Stage 3 Report & Recommendation
The
Industrial Lands Strategy Study & Analysis has, in my opinion, been very
thorough. The choice of which land to exclude was arrived at after careful and
thorough analysis by competent consultants. Furthermore, I find the Study to be
objective as well, which is borne out in its transparent presentation of
arguments on why this land should not be excluded from the ALR. In fact, the
proposal recognizes Class 1 soils, and as a result has recommended that lands
east of Queen St. be excluded.
Following are the remarks I made in support of the motion:
The Industrial Lands Strategy Study & Analysis has, in my
opinion, been very thorough. The choice of which land to exclude was arrived at
after careful and thorough analysis by competent consultants. Furthermore, I
find the Study to be objective as well, which is borne out in its transparent
presentation of arguments on why this land should not be excluded from the ALR.
In fact, the proposal recognizes Class 1 soils, and as a result has recommended
that lands east of Queen St. be excluded.
Only 5 speakers at the Public Hearing were residents of one
of the two Study Areas – of which, no one opposed the proposal. It is ironic
that there exists higher support for Area ‘B’ to be excluded, given its
superior agricultural capability.
The Study has clearly outlined local and regional market
trends, and Abbotsford’s position within that larger market. The Study makes a
number of arguments in support of exclusion:
-
“extremely”
low vacancy rates in the industrial land supply in Abbotsford
-
Abbotsford
market is the fastest growing in the region
-
only
34% of remaining available lands is developable, of which average parcel size
is under 1 hectare
o
This
eliminates a large segment of potential users
-
Study
Analysis included an Agricultural Suitability Assessment
-
Additional
analysis addressed servicing and traffic impacts, resulting in a modification
of Area ‘B’ (recommending removal of less than original proposal)
-
The
lands contained in these two Areas comprise 1% of the city’s total ALR lands
-
Servicing
costs and environmental protection are provided for under this proposal
-
Two
key City Advisory committees, the Agriculture, Drainage & Ditching Advisory
Committee and the Development Advisory Committee:
o
support
this motion; in fact, the Agricultural Advisory Committee recommends more than
this motion proposes (they would have the City request all of Area B for
exclusion).
o
recognize
importance of choosing lands that are contiguous with existing industrial areas
o
recognize
synergies between agriculture and industry
o
recognize
need for jobs to match growth
o
recognize
the industrialization of farming (in other words, a more efficient use of lands
in the future)
One speaker, at the
Public Hearing, noted that industrial jobs will be changing, moving forward.
This is no less true for agriculture. I recently visited EcoDairy on Sumas Way,
where I learned that an 800 sq. ft. building, under construction, was going to
replace 20 acres of farmland; sufficient grass will be grown in this facility
to provide for up to 250 head of beef cattle. (It’s the first of its kind in
Canada.).
Urban
Crops, an American company in the East, says that vertical farming yields more
crops per square metre than traditional farming or greenhouses do. Vertical
farming also uses less water, grows plants faster, and can be used year-round –
not just in certain seasons. The facilities can also, in theory, be built
anywhere.
I
make this point to underline the fact that both agriculture and industry
recognize the need to make adjustments, in terms of how they use land. There
are synergies between the two, as noted by the Agricultural Advisory Committee.
City Council has adopted, and has faithfully applied the
mandate of the City Strategic Plan to its decision-making: of the Four Pillars,
two, in particular apply here: a Vibrant Economy (a vibrant & diverse
economy & strong employment base); Fiscal Discipline (making financial
decisions by looking not just at the long-term costs, but also the value to our
community; maintaining and upgrading city assets). For that the City requires a
tax base that does not put an onerous tax burden on home owners to carry, to
achieve those goals, but ensures that a healthy industrial base will assist in
shouldering the growing operational costs of this rapidly growing city. We either provide for the next 60,000
residents, or ignore their needs, at the peril of our community’s future needs
and growth.
I believe local government must look after the interests of
all members of its community, and sometimes the interests of one member(s)
comes at the expense of others. In the same way, the interests of all sectors
of our community’s economy must be considered together, and that is what is
being addressed with this proposal before us today. The proposal aims to remove
land from the ALR, which to some is inconceivable and unacceptable; to others a
small but important price to pay in the interests of this community’s future
growth.
With respect to the amount of land being proposed for
exclusion, it is important to note that it comprises about 1% of the total ALR
lands in Abbotsford. Additionally, research conducted during Stage 1 of our
AgRefresh Review, revealed that 64% of all agriculture parcels under 4 ha in
size in Abbotsford are not in farm use.
As contentious as this
issue is, and as difficult as it is to make the right decision, I can say that
it’s not the first that I have faced during the 12 years I’ve been on Council.
I can recall one issue that divided our entire community in half, and held out
no promise of satisfying everyone, regardless what decision was made. In the
end, I knew that my decision must be based on what I felt was in the best
interests of the greater community, and that there would be many whom I would alienate
as a result.
There have been many
more, where residents have opposed development and changes to their
neighbourhoods, for any number of reasons, many times relating to the
preservation of the status quo. In this matter, I was told by one resident that
Abbotsford did not need growth – that it could take place elsewhere. Notwithstanding
the genuine concern voiced by some over loss of agricultural land, significant
opposition in this matter was based on preservation of a way of life – the
status quo.
So,
while I appreciate the passionate love that Bradner residents have for their
neighbourhood, I also appreciate that there exists a large populace outside
their immediate community, whose interests are no less important. Furthermore, it’s the interests of the whole
community that I was elected to represent. I believe there is no hypocrisy in
complementing Bradner residents for their strong community spirit, while making
a decision that is contrary to their point of view.
In matters such as this, I search for
arguments that would persuade me that the greater good is served best by
withholding support. I have not, however, been thus persuaded, and therefore, I
will support this recommendation.
