Is An Appeal Realistic

 Opinions have flowed freely on how the City ought to respond to the recent Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) decision regarding the King and McKenzie Roads property. There is evident optimism that reconsideration will result in a different outcome. In fact, too many Council election candidates appear to be offering hope that other options remain. Is their hope justified or just "election bait"?

Beware! Are they familiar with the history of ALC decisions? Are you? 

Recent history provides some useful perspective.

On December 11, 2023, approximately 14.2 hectares (35 acres) in Surrey were removed from the ALR for the Surrey–Langley SkyTrain Operations and Maintenance Centre near Fraser Highway and 176 Street. Importantly, however, this land was removed by the provincial government through Order in Council 709/2023, rather than through a conventional ALC exclusion decision.

One of the clearest recent examples of the ALC itself approving a substantial exclusion in the Fraser Valley/Lower Mainland occurred in the Township of Langley on March 10, 2020. The application involved eight properties totalling 14.58 hectares (36 acres). The ALC Executive Committee approved their exclusion from the ALR, subject to conditions relating to buffering, fencing and drainage. The intended use was ultimately industrial development.

The ALC's current application and decision records identify File 51725 as “Exclusion — Approved,” South Coast Region, Township of Langley, dated March 10, 2020. Interestingly, the same records show another Langley exclusion application, decided in 2018, being refused.

Another instructive example occurred in Delta in 2024. On August 7, 2024, the ALC Executive Committee conditionally approved the exclusion of 1.82 hectares (4.5 acres). According to Delta's reporting on the application, the land had limited agricultural capability because of historic filling, compaction and other disturbances, while surrounding development had substantially isolated it from viable agricultural use.

There has also been at least one small ALC-approved exclusion in Metro Vancouver since then. The ALC's annual reporting, however, identifies exclusions by regional district rather than necessarily identifying the municipality involved.

Acreage Approved for Exclusion Is Very Telling

The amount of land the ALC is approving for exclusion is extraordinarily small.

In 2024–25, the ALC approved the exclusion of only 3.78 hectares throughout the entire South Coast region. These figures represent land approved for exclusion by Commission decision during the fiscal year; the actual change to the ALR boundary may occur later, after any conditions attached to the decision have been satisfied.

The South Coast region includes Abbotsford, Chilliwack, Langley, Mission, Pitt Meadows, Richmond, Surrey and other municipalities.

That is an extraordinarily small amount of land.

Agricultural Capability Is the Threshold Issue

This is perhaps the most important distinction between municipal planning considerations and the ALC's mandate. A council may ask: “Is this the best location for an important community use?”

The ALC's starting question is closer to: “Does this land have meaningful present or future agricultural value, and would removing it impair the agricultural land base?”

Abbotsford's 2018 industrial-land application provides an important example. The City sought the exclusion of approximately 201 hectares (497 acres) in Special Study Areas A and B. The ALC found Area A capable of agricultural use, with most agricultural soils in Classes 2 and 3, while Area B contained Class 1, 2 and 3 soils. It rejected drainage and irrigation deficiencies as sufficient reasons for exclusion.

The Commission's conclusion was unequivocal: “the Properties are capable of supporting agriculture and are therefore appropriately designated as ALR.” It also made clear that whether the land happened to be actively farmed at that particular time was not determinative.

That distinction is important. Land does not necessarily lose its agricultural value simply because it is not currently being farmed.

Municipal Need Carries Surprisingly Little Weight

This may be the most important lesson for municipal planning.

Abbotsford's 2018 case was not casually prepared. The City had completed a three-part Industrial Land Supply Study, demonstrated a diminishing supply of industrial land, identified employment requirements associated with population growth, and selected areas with excellent transportation and infrastructure characteristics.

The ALC acknowledged those considerations but did not regard them as overriding its agricultural mandate. Although Abbotsford pointed to the “dwindling supply” of industrial land in the Lower Mainland, the Commission stated that addressing that supply problem was not its role.

That is an important statement for everyone to take note of.

Arguments such as “Abbotsford desperately needs additional industrial land” or “Abbotsford needs land for recreational facilities to serve its growing population” may be compelling municipal planning arguments. But they do not, by themselves, answer the questions the ALC is required to consider.

The same principle appeared in the ALC's refusal of an exclusion application in Aldergrove. The Commission emphasized that local governments should consider density, infill, redevelopment and other ways of accommodating urban growth rather than progressively eroding the Agricultural Land Reserve.

That history should temper expectations about what might happen next at King and McKenzie Roads. The central question is not simply whether Abbotsford needs additional recreational land. Few would dispute that need. The more difficult question is whether that municipal need provides a sufficiently compelling basis for the ALC to reconsider its determination that the land should remain protected for agriculture. 

Furthermore, are we prepared to wait multiple years to explore possibilities without any certainty of a positive outcome?