A first look at Mission’s future daycare was revealed during a public hearing on April 19 in the form of detailed architectural renderings.
The hearing was held because of the need to rezone the 3.36-acre property on 33083 Tunbridge Avenue, as small portions of the planned development area are currently zoned “protected natural assets.”
Council approved the rezoning at the end of the meeting.
The city received five letters in support for the additional daycare space, one letter in general support with concerns about on-street parking and additional traffic, and one letter in opposition due to concerns about the disruption of wildlife habitat, traffic and noise.
Three people spoke before council during the hearing, one in favour and two with environmental concerns.
The extra space for childcare is badly needed in the community, said Dawn Hein, CEO of Mission Association for Community Living. The organization intends to operate the daycare.
“We are at a critical shortage of spaces for families at all levels of child care – infant, two-and-a-half to school-aged (children), and also before and after school (care),” Hein said, adding they want to create an inclusive space.
“Unfortunately, what we have seen as an organization is, families who have children with disabilities or other extra support requirements are disproportionately affected by the shortage of childcare admissions.”
One neighbour, Randy Kozoris, said he’s lived on the street for 17 years and expressed concern over the process, claiming there has already been considerable environmental damage from previous failed development projects.
He claimed illegal activities had taken place such as chopping and burning trees, and disruption of a fish-bearing creek, but nothing was ever done despite bylaw complaints.
“Now I’m watching another development take place,” Kozoris said, who is skeptical of the city’s environment reports. “It does mess up the ecosystem in that area.”
Mission’s Chief Administrative Officer Mike Younie said two or three environmental assessments have been conducted on the property, which resulted in the development area being reduced significantly.
Younie said that’s why there is a funny shape to the property, because about two-thirds of the area has been protected,
Another neighbour echoed the environmental concerns, stating there hasn’t been proper preliminary bio-inventory on the entire site.
He said he didn’t think building directly on site with protected natural assets is a good idea.