Product Care program • Ztivate 3 Impact of EPR on Containers 40 35 30 S 25 lJMetal CL 20 15 •Plastic .10 0) 0 1998 2001 Impact of EPR on I-IHW 12 10 0 Used oil bottles 'U I Paint, solvents, I pestiddes I •Other I: LNOTE: introductlo n of 1 Sinco the 0. 2 2 EPR the HHW disposed is mostly empty containers. Small Appliances Disposed 10 _______________________ NOTE: Electronics are the focus of future EPR 8 programs 6 /uComPuter CL equipt. . •Others 0 0.2 0 1998 2001 EPR RsuIts in GVRD PToduc.t Recovery GVRD tonnes Lead-add batterIes 99% 4,956 Tires 96% 46,740 Lubricating oil 80% 20,000 Medications n/a 5.6 Paint n/a 1,968 Flammable liquids n/a 21 Pesticides n/a 3.5 Beverage contahiers Non-alcoholIc Wine & spirIts Beer coriners 75% 91% 96% 12,680 24,900 53,539 TOTAL 164,813 Benefits of EPR to GVRD • Diverted 165,000 tonnes in 2002 - saving local government $22 M/year • Reduced litter • Reduced liabilities and regulatory issues • Places responsibility on producer and not local government EPR Governance • Establish stewardship organization (non- profit) • Level playing field for industry • Requires plans • Requires participation in plans • Plans approved by Province Extended Producer Responsibility Questions? (End of presentation) The previous slide was the end of the presentation; The following slides are SPARES Early EPR Programs •Automotive Tires & Lead Acid Batteries 9"lst generation" EPR: Consumers finance, government administers credits to processors Medications • BC EnviRx, 1996 • Voluntary industry program • Internalized costs • 643 retail pharmacies ENiP Used Lubricating Oil • 1992-2003 retailer stewardship program for oil only • 2003 BCUOMA program for oil, filters and containers • EHC's collected by retailers, administered by BCUOMA 7 Beverage Containers : 1997 Beverage Container Regs • Encorp Pacific (non- alcoholic containers) • BC LDB (wine & spirits) E ' • Western Brewers Association (beer) Official Community Plan Presentation What is an Official Community Plan? • Required by provincial legislation; • Defined as "a statement of objectives and policies to guide decisions on planning and land use management within the area covered by the plan'; • Guide for Council in decision making; applies predictable parameters for growth and development for the community; and • Must conform with the regional plan via regional context statements. What is an Official Community Plan? cont'd - • -- strategies: Protect the Green Zone Build Complete Communities Achieve a Compact Metropolitan Region; and Increase Transportation Choice. • Must submit statement and be accepted by the GVRD Board. / 1 What an Official Community Plan is not? - • Not a zoning bylaw - should not be over regulated; Not the only document to define the community; and Not a detailed planning document - detail found in other plans or documents. Goals of the Official Community Plan Review • Update information and ensure land use policies are current; • Examine existing policy to ensure it is current; • Adjust the plan to reflect new information; and • Create balance and certainty in the community. Process - -• -- • Produce background papers to provide information and identify issues; • Work with focus groups to gauge appropriateness; • Present paper to Council - draft policies; • Official Community Plan to wider public consultation; and • Present Plan to Council for adoption. Where we are? o' Co.npIted + To bo preo.nted dofng 2004 CoonOil wo.bohop. lyp. P000t.tion of OCP R00w - Stg,s of PofOy F0000Jon Dr.ft Polioy Or.ft D,Oft B.okg,00nd R.00000.fld.04n. Pollol.. OCP R.po,t C0000.00I.I SP R Indoohiol 1' • 0 Honitog. AgrIoOttot • 0 V. EnvIonntootoI • RooIdontl.I • Workshop Goals • Present background; - review recommendations; : • Review draft policies; • Identify issues; and '- • Seek direction to go to public consultation in 2005. — — Thank You! - 3 Agriculture in Maple Ridge Situational Analysis and Policy Recommendations Zbeetnoff Agro-Environmental Consulting Quadra Planning Consultants Ltd. October. 2004 Agriculture is a vital component of the Maple Ridge economy In 2000; • Annual Gross Farm • million i • Total investment in fixed faim assets = $170 million • Valueofspin-offs=$4Oto • Total contribution = $79 to $98 million • Jobs = 780 to 1040 full and part-time Maple Ridge agriculture - a diversified industry. - - -- - •237farms Greenhouse, poultry and mushroom : Nursery and florsculture • Horses, hay and pasture -i4 • Sheep, goats and cattle r' --'•'----• • Vegetables, berries, fruit and nut tmes • Exotic livestock such as llamas, emus 1 V I P,Agn4Av(,l, 250J : - r - - Agricultural Land - The Critical Component • 15% land base (3,850 ha) designated for agriculture & is in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) • Designation is based on agricultural capability • More than 97% of the ALR is of Class Ito 4, considered veiy good land and suitable for agriculture • Total farmland in Census (2000)= 1,615 ha • 27% of farms are outside the ALR • 35%ALRlandis - farmed * • Farming is done on a - range of parcel sizes and agriculture is productive on small parcels as well - as large ones 2 Ancillary Benefits of Agriculture • Agriculture contributes directly to the "character" of Maple Ridge. • Agricultural land is a key component of the GVRD's - Green Zone and provides many ecogicai and • 94% of Maple Ridge residents 'I- . expressed the desire to retain - thu heritage. Ui LU Angus Rind Group Inc. 1995. Maple Ridge opinion poll • 76% of residents place high priority for action to ensure that the District maintain its rural character. 121 'F S • A workshop held with rural residents in the Maple Ridge . -. ALR in February 2004, as part of this ajiicultural review, confirmed not only - a strong desire to preserve rural character but also overwhelming support for ' the ALR and farming [2] The Mustel Grcsip 2003. Slrategic Plan Canmunhty Survey Current Policy Context • The current OCP designates over 96% of the A-LR- for agriculture -- — — — -. • This is an important policy statement as it provides a vision and land base foundation for the future of agriculture in the community. It sends a message that agriculture is a valued industry within the District. • The historic land use zoning within the ALR, however, permits non-farm uses which may contribute to a perception that agriculture is not actually the primary use. 3 Current Issues Compared to other municipalities in the GVRD • Value of fixed assets is declining • Number of farmers is dropping • Agricultural land is being taken out of- production • Agriculture is losing intellectual capital Why is This Happening? • Encroachment by other land uses • Two thirds of the ALR is not being used for farming • Farming opportunities being limited by rural- urban conflicts • Some necessary conditions for efficient farming are not available • Uncertain land use policies Is There Value in Agriculture? • Significant contributor to c ommunity based income and employment • High returns per hectare • Helps meet accepted goals for growth management and more sustainable communities • Rural heritage, lifestyle and landscapes valued by residents • Provides fresh, high quality, locally grown food • Significant contributor to an environmentally healthy region • Opportunities for - - - tourism, niche markets • Creates more complete communities What Can Be Done to En sure Agriculture Continues to Prosper and Provide Long-Term Benefits for Maple Ridge? Articulate the importance and desirability of local agriculture • Enhanced OCP Policies • Enhanced Regional Context Statement Maintain the integrity of agricultural land and resources • Retain existing agriculture in rural areas • Avoid conflicts at the rural-urban interface Understand what is - - - needed for sustainable agriculture • Support environmentally - - sustainable agricultural objectives • Plan for infrastructuic to meet the needs of agriculture 5 Policy Recommendations Reaffirm the importance of the agricultural land base • Articulate the importance of agriculture clearly in the revised OCP and in the Regional Context Statement, including its role as part of the Green Zone. • Adopt an OCP policy of "No-Net-Loss-to- Agriculture Guiding Principle" to maintain agricultural capability in Maple Ridge • align agricultural zoning and land use designations to maintain the resource base • increase minimum lot sizes in RS-3 zone • add land to the ALR to replace lost capability Facilitate conditions necessary fo r sustainable agriculture • Revise bylaws to ensure consistency and harmonize with Provincial Right to Farm legislation • Implement Development Permit Areas on lands outside but adjacent to the ALR to provide a buffer for agricultural activities (landscaping, setbacks) • Consider establishing an Agricultural Advisoiy Committee Promote agriculture as a corn ponent of Maple Ridge's economic strategy • Articulate desirable agricultural business opportunities • Pursue agriculture opportunities as part of economic and industrial strategy • Assist agricultural landowners to identify and develop agricultural opportunities • Encourage access by agricultural landowners to agricultural programs • Promote the sale of local agricultural products within the community Promote Agricultural Opportunities • Circulate information on agricultural activities • Raise public awareness of agric ultural values and issues • Inventory products, land use and inform public • Develop a database of farm operators • Promote agricultural heritage initiatives 7 . MAPLE RIDGE A COMMUNITY OF COMMUNITIES Official Community Plan Review DRAFT HERITAGE POLICIES Heritage Policy Review Process Part of the overall Official Community Plan Review which also includes assessments of commercial and industrial land use, environmental issues, agriculture and residential needs; Identified by the Community Heritage Commission as their main project for 2002 & 2003 and involved the participation of: • Heritage Commission Heritage Policy Review Subcommittee; - • Summer Planning Student, hired in 2002; • Planning Department staff; • Maple Ridge Museum staff; and • Local residents and other members of the Heritage Commission through interviews and guided research tours throughout the community; ' MAPLE RIDGE - A COMMUNITY OF COMMUNITIES Offl,I Cu, RI,,, DRAFT HERITAGE POLICIES 11 Process Cm4SUiThi1°4 [j9 }4 Current Phase MAPLE RIDGE A COMMUNITY OF COMMUNITIES OffiUI Co, rooniv PIo 0000w DRAFT HERITAGE POLICIES MAPLE RIDGE Process Heritage Discussion Paper - Fall 2003; Heritage Focus Group Workshop - November 2003; Final Heritage Discussion Paper - March 2004; Heritage Policies - September 2004; : MAPLE RIDGE A COMMUNITY OF COMMUNITIES OIIIoOI CornwunOy 'lw. Roolow --- .. DRAFT HERITAGE POLICIES 2 Existing Official Community Plan. Heritage Policies Policy 92. Maple Ridge will prepare a Community Heritage Register and Heritage Management Plan to ensure management of heritage resources in the community; - Policy 93. Maple Ridge will recognize significant heritage areas and will consider designation of these areas as Historic Commercial or Heritage Conservation Areas to ensure development which respects their heritage character, subject to the outcome of the Zoning review; Policy 94. Maple Ridge recognizes and supports the use of public advisory committees of volunteers to assist in advising Council on issues of the day; MAPLE RIDGE A COMMUNITY OF COMMUNITIES Official Comaunity Plan Rnnl,w DRAFT HERITAGE POLICIES Draft Official Community Plan Heritage Policies Ten issues were identified in the final Heritage Discussion Paper and have been organized into the categories of Heritage Recognition, Heritage Management and Heritage Education. The categories are intended to provide a policy framework for new heritage conservation initiatives. They will also assist theCommunity Heritage Commission-by-identifying potential project and program areas to be considered as part of their annual Business Plan. MAPLE RIDGE A COMMUNITY OF COMMUNITIES OIEcial CccnmI,nily Plan R,niOW DRAFT HERITAGE POLICIES 5.1 Draft Official Community Plan Heritage Policies HERITAGE RECOGNITION Objective To develop a process that is inclusive of all communities for identifying heritage resources that are significant to the community, including natural, built and cultural heritage. Policies Maple Ridge will work cooperatively with the Community Heritage Commission and other relevant groups and organizations to establish an information database of all types of heritage resources within the District, including evaluation criteria for each type. This inventory would be updated on an ongoing basis evolving and responding to theoretical and practical changes in the heritage arena. r MAPLE RIDGE A COMMUNITY OF COMMUNITIES Olfitiul Community Plyn RnuInvt DRAFT HERITAGE POLICIES Draft Official Community Plan Heritage Policies HERITAGE RECOGNITION Maple Ridge will work with local First Nations communities to help ensure the conservation of significant First Nations heritage resources. Maple Ridge will encourage the conservation and designation of significant heritage structures and landscape features in each neighbourhood.- d 'ct MAPLE RIDGE A COMMUNITY OF COMMUNITIES Official Community l'Icn Review DRAFT HERITAGE POLICIES Draft Official Community Plan Heritage Policies HERITAGE MANAGEMENT Objective To provide a framework for municipal staff, the Community Heritage Commission, property owners and the public to better manage situations involving identified or potential heritage sites. Policies Maple Ridge will continue to recognize significant heritage areas and will consider identification of these areas as Heritage Conservation Areas or Heritage Districts to ensure development that respects their heritage character and historic context. MAPLE RIDGE A CO MMU N ITY OF COMMUN ITIES - OfTioi,l Con,ntttnity P1,, Roolow DRAFT HERITAGE POLICIES Draft Official Community Plan Heritage Policies HERITAGE MANAGEMENT Maple Ridge, in consultation with the Community Heritage Commission, will work to establish a comprehensive heritage management framework that incorporates categories that address information and resource requirements, incentive, education and awareness programs; and utilizes / considers a wide range of planning tools enabled by provincial legislation. - - - - - - - - — - - - 6. The development application review process should include an opportunity to evaluate the overall impact of proposed development on the heritage characteristics and context of each historic community or neighbourhood. Conservation guidelines and standards should be prepared to aid in this evaluation and provide a basis from which recommendations can be made to Council. MAPLE RIDGE A COMMUNITY OF COMMUNITIES -, Official Cconmonity IRan fleujow DRAFT HERITAGE POLICIES 5 Draft Official Community Plan Heritage Policies HERITAGE MANAGEMENT Maple Ridge will endeavor to use tools available under Provincial legislation more effectively to strengthen heritage conservation in the District. Other planning tools will also be utilized where appropriate to establish a comprehensive approach to heritage management in the District. Maple Ridge will assist the financial aspects of heritage resource management by: • Maintaining funding levels to the Community Heritage Commission, with additional financial requirements and requests from the Heritage Commission evaluated by Council on a program or project basis; • Working cooperatively with the Community Heritage Commission in fund raising efforts for the conservation of heritage resources; \\ IVIAPLE RIDGE A COMMUNITY OF COMMUNITIES OIIIAOI Cornrn.ny PI,n RovIw DRAFT HERITAGE POLICIES Draft Official Community Plan Heritage Policies HERITAGE MANAGEMENT • supporting and promoting effective marketing of heritage resources to potentially interested businesses; supporting heritage tourism efforts; encouraging local organizations, including the Community Heritage Commission to pool resources and develop partnerships to strengthen heritage conservation activities throughout the community. I V V - MAPLE RIDGE A COMMUNITY OF COMMUNITIES OEici& Corrn,niy PIn Riw DRAFT HERITAGE POLICIES Draft Official Community Plan Heritage Policies HERITAGE EDUCATION Objective To raise public awareness of heritage resources within Maple Ridge. Policy 9. Maple Ridge will develop specific programs in collaboration with the Community Heritage Commission, other local organizations, and the general public in order to increase public support and interest in heritage conservation activities. MAPLE RIDGE - A COMMUNITY OF COMMUNITIES Of&i,I Con,niy PIn R,,ow DRAFT HERITAGE POLICIES Draft Official Community Plan Heritage Policies HISTORIC COMMUNITIES Objective To recognize the ten historic communities that formed the District of Maple Ridge. Policy The ten historic communities identified in the Historic Communities Map will form the general boundaries for the preparation of future neighbourhood area plans. -1 MAPLE RIDGE A COMMUNITY OF COMMUNITIES -. OUki& Cononiy 111a, NvNw DRAFT HERITAGE POLICIES 7 M VI I) Yen,,ador, lki / YJ OI' • k Hi5torIc Communities I Rkin / . Lt- Implementation HERITAGE RECOGNITION The policies under the Heritage Recognition category will largely be addressed through the annual programs of the Community Heritage Commission. The Planning Department would provide project management assistance for on-going or new items identified in the Heritage Commission's Business Plan. HERITAGE MANAGEMENT Implementation of the policies under the Heritage Management category will primarily involve the Planning Department as part of a future Neighbourhood Planning process. The Community Heritage Commission may also be involved with the establishment of a heritage management framework and co-operation with the local First Nations communities and public interest groups. MAPLE RIDGE A COMMUNITY OF COMMUNITIES OIfld;.I Cornn,ninity PI,n DRAFT HERITAGE POLICIES - 8 Implementation HERITAGE EDUCATION The heritage education policies will largely be addressed through the annual programs of the Community Heritage Commission - including the annual Heritage Awards Program and recently initiated Heritage Newsletter. The municipal website also provides an excellent opportunity to provide information on the programs and projects of the Heritage Commission and informatidn relating to heritage management and recognition. Currently, the Community Heritage Register, Heritage Inventory and Historic Communities Map are available online. .1' &,\MAPLE RIDGE • A COMMUNITY OF COMMUNITIES Official Conmunily Ply, Ronleu DRAFT HERITAGE POLICIES Draft Official Community Plan Heritage Policies Ten issues were identified in the final Heritage Discussion Paper and have been organized into the categories of Heritage Recognition, Heritage Management and Heritage Education. These categories are intended to provide a policy framework for new heritage conservation initiatives. They will also assist the Community Heritage Commision by identifying potential project and program areas to be considered as part of thier annual Business Plan. HERITAGE RECOGNITION Objective To develop a processthat is inclusive of all communities for identifying heritage resources that are significant to the community, including natural, built and cultural heritage. Policies Maple Ridge will work cooperatively with the Community Heritage Commission and other relevant groups and organizations to establish an information database of all types of heritage resources within the District, including evaluation criteria for each type. This inventory would be updated on an ongoing basis evolving and responding to theoretical and practical changes in the heritage arena. Maple Ridge will work with local First Nations communities to help ensure the conservation of significant First Nations heritage resources. Maple Ridge will encourage the conservation and designation of significant heritage structures and landscapefeatures in each neighbourhood. - - -- - _- - ------- \' MAPLE RDGE A COMMUNITY OF COMMUNITIES Official Community Plan Review DRAFT HERITAGE POLICIES HERITAGE MANAGEMENT Objective To provide a framework for municipal staff,the Community Heritage Commission, property owners and the public to better manage situations involving identified or potential heritage sites. Policies Maple Ridge will continue to recognize significant heritage areas and will consider identification of these areas as Heritage ConservatiOn Areas or Heritage Districts to ensure development that respects their heritage character and historic context. Maple Ridge, in consultation with the Community Heritage Commission, will work to establish a comprehensive heritage management framework that incorporates categories that address information and resource requirements, incentive, education and awareness programs; and utilizes I considers a wide range of planning tools enabled by provincial legislation. The development application review process should include an opportunity to evaluate the overall impact of proposed development on the heritage characteristics and context of each historic community or neighbourhood. Conservation guidelines and standards should be prepared to aid in this evaluation and provide a basis from which recommendations can be made to Council. Maple Ridge will endeavor to use tools available under Provincial legislation more effectively to strengthen heritage conservation in the District. Other planning tools will also be utilized where appropriate to establish a comprehensive approach to heritage management in the District. Maple Ridge will assist the financial aspects of heritage resource management by: - maintaining funding levels to the Community Heritage Commission, with additional financial requirements and requestsfrom the Heritage Commission evaluated by Council on a program or project basis; - working cooperatively with the Community Heritage Commission in fund raising efforts for the conservation of heritage resources' - supporting and promoting effective marketing of heritage resources to potentially interested businesses; - supporting heritage tourism efforts; - encouraging local organizations, including the Community partnerships to strengthen heritage conservation activities A COMMUNITY OF COMMUNI11ES throughout the community. Official Community Plan Review DRAFT HERITAGE POLICIES HERITAGE EDUCATION Objective To raise public awareness of heritage resources within Maple Ridge. Policy Maple Ridge will develop specific programs in collaboration with the Community Heritage Commission, other local organizations, and the general public in order to increase public support and interest in heritage conservation activities. HISTORIC COMMUNITIES Objective To recognize the ten historic communities that formed the District of Maple Ridge. Policy The ten historic communities identified in the Historic Communities Map will form the general boundaries for the preparation of future neighbourhood area plans. MAPLE R!DGE A COMMUNITY OF COMMUNITIES -. Official Community Plan Review DRAFT HERITAGE POLICIES Historic Communities MAPLE RIDGE COMMtJNITYHERITAGE COMMJSSION 003 Financial Performance Review September 2004 Presented by The Finance Department Key Points • Based on September Statements (75% of year) • Department Consultation • More recent projections where possible • Comparatives vary Agenda • Capital • Water & Sewer Utilities • Legislative Services • Administration • Economic Development • Protective Services • Corporate & Financial Services • Public Works & Development • Parks & Recreation 1 :1 • Capital Projects $20,000,000 0 Budget - •YTD $15,000,000 0 WIP $10,000,000 $5,000,000 - r-i ri, P1 Reserve Funds Works In $ ,000's Capital Land Equipment Fire Department January Balance $8,298 $ 916 $4,856 $4,911 Deposits 1,758 20 1,577 728 Withdrawals Capital YF1) -4,681 -89 -1,189 - 99 Balance $5,375 $ 842 $5,244 $5,540 Capital Budgets -4,295 325 - 846 Projected YE Bala LQ5 Li nce 421 flá& Restricted Revenues In $ ,000's DCC Paridand Opening Balance $19,814 $1,245 Deposits 4,336 • 235 Withdrawals - 300 - 2 Capital YTD - 3,099 - 4 Balance $20,751 $1,474 Capital Budgets - 11,162 - 278 Projected YE Balance Water $8,000,000 - $6,000,000 - - :::::JflH Revenue Exnses ctuaIs Sewer $8,000,000 Revenue Expenses 0 Actrn,I Legislative Services $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 - $100,000 -ti 0 2003 Actuals $0 41 - OBudgctBalancc YTD Budget 2003 •YTDBudget 0 Actual, 3 Administration $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 ______ $200,000 01 2003 Actual, $0 0 Budget Balance YTD Budget 2003 •YThBudget 0 Actual, Economic Development $500,000 $400,000 I $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 I] 2003 Actual, $0 OBndgetBulance YTD Budget 2003 • YTD Budget 0 Actual, Police Services $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 1iFJtiJr $2,000,000 02003 Actual, $0 rt O Budget Balance R RCMP Contract MuniciPal Budget Expenditures1 U DActuals 11 Fire Services 'aid on Cal FLpenditu tJ Acutals Clerks $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 2003 Actuats $0 o Budget Baleuce YTD Budget 2003 • YTD Budget o Actual, Property Tax Revenue $40,000,000 - $30,000,009 $20,000,009 $109000,900 . 2003Actuals - . C Budget Buluace YTJ) Budget 2003 U ITt) Budget 0 Actuals 5 Other Taxation Revenue $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 r0 1I2003 , YTD Budget Parcel Charges Grants In Lieu 0 Actuals Other Revenue $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 02003 Actuals b4f 0 Budget Balance • Vii) Budget Other Revenue Land Sales taAct,,ts Communications & HR $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,0009000 OBudget Balance I $1,000,000 2003 A 0 ctuals I $0 YTh Budget 2003 0 Y7D Budget I DActuals [41 Finance $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,001: Budget iD Budge: 20(13 U VTD Budget C Actual, Information Services - $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $500,000 - [03 Actual, 13 $0 - 0 Budget Balance YTD Budget 2003 •YTDBudget 0 Actual, P!anning - $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $19000,000 - _______ $500,000 - 02003 Actual, 0 Budget Balance $0 UY11) Budget REVE NUE EXPENSE 0 Actual, 7 Engineering $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $0 REV EXP ADMIN Operations & Recycling $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1000000 - - 02003 Actuals $500,000 - Budget Balance 13 $0 • YTD Budget ROAD MAINT RECYCUNG OActuals Licenses, Permits & Bylaws $2,000,000 $1,500,000 LI- $1,000,000 i} $500,000 L I 02003 Actuals gce Bldg Bus, other Expense • Yll) Budget Permits Ucenses Revenue 13 Actuals Park & Recreation - % of Budget used Overhead departments 78% 76% 64%1 l LQAtual Ad6n Bldg Srv U 2004 YTI) Park & Recreation Revenue & Expenses 75% 70% 60% 50% 40% - 0 Revenue 0 Expense Summary • 9 months of financial performance • Issues that were identified early in the year were addressed in the amended financial plan adopted in May Items to keep in mind • Investment Earnings • Gravel Revenue • Fire Department (paid on call) • RCMP Contract • Traffic Fine Revenue • Building Permit Revenue • Cost Containment Thank you! Questions? S 10 Revenue Centres Other Revenue Tax Penalties &.Interest Investment Income Contnbutions From Reserves Miscellaneous Revenue Subtotal Other Revenue Taxation UnconditIonal Grants Collection For Others Total Revenue Centres Department Cost Centres Remittance To Other Governments AdmInIstrative Services LegIslatIve Services Corporate St FinancIal Services AdminIstration Common Municipal Services Economic Development Fire Department RCMP Service Clerks (Inc Property & Risk Mngmnt) Rev Clerks (Inc Property & Risk Mngmnt) Exp Infomiation Services Personnel Department Finance Department - Fiscal Services Emergency Services Community Development, Parks & Recreation ServIces Administration Builaing Services Parks It Recreation (Scheduie A) PublIc Works & Development Services Administration Inspection Services (Schedule C) Economic Development & By-Laws. revenue Economic Development & By.Laws• Expenses Planning Department Engineering Department (Schedule B) Capital Cost - Funded By General Revenue Total General Revenue Cost Centres Gen Rev Fund Excess (Shortfall) Rev over Exp Check totals, page 65 • PRELIMINARY PERFORMANCE REPORT DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE OPERATING FUNDS REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE SUMMARIES FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2004 PERIOD YTD YTD YTO VAR PRIOR AMENDED VARIANCE ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUD/ACT YTD BUDGET YTD/ANN BUD %USED $151,427 ' $491,807 $433,048 $58,759 $517,192 $437,526 $54,281 112% 183,547 498,423 554,994 ($56,571) 509,898 739,992 ($241,569) 67% 0 3,485,524 2613,828 $871,696 3,542,544 3,485,520 $4 100% 22,583 1,414,740 7,165,485 ($5,750,745) 1,357,393 9,553,980 ($8,139,240) 15% 357,557 5,890,495 10,767,355 (4,876,860) 5,927,028 14,217,018 (8,326,523) 41% (596) 35,163,362 35,150,304 $13,058 31,360,817 35,842,756 ($679,394) 98% o 156,125 117,090 $39,035 0 156,120 $5 100% o 28,971,281 28,920,870 $50,411 29,295,678 28,956,432 $14,849 100% 356,961 70,181,262 74,955,619 (4,774,357) 66,583,523 79,172,326 (8,991,064) 89% 195,917 28,175,445 28,920,870 745,425 29,295,678 28,956,432 $780,987 97% 34,295 436,871 467,398 30,527 391,951 628,498 $191,627 70% 24,066 266,093 305706 39,613 267,847 411,440 $145,347 65% 8,181 62,581 119,582 57,001 107,443 160,147 $97,566 39% 8,104 533,434 363,122 (170,312) 520,383 - 484,164 ($49,270) 110% 13,377 179,321 316,958 137,637 0 428,518 $249,197 42% 161,255 1,834,197 1,777,236 (56,961) - 1,762,423 2,354,142 $519,945 78% 1,008,586 7,315,312 7,327,883 12,571 5,808,722 9,788,726 $2,473,414 75% (16,973) (243,003) (198,978) 44,025 (188,189) (278,887) ($35,884) 87% 27,378 610,012 632,746 22,734 664,416 801,170 $191,158 76% 114,804 1,187,053 1,328,805 141,752 1,072,544 1,791,582 $604,529 66% 57,663 630,380 747,838 117,458 492,211 1,012,004 $381,624 62% 56,992 • 621,463 902,088 280,625 570,649 1,224,522 $603,059 51% 79,600 6,175,131 16,595,492 • 10,420,361 6,392,044 11,434,948 $5,259,817 54% (16,993) 53,443 66,771 13,328 53,755 91,295 $37,852 59% 11,041 119,540 127,423 7,883 117,330 172,104 $52,564 69% 32,702 543,445 502,550 (40895) 543,433 603,859 $60,414 90% 432,450 5,397,109 5,893,383 496,274 3,915,751 7,302,013 $1 1904,904 74% 49,651 412,342 495,165 82,823 304,233 664,165 $251,823 62% (36,391) (729,903) (426,578) 303,325 (877,981) (548,303) $181,600 133% (12,347) (570,858) (458,946) 111,912 (569,054) (611,928) ($41,070) 93% 46,090 587,539 698,615 111,076 593,954 953,539 $366,000 62% 38,242 545,882 960,275 414,393 513,774 1,304,680 $758,798 42% 134,894 3,105,715 3,650,263 544,549 2,626,734 4,923,577 $1,817,863 63% 0 0 3,840,099 3,840,099 788,447 5,120,133 $5,120,133 0% 452,585 57,248,545 74,955,766 17,707,221 55,168,500 79,172,540 21,923.995 72% (0) 0 (0) 0 0 Parks 8: Rec check, page 52 (3.5) 476,193 476,193 6,060,095 6,060,095 6,523,356 6,523,356 463,261 463.261 4,576,514 4,576,514 8,077,976 8,077,976 Water ( Schedule 17) (0) 0> 12 (0) 52 $2,398,488 tIA 239654o 39 23%o 1,707,888 5 '-'Wenue Fund Cost Centres AU Rev Funds V$$ \0U\\ Rev Over 44394 (247578) (72) $44,411 MIA 2,442,896 1,460,310 H/A - -- 15,375,760 12,875,333 (234) 1'' 04 Counci( StatementSAISIPERF REPORT ft SCHEDULES SCHEDULE A SCHEDULE OF PARKS & RECREATION REV & EXP PERIOD Division REVENUE Cemetery 16,076 Support Services (Admin charged out to various Divisions) Lifecycte Parks Recreation Complex (Arenas) 34,291 Leisure Centre 115,706 Community Recreation Programs 19,135 Art Studio 0 Library Spec MUn Programs 30,595 Social Planning Outdoor Pools 3,634 P.M.Recreation Facilities 14,317 YEARTO DATE PERIOD VEARTO DATE PERIOD YEARTO DATE REVENUE EXPENDITURE EXPENDITURE ACTUAL ACTUAL 130,735 20,531 173,779 4,455 43,044 (0) (0) (0) (0) 67,027 262,733 67,027 262,733 78,844 1,153,580 78,844 1,153,580 222,951 59,517 455,641 25,226 232,691 1,200,938 186,206 1,344,308 70,501 664,028 127,592 59,455 168,167 40,320 271,046 0 35,513 320,651 35,513 320,651 14,667 1,510,777 14,667 1,510,777 335,956 99,049 874,342 68,455 538,386 1,141 28,285 1,141 28,285 47,616 14,064 110,006 10,430 62,390 160,248 30,188 469,747 15,871 309,498 YTD BUDGET (9,922) 87,124 337,320 1,150,642 286,381 684,066 273,406 293,654 1,882,653 502,771 74,916 49,465 280,907 PRIOR YEAR ANNUAL VARIANCE ACTUAL BUDGET YTD: BUDGET (12,729) (12,614) -341% 6,514 116,936 0% 262,701 449,760 58% 1,086,446 1,538,968 75% 385,053 382,580 61% 693,208 924,696 72% 213,538 368,235 74% 296,176 392,134 82% 75,923 1,913,238 79% 559,539 684,846 79% 0 100,134 0 69,394 66,351 94% 279,987 376,749 82% 8t Rec Net Costs 233,752 2,226,036 666,203 6,872,016 432,450 5,397,109 5,893,383 3,915,751 7,302,013 74% 'PERIOD ACTUAL' is equal to 'PERIOD EXPENDITURE' less 'PERIOD REVENUE' and reflects the net cost for September 2004. YEAR TO DATE ACTUAL' is equal to 'YEAR TO DATE EXPENDITURE' less 'YEAR TO DATE REVENUE and reflects the net costs for January 1 through September 30, 2004. K:\Accounting\Council\2004\[Sept 04 Council Statements.xls]PERF REPORT & SCHEDULES SCHEDULE B ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PERIOD YTO YTD ANNUAL PRIOR YR 0% ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL % USED Administration Revenues (98,569) (382,457) (460,872) (614,496) (293,936) 62% Salanes 58,467 549,698 629,500 858,206 541,734 64% Other . .21,626 161,528 164,452 219,270 80,049 74% Administration Net Costs (18,476) 328,769 333,080 462,980 327,848 71% Operations Operations Management 41,975 437,830 486,075 662,776 456,151 66% GVTA Grants . (157,800) (473,400) (473,400) (631,200) (559,560) 75% DitchIng 46,146 193,244 254,799 339,732 133,275 57% Road Maintenance . 138,853 934,384 1.171,660 1,562,913 800,788 60% Snow & Ice Removal 2,732 103,380 95,519 157,797 46,691 66% Street Lighting 29,821 252,832 313,155 417,540 256,796 61% Storm Drainage . 23,365 . 174,897 195,328 260,438 141,063 67% Traffic Control 33,759 418,344 399,187 524,121 339,397 80% Works Yard 7,522 142,888 125,802 167,736 135,531 85% Solid Waste Management 74,848 750,614 747,801 997,068 619,788 75% Private Services (3,700) (42,557) (57,033) (76,044) (87,575) 56% Fleet Vehicle Internal Recovery (161,660) (1,314,463) (1,026,058) (1,378,136) (1,103,258) 95% Fleet Vehicle Maintenance 77,510 577,368 570,129 760,172 587,337 76% Replacement Reserve Fund Transfer 0 621,584 514,219 695,684 532,461 89% Operations Net Costs 153,369 2,776,945 3,317,183 4,460,597 2,298,887 62% Engineering Net Costs 134,894 3,105,715 3,650,263 4,923,577 2,626,734 63% SCHEDULE C SCHEDULE OF INSPECTION SERVICES REV & EXP PERIOD YTD YTD ANNUAL PRIOR YR 0.00% ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL %USED Revenue Building Permits Other Revenue Total R eenue Expenditure Inspection Costs Total Exbendltur Inspection Services 4t Costs 104,755 1,384,423 1,102,500 1,470,000 1,524,004 94% 629 12,767 6,381 8,508 15,531 150% 105,384 1,397,191 1,108,881 1,478,508 1,539,535 68,994 667,288 682,303 930,205 661,554 68,994 667,288 682,303 930,205 661,554 (36,391) (729,903) (426,578) (548,303) (877,981) 72% 72% 133% SCHEDULE D SCHEDULE OF WATER REVENUE FUND PERIOD YTD YTD ANNUAL PRIOR YR ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL Operations Revenues (94,561) 5,499,133 4,715,442 6,287,256 5,257,195 Expenditures 519405 3,178,750 3,209,626 4,202,284 2,824,973 Total Operations 613,966 (2,320,383) (1,505,816) (2,084,972) (2,432,222) Private Services Revenues 15,785 216,538 121,023 161,364 189,467 Expenditures 268 5,840 14,931 19,908 3,116 Total Private Services (15,517) (210,698) (106,092) (141,456) (186,351) Debt Principal 0 96,876 174,809 260,174 337,581 Interest 0 35,665 41,250 105,122 32,050 Total Debt 0 132,541 216,059 365,296 369,631 Capital Projects 0 0 1,395,810 1,861,080 541,053 Water Revenue Fund Net Costs 598448 (2,398,540) (39) (52) (1,707,888) 0.00% % USED 87% 76% 134% 29% 37% 34% Debt Principal Interest Total Capital Prolects Sewer Revenue Fi O 47,429 59,294 647,619 138,852 335 2,016,395 1,535,491 2,258,867 2,015,926 335 2,063,824 1,594,785 2,906,486 2,154,778 0 350,203 1,131,867 1,509,156 638,024 13,750 (44,339) 55 72 247,578 et Costs 7% 89% SCHEDULE E SCHEDULE OF SEWER REVENUE FUND PERIOD YTD YTD ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ANNUAL PRIOR YEAR 0.00% BUDGET - ACTUAL %USED Operations Revenues Expenditures Total Op rations Private Services Revenues Expenditures Total Pn ate Services 18,001 4,893,378 4,025,043 5,366,724 4,858,513 79,169 2,514,010 1,351,438 1,021,810 2,405,999 61168 (2,379,368) (2,673,605) (4,344,914) (2,452,514) 47,840 80,012 62,793 83,724 93,668 87 1,013 9,801 13,068 960 (47,753) (78,998) (52,992) (70,656) (92,709) 91% 246% 96% 8% CORPORATION OF THE MAPLE RIDGE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: Her Worship Mayor Kathy Morse DATE: October 20, 2004 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Council Workshop SUBJECT: Additional Bank Signing Officers Required EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: To add two additional bank signing officers to our approved list for banking transactions. RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Manager of Revenue & Collections/Business Analyst be appointed as an additional signing officer for the Municipality's general and payroll accounts until the return to work of one of the other signing officers; and further That the Leisure Centre Customer Service Supervisor be appointed as a signing officer for the Parks and Leisure Services Department Imprest Fund Account. BACKGROUND: General and Payroll Accounts: The Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge requires two signing officers for bank transfers, cheques, bank drafts and financial investment transactions. One signing officer must be a Council member while the other is a non-elected employee from the Finance Department. At the moment the Director of Finance, Jake Sorba, is our only non-elected employee available for our banking transactions. One of our signing officers, Dennis Sartorus, is on medical leave and it is uncertain when he will be able to return to work. Our other signing officer, Laura Benson, is currently on maternity leave. It is extremely important that another signing officer is appointed in the event that Jake Sorba becomes unavailable as well. Upon full return to work by one of the other signing officers, the Manager of Revenue & Collections/Business Analyst will be removed from our approved list for banking transactions. - Imprest Fund Account: There should be three signing officers for this account and now there are only two as Melanie Wozniak no longer works for the District. As the Leisure Centre Customer Service Supervisor can also sign cheques, it is recommended by the Manager of Marketing & Customer Service to appoint this employee as the additional approved signing officer. CONCLUSION: With the addition of both signing officers, there would be less risk in completing our banking transactions in a timely matter. • ( Prepared by: Arlene Oosten-Wells Clerk II k-Th I Approved b: Job G. Sorba, C.G.A. Director of Finance Approved by:' Paul Gill, B.B.A., C.G.A., F.R.M. • General Manager, Corporate and Financial Services Concurrence: I.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer AO:ao "4. Maple Ridge Agricultural Policy Review Background Report: Situation Analysis - DRAFT - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION Submitted to: District of Maple Ridge Community Planning 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, BC, V2X 6A9 Submitted by: Zbeetnoff Agro-Environmental Consulting 15787 Buena Vista Avenue White Rock, BC, V4B 1Z9 604-535-7721 FAX 604-535-4421 zbeetnofEãte1us.net httv://www3.telus.net/zbeetnoff / - and Quadra Planning Consultants Ltd. 2976 Robson Drive Coquitlàni, BC, V3E2T1 604-944-9570 Fax 604-944-6701 mmg•uadrate1us.net ..October-21,.2004------ Executive Summary In 2000, District of Maple Ridge agriculture was comprised of 237 farms occupying. 3,990 hectares of farmland and generating $39.2 million in gross farm receipts. While about 35% of the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) was farmed, farms outside of the ALR represented 26.7% of the total area farmed in the District. The combination of direct sales/employment and multiplier effects are estimated to have contributed between $79 million and $98 million to the regional economy and between 780 and 1040 full and part-time jobs in 2000. ALR activities also provided other significant benefits which included: • Investment in fixed farming assets of $170 million • Annual farm-related expenditures of $32.9 million • Supported 187 home-based rural businesses • Modest demands on municipal services and infrastructure • Agro-tourism income • Recreation opportunities • Actively contributed to quality of life and rural lifestyle • Wildlife habitat and environmental benefits • Drainage and flood control benefits. Although total farm income increased between Agricultural Census periods, there are growing signs that agriculture in Maple Ridge is losing its vitality. In relation to other municipalities in the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD), the number of operators is dropping and investment in land and fixed assets has declined, reflecting reluctance to pursue or invest in agricultural business. Agriculture in Maple Ridge faces many chailenges. The challenges related to productivity include poorer soils, inadequate drainage and absence of some components of supporting infrastructure. In addition, agriculture is beset by operational complications related to fragmented operations, small and/or awkwardly configured parcels and rural-urban conflicts. Yet, despite these obstacles, the land, resources and climate available to local agriculture are among the best available in Canada. Accurate assessment of the role, importance and desirability of agriculture in Maple Ridge should consider many benefits in addition to significant income and employment. Agricultural land and activity directly and indirectly support local self reliance in food production, capital investment, input expenditures, home-based business and agro-tourism, wildlife, rural lifestyle and the environment. At the same time, the sector places relatively low demand on community infrastructure and services. Agricultural land in the GVRD is designated as part of the Green Zone in the Livable Region Strategic Plan and all signatory municipalities have agreed to protect this resource as part of the strategy. But protection of the land base is not enough. In reality, community support is required to create viable conditions for farming operations and activities to occur. ZbëetnoffAgro-Erwiron mental Consulting Consensus needs to be reached about how rural lifestyle and agriculture will contribute to the fabric of the community. In the absence of strong rural and agricultural policies and tools, land use planning can be less strategic, creating the potential for unintended impacts (e.g., pattern of residential development) that may undermine the community's longer term rural lifestyle and growth management objectives. This Situational Analysis suggests that a basic community consensus about the role of agriculture is urgently required and needs to be translated into Official Community Plan policy to provide a planning framework and perspective for the sector. The fact that a considerable proportion of the ALR is designated for agriculture is a place to start and reflects support for agriculture as part of the rural character of Maple Ridge. Various agricultural issues have been identified in the report and are summarized in Summary Table 1. ii ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting Summary Table 1: Policy Issues Related to Aariculture in Maple RidEe Importance Level Policy Area Policy Issue: How to Tier 1 Issues: Considered Articulating the Inform the community of the role of fundamental requirements for importance and agriculture in Maple Ridge the sustainability of agriculture desirability of in the community agriculture Recognizing the quality convince the community .that.agriculture of the agricultural in Maple Ridge is worth preserving resources Protecting the Prioritize and plan for a functional supply agricultural land and of land, infrastructure and resources resource base Understanding Recognize and support the types of conditions necessary agriculture that Maple Ridge agricultural for sustainable lands can support agriculture Tier 2 Issues: Considered Agricultural strategic Provide a context for determining the essential to the promotion and planning desirability of changes affecting enhancement of local agriculture agriculturai lands Rural residential in the Promote and create conditions in the rural- ALR residential areas that support and promote viable agriculture Rural-Urban Interface Plan the rural-urban interface to enhance agriculture Land development and Ensure that agriculture benefits, or is conversion protected, from the impacts of community development Conservation Ensure that agriculture and conservation interests collaborate to attain mutually acceptable environmental objectives Residential/urban Make residential growth decisions in the containment context of preserving Maple Ridge's agricultural land base Agricultural nsure that agricultural transportation transportation system needs are incorporated into Maple Ridge's transportation plans iii ZbeetnoffAgro-Enuironmental Consulting Table of Contents ExecutiveSummary ..................................................................................................................................................... Tableof Contents .......................................................................................................................................................iv Listof Tables ................................................................................................................................................................ V List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................................"I 1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................1 2.0 The Context for Agricultural Planning in Maple Ridge............................................................................. 2.1 Provincial Context for Agricultural Planning ............................................................................................. I 2.1.1 Agricultural Land Commission Act........................................................................................................ 1 2.1.2 Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act....................................................................................... 2 2.1.3 Local Government Act............................................................................................................................ 2 2.1.4 Community Charter ................................................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Regional Context forAgricultural Planning............................................................................................... 4 2.2.1 Livable Region Strategic Plan................................................................................................................. 4 2.2.2 GVRD's Economic Strategy for Agriculture in the Lower Mainland, 2002...........................................6 2.2.3 GVRD - ALC Implementation Agreement, 1996 .................................................................................. 7 2.3 Local Government Context for Agricultural Planning................................................................................ 8 2.3.1 Agricultural Land Use Policies ............................................................................................................... 8 2.3.2 Official Community Plan Review, 1995-96............................................................................................ 8 2.3.3 District of Maple Ridge Rural Plan, 1996-97 ....................................................................................... 14 2.3.4 Agricultural Land Reserve Policy Context........................................................................................... 21 2.3.5 Rural Policy Context............................................................................................................................. 23 2.3.6 Synopsis................................................................................................................................................ 24 3.0 Agriculture in Maple Ridge ........................................................................................................................28 3.1 Background............................................................................................................................................... 28 3.1.1 Agricultural History of Maple Ridge ............................... . .................................................................... 28 3.1.2 General Trends in Lower Mainland Agriculture................................................................................... 29 3.1.3 Regional Significance of Maple Ridge Agriculture.............................................................................. 29 3.1.4 Support for Agriculture in Lower Mainland Municipalities................................................................. 31 3.2 Agriculture Resources in Maple Ridge. ..................................................................................................... 32 3.2.1 Agricultural Land Base............................................................................................................................. 32 3.2.2 Soil Capability for Agriculture ............................................................................................................. 33 3.2.3 Agricultural Drainage ........................................................................................................................... 39 3.2.4 Agricultural Irrigation ..................................................................................................... . ..................... 40 3.2.5 Farm Services ....................................................................................................................................... 41 3.2.6 Agricultural Processing......................................................................................................................... 41 3.2.7 Transportation....................................................................................................................................... 41 3.3 Farm c'haracteristics ................................................................................................................................ 42 3.3.1 LandUse ............................................................................................................................................... .42 332 LandinCrops - - - 3.3.3 FarmLivestock ..................................................................................................................................... 46 iv ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting 3.3.4 Farm and Parcel Size 47 3.3.5 Municipal Zoning..................................................................................................................................48 3.3.6 Agricultural Land Tenure ...................................................................................................................... 49 3.3.7 Farm Capital Investment Categories.....................................................................................................50 3.3.8 Distribution of Farms by Gross Farm Receipts Category.....................................................................50 3.4 Contribution ofMaple Ridge Agriculture to the Local Economy.............................................................. 52 3.4.1 Gross Farm Receipts (GFRs) ................................................................................................................. 52 3.4.2 Employment.......................................................................................................................................... 52 3.4.3 Farm Capital Value............................................................................................................................... 54 3 .4.4 Farm Related Expenditures................................................................................................................... 54 3.4.5 Home-Based Businesses in the ALR .................................................................................................... 54 3.4.6 Fiscal Effects on Local Tax Revenues.................................................................................................. 56 3.4.7 Recreation and Agro-Tourism Benefits ................................................................................................ 56 3.4.8 Quality of Life and Rural Character...................................................................................................... 56 3.4.9 Environmental Benefits ........................................................................................................................ 57 4.0 Agricultural Issues ....................................................................................................................................... 58 4.1 Tier I Issues ..............................................................................................................................................58 4.1.1 Articulating the Importance and Desirability of Agriculture................................................................58 4.1.2 Recognizing the Quality of the Agricultural Resources........................................................................58 4.1.3 Protecting the Agricultural Land and Resource Base ...........................................................................59 4.1.4 Understanding Conditions Necessary for Sustainable Agriculture.......................................................64 4.2 Tier2lssue.s...................................................................................... 64 4.2.1 Agricultural Strategic Planning..................................................... 64 4.2.2 Rural Residential in the ALR........................................................ 66 4.2.3 Rural-Urban Interface................................................................... 67 4.2.4 Non-Agricultural Land Development and Conversion................. 68 4.2.5 Conservation................................................................................. 68 4.2.6 Residential/Urban Containment.................................................... 69 4.2.7 Agricultural Transportation System.............................................. 69 5.0 References 72 List of Tables Summary Table 1: Policy Issues Related to Agriculture in Maple Ridge .......................................iii Table 1: ALC Policies Respecting ALR Areas in Maple Ridge ................................................. 10 Table 2: Main Findings and Recommendations of the Rural Plan Advisory Committee, October, 1997.16 Table 3: OCP Designation of Land within the Agricultural Land Reserve, District of Maple Ridge...... 26 Table 4: Agricultural Indicators, Greater Vancouver Regional District, 1995 and 2000 .................... 30 Table 5: Agricultural Capability of Lands in the Maple Ridge ALR ................................... . ........ 39 Table 6: Agricultural Capability of Four Areas Adjacent to the Maple Ridge ALR.......................... 39 Table 7: Breakout of the ALR area by Sub-Area (Rural Plan, 1997) - Includes only parcels wholly within theALR............................................................................................................. 40 Table 8: Agricultural Area in Crop Production, Maple Ridge, 1995 and 2000 ........................... 43 Table 9: Land Use in Maple Ridge ALR, 2003..................................................................... 44 Table 10: Land Use in Four Areas Adjacent to the Maple Ridge ALR, 2003 ................................. 46 Table 11: Livestock Farming Activities, Maple Ridge, 1995 and 2000 ........................................ 47 Table 12: Distribution of Farm Size in Maple Ridge .............................................................. 48 Table 13: District of Maple Ridge - Zoning Within the ALR (I) ............................................... 49 Table 14: Agricultural Land Tenure in Maple Ridge.............................................................. 50 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting Table 15: Farm Numbers by Farm Capital Category, Maple Ridge and GVRD, 1995 and 2000 ..........51 Table 16: Distribution of Maple Ridge Farms by Gross Farm Receipt Category, 1995 and 2000 .........51 Table 17: Comparison of Number of Farms and Gross Farm Receipts (GFRs) by Farm Type, 1995 and 2000 ..................................................................................................................53 Table 18: Farm Capital Value, Maple Ridge and GVRD, 1995 and 2000 ......................................54 Table 19: Home Based Businesses in Maple Ridge ALR, 2003 ..................................................55 Table 20: Agriculture Policy Statements in Other Agricultural Jurisdictions ..................................65 Table 21: Factors Affecting Agricultural Suitability ...............................................................66 Table 22: Policy Issues Related to Agriculture in Maple Ridge .................................................71 List of Figures Figure 1: ALR Sub-Areas in Maple Ridge ..........................................................................1 1 Figure 2: Land with Farm Tax Assessment completely in the ALR, District of Maple Ridge, 2004 ......34 Figure 3: Land with Farm Tax Assessment partially or completely outside the ALR, District of Maple Ridge, 2004 ........................................................................................................ 35 Figure 4: Soil Capability of Lands in the ALR, District of Maple Ridge .......................................38 Figure 5: Land Use in the ALR, District of Maple Ridge, 2003 .................................................45 Figure 6: Land Exclusions from the Agricultural Land Reserve, District of Maple Ridge, 1974 to November, 2000 ...................................................................................................61 Figure 7: ALR Exclusion Applications in the District of Maple Ridge, 2000 to 2003 .......................62 Figure 8: ALR Exclusion Applications, District of Maple Ridge, November, 2003 to June 17, 2004 .. . .63 vi ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting 1.0 Introduction The District of Maple Ridge is currently involved in reviewing and updating its Official Community Plan (OCP). As part of the review, the District is examining various aspects of community planning and land use including agricultural, residential, commercial and industrial policies. This report is a situational analysis of agriculture in Maple Ridge and provides a background context for addressing agricultural policy needs in the second phase of the work. It includes: • a review of the provincial, regional and local context for agricultural planning; • a comprehensive analysis of agricultural resources, farm characteristics and the contribution of agriculture to the local economy; • a discussion of policy issues facing agriculture in Maple Ridge. 2.0 The Context for Agricultural Planning in Maple Ridge Agricultural planning in the District of Maple Ridge is governed by provincial, regional and local government statutes, regulations and policies. This section reviews key legislation and policies affecting agricultural planning in Maple Ridge. It is not intended as a comprehensive review of all legislation affecting agriculture. 2.1 Provincial Context for Agricultural Planning 2.1.1 Agricultural Land Commission Act As a result of the Agricultural Land Commission Act (1972), approximately 4,744 ha of land had initially been reserved for agriculture in Maple Ridge. The Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) is a provincial zone in which agriculture is recognized as the priority use where farming is encouraged and non-agricultural uses are controlled. Amendments have been made from time to time to the types of activities allowed on farm lands. While the Act supersedes the zoning powers of the Local Government Act, the municipality is required to process applications for the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) in land use matters related to the ALR. Nonetheless, the ALC makes the final decision related to land uses not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In 2002, the Agricultural Land Commission Act (2002) was brought into force, repealing the Agricultural Land Reserve Act and the Soil Conservation Act and resulting in corresponding amendments to the Local Government Act. The new Act incorporates some of the provisions of the repealed Acts and establishes the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission (ALC). The new Act is intended to make the Commission more regionally responsive. Local governments are given the opportunity to become more involved in some aspects of ALR management through new regional panels consisting of commissioners with local knowledge, experience and interests. ZbeetnoffAgro-Erwironmental Consulting 2.1.2 Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act This Act was introduced in 1995 to provide for better coordination between farming and non-farming neighbours and to protect farms from court action relating to nuisance complaints from normal farming activities. A "normal farm practice'" is an activity "...that is conducted by a farm business in a manner consistent with proper and accepted customs and standards as established and followed by similar farm businesses under similar circumstances..." To be eligible for protection, a farmer must be in compliance with the Health Act, Pesticide Control Act, Waste Management Act, the regulations under those Acts, and any land use regulation. The Farm Practices Board and review procedures are in place to determine whether the disturbance results from a normal farm practice. If the Board rules that a farm practice is not normal, then the common law rules and local government bylaws dealing with nuisance can be applied to remedy the situation. The "right to farm" part of the act exempts farm practices from certain local government bylaws (nuisance and miscellaneous bylaws under Section 789(1)(a) or (b), 932 and 933 of the Local Government Act). A division in the Local Government Act also provides for development of bylaw standards by the Ministxy of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (MAFF) and the document entitled 'Guide for Bylaw Development in Farming Areas" is intended to help local governments prepare zoning bylaws and farm bylaws which support farming. The Local Government Act requires a local government wishing to regulate or prohibit farm operations under sections 903(5) and 917 of the Local Government Act to first seek approval from the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and Food (MAFF). To date, this provision has been enacted by Township of Langley, City of Abbotsford, Corporation of Delta, and the City of Kelowna. 2.1.3 Local Government Act The Local Government Act, which succeeds the Municipal Act, is the key legislation defining the authority of local governments to govern local affairs for the purposes of providing good government, services, stewardship of public assets, and) fostering the current and future economic, social and environmental well-being of its community. Among the broad powers of the Act, duly constituted and administrated local governments are permitted to preserve and promote the peace, order and good government of the municipality, the health, safety, morality and welfare of its citizens, and provide for protection of persons and property. Through the process of municipal bylaw, municipal powers address farming activities through community planning; zoning; nuisance regulations; removal and deposit of soil; weed and pest control; water use and drainage. Part 29 titled Division (4.1) - Farm Standards and Bylaws provides for the creation of "farm bylaws" and allows for the establishing of agricultural standards for the guidance of local governments in the preparation of bylaws affecting agriculture. Under the provisions of Part 24 of the Local Government Act, 22 local entities in the Greater Vancouver Area created a partnership in 1967 to deliver essential utility services like drinking water, sewage treatment, recycling and garbage disposal and to 2 ZbeetnoffAgro-Enuironmental Consulting manage and plan growth and development, air quality and green spaces. This partnership resulted in the creation of the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Under the umbrella of the GVRD, there are four separate legal entities: • the Greater Vancouver Water District (GVWD); • the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD); • the Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation (GVHC), and • the Greater Vancouver Regional District.(GVRD). The GVRD has pursued various initiatives to promote regional strategies. These include: • Development of a Livable Region Strategic Plan (regional growth strategy) • Establishment of a Lower Mainland Green Zone and Greenway Vision and Plan • Development of a Parks and Outdoor Recreation System • Development of a the Lower Mainland Major Parks Plan • Identification of Growth Concentration Areas • Approval of the Transport 2021 Long-Range and Medium-Range Plans • Pursuit of Transportation Demand Management strategies In addition, GVRD is involved in other projects that affect the Lower Mainland. These projects include: • Economic Strategy for Agriculture in the Lower Mainland • Livable Centres • Sustainable Region Initiative, which includes the Air Quality Management Plan • Regional Plan on Homelessness • GVRD Involvement in Treaty Negotiations • Howe Sound Community Forum Part 25 of the Local Government Act incorporates what was formerly the Growth Strategies Statutes Amendment Act (1995). The provisions are intended to promote coordination among municipalities and regional districts on issueg that cross municipal boundaries provide mechanisms for cooperation and coordination at the regional level, particularly in areas related to urban sprawl, air pollution, traffic congestion, loss of green space and agricultural land and lack of affordable housing. This resulted in the development of the regional growth strategy of the GVRD, known as the Livable Region Strategic Plan (LSRP). While protection of agricultural land is a goal of the Growth Strategies Amendment Act, the Act currently has no impact on the agricultural community, except that the ALR has been accepted as important for agriculture. Agricultural goals have not been highlighted in the Growth Strategies Amendment Act (except for reference to agricultural land in the preamble), despite agriculture being the single largest private provincial land use (40% of private land). 2.1.4 Community Charter The Community Charter, which came into force in early 2004, gives fundamental powers to municipalities that replace provisions in the Local Government Act and will require consequential amendments to the Local Government Act. The Charter was created to address municipal concerns about: • their legislative authority to fulfill areas of responsibility 3 ZbeetnoffAgro-Erivironmental Consulting • the adequacy of resources to manage those responsibilities, and • existing requirements for Provincial approval The stated purposes of the Act are to provide municipalities and their councils with:' a legal framework for the powers, duties and functions that are necessary to fulfill their purposes, the authority and discretion to address existing and future community needs, and the flexibility to determine the public interest of their communities and to respond to the different needs and changing circumstances of their communities. The three principles promoted in the legislation are: • broader powers for local government, including title to roads and local parks • stronger and clearer recognition of the relative jurisdictions of the Province and municipalities, including commitment from the province not to download new programs on local governments, and • "improved public participation', including provisions for individuals to file "counter petitions" regarding local government decisions and, with the support of 5% of the electors, force the issue to referendum From a regulatory perspective, a council may establish a standard, code or rule by adopting a provincial, national or international body or standards association standard, code or rule. Clearer authority is given to council under the Charter, which may, by bylaw, regulate, prohibit and impose requirements regarding: • the health, safety or protection of persons or property; • the protection and enhancement of the well-being of its community in relation to the matters referred to in section 64 [nuisances, disturbances and other objectionable situations]; • public health; • protection of the natural environment; • animals; • buildings and other structures; • the removal of soil and the deposit of soil or material. Under the Charter, municipalities may be able to introduce restrictions on farming activities if such operations can be shown to affect public health and well-being of the local community. For example, it appears that municipalities may be able to restrict cosmetic pesticide in the interests of providing community benefit. 2.2 Regional Context for Agricultural Planning 2.2.1 Livable Region Strategic Plan The Livable Region Strategic Plan (LRSP), adopted by the GVRD Board with the formal support of all member municipalities in 1996, is Greater Vancouvers regional growth strategy. The Province of B.C. has recognized the plan under the former Growth - 1 See http://www.mcaws. v.bc.ca/charter/ legislation/ rd. htm 4 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmentczl Consulting Strategies Act (now Part 25 of the local Government Act). The primary goal of the plan is to help maintain regional liveability and protect the environment in the face of anticipated growth. The regional matters to be addressed by the plan are outlined in sections 850(2) and 850(3) of the Local Government Act. Section 851 requires that a regional growth strategy must apply to the entire regional district for which it is adopted unless a specific regional growth strategy is authorized for a part of a regional district, or by two or more regional districts to apply to all or parts of those regional districts. The four main objectives of the plan are: Protect the Green Zone: The Green Zone protects Greater Vancouver's natural assets, including major parks, watersheds, ecologically important areas and resource lands such as farmland. It also establishes a long-term growth boundary. The Green Zone serves two key purposes: (a) it defines the limit of urban expansion and (b) it fosters a shared sense of commitment between the region's municipalities to protect land within it. Four types of land make up the Green Zone: - community health lands, such as watersheds and floodplains - ecologically important lands, such as forests, wilderness areas, wildlife habitat and wetlands - outdoor recreation and scenic lands, such As major parks and recreation areas - renewable resource lands, such as agricultural and forestry areas. Several Green Zone policies have been enunciated as part of the LRSP. One of these policies is directly concerned with agricultural viability. It states: "In order to protect Greater Vancouver's Green Zone the GVRD Board will seek through partnerships on the establishment of the Green Zone the viability of agriculture through enhanced planning for agriculture as part of the region's economic base, improved communication of the importance of agriculture for the region's livability and other actions" (Green Zone Policy 4.4) Build complete communities: The plan supports the public's desire for communities with a wider range of opportunities for day-to-day life. Focused on regional and municipal town centres, more complete communities would result in more jobs closer to where people live and accessible by transit, shops and services near home, and a wider choice of housing types. Achieve a compact metropolitan region: The plan avoids widely dispersed and accommodates a significant proportion of population growth within the "growth concentration area" in central part of the region. Increase transportation choice: The plan supports the increased use of transit, walking and cycling by minimizing the need to travel (through convenient arrangement of land uses) and by managing transportatioh supply and demand. 5 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting Implementation of the LRSP is a partnership between the GVRD and its member municipalities. There are several implementation tools available to both the GVRD and the municipalities. Municipalities are required to prepare a Regional Context Statement (RCS) as part of an Official Community Plan (OCP). The RCS outlines how the OCP meets the goals and objectives of the LRSP. They are required to be approved by the GVRD Board every five years. The GVRD has several tools to ensure that municipalities follow the LRSP. A key tool is funding of regional sewage and water infrastructure improvements. It is the general intent of the GVRD (as expressed in the LRSP) to not extend these services beyond the urban containment boundary of each municipality. Where a municipality wishes to expand beyond the agreed upon urban containment boundary (as defined through the LRSP, OCP and RCS) it is to apply for an amendment of the LRSP. The GVS&DD has an important role to play in maintaining the urban containment boundary in the GVRD. There are recent examples where the GVS&DD has intervened to promote consistency between local municipal plans and the LRSP. In 2002, a sewerage extension to a small residential subdivision in the Corporation of Delta outside of the urban area was rejected by the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD), based on the decision that providing the extension would be inconsistent with the objectives of the LRSP and would not meet the Board's obligations under the Local Government Act 2. Another 2002 example involves the City of Richmond, whose RCS amendment to accommodate a proposed residential development in East Richmond, an industrial and agricultural area, was denied because it was considered inconsistent with the LRSP. 2.2.2 GVRD'S Economic Strategy for Agriculture in the Lower Mainland, 2002 The economic strategy presents a vision for agriculture in the GVRD that emerged through consultations with local industry representatives: "An economically viable Lower Mainland agriculture industry that is organized, proactive and sustainable over the long term."3 The strategy identified six major strategic goals "... to develop . .a unified economic strategy that will prepare the agricultural industry in the Lower Mainland to deal with the challenges and take advantage of its strengths and assets." These goals are to: Protect the agricultural resource base Streamline the regulatory process Ensure availability of labour at the producer level Develop supportive policies and plans Support an expanded industry image/communications initiative Become market oriented and proactive While all of these goals have relevance to agricultural issues in Maple Ridge, Goals 1 and 4 identify fundamental elements that need to be pursued to improve the - - 2 GreaterVancouver Rego 1'DThtrit 2002 %IThIãi Stratec Plan. GVRD. 2002. An Economic Strategy for Agriculture in the Lower Mainland. July 2002. 6 ZbeetnoffAgro-Enuironmental Consulting agriculture sector, i.e., protection of the resource base andsupportive public policy. Sub-elements of these goals should be considered in Maple Ridge, as the District reviews its OCP policies for agriculture: Goal 1: Protect the agricultural resource base - Vigorously support the Land Reserve Commission's mandate to preserve agricultural land in the area - Aggressively manage the rural-urban fringe to mitigate conflicts between agricultural and other, land uses - Adopt a policy of "no net loss to agriculture' re: land development - Require municipalities to attach "save harmless' clauses to property titles in rural-urban fringe areas - Encourage municipalities that not have done so to form advisory committees and appoint liaison staff Goal 4: Develop supportive policies and plans - Consider agricultural needs in area drainage and water use allocations - Assess potential impacts on agriculture from new development - Ensure additional agricultural training for planners and other public sector staff - Suggest that municipalities designate trained staff to be agricultural advocates and coordinators 2.2.3 GVRD - ALC Implementation Agreement, 1996 In 1996 the GVRD Board and the Agricultural Land Commission signed an Implementation Agreement that includes measures for the two organizations to work together in the implementation of the LRSP and the ALC's strategic plan.4 The objectives of the agreement are: "To foster ongoing consultation and cooperation between the Greater Vancouver Regional District and the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission to coordinate their respective roles within the Greater Vancouver region relative to the preservation of an agricultural land base, the enhancement of community-based planning for agriculture, the viability offarming as an economic activity, and the implementation of the Livable Region Strategic Plan.' To collaborate and minimize conflicts which may occur between farming and appropriate public uses in farm areas such as parks and recreation and utility corridors. 4 Livable Region Strategic Plan Implementation Agreement. "An Agreement Between the Greater Vancouver Regional District and the Agricultural Land Commission on Support Agriculture in Greater Vancouver and the Livable Region Strategic Plan". October 12, 1996. ZbeetnoffAgro-Enuironmental Consulting To build on the strength of each organization and apply the appropnate use of each agency's responsibilities under its respective legislation towards the achievement of the partnership agreement's objectives." The GVRD and ALC have also agreed to coordinate policies and actions and will jointly: 'a) Coordinate agency planning processes (e.g., reviews of the Livable Region Strategic Plan). Refer strategic plans to each other for consultation and comment prior to final adoption. Develop mutually supportive policies on issues of shared concern. Undertake projects on issues of shared concern (e.g., encouraging more municipal planning for agriculture (to address such issues as buffering between agricultural and residential uses, coordinating municipalities on agricultural planning, enhancing the economic viability of agriculture, maintaining information on land uses and issues in the Agricultural Land Reserve to facilitate planning, reviewing policies and regulations which constrain implementation programs and services of either agency). Develop information that supports enhanced community planning for agriculture. J) Develop communication and education tools as resources permit that enhance the public's understanding of agriculture in Greater Vancouver." According to GVRD planning staff, the ALC refers applications for exclusions from the ALR to the GVRD for comment. The applications are reviewed by staff in context of the impact of the proposed exclusion on the LRSP, in particular on the Green Zone. The ALC is under no statutory obligation to consider such comments in deciding upon exclusion applications. 2.3 Local Government Context for Agricultural Planning 2.3.1 Agricultural Land Use Policies In 1985, Maple Ridge reached agreement with the ALC to adopt a set of 'policies" governing land use in the ALR. These policies, adopted by the District in 1992, identified 10 ALR sub-areas in Maple Ridge (Figure 1) and provided separate recommendations primarily regarding their continued status in the ALR. As shown in Table 1, the policies and their updates proposed the future retention of some areas, exclusion of other areas, and consideration of applications for subdivision within the ALR based on their 'merit". 2.3.2 Official Community Plan Review, 1995-96 As part of the 1995 Official Community Plan (OCP) review process, a discussion paper on agriculture was prepared 5. The paper documented agricultural issues in Maple Ridge in the context of the following elements: - - GGRunkaLandSeirsLtti OCP Review Discusssion Paper. 8 ZbeetnoffAgro-Enuironmental Consulting • Urban encroachments on agriculture • Economics of farming • Resources and environment • Land uses within the Agricultural Land Reserve 9 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting • Legislative provisions for agriculture • Maple Ridge's green zone. Key findings of the review included the following: • Unresolved questions remained about the overall role of agriculture in the future of the local community • In view of some current farming practices, there was doubt whether agriculture was compatible with non-farm uses in the ALR • There was ongoing debate about whether current and future agriculture could meet sustainability and stewardship objectives and Maple Ridge environmental and conservation planning objectives • There were outstanding questions about the commitment of the local community to supporting a sustainable brand of agriculture • Notwithstanding the ALR, there was continuing uncertainty among the agricultural community about whether there is a secure place for agriculture in Maple Ridge. Table 1: ALC Policies Resnecting ALR Areas in Maple Ridge ALR Area Acres Current Policy - Area 1: West Maple Ridge 3,043 Retention in the ALR Area 2: Yennadon 399 Retention in the ALR Area 3: Albion 293 Proceed in accordance with an ALC 1993 recommendation to expand the range of permitted use (primarily agricultural, commercial and agricultural industrial in nature on poorer soils), and address problems related to urban storm drainage, weed control, site planning standards, and appropriate location of non- farm uses Area 4: Albion 121 Excluded from the ALC in 1995, on application from the District Area 5: Thornhil 681 Retention in the ALR Area 6: Websters Corner - 2,677 Retention in the ALR and Council consider applications Cottonwood for subdivision o f land within the ALR on their merit Area 7: Thornhill 208 Recommended for exclusion from the ALR in the 1985 review as suburban residential and park. No exclusion application submitted to date Area 8: Whonnock 1,174 That Schedule G of the OCP be amended to show supported exclusion of a 4 ha parcel; applications to subdivide within the ALR for that portion of the area west of 272nd Street be authorized and that the remainder of lands in the Area be retained in the ALR Area 9: Ruskin 321 Retention in the ALR Area 10: Ruskin 26 Retention in the ALR Total 8,943 10 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting )TJ ALR Boundaries within Maple Ridge 0 (0 2 0 g) 0 (0 (I, (D Numbered Sections show ALR Policy Areas As Identified By the Maple Ridge Rural Plan Advisory Committee (1997) Based on the opinion poii conducted in 1995, public support for agriculture was suggested with the statement "... most Maple Ridge residents feel the economy, the environment, and the liveability of the District are enhanced by the presence of agriculture." Key recommendations for OCP consideration were made including that: • A rural plan be developed as part of an economic development strategy for agriculture in Maple Ridge • ALR lands be secured for sustainable agriculture and protected from urban encroachment • Agriculture be enhanced by integrating Maple Ridge agriculture zoning and policy with legislation favouring agriculture • The rural public be educated and made aware of farming practices and issues • Farmers be educated on consumer, environmental and rural-urban perspectives. The District's OCP was adopted in 1996 (Bylaw 5434). Section 2.4 of the OCP is entitled "Agriculture and The Agricultural Land Reserve". It includes a discussion of key issues facing farmlands in the District including: intensive agriculture, economics of farming, services to agriculture, drainage, irrigation and water supply, soil conservation, chemical and fertilizer use, wildlife habitat considerations, transportation, rural lifestyles and values, rural-urban edges, recreation, Agricultural Land Reserve, and GVRD's Green Zone. Five policies relating to agriculture were enunciated in the OCP: "Policy 54: Maple Ridge will develop a Rural Plan for lands outside the urban designated areas, and will include a review of all Agricultural Land Reserve areas. Policy 55: Maple Ridge supports the continuation of the Agricultural Land Reserve. Policy 56: Maple Ridge will support the usage of buffering mechanisms to reduce conflicts between land uses. These mechanisms are to be accommodated in the most appropriate area and may include: • building and storage setbacks, • drainage ditches, • fencing, and • landscape buffers. Policy 57: Maple Ridge will encourage self-reliance in food production. Policy 58: Maple Ridge will promote community education in self-sufficiency, and soil conservation and enhancement techniques." The Local Government Act requires that municipalities articulate the relationship of their plans to the GVRD's regional growth strategy in a Regional Context Statement (RCS). Each municipality within the GVRD is required to prepare and submit a RCS to the GVRD Board for approval. The RCS forms part of the Official Community Plan. It is intended to demonstrate how the OCP meets the objectives of the LRSP. A RCS can be amended over time and is required to be referred to the regional district for 12 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting acceptance every 5 years. It is usually developed in conjunction with an OCP review and update. Maple Ridge's Regional Context Statement was accepted by the GVRD in 1996 and represents the most important policy instrument indicating how agriculture is protected as a component of the GVRD Green Zone in the District. The Regional Context Statement prepared in keeping with the requirements of Section 866 of the Local Government Act reads6: "1.3.2.1 Protect The Green Zone The Green Zone areas in Maple Ridge are identified in the OCP and include: • Areas designated on Map Schedule 'B" as Agricultural, Conservation, Open Space, Community Forest, Research Forest, Forest Reserve. These areas include the Agricultural Land Reserve, the Blue Mountain Provincial Forest, the Malcolm Knapp Research Forest, Kanaka Creek Regional Park, Golden Ears Provincial Park, Whonnock Lake Park, Maple Ridge Park, and Thornhill Park; • Features identified as protected watercourses and wetlands on Schedule 'E" The OCP recognizes and protects our Green Zone areas by: • identification of urban areas and limiting those areas with containment boundaries (Policy #26 and Map Schedule B); • recognition of these areas through land use designations as being protected for their inherent natural resource values (e.g. - Conservation, Open Space, Greenway, and Parks designations; and public policy such as the Watercourse Preservation Development Permit Areas, other site specific Development Permit Areas for environmental protection, and 5% subdivision dedication for watercourse preservation; see also Table 3 and Policy # 4-13, 15, 16, 17, 21, 54); • endorsement of the Regional Greenways Plan for the Maple Ridge - Pitt Meadows Sector - Nov. 1996 (Policy #90); • the use of a density bonusing and transfer policy for protection of signflcant features and environmentally sensitive areas (Policy #21, and Part III, Neighbourhood Plans); • promoting the viability of agriculture through public policy (Policy #54-58); and • promoting the development of a regional parks system through land use designations and public policy (Policy # 89-90). The Municipality and the Regional District will work towards consistency between the OCP and the LRSP over time based upon refinements to the Green Zone. Refinements will arise due to: • resolve inconsistencies in the LRSP Green Zone map and Schedule "B" and "E" of the OCP; • implementation of the Rural Plan; • ongoing identification of environmentally sensitive lands through additional research or through the FREMP area designation process; • ongoing refinement to the major highway network (Policy 70, and the Transportation Network Plan Map Schedule 'C"). 6 District of Maple Ridge. 1996. Official Community Plan. ByLaw No. 5434 - 1996. Consolidated up to and including ByLaw 5902-2000 adopted Oct. 28, 2003. Pp. 3-4 13 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting 2.3.3 District of Maple Ridge Rural Plan, 1996-97 The OCP recommended that a Rural Plan be undertaken for all lands outside the urban designated areas, including a review of all ALR areas. In 1996 a citizen's committee was appointed to formulate policies for the long term future of Maple Ridge's suburban residential, rural residential and agricultural lands. The objectives of the plan were stated as follows 7: To protect the quality of the environment in the rural area To support the agricultural use of land and agricultural industry in the rural area To provide direction to economic development in the rural area that is compatible with the agricultural community To provide a land use pattern that supports the rural economy, preserves a land base for agricultural production and is compatible with the agricultural industry To offer recreational opportunities in the rural area To preserve buildings of heritage value and landscapes, roads and sites of scenic or historic significance To provide adequate levels of transportation and services to the rural area. The Final Report of the Rural Plan Advisory Committee was prepared in October; 1997, recommending actions based on public consultations and further review. Table 2 outlines the main findings and recommendations. As a result of the Rural Plan, several policies were amended in the OCP. The main recommendations of the report dealt with the following (Council decisions are bolded): Initiate discussions with the ALC to exclude lands recommended by the report and that Schedule G of the OCP be amended as necessary Re-designate in the OCP to the recommended land use of lands identified in Part 5, Agricultural Land Reserve Review and Part 7, Area Recommendations Include proposed revisions to policies as identified in Part 6, Strategies and Policies and Part 7 1 Area Recommendations Initiate discussions with BCMAFF towards development of a Farm ByLaw (Council agreed to use of a Farm ByLaw, to be developed by an Agricultural Advisory Committee) Create an Agricultural Advisory Committee (Council agreed) Create an Environmental Coordinator position to provide bylaw enforcement capability (Amended and accepted) Adopt appropriate regulatory mechanisms along the rural-urban interface boundary for the purpose of the protection of the natural environment, protection of farming and enhancement of the form and character (To be resolved by the Agricultural Advisory Committee) 7 Vision Maple Ridge Rural Plan. 1997. FinatRepofi: ReOmmendations of the Rural Plan Advisory Committee. October. 14 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting 8. Consider proposed Zoning Bylaw and changes in Part 6, Strategies and Policies for strengthening the economic potential of the rural areas (Amended and accepted) /- 15 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting Table 2: Main Findings and Recommendr'tions of the Rural Plan Advisory Committee. October. 1997 Question Main Findings Source of Information Recommendations What creates rurai -50% indicated fairning and Public Input lifestyle, character green fields or open spaces and values in Maple -50% indicated more Ridge? development and services in rural areas What are the key - Impact of increaed Public Input - Maintain larger parcels issues in rural housing on agriculture - Protect the environment and green space by providing sanitary sewer or areas? - Need for buffering from septic solutions intensive agriculture - Limit rural population - Preserve rural lifestyle - 87% of residents agreed that stricter land use policies should be - Need for improved and implemented increased services such as - 87% agreed that farmland should be preserved even at the expense of water, sewer growth. - Exclude marginal agricultural land for (note: the Rural Plan used an extensive public consultation process with development input during its initial research phase as well as during the review of the - Determine which ['land in 1996 Ofjidal Community Plant the ALR should remain protected What businesses are -Agriculture is most Public Input -A rural farm plan should be developed as part of an economic strate' for suitable for rural suitable, includingbóth Maple Ridge areas? commercial and hobby pursuits -Agri-tourism, stables and recreation -Home based businesses -Seek employment generators that do not have a negative impact on the natural environment -Preserving and enhancing natural features will attract tourism (Formatted: Font: Italic 16 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmentat Consulting Question Main Findings Source of Recommendations Information Vision of the rural - Environment and natural Rural Plan - Healthy and abundant rural environment emphasizing the environment future resources statements - Housing Rural Plan - Promote a rural community that includes housing options for people of statements all need and economic levels - Minimize impact on agriculture and the natural environment Concentrate rural development in community cores - Economy and employment Rural Plan - Rural area provides recreational opportunities, active fanning economy statements and environment to support tourism - Allow businesses that enhance and support rural lifestyle and working farms, such as B&Bs - Agriculture and the ALR Rural Plan - Have a healthy, productive and profitable fanning community statements - Manage lands around agriculture and restrict inappropriate development - Promote food self-sufficiency -Rural lifestyle Rural Plan - Promote a quiet countryside with green space, agriculture, recreation, statements wildlife and residential living - Neighbourhood character Rural Plan - Manage for balance among competing interests in the rural area (such as and design statements preservation, parks, ALR, recreation, rural lifestyle, tourism) - Maintain the rural look of the area, viewscapes and wildlife corridors - Provide for landscaped buffer areas between rural and urban designated areas - Provide green spaces with trails, accessing parks, shops and public transit - Develop neighbourhood centres to provide public services and housing opportunities - Transportation Rural Plan - Provide various infrastructure, such as modes for, vehicles, cyclists, statements walkers and horseback riders - Develop an efficient network of roadways, sidewalks and pathways to provide access to major transportation routes, urban centres, recreation and transit - Community services, Rural Plan - Encourage services in existing communities to reduce travel parks and heritage statements conservation 17 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting Question Main Findkngs Source of 1ecommendatlons' Information Part 5: Agricultural - What are the Rural Plan That areas be recommended for exclusion based on: Land Reserve opportunities for - statements - unlikely future as agricultural Review agriculture I protection of the environment - What are the cnstraints - smoothing the boundary for agriculture - correcting past oversights - Should land be - completing previous decisions recommended for exclusion? - Future of agricufture in Rural Plan Proposed package of protection and enhancement measures will ensure a Maple Ridge statements long-term future for local agriculture, e.g, - land base protection - enhancement through economic development * - increased land use Provide opportunity for 'small' and part-time agriculture Provide for agriculture as lifestyle Part 6: Strategies Changes to the OCP Rural Plan - Development and maintenance of environmentally sensitive storm water and policies statements management (Amended OCP Policy 5 - Approved) - Retention of significant trees (OCP Policy 13 - Flagged) - Development Permit Areas (Amended OCP Policy 21- Not Approved) - Enhancement of investment and business opportunities within the community (OCP Policy 37- Flagged) • - Support use of buffering to reduce conflicts between land uses (Amended OCP Policy 56- Approved) - Encourage self-reliance in food production (OCP Policy 57 - Amended and approved) - Support development of community cores (Amended OCP Policy 59 - Approved) - Encourage alternative modes of movement such as pedestrian, equestrian, bicycles, public transit and farm vehicles (Amended OCP Policy 67 - Approved) - Support the Fraser River bridge and other major road improvements (OCP Policy 70 - Approved) I - Support pedestrian routes to link local destinations (OCP Policy 71 - Amended and Flagged) - Encourage public access to dykes, shorelines, ravines and watercourses (OCP Policy 88 - Amended and Approved) - Develop a coordinated system of parks and recreation opportunities (OCP Policy 89- Amended and Approved) 18 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmentol Consulting Question Main Findings Source of Information Recommendations New recommended policies Rural Plan - Develop best management practices to manage storm water from upland statements _ urban areas onto agricultural floodplain (New - Approved) - support formation of an Agricultural Advisory Committee (New- Flagged) - Accommodate farm vehicle movement (New - Approved) - Support development of the Cross-Canada Trail (New - Amended and Approved) - Support recreational use of the Alouette and Fraser Rivers (New - Approved) - Support protection and enhancement of heritage rural roads (New - Approved) - Support development of B&B and other forms of tourist accommodation (New - Amended andApproved) Regulatory regime Rural Plan - Proceed toward the development of a Farm Bylaw statements - Down-zone RS zones in the ALR - Increase the range of permitted uses in the ALR - Create a Development Permit Area for the protection of farming Approved - Ask ALC re: Strategy) Recreation Rural Plan - Endorse the Regional Greenways Plan statements Rural Lifestyle Rural Plan - Accept current OCP land use policies re: subdivision for rural lifestyle statements opportunities Strengthening agriculture Rural Plan - Form AAC statements - Protect regional Green Zone - Allow cluster housing to create larger, buffered farm parcels - Introduce density transfer - Introduce buffering provisions (DPA) between urban, rural and ALR lands - Amend Zoning Bylaw to allow a greater range of agricultural opportunities - Develop a Farm Bylaw - Create an Agri-Industriai service centre in the Aibion Flats - Seek delegation of ALC powers to the District 19 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting Question Main Findings Source of Information Recommendations Part 7: Area - What to do about specific Rural Plan - Options were presented based on recommendations implicit above Recommendations issues in specific dub-areas? statements Subarea A: South of 128th Rural Plan Council selected Option 4 Council agreed to Option 4: retain in ALR; Avenue to the urb&n statements provision for buffering; adopt Farm ByLaw boundary Subarea B: Entire'Area Rural Plan Council amended Option 3: Retain in ALR with flagging of the statements clustering/consolidation concept Subarea C: Transition area Rural Plan Council agreed to Option 3: Retain in ALR, submit to ALC, with a view to west of Smith Averiue statements endorsing Option 2: removal from the ALR subdivision to 240th Street and between 12411 Avenue and 113th Avenue - Subarea D: Rural Plan Council approved application of the clustering/consolidation concept statements Subarea E. Rural Plan Council approved Rural Advisory Committee recommendations, agreed to statements enquire to ALC re: Twin Maples site, possible inclusions into the ALR Subarea F Rural Plan Council approved application of the clustering/consolidation concept, Park statements acquisition Subarea G: Thomliill Rural Plan Council agreed to Rural Advisory Committee recommendations, including statements that parcel sizes should go down to 5 acres, buffering, Farm ByLaw Subarea H: Albion lFlats. Rural Plan Council flagged the recommendation to exclude frontage lands from the statements ALR, retain the rest for community gardens 20 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting Consider an Environmentally Sensitive Areas study for the rural and agricultural areas (Amended and accepted) Explore way and means for the acquisition and protection of Blaney Bog (Avveytvd) Consider finalizing the Regional Context Statement as Maple Ridge's commitment to the GVRD's Green Zone concept (Accepted) Several implementation issues were identified in the Rural Plan, including: • How "clustering and consolidation"8 in the ALR could result in consolidation of legal properties for agricultural use • How "bonusing"9 could result in increased agricultural use. This might occur in areas that are used for farming but are not zoned for agriculture. • Concern was also expressed over the types of industrial uses that would be allowed in the Albion Flats area. (The District has subsequently undertaken an industrial lands study.) • Concern was also expressed over drainage issues on lowlands (farmland) that could result from developing the upland areas. • There was concern that recreation uses and park acquisitions could impact on agriculture. (Blaney Bog was acquired for park purposes.) • Reducing land speculation in the ALR was linked to the need for a farm bylaw and appropriate zoning (no action has been taken on a farm bylaw or rezoning) • The Plan recommended that a Development Permit Area be created for the protection of farming in rural-urban interface areas (no action has been taken) • A rural roads heritage study was proposed (but has yet to be implemented) • Council was to review the issue of establishing an Agricultural Advisoiy Committee. In 1997, the Rural Plan was completed and recommended to Council. This Plan identified agriculture as an essential component of the rural character and contained ambitious goals to strengthen agriculture, including the development of a farm bylaw and creation of an Agricultural Advisory Committee. In the 1998 review of the Rural Plan, Council accepted the two main recommendations that "... discussions be initiated with the ALC to exclude identified lands" and ". . . Council consider the re- designation of the OCP to include the land use recommended." All other recommendations were dealt with in the context of the two main recommendations. 2.3.4 Agricultural Land Reserve Policy Context In 1999, the ALC commented on "District of Maple Ridge: Planning Policies Governing the Agricultural Land Reserve". The Commission indicated that the objective of these policies should be to ". . . encourage agriculture and identfy appropriate mitigation measures while achieving an outcome which results in a net benefit to agriculture" and provided the ALC's net benefit to agriculture policy. With some modest revisions, the 8 The concept of 'clustering and consolidation", as articulated in the Rural Plan, is intended to allow for 'consolidated' or 'clustered" development to occur on a portion of an area in return for allowing the remaining land to be consolidated for agricultural use. 9 'Bonusing", as defined in the OCP, refers to the concept of allowing for increased density (floor space) in an area in exchange for a specific amenity, which may include agricultural uses. 21 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting ALC endorsed the proposed policy instruments and anticipated a forthcoming public policy statement which would "... identfy the key criteria by which our respective agencies will consider future subdivision, exclusion,' inclusion and non-farm use in the ALR in Maple Ridge". Policies supported by the ALC included: • the "cluster and consolidate concept" as it appeared capable of supporting the ALC's net benefit to agriculture concept • development permit areas on the non-ALR side of the rural-urban interface • proposed Farm Bylaws • limiting ton-farm uses within the ALR • opportunity for ALR inclusions to benefit agriculture • proposed greenways, arterial corridors, wildlife areas, and agri-industrial areas In 2000, Maple Ridge Council considered a staff recommendation that the District adopt the revised ALR planning policies to improve the permitting processes between the District and the ALC and to update policies to accommodate recommendations of the Rural Plan.'° The memo noted that it was difficult to deal with the recommendations of the Rural Plan without a consistent policy framework that would apply to all ALR areas. However, concern was also expressed that adoption of ALR policies would encumber Council's ability to deal with sub-area specific issues with area-specific policies. Importantly, Council amended the proposed policies by retaining the phrase ".. . that exclusion of lands from the ALR should be considered on the 'merit' of the proposal." The recommendations in the Rural Plan have yet to be fully implemented. The District continues to forward some ALR exclusion applications directly to the ALC with no comments or recommendations attached. As a result of the Agricultural Land Commission Act in 1972, approximately 4,744 ha of land had initially been reserved for agriculture in Maple Ridge. Since the Agriculture Land Reserve designation, several area adjustments have been made in response to community growth and streamlining of the ALR configuration. In December 2003, the total area of land in the ALR consisted of 3,679 ha'1 or approximately 14.3% of the area of the District of Maple Ridge. Overall, the area of the ALR in Maple Ridge has diminished 24% since its establishment12, compared to an area decline of about 7% for the Lower Mainland as a whole. There have been numerous applications to exclude 10 Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge. 2000. Proposed agricultural land reserve policies and next steps in rural plan implementation. Report from Chief Administrative Officer to Mayor and Council. July 19. 11 This includes land required for the Fraser River Crossing (5.52 ha), the fairgrounds area (54.13 ha), the Pattison property (3.79 ha), the I3osa property (29.52 ha), and the recommended park area north of Thornhill (77.25 ha), the Jackson property (19 ha) and the area approved for exclusion applications west of 232nd Street and south of 1281 Avenue (18 ha) but does not include areas associated with the Abemethy Connector, 2 parcels immediately west of Langley I.R. #5, areas adjacent to the Jackson property, parcels south of 124th Avenue and west of 264th Street, parcels east of 284th Street and north of 108th Avenue, and several other "clean- up' properties considered unsuitable for agriculture. 12 Primary reasons for the reduction of the ALR have included reconfiguration, suburban - - - - - - - -. - sIiiffi iitliaiiieiin ALR boundaries. occurred in 1977, 1978, and 1985. 22 ZbeetnoffAgro-Enuironmental Consulting specific parcels due to their limited soils capability, awkward configuration, location relative to other land uses, and unsuitable topography. Issues related to the agricultural capability of the ALR have arisen each time agricultural policy has been discussed or reviewed in Maple Ridge. In the 1980's, the ALC examined the- 10 geographical sub-areas of the ALR in Maple Ridge and articulated policy (that was adopted by Maple Ridge Council in 1992) recognizing the differing area-specific agricultural conditions. Area-specific issues were identified with this approach and demonstrated the diversity of Maple Ridge agriculture. However, strong guiding principles to provide direction for agriculture in the District have not evolved In late 2003, the ALC commissioned a study to re-examine the ALR lands in Maple I Ridge for their agricultural suitability. The report, which was expected in Spring, 2004, will hopefully provide information that identifies which areas of the District are best suited to being supported in agricultural uses. 2.3.5 Rural Policy Context Rural Maple Ridge has been subdivided into rural residential-size holdings dating back to the 1940s and 1950s. These sub-divisions occurred in response to demand for arural lifestyle. Maple Ridge residents have consistently supported the rural character of the District. A public opinion survey conducted in 1995 in which 94% of Maple Ridge residents expressed the desire to retain the municipality's rural character, lifestyle and heritage Maple Ridge residents feel that13: • 87% strongly agree or agree somewhat with preserving farmland even at the expense of growth • 85% of urban residents and 79% of rural residents agreed that the ALR should be reviewed to determine which lands should be protected and which should be made available for urban and other non-agricultural development • 93-95% of Maple Ridge residents expressed the desire to retain the municipality's rural character, lifestyle and heritage • 84% favoured containing future development within existing urban areas rather than developing rural areas. Polling of Maple Ridge residents in March, 200314 also reveals that 76% of residents place high priority for action to ensure that the District maintain its rural character. A workshop held with non- farming rural residents in the Maple Ridge ALR in February, 2004, as part of this agricultural review, confirmed not only a strong desire to preserve rural character but also overwhelming support for the ALR and farming activities. The current OCP identifies rural lifestyles and values as a key issue. The OCP states: 13 Angus Reid Group Inc. 1995. Maple Ridge opinion poll 14 The Mustel Group. 2003. Strategic Plan Community Survey. March. http: / /www.mapleridge.org/municipal/press_releases/E947_report final.pdf 23 ZbeetnoffAgro-Enuironmental Consulting "Rural populations are anything but homogeneous and are often comprised of the following groups: • farm families whose principal income is farming, • part-time or hobby farm families whose main income is derived offfarm but who operate a small farm for pleasure or a small income, • rural residential families who wish to live in a rural environment but do not participate in a farming activity, and • rural business families who operate home-based or other businesses in a rural area." The OCP also discusses rural-urban boundary issues around drainage, water, parcel size and density along the boundary, setbacks and buffers, speculation impact on agricultural land values, right to farm issues, pesticide applications, waste management, soil erosion, communication/education of competing users, and psychological impact of intense urban edge pressure. While the current OCP supports the concept of rural lifestyle, this policy could be strengthened in support of agriculture by including policy instruments that promote rural character and encourage values that sustain rural lifestyle. For example, the OCP states that Maple Ridge will support the use of buffers to reduce conflicts between land uses (OCP Policy 56). One tool that could be used to do this would be Development Permit Areas (DPA) established to maintain a buffer between urban land uses and rural or agricultural uses. At least in one DPA (Area XIX) one of the objectives is to retain natural vegetation in order to maintain the rural character of the area. Some municipalities have adopted farm bylaws to provide additional strength in protecting agricultural values. 2.3.6 Synopsis Agriculture and the retention of the ALR are important components of the rural lifestyle, values and economy of Maple Ridge. Efforts to develop and implement a rural plan in Maple Ridge have been ongoing for over 15 years. The most recent version'5 has articulated many concepts and ideas that would promote agriculture in Maple Ridge. However, decisions on implementing the recommendations continue to be hampered by uncertainties related to: • agricultural capability of specific parcels and areas • doubts about the realistic potential for economic agricultural enterprise, given the small farm sizes • pressures for subdivision development • rural-urban land use conflicts • a definition of rural lifestyle. .15..Rural--Pian:-F.inal-Report. -1997 RecommntiatioWfThë RüiàlThn Mi,isory Committee. Maple Ridge. December. 24 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting Council's review of the Rural Plan in 199816 resulted in the point-by-point evaluation of rural plan components and the selection of options or amended options where the Rural Plan Advisory Committee could not make a collective recommendation. The results of various planning efforts and approaches over the past 20 years have resulted in the following outcomes: - The size of the ALR in Maple Ridge has declined about 24% since inception, mostly as a result of major "fine tunings" in 1977-78 and again in 1985. The ALC has adopted exclusion policies, including block exclusions, to support growth of the community, to streamline the ALR area configuration, to deal with specific site conditions, such as poor land capability, and to support expanded park/recreation uses within the District. One of the outcomes has been the differentiation of the ALR into 10 sub-areas and the treatment of each separately in terms of rural objectives. Historic RS-3 (Rural Residential) zoning, dating back prior to the establishment of the ALR, covers over 55% of the ALR in Maple Ridge. This zoning initially created small parcels that not only require greater attention to rural residential - intensive agricultural use interface management, but may have also promoted an image that much of the ALR is not primarily for agricultural use. The current OCP designates over 96% of the ALR for agriculture (Table 3). This is an important policy statement as it provides a vision and land base foundation for the future of agriculture in the community. It sends a message that agriculture is a valued industry within the District. The historic land use zoning within the ALR as noted above, however, permits non-farm uses which may contribute to a perception that agriculture is not actually the primary use. The OCP outlines a number of issues affecting agriculture and has several policies that are meant to address, in part, these issues. Maple Ridge has prepared a Rural Plan to address key issues that were identified in the 1995-96 OCP review and development. Despite these policy and plan initiatives, a more coordinated approach may be warranted toward promoting and supporting agriculture and maintaining rural lifestyles and values in Maple Ridge. While Maple Ridge's OCP and Regional Context Statement were approved by the GVRD Board in 1996, there are some recent activities that one might consider to be inconsistent with LRSP Green Zone policies (e.g., extension of trunk sewer lines into non-urban areas). 16 Maple Ridge Council. 1998. Rural Plan: Summary of Council Decisions on Implementation. Amended. January. 25 ZbeetnoffAgro-Enuironmental Consulting Table 3: OCP Designation of Land within the Agricultural Land Reserve, District of Manle RidEe Desgnation Hectares Percent Agricultural 3681.8 96.1% Business park 0.62 0.0% Compact housing 0.03 0.0% Park 76.26 2.0% Commercial (service/rural) 0.72 0.0% Rural residential 17.73 0.5% Single family/residential (5,123,15,18,20 units/ha) 2.5 0.1% Institutions/school 31.28 0.8% Suburban.residential 0.83 0.0% Transportation/utility 1.21 0.0% Other 17.72 0.5% Total ALR 3830.7 100.0% Source: District of Maple Ridge, May, 2004 The OCP also lacks several tools to actively promote and support agriculture. However, there are successful planning tools that have been used elsewhere for this purpose. For example, designation of a Development Permit Area specifically designed to buffer non-farm land uses from farm or rural residential uses is one instrument that has been used elsewhere. A farm bylaw or other regulatory tools, which would help ensure consistency between provincial statues (e.g., Farm Practices Protection Act) and provide mechanisms for making agriculture more viable could be implemented. The OCP does not have policy statements (other than retaining the ALR) supporting agriculture and rural values in Maple Ridge. The District of Maple Ridge, the GVRD and the ALC have an obligation under the Livable Region Strategic Plan (LRSP) to ensure ALR exclusions are compatible with the objectives and policies of the Green Zone. At present, it is not clear how this is being monitored at the municipal, GVRD or ALC levels. Trends emerging with respect to the way the LRSP is being implemented in the GVRD suggest 1) a movement away from leniency of enforcement to authorization and legalization approaches, and 2) a move from neighbourhood-to-neighbourhood policy to municipality-wide policy. An example cited is the move toward region-wide legalization of secondary suites.'7 These developments suggest that if Green Zone and 17 GVRD 2002 Annual Report: Livable Regional Strategic Plan. This trend is noted with respect to the Livable Region Strategic Plan goal of building complete communities. Statistics in the report (pp. 19 & 33) also suggest that Maple Ridge population growth does not appear to reflect growth limitation across the eastern boundary of the GVRD as articulated in the compact region strategy. Growth of the Maple Ridge Regional Town Centre in the 1991- 2001 period has been the lowest in the GVRD (+2.7%), whereas population growth in District was +12.5% in the 1996-200 1 period (highcr then the GVRD average). More effective town centre densification and containment of urban expansion would decrease development pressure on the Green Zone. 26 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting Compact Metropolitan Region initiatives follow the same trends at the regional level, Maple Ridge may be required by the GVRD to adopt policies that better conform to the intent of the LRSP and implementation strategies in other member municipalities. In summary, this section concludes that the policy context for agriculture includes the following: • The role of agriculture is supported and articulated at the regional level through the LRSP; • The District of Maple Ridge, through its OCP has designated the majority of land within the ALR for Agriculture, however, there is not a strong vision for the protection and enhancement of agriculture, other than a generic statement supporting the continuation of the ALR; • Historic non farm land use zoning within the ALR may give the image that agriculture is not the primary land use within the ALR; • The existence of commercial agriculture outside the ALR is not recognized or addressed in community policy; • There is a need for clear policy guidelines to assist the District in assessing land use applications • There are no policy objectives in resolving agricultural issues; • There are no policy objectives related to quality of rural lifestyle issues; • There are few, if any, municipal bylaws specifically designed to support or enhance agricultural activity; • There is no special treatment to protect or enhance agriculture in or outside of the ALR; • There is no preferential treatment given to agriculture, other than lower taxes for agricultural uses; • The objective of self-sufficiency in agriculture has been shown repeatedly to be a non-starter wherever non-agricultural activities are allowed to compete unencumbered for agricultural resources; • The objective of local self-reliance in food production is not achievable with the loss of local farming; • Pressure on agricultural resources has been increased by land speculation within the ALR; • In the absence of strong rural and agricultural policies and tools, land use planning tends to be more "reactive" creating the potential for spillover impacts into other areas (e.g., residential development) that may be detrimental to the community's overall rural lifestyle objectives. 27 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting 3.0 Agriculture in Maple Ridge 3.1 Background 3.1.1 Agricultural History of Maple Ridge Agriculture in the District of Maple Ridge has a history dating back to the 1850's. The District of Maple Ridge is composed of several historical communities including Albion, Hammond, Haney, Ruskin, Thornhill and Whonnock. Some of these communities evolved from agricultural nodes developed by early settlers in the last half of the 19th century and Japanese farmers in the early 20th century until prior to WWII. The confiscation of land owned by Japanese in 1942 changed agriculture in Maple Ridge. This change was followed after the war by the emergence and growth of hobby farms and rural residential lifestyles. At various points in the past, the soils have produced commercial volumes of tree fruits, nuts, strawberries, raspberries, honey, oats, peas, root crops for local markets. Livestock operations raising beef, dairy and sheep have grown hay and pasture to take advantage of the limited soil capabilities of much of the agricultural land base. Poultry farms have been based in the District since the early 1900s. A 1960s federal-provincial ARDA project improved the agricultural lowlands of the northwest corner of Maple Ridge, providing adequate drainage and flood control for a wide range of agricultural activities. The Albion flats (fairgrounds) area also benefits from improved drainage and flood control. More recently, farmers have switched to more intensive operations that are suited to BC's climate such as nursery crops, and greenhouse silviculture, vegetable and flower production. Maple Ridge has also become a rural area that attracts small lot hobby and part-time farmers, who have used their parcels to maintain horses and "specialty" livestock, such as goats, llamas and specialty birds. Most of the agricultural area is serviced by a limited road network and land has been parceled in a fashion to provide frontage and access. The Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Agricultural Association, formed in 1901, continues to hold an annual Maple Ridge Fair to promote and educate the public about the importance of agriculture. The Maple Ridge branch of the Farmers' Institute, incorporated in 1914, has not been active for several decades._Some of the area's current farmers, such as the Laity and Hampton families, trace their lineage in the community back 8 generations. Several historic farm buildings are also recognized in the community. 28 ZbeetnoffAgro-Enuironmental Consulting 3.1.2 General Trends in Lower Mainland Agriculture Maple Ridge has been subject to the same trends as the Lower Mainland, as reflected in the changing face of agriculture in response to new economic and market realities. General trends in Lower Mainland agriculture include: • Intensification of livestock operations in response to economics dictated by relatively high agricultural land costs • Construction of greenhouses to produce various indoor crops, taking advantage of BC's sunlight and climate • Increased nursery and blueberry crops production in response to buoyant markets • Agri-tourism, ranging from petting farms to corn mazes to bed and breakfast operations • Increased consumer support for locally produced commodities • Consumer interest in organically grown products 3.1.3 Regional Significance of Maple Ridge Agriculture It is useful to compare Maple Ridge agriculture to other jurisdictions to gauge its significance in the GVRD. In 200018, Maple Ridge represented 8.3% of the farms in the region, 4.1% of the farm area and 5.6% of the gross farm receipts (GFR5)19. The number of farms in the GVRD rose to a peak in 1995 before dropping to the lowest number since 1990 in 2000 (see Table 4). In the 1990-2000 period, the number of farms declined about 7% and most markedly in Richmond, Pitt Meadows and Surrey. In the 1995-2000 period, farm numbers declined 20% and was most pronounced in Richmond, Pitt Meadows, Surrey and Maple Ridge. It should be noted that Richmond, Pitt Meadows and Surrey all approved and began implementing agricultural plans in this period. In the 1990-2000 period, gross farm receipts in the GVRD doubled although the growth was only 29% in the 1995-2000 period. Clearly, farms were increasing in size in those municipalities with large parcels and based on field crop agriculture. It should be noted that Maple Ridge gross farm receipts showed the 2nd highest percentage increase in GFR growth in the period, only after Delta with its rapid increase in greenhouse vegetable production. A measure of the productivity of Maple Ridge agriculture is provided by a comparison of the GFRs generated per hectare of farm. Notably, Maple Ridge ranked 3rd in per hectare GFRs, only behind Burnaby and Surrey and significantly above the regional average. As such, agricultural enterprises in Maple Ridge generate significant revenues regardless of limitations related to soils capability or climate. 18 Statistics Canada. 2000 Agriculture Census. 19 Gross farm receipts is the total "farm gate" revenue from farming operations. 29 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting Table 4: Agricultural Indicators, Greater Vancouver Regional District, 1995 and 2000 Municipality 1990 1995 2000 1990-2000 1995-2000 # farms # farms # farm % chang % changE Langley 1,408 1,58 1,417 0.6°! -11.8°! Surrey 668 744 55 -16.6°! -33.6°! Delta 188 186 i9q 4.3°! 5.1°! Richmond 237 247 18: -23.2°! -35.7°! Burnaby & 51 -3.8°! -5.9°! GV, Subd. A 93 118 8 -11.8°! -43.9°! Pitt Meadows 171 178 13: -22.8°! -34.8°! Maple Ridge 244 3311 23: -2.9°! ..3970/ 3VRD 3,06 3,44 2,85 -6.8°! -20.6°! Gross Farm Receipts 1990 1995 2000 1990-2000 1995-2000 GFRs GFRs GFRs % chang % chang Langley $118,383,062 $150,355,771 $203,399,307 71.8°! 26.1°! Surrey $95,395,994 $106,866,115 $101,371,891 90.1°! 41.1°! Delta $33,366,39q $65,177,713 $160,841,471 382.0°! 59.5°! Richmond $43,596,188 $56,388,204 $37,646,151 -13.6°! -49.8°! Burnaby $6,063,987 $19,388,020 $14,949,181 146.5°! -29.7°! GV, Subd.A $7,138,675 $10,817,897 $10,073,081 41.1°! -7.4°! Pitt Meadows $28,022,923 $59,368,379 $50,592,34 80.5°! -17.3°! Maple Ridge $13,785,406 $27,106,058 $39,180,041 184.29! 3VRD $345,752,63 $495,468,157 $698,053,46 101.9°! 29.0°! 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Municipality # farn hectare % farms % GFRS % hectares GFRIH Langley 14,187 49.6°! 29.1°! 35.7°! $14,33 Surrey 7,0& 19.5°! 26.0°! 17.8°! $25,60 Delta 7,840 6.9°! 23.0°! 19.7°! $20,51 Richmond 3,36 6.4°! 5.4°! 8.5°! $11,181 Burnaby 294 1.8°! 2.1°! 0.7°! $51,191 3V, Subd. A 2,370 2.9°! 1.4°! 6.0°! $4,231 Pitt Meadows 2,974 4.6°! 7.2°! 7.5°! $1 7,01: Maple Ridge 1,615 8.3°! 5.6°! 4.1°! $24,261 GVRD 39,735 100.0°! 100.0°! 100.0°! $17,561 3ource: Statisticscanada. Agnculture Census. 30 ZbeetnoffAgro-Enuironmental Consulting 3.1.4 Support for Agriculture in Lower Mainland Municipalities Essentially, governments in various jurisdictions have realized for some time that agriculture cannot compete head-on with non-agricultural demands for land.20 In BC, the foresight to create the BC Agricultural Land Reserve in the early 1970s slowed considerably the conversion of agricultural lands into residential, recreational, conservation and industrial development in the Lower Mainland. While the GVRD population grew 24% in the 1991 to 2001 period21, the area of the ALR has declined less than 9% since its designation (1974),22 indicating that policy at a regional level has deflected growth away from agricultural areas. In addition, the system of lower provincial farm property tax assessments has traditionally recognized the societal value of agricultural enterprise to local economies. Nevertheless, agriculture has still been under extreme pressure to convert to non- agricultural land uses for other reasons: • Competition with demand for agricultural land as rural estates • Conflict between rural and urban land uses • Speculation leading to: higher land prices, absentee ownership, elevated risk of making leasehold capital improvements, land idleness in anticipation of conversion, and reduced access to current farmers • Demand for recreation on farmlands, dykes and rural areas • Increased problems related to farm vehicle movement and access • Deterioration of drainage and flood control improvements • Fragmentation and loss of farm service It has become increasingly noticeable that protection of the physical land base is a necessary but not sufficient condition to maintain economically viable farming. These other factors restrain normal farming practices, resulting in extra costs to operate and maintain agricultural businesses and decreasing the confidence of operators to make continued capital investments. The Farm Practices Protection Act has been important in protecting farmers from nuisance claims. However, much more effective outcomes have been realized where GVRD municipalities have recognized the desirability of agriculture and provided for its maintenance and enhancement through rural and agricultural plans. Of the 22 entities in the GVRD, eight local jurisdictions have a significant agricultural sector.23 All of these municipalities, with the exception of Maple Ridge, have policy statements in their respective Official Community Plans (OCPs) that not only provide protection to the agricultural resource base but also promote and enhance agricultural viability within the local community by addressing agricultural issues. What becomes evident is that these jurisdictions recognize that agriculture in urbanized settings requires community support and protection to be sustainable. Thus, a critical 20 In a 2002 publication entitled 'Tarming on the edge: Sprawling development threatens America's best farmland", the American Farmland Trust notes that America's wasteful use of land rather than economic growth is causing the problem. http://ww%v.farmland.org/farmingontheedge/about historv.htm 21 GVRD. 2003. 2002 Annual Report: Livable Region Strategic Plan. P. 19. 22 See http: / /www.alc.gov.bc.ca/alr/stats/`A5 incl-excl allyears.htm 23 These municipalities are Delta, Township of Langley, Pitt Meadows, Richmond, Surrey, Burnaby, Maple Ridge and Greater Vancouver Subdivision A. 31 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting prerequisite would appear to be that a community needs to commit to preserve the agricultural resource base, as the first step in creating conditions for its continued existence. - 3.2 Agriculture Resources in Maple Ridge A review of agriculture in the District of Maple Ridge was last undertaken in 1995.24 That study provided extensive detail about Maple Ridge agriculture, much of which has not changed in the interim. Broadly defined, the agricultural resource base consists of resource and services used in the production of agricultural products. While availability of land, water and drainage immediately spring to mind, other factors such as farm services and infrastructure directly impact the ability, to carry out agricultural activities. 3.2.1 Agricultural Land Base Total land area in the District of Maple Ridge is 257sq. km or 25,700 ha (63,500 acres). As of December 02, 2003, total land area in the ALR = 3,848.9 ha (9,509 acres) or 15% of Maple Ridge. At the time of this report, an additional area of 170.2 ha (420 acres) in the ALR was subject to "pending" exclusion interest. The area of farms in Maple Ridge in 2000 25 was 1615.4 ha (3,990 acres) = 6.3% of Maple Ridge. In 2003, area of lands in Maple Ridge with farm class tax assessment 26 amounted to 1815.9 ha = 4,485 acres; of which 3,286 acres (73.3%) is in the ALR (see Figure 2) and 1,198 (26.7%) is outside of the ALR (see Figure 3). By area, 34.5% of the ALR has farm class tax assessment status. 24 GG Runka Land Sense Ltd. 1995. An Official Community Plan Review Discussion Paper: Agriculture and the Agricultural Land Reserve. 25 Statistics Canada. 2000 Agriculture Census. 26 Farm class tax assessment is a lower tax bracket that provides a tax incentive to farm. Under B.C. Regulation 411/95 (Standards for the Classification of Land as a Farm) of the Assessment Act, a farm is all or part of a parcel of land used for: primary agricultural production a farmer's dwelling, or the training and boarding of horses when operated in conjunction with horse rearing. All farm structures, including the farmer's dwelling, will be classified as residential. Properties that are taxed in the farm class category meet the land use and income requirements. Primary agricultural products must be sold each year. Crops grown for home consumption will not be considered part of farm income. Minimum income requirements are calculated as follows: $10,000 on land less than 8,000 m2 (2 ac) $2,500 on land between 8,000 m 2 (2 ac) and 4 ha (10 ac) on land larger than 4 ha (10 ac): you must earn $2,500 plus five per cent of the actual value of any farm land in excess of 4 ha. See http: / /w-ww.bcassessment.bc.ca/6_afb/6 fãrm.html 32 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting A study is currently being undertaken by the Agricultural Land Commission re- examining land suitability for agriculture in the District of Maple Ridge. The findings are intended to shed light on the ongoing question of whether certain areas of Maple Ridge are indeed suitable for continued agricultural production or should be made available for other community needs. The results could have significant implications for the future direction of the Livable Region Strategic Plan in Maple Ridge. It should be noted that over 25% of the land currently in agricultural production in Maple Ridge is outside of the ALR. It would be helpful if the study sheds some light on the suitability of these lands for agriculture. 3.2.2 Soil Capability for Agriculture Soils in the District of Maple Ridge are varied and reflect closely the parent materials (i.e., surficial geology materials) on which the soils have formed. Surficial materials are varied and 10 types or more occur. The most commonly occurring surficial materials and soils are very briefly summarized below for the various Maple Ridge ALR Sub- areas indicated in Figure 1. Four areas adjacent to the ALR have agricultural capability characteristics and land use similar to the ALR lands. These fotir areas have been investigated by the ALC for their agricultural suitability and should also be considered in respect of an agricultural strategy and policy commitment in the District. The following information is based on the soil survey report Soils of the Langley- Vancouver Map Area27 and recent work by C&B Land Resource Consultants Ltd.28 Details regarding soil characteristics and 1:20,000 scale soil maps are in the "Soils of, the Langley-Vancouver Map Area" and information regarding soil management and crop production is outlined in the "Soil Management Hand book for the Lower Fraser Valley".29 27 Luttmerding, H.A. 1981. Soils of the Langley-Vancouver Map Area. RAB Bulletin 18. BC Ministry of Environment, Victoria. BC. 28 the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) and C&B Land Resource Consultants Ltd. (C&B LRC) Data are from a currently ongoing (mid-2004) study conducted for the ALC by C&B LRC. 29 Bertrand, R.A. 1991. Soil Management Handbook for the Lower Fraser Valley. BC Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Victoria, BC. 33 ZbeetnoffAgro-Erwironmental Consulting Figure 2: Land with Farm Tax Assessment completely in the ALR, District of Maple Ridge, BC, 2004 Legend AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE FARM TAX A8SESSENT Courtesy of District of Maple Ridge, anni.-1g Department Figure 2: Land with Farm Tax Assessment completely in the ALR, District of Maple Ridge, 2004 -Formatted: Figures 1 34 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting Figure 3: Land with Farm Tax Assessment partially or completely outside the ALR, District of Maple Ridge, BC, 2004 - mak ; Ta u_JR _o Legend , ff ] AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE FARM TAX ASSESSMENT Courtesy of The District of Maple Ridge, Planning Department Figure 3: Land with Farm Tax Assessment partially or completely outside the ALR, District of Maple Ridge, 2004 35 ZbeetnoffAgro-Enuironmental Consulting Sub-area 1 (West Maple Ridge) has surficial materials in the lowlands that are dominantly alluvial and alluvial with organic surface. On the alluvial deposits, the most common soil series are Bonson, Sturgeon and Hammond. On the alluvial/organic area the major soils are Widgeon and Alouette. Sub-area 3 (Albion) is dominantly alluvial with organic surface. The major soils are the Hazeiwood and Fairfield soils. Sub-areas 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 (consisting of portions of Yennadon, Albion, Thornhill, Websters-Corner-Cottonwood, Thornhill, Whonnock, Ruskin and Ruskin, respectively) are almost entirely glacio-marine material. There are minor areas of alluvial and alluvial with organic surface, as well as some littoral beach deposits over glacial marine material or till. The principal soils on the glacio-marine material areas are Albion, Scat and Nicholson. On the coarse textured littoral beach deposits, the main soils are the Heron and Summer series. Of the four areas adjacent to the ALR shown on Figure 4, the two small areas, Area 1 and Area 4, are glacio-marine material. The two larger areas, Area 2 and Area 3, are almost exclusively glacial till. The principal soils are Butzen and Steelhead. Agricultural capability30 in Maple Ridge ranges from Canada Land Inventory (CLI) Class 1 to Class 7. The soil limitations to agricultural capability are due primarily to 30 Canada Land Inventory (CLI) Soil Capability for Agriculture Classes: Class 1-no or only very slight limitations that restrict use for the production of common agricultural crops. Class 2-minor limitations that require good ongoing management practices and/or slightly restrict the range of crops. Class 3-limitations that require moderately intensive management practices and/or moderately restrict the range of crops. Class 4-limitations that require special management practices and/or severely restrict the range of crops. 36 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting very low permeability (impervious subsoils), restricted drainage (due to low permeability or location in undyked lowland areas), low moisture holding capacity where the surface soil is coarse textured (gravely/sandy) and topography. Agricultural capability classes are usually defined as improved or unimproved ratings. The unimproved rating describes the agricultural capability class for soils without drainage and irrigation improvements; the improved rating describes the agricultural capability class for soils with drainage and irrigation improvements, regardless of whether or not improvements have been made. Class 5-limitations that restrict its capability to producing perennial forage crops and/or other specially adapted crops. Class 6-non-arable but is capable of producing native and/or uncultivated perennial forage crops. Class 7-no capability for arable culture or sustained natural grazing. I Reference: Kenk, E. and I. Cotic, 1983. Land Capability Classification in British Columbia. BC Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Victoria, B.C. 37 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting N i 128 FIGURE 4 Agricultural Capability of Land in the ALR and Some Adjacent Areas, District of Maple Ridge, B.C. 0 600 1.200 2.400 3.600 4,800 Meters July 8th, 2004 - - P-'1 t H Al ( P Legend Roads Maple Ridge Boundarw Agricultural Capability Classes 1 Classeslto3 2 Class4 3 Classes 5 to 7 a 7 Reproduced with pem1uion of be Argiculiural Lend rnmt.sion/ C&F tad R.owe Consultants Ltd., from the report and datsba,e of CF tend Re.urve Cn.ultent. Ltd. 2004 Agrfndturai 8u.tsinsblity M1,ta for MnplC Rid1e. Figure 4: Soil Capability of Lands in the ALR, District of Maple Ridge 38 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting Recent work by C&B Land Resource Consultants Ltd. (LRC) has provided groupings of agricultural capability ratings for the Maple Ridge ALR lands as shown in Figure 4 and summariz[iKTãble 5. Table 5: Agricultural Capability of Lands in the Maple Ridge ALR Agricultural Capability Classes Classes 1-3 Class 4 Classes 5-7 Total ha % ha ha % ha 3496.2 90.7 260.5 6.8 96.9 2.5 3853.5 Source: Data are from a currently ongoing study conducted for Agricultural Land Commission by C&B Land Resource Consultants Ltd. Note: Agricultural capability ratings are improved ratings (i.e. ratings with improvements due to drainage and irrigation, regardless whether the improvements have actually been made). The agricultural capability ratings of the four areas adjacent to the ALR, which were included in the work by Land Reserve Commission (noted as Area 1, Area 2, Area 3, and Area 4), are shown in Figure 4 and listed in Table 6. Table 6: Agricultural Capability of Four Areas Adjacent to the Maple Ridge ALR Capability Classes _Agricultural Sub-area Classes 1-3 Class 4 Classes 57 Total ha ha % ha hectares Area 1 1.7 988 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.7 Area 2 161.0 64.5 87.2 34.9 1.4 0.6 249.6 Area 3 151.5 860 24.5 139 0.2 0.1 176.2 Area4 0.0 0.0 5.4 75.7 1.7 24.3 7.1 Total All Areas 314.1 72.3 117.1 26.9 3.4 0.8 434.5 Source: Data are from a currently ongoing study conducted for Agricultural Land Commission by C&B Land Resource Consultants Ltd. Note: Agricultural capability ratings are improved ratings (i.e. ratings with improvements due to drainage and irrigation, regardless whether the improvements have actually been made). In the BC Lower Mainland, lands with agricultural capability ratings of Class 1 through 4, and sometimes Class 5, are considered suitable for inclusion in the ALR. As shown in Table 5, more than 97% of the Maple Ridge ALR Lands are classed as Class 1 through Class 4. Similarly, 99% of the lands in Areas 1, 2, 3 and 4, adjacent to the ALR, but currently not in the ALR, are rated CLI Classes 1 through 4. 3.2.3 Agricultural Drainage The northwest corner of the Maple Ridge 3 ' ALR benefits from regional ARDSA drainage, installed in the 1960s as part of the regional drainage system in Pitt Meadows. An additional area bounded by the Alouette River on the south and west and by the North Alouette River on the east and north is protected by a dyke system. Adjacent lowland agricultural areas have high water tables that limit crop production due to poor drainage. 31 The area is west of 212th Street and a portion of Sub-area 1. 39 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting The Albion Flats (Sub-area 3 in Table 7) also has drainage improvements from a dyke system in the area. Drainage problems in lowland agricultural areas have been exacerbated by increased upland storm flows and the deterioration of channels for drainage due to federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans restrictions on cleaning and maintenance. Rain storms in the winter 2003-2004 nearly caused massive damage due to storm water overflow and flooding of the western portion of Sub-area 1 (Table 2) from McKenney Creek. There are options in the New Fraser River Crossing Project (see Transportation, below) that may address drainage issues. related to McKenney Creek. Upland agricultural drainage has not been a major factor limiting agricultural activity. Where slopes are encountered, operators have had to pay closer attention to erosion control and the prevention of waste runoff, such as manure, from moving into water courses. In the Thornhill area (Sub-area 5), rural residential development has created localized runoff concerns for adjacent agricultural properties in the past. Table 7: Breakout of the ALR area by Sub-Area (Rural Plan, 1997) - Includes only oarcels wholly within the ALR - Sub- area # of acres # of parcels Parcel size range (ac) Average parcel size (ac) 1 3,043 364 1.2-173 8.52 2 399 68 4.9-20 6.59 3 293 44 4.9-62 6.61 4 Excluded from the ALR in 1995 5 1 681 119 4.9-30 7.58 6 2,677 594 1.2-30 4.72 7 208 45 Recommended for exclusion by ALC as residential/park (1985) 8 1,174 174 4.9-89 7.41 9 321 46 4.9-49 7.62 10 1 157 1 3 1 20-124 25.94 Totals 1 8,953 I 1,457 6.59 In general, agriculture requires a lower standard of flood control and drainage improvements than most other non-agricultural uses to achieve beneficial impacts. As well, agriculture permits water uptake in crop production, seasonal inundation of fields and prevention of flooding by means of dissipating storm flows. 3.2.4 Agricultural Irrigation Agricultural irrigation was indicated on 50 hectares in Maple Ridge, or about 3% of the area farmed in 2000. In general, water demand is related to domestic livestock watering, berries and greenhouse and floriculture operations. Much of the agricultural area depends on groundwater for domestic supply. The large silviculture operation in the northwest corner of the District is on municipal water supply. 40 ZbeetnoffAgro-Enuironmenial Consulting Several water licenses are issued to agricultural operations in Maple Ridge 32. The list of watercourses to which these apply include Albion Brook, Alouette River, Anderson Creek, Anna Spring, Carter Brook, Cedar Glades Spring, Chadsey Creek, Chuck Creek, Cooper Creek, Courtney Creek, Cranberry Slough, Donegani Creek, Drader Spring, Duncan Springs, Dunlop Brook, East James Creek, Elsie Spring, Fraser River, Giotto Spring, Halbauer Spring, Iron Mountain Creek, Kanaka Creek, Kearns Brook, Laity Brook, Laity Spring, Larsen Creek, Lee Brook, Lynx Creek, Maple Creek, McFadden Creek, Millionaire Creek, Norris Creek, North Alouette River, North Kanaka Creek, North Millionaire Creek, North Spring, Pierre Brook, Pioche Spring, Rana Ditch, Rosengren Spring, Shepherd Creek, Sisson Spring, Spring Meadow Creek, Sprott Creek, Spring Creek, Stelke Brook, Titleist Creek, Turnbull Creek, Vincent Creek, Wanstall Creek, Webber Brook, Whonnock Creek, Wice Spring, Wiens Spring, Williams Creek, York Creek, Zarnowski Spring, Zirk Brook.and ZZ Spring. These licenses permit water use for greenhouses, nursery, domestic, irrigation, stock watering, frost protection, flood harvesting, land improvement (i.e., diversion or impoundment to protect property) and storage in the District. 3.2.5 Farm Services The agricultural base in Maple Ridge is insufficient to support farm services. There is one farm equipment and machinery supplier in the community that attributes about 15% of its business to the local faming sector. Farm services are obtained from other municipalities with farm sectors, such as Pitt Meadows, Abbotsford and Chilliwack. The anticipated construction of the Fraser River crossing may change where Maple Ridge farm operators acquire farm services in the future. 3.2.6 Agricultural Processing A fruit and berry cannery used to operate in Maple Ridge. Today with improved transportation and more concentrated production elsewhere, commercial processing facilities have centralized. On-farm processing is permitted in the ALR and probably occurs on some properties in association with direct marketing and crafts home business. Nursery and greenhouse operations now do a significant amount of potting, medium preparation and packaging on-farm. This is the case for the silviculture and floriculture operations in Maple Ridge. 3.2.7 Transportation The road systems in Maple Ridge have evolved to maximize frontage for the greatest number of parcels with the least amount of road length. Route and access planning has been complicated by the presence of numerous valleys and creeks, resulting in dead-ends and indirect traffic corridors through the municipality. Agricultural traffic competes with commuter traffic on virtually all local routes. Access to fields is difficult in some areas and there are concerns relating to ensuring safety along some roadways and at trail crossings. 32 See http://www.ely.gov.bc.ca:8000/pls/wtrwhse/water licences.input 41 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting Maple Ridge has historically been restricted from direct access to southerly parts of the lower mainland by the Fraser River. East-west traffic has proceeded along the north shore of the Fraser River via the Lougheed Highway, which passes through various community cores such as Maple Ridge. With the continuing trends of rapid residential population growth in these municipalities and commuting to the Vancouver area for employment, all traditional road links have experienced overcapacity use and traffic congestion. Translink's proposed New Fraser River Crossing (Golden Ears Bridge) between Pitt Meadows/Maple Ridge and Surrey/Langley is planned for construction in the 200th Street corridor. This crossing is anticipated to provide time-saving transit benefits to the Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge communities. .3 Working in tandem with the crossing and to providing an east-west traffic artery, the Abernethy Connector is planned through the Alouette river floodplain to skirt around the northern boundary of the Maple Ridge community centre. This project will require a Right-of-Way through the best agricultural land in Maple Ridge and would result in permanent impacts affecting between 6.6 and 19.6 ha, depending on scenario and the extent to which parcel severances are mitigated.34 A lingering threat to agriculture is that the Connector could be rationalized as the "new" agricultural boundary and that prime agricultural land would be lost through infilling south of the Connector. Of intermediate-term concern to agricultural interests is how the likely development of feeder routes to the Abernethy Connector beyond the eastern terminus of Abernethy Way at 236th Street might affect agricultural land owners and the ALR. Longer term transportation plans of the District also indicate various routes that cross through the ALR. Currently, Translink is working with the ALC, the municipality, and individual property owners to mitigate the impacts or proposed transportation improvements on properties. 3.3 Farm Characteristics 3.3.1 Land Use In 2000, there were 237 farms in Maple Ridge.35 This represents a decrease in farm numbers of about 28% compared to 1995 (see Table 8). As Table 8 also shows, the area of operating farms also declined by 17% in the 1995-2000 period. 33 GVTA Board Meeting. 2001. Fraser River Crossing Project: Interim Summary Report. December 18. 34 See New Fraser River Crossing Project - Application Supplement. Component 1 - Abernethy Connector Assessment: Section H - Agricultural Resources. hfty: / /www.eao.gov.bc.ca/epic/outyut/html/deulov/evic document 214 16039 html 35 Statistics Canada. 2000 Agriculture Census. This includes all farms with Maple Ridge addresses indicating at least $2,500 annually in Gross Farm Receipts. 42 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting Table 8: Agricultural Area in Crop Production, Maple Ridge, 1995 and 2000 Maple Ridge 1995 1 2000 Percent Change (1995 to 2000) 1995 2000 Percent Change (1995 to 2000) Percent of total farmland in 2000 # of farms indicating: # of hectares Field crops (md. potatoes) x x 167 59 -59.3% 3.6% All other tame hay 45 41 -8.9% 365 321 -12.1% 19.9% Tree fruits, berries & nuts 23 26 13.0% 65 53 -17.5% 3.3% Vegetables 21 11 1 -47.6% 18 17 -2.3% 1.1% Nursery 47 36 -23.4% 64 84 28.6% 5.2% Sod 1 2 100.0% x x Xmas trees 21 13 -38.1% 24 19 -21.7% 1.2% GH area (sg.m.) 41 25 -39.0% 2,984,029 2,760,904 -7.5% Mushrooms 0 1 0 x Land in crops (1) 63 108 71.4% 680 534 -21.4% 33.1% Summer fallow 2 3 50.0% x 2 Tame/seeded pasture (2) 64 51 -20.3% 162 278 71.1% 17.2% Natural pasture (3) 161 109 -32.3% 483 419 -13.2% 25.9% Christmas trees 13 24 19 -20.3% 1.2% All other (4) 252 1 169 -32.9% 595 364 -38.9% 22.5% Total numbers/farmland 331 1 237 -28.4% 1 1,944 1 1615 -16.9% 100.0% Source: Statistics Canada. Agriculture Census Notes: Land in crops includes all areas reported for field crops, tree fruits and nuts, berries and grapes, vegetables, nursery products and sod Tame and seeded pasture includes land that has been cultivated and seeded or drained, irrigated, fertilized or controlled for weeds or brush Natural pasture refers native pasture, native hay, rangcland, and grazeable bush All other includes land on which farm buildings, barnyards, lanes, home gardens, greenhouses and mushroom houses are located, idle land, woodlots, sugarbush, tree windbreaks, bogs, marshes, sloughs, etc. As indicated in the last column of Table 8, tame/seeded and natural pasture together account for about 43% of the farm area in Maple Ridge. "All other" uses, consisting of yards, building suites and idle areas, account for an additional 23% of agricultural farmland. Crops are grown on 33% of the farming area, while Christmas trees are grown on about 1% of the agricultural land base. The second last column of Table 8 indicates that the area of land in crops has decreased while the area of land in tame and seeded pasture have increased, suggesting that land use is becoming relatively less intense. Current (2003) land use was documented 36 for lands in the Maple Ridge ALR and four adjacent areas. The four areas have agricultural capability and land use similar to the ALR lands. Land use was identified from air photography and then "ground-truthed" by a detailed visual observation survey. Fourteen land use categories were identified and are shown in Figure 5. The total extent (ha) and relative extent (%) of the various land use categories in the ALR are listed in Table 9. 36 Data are reproduced with permission of the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) and C&B Land Resource Consultants Ltd. (C&B LRC) Data are from a currently ongoing study conducted for the ALC by C&B LRC. 43 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting Table 9: Land Use in Maple Ridge ALR, 2003 Map Code Land Use Category Maple Ridge ALR lands (ha) % of ALR 1 Blueberries/Cranberries 66.8 1.7 2 Pasture/Horses 732.1 19.1 3 Hay/Pasture 374.0 9.8 4 Forested 985.4 25.8 5 Environmental 43.5 1.1 6 Peat Bog 175.6 4.6 7 Golf Course 3.8 0.1 8 Christmas Trees 3.4 0.1 9 Urban 54.0 1.4 10 Gravel Pit/Industrial 25.1 0.7 12 Green House 68.1 1.8 13 Nursery Stock 16.9 0.4 14 Rural Residential 1273.6 33.3 15 Vacant 3.8 0.1 Total Area 3826.1 100.0 Sourcc: Iiata are 1rom a currenuy ongoing stuoy conauctea jor !lgrlcuLLuraI banu Lommisslon oy i...a banu Resource Consultants Ltd. Note: Total area is 27.4 ha less than for ALR in Table S as some lowland along the Alouette River is not included here. Table 9 provides the most recent land use information, however a direct comparison of land uses, and changes from 2000 to 2003 cannot be made with the 2000 Statistics Canada Agriculture Census data (Table 8). The land use categories are different and the area included in the farm Census data does not indicate if the farmland is in the ALR or not. The dominant land use -one-third- in the Maple Ride ALR, as defined by the categories in Table 9, is Rural Residential (33%). Somewhat less than one-third (28.9%) is designated as hay/pasture, often with horses. One quarter (25.8%) of the ALR is forested. The remaining 12% comprises various other uses as listed in Table 9. Table 10 presents the most recent land use information for the four areas adjacent to the ALR. Similar to the ALR lands, the dominant land uses area is rural residential, as one half of these adjacent areas (49%) is so designated. Almost one-half (40%) of these areas is forested. 44 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting FIGIJRE 5 N Agricultural Id Use in the ALR and Some W.kE Adjacent Areas, District of Maple Ridge, B.C., T 2002 0 600 1,200 2,400 3,600 4,800 — eters July 8th, 2004 Ld Poods —- 1 8e4ni(s AREA - 2 3 H0lPfl1zw4 4 Ftthd 41 5Ein 8 CWmhim Tes .4 10 GavelP4Ondusbi,4 - - 12 Green 13 Nuw StOA 14 R*a 15 vwe Areas 1,2,3and4arenotintheALR Redud4th perthlM&ofl of Arombuml Lw.d Qaam1ian/ PLII4 ftwuma cans8 I.W., ftm the I Wmtnd datbue ufC&P LeM ReaoWce Onsuftnts U. 2X4 AVftuIbrsi Suaab0Afl.a1i farMipe 5: Land Use in the ALR, District of Maple Ridge, 2003 45 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environrnental Consulting '1'1i in. T.oi,I TTap bi Vniir Arpan AtUnpnt tn th Mskn1a Ridge ALR. 2003 Map Code Land Use Category Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Total All Areas ha % ha % ha % ha % ha % 1 Blueberries/Cranberries 2 Pasture/Horses 11.7 4.7 16.4 9.3 3.9 55.0 32.0 7.4 3 Hay/Pasture 4 Forested 1.7 100.0 119.3 47.8 51.3 29.1 3.2 45.0 175.5 40.4 5 Environmental 6 Peat Bog 7 Golf Course 8 Christmas Trees 9 1 Urban 10 Gravel Pit/Industrial 12 - Green House 13 Nursery Stock 14 Rural Residential 104.4 41.9 108.5 61.6 0.0 212.9 49.0 15 Vacant 14.1 5.6 _____ 0.0 - 0.0 14.1 3.2 Total Area 1.7 100.0 249.5 100.0 176.2 100.0 7.1 1 100.0 1434.5 1 100.0 Source: Data are trom a currently ongoing stuny concluctca ior igricuiturai LanO commission oy C,050 L.anu IcesoLucc Consultants Ltd. 3.3.2 Land in Crops In the 1995-2000 period, changes in agricultural cropping patterns in Maple Ridge have mirrored changes in the GVRD. While the area of land in crop production declined over 20%, this decline occurred mostly in field crops, Christmas trees and tree fruits (see Table 8, above). The nursery sector has been one of the more buoyant sectors and has been appropriate for smaller farms because of the intensity of production. Cranberry and blueberry acreage has increased where adequate supply of water for flood harvesting and frost protection is available. Maple Ridge greenhouse production area and vegetable production acreage declined marginally in the period, as acreages were not large enough to support growth in commercial large-scale greenhouse vegetable or floriculture operations. 3.3.3 Farm Livestock A significant proportion of Maple Ridge farms raise various types of domestic and specialty animals (Table 11). While the number of livestock operators has decreased in the 1995-2000 period, commercial poultry flocks and numbers of horses and specialty animals (such as llamas and alpacas) has increased. Cattle, sheep and goat numbers have been relatively static in the period. Poultry production for -home use appears to be declining. 'S 46 ZbeetnoffAgro-Enuironrnental Consulting Table 11: Livestock Farming Activities, Maple Ridge, 1995 and 2000 Maple Ridge 1995 2000 Percent Change 1995 2000 Percent Change in# animals # of farms indicating: # of animals rotal hens/chickens 114 88 66355 267,664 303.4% urkeys 5 9 80.0% x x )ther poultry 57 30 3,081 1296 -57.9% Eotal cattle and calves 116 62 -46.6% 1,509 1 1608 6.6% rotal pigs 24 8 -66.7% 123 x flotal sheep and lambs 49 34 -30.6% 824 .800 -2.9% Horses and ponies 105 76 -27.6% 429 521 21.4% Goats 32 28 -12.5% 155 169 9.0% Rabbits 31 5 -83.9% 3,134 153 -95.1% Deer/elk I 0 x 0 Liamas/alpacas 10 14 40.0% 44 98 122.7% )ther livestock 7 0 -100.0% x 0 Bees for honey (hives) 7 1 -85.7% 12 x kgs Broiler & roaster production 20 23 x 13,005,6691 rurkey production 10 13 x x Source: Statistics canada. Agriculture Census otes: = confidentiai 3.3.4 Farm and Parcel Size In 2000, over 55% of the farms were less than 4 ha (10 ac) in size (see Table 12) and almost 96% of farms were less than 28 ha (70 ac). In some cases, farms may be operating units of as many as 8 legal properties. Farm size in Maple Ridge averaged 6.8 hectares in 2000. Small farm size is directly related to the number of small legal parcels in the farming areas of Maple Ridge. While small parcels provide opportunities for part-time and hobby farming, small farms can restrict the range of commercially viable farming activities. There are about 1,400 legal parcels within the Maple Ridge ALR, ranging from 0.5 ha (1.2 ac) to 70 ha (280 ac) in size, with the average parcel size of properties in the ALR at about 2.6 ha (6.5 ac). The area with farm class tax assessment, which includes farms outside of the ALR, is composed of 434 legal properties 37. ' District of Maple Ridge. 2003. 47 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting Table 12: Distribution of Farm Size in Maple Ridge Acres 1995 2000 2000 Hectares Farm Size # of Farms Percent of Farms Farm Size <10 ac 210 131 55.3% <4 ha 10-69 112 96 40.5% 4-28 70-1 29 3 6 2.5% 29-52 130-1 79 1 1 0.4% 53-72 180-239 3 2 0.8% 73-97 240-399 2 1 0.4% 98-162 400+ 0 0 0.0% 163+ # Farms 331 237 100.0% Source: Statistics Canada. Agriculture Census. 3.3.5 Municipal Zoning About 30% of the Maple Ridge ALR is zoned for agricultural use. The District's Zoning ByLaw specifies conditions for agriculture related to lot size, siting of buildings and structures, site coverage and accessory uses. Other zoning designations in the District's ALR are presented in Table 13. Much of the current zoning within the ALR in Maple Ridge was in place when the ALR was established in the 1970's. About 57% of the ALR is zoned RS-3 (one family rural residential) where the minimum lot area is 0.8 ha (except where a community water system is not provided and the minimum lot area of the subdivision shall not be less than 2.0 ha). RS zoning has implications for lot coverage and the type of agriculture allowed on certain parcel sizes. It is evident that historic land uses prior to the ALR coming into being resulted in a number of non-farm uses within the ALR. This mix of land uses can give the impression that rural lifestyle, not just farm lifestyle is being promoted within the ALR. However, it should be noted that the RS (residential) zones that occur within the ALR permit agricultural use and that all ALR land within the District is designated "Agriculture" within the OCP. Any change to a non-agricultural use would require an amendment to the OCP and presumably to the GVRD's Livable Region Strategic Plan, as ALR lands within Maple Ridge are part of the GVRD's Green Zone. 48 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting Table 13: District of Maple Ridpe - Zoning Within the ALR (1) Zone Description Number of Parcels Percent of Parcels Area (Ha) Area (Ac) Percent of Total Acres Average Parcel Size (Ac) A-I Small holding agricultural 10 0.6% 25 62 0.7% 6.2 A-2 Upland agricultural 190 12.1% 1,077 2,661 28.3% 14.0 A-4 Intensive greenhouse district 2 0.1% 4 10 0.1% 4.8 A-5 Agricultural only 1 0.1% 15 38 0.4% 38.0 RS-i One family urban residential 74 4.7% 66 162 1.7% 2.2 RS-lb One family urban (med density) residential 12 0.8% 1 2 0.0% 0.2 RS-2 One family suburban residential 220 14.1% 290 717 7.6% 3.3 RS-3 One family rural residential 1027 65.6% 2,173 5,367 57.0% 5.2 P-I Park and school 1 0.1% 5 13 0.1% 13.4 P-2 Special institutional 3 0.2% 1 4 0.0% 1.2 P-3 Children's institutional 2 0.1% 4 9 0.1% 4.7 P-4 Church institutional 3 0.2% 0 1 0.0% 0.4 C-2 Neighbourhood commercial 1 0.1% 0 1 0.0% 1.0 CD-4-88 I Fairgrounds 6 0.4% 24 60 0.6% 10.0 CS-i I Service commercial 2 0.1% 2 5 0.1% 2.4 Indian Reserve 2 0.1% 106 261 2.8% 130.4 LUC Land use contract 6 0.4% 15 38 0.4% 6.3 M-2 General industrial 2 0.1% 1 2 0.0% 0.8 RG-2 Suburban residential strata 1 0.1% 1 2 0.0% 1.9 Totals . 1,565 100.0% 3,811 9,414 100.0% 6.0 Source: District of Maple Ridge, 2003 Notes: (I) Many of these land use zones are nonconforming and were in place prior to the implementation of the Agricultural Land Reserve by the provincial government 3.3.6 Agricultural Land Tenure Approximately 85% of the Maple Ridge farm area was owned by farm operators in 2000 (see Table 14). In the 1995-2000 period, the number of landlords and area of leased farmland declined over 30% suggesting that fewer non-farming landowners tended to make land available to farm operators. 49 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting Table 14: AgrIcultural Land Tenure in Maple Ridge Maple Ridge 1995 2000 Percent Percent Tenure #of farms #of acres Percent #offarms #of acres Percent Change in Farms Change in Area Total farm area 331 4,801 237 3,990 -28.4% -16.9% Area owned 304 3,892 81.1% 224 3,412 85.5% -26.3% -12.3% Area leased 53 909 18.9% 40 578 14.4% -30.2% -36.4% Lower Mainland # of farms # of acres Percent # of farms # of acres Percent Total farm area 6,671 271,219 5,733 257,907 -14.1% -4.9% Area owned 6,201 201,298 74.2% 5,377 186,738 72.4% -13.3% -7.2% Area leased 1,458 68,821 25.8% 1,385 71,169 27.6% -5.0% 1.8% Source: Statistics canada. Agriculture Census In comparison, farm operators in the GVRD tended to lease proportionately more agricultural land in 2000 (28% leased). However, the area of leased farmland actually increased 2% in the 1995-2000 period. 3.3.7 Farm Capital Investment Categories Table 15 presents a breakout of farm numbers by size of farm capital investment 38 . In 2000, almost 80% (n=187) of Maple Ridge farm operators reported between $200,000 and $1,000,000 in farm capital investment. The "average" Maple Ridge farm operator appears to have a farm capital investment of about $425,000 in 2000. It may be noted from the Table that the decline in farm numbers in the 1995-2000 period occurred across all farm capital investment categories except for the two largest categories. This may suggest the presence of a substantial value of currently idle farm capital assets. The GVRD displays a higher proportion of farms with investments exceeding $1,000,000 (Table 15, 29% GVRD and 15% Maple Ridge). However, the proportion of farms with investments under $200,000 is virtually the same (7.3% GVRD and 6.8% Maple Ridge). It is anticipated that the lower investment in large Maple Ridge farms is constrained by small parcel sizes and farm configuration. The proportion of operators in the lower investment categories would be expected to increase with recruitment of new farmers. .3.3.8 Distribution of Farms by Gross Farm Receipts Category The Maple Ridge agricultural sector is comprised primarily of operators with part-time levels of farm income, although a small number of operators generate full-time revenues (see Table 16). In 2000, about 54%of farm operators grossed less than $5,000, annually, and 77% grossed less than $25,000. Alternatively, less than 25% of the farms exceeded $25,000 in annual gross farm receipts. In the 1995-2000 period, the greatest decline in farm numbers occurred in categories of the less than $5,000. - 38 Fam it1iñsnfii1üdésiue of land, buildings, machinery, equipment and -- - livestock inventory used in agricultural production by the operator. 50 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting Table 15: Farm Numbers by Farm Capital Category, Maple Ridge and GVRD, 1995 and 2000 Farm Capital Category($) Maple Ridge GVRD 1995 2000 Percent of farmers in category (2000) 2000 Percent of farmers in category (2000) # of farms # of farms <$50,000 6 3 1.3% 29 1.0% $50,000-99,999 8 5 2.1% 47 1.6% $100,000-199,999 21 8 3.4% 134 4.7% $200,000-349,999 70 50 21.1% 309 10.8% $350,000-499,999 99 69 29.1% 552 19.3% $500,000-999,999 102 67 28.3% 963 33.7% $1,000,000-1,499,999 11 14 5.9% 343 12.0% $1,500,000+ 14 21 8.9% 477 16.7% Totals 331 237 100.0% 2,854 100.0% Source: Statistics Canada. Agriculture Census. Table 16: Distribution of Maple Ridge Farms by Gross Farm Receipt Category, 1995 and 2000 GFR Category Maple Ridge _______ GVRD ___ 1995 2000 1995 2000 1995 2000 # of farms (2000) % of farms (2000) Cumulative percent (2000) # of farms % of farms Cumulative percent <$2,500 73 35 22.1% 14.8% 22.1% 14.8% 346 12.1% 12.1% $2,500-4,999 125 92 37.8% 38.8% 59.8% 53.6% 727 25.5% 37.6% $5,000-9,999 51 29 15.4% 12.2% 75.2% 65.8% 376 13.2% 50.8% $10,000-24,999 38 28 11.5% 11.8% 86.7% 77.6% 351 12.3% 63.1% $25,000-49,999 14 17 4.2% 7.2% 90.9% 84.8% 223 7.8% 70.9% $50,000-99,999 5 12 1.5% 5.1% 92.4% 89.9% 173 6.1% 76.9% $100,000-249,999 11 8 3.3% 3.4% 95.8% 93.2% 223 7.8% 84.8% $250,000-499,999 5 4 1.5% 1.7% 97.3% 94.9% 159 5.6% 90.3% $500,000+ 9 12 2.7% 5.1% 100% 100% 276 1 9.7% 100.0% Totals 331 237 100% 100% 2,854 1 100% Source: Statistics Canada. Agriculture Census. In comparison, 63% of GVRD farm operators generated less than $25,000 in gross farm receipts in 2000 and about 38% of GVRD farm operators also derive less than $5,000 from farming activities, annually. Overall, while the proportion of farmers generating more than $100,000 annually is higher in the GVRD than Maple Ridge (23% versus 10%), the data indicate that a high proportion of part-time and hobby farming is characteristic of the whole GVRD. 51 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting 3.4 Contribution of Maple Ridge Agriculture to the Local Economy While the best source of information on Maple Ridge agriculture is the Agriculture Census conducted by Statistics Canada every 5 years (2000 was the last Census), it is important to note that the data tends to underreport the contribution of agriculture. First, some farmers do not respond to the Census and thus, their activities are not reported at all. Secondly, data is aggregated by location of residence and some farmers in Maple Ridge reside in the surrounding area (e.g., Pitt Meadows). 3.4.1 Gross Farm Receipts (GFRs) Table 17 shows GFRs by farm type; a farm type is defined as a farm deriving over 50% of its receipts from that category. In 2000, Maple Ridge agriculture generated at least $39.2 million in GFRs, an increase of almost 45% over 1995.39 Income generated from "farm gate" agricultural sales creates total income effects in the regional economy, typically in the range of $2-2.50 per dollar of sales. In 2000, the direct sales and income multiplier effect are estimated to have contributed between $79 million and $98 million to the regional economy. In the 1995-2000 period, significant increases in GFRs occurred in the following categories: poultry and eggs; beef; and horses and ponies; greenhouse silviculture, greenhouse floriculture. Berry and tree fruit revenues declined in the period. Dairy receipts increased modestly. It may be noted that GFRs increased in spite of a decline in farm numbers in the 1995-2000 period, indicating that some farm operations became larger and that production became more intensive. Overall however, the decline in farm numbers was accompanied by less area being farmed in Maple Ridge. The excess of gross farm receipts over operating expenses, termed gross margin, amounted to $6.3 million in Maple Ridge in 2000 and represented a 16% return to operating expenses. In comparison, farm- operations in the GVRD overall generated a return to operating expenses of 13.6%. Thus, operations in Maple Ridge generated among the higher returns achieved in the GVRD. 3.4.2 Employment Maple Ridge agriculture creates significant community-based employment in the District. In addition to the employment of operators of the 237 agricultural enterprises, Maple Ridge farmers in 2000 paid for 13,811 weeks of agricultural labour to a labour force numbering about 675 persons. Wages and salaries paid by farm operators totalled $12 million. In 2000, some 170 employees worked on 36 farms in Maple Ridge full-time. As well, total weeks of, part-time employment were equivalent to about 112 person years of full- 39 farm receipts include receipts from all agricultural products, marketing board payments received, pr-axn and rebate payments received, dividends received from cooperatives, custom work and other farm receipts. 52 ZbeetnoffAgro-Enuironmental Consulting Table 17: Comparison of Number of Farms and Gross Farm Receipts (GFRs) by Farm Type, 1995 and 2000 Maple Ridge Farm Type (1) 1995 2000 Acres (2000) Percent % change in GFRs (1995-2000) # of farms GFRs # of farms GFRs Dairy 10 $958,177 5 $1,278,287 265 33.4% Beef 42 $433,455 35 $1,554,180 857 258.6% Hog 3 $51,117 ---(2) -- Cattle & hog na(3) na 1 x(4) x Poultry & egg 42 $1,310,572 35 $5,297,248 326 303.4% Sheep&lambs 12 $105,244 10 $57,294 172 -45.6% Cattle, hogs & sheep na - na I x x Goat na na 4 $8,753 19 Horses& ponies 71 $726,103 45 $1,314,828 893 81.1% Other animal specialty na na 10 $153,044 62 Other livestock combination na na 12 x x Tree fruits & nuts 13 $65,700 9 $29,765 50 -54.7% Berries & grapes 16 $357,301 8 $211,438 119 -40.8% Hay&other fodder crops 12 x 5 $27,011 196 Wheat na na I x x Vegetables 8 $111,952 2 x x Nursery products 16 x 25 x 281 Sod - -- 1 x x GH vegetables 7 x 4 $756,016 14 GHflowers 16 $4,560,996 13 $10,269,492 160 125.2% GH other na na 4 $16,925,820 215 Mushrooms - --- 1 x x Other horticultural specialty na na 3 $32,437 46 All other 63 $12,293,279 3 $21,870 64 Suppressed (5) $6,132,162 $1,252,558 251 Totals 331 $27,106,058 237 $39,180,041 3990 44.5% Notes: A farm type falls into a farm type category if greater than 50% of its gross farm receipts are derived from that category "-" refers to nil or zero "na" refers to farm data included in "All Other (4)An "x" indicates suppressed data (5) The row called "suppressed" refers to the gross farm receipts from farm types with an "x" in the GFR column time employment40, implying a total hired labour force of approximately 281 person years. In addition to on-farm employment, agriculture typically creates indirect employment effects in the region. Based on the number direct agricultural jobs, total employment effect from Maple Ridge agricultural economic activity is estimated at between 780 and 1040 full and part-time jobs4 ' and accounted for between $18 and 24 million in wages and salaries paid out of the total economic effect calculated in section 2.3.1, above. 40 Based on a conversion of 49 weeks per full-time position. 41 Based on an employment multiplier ranging from 1.5 to 2.0. 53 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting 3.4.3 Farm Capital Value Table 18 compares the value of farm capital investment in Maple Ridge and the GVRD in 1995 and 2000. This Table reveals that farm capital investment in Maple Ridge deviated significantly from investment in the GVRD in the 1995-2000 period. Specifically, GVRD investment in all asset classes increased while Maple Ridge operators significantly reduced investment in land and buildings since 1995. Overall, farm capital investment in the GVRD increased 127% per farm compared to a modest 8% per farm for Maple Ridge. On average in the 1995-2000 period, GVRD farm operators made capital investments of $170 million annually, while Maple Ridge farm operators actually experienced a decrease in farm assets of about $10 million per year. 3.4.4 Farm Related Expenditures Farming enterprises spend significantly in the process of producing agricultural crops, most of which is spent regionally if not locally. In 2000, Maple Ridge farm operators incurred operating expenses of $32.9 million on a variety of items ranging from seeds/ stock/ plants to custom work.42 The bulk of these materials were purchased in the lower mainland. Table 18: Farm Capital Value, Maple Ridge and GVRD, 1995 and 2000 Maple Ridge GVRD Farm Capital Item 1995 2000 Change in 1995 I 2000 Change in Value Value (1995 to 2000) (1995 to 2000) 1000$ 1000$ Machinery and $9,154 $12,892 +40.8% $181,091 $248,703 +37.3% equipment Livestock 2,709 4,357 +60.8% $71,505 $89,171. +24.8% inventory Land & 208,971 153,720 -26.4% 2,920,195 $2,977,158 +2.0% buildings Totals $221,194 $170,970 -22.7% $2,467,336 $3,315,032 +34.4% # of Farms 331 237 -28.3% 3,464 2,854 .17.6% Total Capital $668 $721 +7.9% $712 $1,616 +127% Per Farm 3.4.5 Home-Based Businesses in the ALR Parcel size and municipal zoning in the Maple Ridge ALR has attracted.rural residential development and contributed to opportunities to operate home-based 42 Operating expenses include leases, wages and paid salaries, insurance premiums, fertilizer, . - planth,.seed...nur.se lubticants,..packang--matetials 1 c-ustom ... -. . .-. . . ........-- work, utilities, building and equipment repairs and maintenance, feed, veterinary, livestock purchase, property taxes, irrigation levies and farm interest expenses. 54 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting businesses in the ALR. Many rural residents have deliberately chosen to pursue lifestyle and non-farming business interests in the ALR, some of which are not related to agriculture. Where farming is pursued, small parcel size may have also created a need for additional income to make economic ends meet. In 2003, on approximately 1400 legal properties in the ALR there are 187 rural business licenses,3 ranging from agriculture-related and animal services to home based personal, construction and professional services (see Table 19). The number of home-based business licenses issued has increased 39% since 1997. Table 19: Home Based Businesses in Maple Ridge ALR, 2003 Code Description # of Business AG Agriculture 14 AN Animal Service 17 AR Arts & Entertainment 1 AS Arts & Entertainment 2 AT Architect/Engineer 3 AU Automotive 4 BR Business & Office I BS Business Service 4 'CC Certified Contractor 10 CD Construction 43 CS Computer & Technology 5 Dl Direct Sales I DS Design Service 3 EE Environmental & Ecology 2 EZ Education & Instruction 2 Fl Financial & Insurance 4 FS Food & Beverage Service 2 HC Home Craft 12 HM Home/Industry Services 18 HO Home & Property Retail 3 HR Health Retail 2 HS Health Service LS Legal Service 2 MA Manufacturing 5 PS Personal Services 1 RC Sports/Recreational Centres 4 RE Retailer Dealer 2 RI Resource Industry 1 RN Rental Service 1 RS Sports/Recreational Services 2 RX Recycling & Salvage 1 SE Security 2 TS Transportation Good & Services 6 WH Wholesale & Distributing 6 Total 1 1 187 Source: District of Maple Ridge, 2003 43 District of Maple Ridge, as of November, 2003 55 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting In 2002, the Agricultural Land Commission made changes to its regulation governing permitted uses in the ALR. The Act now specifies under regulation a broader range of allowed agricultural uses including agro-tourism, bed and breakfasts, home occupation use, production and application of soil amendments/compost and allows the ALC to enter in agreements to delegate local governments in areas such as the enforcement of provisions and regulation of soil removal and fill. 3.4.6 Fiscal Effects on Local Tax Revenues While it is beyond the scope of this study to examine the tax structure of the District, over 60 studies in the US have compared municipal costs and revenues for different categories of land use and shown that privately owned farm, forest and ranch lands generate more in local revenues than they require in services.44 For example, a 1999 Cost of Community Services Study indicated that farm, forest and open land had a positive fiscal impact on Skagit County, Washington 45. The study indicated that for every dollar paid in taxes by "open" lands, the properties needed 51 cents in community services because of reduced requirement for services. Residential development overall did not pay for itself, requiring $1.25 in services for every dollar or revenue generated. Farming should therefore be considered an economic generator within the community. Farm lands in the US are also assessed at their current use and the findings support claims that agricultural holdings do not receive an unfair tax break. The message is not that agricultural land should not be developed, but that agriculture has a positive fiscal impact on the community and that the desirability of, and conditions for, conversion to other uses should consider fiscal implications. 3.4.7 Recreation and Agro-Tourism Benefits Authentic agriculture should be considered a necessary ingredient of the rural, community-based tourism experience. Bed and breakfast experiences are marketed on the basis of peace and quiet, scenic spaces, aesthetically pleasing countryside, wildlife, animals, and fresh and bountiful local harvests. Equestrian trails are located through agricultural areas and along dykes where open spaces and low population densities are enabled by the presence of farms. An unexplored agro-tourism market in Maple Ridge is its agricultural heritage. The community-based economic and employment benefits deriving from agro-tourism businesses are not captured in the Agriculture Census unless the enterprise is considered a farm operation. 3.4.8 Quality of Life and Rural Character 44 btti)://www.farmland.org/research/iiidex .htm 45 •http: / County C(CS.idf 56 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting Workshop #1 (farmers) and Workshop #2 (rural non-farming ALR residents)46 both strongly confirmed the positive linkage between local agriculture and the quality of life in Maple Ridge. Positive attributes included agricultural sights and smells, open spaces, peacefulness, quietness, presence of wildlife, locally grown food, recreation, aesthetic values and agricultural heritage. Although the majority of Maple Ridge residents no longer have direct links to agriculture, its rural character is regarded as an integral part of the culture of the community. Maintenance and enhancement of conditions that allow agriculture to continue are consistent with resident perceptions of rural character. 3.4.9 Environmental Benefits The contribution that agriculture makes to environmental values in the community is often not recognized and mostly unvalued. Agricultural crops and fields provide habitat and a food source for wildlife, in the fields and along fence lines, bordering areas and drainage ditches. Continuous agricultural areas function as wildlife corridors. Agricultural lands provide capacity for flood protection and regulation of stream flows. The effectiveness of these areas is known to be related to the low human densities associated with land-based activities. Nevertheless, agriculture carries an environmental burden in society and provides the benefit to local residents. It is noteworthy that many of the remaining pockets of valued environmental resources exist only on or in proximity to agricultural lands. Important developments in agriculture are also occurring that will facilitate the role of agriculture in protecting the environment. British Columbia has entered into an agreement with the federal government to implement an Environmental Farm Plan (EFP) program in the province. The process consists of an environmental risk assessment of individual farms, review by a qualified environmental farm planner, identification of action items and financial support to implement changes. The goal is to have every farm complete an EFP over the next 5 years. The potential to enhance sustainable agriculture in Maple Ridge is anticipated to be immense in view of the small farm sizes and sensitive environment. It also means that the "environmental bar" has been significantly raised in the agricultural sector and that local farmers will be better prepared than ever before to farm in a sustainable manner and meet challenges related to small lot agriculture. 46 The Workshops were held in Maple Ridge in January and February, 2004. 57 ZbeetnoffAgro-Enuironmental Consulting 4.0 Agricultural Issues Despite the challenges it faces, Maple Ridge agriculture has continued to survive and contribute significantly to the local and regional economy. However, there is evidence from elsewhere to show that agriculture cannot sustain itself over the long term in intense competition with non-agricultural interests. The challenges are many but the most obvious are high cost of land, rural-urban conflicts, and lack of awareness of the significant economic, environmental and social contribution of agriculture. These contributions can be enhanced and strengthened with some attention and commitment to addressing key basic issues as discussed below. 4.1 Tier I Issues Agricultural issues may be broken out into two levels of concern. Tier 1 issues deal with farming conditions and underlying principles that provide the basic foundation for agriculture in Maple Ridge. These conditions are necessary if local agriculture is to have an opportunity to coexist with other land uses in the future. Tier 2 issues relate to the operating environment that would improve farming by creating conditions assisting agriculture to function more efficiently in Maple Ridge. While addressing Tier 2 issues is important towards enhancing agriculture, the solutions are unlikely to achieve the longer term desired result of maintaining a viable agricultural community if Tier 1 issues are not resolved. 4.1.1 Articulating the Importance and Desirability of Agriculture The foundation of an agricultural plan is recognition of the importance/desirability of agriculture in the local community. The importance of agriculture rests in the following: • Economic contribution • Local food security • Favoured land use • Protects environmental values • Protects rural lifestyle values • Supports local business • Provides employment A policy issue is that agriculture must compete for attention in the local community and to do so, should be fairly recognized for its whole contribution. Section 2 of this report shows that agriculture contributes to and significantly defines Maple Ridge community character. 4.1.2 Recognizing the Quality of the Agricultural Resources Comment has periodically been made about the quality of Maple Ridge agricultural resources and the viability of increased agricultural endeavour. While it is true that soil capability may be somewhat limited compared to other Lower Mainland municipalities, climatic factors (such as frost-free days, hours of sunlight, degree days 58 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting and Agroclimatic Resource Index (ACRI)47, access to water, management and technology is qualitatively superior to many areas outside the Lower Mainland. The fact is that the bulk of agricultural land (91%) in Maple Ridge falls into the top three Canada Land Inventory (CLI) categories (Classes 1 to 3) and the overall effect is that local agricultural conditions are among the best in Canada. In terms of efficient and sustainable land use in a larger context, replacement of prime agricultural lands is estimated to require more than twice as much lower quality lands in regions elsewhere. Substitution of lower quality lands in more remote areas for prime agricultural lands in urban areas may also be expected to increase unit costs of agricultural production and place greater pressure in the supply of lands in competing resource uses such as wetlands, forestry and wildlife. The proximity of a large and diverse urban population creates immense marketing opportunities for local agriculture provided it is given space and resources to operate. In the wake of BSE (mad cow disease), avian influenza and Sudden Oak Disease, consumers are more aware than ever before about issues related to food safety, food self-sufficiency, food quality and public health and safety. It is also clear that BC residents will have most control over the quality of food that is grown locally. An understanding is needed that agriculture in Maple Ridge is worth preserving before initiatives will be adopted to enhance it. While agriculture in Maple Ridge may be subject to greater challenges than in some other municipalities in the immediate region, local agriculture has to be recognized as a valuable resource in a provincial and national context. Moreover, a key policy objective in the current OCP is food self sufficiency within the municipality. This is also a regional goal. 4.1.3 Protecting the Agricultural Land and Resource Base In the face of strong ongoing competition for land and other limited resources for residential, industrial, commercial recreational and institutional uses in the lower mainland, protection of the agricultural land base is a fundamental requirement for a sustainable agricultural industry. This fact was recognized with the creation of the agricultural land reserve and has been supported by every successive government since. Experience in other jurisdictions shows48 that land speculation in farming communities can fragment farming operations, contribute to the sense that agriculture is an interim use of the land and to discourage investment in assets that might be lost with conversion to non-agricultural uses. 47 See Warren CL, A. Kerr and AM Turner. 1989. Urbanization of Rural Land in Canada, 198 1- 86. Environment Canada. State of the Environment Reporting Branch. SOE Fact Sheet No. 89- 1, p.7. 48 Numerous studies in the US have shown the detrimental effect of physical intrusion and land speculation on farming communities. See the American Farmland Trust at http: / /www.farmland.org/ 59 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting Figure 6 present the record of exclusion from the ALR in the 1974 to November, 2000 period. As the Figure shows, significant land area was removed while several Sub- areas of the ALR have become smaller and/or more fragmented. Figure 7 shows where exclusion applications occurred in the November 2000 to November 2003 period. In total, applications were made to exclude 224 ha of the ALR. Since November 2003, applications have been made to exclude a further 204 ha of ALR (Figure 8). The proposed Abernethy Connector may be a contributing factor in some of these applications. In other cases, encroachment on the agricultural land base consists of the conversion of isolated agricultural parcels to residential and incremental suburban expansion into rural areas. Profit is a powerful incentive for landowners to convert land out of agriculture into higher density uses. The three most familiar arguments that are made for the continued conversion of agricultural properties to residential uses are: The land has low soil capability for agriculture. This has been a perennial claim and it is true that the capability of some soils in Maple Ridge may be somewhat lower than in other municipalities in the lower mainland. However, as Section 3.3.1, above shows, 97% of the ALR in Maple Ridge is of the agricultural capability intended for inclusion in the ALR, i.e., CLI Classes 1 through 4. Farming activities are compromised by surrounding residential uses and environmental concerns. Provisions that support sustainable agricultural activities and operations will alleviate land use conflicts. The scale of agricultural activity, a function of parcel size, is too small to be sustainable. Small scale agriculture clearly can be economically and environmentally viable but requires support through development of marketing channels, targeting the local population, and marketing of the freshness and quality characteristics which only local products can supply. These factors have created physical and psychological encroachments and contributed to an atmosphere of uncertainty among current and potential farmers in the ALR. This may explain a decline in investment in fixed agricultural assets, such as buildings. 60 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting MAPLE RIDGE AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE 1974-1 979 Exclusions from the ALR R R R er, 2000 Figure 6: Land Exclusions from the Agricultural Land Reserve, District of Maple Ridge, 1974 to November, 2000 61 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting ALR EXCLUSION APPLICATIONS Total Number of Applications: 25 1999-2003 Area Applied for Removal: 224 Ha Note: Map shows applications only N Milk ALR Exclusion Applications (1999-2003) Figure 7: ALR Exclusion Applications in the District of Maple Ridge, 2000 to 2003 62 ZbeetnoffAgro-Eiwironmental Consulting Figure 8: Agricultural Land Reserve exclusion applications In the District of Maple Ridge, BC, (From November 2003 to June 17, 2004) NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS: 17 TOTAL AREA UNDER APPLICATION: 203.7 Ha1503.4 Acres Figure 8: ALR Exclusion Applications, District of Maple Ridge, November, 2003 to June 17, 2004 63 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting In order to be consistent with current OCP policies and the Livable Region Strategic Plan at the local government level,, agricultural policy needs a strong position in favour of protecting of the agricultural land base enshrined in bylaw. This has occurred in other local jurisdictions with agriculture in the Lower Mainland. Strong consideration should be given to providing the agricultural area with a firm, well-defined boundary in order to limit speculation, provide a secure environment for capital investment, and provide as much certainty as possible. Agricultural policy statements found in the OCPs of other municipalities are presented in Table 20. A policy issue is how to protect a functional supply of land, infrastructure and resources, without which agriculture cannot continue to exist. Protection of the agricultural resource base makes a statement that agriculture is the highest and best use of the resources, provides a reference point for defining the agricultural "sector", creates confidence for long-term agricultural investment and establishes a location where sustainable farming practices can be promoted and enhanced. 4.1.4 Understanding Conditions Necessary for Sustainable Agriculture A fundamental concern pertaining to Maple Ridge agricultural lands is the suitability of the lands in the ALR for particular agricultural initiatives. Factors affecting suitability and the implications for agriculture are presented in Table 21. Limitations restrict but do not eliminate agricultural potential. Sensitive agricultural policy can enhance those conditions which are feasible to promote in the local context. A policy issue is to recognize the types of agriculture that Maple Ridge agricultural lands can support, given obvious constraints in parcel size, soil capability, topography, drainage, etc. Articulation of local agricultural capabilities will identify agricultural needs and action areas where the District could alleviate conditions that unnecessarily constrain agricultural enterprise. 4.2 Tier2 Issues As discussed above, Tier 2 agricultural issues are difficult to resolve if major assumptions incorporated in the favourable resolution of Tier 1 issues are in fact not in effect. Resolving Tier 2 issues requires a sense of purpose for agriculture and community agreement on the role that agriculture plays in the community. 4.2.1 Agricultural Strategic Planning Agricultural planning in Maple Ridge is being carried out in the absence of a strategy for agriculture. This is occurring primarily through the ALC approval or non-approval of exclusion of lands from the ALR based on challenges to agricultural capability or suitability. Before it can be considered realistic to make agricultural policy that will be useful to the District, it is necessary to have realistic expectations about what objectives are being pursued. 64 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmerital Consulting Table 20: AEriculture Policy Statements in Other Agricultural Jurisdictions • Jurisdiction Statement Agriculture Policy Delta OCP Support existing policies: • agricultural land shall be preserved for agriculture • an effective interface shall be established and maintained to act as a buffer between Urban and Agricultural Land and Promote long-term agricultural use of the Roberts Bank Back-Up Lands. Prepare a detailed strategy plan for Agricultu ral Lands Langley Langley To support the agricultural use of land and the agricultural industry in the rural area Rural Plan To provide direction to economic development in the rural area that is compatible with the agricultural community To provide a land use pattern that supports the rural economy, preserves the land base for agricultural production and is compatible with the agricultural industrf Richmond OCP Continue to protect allfarmlands in the Agricultural Land Reserve Maintain and enhance agricultural viability and productivity in Richmond' Surrey OCP 'Protect agriculture and agricultural areas Protect agricultural areas and enhance farming • Promote compatibility between agricultural and non agricultural land uses Maintain agricultural activities • Enhance agricultural viability • Coordinate farming and environmental protection • Manage water use and drainage • Increase agricultural awareness and community involvement' Kelowna OCP 'To preserve viable agricultural holdings as an integral part of our community • Retain the agriculture industry as a major land use and economic force recognizing the community character, employment, environmental, heritage and lfestyle values it contributes • Improve the urban-rural relationship through the effective management of adjacent land uses • Provide an adequate level of roads and services to the agricultural area while minimizing conflicts through the sensitive placement and treatment of roads and utilities servicing development in an beyond agricultural areas • Promote and support the long term economic viability offarm operations • Encourage long term availability of quality water with priority to agricultural users' Pitt Meadows OCP 'The Citizens of Pitt Meadows aspire to achieve a community where agriculture is a priority by: • Formulating a rural! agricultu rat plan which features a long term commitment to productive use of agricultural lands; • Discouraging land speculation in agricultural areas; • Encouraging farming practices that are environmentally friendly; • Promoting excellence in farming through educational facilities, research and development, experimental farms, export products; • Promoting the integration offarming with other community goals, (agricultural related tourism, processing of agricultural products and marketing quality in agriculture); and ______________ ___________ • Supporting ALR policies_related_to_agricultural_lands' Maple Ridge OCP '54. Policy: Maple Ridge will develop a Rural Plan for lands outside the urban designated areas, and will include a review of all Agricultural Land Reserve areas. Policy: Maple Ridge supports the continuation oftheAgricultural Land Reserve. Policy: Maple Ridge will support the usage of buffering mechanisms to reduce conflicts between land uses. These mechanisms are to be accommodated in the most appropriate area and may include: • building and storage setbacks, • drainage ditches, • fencing, and • landscape buffers. Policy: Maple Ridge will encourage self reliance in food production. Policy: Maple Ridge will promote community education in self-sufficiency, and soil conservation and enhancement techniques. A policy issue is to how to provide a context for determining the desirability of changes affecting agricultural lands, operations and activities. That context will be provided through the development of a strategic plan for, and with, the agricultural community 65 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmerital Consulting that identifies objectives, measurable outcomes and mechanisms to evaluate achievement/performance. Table 21: Factors Affecting Agricultural Suitability Factor Factors that enhance Factors that restrict Agricultural Implications affecting agricultural capability agricultural capability agricultural suitability Soil capability Improvable to CLI class improvable only to CLI Lower class soils better suited to 3 or better class 4 or less perennial crops or non-soil bound agricultural uses Drainage Regional drainage Poor regional drainage Need to improve drainage On-farm under- Absence of on-farm Limit use to water tolerant crops drainage under drainage Flood controlled Flooding due to upland or adjacent property drainage Topography Flat land Hilly terrain, ravines Choose crops and practices Riparian areas suited to terrain Riparian considerations reduce land available for farming Transportation Adequate road access Road access Appropriate corridors for inadequate accessibility and farm equipment movement are a necessity Services Water Limited well capacity Water required for irrigation Hydro Absence of services 3-phase power and natural gas Natural gas required for greenhouses Parcel size Of an economic or Not of an economic or Small size may create property operational size operational size use conflicts CreatiOn of an economic agricultural unit may require property consolidation Will restrict commercial farming operation May necessitate part-time or hobby operations Rural-urban Low cross-property High cross-property Some intensive uses may conflict interface border impacts impacts with rural residential Parcel Does not restrict farm Restricts farm activities May prevent typical farming configuration activities and operations and operations activities Create inefficiencies in farming operations 4.2.2 Rural Residential in the ALR The ALR is currently supporting a variety of zoned uses. Many of there uses were in place prior to the establishment of the ALR and are now non-conforming uses. As Table 13 above shows, over half of the ALR is zoned for Rural Residential use (RS3). Generally, on rural residential zoned property, agriculture is a secondary consideration although some agricultural uses are permitted. Property owners are usually seeking a rural lifestyle and their properties happen to be in the ALR. A majority of those landowners at the workshop of rural residents hosted by the District -• -• - - - retaining the "rural quality" of their neighbourhoods. However, few of them actively 66 ZbeetnoffAgro-Erwironmental Consulting "farmed" their property as a means of generating income and many had no intention 11 to do so. Because of the varied historic zoning within the ALR area, there is often the perception that agriculture is not the primary use of the area and expectations for non-agricultural property development do result, even though any other designation of the land use from Agriculture would require an amendment to the OCP. The pattern of land use created by this perception has led to property owners "holding" land for speculative purposes (usually subdivision and residential development). Other municipalities have created a supportive environment for agriculture and dampened demand for speculation on rural residential properties by broadening the Agriculture Zone. The retention of lands in a rural state contributes to the policy objective of promoting rural lifestyle conditions in Maple Ridge. Clearly, many people within Maple Ridge have chosen this lifestyle, with no intention of farming full-time, regardless of the condition of the land. These lands have contributed to the community's overall attractiveness and character and distinguish it from being just another bedroom community within the region. These lands have also played an important role within the region's Livable Region Strategic Plan. Retaining the land within the ALR serves several purposes: it promotes community character; achieves OCP policy objectives; reserves the "option" of future agricultural use, even if not currently farmed; and meets the goals and objectives of the regional growth strategy. A policy issue is how to promote and to create conditions in the rural-residential areas of Maple Ridge that support and promote viable agriculture. 4.2.3 Rural-Urban Interface Previous studies in the District of Maple Ridge and the OCP recognize the potential for rural-urban conflicts, particularly along the boundary between residential areas and farms. Issues can include smells from manure, noise from cannons used to discourage birds in berry growing areas, lighting from greenhouse operations, increased drainage runoff from urban development on lowland farms, increased road use in rural areas leading to interference with farm machinery, new transportation and utility corridors through farm areas leading to fragmentation and disruption of farming activity, increased recreational use along the edge of farm land leading to potential trespass and vandalism of farm property. All these issues have the potential to make it much more difficult for existing farmers to farm and may discourage new farmers. These issues can also lead to greater pressure to exclude land from the ALR for non-farm uses. Several municipalities where agriculture is an important activity have implemented policy tools to address these urban-rural interface issues. Two primary tools that have been used include Development Permit Areas (DPA) and Farm bylaws. DPAs have been used to designate and place certain conditions on land uses outside but adjacent to the ALR. Farm bylaws and changes to zoning bylaws provide additional support to agriculture by putting requirements that are found in the Farm Practices Protection Act into a local bylaw. Zoning bylaws can also be used to reduce conflicts and support farming. Both DPAs and farm bylaws canhave the effect of defining and providing supportive conditions in the interface zone. 67 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting A policy issue is how to plan in the rural-urban interface to enhance agriculture as an essential component of the rural character and lifestyle of Maple Ridge. 4.2.4 Non-Agricultural Land Development and Conversion As a principle, the conversion of ALR into commercial, industrial and residential uses should confer no net loss to agriculture. Traditional commercial and industrial approaches, such as equipment dealerships, feed companies and larger scale food processing, may not be applicable in Maple Ridge because of the relatively small agricultural sector, its diversity and proximity to existing clusters of development. Nevertheless, there are other value-added agricultural opportunities that may be pursued, which are more suitable to Maple Ridge and build on emerging trends in the food sector. One agricultural policy issue is how to ensure that agriculture value-added opportunities are not being missed in local commercial and industrial developments. This exercise is directly related to determining where the District's agricultural opportunities lie and to aggressively pursue them. Chilliwack's food processing incubator feasibility study is a good example of an initiative to attract business that builds on the community's agricultural production base, with the objectives of creating local economic and employment benefits.49 Another agricultural policy issue is how to ensure that agriculture does not suffer unduly from loss of agricultural resources that are required from time to time for community development. Other municipalities, such as Delta, require that agricultural impact assessments be conducted for new local development to ensure that marginal and cumulative impacts on agriculture are taken into consideration in the decision- making process. It is useful to note that agricultural land, once converted to residential, commercial and industrial uses, is rarely restored to its original state. 4.2.5 Conservation ALR lands are considered Green Zone lands within the GVRD Livable Region Plan providing a range of amenities to the community and the region. These include "open space", aesthetics, views and fish and wildlife habitat. Agricultural lands in Maple Ridge are no exception. They provide important benefits. The challenge is to make conservation lands in the ALR available for appropriate agricultural uses. This can be done by working closely with farmers on a site by site basis to ensure conservation objectives are met without unduly restricting agricultural uses. The District can be an advocate for farmers when discussing conservation issues with federal and provincial regulatory agencies. There may also be an opportunity for the District, the farming community and senior agencies to enter into agreements that are beneficial to all parties as has occurred in other areas of the Lower Mainland (e.g., Delta). ' The Chiffiwack Agri-Food Incubator Study is being currently undertaken by Lions Gate Consullingrvancouver;BCahdis TUhdëdbyth duthPif Community Futures Development Corporation. 68 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting 44 A policy issue is how to ensure that agriculture and conservation interests can work together to attain mutually acceptable environmental objectives. A federal-provincial program is assisting farmers in implementing Environmental Farm Plans. 4.2.6 Residential/Urban Containment The GVRD Green Zone, of which the ALR is a component, serves as an urban containment boundary and this is recognized in the OCP and the Livable Region Strategy However, given the number of ALR exclusions within the District it could be perceived that this boundary is not firm despite the existence of OCP and Livable Region Strategy policies. The GVRD has some control over the urban containment boundary as the Board must authorize any withdrawals of lands from the Green Zone and the GVS&DD must authorize extensions of regional sewer lines beyond the agreed upon urban containment boundary, as outlined in the municipality's OCP and Regional Context Statement. A policy issue is how decisions about urban expansion should be made in the context of preserving Maple Ridge's agricultural land base. 4.2.7 Agricultural Transportation System Like many other municipalities in the GVRD, Maple Ridge's transportation issues tend to be defined in relation to strong residential population growth, demand for transportation infrastructure to facilitate the commute to business or work (often not in the local community) and attraction of industry. In addition, Maple Ridge's transportation situation is further aggravated by the physical configuration of the community, pattern of historic road development, major barriers to movement such as the Fraser River and topographical features. In the face of these challenges, agriculture has also been significantly affected: directly, with the land used for transportation rights-of-way and indirectly, on farming operations due to changes in local access to fields, services and markets. A representative case in point is the ongoing design and development of the Abernethy Connector. While the community need for a transportation link is well established and the impact on agriculture in Maple Ridge can be physically quantified, the impacts caused to the agricultural transportation infrastructure are difficult to fully quantify. These impacts include the lands physically in the footprint of the project, but also to the movement of farm-related equipment, produce and personnel on any roadway directly or indirectly affected by the new connector. The policy issue is how to ensure that new transportation projects invest towards improving local agricultural transportation systems at the same time that improvements are occurring for the benefit for the general public. Based on recommendations made in other municipalities, considerations that would ensure agriculture is included in the design and determination of the benefit-cost of new projects could consist of:50 50 For example see Klolm Leonoff Ltd., WR Hoim and Associates and GG Runka Land Sense Ltd. 1992. Delta Agricultural Study. 69 ZbeetnoffAgro-Enuironmental Consulting 0• • involvement of farmers in identifying agricultural transportation system requirements • assessment of agricultural transportation system impacts of new projects • identification of the agricultural transportation system requirements in the design criteria of new projects • including the costs of rectifying agricultural transportation system impacts in the cost of new projects. Table 22 summarizes the agricultural policy issues in Maple Ridge discussed in this section. 70 ZbeetnoffAgro-Enuironmental Consulting I Table 22: Policy Issues Related to AEriculture in MaDle Ridge Importance Level Policy Area Policy Issue Tier 1 Issues: Considered Articulating the How to inform the public and fundamental requirements importance and decision makers of the role of for the sustainability of desirability of agriculture in Maple Ridge agriculture in the agriculture community Recognizing the How to convince the public and quality of the decision makers that agriculture in agricultural Maple Ridge is worth preserving resources Protecting the How to protect and plan for a agricultural land functional supply of land, and resource base infrastructure and resources Understanding How to recognize and support the conditions types of agriculture that Maple necessary for Ridge agricultural lands can sustainable support agriculture Tier 2 Issues: Considered Agricultural How to provide a context for essential to the promotion strategic planning determining the desirability of and enhancement of local changes affecting agricultural agriculture lands Rural residential How to promote and create in the ALR conditions in the rural-residential areas that support and promote viable agriculture Rural-urban How to plan the rural-urban Interface interface to enhance agriculture Land development How to ensure that agriculture and conversion benefits, or is protected, from the impacts of community development Conservation How to ensure that agriculture and conservation interests can work together to attain mutually acceptable environmental objectives Residential/urban How to make residential growth containment decisions in the context of preserving Maple Ridge's agricultural land base Agricultural How to ensure that agricultural transportation transportation needs are system incorporated into Maple Ridge's transportation plans 71 ZbeetnoffAgro-Environmental Consulting 5.0 References Agricultural Land Commission (ALC), 2004 -ongoing. Agricultural Sustainability Analysis for Maple Ridge. (Prepared by and C&B Land Resource Consultants Ltd.) Burnaby, BC. Andrews, A. and D. Stuart. 2003. Economic impacts of agriculture in Skagit County, WA. Report prepared for and in cooperation with Skagitonians to Preserve Farmland, Washington State University Skagit County Cooperative Extension, and Economic Development Association of Skagit County. August. Angus Reid Group Inc. 1995. Maple Ridge opinion poll Artemis Agri-Strategy Group. 2002. An economic strategy for agriculture in the Lower Mainland. Prepared for the GVRD, FVRD, the Land Reserve Commission and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. July. Bertrand, R.A. 1991. Soil Management Handbook for the Lower Fraser Valley. BC Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Victoria, BC. District of Maple Ridge. 1996. Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 5434-1996 - consolidated up to October 28, 2003. District of Maple Ridge. 1997. Vision Maple Ridge: Rural Plan Final Report. Recommendations of the Rural Plan Advisory Committee. October. District of Maple Ridge. 1997. Vision Maple Ridge: Rural Plan. Summary of Council decisions on implementation (amended). January. District of Maple Ridge. 2000. Memo from Chief Administrative Officer to Mayor and Council. Proposed Agricultural Land Reserve policies and next steps in rural plan implementation. July 19. GG Runka Land Sense Ltd. 1995. Agriculture and the Agricultural Land Reserve: An OCP review discussion paper. Prepared for the District of Maple Ridge. December. GVRD. 2002. 2001 Annual Report: Livable Region Strategic Plan. Policy and Planning Department. GVRD. 2003. 2002 Annual Report: Livable Region Strategic Plan. Policy and Planning Department. John Talbot and Associates and Domain Consulting Ltd. 1996. Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Review: Summary of Public Response - Agriculture and the Agricultural Land Reserve. January. Kenk, E. and I. Cotic, 1983. Land Capability Classification in British Columbia. BC Ministiy of Agriculture and Food, VictOria, B.C. - S 72 ZbeetnoffAgro-Envirorzmental Con.sulting