Prince George Approves 25 Year Industrial Land Plan

Tuesday, October 30, 2007 03:59 AM

The map shows the area identified for industrial development (courtesy City of Prince George)

Prince George, B.C. - The City of Prince George has adopted an industrial land strategy that would provide a long term plan for industrial development, but a great deal of the property is in the Agricultural Land Reserve.

The plan adopted was one of three presented to Council

Option 1 – Short Term – Consists of the existing undeveloped and unzoned land base west of the airport designated for light industrial development in the Official Community Plan.
Option 2 – Medium Term – This option involves the addition of 250 to 300 ha of land to the light industrial land base to meet anticipated demand over a medium term time frame. Medium term is in the 5 to 15 year time frame.
Option 3 – Long Term – Option 3 is to designate the required amount of land for light industrial development for a 25 year time horizon. This option would add approximately 710 ha of land for light industrial development, including the parcels currently under consideration for removal from the Agricultural Land Reserve.
A total of 11 written submissions have been received. Although there is support for expansion of the light industrial land base in the area west of the airport, there were several concerns stated:
Review is not addressing current conflicts between residential areas and heavy industry; gravel extraction and asphalt plants on the Nechako Bench are impacting neighbourhoods;
Conversion of ALR land seems wasteful and expensive; difficult to justify development of new industrial lands when other underutilized and vacant lands already exist;
Some concern about how the lands may be phased; do not wish to see matters of market competition take priority over quality of life issues in siting industrial lands; no discussion about rezoning vacated industrial lands for other purposes;
Fugitive dust from vehicular activities may need to be addressed;
Concern that the scenarios presented would place much of the City’s future light industrial land supply in the hands of a few individuals; plan neglects to recognize appropriate sites for light industrial activity outside of the subject area;
The time frames suggested for the 3 options are unrealistic; much of the land identified in Option 1 is undevelopable (as much as 50%); description of BCR subdivision is inaccurate; comments regarding the speculative nature of the inland port opportunities are inappropriate; development of a high quality business park in Queensway East would be challenging; estimated cost of servicing lands west of airport is alarmist and ambiguous.
There were several reasons Option 3 was the favoured option:
The lands in question are elevated out of the bowl area of the City, thereby minimizing impacts on the City’s air quality.
Whereas the development of the lands west of the airport should help facilitate the establishment of alternative trucking routes away from the bowl, transportation related particulate emissions in the bowl area may, in fact, be lessened over the long term;
Economic opportunities for the region are real and significant;
location of subject lands provide for advantage to be taken of anticipated growth in transportation sector – i.e., proximity to the airport, improved transportation links to Highways 16 and 97
Provides certainty in that an appropriate plan would be created for long term growth for industrial development, as is typically done for residential lands (i.e., 25 year growth horizon);
long term growth option allows for appropriate infrastructure planning and phasing in support of full build out, provides the certainty required for that planning to occur.
Option 3 would add roughly 710 ha of land to the current 348 ha of land already designated for light industrial development west of the airport. Option 3 would provide for a large and cohesive land assembly which could be planned comprehensively.

The Agricultural Land Commission is currently considering an application to exclude approximately 685 ha of land within the area identified in Option 3.

Councillor Brian Skakun says it would be great to be able to tell potential developers there is land available "There is an appetite for industrial land and it would be great to be able to say there is a 20 acre lot available, or a five acre lot available or whatever. "

Councillor Debora Munoz is not in favour of setting aside ths much property and she says there are too many studies that are not yet complete, like the intermodal impact study , the air quality task force, the downtown transportation study, there is no dangerous goods route, there is no bylaw in place to deal with dangerous goods. "It is premature" says Munoz.

Mayor Colin Kinsley says he is in favour of this "I am excited because it's close to the airport, I'm excited because its not in the bowl, there's reasons for it in that entire area . That entire south east area I would like to see expansion and growth. I know we have to get some more services out to that area, but this kind of decision mught make that happen."

Councilor Munoz was the only member to oppose the approval of this item.

City staff will now proceed to prepare for public consultation.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 03:59 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: lunarguy on October 30 2007 6:26 AM

Is there not lots available in the BCR industrial park just is the roads are so bad even semis are damaging their suspension getting in / out of the area ?

Posted by: YamaDooPolCat on October 30 2007 7:43 AM

Debora was opposed? Curious. Starting her election campaign a little early.

Posted by: owl on October 30 2007 8:45 AM

Munoz is bang on. A continuation of major industrial land in the BCR is ridiculous unless any new industrial development has no point source air emissions. There needs to be a cap on that.

Why is someone's opposition, reasonable or not, considered to be a political campaign rather than a position that person takes? You know as well as I do that she had that view right from the start. She is staying honest to that view. Wish there were more who did that.

Posted by: owl on October 30 2007 8:49 AM

"The lands in question are elevated out of the bowl area of the City, thereby minimizing impacts on the City�s air quality."

Minimizing????? simply not acceptable. It should not impact the air quality one iota. We have no room left for impacting air quality other than improving the air quality. What is it that people do not understand about that simple fact of science and life?

Posted by: owl on October 30 2007 8:55 AM

I note these points in the above:

� "The time frames suggested for the 3 options are unrealistic;
� much of the land identified in Option 1 is undevelopable (as much as 50%);
� description of BCR subdivision is inaccurate;
� comments regarding the speculative nature of the inland port opportunities are inappropriate;
� development of a high quality business park in Queensway East would be challenging;
� estimated cost of servicing lands west of airport is alarmist and ambiguous."

So how are they going to be addressed? Sound like reasonable concerns to me that need some review and meaningful response.

Posted by: Chadermando on October 30 2007 2:10 PM

I think the whole report is gabage from start to finish. Obviousley the city will need to rely on the Regional District to come up with an industrial land use plan to protect the city from its own politicians.

Owl is right that any development effecting PG's airshed should not even be considered at this point. Our pollution bowl reality can not be allowed to continue.

What the city needs is an industrial site that is clearly outside of the city airshed and the only place that could be is Northeast of town on either side of the Fraser River accessed by a new ring road infrastructure.

IMO this council (save Munzo) is very stupid for not pursueing the ring road industrial lands option with federal and provincial funding. Instead they find any way they can to move heavy industry into the bowl serviced by city tax payers. Representation at its worste IMO.

Posted by: YamaDooPolCat on October 30 2007 4:56 PM

You do realize that moving the industrial base into the regional district would ruin the city tax base don't you?

What if the people in the regional district don't want their choice to live in the clean air outside the city compromised? Maybe they think those industries that built the city can bloody well stay in the city.

I thought Deb was playing politics because she was positioning herself as the eco terrorist on council. Deb's going for the student/elite green vote.

The older folks and working class around town just want to hang on to their jobs and less demands on their wallet, and wouldn't have the time of day for Deb and her ideas. But then most of them don't vote so Deb doesn't have much to fear.

Posted by: NMG on October 30 2007 6:08 PM

"The older folks and working class around town just want to hang on to their jobs and less demands on their wallet, and wouldn't have the time of day for Deb and her ideas"

Truth be told, I'm rather tired of where the "old folks" have lead the City on some key issues. I'm willing to support some fresh ideas :)

Posted by: diplomat on October 30 2007 6:31 PM

"I'm willing to support some fresh ideas :)"

That was my motto in the last municipal election and I voted accordingly - unfortunately not one of the candidates I voted for was actually elected...they were too young and too full of fresh ideas!

Posted by: Palopu on October 30 2007 8:52 PM

I wonder what industry people are expecting to locate in Prince George???

Anyone who thinks that there will be any big changes in Prince George because of the Prince Rupert container terminal must be sniffing glue. The first Container Train with loaded containers will come through Prince George heading East this Wednesday or Thursday. This train will go through Prince George with only a change of crew. Over time we will load some containers locally to Prince Rupert, however this is tonnage that presently goes to Vancouver.(So whats new)

The building of the runway expansion to facilitate wide body cargo planes is a day dream that would tax the imagination of Charlie Browns dog **Snoopy** Even if it did attract some planes, and some cargo business it would not amount to much.

I suggest that people look at the 20 year plan for the Airport which is presently on their website(250 Pages) and look at their projections etc, you will see that it is mostly speculative.

The growth in North Central BC for the forseeable future will be in Pr Rupert, Kitimat, Terrace, Smithers, and Highway 37.
Mackenzie, Dawson Creek. We should get some of the distribution business, however not enough to offset the coming loses because of the beetle, and the lumber crisis.

Posted by: NMG on October 30 2007 9:49 PM

I suppose the ultimate question for the short to medium term is how many forestry related jobs can we afford to lose and still have a fully "sustainable" City?

What will the population drop to? How many jobs will be lost? How many jobs will be gained in that time period? What will the City look like? Are people being too pessimistic in regards to what will happen? Is the City large enough to make it through a downturn and come out stronger on the other side of it? I've yet to see any type of concrete analysis on the subject . . .

My personal opinion is that we will see a fair population drop, however, I feel that the City is large enough and diversified enough to absorb a short-term hit. I also believe that we'll see average incomes drop, however, given that we already have some of the highest per capita incomes in the Province (combined with some of the lowest costs of living), I'm not sure if that will be a significant issue as far as the viability of the City goes. Certainly it will impact many people, but I'm not convinced it will make or break the area. Perhaps people will just start driving 30K cars instead of 70K trucks, putting the jet boats off and not heading to Mexico every year . . .

Recent trends would suggest that both the Feds and Provincial governments are keen to invest dough into the City and Region. As much as we all like to pick on government spending, are we naive enough to believe that this amount of money still would have been spent here else if the governments thought that this area had no viable future? Is it possible they have plans that we don't yet know about? Is it possible that they are letting the current forestry "cycle" run its' course before moving ahead with those plans? Is it possible that they are fulling willing to "bail out" the area during this short-term hit?

I certainly don't have a crystal ball, however, as much as I like to play devil's advocate, I simply can't envision a scenario in which PG falls of the face of the map. Perhaps the City positions itself as even more of a service centre for outlying areas. Perhaps it attracts new value added industries. Perhaps it relies more on government money being pounded into post secondary education and health care, for which PG is a logical centre to service a large Regional area. Perhaps with a cleaner environment, we will attract businesses that we never even considered, because of the simple fact that they never came knocking before.

We can't just go into a corner, curl up and cry the blues that a forestry downturn will be our death blow. At some point we have to be willing to see our City change in a pretty major way. I think the opportunity is huge. We never saw the City grow beyond 80,000 when forestry was the primary engine. Perhaps this isn't a coincidence . . .

Posted by: Palopu on October 30 2007 10:11 PM

NMG. I agree with most of what you are saying. Very little or no growth over the next 10 to 15 years. Downsizing in some industries, and some increases in others.

School, College, and University enrollments static. Population growth around 1.5 percent(maybe)

Commercial and housing market will level off and Prince George will maintain a population of approx 75 to 78000 (maybe)

PG Cougers will continue to average 3000 fans or less per game. (Present average is 2750)

PS. Prince George has never reached a population of 80,000 people by any boni fide census, Provincial or Federal. The population number of 81000 on the sign at Highways 16 and 97 are unsubstantiated numbers posted by the City.

I personally do not have a problem with a City of 75000 people and fail to see the constant need to grow.

Posted by: NMG on October 30 2007 10:50 PM

"I personally do not have a problem with a City of 75000 people and fail to see the constant need to grow"

I would like to see some measured level of growth, if only because of the natural increases in services that comes along with it, however, like you Palopu, I'm in no hurry to see PG become "Kelowna north".

In all honesty, I think PG with clean air and a population of even 70K would be an EXTREMELY livable and attractive City that would be able to market itself better than it currently can. Sometimes you have to take a step back before you can move forward.

Oh and I hear you about the census data, although our Mayor would disagree . . . LOL :)

Posted by: owl on October 30 2007 11:24 PM

"You do realize that moving the industrial base into the regional district would ruin the city tax base don't you?"

A line in the sand should not be the reason to come up with stupid decisions. A line in the sand is man made. Pollution flows according to natural forces. One can reduce it by putting tons of money into mechanical/chemical control systems, or one can put the stuff inot the air where it has little or nil effect on sensitive human biological receptors. Of course, we can also all wear gas masks.

There is a reason why Ontario created larger urban centres by removing artificial boundaries. Either we amalgamate more surrounding land base into the city or we we create a GPGA - Greater Prince George Area - the same as GTA and GOA. The mayor can then finally legitimately boast a City greater than 80,000 in population and we will have more potential heavy industrial land which will put money into the GPGA coffers and keep it out of the Mackenzie, Valemount and McBride coffers.

Posted by: owl on October 30 2007 11:43 PM

To me, population growth for the GPGA is not a necessity. We can grow in quality rather than quantity.

The thing that we should be aware of, however, is that if we should grow in quality, the population will eventually find itself knocking on the door.

Not everyone in the world is drawn by lakes and oceans and sun. We actually do have and can create even more attributes which will draw people here.

People did not move to the Okanagan for jobs. Who had/has more manufacturing, Kelowna or PG?

It is a question of the chicken or the egg. Which comes first? people or jobs? I suggest in the case of PG it was predominately job opportunities which drew people here in the growth years of the 60s and 70s. The same as Fort McMurray in the past decade.

I suggest in the case of the Okanagan it was people drawn by weather and location. The jobs came later as predominately service jobs rather than primary manufacturing jobs.

The same is possible here. But then again, I am not from Lotus land, so I do have a completely differnt perspective of what kind of urban areas Canadians live in - Edmonton, Calgary, Regina, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec City, Fredericton and on and on. Winters with lots of snow and cold humid winds, summers with sweltering humid heat, flat land, few lakes, 2 hours to cottage country .... and on and on ......

I live here for a reason, and some of them are identified above. There are others which will move here too if the place is a healthy one to raise a family or go running in the morning before going to work or spending the rest of the day enjoying retirement.

Posted by: YamaDooPolCat on October 31 2007 7:45 AM

Owl says - "To me, population growth for the GPGA is not a necessity. We can grow in quality rather than quantity."

I think Hitlter already said that.

Posted by: owl on October 31 2007 12:34 PM

Actually quite the opposite. He was after "Lebensraum" (living space) combined with an increase in population on the home front.

The notion of increasing population was one which was practiced by most western countries for decades with various versions of baby subsidies being provided to couples with children.

What he had failed to do was understand the simplicity of the British and French system of colonialism whereby people are seen as a key resource, are enslaved instead of killed, and the products of their labour used to feed the coffers of the mother country.

And then there is the modern version of that where the slavery is no longer servitude in the old sense, but simply devaluing the work of one country's workers with respect to another.

;-)

Posted by: Foo738 on October 31 2007 9:21 PM

"What if the people in the regional district don't want their choice to live in the clean air outside the city compromised? Maybe they think those industries that built the city can bloody well stay in the city."

Time to think about being a good neighbour Yama. There are others in the bowl beside industries; they need clean air as much as you do.

Please stop being antagonistic and be a good neighbour; we are all in this together.

Posted by: YamaDooPolCat on November 1 2007 12:12 AM

I am not being antagonistic. There are other sides to this, and I don't think PG should attempt to export air polution. Leave it where it is.

Posted by: owl on November 1 2007 8:35 AM

Ah, so you agree that the air is polluted. And you do not want to export it it why? Because it it bad for those who live in polluted air?

So, if PG cannot export it because it would be bad for the health of those who live outside of PG, then the only sollution is to reduce the pollution by putting in better scrubbing devices which is what they are doing in other areas of the western world, or shut down the plants.

If those are not accepted solutions to you, what are your solutions?

Posted by: YamaDooPolCat on November 1 2007 10:48 AM

Live with it. It is at one order of magnitude better than it used to be. There may be some room left for improvement, but not that much. Give it the same length of time, 40 years, and the problem with fossil fuels will be gone at least.

After that it will be, whatever it takes to survive. In 40 years people will envy the air and wealth we have today.