Definition:

Development that enhances both the urban and natural environment, improves local quality of life, and provides access and opportunities for people and businesses of all socio-economic levels.

Background:

Development has always been a major issue in Surrey, ever since its inception many moons ago. This young city has always been a place of rapid growth and change, and projections show this will continue for a long time to come. In fact, it’s estimated that within 20 odd years, Surrey’s population will surpass that of Vancouver’s.

Now, it’s certainly debatable on how well Surrey has handled this growth throughout the years. I will definitely admit that with our sidestepping of the LRSP and a continuous “anything for development” attitude, our reputation around these parts has always been that of the raunchy stepchild. The attitude still pervades the city, even despite the boot of Doug McCallum - Dianne Watts certainly hasn’t slowed anything down, or taken a long term look at the impacts of certain developments. Heard of Campbell Heights?

While we may be beginning to make bigger steps in terms of density by building townhomes rather than single-family houses (which I would argue is due to the market forces of high housing costs and developers wanting the most bang for their buck), there is still a *ton* of work to do.

What new do I bring to the table?

I can tell you right now that development can be good - if it’s done properly. So I’m not about to halt all future growth in the city. However, that does not mean that all developments must proceed. Council has a duty to only accept those which advance the wellbeing of the city as a whole. And with the plans I lay out below, I will ensure that the city of Surrey becomes a national leader in terms of sustainable development.

And the costs to the taxpayer will be negligible!

1. Green Building Strategy.

This one is big.

Building structures have a huge effect on our communities, depending on their size, style, and efficiency. Buildings can contribute not only to huge energy savings, but also to substantial reductions in greenhouse gases - if they are built sustainably. Cities across the world have implemented Green Building strategies, typically in accordance to the LEED certification system.

Under LEED, developers of new buildings, or major building retrofits, take a look at a checklist of options that will make their development greener. Depending on how many options from the checklist are implemented, a specific LEED certification may be given: Certified, Silver, Gold, or Platinum. LEED certification has proven to only cost approximatively 2% more than existing construction costs, and will produce major savings down the line.

Most cities have a green building strategy applied simply to municipal buildings. Some even give incentives to private developers to encourage them to adopt LEED specifications.

Surrey will go ten steps farther to establish itself as a true leader in this space, whilst at the same time taking a major step forward in the fight against climate change.

Obviously, all details and specifics regulations or targets would be determined by staff and through public consultations but here’s a general idea of what I have in mind:

Beginning immediately, all new and major retrofitted civic buildings most adopt a LEED Gold certification - the most stringent in North America. The City must broker an agreement with the Board of Education that all schools will follow the same standard. (It’s been accomplished through new Provincial legislation).

In addition, major incentives will be given to private developers to encourage them to adopt the new standards. This includes a fasttracked system for building permits, a reasonable reduction in the cost of the building permit, and possibly a reasonable reduction in DCCs (development cost charges), all based on what level of LEED certification has been proposed.

These incentives will be offset a year or two later with the introduction of a levy or tax on all new developments that do not feature LEED certification. Over time, based on the level of LEED certification that has been proposed by the developer, the incentives will decrease, and the disincentives will increase. For example, while in 2008 a developer may have gotten a 50% DCC cut for LEED Silver, in 2010, the same developer would only get a 20% cut, or would have to achieve LEED Platinum for the 50% cut. Meanwhile, a developer who wishes to build with no LEED certification at all will have to pay a tax or levy to do so - this cost increasing over the years.

The disincentives will pay for the incentives, while at the same time, Surrey gets a whole lot of green buildings.

This will continue to the point, over the course of a good 8 years, where all new developments in Surrey are required to be LEED certified.

Such a plan gives developers a timeline to work off of to ensure they get the most incentives available to them, and potentially avoid larger taxation in the future.

In addition, Surrey should develop an annual green building awards ceremony to recognize some of the leaders in the community that are shaping growth sustainably in our community.

With this reasonable, market based, green building strategy, Surrey can ensure that it lowers its carbon footprint, which increases its citizens overall wellbeing. In addition, Surrey will be a newfound national leader in the transition to a green economy.

2. Affordable Housing Strategy

As housing prices continue to escalate, hopeful homeowners have been priced out of the market for a single family house. Meanwhile, new options have sprung up, such as condos and townhomes, providing residents with brand new housing for an achievable pricetag. However, as of 2005, the average annual income of a citizen of Surrey is $32,000. And considering 43% of citizens are not married, the typical formula of having two people share a mortgage is no longer the reality. In fact, it is doubtful a good percentage of residents can even afford to buy *any* form of housing.

Although renting continues to be an affordable alternative to home ownership, these citizens are unlikely to ever be able to enter the ownership market. In such a system, we are simply expanding the split between “haves” and “have nots” - something which has huge societal rebounds in the future.

An affordable housing strategy depends on a variety of measures to ensure that *all* citizens in Surrey can afford to live in reasonable accommodations. The strategy I’m proposing has three major sections.

• 1) A market based incentives program similar to that of the Green Building Strategy: The City should set a baseline for the price a typical housing unit shall cost to be deemed “affordable”. For example, in Austin, the City that this program is based off of, deems “affordable” to be developments that are accessible to citizens at or below 80% of the average median family income for the area. Based on this bar of accessibility, the City gives developers incentives based on the number of affordable units in the overall development. These incentives should include an expedited building permit, and could also include a reduction in the building permit cost. The ultimate goal should be to provide affordable housing for all those at or below the average median family income. For example, if 30% of Surrey’s population fits this designation, then the City’s goal should be to have 30% of all housing priced for this bracket of the market. I believe that this market based approach to increasing affordable units in Surrey is far more sustainable than having the City build and run it’s own units at a net-loss.

• 2) A wide review of building codes and bylaws on developments: As is typical in a bureaucracy, amendments are usually made over and over again, until you’ve created a bunch of hoops and loopholes. That is to say, staff should review the city’s current regulations to clean up, simplify, and perhaps modify its laws in regards to developments. For example, there are parking minimums for all developments in the city. If you think about it, such a restriction is ludicrous for high rise developments near SkyTrain, for which studies have proven that many residents don’t end up needing the parking space that was required in the first place. This in turn made the development more expensive.Or, as has been suggested by Michael Geller, professor at SFU, perhaps there shouldn’t be requirements to have elevators in mid-rise buildings. It brings up a question of accessibility, but it’s also something, as Geller says, we should be looking at as this too would reduce the overall cost of a development - savings which are passed onto the future residents. Other innovative ideas of Geller’s include suites within suites and resale convenants. Why do most new developments have “granite countertops, vaulted ceilings and spectacular views”? These all add to the cost.The City should make it as easy as possible for developers to use ingenuity and innovation to help ease the housing affordability crisis.

• 3) Set housing targets and timelines: Surrey should set city-wide and town centre targets for the provision of rental and privately owned housing units for a variety of users (seniors housing, student housing, family housing, transitional housing, etc.). These targets should be based on the current and future population growth estimates - and the understanding of these people’s age, socio-economic status, and other barometers of access and need for housing. In coordination with the Vitalized Town Centres Plan in the Vibrant Communities pillar, the City, through the Surrey City Development Corporation, could, on its own, make major, economically viable, strides towards fulfilling these targets with select key developments. For more information on that initiative, please visit the Vibrant Communities pillar.