Public hearing prompts pause on South Surrey townhome project

Published 6:00 pm Friday, February 27, 2026

Dozens of speakers stood in Surrey council chambers Monday (Feb. 23) to speak for and against – mostly against – townhomes proposed for property located across the street from Crescent Park Elementary School in Ocean Park.

Traffic congestion, density, impact on schools and pedestrian safety were among concerns cited repeatedly over the course of the lengthy public hearing, held regarding plans put forward by Qualico Developments for the southeast corner of 128 Street and 24 Avenue.

Council ultimately referred the matter back to staff, in a vote held at around 11:30 p.m. on a motion from Coun. Pardeep Kooner.

The developer had asked the city to amend Official Community Plan land-use designations and zoning to allow for an 89-unit townhome development on the 2.7-hectare site, currently home to single-family residences and trees. As well, a development variance permit was sought to reduce setbacks on some of the proposed buildings, as well as increase setbacks on others.

Two vehicle-accesses to the site were proposed; one from 128 Street and another from 24 Avenue, with primary site access via a “new internal drive-aisle that forms a loop through the development and connects to both frontages, enabling efficient circulation for residents, visitors, and service vehicles.”

According to a planning report, city staff supported the proposal, noting it “will contribute positively to the area through its sensitive design, potential to expand housing choice, tree retention and enhancement of the local streetscape.”

During the public hearing, one speaker who described herself as a 20-year resident of Ocean Park Terrace – noting it’s “probably a foregone conclusion” that the project will proceed – contended the development would result in a “multitude” of cars jamming up neighbouring streets, as new residents opt to use their garages for storage rather than parking.

She appealed to council to ensure there is no access to 129 Street from the development: “no access for pedestrians, for bikes, for vehicles, for dogs, for ferrets … for whatever.”

A 26-year resident described traffic along 128 Street as “really intense” and expressed concern about the impact “a big development like this” will have on the situation.

“I’m not opposed,” she noted. “Something needs to go there, but it definitely needs to be downgraded.”

While several speakers described the project as high density, others disagreed, describing it as something that would create much-needed housing diversity in the neighbourhood.

A 20-year-old White Rock resident was among supporters, stating that he would appreciate “the opportunity to stick around” that the project would create for young people who have grown up in the community.

He described the mindset at the hearing as “exclusionary.”

“This isn’t the time to debate neighbourhood character, because when you describe a quiet neighbourhood, you also describe a lifeless neighbourhood,” he said.

“It’s rare that Ocean Park gets this kind of opportunity to evolve.”

Other speakers acknowledged change was inevitable but asked that it be “reasonable, measured and consistent with” the city’s OCP.

At least two speakers suggested the development focus on seniors, with one contending seniors in Ocean Park have been “shortchanged.”

Developer representative Jonathan Meads told council the project would add approximately $400,000 in property taxes annually – at current rates – as well as result in more than $10 million in development cost charges for the city.

He noted the 13.6 units-per-acre proposed is similar to townhome projects located north and south of the elementary school, and that sidewalks on both 24 Avenue and 128 Street would be doubled in width through the project.

Council supported Kooner’s motion – “for more public information meetings including confirmation on the access to 129A Street and 129 Street and an additional traffic study for the elementary school during the colder and wetter months of the year” – unanimously.

– with files from Tom Zytaruk