Provincial Agricultural Land Commission Annual Report for the year ended 31 March 1980 4333 Ledger Avenue Burnaby, B.C. V5G 3T3 The Honourable Henry P. Bell-Irving, D.S.O., O.B.E., E.D. Lieutenant Governor of the Province of British Columbia May It Please Your Honour: Herewith I beg respectfully to submit the Annual Report and Financial Statement of the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission for the year ended 31 March 1980. James J. Hewitt Minister of Agriculture The Honourable James J. Hewitt Minister of Agriculture Parliament Buildings Victoria, B.C. Dear Mr. Minister: On behalf of the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission and pursuant to section 28 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act, Revised Statutes, 1979,1 respectfully submit the Annual Report and Financial Statement of the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission for the year ended 31 March 1980. PROVINCIAL AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION 31 March 1980 CLARKE, Mills F., Nanaimo, B.C.—Chairman —Former Director, Agriculture Canada Research Station, Agassiz, CLARIDGE, Allan. ( —Orchardist CORNWALL, C.F. (Ted). Williams Lake, B.C.—Member —Former District Agriculturist, B.C. Ministry of Agriculture —Professional Agrologist and Member of the Appraisal Institute of Canada FRAMST, C.E. (Ellie). Cecil Lake, B.C.—Member —Retired farmer (grain and forage seeds) —Peace River-Liard Regional District Board Member for 12 years, Chairman for 7 years —Member of the Farm Credit Corporation Appeal Board REDEL, Walter. Victoria, B.C.—Member —Former Director of Lands B.C. Ministry of Lands, Parks and ROGERS, John E. White Rock, B.C.—Member —Former Manager of the White Rock Chamber of Commerce ROGERS, Joseph, A. Penticton, B.C.—Member —Former President of B.C. Livestock Producers Co-operative Association —Member and Project Officer of B.C. Beef Industry Development Committt STAFF, 31 MARCH 1980 MANAGEMENT Gordon D. Gram — Team Leader — Administration and Land Co-ordinator Jim P. Plotnikoff — Team Leader — Technical Unit TECHNICAL UNIT—APPLICATION PROCESSING Shirley Brightman David Butler Lenora Melville Holger Burke Bill Gilmore Tracy Olsen Hope V. Burns Everett Lew Jane Perch SOIL CONSERVATION ACT AND ENFORCEMENT Kirk Miller Brian French SPECIAL PROJECTS AND ALR REVIEWS Sue Austen J. Jay Simons CONSULTANTS Julie Glover Terence Lewis Joan Sawicki CLERICAL UNIT Lynda Congram Kay Johnson Trudy Reeves Verona Hooson Rose Langston Jean Sherwood Denise Jankovich Patricia Redman CONTENTS Introduction Chairman's Comments General Overview of the Commission's Responsibilities and Activities Interactions with Local Governments and Authorities Major Agricultural Land Reserve Reviews Enforcement Commission Farmlands Speeches and Meetings Financial Report—Schedule I Financial Statement... Statistics—Schedule II Resume of types of Applications Cumulative Statistics Inclusion Statistics 9 (1) Statistics 9 (2) Statistics 9 (7) Statistics 9 (8) Statistics (INTRODUCTION is is the seventh annual report of the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission. Each report is ■not simply to meet a statutory requirement, but as a reference point and an update of the Hs year's report. Cumulatively, the annual reports tell the story of the development and ■jtration of British Columbia's farmland preservation program, ie need to protect farmland from further subdivision and non-farm development was recog- iy British Columbians in the early 1970's. The limited amount of this Province's land base for lure and the implications of the annual loss of this land to urbanizing forces indicated that Barmland resource would have to be preserved if there was to be future food production on any : scale. When initiated, this legislation was unique, but is now complemented by a similar STn'the Province of Quebec. 111978 the Minister of Agriculture for British Columbia set an objective for the 1980's of 65% elf-sufficiency. This production objective, together with provincial support pro- prthe agriculture industry, tie into the agricultural land preservation program. Such programs i income assurance, enhanced ARDA projects and farmland taxation relief are examples of itive approach taken by government to encourage farmland utilization. The Agricultural Land ssion Actis a prerequisite to the long-term success of such programs to enhance and develop Columbia's agricultural industry. I nan's Comments Ithe latter part of the reporting year, the Commission underwent several changes. In Novem- ■29, the Ministerial responsibility for the Agricultural Land Commission was transferred from Kment to Agriculture. The Commission views this as a positive and appropriate move that, illy, will encourage closer liaison with the Minister of Agriculture and his staff. In particular, the I ssion looks forward to more intensive utilization of the technical resources of the Ministry of I lure. At the same time, the Commission continues to view its role as an independent I Sdicial body, kept at arm's length from political pressures, and able to make independent I hs based on the mandate established under the Act. ere were a number of changes in the make-up of the Commission during this reporting year. nd Kerr resigned as Commissioner, effective 31 August 1979. G. Gary Runka, former an, resigned as Commissioner, effective 31 October 1979. Jim P. Plotnikoff, Senior Planner f, was appointed 1 November 1979 as Commissioner on an interim basis. In March 1980, a I lent Chairman, Dr. M. F. Clarke, was appointed to relieve Axel Kinnear, who had been serving I jim Chairman since January of 1979. Commissioners C. E. Framst, Joseph Rogers and I Redel were also appointed at this time, Jim Plotnikoff then returning to his staff position. The I y of experience among the seven Commissioners should be of benefit to the administration of I jcultural Land Reserves. hough the workload is ever increasing, staff complement has remained at 22 persons. The I ssion staff are a versatile group of individuals with diverse backgrounds. In the normal course I mission work, they act as intermediaries between the Commission and applicants, local I js and government officials. of February, staff and Commission participate in an in-house educational session twice 11. The purpose of these sessions is to discuss matters pertaining to agricultural land use, I :ation and planning. The Commission and staff benefit from this continued learning series, I mcourages communication of ideas and concepts. I [1977, an amendment was made to the application appeal process of the Agricultural Land I ssion Act. Under section 9 (8), applicants dissatisfied with the Commission's decision to Exclusion of land from the Agricultural Land Reserve are now permitted to apply to the Minister 'e to appeal. The Commission is entitled to be a party at these appeal hearings before the (jment and Land Use Committee and may take part in the proceedings. To this end, Commis- tff spent a large amount of time this year preparing background information on appeals for ation to the Environment and Land Use Committee. It has been the Commission's policy to have one Commissioner and one staff person 3 representation at these hearings. The staff agrologist may also be present to explain technical information pertaining to soils and agricultural capability reports. The appellant may also be^j^ and, on occasion, is represented by a lawyer, and perhaps an agrologist and other expert wlfrffl Of the 38 requests for leave to appeal, 10 were granted by the Minister, 15 were refused and no I decision has been made on the remaining requests. Of the 10 granted leave to appeal, 4havefl] been heard by the Environment and Land Use Committee. The 12-month reporting period from April 1979 to March 1980 saw the CommissionB involved with legal matters, actively pursuing enforcement issues and attempting to cope wiffinl unusual year of administration. The routine work of handling a large variety and increased volufjp I applications continued but, in addition, the appeal procedure itself attracted wide public attenB I As a result of appeal defence, enforcement problems and unusual individual application situations, the Commission has become increasingly involved with legal matters. The Homesite sK I ance policy, initiated by the Commission in June of 1978, also requires extensive legal workbvR I the Commission's solicitors and the applicant's legal representative. Other costs, such as office expenses and advertising, have been kept to a minimum, altrBflj I with additional Commissioners, fees and travel expenses have risen. The financial stat^HJ I included with this report summarize administrative costs .under the Ministry of Environment V^H I the entire year. For reasons of efficient bookkeeping, the Commission's Vote does not changafflB I Ministry of Agriculture until the beginning of the 1980/81 fiscal year. General Overview of the Commission's Responsibilities and Activities The Commission's authority to make decisions or recommendations on land use proposalsffiat I affect farmland is derived from the Agricultural Land Commission Act and the Soil Conservation Act. I Over 3,000 applications are heard in a year, and each is individually researched byjgj reviewed by the Commission before a decision is made. Those applications that originate w^B]| Commission and go forward to the Lieutenant Governor in Council for decision may involve sl tial Agricultural Land Reserve review in an effort to "fine-tune" the boundary to better reflect agricultural capability and existing land use. Applications made by regional districts or municipalities are to the Lieutenant GoverrH Council, but are first sent to the Agricultural Land Commission for review and recommendat^BH I far the greatest volume of applications continues to come from individuals, government agenciepffi I Crown corporations and it is these that require a decision by the Commission. They include | proposals for exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve, or subdivision and non-farm use vj the Agricultural Land Reserve. There is a routine processing procedure for all applications. Staff compiles relevant inform^pj| such as the Canada Land Inventory agricultural capability rating, land use and parcel size, as information on surrounding lands and previous applications. Every effort is made to rendefa resource based decision without reference to such factors as ownership. Schedule II shows the number of new applications considered. Not included in this daffi^^ number of new proposals received that are associated with old applications, nor the num^BJ I requests for reconsideration. The Commission gives fair and thorough consideration to all re^^ for reconsideration of decisions where substantial new information is received or a proposal signifi-1 cantly changed. Of course, further staff research and presentation time is required and it is e'stjfj that 20 per cent of the Commission's work is now concerned with "old" rather than new applica^H I The Commission also deals with many applications from other provincial agencies. The Ministry | of Lands, Parks and Housing is responsible for all Crown land in British Columbia. Crown land, il I located in an Agricultural Land Reserve, is subject to the same provisions of the Act as privately I owned land. Therefore, if a private individual or other government agency wishes to subdivide or use I Crown land in an Agricultural Land Reserve for non-farm purposes, an application must be made I through the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing to the Commission. ■p. Hydro and Power Authority applications principally involve permissioi Bssion-lines and transmitter sites. In recognition of the overall need for electrical power lifting corridors, the Commission usually allows such applications but makes every effort to what the location will have minimum impact upon farmland. In certain instances, the Commis- lay alter the site location in the interest of protecting agricultural land. Bmerous applications are also received from the various Ministry of Transportation and lays' district and regional offices. These applications are usually for the dedication of a right of Ban existing road, the construction or upgrading of a road, or the establishment of a gravel e and/or pit. Commission approval of such applications is often subject to conditions that Rthe agricultural lands and the affected farmers; for example, fencing, cattle guards and weed I may be required. The Commission has also had the opportunity to review and comment upon per of long range transportation network plans proposed by the Ministry's Planning Branch. I Bmmission hopes to continue to have an early input into these network plans, as they are such I ant indicators in the overall long range land use planning process which will affect the | ntural Land Reserves. I ctions With Local Government Authorities he Commission maintains a close working relationship with local governments and provincial itory authorities. Before considering an application, the Commission looks to the municipality I atonal district for information on zoning and surrounding land use and for a recommendation merits of the application. Interaction with local governments is especially important when the I ation is difficult to interpret or some vital information is missing. I ne planning staffs of the local or regional authorities usually complete the initial researching of I plication. The Commission also relies on information supplied by the Technical Planning I pttees and the Advisory Planning Commissions of the area. Technical Planning Committees I Rjally composed of a representative from the Ministry of Agriculture, such as the District I jturist; and representatives from other ministries such as Health; Lands, Parks and Housing; I portation and Highways; Municipal Affairs; Fish and Wildlife; Environment (such as Water I (Branch) as well as members of municipal and regional staff. The members of the Advisory I lig Commission are appointed by the board of the regional district or by a municipal council. I iSmmission relies heavily on the network of expertise existing within the government ministries, I rally at the local level, and may ask staff to contact any of the above representatives individually I Drmation relative to an application or to carry out an on-site of the property. I pe of the most important activities that has brought the Commission into more direct contact I jcal and regional governments is the increased momentum in the preparation of Official I junity Plans and Settlement Plans in many areas of British Columbia. As an outgrowth of the I jjments made to the Municipal Act in 1977, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has made grant I fe available to municipalities and regional districts for the preparation of Official Community and Settlement Plans. I Sessence, an Official Community Plan is a plan pertaining to an area of municipal jurisdiction I ISettlement Plan pertains to an "unorganized" area of a regional district. Both plans are I tially development strategies for future community growth. The zoning bylaw that follows the I on of the plan is the legal reflection of the objectives of the plan. As a resource document, these refer to such matters as population trends, economic basis of the community and existing I as. They also provide an indication of anticipated land demand for at least a five-year period for I such as residential, commercial and industrial. Before these plans are formally adopted and I ementary bylaws set in place, a process of public hearings is required. Settlement Plans must I e approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. I Ithough it may be intended that these plans be reviewed within a five-year period, it is obvious I ice installed, the land use plan and accompanying bylaw will dictate land development policies I spnsiderable period of time. With this knowledge, the Commission has a special project team I jsed of several staff persons working with municipal councils and regional district boards in an early review of these plans to encourage growth options outside of the Agricultural Land ReseBI The Commission also has a defined formal role in reviewing Settlement Plans for compat[broHB I the Agricultural Land Reserves before the plans are referred for Ministerial approval. Basically the Commission's funetiMjs to review the overall concept of the plans submittlrSi I consideration and, most importantly, to decide whether the plan designation proposed fofjT"" within the Agricultural Land Reserve is appropriate. The Commission also peruses the obieaBI I and policies contained in the plan document to ensure that these are consistent with provincialjaPJj I to protect farmland. Out of the process of preparing Community and Settlement Plans, therein come a review of the Agricultural Land Reserve boundary. Although an exact count is not kept on the number of plans reviewed by the Commission estimated that in this last fiscal year 50 or more such plans were commented upon. Major Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) Reviews It may be said that in considering each individual application, the Commission is constantly "fine-tuning" and reaffirming the ALR boundaries. However, in a more formal sense, "fineUB I refers to the process whereby the Commission carefully reviews the ALR boundary of a pa'maH I problem area and develops an application to the Lieutenant Governor in Council for additiofflffl I exclusions from, the Agricultural Land Reserve. The result is a more credible ALR boundary imfM I of land capable of agricultural use and in terms of such factors as parcel size. Each vearsinBajl I original ALR designations in 1974, the Commission has carried out a number of fine-tuning pjj^ffl I of varying sizes throughout the Proyinqejjjgrf,, Three major Agricultural Land Reserve reviews were concluded within this reporting year. The I Comox to Oyster River ALR review was forwarded to the Lieutenant Governor in Couj^M November 1978. The Commission had recognized, even at the time of designation, thahro agricultural capability mapping that was available for much of Vancouver Island was attooLs^pJ scale to adequately reflect the complex landscape. The Regional District of Comox-Stra^pH I suggested the Comox to Oyster River review area and the Commission obtained more detailed I agricultural capability information from the Resource Analysis Branch. During the re-examin'a^Hffl I the ALR, the Commission received the full co-operation of the regional district and its staff. The sW I identified specific problem areas and proposed revisions to the ALR boundaries to better refl^fflB I area's capability for agriculture. Cabinet, in making its decision in April 1979 to include 6,853 a( within the ALR and to exclude 8,636 acres, concurred with the Commission's recommend^™ I A second ALR review conducted during this year was in the Cobble Hill area of the ReqiojJ | District of Cowichan Valley. As part of the preparation of an Official Settlement Plan, and al request of the regional district, the Commission obtained more detailed agricultural capability I mapping from Soils Branch of the Ministry of Agriculture, for the south one-half of Electoral Area® This information was forwarded to the regional district in early 1979, along with ComrrTCgffl I guidelines on possible areas for the regional district to consider applying for exclusion from the ALR. I The resulting application was forwarded to the Lieutenant Governor in Council in January 1980J March 1980, Cabinet decided to exclude 408 acres from the Agricultural Land Reserve offfl Regional District of Cowichan Valley. In January of 1980, the Commission was also notified of a Cabinet decision on an applica^H| I long standing in the northwestern corner of British Columbia. In this case, Cabinet decided|3H include in the ALR approximately 26,800 acres in the Regional District of Kitimat-Stikine and Stikine I Region (unincorporated), known as the Stikine River Valley/Telegraph Creek Area. The inclusion I application had first been submitted in December of 1976. The Commission's concerns wefatM f there should be early delineation of those lands with agricultural capability, some as high as'C^Sj I and that they should be protected within an ALR in the face of growing pressures for settlement I the time of Cabinet decision, the original apgjjgftion had been amended to incorporate a Land management Branch Planning Study that had mapped in considerable detail the agricultural capabil- I ity of the region. ! study of ALR boundaries, with an examination of parcel sizes and land uses, was Married out in the Township of Langley. Although a decision has not yet been made on the 3;ed revisions to the ALR boundary, the review has attracted considerable public attention. With E of Ministry of Agriculture staff, the Commission gathered information on potential and present ■se, parcel sizes, and evaluated agricultural capability information. This procedure involved 111 meetings with the municipal council and planning staff and numerous field visits by the ■fission. As a result, the Commission is forwarding an application to the Lieutenant Governor in til to rationalize the Agricultural Land Reserve boundary in this area of generally good Iltural capability, but in very close proximity to an established and expanding urban area. I cement I j conjunction with local and regional authorities, the Commission administers the Soil Con- I tion Act. Some problems have been encountered in carrying out this task because of a I ance on the part of local authorities to fully assume the inspection and permit issuing responsi- I i of the statute. The Commission recognized this reluctance was somewhat justified, in the light I fact that local authorities often do not have the manpower nor the expertise to effectually ister the legislation. To overcome this problem, the Commission has attempted to provide as technical expertise as possible, through appointment of a staff agrologist and by utilizing staff I Soils Branch, Ministry of Agriculture, whenever practical. nfortunately, even with this assistance, regulatory provisions of the Soil Conservation Act ling soil removal and fill deposition on lands in the Agricultural Land Reserve are not yet being istered uniformly across the Province. In a further effort, therefore, Commission staff are I ing a possible revision to the Act that would transfer the day to day granting and administration Conservation Act permits to a regional level, such as the Ministry of Agriculture, where the pal expertise is available. In the event such changes are made to the Act and regulations, the ission foresees its future role as an appeal body for decisions made at a local or regional level. I ie number of applications for the second full year of administration of the Soil Conservation Act I >out 60. The majority of these applications have been from the Lower Mainland and Vancouver I Generally, applications for soil removal or deposit of fill have been allowed, with rehabilitation I iments to enhance or retain the agricultural capability of the land. I ifortunately, the Commission has had to deal with several infractions of both the Agricultural m Commission Act and the So/7 Conservation Act during this reporting year. Some of these I ons have been as minor as the dumping of a couple of yards of fill on land within an Agricultural EJteserve or as major as using Agricultural Land Reserve properties for large-scale industrial I nvolving buildings, storage areas and air strips. The majority of infractions are handled I lly by the Commission. I ie violator is advised of the requirements of the respective Act and, in most cases, is instructed I: the permission of the Commission by means of an application for the use. The application is I >nsidered on its individual merits. BJiwever, in certain cases, the violator does not respond to the orders of the Commission and EJ nmission is forced to resort to legal recourse under sections 22 and 23 of the Agricultural Land EJ ission Act. One such case this year confirmed the Commission's right to determine the type of EJ srmitted on land in the Agricultural Land Reserve. The Court ruled in the Commission's favour EJ3 owner was given six months to terminate the non-farm activity on his property. This ent setting case will further enhance the Commission's power as a regulatory authority and, EJ ly, will reduce the necessity to seek legal recourse for infractions occurring on land within the I tural Land Reserve. e Commission is always interested in initiating and participating in special projects related to I d preservation and support of the farming community. Also of continuing importance is the ) inform the public, both urban and rural, of the vigilance needed to protect the limited 12 provincial land resource capable of producing food. During this year, the Commission took part in a number of special projects: (a) In August 1979, the Commission, for the second year, had an information booth at the Pacific National Exhibition. Both Commissioners and staff attended the booth to aiffflf numerous public inquiries. Featured at the booth was a new slide/tape show that explaffirj the purpose of the Agricultural Land Commission and concept of the AgriculturalJBB5 Reserves. The slide/tape show proved to be an effective method of pictorally indira§tj how the Canada Land Inventory agricultural capability rating system of Class 1 -7 is usb§8o identify farmland. The Commission hopes to continue to utilize the slide/tape show aWn educational tool to help explain the importance of farmland preservation. (b) While not directly a special project of the Agricultural Land Commission, the CommSB co-operated with Lands Directorate, Environment Canada, in conducting a study offi|e impact of the Agricultural Land Reserves in British Columbia. Lands Directorate of EnvlB ment Canada published Report 13 in their Land Use in Canada series, entitledlfflf Agricultural Land Reserves of B.C., An Impact Analysis. The preface of the report indicate! that the loss of prime agricultural land to urbanization and industrial growth has become a public issue throughout Canada. For this reason, British Columbia, being the first iurlsaM tion in Canada to take provincial action to protect agricultural land for present and fWe use, was of particular interest. Part of the conclusion reached by the study indicatesKr "... the reservation of agricultural land, as introduced in British Columbia, is a signifiS step towards ensuring that the province and the nation as a whole will have a high auaB agricultural land resource to draw upon when that resource is required to feed fiffl| generations and to permit Canada to fulfil her international responsibilities." (c) In September 1979, the Cjqjgmission edited and published, for the B.C. Federation Agriculture Interdepartmental Co-ordinating Subcommittee, Farm and Stream: Water^m Farm Management and the Protection of the Aquatic Environment. This report containsroi results of an inquiry by the Committee into the nature of governmental constraints pla^ffi upon farmers attempting to manage water for the benefit of farm operations. It expl^E current legislative requirements and identifies conflict areas. Also included is an agency directory and various examples of application and approval forms. The major recffls mendation made by the Farm and Stream Committee were that there should be a sej| procedures and an orderly system developed to deal with water management problem^B participating in this publication, the Commission hopes to encourage co-operation amMj all agencies in the hope of aiding the farm community in the development of the farmliSr resource, while at the same time, stimulating discussion of water management problems P •• and-concerns for the preservation of aquatic environments. (d) During the year, there was an important breakthrough in taxation of land located wjthj^ffl Agricultural Land Reserve, an issue with which the Commission has been concerneoffl some years. Since 1976 and the McMath inquiry into property assessment and taxatjm the Commission has encouraged government to amend assessment regulations to give some relief to owners of land within the Agricultural Land Reserve who do not have fajE classification. The 1979 amendment to the Public School Act reduced by 50 per central assessment for school and hospital purposes of Agricultural Land Reserve lands and therefore, goes some distance in this direction. (e) In May 1977, the Commission expressed to the Environment and Land Use Commitfflj concerns with proposed recreationally oriented development in the Columbia-Winderm^ area of East Kootenay Regional District and the resulting threat it posed to agricultffl lands. In response to the Commission's concern, the Environment and Land Use CoimjHj tee instructed its Secretariat to co-ordinate and overview investigation to identify suitaM areas for accommodating recreational land development outside the Agricultural LajIU Reserve. The Commission participated in this investigation assisting the Secretariat inffl collection of information on agricultural land use, including identification of ranch Pr0^HJ tion units. Upon completion of the overview, the Environment and Land Use Comniiffl I approved the preparation of a tourism settlement strategy and of a resource use strategy I for the area. This work was undertaken by an inter-ministry government steering committee (Columbia-Windermere Lakes Steering Committee), of which the Commission is a mem- I ber. The work leading to a tourism settlement strategy involved a major planning program I conducted by consultants, including active public participation and local and regional I government consultation. Phase I of the study, which focuses on general policies related to I tourism settlement development, is now completed. One of the elements of the Phase I I strategy is to guide tourism-settlement away from the land base employed for agriculture and other resource uses. Phase II proposals, presently under consideration by the Environ- I ment and Land Use Committee, include a program of action to maintain and enhance the It resource use activities in the area, including agriculture. I (f) The Commission also continues to participate as an active member of the Green Zone I' Committee. The committee is continually working on the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) concept with local governments, in an attempt to incorporate the concept into local I zoning bylaws. The Committee stresses co-operation with the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture | and local governments in implementing a principle vital to farmland communities throughout the Province. To this end, it has now prepared model bylaws for beef, swine and poultry siting, odour control and encroachment protection that hopefully will be adopted by local authorities. | limission Farmlands ■In 1976, the Commission amended the long-term farmland lease to include an option to e for farmers' who had satisfactorily completed three years of the 20-year lease term. Two lerties were sold under this program in 1979/80: the 138-acre former Hayward property on the Ih Thompson River near Kamloops, and the 149-acre Thunderbird dairy property on New Lake lichan Road near Duncan. The Commission also sold a 15-acre knoll of the Steeples Ranch in lEast Kootenays to an adjacent landowner for horse pasture. I The major capital expenditure of the year was $82,000 for ditch clearing works at the Minnekha- I fcroperty, west of the Pitt River in the District of Coquitlam. The clearing of the major drainage lals and ditches was Phase I of a program to rehabilitate the Minnekhada farmlands. Phase II tides clearing and field drainage works by each of the four farm lessees. leches and Meetings J With a part-time Chairman appointed on an interim basis for the majority of the year, and with the fcands of frequent Commission meetings and travel for public hearings throughout the Province, s little time for speeches by the Chairman or the Commission at the various annual Iventions and conferences related to agriculture. 1 However, as Chairman, Mr. Kinnear did give two presentations: one in January 1980, at the B.C. It Growers Association Annual Convention and one in February 1980, at the B.C. Ministry of | pculture Regional Staff Conference. The address to the Fruit Growers' Association covered al aspects of the Agricultural Land Commission's work and addressed the major issues of the s that may affect the fruit industry and agriculture in general in British Columbia. The speech lie to Ministry of Agriculture staff was on more specific matters, such as technical on-site reports Itive to Agricultural Land Reserve applications, and urged Ministry field staff to become involved he local level in Community and Settlement Plan development. T As part of their regular workload, Commission staff had many meetings with planning staffs of pus municipalities and regional districts; local regulatory authorities, such as B.C. Hydro and listry of Highways; Soils Branch and Property Management Branch of the Ministry of Agriculture; 1 the Resource Analysis Branch of the Ministry of Environment. Three staff persons also con- 14 ducted a Regional Seminar for Planning Assistants in Vernon in October 1979. The purpose of the seminar was to explain the procedures for processing applications submitted under the AfflHjf regulations. The Commission relies on such meetings to familiarize itself with the concerns of other ami ities as well as to explain the program of preservation and protection of agricultural land. Financial Report The Agricultural Land Commission Act stipulates that the Commission submit annuallvHiS Lieutenant Governor in Council, a financial statement exhibiting expenditures for the respective fiscal year. The statements of expenditures for the year ended 31 March 1980 follows as SchecHr Purposes Sis Total 63,470 45,845 3,381 48,139 402,840 73,513 129,843 37,472 1,629 657 1,924 34,700 111,610 402,840 45,845 73,513 129,849 37,472 5,010 659 1,924 34,700 Program expenditures Materials, supplies, utilities and taxes Rentals Advertising and publications ! :.l. '..,, Totals $112,697 $730,721 $843,419 the year ended M rch31,1 $290,825. These ssion legal fees d ring the r from the sale of three Commission properties totalled $303,210,. i consolidated revenue account of the Government of British Colum id paid by the Ministry of the Attorney General totalled $76,377. /ed on behalf of the Commission. M. F. CLARKE, Chairman. JOHN E. ROGERS, Commissior Schedule II includes Agricultural Land Reserve statistics to 31 March 1980. Attached to ealj individual application file is a statistical form that is completed at the time of each Commission decision. Tallying the results is a time-consuming job and there are, needless to say, deficiencies irj| manual system, such as minor miscalculations or a decision improperly recorded. The procedure of retrieving decisions on the same or adjacent properties is also manual, which involves obtaining a| the files in the vicinity of the subject property and individually summarizing them as to decision acreage involved and other pertinent information. The statistics that are collected are comprehensive, and now include information on tha agricultural capability of land under application. The categories are based upon improved agricultural capability ratings and are grouped in four subclasses: Prime (totally Class 1 through 3 land); Prime Dominant Complex (major portion of the unit is prime land); Prime Subordinate Complex (lesser portion of unit is prime land); and Secondary (total unit is Class 4 or lower agricultural capability)^ ;he cumulative statistics show that, at the time of designation, 11,661,000 acres were in the Wural Land Reserve; as of 31 March 1980, 11,623,623 acres are in the Agricultural Land These statistics, however, do not indicate the agricultural capability of the land and, lore, conclusions should not be based on the acreage numbers alone, as the quality of the land; the agricultural capability rating, has only recently been included in the statistical data. n-ally speaking, those lands that have been excluded from the Agricultural Land Reserve tend to Wer high capability land in relatively small parcels, or low capability land that was originally led in the Agricultural Land Reserve through error. The total amount of land removed is a result Wcge number of individual applications submitted under the appropriate sections of the Act. On ■her hand, lands included in the Agricultural Land Reserve after designation tend to be of Irate capability, or sometimes grazing land, and are the result of only a few large acreage llow that agricultural capability information is being recorded as a routine matter for each fcation, statistical analysis of the Agricultural Land Reserve can incorporate not only acreages, _eo indicate quality of land being included into, or excluded from, or a subdivision/use within the cultural Land Reserves. Further statistical information may be obtained from the Agricultural I Commission office in Burnaby. SCHEDULE II . Brief Resume of Types of Applications Under the Agricultural Land Commission Act jo-.s Gh,apter46, 1973 including Land Commission Act 1977 (Consolidated for convenience only, Jan. 20, 1978) 9 (1) (a) and (b) applications—Direct government lo government applicationsforexclusion orexemption or subdivision within an Agricultural Land Reserve. [jnder section 9 (1) (a), the Agricultural Land Commiss :ation to the Lieutenant Governor in Council for exclu. Reserve, or the Lieutenant Governor in Council may initiate suet Under section 9 (1) (b), the Agricultural Land Commission, a region n to the Lieutenant Governor in Council for subdivision and/or n Agricultural Land Reserve. to the submission of an application under section 9 (1) (a) or (b), the municipality, regional district, or lission, as the case may be, must hold a public hearing on the application. A report of the hearing must hipany the application. As a part of the standard operating procedure the Commission reviews the ion and formulates a recommendation which is subsequently reviewed by the Environment and Land nmittee. Final decision is made by Cabinet as a Cabinet Order in Council. 9 (2) applications—Applications from an individual to the Agricultural Land Commission for exclusion. tinder this section an individual land owner may apply to the Agricultural Land Commission for exclusion of Iroperty from an Agricultural Land Reserve. Preliminary processing of these applications is done by the bpriate regional district, followed by further processing and a hearing by the Commission. The final decision applications is made by the Commission, without reference to the Lieutenant Governor in Council or the nent and Land Use Committee. However, there is an appeal procedure under sections 9 (7) and 9 (8). individual to the Environment and Land Use Committee on Agricultural pnderthis section a person who He a notice of appeal to the E to appeal, signed by any tv appeal requires a formal hearing Imittee. >n may, within 30 days of being Use Committee. If the leave to e Environment and Land Use Section 11 (4) applications—Applications for exemption for use or subdivision within an Agricultural Lsa Reserve. Under this section a person or agency may apply to the Agricultural Land Commission for permission to subdivide land or to use a parcel of land within an Agricultural Land Reserve for purposes other than those : allowed outright by the Act or regulations. The land remains in the Agricultural Land Reserve and the Commission may impose whatever terms and conditions it considers advisable. The decision of the Commission is final. There is no appeal, except to the courts on a question of law or excess of jurisdiction. The applicant may however, request the municipality or regional district, as the case may be, to submit an application under section 9 (1) (b) on his behalf. Sections 8 (12) and 8 (14)—Applications for inclusion into the Agricultural Land Reserve. Section 8 (12)—A municipality, a regional district, or the Commission may apply to the Lieuteffif | Governor in Council to have additional lands designated as an Agricultural Land Reserve, whether o» they own those lands. The municipality, regional district, or commission, as the case may be, must hold a public hearing in respect to the application and must give proper notification to the property ownegH I report of the public hearing must accompany the application. The commission reviews the application and I formulates a recommendation which is subsequently reviewed by the Environment and Land Use I Committee on behalf of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Cabinet makes the final decision by Order in I Council, and if approved, the Agricultural Land Commission designates the lands as, or part ojflj Agricultural Land Reserve. Section 8 (14)—An individual owner may apply to the Agricultural Land Commission, via the regiEE | district to have his land included in an Agricultural Land Reserve. No hearing is required and the I Commission may designate the land as Agricultural Land Reserve, after approval from the Lieutenant I Governor in Council. Applications pursuant to the subdivision and land use regulations. Under the subdivision and land use regulations, certain kinds of very limited subdivision and land us be allowed by local government without reference to the Commission. In addition, another category of sg^BJ I sion and certain conditional uses may be applied for directly to the Commission. When application fqE^^ conditional use is received by the Commission, the Commission consults with the regional district or municipa so that they might present their views prior to the decision being made by the Commission. Direct orders or resolutions of the Commission. It is possible for the Agricultural Land Commission to deal directly, by a specific order or resolutiooffl certain other situations requiring land use or subdivision approval without the necessity for a formal application. I Very infrequent use is made of this power as it pertains only to unusual circumstances involving extrer emergency or hardships and in those cases where the necessity for a formal application is questionable. In cases the Commission attempts to contact the local government to determine its position on the matter.] Total ALR acreage at designatioi Total < Total i Total c Total £ Total £ reage included since designatioi •eage excluded under 9(1) •eage excluded under 9 (2) excluded under 9 (7) excluded under 9 (8) LR acreage as of April 1, 18 April 1,1980 SUMMARY OF APPLICATIONS CONSIDERED UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION ACT (All Figures are Cumulative) 9 (2) SUMMARY (Applications by an owner to exclude land from ALR Number of applications* 2,020 Acres requested for exclusion 88 791 Land Commission decision: Remain in ALR 38,640 Exclude 23,927 Allow 11 (4) 26,224 9(1) SUMMARY (Applications by Municipality, Regional District, or the Commission to exc ude land from ALR) I Number of applications* 107 Acres requested for exclusion 120,842 Land Commission recommendation: 93,040 27,802 Cabinet decision 94,423 Refuse 26,419 INCLUSION SUMMARY (Application to include land into ALR) Number of applications* 78 Acres requested for inclusion 120,026 Land Commission recommendation: 109,181 Cabinet decision: 82,374 Refuse 34,164 -The number of applications refer only to those that have beer, processe , i.e., those CURRENT ALR ACREAGE BY REGIONAL DISTRICT Eoast Fraser Valley ... Kootenay [Okanagan Shuswap ■Strathcona Valley S'-Alouette a lotenay tort George kanagan " nilkameen Siver i ■Queen Charlotte I e Coast Nicola 81,700 166,500 108,000 54,300 58,700 673,100 90,800 863,600 flOMOO 158,500 136,000 4,300 213,61 3,702,500 34,900 108,400 67,000 15,500 1,404,700 1,661,600 82,374 94,423 23,927 19,502 734,469 46,334 2,264,464 10,931 133,425 167,758 80,557 150,063 102,383 52,495 52,868 669,427 135,274 4,300 51,526 172,344 212,743 3,700,948 26,728 108,063 ACREAGE INCLUDED IN ALR SINCE DESIGNATION BY REGIONAL DISTRICT BY YEAR Kootenay . Okanagan ■Shuswap :ort George Vancouver kanagan Similkameen ... •Nicola 20 1979 and First Quarter 1980 Figures (up to April 1,193 AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY OF AREAS INCLUDED IN THE ALR (By Order in Council) w„.„ gefj AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY Wk Prime Do'Snt Subordinate Second Capital ! Cariboo r Central Okanagan L_i«?S Columbia-Shuswap :.;.„ !.-... Comox-Strathcona 8 736 157 336 6,853 17 75 35 69 214 395 15 \ 75 660 6,458 12 76 88 110 35J Peace River-Liard 8,217 768 7,118 21 310 1979 and First Quarter 1980 Figures (up to April 1,19! AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY OF AREAS REFUSED FOR INCLUSION (By Cabinet Decision) Regional District T» AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY M Prime Dopant Sutadhato Seconda Capital 16 10 26,800 16 3 z 26,800 7 26,826 19 - 26,800 7 21 INCLUSION SUMMARY SHEET BY REGIONAL DISTRICT (Cu nulative Figures) HavMde P ty the Agricultural Hj r ■Coast SSL ■Kootenay 7 3 2 6 6 r*?|i|SB 2 3 7,100 113 10,656 50 800 226 600 8,903 5 1,264 56,306 31,920 875 25 223 35 915 90 10,656 800 226 413 8,825 5 1,186 2 53,456 3 31,920 359 25 265 35 915 90 10,656 800 Bjv-Alouetto 1,186 EjVancouver 3 gan-Similkameen 258 78 120,026 109,181 il Fraser Valley ... il Kootenay bl Okanagan bia-Shuswap t-Strathcona San Vafley I hey-Alouette 'tenay I br Vancouver Okanagan ... 6,973 94,423 22 1979 and First Quarter 1980 Figures (up to April irgs©) AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY OF AREAS EXCLUDED BY APPLICATIONS UNDER SECTIONBMfiin (By Order in Council) Regional District Exclude? AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY Prime Prime ■ (Acres) Pnme Dominant Subordinate S|J|ar| 6,350 Ifj 24 (48 Cowichan Valley 383 40 _ 165 78 Fraser-Fort George ~ _ 230 25 — — 05 Greater Vancouver -„ 9 5 II4 Okanagan-Similkameen Totals ** £..-. 140 — — — ji40 24,914 240 160 3,436 2178 1979 and First Quarter 1980 Figures (up to April 'i'Bsoy AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY OF AREAS REFUSED FOR EXCLUSION BY APPLICATIONsJffi" 9 (1) (a) (By Cabinet Decision) «—. JZT AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY ■■ Prime Do'Sn. SuboiSnate Seofe, Central Fraser Valley 85 48 _ _ w Central Kootenay ™„........„ ,. 3,876 3,100 Greater Vancouver „. 25 25 .- _ 1,320 309 25 — !6 9,151 3,772 74 " I 5';5 23 9 (1) (a) SUMMARY SHEET BY REGIONAL DISTRICT (Cumulative Figures) IraBEFaser Valley ... Ifapgotenay |raj9kanagan iembia-Shuswap Icox-Strathcona ffflEalley JdrjEAiouette fjffiwjfey BeteMam ner-Fort George inter Vancouver tesSMne cenay Boundary HntaSagan bhagan-Similkameen ... Re,o„aID,s« Tcrer AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY Prime Dopant SubSate Secondary 43 43 - - 43 43 - - 1979 and First Quarter 1980 Figures (up to April 1, 1980) AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY OF AREAS GIVEN APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION AND/OR USE BY APPLICATIONS UNDER 9 (1) (b) (By Order in Council) 1979 and First Quarter 1980 Figures (up to April 1, 1980) tVancouver tJBgaBoundary ... ce River-Liard 24 9 (1) (b) SUMMARY BY REGIONAL DISTRICT (Cumulative Figure Greater Vancouver Kootenay Boundary Okanagan-Similkameen Peace River-Liard „ Powell River Totals Regiona, District 1974 1975 1976 1977 ,978 1979 1980 Total Capital __ 11 340 70 248 108 385 28 1,190 Cariboo 167 108 199 204 1,981 215 2,874 Central Coast 9 69 Central Kootenay ..„ 6 31 55 248 302 90 3 735 Central Okanagan 280 58 196 315 85 1,122 Columbia-Shuswap 40 347 425 223 212 21 1,757 Comox-Strathcona j. 271 295 457 707 203 40 1,984 Cowichan Valley 96 172 143 138 194 857 Dewdney-Alouette . 22 12 27 80 50 16 207 East Kootenay i 235 155 1,980 630 282 3,282 Fraser-Cheam 9 13 50 91 34 76 273 Fraser-Fort George 603 168 80 967 61 29 7 160 13 30 10 310 Kitimat-Stikine 78 144 5 45 272 Kootenay Boundary 18 29 112 247 Nanaimo 171 61 200 182 52 670 North Okanagan 87 245 30 84 374 79 Okanagan-Similkameen 175 34 32 322 259 102 Peace River-Liard 59 229 1,181 1,587 48 52 |JJ#*» — EJ 285 56 Skeena-Queen Charlotte . _ 337 Squamish-Lillooet 5 119 15 5 35 179 Sunshine Coast 90 19 78 93 10 290 Thompson-Nicola rs ^ — 78 484 404 132 10 332 1,440 Totals 937 2,941 2,304 6,154 4,729 5,375 1,487 23,927 25 1979 and First Quarter 1980 Figures (up to April 1, 1980) f AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY OF AREAS EXCLUDED BY APPLICATIONS UNDER 9 (2) ^S£? AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY Regional District Prime Dopant SubPoSna.e Secondary Oy-Nechako ^i.„__^ al Coast 85 413 2,196 5 203 93 273 233 51 66 282 110 248 40 50 112 56 79 102 1,299 285 35 10 342 215 f/fttf5/i 16 52 15 5 7 62 5 8 69 7 1,010 35 53 20 10 12 171 30 49 70 100 65 56 56 7 45 100 20 178 2,130 lal Okanagan 50 i;han Valley :. 174 t-Cheam 48 M-Sttkine nay-Boundary 5 112 bgan-Similkameen 45 159 6,862 1,579 475 420 4 388 26 April 1,1980 I 9 (2) SUMMARY SHEET (Cumulative Fig ures) Number o Number o. Regional District Recommendations (Acres) Commission Decisions (M (TJecteions 11 f 1 Alberni-Clayoquot 1 356 22 113 8 213 168 98 90 Bulkley-Nechako 42 3,975 2,044 1,721 169 2,511 439 1,025 Capjtal „.„.., 119 3,737 2,164 772 20 781 1,827 1,190 720 Cariboo 1 - 103 1,417 4,763 251 1,567 3,228 2,874 1,896 Central Coast 232 ?*j 2& 174 36 9 69 154 Central Fraser Valley 127 4,311 2,175 1,869 253 14 2,631 862 818 Central Kootenay 2,156 2,156 575 735 846 Central Okanagan 165 4,363 1,220 2,705 190 248 2,382 1,122 859 Columbia-Shuswap 177 5,070 1,638 2,741 523 168 1,791 1,757 1,522 I Comox-Strathcona 143 1,587 3,065 134 1,112 1,738 1,984 2,1"$ Cowichan Valley 174 3,639 1,303 1,627 347 362 1,595 857 1,187 Dewdney-Alouette 33 1,359 447 440 20 452 981 207 171 East Kootenay 113 14,588 48 1,506 16 13,018 6,316 3,282 4,990 Fraser-Cheam 46 1,090 64 537 106 383 483 273 334 Fraser-Fort George Wmm 3,479 944 1,028 913 594 1,276 967 1,236 Greater Vancouver 47 1,425 1,281 139 5 1,092 310 23 Kitimat-Stikine . 13 665 190 379 96 43 272 350 Kootenay Boundary SjjfWzi 757 580 BSSff 17 461 247 49 3,715 1,060 1,654 135 866 2,089 670 956 North Okanagan 104 3,453 394 1,625 908 526 504 899 2,050 Okanagan-Similkameen .... 120 3,888 272 3,114 108 394 1,080 924 1,884 Peace River-Liard 58 4,956 1,829 2,180 20 927 2,682 1,587 687 Powell River R~~-9~. 137 HEba 97 5 75 56 Skeena-Queen Charlotte 495 158 337 73 337 85 Squamish-Lillooet 21 746 54 674 206 179 361 1 Sunshine Coast 27 1,043 439 28 576 628 290 125 1 Thompson-Nicola Totals* 83 5,260 100 833 102 4,225 2,196 1,440 1,624 2,020 88,791 21,048 34,701 4,173 28,869 38,640 23,927 26,224 1 • All figures are approximate. 27 April 1 1980 H NUMBER OF REQUESTS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 9 (7) OF THE ACT BY REGIONAL DISTRICT BY YEAR Regional District 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 ,979 1980 Total ■jj-Clayquot _ _ _ _ 2 _ _ 2 1 % ' ■fa m Sal Okanagan — |ra| 2 3 3 5 — 16 Inbia-Shuswap 2 Elian Valley — 1 2 2 ^f¥ral 3 1 13 Bpey-Alouette 2 Efnntenay W xffiN 15 K-Fort George 1 — 1 _ m — — ^^ _ _ — 3 5 5 _ 16 1 River-Liard 1 1 s 1 ipson-Nicola - - — - 2 3 1 6 pUm 9 14 14 39 52 12 28 9 (7) CERTIFICATE OF LEAVE SUMMARY SHEET (Enviornment and Land Use Committee shown as E.L.U.C.) 1 I 1,198( Regional District Number Commission E.L.U.C. Excluded Requested Allow Refuse Other Allow Refuse 2 5 5 13 13 15 6 3 BBJK 6 3 2 ; +$& 13 13 .*fe>3 Y> *i'o* 5 2 2 2 2 3 1 36 424 137 394 136 10 11 10 Cowichan Valley Greater Vancouver Squamish-Lillooet 142 18 111 11 14 2 1,169 April 1, 1981 ACREAGE EXCLUDED BY THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE COMMITTEE AS A 9 (7) APPEAlEl BY REGIONAL DISTRICT BY YEAR Regional District 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 Total 394 10 36 424 25 10 129 36 424 137 394 136 10 10 405 121 493 21 129 1,169 29 April 1, 1980 HnUMBER OF REQUESTS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE MINISTER PURSUANT TO SECTION 9 (8) OF THE ACT BY REGIONAL DISTRICT BY YEAR Regional District 1978 1979 1980 Total 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 5 2 2 3 2 3 2 1 1 14 30 13 9 (8) CERTIFICATE OF LEAVE SUMMARY SHEET (Environment and Land Use Committee shown as E.L.U.C.) April 1, 1980 ~— Number Minister E.LU.C. Acreage Requested Allow Refuse Other Allow Refuse Excl ed 5 3 5 8 2 2 7 3 5 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 WmsM 2 2 2 5 3 2 2 2 Nechako [Fraser Valley Okanagan Ba-Shuswap -„ Z 643 in Valley ly-Alouette otenay 26 83 - on-Nicola 76 57 24 17 16 7 8 832 30 Central Fraser Valley . Cowichan Valley Dewdney-Alouette East Kootenay Thompson-Nicola Totals
- Library Home /
- Search Collections /
- Open Collections /
- Browse Collections /
- BC Sessional Papers /
- Provincial Agricultural Land Commission Annual Report...
Open Collections
BC Sessional Papers
Provincial Agricultural Land Commission Annual Report for the year ended 31 March 1980 British Columbia. Legislative Assembly 1980
jpg
Page Metadata
Item Metadata
Title | Provincial Agricultural Land Commission Annual Report for the year ended 31 March 1980 |
Creator |
British Columbia. Legislative Assembly |
Publisher | Victoria, BC : Government Printer |
Date Issued | 1980 |
Genre |
Legislative proceedings |
Type |
Text |
FileFormat | application/pdf |
Language | English |
Identifier | J110.L5 S7 1981_V02_11_001_030 |
Collection |
Sessional Papers of the Province of British Columbia |
Source | Original Format: Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Library. Sessional Papers of the Province of British Columbia |
Date Available | 2018-08-07 |
Provider | Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library |
Rights | Images provided for research and reference use only. For permission to publish, copy or otherwise distribute these images please contact the Legislative Library of British Columbia |
CatalogueRecord | http://resolve.library.ubc.ca/cgi-bin/catsearch?bid=1198198 |
DOI | 10.14288/1.0371071 |
AggregatedSourceRepository | CONTENTdm |
Download
- Media
- bcsessional-1.0371071.pdf
- Metadata
- JSON: bcsessional-1.0371071.json
- JSON-LD: bcsessional-1.0371071-ld.json
- RDF/XML (Pretty): bcsessional-1.0371071-rdf.xml
- RDF/JSON: bcsessional-1.0371071-rdf.json
- Turtle: bcsessional-1.0371071-turtle.txt
- N-Triples: bcsessional-1.0371071-rdf-ntriples.txt
- Original Record: bcsessional-1.0371071-source.json
- Full Text
- bcsessional-1.0371071-fulltext.txt
- Citation
- bcsessional-1.0371071.ris
Full Text
Cite
Citation Scheme:
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}]}"
data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
async >
</script>
</div>

https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/cdm.bcsessional.1-0371071/manifest