Rezoning 6507-6527 Maple Street

Statement Watch

Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Bruce Althaus, and I live near Maple Street and West 49th Avenue. I'm here tonight to oppose the proposed RR2B rezoning at this location. I want to begin with process because public trust is breaking down. Residents repeatedly show up, speak respectfully, and raise evidence-based concerns only to watch those concerns be dismissed by city staff, project managers, and applicant engineers. Not tested, not debated, simply minimized. Parking is brushed aside. School capacity is oversimplified. Infrastructure strain is deferred. Community impact is reframed as fear of change. At that point, consultation stops becoming meaningful. It becomes performative. A public hearing is not a box to check. It exists so council can ask hard questions, deliberate openly, and determine what problem this building is actually solving, whether its benefits outweigh its costs, and whether it belongs here at this scale right now. That requires probing questions about parking, schools, infrastructure, cumulative impacts, not unrelated or softball questions that sidestep the issues residents are raising. If council isn't rigorously testing proposals in public, residents are left asking, why are we here at all? Let's talk about parking, because the city's assumptions don't match reality. Yes, this site is on an arterial road, but it also serves families, seniors, caregivers, tradespeople, and shift workers, people who rely on cars every single day. We're told transit is nearby. Car ownership will decline. But cars don't disappear. They spill into surrounding residential streets. Families still own vehicles. Trades still need trucks. Caregivers still drive. Seniors are not biking groceries home in February. Reducing on-site parking doesn't eliminate cars that export to prom, creating congestion, safety issues, and daily conflict on nearby streets. Planning must reflect how people actually live, not idealized projections. 19 parking stalls for 71 units. Council should ask plainly, does that make sense? Now let's talk about schools using the Vancouver School Board's own data. Mabel Grove Elementary has an operating capacity of 483 students and an enrollment of 571, 88 students over capacity. So claims that nearby elementary schools have room are simply not accurate. At the secondary level, McGee Secondary capacity 1,200, enrollment 1,002. Point Gray Secondary capacity 1,050, enrollment 811. Even where enrollment appears below capacity, pressures are not solved by pointing to a spreadsheet. We often hear that the city works closely with the Vancouver School Board. Yet when residents ask for concrete, actionable planning, we hear silence. But increased density is real. Residents also raise concerns about infrastructure and community facilities, and these are dismissed just as casually. We are told there is capacity. Operates will come later. But infrastructure doesn't fail all at once. It degrades gradually until it suddenly doesn't work. Yet impacts are assessed one project at a time, ignoring cumulative strain. Ignoring infrastructure doesn't make growth sustainable. It downloads the costs onto existing communities. There's another question that council rarely asks in public, financial feasibility. At a 3.7% rental vacancy rate, Vancouver's rental market has entered a bounce-to-soft phase for the first time in over 30 years. A 3% vacancy generally is considered equilibrium where neither landlord nor tenant have outsized leverage. We are now past that point, and we're already seeing that means on the ground. Landlords are offering one to two months of free rent, turnover rents, while new tenants actually pay declined in 2025. Rent growth hit a two-decade low. Renters have more options and are moving more frequently. These are not abstract indicators. They are real market corrections happening right now. If rents soften further due to a surge in new supply, the economics of this project change immediately. And if the economics no longer works, developers don't absorb the disruption, the neighborhood does. A stalled project means years of construction noise without completion. blocked streets, safety concerns, and prolonged uncertainty for residents. So I'm asking council to do what the public expects. Stress test is proposed not just as a design concept, but as a real project under current market conditions. Because planning isn't only about form, it's about outcomes. Placing a five-story building in a low-density neighborhood without the services or infrastructure to support them damages community life. Scale matters. Context matters. Cumulative impact matters. Council has a responsibility, especially at public hearings, to slow down, ask hard questions, and deliberate openly. Residents are not obstacles. We are local experts. We are not anti-housing. We are not anti-change. We are pro-planning, pro-infrastructure, and pro-community. Now imagine this building is next to your home. How would you truly feel? I urge these councils with a pulse on the community to feel the uptick in pressure that the residents are under. The R2B rezoning in Maple and West 49th fails on parking, realtor, school capacity, infrastructure readiness, financial risk, and neighborhood fit. I urge council to reject at a minimum pauses rezoning at work with residents not around.

Statement Watch

Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Joanne Ricci, and I live in the Carisdale neighborhood for over 45 years. To give you some context, I have been the PAC Chair of Maple Grove Elementary School, McGee Secondary, as well as the past president for the Carisdale Little League Association. So yes, I'm extremely well connected with the community and familiar with its surroundings. I am here not only to speak on behalf of myself, but numerous neighbors, three who are specifically here tonight, who deeply care about this community and its future. I want to begin by acknowledging the broader context we're all aware of. Vancouver is facing a housing challenge, and I understand the importance of creating... more housing options for people who want to live and work in the city. Growth, when done thoughtfully, can strengthen a community. My concern, however, is this specific proposed zoning development and how it will fit into the reality of Karesdale, particularly in three areas, traffic, parking, and infrastructure. There are many new buildings going up very quickly, and without really assessing and evaluating their impact, what they will actually do to the community is of concern. As is noted daily in the newspaper and here at city council hearings, you have heard some of these comments over and over, not just from our group, but from others throughout the city. Onto specifics. 49th Avenue is already one of the most heavily used east-west corridors in this part of the city. It serves not only the local residents, but also commuters to and from UBC and Langara. It services delivery vehicles and public transport. During morning and afternoon peak hours, traffic frequently backs up along 49th and at major key intersections. added traffic is of major safety concern. McGee Secondary, as has been noted, is located adjacent and home to over 1200 students and 90 plus staff. And it actually offers the specialized arts sports program for the city, which is designed for high performance students in both the athletics and the arts. So this entire group of students have to travel from all over Metro Vancouver to this school every day. Maple Grove, as well, in close proximity, has an enrollment of 570 students and over 60 staff. Both of these schools are at capacity, so please tell me where will these new families be sending their children? Many of us who live here already experience daily delays just trying to exit our driveways and make simple left turns. This rezoning will inevitably increase vehicle trips from residents, visitors, ride-hailing services, deliveries. Even with good transit options in the broader area, the reality is that many households still rely on cars for work, taking their children to school, to daycare, and caring for elderly family members. Without meaningful upgrades to traffic management, designated left turn signals, road capacity, safety will be compromised. Thus, the potential two apartments, one on the north and this current proposed one, will minimize parking and increase traffic to a level of unbearable chaos. So to reiterate, this proposed development risks intensifying congestion in a location that is already stretched. Parking is another major concern. Carisdale is a neighborhood where street parking is heavily relied upon. Local businesses depend on it, residents depend on it, and visitors to the area depend on it. Many homes and new multiplexes in the area do not have adequate off-street parking, and permit parking is often full. If this new proposal does not provide sufficient on-site parking, overflow will spill and into surrounding residential streets. This doesn't just create inconvenience, it creates ongoing tension between new residents and existing ones, and it impacts access for service vehicles, delivery, and emergency responders. These are not short-term construction issues. These are permanent day-to-day quality of life concerns. Beyond traffic and parking, there is infrastructure and community resources. Our local schools, parks, and public spaces are already well used. Families rely on these shared resources, and they are part of what makes Carisdale a livable, connected community. Adding a significant number of new residents without a clear and transparent plan for expanding or improving these services risks placing additional strain on the system. That's at capacity. For example, Maple Grove Park cannot handle additional children on its structures at the current way it is. The structure is limited. The playground equipment is outdated and unsafe. Harrisdale Community Centre playground is pathetic, and the community centre itself needs a huge upgrade. And frankly, it's an embarrassment compared to other community centres in the city. Our healthcare, as you well know, is an issue. Walk-in clinics are at capacity. UBC Hospital only has an urgent care... area, residents are left with horrific wait times. So to many of us, it seems like we're putting the cart before the horse. I would respectfully ask Council to consider whether the scale and density of this project truly aligns with the physical and functional limits of the area. Has there been a recent comprehensive traffic impact study for this actual corridor? Are there confirmed commitments for traffic improvements, parking management, infrastructure upgrades, that match projected increases in residents. Many of us are not opposed to change. We are asking for responsible, well-integrated development, the kind that enhances a neighborhood rather than overwhelms it. That might mean revisiting the site of the project. Perhaps a sixplex, an eightplex. Is there sufficient... on-site parking, phasing the development, and investing in a concrete infrastructure improvement right alongside any approval. Carisdale has a strong sense of community. People know each other, they know their neighbours, they walk to local shops. The Greenway is always busy. Seniors rely on safe, accessible streets. Preserving that character while planning for growth is not easy, but it is essential. I appreciate the difficult decisions that you face as council members, and I thank you for taking the time to listen to the voices of those who live here every single day. I hope you will carefully weigh not just the number of units this project can deliver, but the long-term impact it will have on the safety, accessibility, and livability of this neighbourhood. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Statement Watch

Yes, I'm on the line. Can everybody hear me?

You can hear you great.

Hi. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Deborah and I live in Carriesville. I'm here to speak in opposition to district zoning. I've heard the most serious concern is school capacity. My daughter attends Maple Grove Elementary, which is directly across the street from the proposed development. The school is already full every single year and has a long wait list. Families in our area are routinely told there is no space and the school is already stretched in terms of staffing and resources. Every year, parents are asked to raise funds to pay for the things at the school. With an apartment building already approved across the street, I do not see how Maple Grove will be able to accommodate additional families and children from yet another large development. The school is already operating without adequate funding and adding density without addressing school capacity for children, families, and educators in an impossible position. If Council assists on approving this resounding, then there must be a minimum requirement for the developer to have a meaningful contribution to the school, whether through a one-time donation, funding a specific program, or supporting additional resources. Right now, the burden is being shifted entirely onto the school that is already at its breaking point. My second concern is safety on Maple Street. Maple Street is supposed to function as a two-way street, but in reality is extremely narrow. With parking on one side, it often only allows a single lane of traffic to pass at a time. Adding a large apartment building with limited parking will inevitably increase street congestion, drop-offs of deliveries, and illegal parking. This creates a real safety risk, especially for children. Maple Grove students walk along the street every day, including my own daughter. Increased traffic on the narrow, constrained roadway puts pedestrians, particularly children, at risk. This is not a hypothetical concern. It is a daily reality for families like mine who live here. And my third concern is neighborhood character and housing needs. There are already many vacant units nearby, including the Chloe development on East Boulevard. Given this existing vacancy, I'm worried that these proposed apartments may also sit empty while permanently removing mature trees and damaging the established tree canopy and character of the neighborhood. Once the trees are gone and the scale of the street is altered, this cannot be undone. We risk losing what makes this area livable without actually addressing affordability or occupancy in a meaningful way. In closing, I am asking council to seriously consider the real on-the-ground impacts of this rezoning on schools, on child safety, and on the long-term health of this neighborhood. Density without adequate infrastructure planning and accountability is not responsible growth. Thank you for your time and listening.

Statement Watch

Mr. Mayor and Councillors, my name is James Gray. I stand to speak against the development of Maple Street at 49th Avenue, indeed very much against. I have lived on the adjoining block south of Maple Street since 1983. In having this public hearing, it is good to know that the city recognizes that it has an obligation to existing neighborhoods and that it is interested in hearing our concerns, and I thank you for that. My objection to this present proposal is primarily for the sheer bulk and massive size of the project, which I believe to be completely out of scale, context, or character for the neighborhood, especially with the narrow street intricacies of this particular block of Maple Street. By a remote quirk of ancient planning, this block of Maple Street is basically a single lane street. From your referral report map, it is difficult to appreciate that there's actually parking on one side of Maple Street, which is often filled to capacity, and then only one lane of travel restricted to the other side. The proposed building will not just be on the main artery, 49th Avenue, but extend two city lots down Maple Street. The front entry of the proposed building is depicted on Maple Street, which will further congest both the street and the sidewalk. With the proposed 70 units of this behemoth building, I challenge you to imagine 140 additional residents living on this single lane street with all their comings and goings compared to the previous possible eight or so individuals in the current two houses. I am also concerned with only 10 underground parking spots provided by the building, to my understanding anyway, putting the inevitable remainder of cars onto an already packed narrow side street. There are already significant traffic challenges on the single lane Maple Street related to the busy traffic caused by the two adjacent schools across 49th Avenue, as have already been discussed by my neighbours. This is quite a different picture than seen on other large arteries such as Granville, Oak, Cambie Streets and 41st Avenue, where the wider streets are more accommodating to larger structures, notably with a parallel... back lane, which provides a separation between the newly constructed residential buildings on the main artery and the neighborhood behind. Vancouver should learn from missteps taken by other jurisdictions that have recently evolved their thinking. Quoting from the Vancouver Sun this past weekend, quote, in October, Burnaby Council responded to public pressure and approved bylaw amendments to reduce allowable building heights and sizes, unquote. Vancouver should learn from these acknowledged missteps and then recalibration steps taken by Burnaby concerning both the heights and sizes of large buildings within a neighborhood. As for next steps for these two Maple Street lots in question, I understand there is a need for both increased density and more housing for families, and I strongly believe that smaller two- or three-story triplex or quadruplex buildings would be much more appropriate. In conclusion, I think this proposal is monstrously out of scale for this neighborhood and its streets. If allowed to proceed, I believe this proposal will lead to irreparable harm to the area and ultimately the surrounding city in which we all live. Thank you very much for your attention.

Statement Watch

Mayor and members of council, my name is Greg Kassoff. I am speaking against the rezoning application at 6507 to 6527 Maple Street. My wife and I are both Vancouver born. In 1986, preparing for the arrival of our daughter, we put a down payment on a house on U Street just north of 49th and have lived as homeowners in Kearsdale since then for 46 years. We now lived for the past 20 of those years on East Boulevard, just south of 49th. In my early years, Vancouver was a gritty, resource-based town. It modernized and expanded with big urban renewal projects, and its population grew. Over those years, the city, for the most part, nurtured a high livability quotient in relative harmony with its beautiful natural setting and prided itself on retaining its signature character neighborhoods, Carisdale being an historic neighborhood center. I wish to convey my sincere concerns related to the City of Vancouver rezoning application for a five-story rental building at Maple Street on the south side of the 2000 block of West 49th. To be clear, I'm not NIMBY with an N, not in my backyard, or YIMBY with a Y, yes, in my backyard. As Bruce Altus, our opening speaker, has already stated, we are pro-housing, pro-planning, pro-infrastructure, and pro-community. So rather, I am Wimby with a W. What, why, and where in my backyard? In 1995, I was in attendance at a meeting in Kearsdale at which the city laid out its blueprint for what they called City Plan, a landmark bottom-up planning initiative adopted by Vancouver City Council. It officially affirmed Vancouver as a city of neighborhoods, villages within the larger city, each with its own distinct identity. To accommodate growth and improve affordability, the plan aimed to introduce more housing variety, including, at that time, townhouses and row houses into neighborhoods. I remember clearly that at that meeting, Karesdale was identified as one of only two existing neighborhoods in the city of Vancouver that then served as a template for a village node. In other words, Carisdale already manifested the characteristics that City Council was looking to develop in other areas of the city. Since then, we have witnessed the introduction of duplexes, row houses, laneway housing, and now multiplexes and apartments scattered throughout the city. Recently in Keresdale, we have seen increased building density along East and West Boulevard. This increased density is appropriately located on these streets along which such density is less negatively impactful as it builds on and supports local businesses that have existed there for many years. However, it has been at the expense of the affordable and spacious apartment rentals, even a co-op apartment, all demolished to make way for the introduction of not by any means affordable, that is, very expensive condos. In February 2025, the city received a development application for construction of a six-story rental building, allowing for a structure with 125 units on the Maple Street site in question. Combined with the 125 units on the north side of 49, with the 75 units allowed in the proposed rezoning across the street at Mabel Street, heightens the impact on the community with real and enduring repercussions on local traffic and parking and schools. Neighborhoods want and need families. Families need appropriately sized living spaces and cars. Cars need adequate parking and roads to facilitate reasonable flow and safe travel. Families also require accessible and efficacious local infrastructure, including schools and community centers. So both of these projects, especially taken together, stand as a potential threat to the coherence of our neighborhood, the livability of the space that we value as our home, livability, the primary feature of the neighborhood that attracted us to settle in Karesdale 40 years ago. I suspect the many, if not most, residents in Vancouver, like me, are Wimbees, and we vote.

Statement Watch

Well, good evening, Mr. Mayor and council people. My name is Sean Wallace. I've been a resident of the west side of Vancouver for about 30 years. And to be precise, we live at 6520 Maple Street, which is immediately across the street from the proposed development site. I'm here tonight with my partner, Brianna, my daughter, London, and we're also representing our other children, Olivia and Liam, who have enjoyed a fantastic place to grow up, and now they're off at uni, but London would also like to grow up in a fantastic neighbourhood. You know... I've lived here for over 30 years, first as a renter and then as an owner on several different properties. So tonight I'm speaking in opposition to the particular development. We support housing. Housing is necessary. The city's growing. Obviously, you have to adapt, you know. But the quality of life has to remain, if at all possible. My concern is whether added density is being matched with the safety, infrastructure, capacity, and neighborhood fit standards needed to avoid predictable impacts. And they are predictable. It's obvious. You add another 120 people to the traffic nightmare that we're already seeing evidenced outside our door each and every day. I don't even know how they're going to get it constructed. They'll have to shut those schools down, I think, during that time. So the most immediate issue is the traffic safety in the school zone. Morning drop-off and afternoon pickup are already congested, as I mentioned, with curbside conflicts and higher crossing risk for children, caregivers. There's a number of elderly people in our neighborhood. You see it with their caregivers. They don't move quickly. You can't have a bunch of stressed people ripping around. We have to care for these people. Parking spillover and circulation as vehicles compete for limited curb space. Now, construction will impact truck routing, block sidewalks, dust, diesel emissions, plus loss of tree canopy and added hard surface area that can increase summer heat and stormwater runoff unless green infrastructure is required. My request to Council is straightforward. Please defer approval until cumulative impacts are assessed. approve only with enforceable conditions school zone traffic calming and crossing improvements before occupancy a construction traffic and sidewalk protection plan meaningful tree retention and replacement and step back setbacks to reduce shadowing and privacy impacts And then, if this rezoning proceeds, require binding enforceable conditions such as school zone safety upgrades before occupancy, traffic calming improvements, a construction management plan with routes, hours, sidewalk protection and enforcement with special consideration for school start and dismissal times. Meaningful tree retention replacement targets and clear design measures, step backs, setbacks to reduce shadowing and privacy impacts. In short, if council is determined to add density here, it should also require the safety and infrastructure measures to make that density function safely and predictably, and not at the cost of our quality of life. And if you'll indulge us, London would like to say a quick word. Is that okay? That's absolutely amazing. It's a privilege, rather, that we all get to enjoy, that we should all be so grateful for, that we are allowed to speak. My name is London and I'm seven years old and I live at 6520 Maple Street in Vancouver and I am not in support of the proposed development directly across the street from my home for the following reasons. I feel safe in my neighborhood and know many of my neighbors and worry that will change if the area becomes more dense. There would be many more cars, which is bad for the environment, and our street is already filled with cars from the single-family homes that the street is lined with. The development would mean more destruction of lots of trees and bushes, which are homes of animals. Please consider this and all of the other valid reasons from the other speakers tonight why this development is not a good idea. Thank you.

Statement Watch

good evening mayor and council so please excuse me I'm a little bit nervous I'm not used to it but I want to say something from my heart I live in this neighborhood for 32 years I like to start with one questions how much is enough How much housing is enough? This question always comes to my mind when I drive in our city. We are stuck in heavy traffic because of the construction everywhere. We see many buildings under construction. We see rezoning signs on many streets. We see big banners on the buildings saying, now renting, hanging there for a long time. We always hear news about too many new homes and pressure in the pre-sale market. So I ask myself, so much is already being built. Why does it still feel something is missing? I speak today not as a city planner or a politician, but as a resident. My home and my peace are affected by the decision made here. Before approving another rezoning, please imagine this is your home. Imagine the house next to yours become a five-story building. You will lose sunlight. You will lose privacy. Your sky window will be overlooked by the sky roof. So your life changed, even though you did nothing wrong. I remember last year, in the middle of last year, one evening, my neighbor called me. She was very worried. She just learned that the house next to her will be re-sewn and built into a five-story building. She moved there only a few years ago. She believed this was a stable neighborhood. This is what I want to say clearly. Displacement does not only happen when people move away. Resoning can push people out without them leaving their homes. When peace, privacy, and certainty are taken away, a house no longer feel like a home. People like my neighbors and us bought our home based on the rule at that time. When those rules changed overnight, the city is changing the deal after people have already paid the price. Myself, across from my home, a large box-shaped building is being built. A friend comes to visit me and asks me, is that a church? That is how out of place it looks. It doesn't fit the neighborhood. It takes away the feeling of peace. I understand we need housing. We are responsible, we are reasonable people, but density keep increasing while parking, school and community service not. This is not balanced. We are not asking for sympathy. We asking for responsible decision. Please think about the people who already live here. Please visit our street and see the real impact. So let me ask you again, how much is enough? Thank you.

Statement Watch

My name's Nancy Tam, and I live on Maple Street. I just want to say that I'm really against this development. Firstly, we have to look at this Maple Street in itself. It's a narrow street, so parking is only allowed on the west side. So usually the whole street is parked with the current residents that's on there. So when there's traffic coming up, it's usually coming up from the east side. And I have trouble getting into my house. coming in from along West 49th, when the school is happening in the morning. Twice for, once for Maple Grove and once for McGee School. So they have two different starting times. And because it is a, currently it is a two-way street, but once the park, the streets are parked on the west side, it becomes a one-way street. So it doesn't, traffic is just stuck there. I can't come in and I can't come out. I can't even pull out of my, my parking spot on the west side when the school's starting because it's all packed up with cars trying to get to the school. And then secondly, Maple Grove as it is, it's already packed. My kid who's in grade six and last year my other child was in grade seven, they are in portables. So if you're thinking about getting more kids in there or it's packed, not possible so and then I was looking on the listing for rent there seems to be like a lot of vacancies or about 50 vacancy in just this area so I don't think it's necessary for this development to be a rental property and lastly If you're looking at your map that you guys are for the development map, you can see the site around that area has been already been redeveloped for rental units and living units. For example, the site across the street from us, it's already in development for a six-story apartment, and they're starting construction soon. So there's going to be a lot more rental units out there already. And then along East Broadway, It's all RM3, C2. So there is a lot of, there is density. You guys plan for the density. And then lastly, when I'm coming home along 49th Avenue, trying to get into my house, there's a little bump out from there so that if there's a car that's turning left to get into this property or into my house, I cannot, it stops traffic totally because of the bump out. They cannot turn out. to get into the access into the Maple Street, the new development. So the only access for this development is through Maple Street and the alley. So there is no way that you're gonna get 50, 60 people coming into the house. more people. So that's the reason why I'm against it. I think for this particular street, because of the location, because of the bump out, because of the narrowing of the street, that's not suitable. And because the density is already there, and you guys have provided the density, on the other side of the street, I don't think this development is necessary. You have to match a need to it. When there's density already available, then this is not a necessary development. Thank you.

Statement Watch

Okay. I've been listening to the meeting online and thankfully I was able to call in because I didn't think I was able to. So I understand that development is necessary and changes do happen. Both would be great if they made sense. This has already been stated by the previous speakers, but the talk of the traffic and the congestion, it really doesn't make sense. McGee's got over 1,400 kids. Maple Grove actually has over 600. There's a potential swing site at the old Maple Grove that they're still discussing filling that with the potential of another 600 kids. The UBC traffic, the Langara traffic, all of that. Additionally, what I wanted to say was, as well as being part of the neighborhood, I also teach at Maple Grove Elementary School. And I've been there as a teacher for over 25 years, and I've seen the changes and the weight that has been put on our school numbers. My children currently go to McGee Secondary and the same thing goes there. Maple Grove is completely full. Like right now, we are absolutely full. We have a wait list. Students who live across the street can't come to our school. Last year, 60 students were displaced and had to be moved to another school until there was space for them to come back to us. And some of them are still not with us. They're still waiting. So adding a large bill potentially bringing in more young families where their children supposed to go. Our brand new school, we're like, I don't know, five years old or something like that. We're happy to get it, but it's smaller. We can't fit what we have in our neighborhood right now. Earlier stated as well, students who are supposed to be so happy to get into this brand new school, they've been pushed out to portables. There are two portables that are sitting in what used to be Maple Grove's old tennis courts. to accommodate this influx of people. There's also currently talk of opening up the remaining two portables because we still don't have the space. So there needs to be better planning. So if this development goes through, as you heard from everybody else, it's just not a good idea. It's not sustainable for our neighborhood. It's not sustainable for the residents. And it's not going to work for our entire community. So I appreciate that you have listened to everybody. I'm hoping that you will really think about it and to think about like the future of our neighborhood. So thank you. And that's all I have to say.