Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The impact of the Knight Street Bridge on the allocation of industrial land Levesque, Ernest R. 1974

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1974_A8 L49.pdf [ 14.35MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093261.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093261-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093261-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093261-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093261-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093261-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093261-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093261-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093261.ris

Full Text

THE IMPACT OF THE KNIGHT STREET BRIDGE ON THE ALLOCATION OF INDUSTRIAL LAND by'-y ERNEST R. LEVESQUE B.A., University of Waterloo, 1966 M.A., St. Louis University, 1968 M.A., St. Louis University, 1970 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS In THE SCHOOL OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April, 1974 i i In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission fo r extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. The University of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date i i i ABSTRACT A variety of impact methodologies exist today to assist the planner in his role as advisor to policy makers. Many of these methodologies, however, are not always available to a small municipal planning staff charged with the responsibility of formulating impact statements concerning a possible municipal-sized undertaking. This study attempts to formulate a method of inquiry for an impact study on this municipal scale. Specifically, i t studies the impact of the Knight Street Bridge on the allocation of industrial land. The inquiry contains three interrelated elements; the structure of the relationships one is attempting to study, a selection of data to measure the impact, and an awareness of the cultural environment which interprets the data. Applied to this study the structure is seen as a land use conflict ignited by the newly created accessibility to hundreds of acres of raw land. A quantitative measurement of the impact is achieved by data relating to the location and amount of industrial land consumed from I960 to 1972. The changing sentiments within our society with respect to economic growth and the expression of this in the Land Commission Act serve to alter the findings of the data. In Chapter One the land use conflict is studied as a result of past failures to coordinate transportation planning with land use planning. Failures of this nature place land use planning at the mercy of transportation planning. This chapter concludes with a dis-cussion of the changing sentiments about the continued economic expan-iv sion of the region. These emerging sentiments are challenging past policies which reserved for industry large areas of the region's shore-line and agricultural land. The literature review in Chapter Two is designed to display the lack of usable material and techniques for the measurement of impacts of the type attempted in this study. However, the literature does point out the importance to industry of proximity to urban transpor-tation routes. Within the GVHD this relationship is studied in Chapter Three through the measurement of the location of industrial land acreage from I960 to 1972. This data establishes that consumption is heaviest in areas containing at least two of the following features: proximity to a regional roadway, an industrial park, and in an area intermediate between the regional core and the periphery. It is shown that this consumption pattern has closely paralleled the development of the regional roadway system as i t was formed from 1955 to 1965. The industrial areas that developed with the roadway system are now almost exhausted, and the region is on the verge of a new era of industrial land development in the periphery. Within this context the lands around the new bridge have a parti-cular significance. Their industrial potential is displayed in the existence of a l l three features mentioned above. In addition, the potential for expansion of this industrial area offers the only loca-tion for expansion within the intermediate zone. This makes the land a l l the more valuable for industry. The direct clash between the agricultural and industrial use of these lands is faced in Chapter Four. An industrial use is recommended V for land immediately adjacent to the bridge and roadway. It is recom-mended that other lands be secured for agriculture. The intent of this allocation is to capitalize on the industrial potential of the new bridge but limit the industrial area in harmony with the impera-tives of the Land Commission Act. Three recommendations conclude the papers that industrial plant and park design be altered to accommodate land shortages; secondly, that industry's radial connection with the region's core be recon-sidered as a location criteria; and finally, in view of the provincial government's entrance into the industrial land development industry, i t is recommended the government establish and implement itself, poli-cies for industrial development on the flood plain either by design alterations or minimum elevation requirements. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT i i i LIST OF TABLES . v i i i LIST OF MAPS ix ACKNOWLEDGMENT x INTRODUCTION x i CHAPTER 1 Highway Expansion and Regional Growth Policies.. 1 Background to the Conflict 1 Past Transportation Planning 6 The Development of Growth Policies in the Lower Mainlands 9 Current Policy Stance 27 CHAPTER 2 A Review of Literature 52 Industrial Location 33 Highway Impact Literature 39 The Predictive Literature.' 41 Descriptive Literature. 46 Conclusion 54 CHAPTER 3 The Supply and Demand of Industrial Land 59 The Supply of Industrial Land 60 The Demand for Industrial Land 65 An Overview of the Regional Industrial land Movement 82 The Knight Street Bridge in a Regional Context 88 CHAPTER 4 A Land Use Proposal 93 Present Land Use Structure 95 A Modest Proposal 99 Three Final Recommendations 104 Conclusion 110 CONCLUSION 113 BIBLIOGRAPHY 117 APPENDIX A .Standard-Industrial Classification •> 125 APPENDIX B:l Annual Industrial Land Consumption by Zone and SIC 126 v i i Page APPENDIX B:2 Total Industrial Land Consumption by Zone and SIC 139 APPENDIX C Annual Industrial Land Consumption by Zone... 140 APPENDIX D Annual Industrial Land Consumption by SIC... v i i i LIST OF TABLES Table Page I Supply of Industrial Land.... 62 II Population and Labour Force of British Columbia and the GVRD 66 III Population: Lower Mainland 67 IV Distribution of Labour Force in the GVRD by Industry Group, 1951 - 1981 67 V Industrial Group Percentage of Population 68 VI Industrial Land Projections 70 VII Percentage of Total Industrial Land Consumption of Appendix B:l by Year and Grouped Zone 76 VIII Large LotnComponent of Land Consumption 78 i x LIST OF MAPS Map Page 1 Study Area 5 2 Industrial Zoning of the Regional Plan... 14 3 Proposed B.C. Government Industrial Park 21 4 Areas Changed from Industrial Reserve to Agriculture... 24 5 Richmond Agricultural Land Reserves..... 26 6 Industrial Zones 63 7 Foundation Conditions 64 8 Clustered Zones 80 9 Outward Industrial Expansion 84 10 Present GVRD Industrial Zoning 100 11 Proposed Industrial Zoning 102 X ACKNOWLEDGMENT The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Mr. David Baxter in programming the data. To his wife, Nancy, the author is particularly grateful for her patience and typing efforts. xi INTRODUCTION The study which follows i 6 an exercise of a planning technique which is poorly developed and too infrequently employed by planners in their work and reports. It is unquestionably part of a planner's function to offer decision makers and the public an assessment of the possible impact of decisions and policies not yet adopted but being considered by those in authority. Too frequently planners' impact statements have the character of a slick prediction wrapped in a methodology that has been poorly thought out, poorly expressed, or disregarded entirely. Since the early 1960's the computer has offered the planner a new means of building a methodology for impact statements, but the com-puter models which have been built have tended to address themselves to large scale impact statements, a scale equivalent to large regions or inter-regional areas. The impact statements of concern in this study are municipal in size. The type of issue concerns that which might face a small planning office with limited time, funds, and staff s k i l l s . Specifically, this study will consider the impact of the Knight Street Bridge on the allocation of industrial land in eastern Richmond. Studies of this size defined in terms of geographic extent and data requirements do not easily lend themselves to a large com-puter model or canned formats. Unfortunately because they are too small or too specific to demand large methodologies built with a com-puter, their methodologies have tended to be disregarded. As a result, i t is impact statements concerning such small issues which have fallen x i i victim to the planners' quick but .^unsubstantiated predictions. In order to illustrate the present imperfections of small impact analysis, i t is worth looking at three recent attempts: the public debate on the Third Crossing of Burrard Inlet which drew reactions from professional planners and the public at large; a more modest attempt at studying the impact of the new Hudson Street Bridge, by the City of Vancouver Planning Department; and a similar bridge study by the New Orleans City Planning Commission. In a l l three cases there is an evident lack of methodology in appraising future impacts. Obviously, a detailed research methodology cannot be elaborated in a time-limited address to a public hearing. Nevertheless, the Briefs presented at the March 151 1972 public hearing to the Vancouver City Council regarding the proposed Third Crossing of Burrard Inlet offer some alarming examples of off-the-cuff impact statements by planners. The worst offenses of this instant prediction technique were contained in the Brief presented by the Association of Landscape Planners.1 They stated: A new crossing instantly will set off a wave of North Shore development, since the only thing preventing numerous city dwellers from settling in the more appealing residential North Shore is their inability to get from there to work in the downtown area in a reasonable length of time. The traffic that will be induced^by the new crossing will ensure that in.no time at a l l our problems will not be the Third Crossing but the Fourth and Fifth Crossings, and so on, into an asphalt-plastered future. They also predict dire consequences for Vancouver's downtown. It has been pointed out that i f 35% of the Third Crossing traffic will by-pass the downtown, then the hidden im-plication is that the remaining ... in addition to a l l of those carried by the Lion's Gate Bridge will be pouring into the downtown, and since they won't be x i i i able to park, the volume of business will decline for downtown merchants and the area will decay. These are two of the most dramatic off-the-cuff and unsubstantiated impact statements which so frequently seem to nourish planners, but there were others as well. Dr. Julius Kane of the University of British Columbia predicted that: the new pipeline to the North Shore will accelerate real estate development in West Vancouver and en-courage further concentration in the vicinity of Georgia and Granville. Within a short time com-muting pressure will again saturate the traffic arteries and a further^expensive technological solu-tion will be proposed. Norman Pearson offers a more detailed prediction concerning traffic patterns. Bute Street would be widened to become a major south-bound artery, and with Thurlow would likely lose its residential character in favour of commercial activity. Contrary to popular opinion, the Lion's Gate peak hour traffic will remain just as heavy as at present, and may well continue to f i l t e r through the West End arterials to avoid traffic congestion caused by the Bute Street off-ramp and the Thurlow Street on-ramp. Many of the Briefs presented were oriented toward disputing the f i -nances of the project or were attempts to place the discussion within wider policy issues and by so doing avoided the slick predictions. Two of the Briefs, that presented by the Planning Institute of British Columbia, and that presented by Paul 0. Koer, were noteworthy for their point-by-point dispute of the claims of the proponents and their sug-gestions for alternative approaches. Each avoided making predictions. Two other Briefs were tightly bound arguments which dealt with traffic flows and are noteworthy because of their attempts to remain within a specific area of discussion and offer some substantiation for their 5 claims. x i v Of the planning predictions mentioned above, some may very well be true, but the distressing feature of these off-the-cuff impact statements i s that they accustom the public to expect claims of this nature from the planning profession, and conversely, they accustom the planner to meet these created expectations of the public. If the ri s i n g tumult of the public, demanding citizen participation, i s any indication, the public seem to be demanding from planners something other than immediate impact catalogues which offer to the client no methodology to judge the f i n a l statement nor aid the client i n reaching his own conclusion. This same lack of methodology i s evident i n the June 1, 1970 report of the Vancouver CityyPlanning Department entitled Effects•of the Hudson Street Crossing on the Marpole Area.^ In this case, the impact study refers to a specific problem, very typical of a concern of a municipal planning office. It also comes to us as a professional planning report. The report deals with four matters, only the f i r s t of which relates to the t i t l e of the report. It states that on January 23, 1969, City Council approved the Department of Transport's f i n a l stage proposal for the new Hudson Street Bridge. At that time, Council asked: That the Director of Planning be requested to report back to the Council on planning imnlications involved i n respect to this whole matter. This term of reference allowed for a broad scope of planning inquiry concerning a significant addition to Vancouver's t r a f f i c flow system. The report chose to handle this study i n three short paragraphs, out-lining three adverse effects of the Bridge. The report suggests XV (l) Marpole shopping area will be adversely affected by the required demolition, (2) the Bridge will attract heavy traffic volumes resulting in noise and fumes, and (3) industrial traffic from Sea Island will be forced to enter the Hudson Street industrial area via the BM-3 apartment area.^ These are the impact statements of a professional planning depart-ment. Again these kinds of statements nourish the image of the planner as the slick predictor. How these conclusions are reached remains un-explained. The City of New Orleans Planning Commission's study of a bridge-highway proposal'"for a crossing of the Mississippi River illustrates not only the lack of methodology, but the propensity of planners to plant both feet on the concrete. Concrete can be measured. The New Orleans City Council had provided the terms of reference in the following manner: ... That the Council hereby requests the City Planning Commission to study the proposal submitted to the City Council on March 16, 1971, for a bridge crossing of the Mississippi River by the Mississippi River Bridge Authority and down river expressway and thereafter to make recommendations to the City Council on said overall proposal a l l detailed parts thereof, i t being understood that final detailed plans shall also be submitted to the City Council for its consideration. Unlike the previous examples, this study at least makes an attempt to articulate a methodology. The methodology implemented reduced itself to discussing the proposal with a large number of diverse concerned bodies and then isolating the problems and attempting to determine feasible solutions. 1^ The explanation of the methodology is weak, but i t is significant, in view of the two earlier examples, that in this xvi case the Planning Commission at least mentioned the study methodology. There is an implication here that they understood that a relationship exists between credibility and an explanation of method. This may be simplistic, but i t seems not to be a self-evident truth in planning practice. Turning now to the evaluation, the report devotes thirty-four double-columned pages to these under the headings of Roadways, Inter-changes, Phasing, Financing, Transit, Area Impact, Metropolitan Development, and Legal. Of these thirty-four pages, twenty are de-voted to the concrete problems of design and alignment of the roadways and interchanges. The area impact section receives less than half a page. Given the loosely defined terms of reference, i t is under-standable that a Planning Commission should choose to place more emphasis on one aspect of the study than others. In this case, there is a distinct impression that the paucity of attention given to area impact is to some extent explained by what the Commission understands as the nebulous nature of what "area impact'1 means. This short atten-tion i t does receive is introduced by the admission that "the concept endorsed by the State Department of Highways lacks sufficient detail to permit a reliable measure of its impact on the area traversed." It goes on somewhat reluctantly to suggest that the Bridge "could even-tually alter the existing relationship between such streets [[existing major streets H[ and the adjacent land uses." Finally, the Commission suggests that land uses may change even radically over time. In the report, this hesitation, caution, discomfort with the notion of future impacts is underscored through a typographical error resulting in a x v i i "serious though protracted possible possible Qsic] effect.11^"1 In the case of this study, there was a recognition of the need to explain methodology, but a seeming lack of willingness to apply this to an impact study of any matters less tangible than concrete and asphalt. Canned methodologies do exist to handle certain specific kinds of impact statements. An input-output study is one such methodology. In the area of environmental impact, the United States Environmental Protection Agency has recently published guidelines for the prepara-12 tion of environmental impact statements. Methodologies for social impact statements have emerged from such studies as that by Gerald Breese.^ The computer has also made available many types of pro-jection techniques. Within the purvue of many municipal planning departments, some of these formats and computer techniques will be impractical. In other cases, the limitations of time, finances, and staff will rule out the use of large-scale computer use. In some cases again, the study area will be of such a size as to render impractical the use of the large canned formats mentioned above. Finally, and most important, a large number of impact analyses to which the planner will turn his attention will simply not f i t the formats which have been devised to date. It is these last two problems with which this study is concerned. Municipal decision makers may be considering topics as varied as the creation of one-way streets to the implementation of new recrea-tional programs for senior citizens, and on any number of such issues they may turn to the planner for some evaluation of consequence. In x v i i i order to bring some credibility to his evaluation, the planner must lay aside his heritage of assumed predictive powers, and seek some rational method of inquiry. This inquiry will demand three things of the planner: a knowledge of the issue with which he is dealing; sen-sitivity to his cultural environment; and a knowledge of data sources. lach of these components will be vital in the planner's formulation of a methodology. An understanding of the system with which the issue under discussion deals will require the planner to know the relation-ships and dynamics of that system in order to bring structure and direction to his data and its analysis. In turn, the structure is given a meaning only when pertinent data has been provided, and under-standing which data is pertinent will not be the least important part of the exercise. Both the data and the structure built to give i t meaning become timely under analysis when the planner weighs his findings in the light of the cultural environment of the day. The facts may suggest one thing, but the cultural temper may indicate that options to the evident conclusion must be considered. Utilizing this approach, the planner can begin to usefully f u l f i l l that part of his role which demands some sensible statements concerning the consequences of pending decisions. This methodology is available to the planner at any level. In the employ of senior governments, the planner may find a large staff and a project sufficiently large to demand the refinements of computer techniques. However, even the small two-man planning office can bring credibility to its statements i f the willingness to.research available sources is present. xix This study is an attempt to apply this method in an impact study of the Knight Street Bridge. The structure of the study is formed through an analysis of data and the changing values of our culture with respect to economic growth. The analysis suggests that the Knight Street Bridge has created a land use conflict in the area falling under its influence in eastern Richmond. This conflict is seen as a result of past failures to coordinate land use planning with transportation planning, as a result of radical changes in the commu-nity's assessment of economic growth, and as a result of the past pattern of industrial location in the Lower Mainland. This conflict is not specific to the area around the Knight Street Bridge, but this study attempts to study i t in this location specifically and attempts to test the impact methodology by suggesting a land use allocation in the area. The land use conflict in the area of the bridge exists because of regional factors such as regional industrial land requirements, regional values with respect to growth, and regional transportation planning. Because of this the regional scale of these issues will be studied but the final land use allocation will be specific to the bridge area; i t will not be an attempt to allocate land on a regional level nor solve the regional industrial land problems. The second part of the methodology concerns the data. In this study the quantifiable data deals with the pattern of industrial land consumption as measured by the site sizes of plant locations in the region since i960. The data is used only to measure the pattern of location and the characteristics of that pattern. It is not used to XX explain economic factors in the location decision. Finally, this methodology requires the planner to balance facts with community values. In order to find an expression of these values the study considers past and present regional studies which deal with industrial land allocation and the assumptions about economic growth which such an allocation implies. In addition, the Land Commission  Act is considered because i t has implications on industrial land allo-cation and because i t is assumed that legislation of this nature is an expression of community values.^ Chapter One of the study introduces the land use conflict in the area of the bridge in the light of past transportation decisions and in light of changing assessments of unbridled economic growth. Prior to extending an understanding of the study in the light of the data, Chapter Two serves to introduce industrial location through an inves-tigation of industrial location literature. Chapter Three studies the industrial land supply and the pattern of the demand as the final com-ponent of the land use conflict. Finally, Chapter Four deals with a land use allocation decision. The decision is not designed to resolve the land use conflict; but rather, i t is an attempt to test the methodol-ogy by balancing the two information inputs of community values with regard to growth and the requirements for industrial land. The i n i t i a l impact of the Knight Street Bridge was the creation of a land use conflict. This study obviously goes beyond a simple articu-lation of this impact. The methodology is designed not simply to expose the impact but to facilitate a decision once the components of the im-pact are understood, and for this reason, the study ends with a decision. xxi It is recognized however, that a decision of this nature is the result of a political process, and in the light of this, the decision of Chapter Four becomes a recommendation. 0 x x i i NOTES TO INTRODUCTION 1. Association of Landscape Planners, (Brief presented to the Vancouver City Council public hearing on the proposed Third Crossing of Burrard Inlet, March 15, 1972.) 2. Dr. Julius Kane, "No Cost Alternatives to the Third Crossing," (Brief presented to Vancouver City Council public hearing on the pro-posed Third Crossing of Burrard Inlet, March 15, 1972.) 5. Norman Pearson, "Brief Notes on the Proposed Third Crossing," (Brief presented to Vancouver City Council public hearing on the pro-posed Third Crossing of Burrard Inlet, March 15, 1972.) 4. Planning Institute of British Columbia, (Brief presented to Vancouver City Council public hearing on the proposed Third Crossing of Burrard Inlet, March 15, 1972.) Paul 0. Roer, "The Third Burrard Inlet Crossing, A Framework for Evaluation and a Proposal," (Brief presented to Vancouver City Council public hearing on the proposed Third Crossing of Burrard Inlet, March 15, 1972.) 5. Zolton J. K. Kuun, "Some Transportation and Traffic Engineering Aspects of the Proposed Burrard Inlet Crossing System," (Brief pre-sented to Vancouver City Council public hearing on the proposed Third Crossing of Burrard Inlet, March 15, 1972.) J. A. C. Andrews of N. D. Lea and Associates Ltd., "A Strategy for the Brockton Crossing," (Brief presented to Vancouver City Council public hearing on the proposed Third Crossing of Burrard Inlet, March 15, 1972.) 6. Vancouver City Planning Department, Effects of the Hudson  Street Crossing on the Marpole Area (June 1, 1970.) 7. As quoted, Ibid., p. 1. 8. Ibid., p. 2. 9. New Orleans City Planning Commission, A Summary Report of the  New Orleans City Planning Commission's ^valuation of the Louisiana State  Highway Department's Recommendation for an Uptown Mississippi River  Bridge and Riverfront Expressway (New Orleans, 1971), P» 8. 10. Ibid., p. 10. 11. Ibid., p. 38. x x i i i 12. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X, Guidelines for  Preparation of Environmental Statements for Reviewing and Commenting  on Environmental Statements Prepared by other Agencies (Seattle, Washington: April, 1973.) 13. Gerald Breese and others, The Impact of Large Installations  on Nearby Areas (Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, 1965*) llf* S. B. C, ch. 46, 1973. CHAPTER ONE HIGHWAY EXPANSION AND REGIONAL GROWTH POLICIES Background to the Conflict The rapid urbanization which has occured in the Lower Mainland in the last two decades has been directed north, east, and south, even west i f we consider the development pressure on the Gulf Islands. Two areas have been unaffected by this expansion, eastern Richmond and eastern Delta. They create an unurbanized protrusion reaching to Van-couver's doorstep while urbanization slowly surrounds them. Urbani-zation has understandably bypassed these hundreds of acres because of the poor foundation conditions of peat covering much of the area, favouring instead the higher areas of western Richmond and Delta. In Richmond, the natural choice of favouring more suitable land was aug-mented by the municipality's policy of forcing development west of No. 5 Road. This policy was activated through zoning by-laws and the programs of limiting water and sewage services west of No. 5 Road in addition to the development of a road system in this eastern area that is inadequate for anything other than a rural population. The highway system of the Oak Street Bridge and the Deas Island Thruway have supported this policy of developing Richmond's western half. This Thruway and its alignment with No. 5 Road leading to the old Fraser Avenue Bridge has created the eastern frontier of Richmond's intense development area. 2 Traditional urban frontiers, even physically based frontiers, have a way of eroding in the face of intense pressures for urban expansion. San Francisco Bay now houses a Holiday Inn Motel, and hillside resi-dential areas are not uncommon in Los Angeles. In Greater Vancouver, the Hyatt House Hotel on Sea Island has extended itself into the middle arm of the Fraser River, and in Burrard Inlet at least one floating office building has made its appearance. Many such developments have unusual building costs associated with them, but i t eventually becomes feasible to meet these costs and enjoy the locational advantages rather than build in a less expensive but also less suitable area. The pres-*' sures of urbanization eventually bring into some form of urban pro-duction lands which had hitherto been neglected in the urban landscape. Unusual developments of this nature and in general, the eventual urbanization of neglected areas, do not have a uniform set of stimu-lants to which they react. It may be an acute housing shortage, a large market for central residence, a hotel market provided by prox-imity to an airport, or the need for dining novelty in a competitive restaurant market. In some cases several factors will become effective when the key factor becomes operative. It is the assumption of this paper that the key factor which will release the urban pressures into eastern Richmond is the modern accessibility provided by the Knight Street Bridge.1 This route in combination with the forces of land starvation in the region, and con-tinued rapid growth have combined to exert considerable pressure to urbanize the farmlands east of No. 5 Road. 4 The new Bridge with its feeder system of Bridgeport, and Cambie Roads, and Westminster Highway is the first modern access route into a traditionally neglected area of the region. Even though the bridge does not drive itself into the heart of eastern Richmond, but rather is located close to the western edge of this area; nevertheless, i t de-molishes the traditional frontier of development which has been No. 5 Road. Not only does this bridge descend on raw land, i t descends into the most suitable land in the area for building purposes. The large bog areas of eastern Richmond are located one mile to the west and one mile to the south of the bridge's descent. This leaves an area suitable for urban structures stretching from No. 5 Road to No. 6 Road and even further east of this along River Road, and between the north arm of the 2 Fraser River and Westminster Highway. The newly developed access to this area east of No. 5 Road has been of particular benefit to industrial land users. Prior to the development of the bridge, access to this area was by way of the old Fraser Avenue Bridge built in 1909* Its use was beset with problems of load weight limits, frequent delays because of span opening and congestion due to commuter traffic. Apart from the bridge, access could be had to Highway 499 along either Bridgeport Road or No. 5 Road; both were narrow and congested. The new bridge has relieved the problem of congestion, allowed for quicker entrance into the city by upgrading Knight Street, removed load weight restrictions, and resulted in im-proved access to Highway 499 because of improvements to Bridgeport Road. In increasing the attractiveness of this area for industry, i t has 5 also served to channel the industrial location pattern in a way that is inconsistent with the current zoning..? This inconsistency between the locational determinants of industry creating a favourable industrial area moving south and the latteral industrial zoning along the River is one conflict ignited by the bridge. This conflict, however, is sub-merged within a much larger conflict with a regional implication. The expansion of industrial land allocation is intimately associated with the growth of an area. It is both an indicator and stimulant to spatial growth, population growth, and economic growth. This growth, in a l l of its ramifications, is being questioned in a very serious and determined manner by an increasing number of people. The land appetite of this growth, the unfavourable environmental consequences, and the social costs are being recognized as associated with a pattern of urban growth that has traditionally been applauded and encouraged. The applause is ceasing. As a result of this current phenomenon, the industrial use of the land near the bridge is being challenged. It should be mentioned that the conflict has a variety of edges and positions. To some, the need is to save farmland, to others i t is the control of urban growth, and to others i t is a question of returning our shorelines to recrea-tional use. Whatever the particular configuration of interests and concerns, i t reduces itself essentially to industrial suitability versus some other suitability. These concerns have application to the entire region so in view of this? the land use conflict in the area of the bridge is a microcasm of the regional debate. 6 This conflict will be studied through its component parts; as a result of past transportation planning, changing social values with respect to growth, and the pattern of industrial location. This chapter studies the first and second of these. Past Transportation Planning The existence of the Knight Street Bridge today is the ful-fillment of a recommendation made in the late 1950's. Earlier, in 1952, the Technical Committee for Metropolitan Highway Planning was established by the British Columbia Department of Public Works, the City of Vancouver, the City of New Westminster, and the District of Burnaby. The Committee also had representatives from Delta, Surrey, and Richmond. This Committee had been given the responsibility: to study and report on the question of highway access into and within the metropolitan area, and in particular (l) the necessity for additional highway access (2) the type and location of such access roads, including con-nections to local street systems (3) approximate con-struction cost estimates (4) probable time of construction. These terms of reference gave a decidedly traffic planning orientation to the work of the Committee. It was within this context that the Committee recommended in the late 1950's, the eventual se-lection of a new crossing of the north arm in the area of Knight Street. They reasoned at the time that such a crossing at Knight Street would better relieve traffic on the new Oak Street Bridge in the 1970's than one on Sea Island. The Knight Street crossing would separate traffic coming out of the central business district earlier than a bridge to 7 5 Sea Island. These considerations were wholly concerned with traffic flow in the Lower Mainland and not with the effects of these proposed crossings on land use. Although this would seem obvious from the terms of reference, the Committee had made a plea for an altogether different system in its first report published in 1955. At that time i t had not considered Knight Street as a crossing area because of its concern with propagating the idea of diverting development to the Surrey uplands. In 1955 the Committee reported: From the point of view of land development, the Annacis and Port Mann crossings are much to be preferred to the Tilbury crossing. Both would guide urban development into the Surrey Plateau which is high, well-drained and has relatively poor soils....The channelling of urban development into the higher lands, which can be done without any significant loss of agricultural production is imperative from the regional point of view. This idea is significant in that the Committee recognized that the spatial structure of an area can be determined by facilities designed to serve that area. In view of this insight, the Committee further recommended that " i t i s , therefore desirable to earmark at an early stage, land suitable for industrial development in relation to freeway and r a i l systems." This recognition of the intimate relationship be-tween road systems and land use is certainly no breakthrough in planning logic, but i t is remarkable that i t is so quickly forgotten. In theory, transportation planning is based on a projection of future population and the future location of activity, but in practice, a l l too often, the land use planning becomes an exercise of allocating land in re-sponse to new transportation routes, rather than planning the two to-gether. 8 The building of the Knight Street Bridge exemplifies this un-fortunate exercise. It had been the hope of the Committee that an Annacis crossing would serve the land use priority scheme which they held. This scheme left the lowlands for agriculture and intensified development on the Surrey plateau. Not only did the Annacis crossing 9 never materialize, but the lowland areas of Richmond and Delta received the bulk of urban expansion because of the building of the Oak Street Bridge in 1956-57. In response to this, the Committee foresaw the need for the Knight Street Bridge, and although we now have that access route, there seems to have been virtually no land use planning carried out in conjunction with the Bridge planning. The Committee was thwarted again. This has left us a heritage of building access to respond to travel pressure which in turn results in unplanned land use alterations. A successful coordination of the two has not been effected in the region. The market determination for the use of land in some areas tends to be independent of zoning pr regional plans. Because of the failure to coordinate transportation planning with land use planning, the new bridge has stimulated the market forces for determining land use in an area both used and zoned for farming. Conceivably such a con-f l i c t could be readily resolved, but the preservation of farmland has become part of a larger movement to control growth in the region, and in addition, has become an imperative under the new Land Com- mission Act. 9 The Development of Growth Policies in the Lower Mainland While accessibility to land is frequently accompanied by some form of development in the area, this relationship is more pro-nounced in an urban area. Freeways that cut through rural lands create a land demand for such services as gas stations and motels, but in a city such as Vancouver the land demands already existri and the newly accessible land offers a new location in the heart of the region for urban development. The economic forces of an urban area, and particularly the continued growth of Vancouver, could in them-selves utilize the land made available by the new bridge. This new accessibility and the urgent need for land to accomodate the con-tinued growth of the region come at a time when the public of the area are beginning to question the growth pattern and the land com-sumption consequent upon i t . In the Land Commission Act, one aspect of this reassessment finds legislative expression. The land use conflict to which the bridge has given rise indicates not only that the transportation planning has been divorced from land use planning, but that the traditional growth ethic is meeting strong opposition from those who wish to limit growth and preserve land for other urban and non-urban uses. The force of public sentiment concerning land uses in the region is becoming sufficiently powerful to challenge the traditional market force determination of use. Over the past fifteen years, the Greater Vancouver region has witnessed a spectrum of policies dealing with growth. At one end there is the rationale of accomodating the projected continued rapid growth of the Lower Mainland. This position is represented by 10 the Official Regional Plan of 1966 for the Lower Mainland which is s t i l l in force. 1 0 Toward the other end of the spectrum are found sentiments to limit both the population and economic growth of the area. This position is expressed in the Greater Vancouver Regional District's (GVRD) 1972 A Report on Livability. Beyond this is the position that suggests positive steps should be taken to direct growth to other parts of the province. This is expressed in the very recent "Report of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Policy Committee," a citizens committee sponsored by the Greater Vancouver Regional Di s t r i c t . 1 1 Finally, in reducing the amount of land that can be urbanized, the Land Commission Act has implications for this growth issue. In order to arrive at a clearer enunciation and understanding of current policies, the evolution of the swing from one side of the spectrum to the other will be considered. What will emerge from this may not be the exact policies which the GVRD may eventually accept, but the policy positions accepted within this study will be articulated in the process. The region received its first clear and comprehensive ex-pression of growth policies with the approval of the Official Re- gional Plan on August 29, 1966. It became effective through Order-in-Council No. 2595* This Plan is s t i l l legally in effect, although the GVRD has suspended consideration of further amendments until the required land use designation under the Land Commission Act is completed. 11 The background forces which led to the drafting of the Plan are only implied in its policy statements, but these forces largely account for the structure of the Plan in its final form. In the late 1950's and early 1960's there was considerable subdivision activity taking place in the Lower Mainland. It should be recalled that during this period, the present regional highway structure was being constructed, the Oak Street Bridge was opened in 1957 and the Deas Island Tunnel completed this route in 1959. The Second Narrows Bridge was opened for use in I960, and finally, the Port Mann Bridge was being used in early 1964. Given the peninsular geographic layout of Vancouver and Burnaby, these bridges were required for the spatial expansion of the area, yet, para-doxically, they also fostered this same spatial expansion. Two short studies have been made assessing the impact of two of these structures, the Oak Street Bridge and the Deas Island Tunnel. Drew's work concerning the economic impact of the Oak Street Bridge indicated that large scale land development did not im-12 mediately follow the opening of this bridge. Between 1957 when the Oak Street Bridge was completed and Drew's work in 196l, he recognized only three significant developments: the Skyline Hotel; the Delport Hotel (Airport Inn); and the beginnings of an industrial district east of the freeway at Cambie Road. The Richmond boom was awaiting the development of the Brighouse Shopping Area. None of the three developments mentioned by Drew would encourage planners and administrators to give serious thought to the need for a com-prehensive regional land use plan, but Jackson's study of Delta at 12 the same time does indicate the problem that was then confronting 13 the municipalities. Jackson begins his discussion of impact of the Deas Island Tunnel and freeway in Delta by realizing "that the f u l l conse-quences of a major highway decision had been neither anticipated lk nor planned for in advance of highway construction." This lack of planning was evidenced in the land market's rush to adjust i t -self to the increased accessibility offered by the Tunnel. Jackson illustrates this adjustment, which took the form of a subdivision 15 boom, by displaying the residential land activity at the txme. In western Delta, 196l residential lots had been approved during 1958 and 1959, and another 2584 were awaiting approval. The vast majority of these lots remained vacant. Undoubtedly, considerable subdivision activity would have followed the opening of the Tunnel even i f the administrators and planners in Delta had anticipated the Tunnel's impact. In failing to foresee the impact, what was lost was an opportunity to rational-ize the subdivision by concentrating and controlling i t in a manner consistent with the servicing abilities of the municipality, and in such a way that large properties were not divided to the extent that other uses were rendered impossible. It was this particular concern for maintaining large land reserves that began to concern regional planners and administrators. In 1963, the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board expressed this concern in a study that proved to be a conceptual first-run at a regional plan. 1^ This study began with an acknowledgement of the 13 region's failure to respond to the rapid growth in a manner which assured sound land use policies. The compelling fact of recent years has been urban sprawl, a beguiling, dangerous growth with a l l the consequences of fire. And as the record shows, the region has not yet come to respect the fire and handle i t safely. Apart from the expensive servicing cost associated with sprawl and unplanned expansion, and the loss of agricultural jobs associated with the reduction of farmland, the report singled out the loss of hundreds of acres of potential industrial land through subdivision. There emerges from Chance and Challenge the over-riding concern both for the preservation of potential industrial land and for the preservation of this land in large blocks. This concern is similarly expressed in the final version of the Regional Plan which appeared in 1966. The general policies state that "the region's limited supply of existing and potential industrial land is to be reserved for in-18 dustrial development." The extent to which these concerns and policies were actually implemented can be gauged from the enormous 19 land reserves that were actually created in the Plan. With only a few interruptions, both shores of the Fraser River from the mouths of the north and south arms to Langley were zoned for indus-try. Many of the areas along the River such as the Big Bend area of the north arm, Barnston Island, and the northeast corner of Surrey were reserved in consolidated areas of over one thousand acres. Most of these large tracts of land were experiencing no im-mediate pressure for industrial use. In fact, they were classified as Potential Industrial Areas (IND-2). Nevertheless, so concerned 15 were the Plan formulators for the reservation of industrial land that they even established the possibility that the Plan could be amended to extend these reserves "where industrial development trends warrant the designation of additional lands for long-range 20 future industrial development." The relationship between the size of the industrial land reserves and the alarm over the excessive subdivision activity of the late fifties and early sixties have been indicated. Less evident as a reason for these massive land reserved was the in-fluence of the land need projections made by the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board in 1961. In the report prepared by the Board's staff, i t was estimated that by 1976, 14,861 acres of industrial land would be required to accomodate the industrial ex-21 pansion projected for that period. The figure was enormous and quite unrealistic as was later indicated, but i t nevertheless sup-ported the rationale for a large scale industrial land reservation program. The background of the 1966 Regional Plan, the industrial land policy statements contained in i t , and the actual industrial land allocations implemented by the Plan indicate an over-riding concern with insuring the accomodation of the growth the region was both experiencing and anticipating. This report represented the region's first articulation of a land allocation policy, and nowhere did i t question the benefits, advisability, or implications of growth. Today the 1966 Regional Plan is obsolete in its ability to bring guidance to land use allocations in certain parts of the 16 region. As yet there is no clear alternative to the Plan, either in policy or in land use allocation, but some aspects of a new policy are emerging. Several factors have contributed to the col-lapse of the Plan and the emergence of new policy positions re-ferred to earlier as the other end of the spectrum. In the first place, i t has become obvious to planners and city administrators in some municipalities, and to industry as well, that much of the industrially zoned lands along the Fraser River are presently useless for industrial activity. The land in Richmond, for example, between Savage Road and the eastern boundary of the municipality on both arms of the River is zoned for industry, but much of i t is peat, has limited accessibility and servicing, and is held in small parcels on the north arm. Realizing this, the Muni-cipality of Richmond has submitted a request for amending the Plan to redesignate a large area on the north arm and smaller area on the 22 south arm from industrial to reserve status. No action has been taken on this amendment. The second force which has led to the outdating of the Plan has been the rising public concern over the growth rate of the region and the land use implications of this. A discussion of these points leads us to the other end of the policy spectrum, where current policy positions are found. These statements, outlined below, have not yet received the sanction of being brought together as a frame-work for a new land use allocation plan approved by the GVRD, but within their scattered and sometimes contradictory elements can be found sufficient consistency to provide guidance for land use allo-cations. This paper will conclude with a land use recommendation 17 whose structure will be influenced by some of these new policy statements. The publication in 1971 of Space for Industry was the GVRD's 23 last regional study which accepted the growth ethic. A dra-matic shift has taken place since that time. A Report on Livability was the first official statement of this change in perspective. The Livable Region program was designed to "translate what people say are the important issues affecting the Greater Vancouver Region into 2k governmental action." What the people were saying was expressed in thirty policy statements in the Report. Several of these have a direct bearing on the concerns of this study. It is significant, but perhaps not surprising, that the first six statements deal with urban growth and expansion. The first statement simply assumes the need for growth control and goes on to suggest: Controlling the growth rate of Greater Vancouver should be a function of a l l three levels of government. The senior governments should be asked to look into the question of coping with growth. The Report also makes other policy statements relevant to the study of industrial land allocation and its growth implications. The more significant ones are: A.2) GVRD should plan regionally the maximum and minimum population growth to be accomodated in residential developments permitted by the municipalities and program such growth for the ten-year period of the first Livable Region Program. k) The Livable Region Program/Plan should contain policies to provide maximum opportunities for people to live close to where they work, or to work close to where they live. 18 5) GVRD should discourage the location in this region of large land-consuming industries and port facilities which have low employment densities. B.l) Preserve as much as possible of the unique and wilderness areas of the Region such as foreshores and mountainsides... Most of the foreshores, es-pecially that most accessible from urban centres, should be kept for public benefit. 2) Recuperate for public use unintensively used in-dustrial areas of foreshore. 3) Seek to preserve as much farmland in production in the Region as is possible, by the existing policies of the Official Regional Plan, and by such measures as zoning, greenbelt acquisition, tax concessions, etc. Strengthen such policies by firm adherence to floodplain and flood protection policies listed under Topic A. 5) d) Seek greater use of the rivers and bars, for their recreational potential, and find ways to develop public access to them. Collectively, these statements provide three indices of public temperment concerning the future growth of the region. Statements A.k and A.5 recognize the fact that employment will continue to rise in the region. The statements suggest simply that this employment should be spatially balanced with the residential areas and that the employment should not be heavily land consumptive. Secondly, the statements in general call for control of growth in the region. Lastly, the statements challenge the industrial zoning of the region's waterfronts. Each of these is a departure from the policies em-bodied in the Regional Plan, and each will be instructive when the time comes to sort out the land use conflicts at the southern ter-minus of the Knight Street Bridge. To some extent policies of this nature have already received some official recognition as the operating policy of the GVRD. In 19 a memorandum dated October 20, 1972, the Planning Committee of the GVRD advised its Board that the Committee was using the policy-positions of the Livable Region Program in its assessment of pro-26 posed amendments to the Regional Plan. Following the Livable Region Program, a series of citizens* policy committees were established to more closely consider the region's concerns. The report of one of these committees adds another and new dimension to the emerging policy position. The statements of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Policy Committee offer the sharpest challenge to continued growth in the region. The Report summarizes this challenge succinctly: We do not believe that rapid growth is really inevi-table but that our politicians and planners have chosen to accept i t . We challenge them now to recognize that this policy is incompatible with 'livability' and to devote their greatest s k i l l to finding ^ays to limit their population growth in this Region. The Committee follows this challenge with suggestions for imple-mentation. These include the end to advertising of the region, the upgrading of social services in other parts of the province, con-trolling housing density, and encouraging the emigration of young 28 people, businesses, and services to other parts of the province. These statements are significant because they serve to amplify the more general statements of the Livable Region Program. They draw attention to the fact that control means limiting which in turn means some people, jobs, and services, must simply not be accepted and thereby forced to turn elsewhere. This should have a noticeable effect on industrial activity. It would mean a more 20 careful selection of industrial land reserve sites to capitalize on any unique site features which could not be used optimally by another land use. This in turn should result in more selectivity over those firms allowed to move into the area. In this respect, and before moving on, i t i s conceivable that the provincial government's recent purchase of industrial land in 29 Delta could be a means of implementing this approach. The 726 acre proposed industrial park displayed on Map 3 will ensure a continued supply of deep-sea waterfront industrial land. It could also serve to contain waterfront industrial activity in limited areas where common docking facilities could be utilized and non-water users could be located in upland areas. This policy would also prevent industrial activity being strung out along the River as is the case of the north shore of the north arm. The third and last element that has led to the outdating of the Regional Plan,is the Land Commission Act. The Land Commission Act v? was introduced in the legislature on February 22, 1973 following a subdivision freeze imposed on the province by the N.D.P. government which was swept into power in August 1972. The Act produced an outcry from enraged citizens throughout the province. Amendments were added to introduce an appeal procedure and provide for local designation of land reserves by Regional Districts thus allaying some of the citizens' fears, and the Act was proclaimed on July 3, 1973. Although the Act authorizes the Commission to purchase or 30 acquire land for urban development and industrial parks, i t does |N3 22 not direct the Commission to designate urban or industrial land. It does, however, direct the Commission to designate land suitable for farm use as agricultural land so that this land, upon designa-31 tion will become an agricultural land reserve. The Act indicates that the designation is to be done by each Regional District 32 following public hearings. This entire procedure has contributed to the collapse of the Regional Plan in several ways. By implication i t rejects the agricultural land designations as they exist in the Plan by re-quiring the Regional District to draw a new set of agricultural designations. This rejection of the existing agricultural land reserve plans and the requirement of public meetings tended to create the feeling that land use was up for grabs. Hence, an attempt to designate agricultural land resulted in discussions of industrial land allocations. Finally, the manner in which the Greater Vancouver Regional District responded to S.8,2 of the Act, that i s , by providing a primary and secondary reserve system, served to heighten this feeling that land use was once again up for discussion. This persists even though the discussion concerns only whether land will be within or without the agricultural reserve, that i s , even though the discussion does not include any other land use designation. To this point, the discussion of the Act has concerned itself only with the manner in which the Act has made the Regional Plan obsolete. Just as the reports of the Livability Program and of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Policy Committee 23 offered new policy directions for the growth of the region, and just as these had land use implications, the Act deserves further attention. Despite the mention of green belts, land banks, park land, and industrial land in section 7, the intent of the Act is to preserve land suitable for farming as agricultural land. The imperative is simple: i f the land is suitable for farming, i t is to be designated as agricultural reserve regardless of its present zoning. The im-plication here is that the urban land in the region can only be constrained by the Act, i t cannot be expanded or re-allocated by trade-offs. In effect, the Act becomes a powerful tool to control the growth in the region by controlling the location of urban land. This implication is evident when i t is realized that significant parcels of industrial land have been withdrawn from industrial po-tential and placed in primary agricultural reserves. Barnston Island has been rezoned to agricultural use and approximately 750 acres of industrial land in the Big Bend area of Burnaby has met the same fate. The GVRD has attempted to diffuse and stall the f u l l impact of the requirement of the Act by creating a two-fold land classification system. By-law No. 120, passed on October 3, 1973, contains the GVRD recommendations to the Land Commission. Schedule "A" of the By-law defines Primary Agricultural Land as meeting four criteria: (1) having an agricultural soil capability rating of Class 1 to Class k (inclusive) as defined by the British Columbia Land Inventory, (2) are designated RRL-3 or RRL-2 in the Official Regional Plan, (3) are zoned "rural" in the Municipal zoning by-laws, (k) are used 25 agriculturally, or assessed as agricultural land. The same sche-dule defines Secondary Agricultural Land Reserves as having met the first of the above criteria, but lack one or more of the others. They are also classified "because of conflicting demands for the use of these lands and the difficult social and economic problems facing farming in the Greater Vancouver Regional District." It is the intention of the GVRD to review land uses in these secondary reserves within one year of the acceptance of this two-fold scheme. Because the secondary reserves cut across land formerly designated as urban, industrial, and rural, this review strengthens the notion that at least in secondary reserves, land uses are up for grabs. Map 5 clearly indicates the importance of the GVRD reserve system to this study. Most of the land around the Knight Street Bridge and roadway has been designated as a secondary reserve. Since most of that land meets the four criteria mentioned above, this secondary reserved designation has been granted because of the conflicting demands for the use of these lands. Despite the GVRD's tactics of delaying the f u l l impact of the Act, i t cannot be charged with disregarding the directive of the Act. Well over two thousand acres of industrially zoned land has already been re-allocated and as much again could be added in Rich-mond and Delta once the sorting out of secondary reserves has been completed. In itself this is a clear indication of the Region's commitment to support the Act's challenge to the market determina-tion of land use. 27 Current Policy Stance Within the various positions studied above with respect to economic growth, i t is obvious that there are always land use im-plications associated with each position. Positions which display an optimism about the region's economic future will express this through industrial land reservations capable of absorbing the economic expansion. On the other hand, positions which consider the creation of a "livable" urban environment begin with premises which challenge the industrial priority of land allocation. In view of the fact that this study will conclude with a land alloca-tion scheme, i t is incumbent upon the writer to clarify the policy which will be accepted in making the allocation. This study supports policies which give priority to the develop-ment of a livable region rather than to continued economic develop-ment of the region at the expense of other considerations for land use. Within this general policy, the following specific components are to be found: 1) The imperative of the Land Commission Act with respect to saving farmland is accepted. 2) The concerns to save waterfront land for recreational purposes is accepted. 3) Where both industry and farming are competing for the same land, industrial use should be allowed only i f i t can be shown that the site has greater advantages for industry than for farming. k) It is accepted that the region cannot and should not attempt to accomodate a l l future industrial expansion. 5) Remaining industrial land should be selectively allo-cated to provide space for industries who require close proximity to the regional core or who require sites along 28 the waterfront. Other industries should be located in upland areas and at locations more distant from the regional core. In Chapter Three examples of future outlying industrial areas will be given. While this policy package is important in understanding the allocation of land made in Chapter Four, no planner should presume to offer an informed recommendation based simply on policy. These policies become one imperative which must be applied to the attempt to sort out land use conflicts exposed by the bridge. The resolu-tion of this conflict will demand, however, another imperative of a different kind; i t will demand some research and data on the econo-mic force which are central to the conflict. This impact study accepts both these imperatives as complimentary media whereby the planner is informed. It is this research and the information i t yields which turns the slick predicting planner into a professional with credible evaluations. Before analyzing the data gathered for this study in Chapter Three, i t is worth considering the barren ground of impact methodol-ogies that exist in the literature. Hopefully, the result will be an appreciation of the contingencies of the methodology used in this study. 29 NOTES TO CHAPTER ONE 1. Eastern Richmond is defined as that area east of No. 5 Road. 2. See Map 1. 3. Technical Committee on Metropolitan Highway Planning, Future Crossings of the Fraser River (March, 1955), introduction. 4. , A Study on Highway Planning for Metropolitan Vancouver, British Columbia. Part II; Technical Report No. oT  The Testing and Evaluation of Alternative Arterial Highway Systems (1958-1959), pp. 43-44. 5. , A Study on Highway Planning for Metropolitan Vancouver, British Columbia. Part II; Technical Report No. 7:  Stage Development (1958-1959), PP» 40-41. 6. , Future Crossings, p. 9* 7. , A Study of Highway Planning for Metropolitan Vancouver, British Columbia. Part II; Freeways with Rapid Transit (1958-1959), p. 68. 8. Lawden Wingo, Jr., Transportation and Urban land (1735 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, Inc., 196l), pp. 6-7. The same axiom was expressed in 1952 by the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board when i t wrote: "Since traffic on roads depends on the number and distribution of people using them, the planning of highways must be preceded by the planning of future residential and industrial areas," The  Lower Mainland Looks Ahead. A Report and Outline Plan for the  Development of the Lower Mainland Region of British Columbia TRev. ed., New Westminster, 1952), part VI. 9. An Annacis crossing is now being planned. 10. Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, Official Regional  Plan (August, 1966). 11. "Report of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Policy Committee," October, 1973. (Mimeographed.) 12. V. A. Drew, A Study of Economic Trends and Developments  v/ithin a One-Mile Radius of the Toll Plazas for the Oak Street Bridge,  Peas Island Tunnel, and the Fraser Avenue Bridge Structures (Munici-pality of Richmond, December, 1961), p. 3. This study was undertaken by the Department of Highways in an effort to understand the influ-ences of the new highway system on surrounding areas. 30 13. John N. Jackson, The Impact of Highway Development on  Land Use: A'.Study of Selected Localities in the Greater Vancouver  Area, Research Project No. 1 (Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, June, 1963). The author was a faculty member of the School of Community and Regional Planning'at the time. The report is an attempt to integrate land use planning and transportation planning through a study of the impact of high-way access on land uses in Burnaby and Delta. 14. Ibid., pp. 71-72. 15. Ibid., p. 92. 16. Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, Chance and  Challenge: A Concept and Plan for the Development of the Lower  Mainland Region (New Westminster, 1963.) 17. Ibid., p. 5. 18. Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, Regional Plan, p. 3. 19. Ibid., pp. 16-17. See Map 2. 20. Ibid., p. 7. 21. Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, The Dynamics  of Industrial Land Settlement (New Westminster, 1961), p. 10. 22. "Application to Amend the Official Regional Plan: Munici pality of Richmond," August 24, 1972. (Mimeographed.) This appli-cation contains a land use swap to which we will return in the last chapter. 23. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Planning Department, Space for Industry: A Technical Report (1971). 2k. , A Report on Livability (Vancouver, November, 1972), p. 3. 25- Ibid., p. 27. 26. GVRD Planning Committee to GVRD Board, "Plan Amendments, Fall, 1972," October 20, 1972. (Mimeographed.) 27. "Report of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Policy Committee," p. 8. 28. Ibid., pp. 9-10. 31 29. See The Province, Tuesday, November 27, 1973, p. 18. 30. S. B. C. Ch. 46 , 1973. S.7 (2). 31. S.8 (1). 32. S.8 (2) and S.8 (3). 33. See Map 4 . 32 CHAPTER TWO A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE A discussion which attempts to study the impact of a new transportation artery on the allocation of industrial land in-volves the researcher in an investigation of three bodies of l i t e r -ature. The first of these, chronologically, is what is generally called the literature of industrial location. The first phase of this theme began after World War II and peaked in 1956 with the pub-lication of Yaseen's Plant Location, a practical how-to-locate-your-plant book by the Senior Partner of a plant locating consulting agency. Interest in plant location revived somewhat in the 1960's because of the popularity of modeling. The second body of literature resulted from the effects of Interstate Highway system in the United States begun in 1955. This literature deals with the impact of these free-ways both in cities and in the rural areas they traversed. This theme peaked with the 1959 Highway Research Board's Bulletin 227 en-titled, Highways and Economic Development. The third literature group concerns attempts to unite more limited studies dealing with industrial location or highway impacts into one land use study with the purpose of predicting future land uses by means cf models. Since this attempt involved the computer as an essential tool in the struc-turing and functioning of the model i t should not be surprising that i t was popularized in the 1960's. This focus has probably not peaked but at least one attempt to stop i t and assess i t was made in the 33 July, 1973, issue of the Journal of the American Institute of  Planners. Apart from the above three literature divisions, there has been a loosely defined body of literature whose primary orientation has been descriptive. That small body of literature about industrial activity in the Lower Mainland falls into this category. It is not: for this reason, however, that the data analysis of Chapter Three is descriptive; rather, i t is descriptive because only this simple approach has any utility in a study this size. In the context of this study, a short review of literature is useful to display the methods which have been attempted to measure impacts of various kinds. This discussion of literature, however, is designed not only to indicate existing methodologies, but more importantly, to indicate the serious limitations of these methods for this particular study. It is hoped that from this the reader will become more sensitive to the difficulties involved in measuring possible impacts. Industrial Location The Second World War served as an enormous stimulant to the economy of the United States, and with the end of the hostilities the new technology, new consumer demands, and the reorientation of the economy forced American industrial activity to expand. In the process of expanding, i t also moved. It moved to the suburbs on the local scene, and much of i t moved south and west on the national scale in search of new markets and cheap labour. This expansion led to con-34 siderable interest in the dynamics of industrial location because the industrial movement caught both industry and potential industrial communities by surprise. Communities that did not have a traditional industrial base were unprepared to enter the game of selling their town or had l i t t l e knowledge of how to accomodate industry. Industry itself was tied to traditional location behaviour and had l i t t l e know-ledge of how to seek out a new site to accomodate this growth and new factors such as highway transportation. Assistance to communities came by way of a body of literature designed to explain the mechanics of attracting industry. Articles such as "For the Community That Wants More Factory Payrolls," 1 and, 2 "What Industry Looks For In A New Location" attempted to f i l l a void by educating local administration in the fine art of wooing industry. In 1954, this was the subject of the Urban Land Institute's Bulletin No. 23. In this Bulletin, Dorothy Muncy outlined the extent to which zoning for industry had been neglected in most cities. She suggested the setting aside of industrial areas as the city grew and providing 3 adequate services to these areas. These are simplistic notions for our day, but not so at the time, not only because some communities were inexperienced in industrial planning, but because post-war ur-ban expansion was gathering force requiring land use planning for multiple uses. The climax of this "how-to" approach came with the publication of Yaseen's Plant Location in 1956. Yaseen was associated with the Fantus Factory Locating Service which gives the work an orientation toward industry whereas the earlier examples were directed toward 35 community administrators. For industrial leaders with both large and small firms the work is a practical guide in assisting these leaders to determine their locational needs and find the location to answer these needs. The work discusses the major locational variables that one would expect: transportation, labour, energy, taxes, and climate. In a l l of these the focus is practical and to the point. In the selection of transportation media, for example, he provides four criteria: (l) the relative cost of the service, (2) the urgency of reaching the destination, (3) special services which may be provided, and (4) the physical facilities for handling shipments at origin and destination.^ This body of literature that has been described had a distinct inter-regional orientation. It considered the possible location of new plants, in this post-war boom, to be anywhere in the nation. Yaseen even devoted a chapter to Puerto Rico. This inter-regional orientation meant that locational factors were considered on a national level. Salaries in the northeast were considered against salaries in the southeast. Similarly, freight rates from the south to the mid-west were weighed against freight rates from the north-east to the mid-west. This is understandable in view of the fact that the post-war expansion occured on a national level. At this level, however, the literature examined so far is useless as a guide to in-dustrial location within a region or urban area. Following this first industrial location theme, and with the arrival of the urban freeway phenonmenon and its handmaiden, sub-36 urbanization, another body of literature emerged which included two significant innovations. It placed the location question within a regional framework, almost an urban-centred regional framework, and i t provided the necessary attention to the freeway-auto boom of the latter half of the 1950's and early 1960's. The works by Logan and Loewenstein illustrate this new approach.^ Both writers produce a l i s t of intraregional locational factors. Despite the fact that Logan's study is based on Sydney, Australia^ there is a surprising similarity in the importance of metropolitan transportation facilities which both studies display. From his interviews with industrial management, Logan drew up the following l i s t of most important locational determinants: Closeness to market Closeness to suppliers Closeness to ancillary services Closeness to labour supply Price of land Personal liking for the area Takeover or merger Suitable atmospheric conditions. Of these eight conditions Of outstanding importance was closeness to the product market which usually meant closeness to transport ter-minals, wharves and railwaygsidings, and to wholesalers on the edge of the C.B.D. It is worth noting, as well, that the next three factors have trans-portation implications as well. In terms of the study's findings and the city of Sydney, closeness to most of these factors meant closeness to the major freeways. Loewenstein produces a similar; but expanded catalogue of in-dustrial locational characteristics. His l i s t has fourteen entries: 37 Access to labour supply Access to labour skills Access to executive participation Access to highways Access to railroads Access to mass transportation Access to waste disposal facilities Access to comparable firms Access to customers Access to suppliers Slope conditions Land requirements Land costs q Taxes on land improvements Although the length of this l i s t suggests that this type of study is becoming unwieldy, the l i s t does indicate that within a large urban or metropolitan region access to other components of the economy is a prime consideration. Again, this means proximity to the major ur-ban transportation arteries. Loewenstein's article also represents a simple example of what can be called the last stage of industrial location literature, the location model. The model in his article was very simple, the l i s t of locational determinants given above was made specific to various industrial classes and these needs were then related to the locational characteristics of various sites in the Philadelphia region. The result was to allocate various industrial types to various locations. There are, of course, a host of locational models, most of which appeared in the 1960's. David M. Smith describes their range in this way: 'Some produce an optimal solution to a particular problem by specifying the location or pattern which satisfies some objective function such as the maximization of profits or the minimization of costs. Others replicate a process, or a sequence of decisions, and simulate the way things are supposed to happen. There are also a few analogue models, such as the Varignon frame for solving the Weber locational 38 figure ... and an electrical^gnalogue for determining commodity flows and prices. And, of course, there has been continued attention, claims Smith, with the classical triangle problem of plant location, market, and raw 11 materials. This body of literature which has been called Industrial Location on the whole provides only l i t t l e insight to the Knight Street Bridge issue. The literature begins with the problem of locating an indus-try whereas this study begins with the existence of a bridge. It could be argued that the area around the bridge could have been assessed for its characteristics and related to the locational needs of various industries. In the early stages of the study there was a temptation to take this approach. As the study moved away, in con-ception, from a market force vis-a-vis the bridge study, this litera-ture became less appealing. In addition, this literature assumes that each locational determinant on the l i s t , can exert its pull. In an area such as Vancouver where serviceable industrial land is becoming 12 scarce, availability becomes an overriding factor. When any one element becomes far more determinant than others, the "systematic decision" which this literature assumes, is no longer functional. Despite these comments, i t cannot be denied that these studies did point out the importance of proximity to transportation arteries. This should be kept in mind when land use allocations are attempted in Chapter Four. 39 Highway Impact Literature The highway impact literature was investigated in the hopes of finding a model or framework which was adaptable to the Knight Street Bridge situation. This impact literature is concerned primarily with the impact on land uses of freeway construction, and in so doing, i t certainly approached the nature of the impact with which this study is concerned. Although the literature on this type of impact is extensive, there are three articles which typify this method of inquiry and the results obtained by the method. Walsh's study of land uses around California freeways resulted in the not so surprising conclusion that freeways attracted certain land uses. He listed twelve: Residential Regional shopping centers Industrial parks Distribution centers Entertainment centers Motels Offices Service stations Hospitals Farm equipment and used car lots Trailer parks .., Airports Walsh's study was directed toward building a case for land use con-trols around freeways. He questioned the practice of allowing the commercial attracting power of freeways free reign in land use allo-cation. Other studies were more concerned with investigating the attracting power itself with the hope of building a model to second-guess land uses or to prepare communities to capitalize on their proximity to free-ko ways. It has been suggested, and i t seems quite reasonable, that these studies were attempts to "s e l l " the freeway system in the United States, and of course, not a few of these studies were sponsored by Ik State Highway agencies. E l l i s ' study typifies this approach to freeway impacts.1^ Rather than study land uses around freeway interchanges, Ellis studied the factors influencing the commercial build-up around a number of inter-changes along Interstate 80 in Pennsylvania. This also produced a l i s t : Topography Distance from large or key cities Distance from adjacent interchange Age of interchange Volume of traffic Population at interchange Public utilities at interchange Volume of traffic on intersecting highway^ Existing development Given knowledge of these, he could then relate these features to the needs of various land uses, in much the same way that Loewenstein handled the industrial location issue above. The intention, of course, is to be able to predict land uses at each interchange. 17 Urban freeway impact studies such as Lemly's were directed toward exploring the complexity of the freeway's impact on an urban area rather than attempting to predict the impact. This study attempted to measure changes in land use, land prices, traffic flows, and traffic densities on feeder streets. In a l l of this the study recognized that an urban area's reaction to a freeway is far more complex than simply the change in land use patterns. Despite the high expectation that a conceptual framework or model would be found in this literature, the results were disappointing. kl There are two reasons for this. In the first place, a l l these studies are based on a series of comparisons, and this demands a certain level of similarity in the situations being compared. It is not at a l l evident that a comparison of the Knight Street Bridge with the Oak, Port Mann, First Narrows, or Second Narrows Bridges would produce any significant results. The circumstances of each seem too different. Secondly, even with sufficient similarity for comparison, a projection of what will happen from what has happened assumes a con-tinuity of forces, and the different circumstances of the Lower Main-land's bridges militate against this. In addition, the Knight Street Bridge has a particular significance with respect to industrial land, not shared by other bridges. This will be explored in Chapter Three. Just as the industrial location literature served to emphasize the importance of access in metropolitan areas, so this literature, despite its drawbacks, serves to underscore the attracting power of freeway interchanges. The Predictive Literature Failing to find a methodology for the purpose of this study in the highway impact literature, the hope that such a methodology could be found was revived when i t was discovered that considerable work existed on land use predictive techniques. In the early period of the study, the prospect of being able to predict the impact of the new bridge drew the research toward the prediction literature. Land use prediction techniques are basically of two kinds; those that use the computer and take the form of land use models, and those h2 that do not use the computer but project on the basis of a ratio between land users and land units. The projection depends on the establishment of an existing ratio, then projecting the number of land users, or workers, and applying the same ratio to the new worker figure to arrive at a new land unit figure. This method uses few variables and works with only one basic relationship, the ratio. An exhaustive study of computer land use models would be out of place in this study; nevertheless, one model, Empiric, can be usefully studied because i t exposes most of the reasons why these computer models are of l i t t l e use to the study of the Knight Street 18 Bridge. The land use forecasting for which the model is designed is based on alternative transportation facilities. Within this frame-work, the model created 453 traffic zones in eastern Massachusetts and attempted to measure in each zone: the population of lower, middle, and upper income groups; manufacturing, retail, service, and other employment; measure of utilities service; the capacity and propensity of each zone to house new populations, and manufacturing and retail facilities; the measure of vehicle and transit accessibility. The measure of each of these was based on certain equations which defined the relationship among the constituent components of each factor. The equation to establish the manufacturing in each zone, for example, i s : (&) MFG = -m ( P O P M -b (A) POPU + m OTH -b (T - 1) MFG + m (*) CAPM + m (T) VACC +m (&.) QACC where m (medium) and b (big) indicate the size of the coefficients; (A) indicates a change; POPM indicates a population of middle income and POPU indicates a population of upper income; OTH means other em-43 ployment sectors; CAPM means the capacity and propensity of the area for manufacturing; VACC means vehicle accessibility; and QACC means transit accessibility. Allowing for some simplification, this equation states that in-dustrial expansion will occur in those areas where the greatest con-centration of industrial locational requirements can be found. All the factors except the first two, middle and upper income areas, have appeared on lists of locational determinants above. Upper and middle income persons obviously do not want industrial areas in their neigh-borhood . Apart from the more technical criticism levied against this par-19 ticular model by Lee, models of this nature have traditionally been applied to large geographic areas in order to establish patterns for the interaction of the variables. This approach is not easily reduced to a municipal scale. In addition, the time and cost involved in gathering the data to operationalize them is beyond the means of most municipal planning departments. Lastly, their credibility is suspect. A simulation model is built on a set of relationships which exist at the present, and this means that questionable results will be produced i f the model is asked to respond to a new set of relationships. The model can only apply the old relationships to the new setting resulting in an old solution, not the creation of a new solution. Non-computerized prediction techniques are more limited in scope but possess some credibility. They are less directed toward the creation of new land use patterns in specific areas as a response to new urban features such as a freeway, and more concerned with the simple projection of an existing pattern. Where the computer model was area specific but suspect, these models are moderately credible but lack specificity. One of the simplest formulations of this 20 technique is provided by Smith. His equation is this: A = (P x R) - X + Y D where A is the total area of additional land needed for industry; P is the population increase projected for the planning period; R is the proportion of new population likely to be at work; D is the density of employment in the new area in jobs per unit of land area; X is the number of jobs likely to arise in services or other non-industrial sectors; and Y is a figure, positive or negative, for the daily in-ward or outward migration which can be anticipated. This model is basically a projection of a worker-land area per worker ratio although i t is complicated by the need to separate the industrial worker from the entire population. Hans Blumenfeld's prediction techniqueuuses basically the same method although he attempts to introduce some area specificity, and he projects employment figures rather than gleans these from a pro-21 jected population. Blumenfeld shows ^ that in Philadelphia and Toronto, residential density drops through each concentric zone moving away from the C.B.D. He also indicates, in the case of Toronto, that employment drops in the same concentric zone by a remarkably steady ratio. In Philadelphia where census data was more specific, this ratio with some fluctuation remained relatively constant between 22 residential population and the manufacturing employment sector. 4 5 Projections such as those of Smith and Blumenfeld are relatively simple to utilize. The data base they demand is available to an average municipal planning department without exorbitant cost or ex-ceptional staff s k i l l s . Further more, they are capable, i f prudently used, of providing at least a range of land requirements for industrial activity barring a serious miscalculation. Errors can result from this method because of two deficiencies in its structure. Since the method is heavily dependent on the ratio of workers per unit area of industrial land, i t could be insensitive to a changing density because of technological change or the movement from a region of a high density industrial sector and its replacement by a less dense industrial sector. Again, a change could take place in a region's economic structure in such a way that the tertiary sector was increasing exponentially and the secondary sector was de-creasing. Greater Vancouver shares some aspects of this phenomenon. The second structural deficiency of this method is its assumption that money for industrial investment will be used to expand facilities in a land consumptive manner. At any time, however, circumstances may be such that industry may choose to invest in new equipment and remain 23 at the old site rather than expand to a new site. With an under-standing of these limitations this projection technique will neverthe-less be employed in the following chapter to complement findings arrived at by other methods. Descriptive Literature To this point, we have studied literature which has certainly-been descriptive but has had a more important purpose of either isolating industrial location factors, understanding the dynamics of highway impacts, or predicting from descriptive data. Throughout the literature dealing with highways, impacts, and industrial lo-cation there are studies which are primarily descriptive with an added attempt to offer some explanitory insights. The literature on the industrial activity and land distribution of the Lower Mainland generally falls into this category. Moving into a discussion of this local literature will lead the study into the analysis of data dealing with industrial activity in the Lower Mainland. Bone and Wohl's study of the Massachusetts Route 128 is one of the finest examples of an impact study describing the relationship between industrial location and/or relocation in a large urban region and a new freeway route. The study is of added interest because Route 128 was and remains, the classic example of a circumferential arterial. In investigating the reasons for plant location on Route 128, the authors isolated fourteen factors as site selection criteria: Land for expansion Access to labour market Employee accessibility Commercial accessibility Attractive site Advertising Parking Price of land Package deal offered by developer Lower taxes Commercial market Railroad facilities 2 i f Potential value increase 47 A descriptive analysis of this nature is valuable, not because i t produces general location criteria for industry which might be of assistance in future impact studies, but because i t reduces those criteria to the specific forces operating in an area's economy. In exposing the peculiarities of a local economy, one invaluable service has been done for future studies dealing with their spatial aspects. The location criteria listed here indicate the peculiarity of the Boston area. It will be noticed that nowhere in the l i s t does there appear the traditional criterion of accessibility to the consumer market. In fact, the only market mentioned is the commercial market. This characteristic becomes understandable in view of Boston's heavy concentration of secondary industries. This indicates a reversal in the traditional C.B.D. oriented industrial location pattern. This study underscores the importance of understanding the nature of a local economy when one is attempting to evaluate the impact of a transportation improvement. This lesson will not be discarded in this study. Even a rudimentary knowledge of the Lower Mainland's economy will indicate the stark difference between i t and the economy of Greater Boston. Hopefully, the importance of centrality in the Lower Mainland will be evident from the zone distributions through time which appear in the following chapter. One other type of descriptive study worth mentioning is that which deals with the economics of production as an explanation of shifts in industrial location. Vernon's study of the New York region 25 is an example of this kind of work. Following a description of various phenomena in the economy of New York, Vernon turns to some 48 evaluations of these occurences. In Chapter Five, for example, Vernon discusses external economics as a locational determinant. In these terms he offers an explanation for the suburbanization of in-dustry once the stage of external economies has been surpassed. This type of investigation illustrated by Vernon is a departure from the orientation of this study. It is nevertheless of value, simply in rounding out one's attempt to understand industrial loca-tion patterns while having some insight into how the economic forces of production influence location in addition to the geographic forces with which this study is chiefly concerned. The study will in no way attempt Vernon's approach to industrial location, but a debt is owed to Vernon because of his contribution to increasing the scope of understanding locational forces. The study of industrial location, industrial activity, and in-dustrial land requirements in the Lower Mainland was begun in 196O-196l with the publication of three studies by the Lower Mainland 26 Regional Planning Board. Of these three studies, The Dynamics of Industrial Land Settlement of 1961 examined the issue of land availa-bi l i t y and locational requirements of industry. The study attempted to contribute to the region's growing awareness that i t has come of age as a metropolitan area. It recognizes the lack of study and understanding of industrial activity in the region, and sets out to f i l l the knowledge gap. The study states: Prior to this study our knowledge of industrial land in the metropolitan area was relatively vague and incomplete. At the same time, in a community so fragmented politically, industrial development is a matter of vital concern to many municipalities. Consequently, the industrial potential of the various areas had to be assessed both thoroughly and objectively. 49 Given this lack of knowledge the study gathers very detailed information on available industrial land and the nature of its ab-sorption through time based on location criteria i t also attempted to define. In turning the region's attention to the need to study industrial land use characteristics in order to properly plan for expansion, the study made a contribution to the region's knowledge of itself; nevertheless, many of its assumptions and calculations are suspect. The study was designed to "designate areas for industrial use 28 within the next fifteen years." To achieve this, the study re-searched the available sites by size and service offered and the pre-ferences of various industrial sectors. It also attempted to estimate the employment and site growth of these sectors to 1976. On the basis of this method, the study provides for any potential industrial area, specific results which are essential for planners, engineers or developers; namely, at any point in time: — parcel sizes, major facilities required, comparative land values and percentage occupancy, together with a rough indication of the types of industry most likely to establish there ... and i t makes i t possible to analyze and predict the natural infilling process that_ p goes on within the urban industrial mass. This dynamic brings together the data on available sites, location preferences, and growth potential. The mechanism which relates a l l three in an allocation dynamic is the firms' ability to pay for land. The study equates the assessed value of present sites for various sectors with that sector's ability to pay.^° Undoubtedly, the study was built on extensive research, but i t is not clear that the detailed site by site and firm by firm study lead to more accurate prediction because prediction depends on continuity 50 of' operative factors as strictly market forces such as land cost and site requirements, the study failed to realize the influence of muni-cipal policies, the growth of industrial parks, and the importance of regional roadways. In addition, i t is questionable that the assessed value of a firm's site is equivalent to that firm's ability to pay for land. In concentrating on the market dynamics of the industrial land allocation system, the study suggested that the prediction would allow municipalities to adjust their policies and zoning regulations to 31 accomodate industrial growth. With this orientation, the study served to initiate the accomo-dation ethic based on market determination of land use. It is reasonable to express regret that this first study of industrial land in the region did not serve to raise the issue of regional policies with respect to industry; nor did i t alert planners to larger issues of land use. In 1971, the Greater Vancouver Regional District published Space  for Industry which was a review of the earlier Dynamics study, an attempt to f i l l some of its deficiencies, and a statement of industrial land use planning which had not been included in the earlier study. Space for Industry generally discarded the earlier method of a detailed site by site investigation because i t realized that considerable in-dustrial expansion had occured on sites that had not been so elabor-32 ately and painstakingly assessed. Space for Industry attempted new industrial land projections using three different methods: acreage per total population method; demand based on the extrapolation of 196O-I966 absorption rate, and 51 industrial worker per acreage basis using twenty and sixteen workers 33 per industrial acre. The results of these projections produced an estimate for the need of 20,000 to 22,000 net industrial acres by the year 2000 for the entire Fraser Valley area. Subtracting the 7500 acres in industrial use in 1966, the study then attempted to find the required 12,500-14,500 new acres. It found 17,462 vacant suitable, and available acres. The report concluded: In view of the available supply, i t is apparent that land shortage will not be an immediate constraint on industrial growth i f appropriate policies for reserving and programs for servicing land for industry are actively pursued. This of course is a t a l l order. Apart from the data collection and descriptive focus of this study, i t was also concerned with attempting to establish plans to f u l f i l l this t a l l order and accomodate the growth i t projected. It was, as has been mentioned, the last such effort of the GVRD before i t redirected itself to study regional growth policies. In its recommendations for industrial land use planning, Space for Industry re-emphasized the industrial land objectives of the Regional Plan. The objectives of that Plan provide a clear assured future of designated industrial areas; and hence, a firm basis for regulatory by-laws governing the type, quality and timing of industry in* each sub-area; and for programmes of redevelopment, re-clamation, etc. A defined long range use pattern is a firm basis for planning the efficient supply of adequate services and facilities to meet the requirements of in*[-dustry and help abate pollution. The study left the impression that sufficient land for industry existed in the region i f the zoning structure of the Regional Plan were maintained. The satisfaction expressed in the study was i l l u -sory on two counts. It did not acknowledge the growth policy changes 52 that were on the horizon which would devistate the accomodation focus of the study and its efforts to reserve large tracts of land for future industrial expansion. In addition, the study assumed that because i t had found sufficient industrial land, the problem of in-dustrial land was solved. Industry was simply not impressed with the prospects of available land miles from roads and services. This sen-timent was aptly expressed at the 1972 conference on industrial land: Too much land is zoned for industry in Greater Vancouver. Too l i t t l e land is available that industry can use. The great chase for tax base by B.C. municipalities has created their problem. It's not getting better. Cities and towns depend on the property tax as the chief source of revenue. Industry brings in money and costs less to care for ... So councils zone acres and acres of land industrial. And there i t lies—almost 10,000 acres in Vancouver and its suburbs, most of i t raw. It's not raw land the industrialists need. They want land ready to go, with sewers, water, roads. There isn't much of that around. At most there's a few hundred^ acres. In conclusion, i t can be said that Space for Industry contributed to the current land use conflict by supporting large industrial land reservations and failing to handle the issue of the shortage of acces-sible and usable land. In view of the fact that the Knight Street Bridge was being constructed during the time the report was being re-searched, i t is surprising that the study did not see some incon-sistencies between the zoning structure i t supported and the loca-tional attraction of the bridge. The literature which describes the industrial land supply and usage in the Lower Mainland is augmented by one study of the loca-37 tional behaviour of firms in the area conducted by Guy Steed. Through the analysis of new firm location and the relocation of old 53 firms, Steed displays the same movement pattern by firm which the following chapter hopes to display by acreage consumption. This firm location-relocation study does not result in the acreage demand which Chapter Three attempts to display, but its findings support this study's attempt to trace the pattern of acreage consumption through time. Briefly described, Steed's study indicates that from 1954 to 1957 there was a 20% increase over a base 1955 figure in the number of firms locating on the North Shore, a 44.5% increase in Central Burnaby, a 28.2& increase in the South Marine Drive-northern Richmond area, and a 23.8$ increase in Surrey. During the 1964-1967 period the North Shore experienced a 69% increase over a base 1965 figure, Central Bur-naby a 17«5% increase, South Marine-Richmond area a 12% increase, New Westminster-Annacis a 31% increase, Surrey a 15.6% increase, and 38 southern Richmond a 32.4% increase. These statistics when coupled with the actual number of firms to which the percentages refer indicate the drawing power of the Central Burnaby area and the peripheral areas of Richmond, Surrey, and North Vancouver. This same phenomenon will be displayed through acreage figures in the following chapter. Steed's study offers most to the cumulative body of knowledge concerning the Lower Mainland through these statistical tabulations. His attempts to explain the phenomenon in terms of internal-external economics and expansion requirements do not do justice to the operation of these forces. A really thorough study of the economic determinants of plant location in the Lower Mainland has yet to be conducted. 5h Conclusion The body of literature that has been discussed was investigated in the hopes of finding a complete methodology which would allow the measurement of the impact of the Knight Street Bridge on industrial land in Richmond. Only the large computer models attempt what was originally sought in the literature. The disenchantment with these models has been discussed. Similarly, the comparative approach seen in some of these studies is incapable of application to the local setting. On the other hand, some useful approaches have emerged from the literature. The literature offers some clarification between indus-tr i a l land demands and its location. Each plays a separate role in the impact study of an urban transportation improvement. The literature on industrial location and highway impacts focus on the traditional propensity for industrial and commercial activity to seek proximity to urban highways. This is a location phenomenon which says nothing of the industrial land demand of an area. If there is no potential demand then the industrial location forces will obviously not be released. If the location and impact literature resulted in knowledge of locational behaviour but not demand measurement, the simple predictive technique outlined by Smith offers a way of measuring demand but gives no insight into the spatial allocation of that demand. Chapter Three will attempt to unite locational specificity with demand specificity. Finally, the literature concerning the Lower Mainland does 55 provide considerable data u s e f u l to t h i s study. No amount of c r i t i c i s m of these l o c a l studies can r e s u l t i n denying t h e i r t r i b u t i o n to the area's self-understanding. 56 NOTES TO CHAPTER TWO 1. Richardson Wood, "For the Community That Wants More Fac-tory Payrolls," American_/City_, LXIII (January, 1948), 87-88. Cited i n Leonard C. Yaseen, Plant Location (New York: American Research Council, 1956), p. 219. 2. Maurice Fullton, "What Industry Looks For i n a New Location," Oklahoma Business Bulletin, XVIII (February, 1952), 1-3. Cited i n Yaseen, Plant Location, p. 218. 3. Dorothy A. Muncy, Space for Industry, Urban Land Institute, Technical Bulletin #23 (Washington, D.C, 1954). 4. Leonard C. Yaseen, Plant Location (New York: American Re-search Council, 1956). 5. Ibid., p. 43. 6. M. I. Logan, "Locational Behavior of Manufacturing Firms i n Urban Areas," Annals of the Association of American Geographers, LVI (No. 3, 1966), 451-466. Louis K. Loewenstein, "A Proposed Manufacturing Location Model," The Annals of Regional Science, I (December, 1967), 51-59. 7. Logan, p. 457. 8. Ibid., p. 457. 9. Loewenstein, p. 53. 10. David M. Smith, Industrial Location: An Economic Geogra- phical Analysis (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1971), pp. 162-163. 11. Ibid., p. 163. This work by Smith is a reliable and modern work on a l l aspects of industrial location. He discusses the classical theorists, the development of the research, and modern research and techniques. 12. This scarcity w i l l be discussed further i n Chapter Three. 13. Stuart Parry Walsh, "Some Effects of Limited Access Highways on Adjacent Land Use," Highway Research Board Bulletin 227 (1959), 78-79. 14. Massachusetts, Department of Public Works, Social and Eco- nomic Impact of Highways: Review of Important Works and Selected  Bibliography (Boston: April, 1961), p. 60. 57 15. R. E. E l l i s , "Toward Measurement of the Community Conse-quences of Urban Freeways," Highway Research Record (No. 229, 1968), 58-52. 16. Ibid., p. 45. 17. J. H. Lemly, "Changes in Land Use and Value Along Atlanta's Expressways," Highway Research Board Bulletin 227 (1959), 1-20. 18. An explanation of the model is contained in Daniel Brand, Brian Barber, and Michael Jacobs, "Technique for Relating Transpor-tation Improvements and Urban Development Patterns," Highway Re- search Record (No. 207, 1967), 53-67-19* Douglas B. Lee, Jr., "Requiem for Large-Scale Models," Journal of the American Institute of Planners, XXXIX (May, 1973), 167. Lee is critical of the model because i t was calibrated with the same data used to test i t . With that kind of a testing procedure, near perfect correlations are bound to be produced. 20. Smith, Industrial Location, pp. 484-485. 21. Hans Blumenfeld, "Are Land Use Patterns Predictable?" Journal of the American Institute of Planners, XXV (May, 1959), 61-67. . 22. Ibid., pp. 64-65. 23. It is suggested in Space for Industry, p. 42, that the ex-cessive industrial land projections made in the 196l Dynamics of Indus- tr i a l Land Settlement, p. 10, were in part due to industry responding to rising land prices by using industrial sites more intensively. 24. A.J. Bone and Martin Wohl, "Massachusetts Route 128 Impact Study," Highway Research Board Bulletin 227 (1959), 35-25. Raymond Vernon, Metropolis 1985? An Interpretation of the  Findings of the New York Metropolitan Region Study (Cambridge, Mass; Harvard University Press, i960). 26. Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, The Dynamics of  Industrial Land Settlement (New Westminster, 1961). , Industrial Land Prospects in the Lower Mainland Region of British Columbia (New Westminster, 1961). , Manufacturing Industry in the Lower Mainland Region of British Columbia 1931-1976: A Study of Past Trends and  Future Prospects (New Westminster, i960). 27. The Dynamics of Industrial Land Settlement, p. 19. 58 28. Ibid., p. 1. 29. Ibid., p. 3. 30. Ibid., p. 54. 31. Ibid., p. 3. 32. Space for Industry, p. 23. 33. Ibid., pp. 70-76. 34. Ibid., p. 84. 35. Ibid., p. 88. 36. N. Adams, "Land for Industry," The Vancouver Sun, January 22, 1972, p. 21. 37- Suy P. F. Steed, "Intrametropolitan Manufacturing: Spatial Form and Locational Dynamics in Greater Vancouver," (Simon Fraser University, n.d. mimeographed). 38. Ibid., p. 31. 59 CHAPTER THREE THE SUPPLY AND DEMAND OF INDUSTRIAL LAND In Chapter One the land use conflict around the Knight Street Bridge was introduced through an analysis of past failures to coordinate transportation planning with land use planning, and through an inves-tigation of rising public sentiment against continued economic growth. This chapter will expose the industrial potential of land around the bridge by displaying the pattern of industrial location in the Lower Mainland since I960. This method is intended to indicate the desira-b i l i t y of these lands for industry. If this can be indicated, the industrial land component of the land use conflict will have been understood. Understanding the industrial land component of this conflict will begin with an analysis of the supply of industrial land in the region. Following this, an attempt will be made to assess both the demand in the entire region and the spatial structure of this demand. This ap-proach is designed to bring greater clarity to the need for industrial land both in terms of an overall figure and in terms of the spatial configuration of this demand. The current claim that industrial land is in short supply seems to assume a similar need in a l l industrial sectors, yet some evidence will be displayed to indicate that not a l l sectors suffer the same shortage. In short, this chapter will attempt to bring specificity to the shortage of industrial land mentioned in 60 Chapter Two (page 52). The Supply of Industrial Land A complete and thorough tabulation of the supply of good ser-viceable land would require a site by site analysis. In the framework of this study, such a detailed investigation is impossible. In order to arrive at a figure that is both credible and proximate to what a site by site investigation would produce, several methods have been used jointly to arrive at the regional supply figure. Table I in relation to Map 6 indicates the supply of industrial land with good foundation conditions and in areas that are readily serviceable at the present time. Table I is limited to industrial land with firm foundation conditions that is readily serviceable be-cause the land adjacent to the Knight Street Bridge has both these features, and the intention is to find the amount of equally good land. Several methods were used to arrive at the 3214 figure. In the case of available land in zones 17, 26, and 13, the 1966-1972 consumption in each zone taken from the data outlined in Appendix B:l was subtracted from the 1966 available land figure for the approximately same eones found in Space for Industry.1 In the case of zones 29, 9, 10, 18, S.E. Richmond, 7, 8, 11, and 12, the figures were calculated using the 1972 GVRD land use Maps. Because the GVRD maps are updated from mu-nicipal maps, a time lag of up to one year occurs. In addition, they are difficult to use because street patterns are not printed and a danger exists of including the area in streets. In the case of zones 15, 19, 27, and 14, direct contact was made with the developer of 61 2 these industrial parks. The elimination of acreage due to poor foundation conditions was accomplished by overlaying Map 7 on the areas of available land. The map i t s e l f i s taken from Space for Industry.^ A further reduction of acreage in zone 18 that i s immediately southeast of Annacis Island was k made because of i t s remoteness from services. The same decision was made with respect to lands i n southeast Richmond along the south arm of the Fraser River. Lands with poor foundation conditions do not necessarily preclude industrial activity. The low lying land of zone 13, for example, has accomodated a wide variety of industry. It would seem some firms are prepared to accept the risk associated with these low lying areas in return for the advantages of proximity to a major regional highway. Two f i n a l considerations i n Table I are offered. In the f i r s t place, although the figures are given as of 1972, the 726 acre indus-t r i a l park planned by the British Columbia government in zone 18 and the 230 industrial park planned by the CNR i n zone 19 were not then and are not now i n 1974 on the market as available land. They are i n -cluded, nevertheless, because they can be expected to become available i n the near future. Finally, the 726 acres of the British Columbia government in zone 18 w i l l be, and the 900 acres i n zone 15 are, av a i l -able on a lease basis only. The Municipality of Richmond i s considering the development of the remaining 119 acres i n zone 27 on a lease basis as well. This reduces by over one-half the amount of available land to firms who prefer to buy their land. Table 1 Industrial Land Supply ~ Available Consumed Now Poor Foundation Remote from „ . , 2 o n e 1966 1966-1972 Available Conditions Services 17 : . i 241 23 218 218 29 47 47 9,10 445 137 308 15 900 900 18 1472 500 246 726 19 230 230 S.E. Rich. 1079 500 579 27 119 119 7 55 55 8 315 315 11 765 765 12 510 510 26 136 40 96 96 13 393 118 275 275 14 200 200 ON 3214 64 MAP 7 FOUNDATION CONDITIONS Se lected A r e a s ////// poor 65 The Demand for Industrial Land It is clearly understood that projecting laid demands for any land use bears some relation to the population growth of the region. School requirements will depend on the number of young families pro-jected and the birth rates of these families; housing requirements will relate more generally to the entire population projection, but specific housing needs will break down this projection into various classes. In the case of a projection of industrial land demands, what will be required is an understanding of the ratio of industrial em-ployment to the total employment projection. The attempt of this study to arrive at the industrial land demand for the Lower Mainland begins at this point. After a general demand has been projected, an attempt will be made to make this area specific. 5 It was seen earlier, that the GVRD Space for Industry study attempted industrial land need projection using both the ratio of worker per acre method and the extrapolation method. In attempting these projections the study is vague about the labour force percentage with which i t is dealing. It seems suspect to determine industrial land demands based on a worker-land unit density using the entire labour force percentage of the population. The percentage under dis-cussion should be industrial workers of the population. This would obviously be a much lower figure. In short, the task is to isolate the percentage of industrial workers from the entire labour force in order to make the ratio of worker per acre method specific to industrial land consumption. Space for Industry failed to do this. 66 The first task then is to understand the composite structure of the region's population and labour force. Unfortunately, the com-plete labour force data of the 1971 census is not yet available. Table II indicates a broad outline of the population and labour force 7 composition in British Columbia and the GVRD. Population Labour Force % of Pop. Area 1966 1971 1966 1971 in 1971 B.C. 1,873,674 2,184,621 681,000 910,000 41.6 GVRD 892,853 1,028,334 396,000 408,475 39-7 Tables III and IV indicate the composition of the GVRD's labour g force and its relationship to the population of the area. The dy-namic of this composition can be seen from Table V. This dynamic has some obvious implications for future industrial land demands. The figures indicate that a fairly constant ratio exists between industrial employment and the population. The most rapidly expanding parts of the economy of the region are the finance, service, and public ad-ministration components of the tertiary sector, and these components have virtually no demand for industrial land. In view of this, and considering that this tertiary sector is becoming a larger component of the region's labour force, i t is difficult to understand the Space  for Industry's inclusion of this sector in their industrial land pro-jections. Before an attempt is made to project industrial land demands 67 Table I l l s Population: Lower Mainland 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 562,048 790,5^0 1,028,334 1,321,814 1,629,266 1,928,087 Table IV Distribution of Labour Force in the GVRD by-Industry Group, 1951-1981(Labour Force in 1000's) Economic Activity Actual Forecast Estimates 1951 1961 1971 1981 Agriculture 11.1 9.6 7.6 6.8 Extraction 11.1 9.4 6.6 5.4 Total Primary 22.0 19.0 14.3 12.2 Manufacturing 60.3 62.6 90.4 129.2 Construction 18.0 22.5 32.4 46.2 Total Secondary 78.3 85.1 122.8 175.4 Transportation 28.8 37.9 55.2 78.9 Trade 48.6 64.7 92.8 132.6 Finance 10.7 16.7 26.8 37.4 Service 6O.9 77.2 118.5 176.1 Public Administration 3.7 30.8 46.2 67.3 Total Tertiary 152.7 227.3 338.9 492.3 68 Table V Industrial Group Percentage of Population Year Population Secondary Sector Tertiary Sector 1951 562,084 13.9 27.1 1961 790,540 10.7 28.7" 1971 1,028,334 11.9 32.9 1981 1,321,814 13.2 37.2 using Smith's projection method outlined in Chapter Two-, an alteration in the data of Table IV is required plus some discussion of worker per land unit density. It is a phenomenon of urban land uses that industrially zoned land is frequently used for non-industrial purposes. For example, in Greater Vancouver, the main wharehouse of the four largest department stores is located in industrially zoned areas. Similarly, transport terminals, r a i l , truck, and air, are frequently located on industrially zoned land. Both activities, wharehousing and transportation terminals, tend to combine high land consumption with low employment density. The exact influence of this phenomenon on industrial land use and employ-ment density figures would demand exhaustive firm by firm investi-gation, whichlis not possible within the scope of this study. Never-theless, in order to have this aspect of industrial land use play its role in the projections, the "transportation group" of Table IV will be included in the secondary sector. This does not solve the problem 69 of non-industrial workers using industrial land; that problem is insoluable without a site by site analysis. The inclusion of the transportation sector simply attempts to allow the non-industrial uses of industrial land to enter into the calculation of projected industrial land requirements. The problem of density of employee per unit of land is compli-cated by the various components of industrial land users, the nature of a local economy, the price of land, and the type of production technology. Any single figure will be a very crude approximation of the real density figure for a region. Space for Industry used twenty workers per acre, but i t also suggested that twelve or sixteen workers 9 per acre was realistic. This at least provides a range within which projections can be attempted. An attempt will be made later to find the most realistic figure. Turning now to the projection, the data available allows for a simplification of Smith's formula since the industrial employment has already been isolated in Table IV. Whereas Smith calculated A = (PxR) -X +Y this can now be simply A = where P is the population increase for the projected period; X is the percent of the total labour force employed in industrial activity, and this will in-clude the transportation group of Table IV; and D is the density of workers per industrial acre. With the addition of the transportation group in the secondary sector, the percentage of this sector of the entire labour force is 15.5 for the period 1961-1971 and 17.3 for the period 1961-2001. This 17.3 is reached by taking the 1971 secondary 70 sector of Table IV and the transportation group of the tertiary-sector. Table VI outlines these projections with three various density figures. For the period 1961-1971 the increase i n population was 237,794. For the period 1961-2001 the projected population If the 6239 acres of industrial land i n use increase i s 1,137,547.10 Table VI Industrial Land Projections Density Projection 20 16 12 237,794 x .155 20 1 , 1 - ? / , ? * + / x 20 .J.V.? 237,794 X • 155 16 1,137,547 x .173 16 237,794 X .155 12 1,137,547 x .173 12 1842 acres for 1961-1971 9839 acres for 1961-2001 2303 acres for 1961-1971 12,299 acres for 1961-2001 3071 acres for 1961-1971 19,282 acres for 1961-2001 i n I960 are added to the above results,'1'1' the total industrial land requirements by the year 2001 become: at a density of 20: 9839 + 6239 = 16,078 acres; at a density of 16: 12,299 + 6239 = 18,538 acres; at a density of 12: 19,282 + 6239 = 25,521 acres. These projections reveal two significant features. On the one 71 hand, the use of twelve and twenty workers per acre result in vastly different land requirements. Secondly, the use of twenty.; workers per acre provides a projection far below that produced by Space for Indus- try which used the same figure. This difference is explained by the GVRD's inclusion of the tertiary sector in the labour force which made a demand on industrial land. Space for Industry never justifies this inclusion. Given the spectrum of these results, however, an attempt is required to bring some precision to this wide range. The most feasible method of doing this is to attempt to determine the actual industrial land consumption between 1961 and 1971 and relate the results of this to the range of projections above. In its review of the earlier Dynamics of Industrial Land Settle- ment published in 1961, the Space for Industry study attempted to verify the projections of the 1961 study by relating these projections to the actual industrial land consumption between i960 and 1966. Space for Industry concluded that during this time, IO69 acres of industrial land had been consumed. This is very close to 180 acres 12 a year. If IO69 acres of industrial land were consumed between i960 and 1966, i t is reasonable to assume that about 2000 acres or less would be consumed between 196l and 1971. This would seem to verify the projection of 1842 acres made with the figure of twenty workers per acre. It will be recalled that on the basis of this density f i -gure a total industrial acreage need of 16,078 acres by the year 2001 was reached. This is 4000 to 6000 acres less than projected by Space 13 for Industry. Approaching this another way, i f we use the figure 2000 acres of 72 industrial land consumed every decade an even smaller figure of 8000 + 6239 = 1^,239 acres would be required by 2001. If the GVRD's own annual estimate of 180 acres per year is used, this figure drops slightly to 13,439 acres required over the same period. Before leaving this discussion of regional industrial land demands, one final issue requires discussion. Neither Dynamics of Industrial Land Settlement ^or Space for Industry make any mention of the recycling of industrial land or the establishment of firms in industrial areas on a site used for another purpose. If a firm re-locates from a two acre site on Clark Drive to a four acre site in Richmond, the net increase in industrial land is5 four acres. Never-theless, when another firm locates at the old two acre site, this two acre figure becomes included in new industrial land consumption. Separating the new industrial land consumption from the total indus-tr i a l land use is impossible without a thorough empirical study. On the basis of the data collected for this study, as much as twenty per-cent of industrial land consumed from I960 to 1972 could be old indus-14 t r i a l land put to new use. On the Annacis Island industrial park alone, of the fift y firms to locate there since 1955, eighteen have 15 closed or relocated and their sites have been recycled. The projections that have been made in this chapter and this final discussion of the recycling of industrial land are significant because they question the basis upon which past planning studies have zoned thousands of acres of the region for industrial use. In challen-ging this base, this evidence lends weight to arguments favouring the 73 release of shorelands for non-industrial uses. Projections beyond the year 2001 would be far to speculative to offer any clarity to the present issue. By then, policies to arrest the present trend to urbanization may have become effective, and rising transportation costs may result in a decentralization of some service sectors serving the mining and forestry industries in British Columbia. Having established the need of 9839 acres of industrial land to 2001 in Table VI as the most reasonable figure of the three provided, this section is intended to provide a perspective on this future con-sumption as i t relates to the land made accessible by the new bridge. This perspective is offered by analysing the actual pattern of indus-t r i a l land consumption from I960 to 1972; this pattern of consumption is then related to a larger regional understanding of past and future trends; finally, the results of both analyses is applied to the Knight Street Bridge. Through this process, the industrial potential of the undeveloped lands around the bridge begin to emerge and with i t , the final component of the land use conflict within the area. The locational data of industrial land consumption has been traced by identifying firms which have located within the region during the period 1960-1972. Two sources were used for this and both are incomplete. The British Columbia Department of Industrial•Develop-ment, Trade and Commerce publishes a quarterly survey entitled Indus- tri a l Expansion in British Columbia. The years i960 to 1969 are in-complete although they do attempt to report both new firm locations in the region and relocations as well. In addition, they report whare-house and service centre establishments which tend to locate on indus-7k t r i a l land. The 1970 - 1972 issues of this publication are exhaus-tive. The improvement in the reporting in this publication is the result of improved methods of gathering and computing information on industrial activity in the GVRD. Staff increases have also contributed to a more thorough reporting of firm location and relocation. In addition to this source, the New Manufacturing Establishments in  Canada publication of Statistics Canada was studied for the same period, 1960-1972. While this publication is exhaustive, i t does not report relocations within the area nor wharehousing and wholesaling activity. Following this, the address of each firm was located, and the size of each property was found in the municipal assessment offices. The firms were classified according to the Standard Industrial Clas- sification Manual.1^ Finally, the region was divided into thirty-one industrial zones (Map 6). The industrial zones were formed following an analysis of industrial land consumption, but efforts were made to align these zones with those found in Space for Industry. For each firm a card was prepared containing the firm's name, SIC number, in-dustrial zone, year established on that site, and the site size. The information on each card was transferred to a computer card, and tables were calculated giving the yearly consumption of land by indus-t r i a l zone and SIC number. These tables are found in Appendix B:l and B:2. Several problems were encountered in gathering this information. In Vancouver, 200 firms could not be located. Old directories and 75 telephone books were searched, but no firm was found to be listed under the name given in the two sources. In a l l about 225 firms could not be located. Another problem existed in that several firms had the same address in the same year. These were generally found to be mini-industrial parks. In this case, the size of the entire property was divided evenly by the number of firms occupying the site. These were minor problems as compared to the realization that the two sources used did not provide a complete inventory of industrial land users for the period 1960-1972. This represents the greatest flaw in the data. It is difficult to assess the extent of the data's difficiencies in this respect. Space for Industry, as we have seen, claimed that 1069 acres of industrial land was developed from 1960-1966. The data gathered here reveals 779 acres for the same period. There is a sus-picion that this figure is low because of the incomplete information found in Industrial Expansion in British Columbia for these years. The disparity of findings probably levels off in the late 1960's and early 1970's. It can also be said that the IO69 figure of Space  for Industry is not above suspicion. The study is not specific on how these figures were developed. Finally, the GVRD claims that an average of one hundred firms locate or relocate in the region each l 8 year. Eliminating the 225 firms which could not be located, the study was left with l l 8 l firms for the period 1960-1972. This results in approximately 90 firm establishments per year. This finding plus the author's own subjective assessment of the data in relation to his knowledge of industrial location in the region leads to the conclusion Table VII Percentage of Total Industrial Land of Appendix B:l by Year and Grouped Zones Grouped Zones Annual Year 5,9,10 6,7,8 15,16,17,26 13,14 Total i960 33.07 9.73 22.63 8.53 73.96 1961 9-42 4.25 12.77 9.62 36.06 1962 .87 14.95 14.16 8.30 38.28 1963 10.38 28.38 19.81 17.09 75.66 1964 23.14 8.11 IO.69 .15 42.09 1965 3.09 10.74 28.66 3.92 46.41 1966 20.48 17.61 18.44 18.68 75.21 1967 15.44 10.64 19.18 7.49 52.75 1968 5.29 3.51 4.52 4.45 17-77 1969 31.52 24.40 19.15 7.26 82.33 1970 20.88 18.73 1.43 14.12 55.16 1971 14.90 12.31 8.47 33.39 69.07 1972 11.32 6.37 15.01 .33 33.03 Total 14.68 11.63 12.98 12.12 51.41 77 that the data represents about 85% of industrial land consumption. 'While the data does not provide an accurate annual land consumption figure, i t can be used to guage the locational pattern and clustering - of industrial land consumption on the assumption that the missing data is equally distributed. Nothing was found to suggest this assumption to be inaccurate. It is used to display the location of industrial land consumption in the region. Appendix C provides a complete listing of annual land consumption for each industrial zone. From this appendix a pattern of locational consumption emerges i f the zones of central Burnaby, the western sec-tion of the north arm, the Annacis Island-Big Bend area, and the western Surrey areas are considered as clusters. Table VII displays this grouping and provides the percentage of the total acreage of Appendix C consumed by these areas. Initially i t might seem that the 51.41 percent of total con-sumption accounted for by these areas does not indicate a high con-sumption in these areas; however, of the remaining 48.59 percent of land consumption, much is the result of a few large sites on the waterfront in zone 18 and large water terminal facilities in zones 21 and 20. In fact, 19-74 percent of the area not accounted for by these clustered zones is the result of seven individual large industrial sites. Table VII displays the location and size of these seven sites. In the light of the distorting influence of these seven sites on the total land consumption figures, the 51.41 percent of consumed land in the four grouped areas emerges with a much stronger position of indicating the locational pattern of consumed industrial land. 78 Table VIII Large Lot Component of Land Consumption Zone Size (acres) Percentage 4 25.70 18 52.03 50.00 19 42.32 20 55.00 21 55-00 130.00 Total 409.08 19.74 of total acres With the four grouped zones accounting for 51«4l percent of the total 1960-1972 consumption, and 19«74 percent of the consumption accounted for by seven unusually large sites, there remains only 28.85 percent of the total 1960-1972 acreage consumption scattered throughout the region. The figures of Table VII in the light of the distorting in-fluence of the seven large sites of Table VIII, unequivocally in-dicate a pattern of consumption from i960 to 1972 which gravitates around proximity to major regional roadways. Furthermore, three of the four groups are in what could be called an intermediate locational zone with the fourth, zones 13 and 14, on the periphery but bordering a regional access roadway. It is also interesting to note that a l l 19 four groups contain an industrial park. Although the industrial 79 zones do not have exactly the same boundaries as the industrial parks contained within them (with the exception of zone 15 which is identical with Annacis Island), the park located zone of three of the four groups has a higher consumption than the other zones in the group. 20 In the fourth case, zones 13 and Ik, the consumption is the same. All of this indicates that consumption has been heaviest in areas containing two or more of the following features: - close proximity to a major roadway - an industrial park - an intermediate zone in relation to the C.B.D. and 21 the urban edge. The fact that eight of the twelve zones found in the groups of Table VII are located on the waterfront is seen to be coincidental. It should not be assumed that intense land consumption in these areas 22 indicates heavy waterfront industrial land demands. Another focus of this land consumption pattern and the water-front issue is gained in discussing these consumption figures in light of their SIC classification. The question is which industry is locating where, and what insight can this provide to the loca-tional pattern. Appendix B:2 is the condensation of a l l the Tables of Appendix B:l. It provides the thirteen year consumption totals for zones and industry types. A few features are worth noticing. Wharehousing and wholesaling activity (SIC 52, 6 l , 62) are located overwhelmingly in areas which combine the three features mentioned above. There is only one major exception to this; the h2 acres of SIC 6 l in zone lk 81 in which case the location is not intermediate but rather peripheral to the C.B.D. Another feature is that the large site, waterfront terminal activity of SIC 50 is rarely found in the grouped zones. This seems to indicate that either their site size or particular function and requirements create unique location criteria not opera-tive in most other industrial sectors. In addition to this peculiar locational pattern of waterfront terminals, two other sectors, in varying degrees, indicate an in-sensitivity to the three criteria represented by the four grouped zones. The chemical industry is found dispersed throughout the area, but one large site is located in zone l 8 . Again, i t would seem that an operation of that size requiring waterfront land can locate in a manner independent of other sectoral criteria. Similarly, the metal industry (SIC 50) is located throughout the region, but i t should be noticed that two large consumptions of this sector are located in zones 11 and 18. This seems to indicate that to some extent this sector is capable of locating in areas independent of the three favourable criteria. Finally, the wood industry (SIC 25) provides a classic example of an industry responding to the favourable features of the lo-cational pattern exemplified by the four grouped zones of Table VII. This sector contains sash and door builders, prefabricated house builders, and the abundant kitchen cabinet builders. The vast majority of land consumed by this sector follows the overall pattern of consumption responding to the three location criteria. 82 An Overview of the Regional Industrial Land Movement It has been established in the preceeding section that indus-trial land consumption has been heaviest in the areas of the grouped zones outlined in Map;8 when one discounts the 19.7k percent of consumed land accounted for by the large sites of Table VIII. This section is intended to place this 1960-1972 consumption pattern within the scope of the past and future structure of industrial land utilisation trends. The location of new industrial land through time has the character of concentric rings around the region's core as can be seen from Map 3, The ring appearance is misleading, however, because industrial location is heavily concentrated along regional roadways which are radially connected to the regional core. Walter Hardwick has attempted a grand conceptualization for 23 the outward growth of Vancouver through his "Core-Ring" framework. Hardwick's thesis is defensible i f consideration is restricted (as i t is in his article) to movement among residence, work, shopping, and services, but his conceptual framework does not apply to larger economic relationships particularly in regard to commodity flows, industrial linkages, the wharehouse-retail store relationship, and that between the suburban plant and the downtown office. A thorough study of the land consumption pattern of these features does not exist, but i t is suggested here that radial exchange of these acti-vities would be more important than the circumferential aspects. This section will investigate the outward industrial expansion in its relationship to the radial regional roadway. 83 There is no doubt that as visually displayed in Map 9 the location of present and future industrial parks has a ring charac-teristic, but i t is essential to notice their location near radial highways. It is this past and future industrial expansion along radial roadways and its relationship with the 1960-1972 data that deserves consideration here. The discussion is intended to show that the region is on the threshold of a particular moment in its expansion which has resulted in near complete consumption of in-dustrial land within the intermediate zone as outlined in Map 8. The industrial movement from the core of Vancouver to this intermediate zone is intimately related to the development of the regional roadway system in metropolitan Vancouver. In the ten year period from 1955 to 1965 the present regional roadway system (except the Knight Street Bridge) took shape. The Lougheed Highway in Burnaby was widened and upgraded in 1957; the alignment of the free-way through Burnaby was decided in 1959 and construction began there-after; the Oak Street Bridge and throughway to the border was com-pleted; and the Queensborough Bridge was also completed. During this roadway building boom only one industrial park was established prior to the development of a major access, and this was Annacis Island. The park itself experienced slow growth in its early years. Map 9 displays the location of the now existing Industrial Parks most of which were established in this 1955-1965 period. The Parks are outlined as follows: 1) Lake City, begun in 1956; 2) Brighouse, developed by the Municipality of Richmond in 1962; 85 3) Van Home, developed by the Municipality of Richmond in 1969; k) Crestwood, begun by Dominion Construction in 1959; 5) Annacis Island, established by Grosvenor International in 1955; 6) Newton, begun in 196l by B.C. Hydro; and 7) Langley, B.C. Hydro estate begun in 1964. While the latter two industrial parks are adjacent to regional road-ways, they do stand outside the intermediate zone of the region. Both Steed and Jackson offer some documentation of industrial activity moving into this intermediate area during the 1955-1965 period. In Burnaby, apart from the establishment of Lake City In-dustrial Park in 1956, considerable land rezoning to industry and land ownership changes occured in the 1957-1958 period following the widening of Lougheed Highway and during the time the freeway align-ment studies were in process. In one case during this time, 109 urban lots were assembled into one lot in the future freeway— Willingdon interchange area. Firm locations during this period paralleled this land activity. Steed has calculated that between 1955 and 1965 the Vancouver indus-tr i a l core lost 179 firms, the intermediate zone which in Steed's designation excludes Annacis and New Westminster, gained 193 firms, and thepperipheral area gained k$ firms. Within his intermediate zone, the increase in firm location was heaviest in the Central Burnaby and north arm areas. 86 Since 1955, this intermediate zone has absorbed the majority of industrial firms and industrial land consumption. This is clear from Steed's data as well as from the data of Appendix B:l. The industrial land in this area is limited, both by zoning and by competition with other urban uses* The threshold upon which we presently stand is that of the near depletion of the land in this intermediate zone. Table I above has indicated considerable available land in this area, but i t should be recalled that much of that data was based on 1972 land use maps using 1971 data. Significant changes have occured since that time. As of March 197*+, Lake City contains only 60 uncommitted acres. Crestwood Park in zone 8 has experienced enormous growth since 1971 and as of September 1973 contained only 25 uncommitted acres. Mr. John Little of Grosvenor International speculates that in the next five years as much land will be consumed 26 on Annacis Island as was consumed in the last eighteen years. The implication of this is clear; there is a scarcity of indus-tri a l land in the area which has been considered favourable for lo-cation since 1955• Realizing this, industrial land developers are beginning to move outward and the bare outlines of the future indus-t r i a l ring, radially connected to Vancouver, is beginning to emerge. Intriguing questions are raised in the light of this new expansion. Can a traditionally consumer-oriented economy operate from Pitt Meadows, Langley, or Abbotsford? Will firms in this outer ring con-centrate on consumers in the intermediate or suburban areas? Will these areas attract non-consumer oriented industries? Will industrial 87 linkages emerge between the firms in the intermediate zone and the new peripheral zone? -Whatever connections emerge, i t would seem that the relationship will continue to be made on the radial regional roadways. Map 9 displays the locations of this future industrial pattern by identifying the areas where industrial parks are under considera-27 tion. The areas are as follows: 8) A 230 acre site is presently under consideration by CNR immediately west of the north entrance to the Deas Island Tunnel. East of this area, 838 acres of waterfront land has been allowed to remain outside the agricultural re-serve, but their development is not expected in the im-mediate future; 9) This is the proposed British Columbia government indus-tr i a l park of 726 acres. In addition, 738 acres east of Tilbury Island have been released from the original 28 draft of the agricultural reserves; 10) A 950 acre industrial reserve exists in southern Surrey on the Langley border. The land is not developed, has no services, and is not owned by a developer; nevertheless i t has not been affected by the agricultural reserves and is expected to be developed eventually; 11) A 60 acre industrial park is proposed by the CPR on land east of the Pitt River between Highway 7 and the CPR r a i l line; 88 12) An industrial park is under consideration in the area of Bonson Road and the Fraser River. Q.C. Timber is building a new sawmill at the foot of Bonson Road; the industrial park would be located behind the mill. 13) Dominion Construction has an industrial park planned north of Highway 401 and 200 Street. 14) Dominion Construction has a 100 acre site on Highway 7 between Abbotsford and the Canada-U.S. border. This site is not shown on the map. In addition, B.C. Hydro has plans to assemble land in the Fraser Valley for industrial purposes. Mr. Ervin Grant of the Industrial Development Department of the B.C. Hydro is reluctant to reveal 29 specific areas of interest. The Knight Street Bridge in a Regional Context This chapter has attempted to offer some measurable evidence for the industrial potential of the lands around the new bridge. It has been shown that throughout the 1960-1972 period, industrial land consumption has been heaviest where at least two of the following site characteristics have existed: proximity to a regional roadway, the inclusion of an industrial park, and a location within the inter-mediate zone as outlined on Map 8. The area adjacent to the bridge has a l l three features. Apart from possessing these three features, the area offers the only possible expansion of industrial land within the intermediate zone without demolishing existing urban structures. Other areas such 89 as New Westminster and Central Burnaby are constrained by urban development on a l l sides. The only constraints on the Knight Street Bridge area are the imperatives of the Land Commission Act and the changing values in the region with respect to economic growth. The industrial location pattern as measured above indicates that i f the use of these lands were determined solely by market forces, the largest industrial park in the region would result. In this con-text, the area affords a final opportunity for central industrial location. This analysis helps clarify the issue of industrial land shortage within the region. The shortage exists in areas that have traditionally been considered prime locations. Within a larger regional context, ample industrial land exists. When this is considered along with the lower projections of land needs found in Table VI, a new per-spective can be brought to the industrial land allocation decision in the bridge area. Hopefully the perspective can entertain con-currently the recognition of the industrial potential of this land and the realization that industry need not have priority for such land in view of the supplies elsewhere. Chapter Four attempts to apply these findings. 90 NOTES TO CHAPTER THREE 1. Space for Industry, p. 58. 2. The 230 acres i n zone 19 are located around the north en-trance of the Deas Island Tunnel. Plans are underway by the CNR to develop this area as an industrial park. 3. Space for Industry, p. 17. 4. The land i n zone 18 was originally zoned for industry i n the Regional Plan. That section of zone 18 west of the eastern t i p of Tilbury Island has been designated as a Secondary Agricultural reserve in By-law 120 of the GVRD. As a result, this area would not ordinarily be considered i n this attempt to arrive at present available land; however, the 726 acre industrial park proposed by the provincial government i s almost completely i n this secondary reserve. These acres are therefore included i n the tabulation as i t i s reasonable to expect the servicing and developing of these lands i n the near future. 5. Chapter Two, p. 50. 6. Space for Industry, pp. 72-76. 7. Compiled from Statistics Canada Daily, December 7, 1973, catalogue 11-001; the 1971 Census, catalogue 95-721; the City of Vancouver, Department of Planning and Civic Development, Income, Employment, and Establishment Characteristics (May, 1973), p. 11; and Space for Industry, appendix 1.5. 476,000 persons i n the labour force were projected in the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , Planning Department, The Lower  Mainland's Economy: Trends and Prospects: A Summary Report (Vancouver, 1970), p. 12. This figure i s 11.5% higher than the figure found in this Table. This undoubtedly explains part of the high industrial land projections found i n Space for Industry. 8. Table III i s taken from the Greater Vancouver Regional Dis t r i c t , Planning Department, Population Forecast (Vancouver, January, 1973), p. 3, and p. 6, for the years 1981 and beyond. Table IV i s taken from the GVRD, The Lower Mainland's Economy, p. 12. 9. Space for Industry, pp. 73-75. 10. Population Forecasts, p. 6. 11. Space for Industry, p. 35« 91 12. Ibid., p. 35. 13. Ibid., p. 74. 14. See Appendix B. This percentage figure is reached by-adding the figures for zones 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 16, 24, 25, 26, and 29« Each of these zones i s i n a developed area where land i s recycled. 15. Steed, p. 26. 16. Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Standard Industrial Clas- s i f i c a t i o n Manual,3rd ed. (Ottawa: Information Canada, 1970). 17. It should be noticed that no industrial zone 5 appears on Map 6. Zone 5 was integrated with zone 9 after the data was tabulated. It should also be pointed out that zone 32 represents industrial land consumption outside the 31 zones. 18. Space for Industry, p. 35. 19* Lake City i s located i n zone 10; Annacis Island i s identical with zone 15; Newton industrial park i s found i n zone 14; and Crest-wood industrial park i s found i n zone 8. See Map 8 for the park sites and intermediate zone area. 20. See Appendix C. 21. Map 8 indicates the four clustered zones in relation to regional roadways, the intermediate zone, and industrial parks. 22. "While eight of the twelve zones i n the four clusters are located on waterfront property, much of the consumption i s in the upland area of these zones. Firm location within a zone has not been considered i n the data. The claim that waterfront land for industrial use i s substantiated i n Fred Friesans, "A Study of Opportunities and Costs of Preserving Recreation Sites Along the Lower Fraser River," (unpublished M.A. thesis, University of British Columbia, 1974). 23. W. G. Hardwick, "Vancouver: The Emergence of a 'Core-Ring' Urban Pattern," i n Geographical Approaches to Canadian Problems, ed. by R. L. Gentilcore (Scarborough, Ontario: Prentice-Hall, 1971), pp. 112-118. 24. Jackson discusses these land use and ownership changes, pp. 54-65. 25. Steed, p. 16. 92 26. Interview, October 24, 1973. 27. This information was gathered through direct contact with municipal offices and industrial development personnel of Dominion Construction and B.C. Hydro. 28. See p. 94 for a discussion of this. 29. Interview with Ervin Grant, B.C. Hydro, March 22, 1974. 93 CHAPTER FOUR A LAND USE PROPOSAL / Chapter One and Chapter Three of this study have examined the land use conflict in the area of the Knight Street Bridge that has resulted from failures to coordinate land use and transportation planning; from growing sentiments against growth, and a desire to preserve farm land; and from the industrial potential of these lands. These lands cannot be used both for industry and farming; nor can growth in the region be controlled i f industry is given priority in the allocation of land uses. This chapter offers a land use pro-posal which also tests the method whereby the study has been conducted. If the proposal can realistically address the issues involved in the conflict, this would seem to indicate that the method itself has validly exposed the ingredients of the conflict. The lands around the Knight Street ""Bridge are not the only example of a land use conflict in the region. Most secondary agri-cultural reserves established under By-law 120 of the GVRD indicate a conflict by definition. This By-law defines secondary agricultural reserves as lands having an agricultural soil capability rating of Class 1 to Class k but are so designated "because of conflicting de-mands for the use of these lands and the difficult social and economic problems facing farming in the Greater Vancouver Regional District." While final resolution of these secondary agricultural reserves has 94 not yet been completed, there is evidence concerning the future resolution of these conflicts. It would seem that they will be re-solved through a succession of compromises which may not satisfy a l l the demands of controlled growth advocates but which will nevertheless leave the region with more farm land and open shoreline than a simple projection of past policies and plans would indicate. In discussing the industrial land implications of the Land Com- mission Act in Chapter One, i t was mentioned that 2000 acres on Barnston Island and in the Big Bend area had been placed in primary agricultural reserves and another 2000 acres in the Greater Coquitlam area and Richmond had been placed in secondary reserves. In itself this is a severe reduction of potential industrial land. The figure is significant enough to indicate that priority is no longer offered to industrial land users. On the other hand, some evidence indicates that industrial land users will not be totally neglected. An insight into this prospect is gained by studying the draft of By-law 120 prepared for the public hearings of September, 1973, and the final By-law adopted on October 3, 1973. In the original draft areas 8 and 9 of Map 9 had been placed in secondary agricultural reserves. Area 8 includes the 230 acres to be developed by the CNR and 838 acres on the south arm of the Fraser River in eastern Richmond. Both areas wece removed from the agri-cultural reserve. In Delta in the area of Tilbury Island (number 9 on Map 9) 738 acres east of Tilbury Island were removed from agri-cultural designation. Ironically, the lands of the proposed British 95 Columbia government industrial park south and west of Tilbury Is-land were not removed. As a result of this, much of the south arm of the river is s t i l l reserved for industry. The release of water-front lands on the south arm may occur west of the Deas Island Tunnel in Richmond and in eastern Richmond on the north arm depending on the final designation made of secondary agricultural lands. Both these recent developments, the reduction of industrial land, and the continued securing of industrial land reserves provide an indication of the compromising attitudes, policies, and decisions which will direct the future development of the region. With this broad understanding of the direction in which land use conflicts will evolve at the macro level of the region, the time has arrived to turn attention to the micro situation around the new Knight Street Bridge and roadway. Following an analysis of the current de-velopments within the area, a land use proposal will be recommended which stands on the limited growth policy position studied earlier, but which also utilizes for industrial purposes, lands favourable and suitable to industrial use. The trade-off in acres falls de-cidedly in favour of vacant shorelines and the preservation of agri-cultural land. Present Land Use Structure-The completion of the Fraser Avenue Bridge in 1909 began the history of industrial development in the area of the bridge. While commercial activity moved south along No. 5 Road, industrial de-96 velopment expanded east and west of No. 5 Road. East of this street, industrial firms concentrated on Vulcan Way, Vickers Way, and Bridge-port Road, but moved no further east than Bath Slough which dissects section 19- 1 Aereal photography runs of 1950 indicate no industrial a c t i v i t y east of this slough. In the late 1950's, Dominion Con-struction Company began land acquisition i n section 20 and initiated the development of the Crestwood Industrial Park which has now ex-panded throughout sections 20 and 29• The industrial character of this area, begun with the opening of the Fraser Avenue Bridge and estended eastward by Dominion Con-struction, was sanctioned i n the Regional Plan of 1966. In that Plan the southern edge of the industrial zone moved east to include the northern quarter of sections 30, 29, and 28, then north to the CNR"1 r a i l line and followed this line almost to the eastern border of Richmond. In 1970 the Plan-was amended to include the remaining three quarters of section 29. The inclusion of the remaining area of section 29 represents the present Regional Plan industrial zoning i n the area as can be seen from Map 10. The negotiations preceding this amendment are instructive i n displaying sentiments throughout the 1970-1972 period. In i t s cor-respondence with the GVRD, the Municipality of Richmond outlined four 2 reasons i n support of the southern extension of the industrial zone: l ) the new bridge under construction at the time would dissect section 29 making much of the area unsuitable for farming, while providing at the same time, accessi-b i l i t y for the labour pool of south Vancouver and Burnaby; 97 2) a trunk sewer is being extended into the area capable of carrying the load of industrial activity throughout section 29; 3) the Crestwood Industrial Park is served by the CNR and this service can be extended throughout the section with minimum disruption to existing traffic patterns; k) pressures have developed to extend industrial develop-ment east along River Road where road conditions are poor and servicing is minimal; extending the Park south-ward \-/ould relieve this pressure. The correspondence also hinted that i f the Knight Street connector wae extended south of Cambie Road to Westminster Highway some thought might be given to extending the industrial park into section 32. The rationale offered by Richmond is a recognition of the rela-tionship between the new bridge and industrial suitability. In de-liberating over the proposed amendment, the GVRD raised the issue of development on flood plains. The issue was raised by the Technical Planning Committee which contended that the Richmond application did not show either the need for industrial extension nor how the area would be flood proofed. The planning staff of the GVRD recommended the approval of the amendment in view of the importance of the area, outlined by Space for Industry, during the 1961-1966 period in 3 accomodating firms moving out of Vancouver. On September 9, 1970, By-law 30 was passed by the GVRD Board amending the Regional Plan to extend industrial zoning to include a l l of section 29- No resolution was offered to the flood proofing issue. 98 In view of the outstanding flood proofing issue, the hint of possible extension in Richmond's proposal, and the extension of the Knight Street connector to Westminster Highway, i t is not surprising that another bid was made to extend the industrial park further south. if The new Richmond proposal was made to the GVRD on August 24, 1972. The Richmond proposal called for industrial zoning of sections 32 and 5; in a l l , about 325 acres. In addition to reiterating the industrial suitability of this area, the proposal offers a broader argument for rationalizing the pattern of industrial development in Richmond. It would seem that this rationale was offered to offset fears that Richmond would continue to seek amendments to the Plan in a piece-meal fashion. To support their position of offering a com-prehensive industrial plan for the area, i t offered a zoning swap requesting that 364 acres of*waterfront land east of the Lafarge Cement plant on the south arm and 64l acres of waterfront land on the north arm east of Savage Road be returned to a reserve status from its present industrial designation. In response to this proposal, the Technical Planning Committee recommended approval of the return of the two waterfront areas to reserve designation, but recommended tabling the redesignation of sections 32 and 5 until Richmond clarified its intention to meet flood proofing requirements. The Planning Committee of the Board similarly recommended approval of the waterfront redesignation but rejected the industrial zoning of sections 32 and 5 because of its 5 concern for maintaining arable land. 99 All action on this proposed amendment ceased when i t became obvious that the newly elected N.D.P. provincial government was con-sidering legislation to safeguard agricultural land. Presently, sec-tions 32 and 5 are included in a secondary reserve classification. This was discussed in Chapter One. At the public hearing on September 20 and 26, 1973, with respect to the GVBD's draft By-law 120, both Richmond and Dominion Construction requested the removal of section 32 from secondary reserve; Richmond's proposal also recommended the removal of section 5 from the reserve. In both cases, much of the argument rested on the critically short supply of good serviceable industrial land in the region. In the three proposals outlined above, the arguments have been supported by claims that the bridge and roadway have created indus-tri a l suitablility in the area; rezoning industry would rationalize the industrial land use pattern of eastern Richmond; and the rezoning is required in view of the crisis in industrial land supply. Chapter Three discussed the first of these claims; the proposal and recom-mendation which follows discuss the other two. A Modest Proposal The pattern of industrial development in Richmond has certainly lacked an overall rational procedure. Several isolated industrial land uses are scattered along both shore lines. On the southeast corner of River Road and No. 7 Road is situated a chemical plant with farm land separating i t from other industries well to the west, 101 and the Toyota unloading f a c i l i t i e s consume 33 acres i n an unde-veloped area east of the Deas Island Tunnel. Of course, the desire to extend industrial designation to sections 32 and 5 i s an attempt to adjust zoning i n light of new circumstances* In view of this scattered pattern of development and considering the demands of the Land Commission Act, the present situation affords an opportunity to bring land use c l a r i t y to Richmond. The proposal made here i s not an attempt to c l a r i f y industrial land usage throughout the entire Richmond area; i t concerns only the area adjacent to the Knight Street connector including land along River Road. The proposal i s visually displayed in Map 11. It w i l l be no-ticed that the recommendation i s very similar to the Richmond pro-posed amendment of 1972 studied above. The lands of sections 21 and 28 excluded from industrial use are presently zoned industrial i n the Regional Plan, but agricultural i n Richmond's own zoning scheme. In light of the Land Commission Act, there i s no justifiable reason for retaining the industrial zoning of these areas at the regional lev e l . The intent of the Act i s not only to preserve farm land but 7 encourage the preservation of family farms, and part of this area i s farmed and owned by the resident. The lot immediately east of Savage Road between River Road and the CNR r a i l line i s presently under industrial use. It i s recom-mended that lands east of this lot be returned to reserve status. Furthermore, beyond this, the land is held i n small holdings. The stretch along River Road in this area provides a pleasant Sunday afternoon outing by automobile, bicycle, or on foot. Areas of the 103 shore line with this potential should be maintained for those uses. The only area considered to have justification for industrial extension is section 32 and section 5 excluding the lots facing Westminster Highway. These areas could continue to be farmed, but Richmond farmers themselves have complained of noise and road inter-g section of fields as detrimental to farming in the Township. In both sections the Knight Street connector extension dissects most of the farmed lots of the area. This argument is augmented by the realization that these two sections afford a prime location for industry in view of their proximity to the roadway. The heavy demand and consumption in such areas was examined in Chapter Three. The land exchange in this proposal Involves the return of €kl acres along River Road to reserve designation and 120 acres of sec-tions 21 and 28 to agricultural designation. On the other side, 228 acres of land in sections 32 and 5 would become industrial. Because the area along River Road was not included in the figures of Table I, this results in a 228 acre addition to the new available industrial acres of that Table. This proposal recognizes that the old industrial zoning of the area followed a lateral pattern along the waterfront. Not only is the use of waterfront for industry being questioned, bul\the usefulness to industry of much of this land is negligible. The north-south vertical zoning of this proposal both frees the waterfront, as well as 120 acres for agricultural use in sections 21 and 28, and aligns the industrial zoning with the roadway where the advantages to in-dustry are precisely those which are disadvantageous to farming. 104 This proposal argues that i t i s not the industrial usage of sections 32 and 5 that have removed these lands from viable farming, but the roadway i t s e l f that interferes with that land use. The pro-posal hopes to allow farming as a viable activity and secure this activity from further encroachment by urban land uses i n this area of Richmond. A firm adherence to the proposal would discourage spec-ulative activity i n the remaining farm lands and secure farmers them-selves i n the long range planning of their business. In this sense the proposal contributes to a rational land use plan for the area. Three Final Recommendations In a metropolitan area such as Vancouver, composed of several municipalities and jurisdictions, a danger always exists that i n -dividual planning exercises w i l l be at variance with larger regional goals. Within a regional understanding of industrial land dynamics, this study has focused on a land use allocation i n a specific area of Richmond. While the study has moved from the regional to the site specific scale i n a consistent manner, the recommendation to extend the Crestwood Industrial Park raises three regional issues which de-mand some attention. The three issues concern balanced growth in the suburban areas, industrial plant and park design, and the issue of continued development of the flood plain. The issue of balanced growth is raised i n view of industry?s demand for more industrial land. The industrial community has gained considerable attention with i t s claim that good serviceable industrial 105 land in the region is scarce. On the regional level, the claim is suspect; within the intermediate zone the claim is justified. The implication of the claim is that continued regional economic growth demands land for industry where industry wants i t , in the inter-mediate zone relatively close to the regional core. Viewed in this focus, there is obvious scarcity because one cannot simply continue to create the most favourable sites. The demand that land in close proximity to the regional core be reserved for industry must be balanced with other demands for the same lands. One of the unexplored values of Hardwick's "core-ring" frame-work is that i t possesses a conceptual beginning for balancing in-dustrial land with other uses. If the peripheral area of the region constitutes a ring, possibly two rings, Hardwick's framework suggests that each area within the ring is a community in itself and each should attempt to balance land uses for its own needs rather than provide space for industries wishing to focus on the regional core. This harmonizes win the recommendation made by A Report on Livability that residents should have an opportunity to work and live in close 9 proximity. V/ithin these considerations, industrial land users would be subject to the constraints of land requirements for services, recreation, transportation, and residences in each community. If these criteria are accepted for land allocation within a community, the radial connection of industry with the core of the city as a determinant of location would have to submit to the wider concern for balanced community land allocation. 106 Secondly, and as a supplement to this balanced allocation process, industrial areas close to the city such as the proposed ex-tension of the Crestwood Industrial Park outlined above, might re-consider their design criteria. The design and layout of plants and industrial parks after the War were a response to new production technologies and a desire to blend industrial parks into their new suburban environment. The scarcity of land was not an immediate issue. This led to plants having individual landscaping, loading facilities, parking lots, and storage areas. The present land scarcity and competing demands in large urban areas suggests the need for a change in plant and industrial park design. It seems reasonable to assume that i f plants could be built to accomodate new technologies, they can now be built to accomodate the land shortage. This would demand at most an alteration in industry's values to allow for the sharing of loading, office, storage, and parking facilities. It could be argued that the resulting increased industrial density on a unit of land would harm the larger neighborhood en-vironment, and in fact, in older industrial areas this could occur. In the case of the extension of the Crestwood Industrial Park and the new provincial government industrial park in Delta, the lack of other urban uses in the areas at the present time suggests that prior planning and landscaping could result in a proper visual and noise buffer to be established before other urban uses extend into the area. The Brighouse Industrial Estate in Richmond displays this argument in part. There is a far more intense use of the land here 107 than in the Crestwood Park. At a time when continued economic growth in the region is being questioned, and in view of the declining percentage of the industrial sector of the labour force, industry must reassess both its need to locate in the region and the terms under which i t will be allowed to locate here. Both the commercial and residential sector of land uses have adjusted their physical structure to urban land scarcity through such features as row housing and two-storey shopping centers; only an outdated ethic prevents industry from a similar adjustment. The expansion of the Knight Street Bridge industrial area im-pinges on one final regional issue, that of flood proofing. Of the industrial park areas outlined on Map 9, areas 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12, are in the flood plain with the last four of these areas s t i l l in the proposal stage. In view of the continued industrial expansion in flood plain areas and particularly since the provincial government has taken on the role of an industrial park developer, i t seems timely to suggest a concrete policy with regard to flood plain areas, a policy that can be implemented and enforced. It is impractical to place the burden of creating suchia policy on the municipal level. The existing regional policy with regard to development on flood plains originated in the 1966 Regional Plan. Under policies toward orderly development, i t is stated that: Flood plains are to be kept from of URBAN uses except where committed to urban development through early settlement, in which case further development for URBAN uses shall be con- (^ tingent upon flood proofing. 108 Under policies directed toward a sound regional economy, the Plan states that: Flood plains are to be developed only for uses that would suffer least from flooding, thereby minimizing the public and private expenditure for flood protection, and mini-^ mizing losses resulting from periodic flooding. This policy raises two immediate problems. On the one hand, how is is to be determined which areas of Richmond, Delta, or Pitt Meadows have or have not been committed to urban uses as a result of early settlement? Does the policy imply an attempt to limit the spatial extension of these communities? Secondly, suggesting that further urban extension be contingent upon flood proofing places the burden for implementation on the municipality which might be loathe to en-force expensive flood proofing measures. The Richmond building By-law, number 2170, for example, imposes the need for the building floor to be only three feet "above geodetic datum or 6 inches above nature grade, whichever elevation is greater." While the eastern portion of the Municipality has a natural three feet elevation, these requirements are insufficient protection in the case of dyke 12 failure during floods. In short, this 1966 policy has been in-effective in clarifying flood plain use. The only serious flood proofing work undertaken has been a joint Federal-Provincial Dyking program established in 1968. The program is designed to upgrade the dykes in the Fraser Valley to the point where they would withstand a 1 in 200 year flood. Unquestionably this is a form of flood proofing, but dykes are never a guarantee against flood damage, and i t avoids the issue of flood plain de-109 yelopment. The 1968 agreement raised this issue only by stating that: The Province undertakes to continue to encourage a program of land use zoning and flood proofing to diminish potential^ flood losses in the area covered by this Agreement. The only provincial undertaking in this area has been an amendment (Section 187) to the Municipalities Enabling And Validating Act, which required that rezoning or amendments to the 1966 Regional Plan in flood plain areas required the approval of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. In a memorandum accompanying this legislation, municipalities were informed that: ... where areas are designated as urban or industrial in the Regional Plan applications would qualify for approval. The intent is to keep development as low a density as ^ possible in the designated rural area of the flood plain. This directive is subject to the same inconsistency as the Regional Plan policies, attempting to limit development while allowing development to continue. Flood waters will hardly recognize zoning boundaries. If the provincial or regional governments seriously wish to im-plement a program concerning development of flood plains, two issues must be separated and individually dealt with. On the one hand, low density rural areas must be established and stabalized. The Land  Commission Act is accomplishing this first requirement. This leaves the second issue of development in areas not guaranteed against development. At this point, any attempt to require flood proofing can be dismissed with the implication that potential flood damage will be minimized by minimizing the areas for development; that i s , a l l areas outside the agricultural reserves; or, flood proofing 110 standards for structures can begin to be implemented in the develop-ment areas. Waffling over this matter cannot continue i f the pro-K vincial government is to become an industrial land developer itself. The government's entry into land development affords an opportunity to offer leadership to the municipalities and the land development industry by establishing and then itself implementing flood proofing requirements, either in the form of design alterations or in the form of minimum elevation requirements. Conclusion The extension of the Crestwood Industrial Park recommended earlier in this chapter was directed toward a utilization of land consistent with industrial location patterns and with the imperative of preserving agricultural land. In making the allocation, the influence of improved accessibility close to the regional core was considered as an advantage to the industrial location pattern and a disadvantage to farming in areas isolated by the roadway. The land allocation capitalized on the industrial potential of the immediately adjacent area, but also served to secure farming as a viable industry in those areas not adversely affected by the bridge and roadway. In accomplishing this, the study was site specific. However, i f such industrial expansion continues with no recognition of the need for balanced industrial activity, or continues to waste precious urban space by outdated design criteria, or continues to develop on flood plains, the region will continue to be faced with problems each I l l time industry wishes to expand. The closest industrial areas to the core will be quickly consumed and industry will demand s t i l l more land; flood proofing will continue to be ignored with possible future catastrophes. The three recommendations of this chapter would allow a more intense use of remaining industrial lands close to the regional core and thereby allow more firms to enioy locational advantages. This would also serve to slow the pace of industrial land consumption. Apart from those industries whose close proximity to the regional core was vital, these recommendations would allow a more scattered indus-t r i a l pattern to the benefit of outlying areas. Lastly, the initia -tion of flood proofing requirements at this stage would ensure that the new wave of industrial land development would be equally secure against future damages. In exposing these larger issues, the site specific study of the Knight Street Bridge area has regional impli-cations. 112 NOTES TO CHAPTER FOUR 1. See Map 10. 2. The Corporation of the Township of Richmond to the Greater Vancouver Regional District, May 27. 1970. GVRD fil e no. G.V. 70-4. 3. H. N. Lash, Director of Planning, to T. M. Youngberg, Chief Administrative Officer, Municipality of Richmond, July 24, 1970. GVRD fi l e no. G.V. 70-4. k. T. M. Youngberg to the Greater Vancouver Regional District, August 24, 1972. GVRD f i l e no G.V. 72-7-5. GVRD Planning Department to the Board of Directors, October 1972. GVRD fi l e no. G.V. 72-7-6. Wm. Kerr, Director of Planning, Municipality of Richmond, "Brief Presented to the GVRD Board of Directors," public hearing, September 20, 1973 (mimeographed). 7. S.7 (1) (B). 8. See, GVRD, "Reference Book on Agricultural Land Reserves," p. 7.6. 9. See Chapter One, p. 17* 10. Regional Plan, p. 3. 11. Ibid., p. 3. 12. As quoted by Gordon Ross Shanks, "The Role of Perception in Flood Plain Management," (unpublished M.A. thesis, University of British Columbia, 1972), p. 54. 13. "Fraser River Flood Control Program," S.24. 14. As quoted by Shanks, p. 49. 113 CONCLUSION With the completion of this impact study, attention should be returned to remarks made in the Introduction to this study. A criticism was made concerning the planning profession's inability or unwillingness to substantiate through whatever kind of measure-ment its statements of the impact of decisions and policies. It was indicated that this was particularly true of impact statements which could not be formulated by means of any canned programs for reasons of size, staff, and budgetary limitations, or simply because the study did not f i t the format of the program. In the following para-graphs some reflectiomtis offered with respect to these criticisms and the study's attempt to f i l l an impact methodology gap. The first consideration deals with the scope of the study and the methodological limitations to the study of this issue. In no way was the study hypothetical; its validity and reality can be seen in the amendment proposals and requests for the area's elimi-nation from secondary agricultural reserves put forward by Richmond and Dominion Construction. Included among their arguments were the claims that the area was suitable for industrial activity and that such suitable land was in scarce supply. The impact of this new transportation artery is important not only to Richmond's planning efforts and to Dominion Construction, who own a good portion of the land in section 32, but the issue concerns the GVRD as well in that i t is responsible for reviewing the land uses of the secondary 114 reserves within one year of the acceptance of By-law 120 by the Land Commission. The issue, then, is important to various interests; the question is how can a judgment be made. The geographic size of the area involved and the importance of the issue in view of other concerns of the GVRD would hardly jus-tify the expenditure of staff time and funds to build a large scale computer model to assist the planners in arriving at a land use de-cision. In this sense, the impact problem typifies many concerns within the purvue of a municipal or regional planning department; that are important but do not justify the utilization of a large com-puter model. It is an impact problem of precisely this size which so frequently falls victim to the planners' quick and unsubstantiated solutions. In the Introduction, the claim was made that some level of measurement for any sized impact statement was possible i f the willingness existed to search some data to arrive at a measurable quantity which would transform the impact statement from a slick prediction to a substantiated evaluation of possible consequences. This study has attempted such an evaluation. A complete regional study concerning industrial land utilization in relation to economic factors such as commodity flows and industrial linkages could deserve computer modeling techniques. Such a study would be considerably larger in scale than this study which has simply measured industrial land consumption with no attempt at an economic explanation. If such a larger study were to take place, the finding of this study would serve as one data component for the larger work. 115 The substantiation of a planner's projections involves a dis-cussion of the methodology used. This study involved the examina-tion of a land use conflict in an area made accessible to urban ex-pansion by means of a new bridge and roadway. The conflict was studied in the light of three components: the failure to coordinate past transportation planning with land use planning; the growing sentiment against continued growth, spatial and economic; and the restrictive character of the Land Commission Act; and finally, the suitability of the lands made accessible for industrial use. Only one of these, the last, was quantifiable, but since i t was an im-portant component in the conflict, i t was essential to attempt its quantification. The gathering and analysis of the data to arrive at this measurement was the purpose of Chapter Three. The results undeniably revealed the industrial suitability of this area in view of the outward spatial expansion of industrial activity. If land use were determined simply by market forces, the new bridge would create one of the largest industrial areas in the regions An inherent danger in concentrating on the gathering and analysis of data is that any attempted projection will be the acceptance of a past trend into the future. Land uses are not totally market de-termined, and this is becoming very obvious in British Columbia. Considering this, the policies that shape land uses and urban growth become another essential ingredient in the final impact statement. This final statement is the result of the interplay between the policies and the data projections. The orchestration of this inter-play was found in Chapter Four. 116 Large computer models are built in such a way that data pro-jections and various policy positions can influence one another within the functioning of the model itself, but the planner can achieve the same results without the computer. The study was con-ducted with the belief that nothing was attempted that could not be done by a small two member planning staff. On a small municipal level, the gathering of data comparable to that gathered here would not be a major undertaking. On a smaller scale, the data could be usefully supplemented by employment figures, the use of building permits, or business licences. In deciding which of these data sources would be used, the planner need only have a clear under-standing in his own mind of precisely what measurement he is attempting. The policy input to the final decision is gained through a sensi-tivity to the concerns of his community and a continued interchange with policy makers.c; Planning efforts such as this both create a credibility in the planning profession and assist the public in clarifying its own goals and methods of achieving these goals~.in the light of a better understanding of the planner's contribution ardefforts. 117 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Boley, Robert E. Industrial Districts; Principles in Practice. Urban Land Institute, Technical Bulletin #44. Washington, D.C.: 19*62. . Industrial Districts Restudied: An Analysis of Character- istics Based on Surveys and Projects. Urban Land Institute, Technical Bulletin #41. Washington, D.C.: 196l. Breese, Gerald, et a l . The Impact of Large Installations on Nearby  Areas. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, 1965* Miller, E. Willard. A Geography of Industrial Location. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Co., 1970. Muncy, Dorothy A. Space for Industry. Urban Land Institute, Technical Bulletin #23. Washington, D.C: 1954. Smith, David M. Industrial Location: An Economical Geographical Analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1971. Solzman, David M. Waterway Industrial Sites: A Chicago Case Study. Department of Geography, Research Paper No. 107. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1966. Vernon, Raymond. Metropolis 1985? An Interpretation of the Findings of  the New York Metropolitan Region Study. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 19o0. Wingo, Lowden, Jr. Transportation and Urban Land. Washington, D.C: Resources for the Future, Inc., 1961. Yaseen, Leonard C. Plant Location. Revised ed. New York: American Research Council, I960. Articles Adkins, William G. "Land Value Impacts of Expressways in Dallas, Houston and San Antonio, Texas." Highway Research Board Bulletin 227 (1959), 50-64. Ball, C, and Teitz, M. "Expressways and Industrial Location." Traffic  Quarterly, XII (October, 1958), 589-601. Blumenfield, Hans. "Are Land Use Patterns Predictable?" Journal of the  American Institute of Planners, XXV (May, 1959), 6l-Wi . "The Conceptual Framework of Land Use." Ekistics, XIV D^ecember, 1962), 259-263. 118 Boblett, Robert P. "Factors i n Industrial Location." The Appraisal  Journal, XXXV (October, 1967), 518-526. Bone, A.J., and Wohl, Martin. "Massachusetts Route 128 Impact Study." Highway Research Board Bulletin 227 (1959), 21-49. Brand, Daniel; Barber, Brian; and Jacobs, Michael. "Technique for Relating Transportation Improvements and Urban Development Patterns." Highway Research Record, No. 207 (1967), 53-67. ELlis, R.E. "Toward Measurement of the Community Consequences of Urban Freeways." Highway Research Board, No. 229 (1968), 38-52. Fielding, G.J. "Transport Impact Research: Problems of Location Decision at the Community Level." Annals of Regional Science, IV (December, 1970), 117-126. Gamble, H.B.; Raphael, D.L.; and Sauerlender, O.H. "Direct and Indirect Economic Impacts of Highway Interchange Development." Highway  Research Record, No. 149 (1966), 42-55. Garrison, William L. "Approaches to Three Highway Impact Problems." Highway Research Board Bulletin 227 (1959), 66-78. Hamburg, John R. and Creighton, Roger L. "Predicting Chicago's Land Use Pattern." Journal of American Institute of Planners, XXV (May, 1959), 67-72. Hardwick, W.G. "Vancouver: The Emergence of a 'core-ring' Urban Pattern." Geographical Approaches to Canadian Problems. Edited by R.L. Gentilcore. Scarborough, Ont.: Prentice-Hall, 1971. Lee, Douglas B., J r . "Requiem for Large Scale Models." Journal of the  American Institute of Planners, XXXIX (May, 1973), 163-178. Leigh, R. "Analysis of the Factors Affecting the Location of Industry Within Cit i e s . " The Canadian Geographer, XIII (Spring, 1969), 28-33. Lemly, J.H. "Changes i n Land Use and Value Along Atlanta's Expressways." Highway Research Board Bulletin 227 (1959), 1-20. Loewenstein, Louis K. "A Proposed Manufacturing Location Model." The  Annals of Regional Science, I (December, 1967), 51-59. Logan, M.I. "Locational Behavior of Manufacturing Firms i n Urban Areas." Annals of the Association of American Geographers, LVT, No. 3 (1966), 451-466. McGovern, P.D. "Industrial Development i n the Vancouver Area." Economic  Geography, XXXVII (1961), 189-206. 119 Moses, Leon, and Williamson, Harold F. "The Location of Economic Activity in Cities." Papers and Proceedings of The American Economic  Association, LVII (May, 1967), 211-222. Pred, A. "The Intrametropolitan Location of American Manufacturing." Annals of the Association of American Geographers, LIV (1964), 165-180. Raup, Philip M. "The Land Use Map Versus the Land Value*Map — A Dichotomy?" Highway Research Board Bulletin 227 (1959), 83-88. Shenkel, William M. "The Economic Consequences of Industrial Zoning." Locational Analysis for Manufacturing; A Selection of Readings. Edited by Gerald J. Karaska and David F. Bramhall. Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press, 1969. Walsh, Stuart Parry. "Some Effects of Limited Access Highways on Adjacent Land Use." Highway Research Board Bulletin 227•>(1959), 78-82. Wendt, Paul F. "Forecasting Metropolitan Growth." California Management Review, 1mAFallal. 1961), 26-34. Werner, Christian. "Formal Problems of Transportation Impact Research." The Annals of Regional Science, IV (December, 1970), 134-151. Government Publications Armstrong, J.E. Surfical Geology 6f Vancouver Area, British Columbia. Geological Survey of Canada. Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Paper 55-**0. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1956. British Columbia. Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce. Directory of Industrial Parks and Sites in British  Columbia. Victoria, B.C.:: n.d. . Regional Index of British Columbia. Victoria, B.C.: Queen's Printer, 1966. . Bureau of Economics and Statistics. Summary of Economic Activity in British Columbia 1971: An Annual Survey of Economic  Conditions With a Statistical Supplement for the Years 1961-197T. . Industrial Expansion in British Columbia. Victoria, BSC: 1960-1972. Canada. Dominion Bureau of Statistics. General Review of Manufacturing Industries of Canada. Ottawa: Queen's Printer. . Statistics Canada Daily. December 7, 1973. 120 Canada. Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Business Finance Division. New  Manufacturing Establishments in Canada. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1960-1972. Canada. Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Standard Industrial Classifica- tion Manual. 3rd ed. Ottawa: Information Canada, 1970. Canada. Geographic Branch. Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. Vancouver: Urban Characteristic Survey Maps, Manufacturing Series. Edition I. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1965. Chicago, 111. Department of City Planning. Research Division. Locational  Patterns of Ma.jor Manufacturing Industries in the City of Chicago. Chicago: November, I960. Forward, Charles N. 'Waterfront Land Use in Metropolitan Vancouver, B.C. Geographical Paper No. kl. Geographical Branch, Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources. Ottawa: 1966. Greater Vancouver Regional District. Planning Department. The Lower  Mainland's Economy: Trends and Prospects: A Summary Report. Vancouver, 1970. . The Lower Mainland's Economy: Trends and Prospects: A Technical Report. Vancouver: 1970. . Population Forcast. Vancouver: January, 1973. « Reference Book on Agricultural Reserve. Vancouver: August, 1973. . A Report on Livability. Vancouver: November, 1972. . Space for Industry: A Technical Report. Vancouver: 1971. Illing, Wolfgang M. Population, Family, Household and Labour Force to  1980. Staff Study No. 19. Economic Council of Canada. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1967. Lloyd, Peter E., and Yeates, Maurice H. Impact of Industrial Incentives: Southern Georgian Bay Region, Ontario. Geographical Paper No. kk. 5 Policy and Planning Branch, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Ottawa: 1969. Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board. Chance and Challenge: A Concept  and Plan for the Development of the Lower Mainland Region. New Westminster: 1963. . The Dynamics of Industrial Land Settlement. New Westminster: 1961. 121 . Industrial Land Prospects in the Lower Mainland Region of B.C. New Westminster: 1961. . The Lower Mainland Looks Ahead. A Report and Outline Plan for the Development of the Lower Mainland Region of British Columbia. Rev. ed. New Westminster: 1952. . Manufacturing Industry in the Lower Mainland Region of British Columbia 1931 to 1976: A Study of Past Trends and Future Prospects. New Westminster! I960. . Official Regional Plan. New Westminster: August, 1966. Luttmerding, H.A., and Sprout, R.N. Soil ^Survey of Delta and Richmond  Municipalities. Preliminary Report No. 10 of the Lower Fraser Valley Soil Survey. Soils Division, British Columbia Department of Agriculture. Kelowna, British Columbia: 1969. Massachusetts. Department of Public Works. Social and Economic Impact  of Highways: Review of Important Works and Selected Bibliography. Boston, Mass.: 1961. New Orleans, La. City Planning Commission. A Summary Report of the New Orleans City Planning Commission's Evaluation of the Louisiana State  Highway Department's Recommendation for an Uptown Mississippi River  Bridge and Riverfront Expressway. 1971. Oakland, Calif. Planning Department. BART Impact: Five Oakland Station  Areas. A Report of the 701 Program of the City of Oakland. July, A Report on the Economic Outlook Conference. Sponsored by the Government of British Columbia. Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce. Terrace, December 10-11, 1969. Technical Committee for Metropolitan Highway Planning. Future Crossings  of the Fraser River. Vancouver: March, 1955« . A Study on Highway Planning for the Metropolitan Area of the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. Part I; Surveys. Vancouver: 1955-1956. . A Study on Highway Planning for Metropolitan Vancouver, British Columbia. Part II; Technical Report No. 1. Population and Land  Use Forecasts. Vancouver: 1958-1959. . A Study on Highway Planning for Metropolitan Vancouver, British Columbia. Part II; Technical Report No. 2. Analysis and Fore- cast of Motor Vehicle Travel. Vancouver: 195#-1959« 122 . A Study on Highway Planning for Metropolitan Vancouver, British Columbia. Technical Report No. 4: A Study on Arterial Street and  Highway Deficiencies for 1976. Vancouver: 1958_1959. . A Study on Highway Planning for Metropolitan Vancouver, British Columbia. Part II: Technical Report No. 6: The Testing and Eyal-ation of Alternative Arterial Highway Systems. Vancouver: 1958-1959. . A Study on Highway Planning for Metropolitan Vancouver, British Columbia. Part II: Technical Report No. 7« Stage Development. Vancouver: 1958-1959. . A Study of Highway Planning for Metropolitan Vancouver, British Columbia. Part II. Freeways with Rapid Transit. Vancouver: 1958-1959. United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Region X. Guidelines  for Preparation of Environmental Statements for Reviewing and  Commenting on Environmental Statements Prepared by Other Federal  Agencies. Seattle, Wash.: April, 1973. Vancouver, B.C. Department of Planning and Civic Development. Effects  of the Hudson Street Crossing on the Marpole Area. Vancouver: June, 1970. . Income, Employment and Establishment Characteristics. Infor-mation and Statistics #7* Vancouver: May, 1973. Reports Acres Western Ltd. Fraser Mill Land Use Study. Proposed for Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd. Vancouver: 1971. British Columbia. Association of Real Estate Boards. Comments on the Reports of the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board's "Industrial  Land Prospects" and "Dynamics of Industrial Land Settlement." Vancouver: 1962. Committee On Burrard Inlet Crossings. Report on Burrard Inlet Crossings. Vancouver: November, 1954. De Leuw Cather and Company of Canada Ltd. in association with Phillips, Barratt, Hillier, Jones and Partners and Blumenfeld, Hans. Report  on the Greater Vancouver Area Rapid Transit Study. Prepared for the Joint Transportation Committee, Greater Vancouver Regional District, and the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority. Vancouver: September, 1970. Employers Council of British Columbia. Limitations and Attractions of  British Columbia for Industry. Vancouver: 1969. 123 . Policies and P r i o r i t i e s ; A Perspective for the Industrial Development of British Columbia. Vancouver: 1969. "Fraser River Flood Control Program; Information Guide." Victoria, 1968. Lord, Ian James, and Miron, John Robert. Modelling the Impact of Proposed  Transportation Networks on the Toronto-Centered Region. Research Paper No. 45. Toronto: University of Toronto, Centre for Urban and Community Studies, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, July, 1971.« Riedesel, A. A Study of the Social, Economic and Environmental Impact of Highway Transportation F a c i l i t i e s Upon Urban Communities. Pullman, Wash.: Washington State University, Engineering Research Division, 1968. Schafer, Joseph L., and Thomas, Edwin N. Strategies for the Evaluation  of Alternative Transportation Plans. Part I, Research Report. Evanston, 111.: Northwestern University, Transportation Center, 1967. Stevens, Benjamin H., and Brackett, Carolyn A. Industrial Location: A  Review and Annotated Bibliography of Theoretical, Bnpirical and  Case Studies. Regional Science Research Institute. Bibliography Series Number Three. Philadelphia, Pa.: 1967. Swan Wooster Engineering. Preliminary Study North Fraser Harbour  Development Plan. Vancouver: August, 1966. Unpublished Material Drew, V.A. "A Study of Economic Trends and Developments within a One-Mile Radius of the Toll Plazas for the Oak Street Bridge, Deas Island Tunnel, and the Fraser Avenue Bridge Structures." Municipality of Richmond. December 31, 196l. Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t . " F i l e GV70-4" being material relating to a 1970 application by the Corporation of the Township of Rich-mond to the Greater Vancouver Regional District for an ammendment to the Regional Plan. . " F i l e GV72-7," being material relating to a 1972 application by the Corporation of the Township of Richmond to the Greater Vancouver Regional Dis t r i c t for an ammendment to the Regional Plan. Hodge, Gerald, and Robinson, Ira M. "Jobs, People and Transportation: Their Role i n Metropolitan Physical Development." Vancouver: February, i960. 12k Jackson, John N. "The Impact of Highway Development on Land Use: A Study of Selected Localities in the Greater Vancouver Area." Research Project Report No. 1. Vancouver: University of British Columbia, Community and Regional Planning, June, 1963. Kerr, William. Director of Planning, Municipality of Richmond, British Columbia. "Brief Presented to GVRD Board of Directors Public Hearing, Town and Country, Delta, September 20, 1973." (Mimeographed.) Lilley, George. "Transportation and Plant Location." A Paper Submitted as Examination Number Five for Membership in the American Society Of Traffic and Transportation. Wilmington, Delaware: June, 1956. (Mimeographed.) Mutter, Roy James. "The Potential Role of Suburban Mini Industrial Estates: A Case Study of the Coquitlam Area." Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of British Columbia, 1969. "Report of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Policy Committee." Vancouver: October, 1973. Shanks, Gordon Ross. "The Role of Perception in Flood Plain Management." Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of British Columbia, 1972. Steed, Guy P.F. "Intrametropolitan Manufacturing. Spacial Form and Location Dynamics in Greater Vancouver." (Mimeographed, n.d.) Stefaniak, Norbert, Jr. "Locational Characteristics of Milwaukee County Manufacturing Plants and Their Relation to Land Use Planning." Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, I960. "Submission of the Dominion Construction Company Limited to the Greater Vancouver Regional District Regarding Exemption from a Proposed Secondary Reserve, Under By-Law 120 for All of Section 32, Block 5 North, Range 5 West, N.W.D. (Richmond, British Columbia)." September 26, 1973. 125 Appendix A Standard Industrial Classification Code Number Description 8 Quaries and sand pits 10 Food and beverage 16 Rubber and plastics 17 Leather 18 Textile 23 Knitting 24 Clothing 25 Wood industry 26 Furniture 27 Paper 28 Printing 29 Primary metals 30 Metal fabrication 31 Machinery 32 Transport equipment 33 Electrical products 35 Non-metalic minerals 36 Petroleum 37 Chemicals 39 Miscellaneous industries 50 Transportation and communication u t i l i t i 52, 61, 62 Storage and wholesaling APPENDIX B ;1 ANNUAL INDUSTRIAL LAND CONSUMPTION BY ZONE AND SIC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 10 0 . 0 0 . 4 3 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 16 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 0 0 . 2 9 0 .0 17 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 18 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 21 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 23 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 24 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 25 0 . 0 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.19 26 0 . 0 0 . 2 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 6 0 . 0 27 0 . 0 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 .0 28 0 . 2 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 29 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 30 0 . 0 0 . 5 6 0 . 8 5 1.19 0 . 0 2 . 0 7 0 . 0 31 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 32 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 12 .49 0 . 8 0 0 . 0 33 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 35 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 18 36 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 37 0 . 0 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 39 0 . 0 7 0 .43 0 . 0 7 3 . 5 5 0 . 0 0 . 2 1 0 .0 50 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 52 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 61 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 62 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 TOTAL 0 . 2 7 1.91 1.37 5 . 7 5 12 .63 3 . 5 9 1.37 1960 INDUSTRIAL ZONES 8 . 9 10 11 12 13 1A 15 16 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 4 2 . 0 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 7 .50 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 2 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0  .  .  .  .  .  0 . 0 2 . 3 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 •— •  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 t/1 „ A n n " " " " . - , « ~ ~~ ~ ~ 0 . 0 5 . 5 1 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 9 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 0 0 3 .90 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 fV> 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . . 0 . 0 0 . 0 ON 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 0 0 8 .97 2 . 0 4 0 . 0 0 .0 2 . 2 0 3 .90 7 . 5 0 0 . 5 1 17 18 1 9 20 21 2 2 23 2h 25 2 6 2 7 28 29 30 31 32 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 6 . 0 1 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 6 . 0 1 10 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 . 0 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 8 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .98 6 .77 16 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 5 0 . 2 7 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 .70 17 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 9 18 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 21 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 23 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 24 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 3 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 1 3 25 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .86 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 9 2 . 6 0 26 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .05 0 . 0 0 . 4 1 27 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 7 . 9 0 28 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .18 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 7 9 29 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 O.O 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 0 30 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .66 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .35 8 .25 31 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 0 32 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 9 . 3 1 33 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 35 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 1.38 8 . 4 0 36 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 37 1.82 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 1 8 O.O 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 1 3 i 39 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 4 . 5 9 50 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 j 52 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 i 61 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 62 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 TOTAL 1.85 0 . 0 3 . 0 3 0 . 0 0 . 2 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 8 1 0 . 6 2 6 . 3 2 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.79 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 2 . 6 0 71 .48 TOTAL FOR YEAR* 7 1 . 4 8 ' APPENDIX B=1 ANNUAL INDUSTRIAL LAND CONSUMPTION BY ZONE AND SIC in 8 10 16 17 18 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 39 50 52 61 62 TOTAL 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1.70 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 6 9 0 . 6 7 0 .38 0 . 1 7 0 . 0 1.75 0 . 4 2 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 6 . 2 5 3 0 . 0 0 . 3 4 0 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 . 2 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.24 0 . 0 0 . 1 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 3 6 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 , 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 7 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 9 0 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 4 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 2 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 . 2 0 INDUSTRIAL 7 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 7 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 o . o 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.00 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 , 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.73 0 . 0 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 23 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 10 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 9 0 16 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 17 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 18 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 21 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 23 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 24 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 25 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 26 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .08 0 . 0 0 . 0 27 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 28 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 29 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 30 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 31 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 32 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 33 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 35 0 . 0 4 . 2 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 36 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 37 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 39 0 . 1 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 50 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 52 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 61 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 62 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 TOTAL 0 . 1 5 5 4 . 2 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 4 6 0 . 0 2 . 9 0 TOTAL FDR YEAR» 1 1 6 . 0 0 2k 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 b.o 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 5 9 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 18 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 ZONES 10 0 . 0 0 .05 2 . 6 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 25 0 . 0 0 .06 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.00 0 . 0 0 .0 8 . 7 1 26 0 . 0 4 . 2 9 0 . 6 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 .67 0 . 0 . 0 .05 0 . 0 6 . 0 1 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 4 . 6T 11 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 27 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 12 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 1.00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 1.00 28 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 9 0 .15 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 2 4 13 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 29 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 3 2 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 3 0 0 . 0 0 . 3 2 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.13 0 . 0 9 .98 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 1.00 0 .18 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 11 .16 30 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 1.38 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.38 .15 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 31 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.01 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .82 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.83 16 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 32 0 . 0 2 . 5 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 ' 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 7 6 0 . 0 2 2 . 0 0 3 .45 0 . 0 0 .40 -0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 1 3 .82 4 . 6 0 0 . 5 9 0 . 3 6 1.09 9 . 5 1 1.66 5 . 5 0 0 . 0 4 . 3 0 0 . 0 5 3 . 1 1 0 . 2 8 0 . 0 5 . 1 2 0 . 0 0 . 0 116 .00 1961 ^ 3 APPENDIX B ;1 ANNUAL INDUSTRIAL LAND CONSUMPTION BY ZONE AND SIC e 10 16 17 18 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 39 50 52 61 62 TOTAL 8 10 16 17 18 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 39 50 52 61 62 TOTAL TOTAL i 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 7 17 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 1 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 2 3 J 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 5 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 0 . 14 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.86 3 . 9 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 6 . 5 7 18 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 FOR YEAR" 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 16 0 . 0 0 . 0 7 0 . 1 2 0 . 1 2 0 . 0 0 . 2 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 9 9 19 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 6 1 . 9 8 u 0 . 0 0 . 4 2 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 14 0 . 1 3 0 . 2 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 4 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.38 20 o.o 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 2 . 7 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 2 . 7 9 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 3 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 5 4 21 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0> 0 . 0 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 0 . 1 8 0 . 0 0 . 1 3 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 6 3 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 6 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 P.77 1.85 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 . 5 1 22 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 INDUSTRIAL 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .03 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .03 23 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 . 7 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 . 7 3 2A 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 5 9 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 0. 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 . 0 . ZONES 10 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 d.o 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 25 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 d.o 0 . 0 0 . 0 d.o 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 d.o 0 . 0 26 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 d.o 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 11 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 27 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 o.o 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 12 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 28 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 13 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 5 29 0 . 0 2 . 0 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 0 . 6 7 0 . 0 0 . 1 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 9 0 u 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 5 .00 30 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 5 0 . 0 1.50 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 4 . 5 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 6 . 0 0 31 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 16 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .50 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 5 0 32 0 . 0 11 .58 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 3 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .62 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 12 .50 1962 0 . 0 2 1 . 3 0 0 . 9 8 0 . 0 0 . 1 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 3 0 7 . 6 0 0 . 4 0 0 .12 0 . 9 1 0 . 0 0 . 7 9 0 . 6 0 1.21 0 . 8 4 3 .84 3 .90 6 . 0 7 12 .95 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 6 1 . 9 8 ro . CO APPENDIX B ;1 ANNUAL INDUSTRIAL LAND CONSUMPTION BY ZONE AND SIC INDUSTRIAL ZONES o in TOTAL 0 . 0 7 1.64 0 . 6 2 1 .81 1.54 1 4 . 4 1 1 0 . 0 9 4 . 0 0 1.42 7 . 4 7 8 0 . 0 10 0 . 0 16 0 . 0 17 0 . 0 18. 0 . 0 21 0 . 0 23 0 . 0 24 0 . 0 25 0 . 0 26 0 . 0 27 0 . 0 28 0 . 0 7 29 0 . 0 30 0 . 0 31 0 . 0 32 0 . 0 33 0 . 0 35 0 . 0 36 0 . 0 37 0 . 0 39 0 . 0 50 0 . 0 52 0 . 0 61 0 . 0 62 0 . 0 V 8 0 . 0 10 0 . 0 16 0 . 0 17 0 . 0 18 0 . 0 21 0 . 0 23 0 . 0 24 0 . 0 25 0 . 0 26 0 . 0 27 0 . 0 28 0 . 0 29 0 . 0 30 0 . 0 31 0 . 0 32 0 . 0 33 0 . 0 35 0 . 0 36 0 . 0 37 0 . 0 39 0 . 0 50 0 . 0 52 0 . 0 61 0 . 0 62 0 . 0 TOTAL 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 2 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 5 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 7 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 0 . 1 4 0 . 3 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 3 3 0 . 3 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 3 0 . 0 0 . 18 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 9 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 .11 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 8 . 5 0 0 . 9 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 , 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 3 7 0 . 3 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 3 0 . 0 2 . 9 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 7 .09 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.00 0 . 0 2 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 4 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 1.42 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 10 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 7 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 18 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 19 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 20 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 21 0 . 0 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 3 0 . 0 . 1 4 .17 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 6 5 0 . 0 . 0  0  0  2 2 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.80 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 .80 23 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 . 0 0 2k 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 4 . 0  0  0 . 0  0  26 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 5 . 7 7 0 . 0 0 . 7 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 06 0 13 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 d.o 4 . 0 0 1 6 . 7 5 11 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 27 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 12 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 8 .99 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 8 .99 28 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 13 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 4 1 29 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 5 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 5 0 \k 0 .0 0 .0 3 .94 0 . 0 0 .46 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 5 .53 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 4 . 8 2 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 14.75 30 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .08 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 8 15 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.35 0 . 0 o.d 1.35 31 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 16 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 9 0 0 . 8 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.79 32 0 . 0 0 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 8 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 2 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 o.d 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.06 0 . 0 2 . 1 3 4 . 2 8 0 . 0 1.64 0 . 0 ' 0 . 1 4 0 . 8 0 3 8 . 5 9 6 . 5 5 0 . 7 9 0 . 4 5 8 .99 5 . 7 5 0 . 6 6 1.64 1 .91 5 . 1 4 0 . 0 4 . 8 8 4 . 2 8 0 . 0 11 .78 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 4 0 1963 NO TOTAL FOR YEAR" 1 0 0 . 4 0 APPENDIX B'-i ANNUAL INDUSTRIAL LAND CONSUMPTION BY ZONE AND SIC 1964 •INDUSTRIAL ZONES 1 2 i 3 . U 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 IU 15 16 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 10 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 1 . 0 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 16 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 17 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 18 0 . 2 1 0 .07 0 . 0 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 21 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 23 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 24 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 4 0 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 25 0 . 0 0 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 0 . 6 2 0 . 0 2 . 4 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 26 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.50 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.30 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 27 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 4 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 . 1 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 28 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 0 . 1 9 0 . 0 6 4 . 2 6 0 . 2 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 29 0 . 0 0 .07 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 y 30 0 . 1 0 0 . 3 9 0 . 5 3 0 . 0 0 . 5 4 0 . 0 4 . 5 1 0 . 0 0 . 1 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 i n 31 0 . 0 0 . 0 6 0 . 2 6 2 8 . 5 9 0 . 0 0 . 1 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 4 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 32 0 . 0 0 . 1 1 0 . 4 8 0 .0 0 . 0 1.72 0 .22 0 . 0 0 .14 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 5 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 33 0 . 0 0 . 1 4 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 35 0 . 0 0 .28 0 . 0 0 . 1 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 36 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 37 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 3 9 0 . 1 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .92 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 6 6 0 . 0 t_i 39 0 . 0 0 . 1 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 V> 50 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 Q 52 0 . 0 0 . 6 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.06 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 61 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 62 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 TOTAL 0 . 3 1 2 . 1 1 2 . 0 9 3 4 . 8 8 4 . 9 4 3 .95 6 . 9 5 2 . 4 5 0 . 8 0 32 .35 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 5 0 . 0 0 . 6 6 0 .0 * \-17 18 19 20 21 22 2 3 2U 2 5 25 27 2ft 29 30 31 32 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 10 0 . 0 0 . 0 4 2 . 3 2 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.00 0 .07 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 1 6 0 .0 0 . 0 3 .62 7 8 . 4 1 16 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 6 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 6 .01 17 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .03 18 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 4 . 9 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 .31 21 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 23 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 ' 0 .0 24 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.18 25 0 . 1 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 .96 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 7.46 26 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2.69 27 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 4 . 3 1 28 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 0 5 .12 29 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .21 30 1 .00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .06 0 . 0 0 . 0 7 .30 31 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 6 0 . 3 2 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 30.15 32 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3.13 33 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .10 2.24 35 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .99 36 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 37 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 2 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3.24 39 2 . 0 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 .73 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 .91 50 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 ' 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 52 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.66 61 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 62 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 TOTAL 3 . 2 1 0 . 0 4 2 . 3 2 0 . 0 5 . 6 2 0 . 0 2 . 0 0 1 .00 0 .07 1 3 . 7 3 0 . 0 0 . 2 6 0 . 6 2 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 3 .92 164.55 TOTAL FOR YEAR- 1 6 4 . 5 5 APPENDIX B ;1 ANNUAL INDUSTRIAL LAND CONSUMPTION BY ZONE AND SIC INDUSTRIAL ZONES 8 9 10 11 12 13 14" 15 16 0 . 0 0 . 0 O.O 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 1 2 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1965 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 12 .00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.10 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 3 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 y 30 0 . 0 0 . 6 8 0 . 0 2 . 1 0 0 . 0 3 . 0 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 5 0 1.54 0 . 0 0 . 0 LO 31 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.20 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 . 0 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 5 1 2 .12 5 .00 0 .0 2 . 5 0 1.54 2 . 3 0 12 .00 23 2U 2 5 2 5 2 7 2 8 29 3 0 31. 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 d . o 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 - 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 o . o d . o 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 9 .93 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 3 2 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 9 0 .0 1.20 0 .0 0 . 1 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 1.55 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 1 8 10 .07 1.20 0 . 0 2 . 4 3 0 . 0 0 .0 TOTAL FOR YEAR* 1 0 2 . 8 7 1 2 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 10 0 . 0 0 . 9 6 16 0 . 0 0 . 0 17 0 . 0 0 . 0 18 0 . 0 0 . 0 21 0 . 0 0 . 0 23 0 . 0 0 . 0 24 0 . 0 0 . 0 25 0 . 0 5 . 0 0 26 0 . 0 0 . 2 8 27 0 . 0 0 . 0 28 0 . 1 2 2 . 8 5 29 0 . 0 0 . 0 32 0 . 0 0 . 3 7 33 0 . 0 0 . 0 35 0 . 0 0 . 2 8 36 0 . 0 0 . 0 37 0 . 0 0 . 0 39 0 . 0 0 . 0 50 0 . 0 0 . 0 52 0 . 0 0 . 7 0 61 0 . 0 0 . 0 62 0 . 0 0 . 0 TOTAL 0 . 1 2 1 1 . 1 2 17 • 18 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 10 0 . 4 3 0 . 0 16 0 . 0 0 . 0 17 0 . 0 0 . 0 IB 0 . 0 0 . 0 21 0 . 0 0 . 0 23 0 . 0 0 . 0 24 0 . 0 0 . 0 25 4 . 0 0 0 . 0 26 0 . 0 0 . 0 27 0 . 0 0 . 0 28 0 . 0 0 . 0 29 0 . 0 0 . 0 30 0 . 6 6 0 . 0 31 0 . 0 0 . 0 32 0 . 0 0 . 0 33 0 . 0 0 . 0 35 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 36 0 . 0 0 . 0 37 0 . 0 0 . 0 39 0 . 0 0 . 0 50 0 . 0 0 . 0 52 0 . 0 0 . 0 61 0 . 0 0 . 0 62 0 . 0 0 . 0 TOTAL 5 .12 0 . 0 3 k 5 6 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 . 1 7 0 . 4 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 .03 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 4 0 0 . 0 0 . 4 8 2 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 6 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 7 0 . 0 0 . 4 2 0 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 7 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 5 0 . 0 0 . 2 7 • 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 0 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 ,0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.23 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 6 . 9 8 5 . 0 9 0 . 5 5 6 . 0 2 5 .03 19 20 21 2 2,_ 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.25 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 o . d O.O 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 o .o . 0 . 0 1.60 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 12 .78 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 14 .65 0 . 0 1.60 32 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 9 8 . 3 0 0 . 0 5 . 4 3 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 0 . 14 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 4 5 .69 3 9 . 9 5 0 . 0 1.12 0 . 0 1.38 0 . 0 3 . 5 0 0 . 0 0 .88 0 . 0 13 .76 0 . 0 3 . 1 1 0 . 6 6 19 .54 0 . 0 0 . 5 2 0 . 0 2 . 3 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 4 4 0 . 2 4 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 1.93 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 6 . 7 4 102 .87 APPENDIX B ; 1 ANNUAL INDUSTRIAL LAND CONSUMPTION BY ZONE AND SIC o 1 8 0 . 0 10 0 . 0 16 0 . 0 17 0 . 0 18 0 . 0 21 0 . 0 23 0 . 0 24 0 . 0 25 0 . 0 26 0 . 0 27 0 . 0 28 0 . 0 29 0 . 0 30 0 . 0 31 0 . 0 32 0 . 0 33 0 . 0 35 0 . 0 36 0 . 0 37 0 . 0 39 0 . 0 50 0 . 0 52 0 . 2 1 61 0 . 0 62 0 . 0 TOTAL 0 . 2 1 17. 8 0 . 0 10 0 . 0 16 0 . 0 17 0 . 0 18 0 . 0 21 0 . 0 23 0 . 0 24 0 . 0 25 0 . 0 26 0 . 0 27 0 . 0 28 0 . 0 29 0 . 0 30 0 . 0 31 0 . 0 32 0 . 0 33 0 . 0 35 0 . 0 36 0 . 0 37 0 . 0 39 0 . 0 8 50 0 . 0 52 0 . 0 61 0 . 0 62 0 . 0 TOTAL 0 . 0 8 TOTAL FOR YE 2 o . o 0 . 14 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 .61 0 . 12 0 . 0 0 . 2 3 0 . 2 0 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 3 6 ' 18 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 O.O 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 3 . 18 0 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 . 5 7 19 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 o.o '• 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 6 2 . 2 1 . M 5 6 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 8 0 4 . 5 0 0 . 3 3 0 . 0 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 0 . 2 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 3 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 4 . 2 0 0 . 2 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 9 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.82 4 . 5 0 1.15 5 .17 20 •• 21 22 23 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 O.O 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 4 6 4 . 9 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 4 9 0 . 0 1.60 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 7 1.09 4 . 9 6 1.60 INDUSTRIAL o . o 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 6 . 1 6 0 . 0 8 . 9 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 7 . 1 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 17 2 2 . 2 6 ZONES 9 10 11 12 1 3 \u 1 5 16 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 OiO 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 o:o 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 O'iO 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 9 8 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 7 0 . 0 18.83 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 0 0 .0 0 . 0 2 6 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 13 .52 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .40 0 . 1 2 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 o ; o 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 9 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.59 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 1 6 1 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 o . o • 0 . 0 16 .83 1 1 . 9 0 18.83 0 .40 3 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 6 . 0 0 2 k 25 26 27 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 1 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 1.20 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .08 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.20 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 .67 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 5 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 7 2 0 . 1 3 3 .84 2 . 4 0 2 ft o .o 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 29 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 8 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 3 2 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 .13 30, 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 31 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 ' 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 32 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 9 . 2 7 0 . 0 2 . 0 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 0 . 7 1 14.85 0 . 0 0 . 4 5 0 . 0 9 . 3 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 3 0 . 0 2 . 3 8 0 . 0 7 7 . 9 4 0 . 0 7 4 . 4 0 0 . 0 17.98 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 9 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 9 . 6 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 12 .68 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 7 8 162 .21 1966 APPENDIX B ;1 ANNUAL INDUSTRIAL LAND CONSUMPTION BY ZONE AND SIC y 1 2 3 u 5 6 e 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 10 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 16 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 4 6 0 . 0 17 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 18 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 21 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 23 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 24 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 25 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 26 0 . 0 0 . 19 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 27 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 28 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 0 . 1 5 29 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 30 0 . 0 0 .42 0 . 0 0 . 5 4 0 . 0 0 . 1 3 31 0 . 0 0 .28 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 32 0 . 0 0 . 13 0 . 0 0 . 2 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 33 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 35 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 36 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 37 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 39 0 . 0 0 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 50 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 52 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 4 8 0 . 0 61 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 62 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 TOTAL 0 . 0 1.16 0 . 5 2 1.08 2 . 9 4 0 . 2 8 INDUSTRIAL 8 10 16 17 18 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 39 50 52 61 62 TOTAL TOTAL 17 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 16 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 FOR YEAR" 19 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2.00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 0 0 9 7 . 8 6 20 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 6 . 0 7 21 0 . 0 1.92 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 2 9 2 4 . 6 7 0 .14 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 9 . 0 9 22 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 3 . 9 2 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 . 9 2 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.32 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 13 0 0 4 . 4 5 23 o.o 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 . 6 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 . 6 9 2U 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.00 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.60 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 6 0 25 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 ZONE S. 10 0 .0 0 . 0 9 .09 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .48 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 9 .57 26 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 .67 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 0 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 .67 11 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 .00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 2 . 1 1 27 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.20 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 2 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 . 4 0 12 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .07 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .07 26 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 13 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 5 9 0 . 0 0 . 3 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.16 29 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 16. 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 2 . 5 0 3 .00 0 . 0 0 .67 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 6 . 1 7 30 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 15 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 9 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 1 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 11 .10 31 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 , 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 16 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 2 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 0 0 32 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 2.19 0 . 0 12.75 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 . 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .06 0 . 0 9 .23 0 . 0 2 .46 0 . 0 3.67 0 .17 1.08 0 , 0 4 .26 0.0 8.S6 0 . 0 5 .89 0 . 0 31.19 0 . 0 5 .91 0 . 0 0 .07 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 2 . 1 1 0 . 0 0 .21 0 . 0 O.O 2 . 6 1 8 .22 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 2 . 7 8 97 .86 APPENDIX B:1 ANNUAL INDUSTRIAL LAND CONSUMPTION BY ZONE AND SIC INDUSTRIAL ZONES 1 . 2 3 . <4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 10 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 8 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 .37 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 16 0 . 0 g 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 17 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 18 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 21 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 23 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 24 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 25 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 0 4 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 8 .40 26 0 . 0 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 1 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 27 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 28 0 . 2 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 7 6 0 . 0 0 . 2 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 29 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 7 2 . 0 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 2 .65 0 . 0 30 0 . 0 0 .27 0 . 1 7 0 . 6 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.08 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .07 0 . 0 31 0 . 0 0 .37 0 . 1 3 6 . 8 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 2 . 0 0 0 . 0 32 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 2 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 0 5 33 0 . 0 0 .28 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.92 0.13 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .10 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 35 0 . 0 0 . 3 9 0 . 0 0 . 3 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.93 0 . 0 9 .64 0 . 0 36 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 37 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 14 2 . 0 0 0 . 9 1 0 . 9 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 39 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 50 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.00 4 . 7 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 52 0 . 0 0 . 3 4 0 . 0 3 .02 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 61 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 62 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 TOTAL 0 . 2 1 1.71 0 . 8 7 1 1 . 6 7 3 . 9 9 6 . 4 2 1.65 2 . 0 4 2 . 0 8 9 .19 0 . 0 14 .36 10 .45 8 10 16 17 18 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 39 50 52 61 62 TOTAL TOTAL 17 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 18 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 7 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 7 0 FOR YEAR* 19 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 8 7 . 9 9 20 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 21 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.19 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.19 0 . 0 0 . 7 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 6 2 5 5 . 0 0 1 3 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 5 . 0 0 1 3 3 . 7 3 22 o.o 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 3 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 8 5 23 o.o 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2U 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 25 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 25 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .85 0 . 0 0 .10 0 . 0 2 .38 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 6 .80 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 10 .13 27 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 8 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 8 .00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 8 7 28 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .15 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .15 29 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 0 0 . 0 2 . 0 6 0 . 0 0 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 4 0 1U -0 . 0 0 .0 2 .37 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 CO 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 2 .37 30 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .09 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .09 15 0 . 0 1.70 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 1.20 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 9 0 31 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 16 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 32 0 . 0 0 . 2 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.88 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 1 6 0.0 7.19 5.24 0.0 0 .10 0 .0 0.0 0 .31 13.85 8.74 1.20 2.28 4 .79 5.64 9 .31 6 .10 2.43 14.99 0 .0 10.81 0.86 190.79 3.36 0 .0 0 .0 287.99 APPENDIX B ;1 ANNUAL INDUSTRIAL LAND CONSUMPTION BY ZONE AND SIC to s 10 16 , 17 18 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 39 50 52 61 62 TOTAL 8 10 16 17 18 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 39 50 52 61 62 TOTAL TOTAL 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 14 17 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.75 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 .91 FOR YEAR" 2-0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.50 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .65 0 .14 0 .14 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 5 3 18 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 5 9 19 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 3 0 . 1 6 u 5 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 , 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 4 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .64 0 . 0 5 . 2 8 0 .0 0 . 0 5 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 6 0 .13 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 7 1 .97 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 4 7 0 . 2 3 0 . 0 3 . 6 2 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 8 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 o.-o 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 2 0 . 0 0 . 2 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.19 0 . 2 2 2 3 . 6 7 20 21 22 .. 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 5 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 8 9 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .14 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 3 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 4 2 . 0 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 INDUSTRIAL 7 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 6 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 .28 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 7 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 5 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 . 0 9 0 . 0 3 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 .00 , 2 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.60 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.60 24 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 Z O N E S 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 4 . 4 9 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 2 . 5 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 25 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 10 11 12 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .14 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .13 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 4 . 5 2 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .05 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .46 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 30 .29 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 .00 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 33 .34 4 . 5 2 0 .73 2 6 27 28 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 .67 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.20 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0, 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 .67 1.20 0 . 0 13 o . o 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 6 . 3 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 6 . 3 9 29 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 o . o 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 3 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 9 2 14 0 .0 0 .0 1.00 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 2 .07 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 3 .07 30-0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .75 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 5 .00 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 5 .75 1 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.10 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 18 .20 0 .0 0 . 0 19 .35 31 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 16 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 32 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.38 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 , 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.49 0 .0 0 .15 3.10 0 .13 4 . 7 1 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 23.47 9 .56 0.0 5 .85 0 .13 12.65 1.20 6 .17 3 .51 0 .09 0 .0 5.18 1.27. 0 .0 50 .99 2 .00 0 .0 130.16 1969 i .APPENDIX B ; 1 ANNUAL INDUSTRIAL LAND CONSUMPTION BY ZONE AND SIC INDUSTRIAL ZONES \ i> 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1U 15 16 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 ' 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 4 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 1 2 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 o.o o.o o.o o.o o.o o.o o.o o.o o.o o.o o.o o.o o.o 1Q7n 0 . 0 0 . 0 8 . 8 9 0 . 5 0 0 . 8 3 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 .93 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 J / U 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 1 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 y 30 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 3 6 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 0 . 3 6 5 . 4 3 0 . 0 1.50 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 .07 0 . 0 0 . 0 10 31 0 . 0 0 . 2 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 . 4 4 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 6 0 9 .26 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 .75 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 5 0 . 0 0 . 3 3 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . S*£ 1 2 3 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 10 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 1 16 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 17 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 18 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 21 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 23 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 24 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 6 0 25 0 . 0 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 26 0 . 0 0 . 19 0 . 0 27 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 28 0 . 2 3 0 . 3 2 0 . 0 29 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 .  32 0 . 0 0 . 14 0 . 1 4 33 0 . 0 0 . 4 2 0 . 4 8 35 0 . 0 6 . 0 0 0 . 0 36 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 37 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 6 39 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 50 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 52 0 . 0 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 61 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 62 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 TOTAL 0 . 2 3 7 . 4 1 1.69 17 . 18 19 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 10 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 16 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 17 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 18 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 21 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 23 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 24 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 25 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 26 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 27 0 . 8 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 28 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 29 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 30 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 31 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 32 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 33 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 35 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 36 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 37 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 39 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 50 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 52 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 61 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 62 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 TOTAL 1 . 2 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 2 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 1 .09 2 . 1 2 9 . 6 8 1.86 9 . 7 0 0 . 0 2 1 . 5 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 4 . 6 8 11.33 0 . 3 3 0 .0 .  .  .  0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  0 . 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 23 2U 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 2 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 9 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 . 1 5 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 TOTAL FOR YEAR" 1 1 3 . 3 6 20 21  2 5 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 14.52 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 .12 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 8 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 3 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 8 .23 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .60 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .13 14.35 0 . 0 0 . 3 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .17 1.17 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .95 0 . 0 0 . 5 8 0 . 0 0 .09 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.32 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 1 0 . 1 1 1.19 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.69 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 15 .01 0 . 0 0 . 7 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 4 .83 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 10.89 0 . 0 0 . 2 3 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 1 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 7 .13 0 . 0 0 . 3 4 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 19.82 26 .35 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.88 0 . 0 1.04 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 1.04 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.24 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 3 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 1.26 1.62 0 . 1 1 13 .03 0 . 0 0 .09 1.79 0 . 0 0 . 8 2 0 . 0 0 . 0 21 .38 113.36 : o> APPENDIX EM ANNUAL INDUSTRIAL LAND CONSUMPTION BY ZONE AND SIC 0 . 2 2 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 4 . 5 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 9 . 0 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 O 30 0 . 2 0 0 . 7 7 0 . 1 3 0 . 0 0 . 1 5 0 . 0 0 . 2 3 0 . 5 0 0 . 4 9 3 .07 LO 31 0 . 0 0 . 1 4 0 . 2 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 .00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 4 7 0 . 8 7 0 . 0 1.00 0 . 0 0 . 2 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 4 . 0 0 ' 1 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 6 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 8 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 3 2 . 3 6 0 . 0 2 . 9 2 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 3 2 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 2 3 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 10 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 9 4 16 0 . 0 7 0 .05 0 . 0 17 0 .0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 18 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 7 21 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 23 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 24 0 . 0 0 . 4 3 0 . 0 7 25 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 26 0 . 0 0 .92 0 . 0 27 0 . 0 0 .28 0 . 0 28 0 . 1 9 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 7 29 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0  . 2 0 . 7 7 . 1 3  .  . 1  . 3 32 0 . 0 0 .12 0 . 0 6 33 0 . 0 0 . 1 3 0 . 0 35 0 . 2 0 0 .25 0 . 0 36 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 37 0 . 0 0 .08 0 . 2 1 39 0 . 0 0 . 2 9 0 . 0 50 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 52 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 61 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 62 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 TOTAL 0 . 6 6 3 .55 1.78 17 18 19 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 10 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 16 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 17 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 18 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 21 0 . 0 0 . 8 0 0 . 0 23 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 24 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 25 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 26 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 27 0 . 8 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 28 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 29 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 30 7 . 9 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 31 0 . 0 1 8 . 5 7 0 . 0 32 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 0 0 33 0 . 1 2 0 . 0 0 . 0 35 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 36 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 37 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 39 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 50 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 52 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 61 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 62 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 TOTAL 9 . 2 8 19 .37 2 . 0 0 TOTAL FOR YEAR* 3 9 0 . 6 2 INDUSTRIAL Z O N E S U 5 6 7 8 . 9 10 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.22 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 8 0 . 6 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.92 0 . 0 0 . 4 1 0 .94 0 . 0 . t . v u u .u ^u.^v, u . u I.JI. 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 3 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .39 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 19/1  9 .  .  .  .  2 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 1 . 4 . 0 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 6 .  . 2 3 . 5 0 . 4 9 . 0 .  .  . 7 .  0 .  .  .   1.  .  . 6 .  .  .  . 3 . 6 .  . 0 .  .  0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 8 . 3 5 10 .83 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 8 0 1 5 . 9 8 2 4 . 3 8 5 . 8 9 11 12 13 H 1 5 16 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 4 . 2 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 12 .00 0 0 5 8 . 5 0 0 .0 0 0 1.52 .   3  .  .  .  .  0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .10 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 3 3 0 . 0 2 .24 1.41 1.05 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 15 .79 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 10 .25 5 .00 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .88 0 .0 4 .83 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 3 .10 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .18 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 .09 8 .50 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 4 2 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 14.24 17.26 6 4 . 5 5 6 5 . 8 9 11 .93 1.52 M 3 . 3 5 ,0 .0 0 . 0    0 . 0       i SJ 0 . 0 1.13 0 . 0 5 .83  4 0 . 0 0 1.32 0 . 0 0 . 0 .    0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 3 0 0 . 0   0 0 . 0 6 . 4 1 1.86 7 . 7 5 . 9 8 9 5 0 . 4 9 2 0 . 21 2 2 23 2k 2 5 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 o . o ra 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 0 . 4 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 5 9 0 . 0 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 8 .17 ^ 0 . 0 0 . 9 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.72 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 .87 0 . 0 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .36 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .07 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .80 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 OiO 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .50 0 . 0 0 . 8 0 0 . 3 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 9 .04 85 .47 ' 0 . 0 1.16 0 . 0 0 . 2 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 8 3 .67 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 7 .06 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.30 0 . 0 0 . 1 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 8 0 . 0 0 . 1 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 2 4 5 .95 f 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 9 .50 0 . 0 1.18 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.63 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .12 0 . 0 0 . 0 21 .12 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 .00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .50 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 9 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 43 .52 0 . 0 0 . 7 2 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 6 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 20 .65 0 . 0 1.76 1.07 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 9 .07 0 . 0 0 . 0 9 . 1 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 6 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 1.01 22 .29 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 ! 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 2 1 10.33 0 . 0 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 8 0 .05 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 3 1 3 .52 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 .35 0 . 0 6 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 4 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 82 .04 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 .27 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 4 8 . 5 9 < 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 .10 0 . 2 1 1 2 . 9 1 1 1 . 3 4 5 . 2 3 0 . 4 5 0 . 1 3 10 .36 13 .35 0 . 0 0 . 9 3 0 .12 0 . 0 1 0 . 8 1 3 9 0 . 6 3 APPENDIX B ;1 ANNUAL INDUSTRIAL LAND CONSUMPTION BY ZONE AND SIC 1 8 0 . 0 10 0 . 0 16 0 . 0 17 . 0 . 0 18 0 . 0 21 0 . 0 23 0 . 0 24 0 . 0 25 0 . 0 26 0 . 0 27 0 . 0 28 0 . 0 8 29 0 . 0 30 0 . 1 0 31 0 . 0 32 0 . 9 1 33 0 . 0 35 0 . 0 36 0 . 0 37 0 . 0 39 0 . 0 50 0 . 0 52 0 . 0 61 0 . 0 62 0 . 0 TOTAL 1.09 8 10 16 17 18 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 39 50 52 61 62 TOTAL TOTAL 2 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 10 0 . 15 0 . 14 0 . 4 9 0 . 0 4 . 1 2 0 . 6 3 0 00 0 0 0 28 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 1 . 1 1 18 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 17 , 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 5 5 2 . 0 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 1 5 5 2 . 0 3 FOR YEAR* 3 0 . 0 1.28 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 0 . 2 2 0 . 0 0 . 2 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 2 2 19 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 o.o-0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 4 3 3 3 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 3 . 4 3 272.70 u o.o 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 8 0 . 0 0 . 2 2 0 . 0 0 . 2 2 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 3 4 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 .10 20 • 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 14 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 . 9 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 4 . 1 3 21 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.74 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .32 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 0 . 4 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 6 0 .08 5 5 . 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 5 7 . 7 4 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 3 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 4 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 3 4 1.49 2 2 .' o.o 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 INTJUSTRTAL 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 .00 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 . 0 0 2 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 8 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 2 8 8 0 . 0 3 . 0 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 4 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 4 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.37 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 . 3 8 0 . 0 1 2 . 2 9 2k . 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 3 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 3 3 •9 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 2 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 4 . 7 ZONES 10 0 . 0 11 .93 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 4 .50 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.78 o.o 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 1.17 36 19.38 2 5 o.o 0 . 0 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 1 11 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.69 0 . 0 0 .0 2 . 6 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 9 . 1 0 0 . 0 13 .45 12 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 ' 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .56 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .56 13 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 9 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 9 1 1A 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 1 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 4 . 8 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.10 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.50 2 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 12 .00 0 . 0 0 . 0 : 2 1 . 4 0 16 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 .38 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 1.00 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 3 .38 ' 26 27 2 8 29 30 31 32 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 16 .30 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 6 . 8 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 , 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 7 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 14 .77 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .09 2 .88 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .25 4 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 .73 6 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 4 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .09 6 6 . 7 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 4 1.72 0 . 0 2 . 5 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 7 . 4 9 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .10 5 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.47 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 7 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 4 . 9 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.30 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 ' 8 8 . 0 0 0 . 0 1.07 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1.54 14 .02 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 4 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 ' 11 .77 6 . 0 1 3 .65 0 . 1 1 1.04 2 . 7 4 0 . 0 2 . 2 1 2 7 2 . 7 0 1972 APPENDIX B'2 TOTAL INDUSTRIAL LAND CONSUMPTION BY ZONE AND SIC to 8 10 16 1 7 18 2 1 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0 31 3 2 3 3 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 9 5 0 5 2 6 1 6 2 TOTAL B 10 16 1 7 18 2 1 23 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0 31 3 2 3 3 3 5 36 3 7 3 9 5 0 5 2 6 1 6 2 TOTAL TOTAL 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 0 . 2 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 . 4 6 0 . 0 0 . 9 1 0 . 0 7 0 . 2 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 1 0 . 0 6 . 2 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 . 5 8 2 0 . 0 3 . 2 3 0 . 7 1 0 . 0 0 . 2 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 6 6 7 . 7 2 4 . 2 8 0 . 9 1 4 . 4 8 0 . 2 7 9 . 8 1 2 . 8 0 1 . 0 1 5 . 9 7 9 . 7 9 3 . 9 0 0 . 1 5 1 . 2 9 0 . 0 2 . 1 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 9 . 4 3 3 0 . 0 1 1 . 7 9 0 . 5 6 0 . 0 0 . 4 3 0 . 0 0 . 14 2 . 0 6 0 . 0 0 . 3 9 0 . 1 2 1 . 0 2 0 . 4 2 2 . 7 4 1 . 0 6 1 . 4 8 0 . 8 1 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 1 . 2 4 0 . 3 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 6 . 0 0 . 0 2 4 . 7 3 17 . 0 . 0 0 . 4 3 0 . 0 6 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 1 . 3 7 0 . 0 1 . 6 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 1 . 5 1 5 2 . 0 . 0 3 1 8 . 0 . 4 5 0 . 2 8 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 . 8 2 5 0 . 2 . 6 7 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 . 0 0 3 5 . 1 9 1 2 8 . FOR YEAR» 18 o . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 19 0 . 0 4 5 . 3 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 0 0 0 . 0 2 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 4 3 3 3 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 31 8 2 . 7 8 2 0 7 2 . 1 1 5 6 . 0 4 . 6 5 3 . 1 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 6 . 4 2 4 . 2 6 0 . 2 1 1 . 6 7 0 . 0 7 1 2 . 4 9 3 . 2 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 7 6 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 7 . 6 0 0 . 0 0 . 3 0 4 0 . 8 6 21 . 0 . 0 3 . 2 8 3 . 4 1 0 . 0 7 1 2 . 9 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 3 2 2 . 8 8 2 . 7 9 0 . 0 1 . 1 3 0 . 0 9 5 . 3 7 3 . 0 7 3 9 . 4 4 2 . 3 0 0 . 5 9 0 . 0 0 . 6 3 2 . 1 6 5 5 . 0 0 1 8 5 . 0 5 0 . 0 6 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 3 6 6 8 . 4 9 2 7 1 . 8 8 h 0 . 0 2 . 2 5 1 . 7 4 0 . 2 9 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 8 3 1 . 5 3 2 . 8 1 4 . 5 1 1 . 1 0 0 . 6 6 4 . 8 7 3 6 . 6 4 0 . 7 0 0 . 8 3 0 . 6 7 0 . 0 1 . 2 3 3 . 9 6 3 . 3 5 4 . 2 5 1 . 3 2 0 . 0 7 3 . 6 3 20 o . o 0 . 2 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 0 . 1 1 1 2 . 7 9 6 0 . 0 3 . 1 7 1 . 1 8 0 . 0 5 . 2 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 6 . 3 2 7 . 1 3 0 . 6 9 1 . 1 8 2 . 1 8 8 . 3 0 1 . 1 1 6 . 9 8 4 . 1 0 7 . 9 2 0 . 0 1 . 9 4 0 . 7 9 0 . 0 6 . 5 1 0 . 0 0 . 3 4 8 5 . 1 2 22 0 . 0 0 . 4 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 . 6 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 2 0 0 . 0 4 . 4 3 1 . 0 7 9 . 16 0 . 0 2 . 1 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 9 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 6 . 0 2 7 o . 0 . 3 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 1 4 . 2 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 5 . 8 . 2 . 0 . 3 . 0 . 5 . 2 . 0 . 1 4 . 0 . 0 . 6 0 . INDUSTRIAL ZONES 8 9 10 o . o 1 0 . 0 4 2 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 6 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 . 5 6 6 1 . 7 4 0 . 0 1 3 . 8 7 5 1 1 3 . 1 7 10 0 . 0 0 0 0 10 5 2 31 0 18 0 8 . 9 9 0 . 0 9 . 5 1 7 . 9 3 3 . 4 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 . 9 4 2 . 5 3 0 . 0 0 . 5 2 1 . 9 8 9 . 0 9 0 . 9 7 4 . 7 0 2 1 . 7 7 5 . 6 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 8 1 0 . 8 4 4 . 5 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 8 3 3 . 3 8 0 . 0 1 . 6 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 4 . 5 0 o . o 0 . 0 4 . 5 0 2 . 2 6 5 . 5 7 0 . 0 5 . 0 5 5 . 8 5 2 . 2 4 0 .6 5 . 5 1 0 . 6 4 . 7 9 4 . 6 6 8 9 . 6 7 0 . 0 2 . 0 0 7 . 6 3 1 . 1 7 3 1 9 5 . 6 3 5 5 . 2 5 2 0 8 . 1 2 23 o . o 2 . 9 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 . 6 0 0 . 2 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 . 2 0 9 . 0 0 0 . 0 2 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 . 0 0 0 . 2 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 8 . 2 1 24 0 . 0 1 . 1 5 0 . 3 9 0 . 0 0 . 2 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 5 0 . 0 0 . 1 5 0 . 3 8 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 6 6 0 . 0 0 . 3 3 0 . 3 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 . 9 1 25 ' o . o 0 . 2 1 0 . 3 8 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 4 . 1 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 9 0 . 1 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 8 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 26 • 6 . 0 1 4 . 2 9 6 . 8 0 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 3 3 3 . 3 3 7 . 3 4 4 . 4 6 1 . 3 5 o . o 1 2 . 4 0 0 . 5 0 6 . 1 8 0 . 0 6 . 0 1 0 . 0 8 . 8 0 3 . 7 3 0 . 0 o . o o . o o . o 5 . 4 5 1 0 1 . 3 6 11 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 3 . 6 9 0 . 0 ' 0 . 0 7 . 2 9 0 . 0 2 1 . 0 7 0 . 0 5 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 9 . 1 0 0 . 0 5 8 . 1 5 27 0 . 0 0 . 5 9 , 6 . 9 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 2 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 . 2 0 4 . 5 2 0 . 1 0 3 . 7 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 . 2 1 5 . 2 7 0 . 0 3 7 . 8 6 12 13 14 15 0 . 0 0 . 0 o . o 0 . 0 4 . 2 3 0 . 0 9 . 9 8 3 . 2 0 0 . 14 0 . 0 7 . 3 1 5 . 9 0 0 . 1 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 4 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 7 7 . 5 7 5 . 5 3 1 4 . 6 0 0 . 4 6 0 . 0 2 . 0 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 9 . 8 0 0 . 1 0 0 . 5 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 1 . 6 4 0 . 2 0 3 . 5 0 1 . 8 3 1 . 4 8 3 3 . 9 2 1 1 . 6 1 4 . 1 0 3 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 5 . 7 9 1 . 2 0 1 0 . 6 5 8 . 0 2 9 . 9 3 0 . 0 1 . 3 4 0 . 0 4 . 8 3 0 . 0 5 1 0 . 2 0 5 . 5 1 3 . 9 0 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 5 5 . 0 0 4 . 0 9 0 . 0 ; o . o 0 . 1 8 0 . 0 , 0 . 0 o . o •:• 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 3 . 0 9 4 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 4 2 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 o . o 0 . 0 0 . 0 4 3 . 3 7 1 2 5 . 9 6 1 2 5 . 1 8 8 4 . 8 2 16 o . o 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 6 . 8 0 0 . 8 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 7 . 0 0 2 . 0 0 1 . 0 1 " 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 • 0 . 0 4 7 . 7 0 TOTAL 28 29 . 30 31 '32 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 6 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 . 7 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 9 . 2 2 1 9 6 . 7 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 9 . 8 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 6 0 . 6 7 0 . 0 0 . 4 2 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 0 . 9 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 . 8 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 4 . 0 5 0 . 0 2 . 4 3 0 . 0 1 . 0 1 1 9 . 7 2 2 7 6 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 . 6 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 0 . 2 6 4 6 . 2 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 1 . 6 5 0 . 1 1 0 . 6 7 0 . 7 5 0 . 0 1 . 2 8 3 2 . 1 5 0 . 0 0 . 3 2 0 . 0 o . o 0 . 0 3 6 . 2 7 0 . 0 9 3 . 7 9 0 . 2 7 0 . 0 0 . 5 8 2 5 2 , 9 8 0 . 4 1 2 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 3 ? 1 0 7 . 2 5 0 . 0 1 . 7 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 7 5 1 5 0 . 8 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 0 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 2 . 2 1 9 1 . 2 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 . 9 0 0 . 0 0 . 3 6 7 . 8 2 0 . 8 2 0 . 8 3 1 1 4 . 8 0 0 . 1 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 5 5 3 6 . 5 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 8 2 . 1 9 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 . 3 8 0 . 0 2 . 6 1 1 9 9 . 0 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 . 5 4 6 4 . 6 1 0 . 0 0 . 4 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 . 2 6 1 6 . 4 9 0 . 7 6 1 6 . 6 4 1 0 . 2 2 1 . 8 8 7 1 . 3 9 2 0 7 2 . 1 7 STOP 0 EXECUTION TERMINATED Appendix GT Annual Industrial Land Consumption "by Zone Zones Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 i960 .27 1.91 lo37 5.75 12.63 3.59 1.37 2.00 8.97 2.04 1961 6.25 1,24 .36 .90 3.20 1.73 1.32 8.71 1962 • 27 6.57 .99 1.38 .54 3.51 .03 5.73 1963 .07 1.64 .82 1.81 1.54 14.41 10.09 4.00 1.42 7.^7 1964 .31 2.11 2.09 34.88 4.94 3.95 6.95 2.45 .80 32.35 1965 .12 11.12 6.98 5.09 .55 6.02 5.03 .51 2.12 1966 .21 2.36 3.57 1.82 4.50 1.15 5.17 22.26 16.83 11.90 196? 1.16 .52 1.08 2.9** .28 4.45 5.69 2.60 9.57 1968 .21 1.71 .87 11.67 3.99 6.42 I.65 2.04 2,08 9.19 1969 .14 2.53 .59 1.19 .22 23.67 3.00 5.09 7.^7 33.34 1970 .23 7.41 I .69 1.09 2.12 9.68 1.86 9.70 21.56 1971 .66 3.55 1.78 6.41 1.86 7.75 15.98 24.38 5.89 50.49 1972 1.09 11.11 2.22 1.10 4.13 1.49 3.00 12.29 7.36 19.38 Total 1 3.58 59.43 24.73 73.63 40.86 85.12 60.31 95.63 55.25 208.12 Appendix C Annual Industrial Land Consumption by Zone Year 2 0 1 1 6 8 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 i960 2.20 3.90 7.50 .51 1.85 3.03 .20 1961 1.00 11.16 .15 54. a .46 1962 .15 5.00 6.00 .50 2.23 12.79 .63 1963 8.99 2.41 14.75 1.35 1.79 .65 1964 .25 .66 3.21 42.32 5.62 1965 5.00 2.50 1.54 2.30 12.00 5.12 14.65 1966 18.83 .40 30.31 26.00 .08 1 .17 1.09 1967 2.11 .07- 1.16 6.17 11.10 2.00 2.00 .07 29.09 1968 14.36 10.45 2.37 2.90 2.70 55.00 133.73 1969 4.52 .73 6.39 3.07 19.35 1.91 .14 2.08 1970 4.68 11.33 .33 1.21 .11 13.03 1971 14.24 17.26 64.55 65.89 11.93 1.52 9.28 19.37 2.00 .21 12.91 1972 13.45 .56 .91 21.40 3.38 10.15 52.03 33.43 57.74 Total 58.15 43.37 125.96 125.18 84.82 47.70 35.19 128.31 82.78 68/49 271.88 Appendix C Annual Industrial Land Consumption: by Zone Zones Tear r 22 23 24 25 26 2? 28 29 30 31 32 i960 .81 .62 6.32 1.79 .05 2.80 1961 2.90 .25 .15 14.67 .24 1.13 1.38 1.83 2,76 1962 .15 .06 .05 2.90 12.50 1963 1.80 3.00 4.00 16.75 .50 ,08 1,06 1964 2.00 1.00 .07 13.73 .26 .62 ,06 3.92 1965 1.60 .18 10.07 1.20 2,43 6.74 1966 4.96 . i . 6 o .72 «13 3.84 2.40 1.13 .78 1967 3.92 5.67 3.40 .03 2.78 1968 .85 10.13 10,87 .15 2,40 .09 2.16 1969 1.60 .10 3.67 1.20 .92 5.75 1.49 1970 3.15 .10 .09 1.79 .82 21. 38 1971 11.34 5.23 .45 .13 10.36 13.35 .93 .12 10,81 1972 .28 .33 .11 6.01 3.65 .11 1,04 2,74 2,21 Total 26.02 18.21 3.91 5.45 IOI.36 37.86 .76 16.64 10,22 1.88 71.39 Appendix D Total Land Consumption by SIC and Year in Acres Year 8 10 16 17 18 21 23 24 25 I960 6.01 6.77 3.70 .09 .13 2.60 1961 22.00 3.45 .40 .21 3.82 1962 21.30 .98 .17 .30 7.60 1963 2.13 4.28 1.64 .14 .80 38.59 1964 78.41 6.01 .03 5.31 .18 7.46 1965 8.30 5.43 .06 .14 .15 39.95 1966 9.27 2.03 .05 14.85 1967 2.19 12.75 .06 9.23 1968 7.19 5.24 .10 .31 13.85 1969 .15 3.10 .13 4.71 23.47 1970 14.52 2.12 8.23 .60 14.35 1971 8.17 3.87 .36 .07 .80 .50 85.47 1972 16.30 6.88 .20 .77 14.77 Total 6.01 196.70 59.84 .67 20.97 .80 .14 4.05 276,01 Appendix D Total Land Consumption by SIC and Year in Acres Year 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 I960 .41 7.90 .79 .20 8.25 .20 19.31 8.40 1961 4.6o .59 .36 1.09 9.51 1.66 5.50 4.30 1962 .40 .12 .91 .79 .60 1.21 .84 3.84 1963 6.55 .79 ^ 8.99 5.75 .66 1.64 1.91 5.14 1964 2.89 4.31 5.12 .21 7.30 30.15 3.13 2.24 .99 1965 1.12 1.38 3.50 .88 13.76 3.11 19.54 .52 2.38 1966 .45 9.30 .?3 2.38 77.94 k.ho 17.98 .90 196? 2.46 3.67 1.08 4.26 8.56 5.89 31.19 5.91 .07 1968 8.74 1.20 2.28 4.79 5.64 9.31 6.10 2.43 14.99 1969 9.56 5.85 .13 12.65 1.20 6.17 3.51 .09 1970 1.17 .95 1.32 .11 15.01 4.83 10.89 7.13 26.35 1971 7.06 1.30 5.95 9.50 21.12 43.52 20.65 9.07 22.29 1972 2.88 .14 4.31 3.73 66.70 1.72 7.49 5.24 1.47 Total 48.29 31.65 32.15 36.27 252.98 107.25 150.80 38.80 91.21 Appendix D Total Land Consumption by SIC and Year in Acres Year 36 37 39 50 51 61 62 I960 2.13 4.59 1961 53.11 .28 5.12 1962 3.90 6.07 12.95 1963 4.88 4.28 11.78 1964 3.24 5.91 1.66 1965 .44 .24 .05 1.93 1966 9.67 .08 12.68 1967 2.11 .21 8.22 1968 10.81 .86 190.79 3.36 1969 5.18 1.27 52.99 1970 1.88 1.04 2.86 1971 10.33 3.52 3.35 133.73 1972 4.95 1.30 88.00 45.70 Total 3.90 114.80 36.53 282.19 280.18 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0093261/manifest

Comment

Related Items