Surrey planning report 7922-0129-00

Staff Report to Council Application No.: 7922-0129-00 Planning & Development Report Page 10 Applicant’s Consultation Response: • As aforementioned, the applicant launched a website in August 2023. The pren0tification mailouts contained the website address and it was also noted on the Development Proposal Signs for the project. • The website outlined the details of the proposal, and asked for respondents to fill out a survey to share their feedback on the neighbourhood and the proposal. • The survey asked respondents to answer some general questions such as where they live, and then questions about the proposal. Respondents were asked to answer how they feel about the proposed development, what types of residential densities and lot sizes they thought were appropriate, and questions regarding housing affordability and housing price. • The applicant’s consultation analysis found that housing affordability and diversity are concerns in the neighbourhood and that respondents felt there should be more options and opportunities for households and families in the area. • The analysis also found that respondents felt that traffic congestion on 24 Avenue is an issue and that road improvements on 24 Avenue are needed. Petition • An online petition with 4,330 signatures in opposition was also organized by neighbourhood residents, which cites concerns about the density proposed and the lack of fit with the existing neighbourhood character, as well as environmental concerns. The petition argues that there are many other areas in South Surrey where densification is planned for, and it does not make sense in this suburban context. Conclusion • The responses received by City staff vary from those received from the applicant’s survey. All of the responses to staff indicated clear opposition to the proposal. The survey asked more value-oriented questions about sentiments regarding housing affordability, diversity and choice. While survey respondents may value things like housing diversity and affordability more broadly, it is clear from the prenotification responses received by staff that there is widespread opposition in the neighbourhood to the proposal. TREES • There are a significant number of mature trees on the subject site. The applicant has completed a tree survey and conducted a preliminary review of trees that could be targeted for retention (Appendix III). A detailed arborist report has not been provided to staff. • If the application is referred back to staff by Council, the applicant would be required to provide a detailed arborist assessment for the subject site. Staff would work with the applicant in that case to review options for tree retention.

非商业公共资料研究与事实报道；仅展示核对事实所需的已评估摘录及本站中文说明。版权归原作者或发布机构；不表示来源机构认可本站。原文、来源及使用条款见链接。 来源使用条款 ↗