posted by admin on Apr 26

anonymous wrote:

The following is a one-paragraph excerpt from the April issue of FOCUS Magazine by Gordon O’Connor p.15 who is the forest campaigner with the Dogwood Initiative. It just applies so beautifully to Langford that one cannot help but think of Langford while reading it.

“Vancouver Island is one of the crown jewels of this continent. It is widely considered to be among the most liveable places in the world. If offers the luxury of having urban centres in close proximity to temperate rain forestsbountiful farms and incredible recreation areas. This pristine environment has the ability to provide clean waterfresh airlocal food and a stable economy for generations to come and these are the priorities for which our local representatives [read councillors] should be advocating.”

Read the rest of this entry »

posted by Deb on Dec 14

Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:03:23 -0800
From: Deb Harper
Subject: ALR Land removal – Happy Valley Road

To: mbaldwinATcityoflangford.ca

To Whom It May Concern:

As a resident in the Luxton area, and a local food advocate, I am writing to express my concern with the proposal to remove properties (the majority on Happy Valley Road) from the ALR.

Langford is a large urban area with no provision or plan to deal with looming food problems which, according to many, many reports, will occur in the foreseeable future. Once land is developed, it can be impossible to restore and rehabilitate it back into viable food production – in other words, decisions which are irreversible and affect not only us, but our children and grandchildren’s future, need to be considered with very careful deliberation.

I submit that any decision to remove land from the ALR be tabled until research and assessments are done to determine the existing ratio of land for food production per person. It is more than possible that there is a severe land shortage for this purpose, and without food security, we have no other type of security, so please give this matter the attention it deserves.

I developed a website to support backyard gardening and city-wide food plans and provide links to existing resources. I hope to present more information once we determine the amount of interest there is for a Langford Food Plan. Those associated with this project are working in a volunteer capacity, so much of the work gets done when time permits.

Deb Harper
South Langford resident
http://homegrow.ca/

See:
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=213343
Forget oil, the new global crisis is food
BMO strategist Donald Coxe warns credit crunch and soaring oil prices will pale in comparison to looming catastrophe

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_15490.cfm
UK: This week, Mayor Boris Johnson of London announced a plan to convert more than 2000 parcels of land around the city into green spaces for growing food.

http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/special_feature/a_hungry_planet/
Higher oil prices, freak weather, low food reserves and growing consumer demand are affecting food supplies all around the world.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12252
Catastrophic Fall in 2009 Global Food Production
Global Research, February 10, 2009
————————————————————————————–
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:15:28 -0800
From: Matthew Baldwin
Subject: RE: ALR Land removal – Happy Valley Road

Ms. Harper,

Thank you for your email.

While the City of Langford is currently reviewing applications that land owners in Langford have made to the BC Agriculture Land Commission (ALC) with respect to exclusion from the ALR, the decision whether or not land is removed from the ALR rests solely with the ALC, and not with Council for the City of Langford.

I would suggest that you consider writing to the commission at:

Provincial Agricultural Land Commission
133-4940 Canada Way
Burnaby, BC
V5G 4K6

Matthew G.S. Baldwin, MCIP, RPP
City Planner
City of Langford
2nd Floor- 877 Goldstream Avenue
Langford, BC
V9B 2X8
Phone: 250 474-6919
Fax: 250 391 3436

————————————————————————————–
From: Deb Harper
Sent: February 13, 2009 10:09 AM
To: Matthew Baldwin
Subject: RE: ALR Land removal – Happy Valley Road

Matthew Baldwin wrote,

>While the City of Langford is currently reviewing applications that
>land owners in Langford have made to the BC Agriculture Land
>Commission (ALC) with respect to exclusion from the ALR, the
>decision whether or not land is removed from the ALR rests solely
>with the ALC, and not with Council for the City of Langford.

My research led me to believe that without approval from Langford,
the applications could proceed no further:

http://www.alc.gov.bc.ca/How_Do_I/how_do_i_alr_application.htm

If the land under application is zoned for agricultural or farm use,
or if your proposal requires a bylaw amendment, the local government
Board or Council decides whether to authorize your application to
proceed to the Commission. If authorization is not granted, your application proceeds no further.

Could you please clarify if the statement on the ALC site is
incorrect or if I am misinterpreting it?

Regards,

Deb Harper
————————————————————————————–

Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:35:12 -0800
From: Matthew Baldwin
Subject: RE: ALR Land removal – Happy Valley Road

No. If you want clarification on ALC processes, please contact the ALC.

posted by admin on Dec 14

Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 14:58:20 -0800
To: planning@cityoflangford.ca
From: Deb Harper <Deb@HomeGrow.ca>
Subject: Langford Bylaw 1262
To City Planning:
I am writing in regards to Bylaw 1262
a) Planning, Zoning & Affordable Housing Committee – November 9′”, 2009 14
1. Rezoning Application – 3324, 3328, 3348 & 3352 Hazelwood Road and 1024 Englewood Ave (Application to Rezone from AGI [Agriculture 1] and R2A [One and Two Family Residential] to a new Comprehensive Development zone to allow for the development of approximately 65 residential lots (File No. Z -09-16)
——————————————–
I was unaware of this zoning proposal until recently when I decided  to walk down Hazelwood Rd. instead of my usual route on the Galloping  Goose and saw the sign.  Truthfully, it is very difficult to keep up  with the speed of the rezoning proposals that come forward.
The traditional layout of this neighbourhood is well suited for being  situated on a flood plain. (http://bilstoncreek.org/floods.htm)  If/when the floods come, (and they always will), very few homes are  affected, and the agricultural land is not affected, and at best, it  helps prepare it for the dry summer ahead.
The more I learn about food security, the more I know how extremely  fortunate Langford is to have agricultural land and neighbourhoods  like Hazelwood, and how important it is to save them from becoming  some generic suburb that could be anywhere in North America.
This unique, old neighbourhood can be preserved and with support from  the city, as per the Langford Agricultural Strategy, make parts of  the yards into productive food gardens. This would bring more  families closer to becoming self-sustaining, and add further produce  to the Farmers Market.
It could also be showcased to the world, to highlight a city with  great vision and foresight, that realized the true value in having  and retaining such places as the Hazelwood neighbourhood and it’s  agricultural lands in the ALR.  When the situation soon arises, and  communities need to rely more on their own resources to produce food,  Langford could be among the “haves”, not a “have not” like all the  other cities.
I am not anti-development because development and growth can be  parsed various ways. The main core surrounding downtown is the most  practical and logical place to develop for housing and density by  adding high rises and multi-family units to that corridor rather than  outlying areas. – The main roadway and public transportation corridor is in this area – It is already developed and not agricultural land. – It is easy to walk to amenities – pedestrian friendly
In contrast, South Langford lacks road infrastructure, amenities,  good public transportation, no bus shelters and claws away more  scarce agricultural land. The long run costs to the city in terms of  services and infrastructure needed, will outweigh the short run  financial benefits, not to mention the new social costs  that arise  with increased density.
A one acre organic micro-farm has the potential to generate a $40,000  income while maintaining the land’s fertility.  (http://www.new-terra-natural-food.com/micro-farming-for-profit.html )
Landowners producing food and value-added products and services can  begin right now and generate money for the local economy year after  year with stable, real sustainable, local employment for those  involved.  The low density also mean no further infrastructure,  services or increase of flood damage claims. How is that not a  win-win situation?
Various groups of citizens are organizing in response to Langford  Agricultural Strategy to work with the city, other regions, and  organizations, on many of the issues outlined in the Strategy.  Alternate plans that include developing a strong agricultural sector  in the local economy could be more beneficial to the city and  citizens over the long run, and a chance should be given to compile  and present the data. (In development: http://greenlangford.ca/)
It would make a great deal of sense to place a moratorium on any further housing development in these low density /  agricultural/Greenbelt lands until there is chance for this report to  be discussed by interested local residents. It would be a great show  of faith and commitment on the city’s part that it is taking the  Langford Agricultural Strategy seriously.
Regards, Deb Harper
http://homegrow.ca/
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 14:58:20 -0800
To: planning@cityoflangford.ca
From: Deb Harper
Subject: Langford Bylaw 1262

To City Planning:

I am writing in regards to Bylaw 1262

a) Planning, Zoning & Affordable Housing Committee – November 9′”, 2009 14

1. Rezoning Application – 3324, 3328, 3348 & 3352 Hazelwood Road and 1024 Englewood Ave (Application to Rezone from AGI [Agriculture 1] and R2A [One and Two Family Residential] to a new Comprehensive Development zone to allow for the development of approximately 65 residential lots (File No. Z -09-16)

——————————————–

I was unaware of this zoning proposal until recently when I decided  to walk down Hazelwood Rd. instead of my usual route on the Galloping  Goose and saw the sign.  Truthfully, it is very difficult to keep up  with the speed of the rezoning proposals that come forward.

The traditional layout of this neighbourhood is well suited for being  situated on a flood plain. (http://bilstoncreek.org/floods.htm)  If/when the floods come, (and they always will), very few homes are  affected, and the agricultural land is not affected, and at best, it  helps prepare it for the dry summer ahead.

The more I learn about food security, the more I know how extremely  fortunate Langford is to have agricultural land and neighbourhoods  like Hazelwood, and how important it is to save them from becoming  some generic suburb that could be anywhere in North America.

This unique, old neighbourhood can be preserved and with support from  the city, as per the Langford Agricultural Strategy, make parts of  the yards into productive food gardens. This would bring more  families closer to becoming self-sustaining, and add further produce  to the Farmers Market.

It could also be showcased to the world, to highlight a city with  great vision and foresight, that realized the true value in having  and retaining such places as the Hazelwood neighbourhood and it’s  agricultural lands in the ALR.  When the situation soon arises, and  communities need to rely more on their own resources to produce food,  Langford could be among the “haves”, not a “have not” like all the  other cities.

I am not anti-development because development and growth can be  parsed various ways. The main core surrounding downtown is the most  practical and logical place to develop for housing and density by  adding high rises and multi-family units to that corridor rather than  outlying areas. – The main roadway and public transportation corridor is in this area – It is already developed and not agricultural land. – It is easy to walk to amenities – pedestrian friendly

In contrast, South Langford lacks road infrastructure, amenities,  good public transportation, no bus shelters and claws away more  scarce agricultural land. The long run costs to the city in terms of  services and infrastructure needed, will outweigh the short run  financial benefits, not to mention the new social costs  that arise  with increased density.

A one acre organic micro-farm has the potential to generate a $40,000  income while maintaining the land’s fertility.  (http://www.new-terra-natural-food.com/micro-farming-for-profit.html )

Landowners producing food and value-added products and services can  begin right now and generate money for the local economy year after  year with stable, real sustainable, local employment for those  involved.  The low density also mean no further infrastructure,  services or increase of flood damage claims. How is that not a  win-win situation?

Various groups of citizens are organizing in response to Langford  Agricultural Strategy to work with the city, other regions, and  organizations, on many of the issues outlined in the Strategy.  Alternate plans that include developing a strong agricultural sector  in the local economy could be more beneficial to the city and  citizens over the long run, and a chance should be given to compile  and present the data. (In development: http://greenlangford.ca/)

It would make a great deal of sense to place a moratorium on any further housing development in these low density /  agricultural/Greenbelt lands until there is chance for this report to  be discussed by interested local residents. It would be a great show  of faith and commitment on the city’s part that it is taking the  Langford Agricultural Strategy seriously.

Regards, Deb Harper

http://homegrow.ca/

posted by admin on Dec 14

From: Frank Mitchell [<mailto:fhm@shaw.ca>mailto:fhm@shaw.ca]
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 6:24 PM
To: Bednard, Gordon ALC:EX
Cc: Councillor Lillian Szpak; Matthew Baldwin; Linda Geggie; Lana Popham
Subject: 10 Langford ALR Excisions–additional queries
Dear Mr. Bednard,
I would be grateful if you could share the following with members of the Vancouver Island Panel.
The specific concerns I raised before the deadline for public submissions remain. I am now writing with several queries about the proposed excision of 10 properties in Langford from the ALR which arise from information just received and not available by the submission deadline.
These queries arise from Langford’s new Agricultural Strategy, which was approved by Council on November 16, (with opportunities for public review and input limited to the three days between issue of the 133 page Council agenda and the meeting). While the opportunities for public review and discussion were almost non-existent, many elements in the Strategy may mark major advances in helping to define what local governments can do to encourage and support agriculture in urbanising areas outside as well as inside Langford.
These queries also arise from the information provided by the Langford Planner and the Councillor Chair of Langford’s Planning Committee to a meeting convened by CFAIR at Langford Legion last Monday, December 7, and attended and about 25-30 interested residents.
The planner said that the Langford Agricultural Strategy had been worked out in close consultation with the Land Commission within the context of discussions on the 10 ALR excision applications, and had ALC approval. We understood that he believed the Strategy would satisfy outstanding ALC queries on whether to grant the 10 ALR excisions. He also indicated that an ALC decision was expected before Christmas.
With that background,
1. Has ALC approved Langford’s Agricultural Strategy as it stands?
2. Does the Strategy satisfactorily fulfill the conditions for promotion of agriculture sufficient to allow approval of the proposed excisions?
3. If so, what criteria and monitoring arrangements will the ALC establish to ensure compliance with the ALC understanding and expectations?
4. Will ALC delay final decisions on these applications following enactment of changes in OCP, Land Use Bylaw and other bylaws necessary to apply the Strategy to the properties under consideration? (The sections of the Strategy most directly involved include those concerning buffering, agricultural DPA areas, the 40% dedication rule. There are also questions about whether the 40% is a maximum or a minimum.)
5. On a point of detail, is ALC able to grant only partial excisions of parcels proposed for excision as understood by the planner? Or must ALC accept/reject the whole excision proposed? (This has relevance for the 40% dedication to agriculture of rezoned agricultural lands, and also the exact areas which might be covered by buffering provisions IF the appropriate OCP/LUB amendments are in place.)
6. Does the ALC see merit in providing additional opportunity for public consultation among ALC, Langford officials, and concerned members of the public regarding the strategy and its applicability to these excisions? Might the changes in information since the deadline for submissions require more consultation?
It comes as no news to ALC that there is considerable local distrust about execution of undertakings associated with ALR excisions. To take but one example, actual use of areas of the Hull’s Field excisions which were to be preserved for environmental reasons have engendered some of these concerns.
At a more general level, will the ALC wrestle with the issue of whether there is any justification for excising lands which are to be retained for agricultural use? Surely, such lands (as well as lands not now in the ALR, but newly dedicated to agricultural use through other parts of the Strategy) should be retained in (added to) the ALR. The only disadvantage to such a “retention” policy, from the point of view of local municipalities, would be that changes in agricultural use would need ALC approval. But this is surely an advantage, as the ensuing discussions would lead to more thorough examination of potentials, and better long term uses. Moreover, they would establish useful precedents and experience which could be more easily replicated in other urbanising areas.
The other advantage of non-excision of agricultural lands is, of course, ensuring preservation of the agricultural potential of these lands, obviating the need for very expensive future reconversion to agriculture in this area with such a limited agricultural land base. (The need for such reconversion is not improbable.)
Langford’s Agricultural Strategy has placed many interesting ideas, even exciting ones, on the table regarding the shape of agriculture in the urbanising areas. Will the ALC play its full role in ensuring that these ideas take form in ways which realise their potential?
Will the ALC clarify its thinking for the public on these matters in the context of — and preferably before — taking its decisions on the 10 Langford ALR exclusions?
I – and many others – look forward to how ALC handles these decisions in the light of the above questions.
Yours sincerely,
Frank Mitchell
From: Frank Mitchell
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 6:24 PM
To: Bednard, Gordon ALC:EX
Cc: Councillor Lillian Szpak; Matthew Baldwin; Linda Geggie; Lana Popham
Subject: 10 Langford ALR Excisions–additional queries

Dear Mr. Bednard,

I would be grateful if you could share the following with members of the Vancouver Island Panel.

The specific concerns I raised before the deadline for public submissions remain. I am now writing with several queries about the proposed excision of 10 properties in Langford from the ALR which arise from information just received and not available by the submission deadline.

These queries arise from Langford’s new Agricultural Strategy, which was approved by Council on November 16, (with opportunities for public review and input limited to the three days between issue of the 133 page Council agenda and the meeting). While the opportunities for public review and discussion were almost non-existent, many elements in the Strategy may mark major advances in helping to define what local governments can do to encourage and support agriculture in urbanising areas outside as well as inside Langford.

These queries also arise from the information provided by the Langford Planner and the Councillor Chair of Langford’s Planning Committee to a meeting convened by CFAIR at Langford Legion last Monday, December 7, and attended and about 25-30 interested residents.

The planner said that the Langford Agricultural Strategy had been worked out in close consultation with the Land Commission within the context of discussions on the 10 ALR excision applications, and had ALC approval. We understood that he believed the Strategy would satisfy outstanding ALC queries on whether to grant the 10 ALR excisions. He also indicated that an ALC decision was expected before Christmas.With that background,

1. Has ALC approved Langford’s Agricultural Strategy as it stands?

2. Does the Strategy satisfactorily fulfill the conditions for promotion of agriculture sufficient to allow approval of the proposed excisions?

3. If so, what criteria and monitoring arrangements will the ALC establish to ensure compliance with the ALC understanding and expectations?

4. Will ALC delay final decisions on these applications following enactment of changes in OCP, Land Use Bylaw and other bylaws necessary to apply the Strategy to the properties under consideration? (The sections of the Strategy most directly involved include those concerning buffering, agricultural DPA areas, the 40% dedication rule. There are also questions about whether the 40% is a maximum or a minimum.)

5. On a point of detail, is ALC able to grant only partial excisions of parcels proposed for excision as understood by the planner? Or must ALC accept/reject the whole excision proposed? (This has relevance for the 40% dedication to agriculture of rezoned agricultural lands, and also the exact areas which might be covered by buffering provisions IF the appropriate OCP/LUB amendments are in place.)

6. Does the ALC see merit in providing additional opportunity for public consultation among ALC, Langford officials, and concerned members of the public regarding the strategy and its applicability to these excisions? Might the changes in information since the deadline for submissions require more consultation.

It comes as no news to ALC that there is considerable local distrust about execution of undertakings associated with ALR excisions. To take but one example, actual use of areas of the Hull’s Field excisions which were to be preserved for environmental reasons have engendered some of these concerns.

At a more general level, will the ALC wrestle with the issue of whether there is any justification for excising lands which are to be retained for agricultural use? Surely, such lands (as well as lands not now in the ALR, but newly dedicated to agricultural use through other parts of the Strategy) should be retained in (added to) the ALR. The only disadvantage to such a “retention” policy, from the point of view of local municipalities, would be that changes in agricultural use would need ALC approval. But this is surely an advantage, as the ensuing discussions would lead to more thorough examination of potentials, and better long term uses. Moreover, they would establish useful precedents and experience which could be more easily replicated in other urbanising areas.

The other advantage of non-excision of agricultural lands is, of course, ensuring preservation of the agricultural potential of these lands, obviating the need for very expensive future reconversion to agriculture in this area with such a limited agricultural land base. (The need for such reconversion is not improbable.)

Langford’s Agricultural Strategy has placed many interesting ideas, even exciting ones, on the table regarding the shape of agriculture in the urbanising areas. Will the ALC play its full role in ensuring that these ideas take form in ways which realise their potential?

Will the ALC clarify its thinking for the public on these matters in the context of — and preferably before — taking its decisions on the 10 Langford ALR exclusions?

I – and many others – look forward to how ALC handles these decisions in the light of the above questions.

Yours sincerely,

Frank Mitchell