Industrial Land Supply

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.