No, if they if they would be allowed to provide a trail, but want to make a fee and loo payment instead.

Okay.

I mean, if they would if they could meet all the requirements for providing a trail, but whatever reason.

So you can only do a trail if your PAAS that is required is more than 30,000 square feet.

So if it's less than 30,000 square feet, you cannot do a trail.

You have to do one of the other types of PAS.

So like a plaza, uh through block connection, and all the different types uh that are listed in section six.

Um, but on particularly large properties, um, you are because the PAS requirement is 5%, all of a sudden you you have a very big PAS requirement.

So that's where we introduced the option of a trail, but trails are obviously much cheaper to build uh than um uh a plaza, uh and they are also usually in areas of town um where the rents are lower, uh it's cheaper, so uh it's it's uh less feasible um to build an expensive PAS with the type of project that's being built there.

But well, if we lower the PAAS, the pass B for um trails, aren't we incentivizing the property owner then not to put the trail in but to pay the fee and lo?

Um I mean it's like the fee and loo for uh BMRs, it needs to be uh balanced.

I mean, the idea of the fee and loo is um that uh you you create an out for situations where it's difficult to provide the amenity, or where uh it doesn't make a whole lot of sense uh to provide uh the amenity.

So obviously, if we make it too cheap, then yes, people would go for the fee and loo um uh potentially, but what we also want to avoid is that people build PASs just because they have to, and those PASs don't make um a whole lot of sense.

Okay, like um, I mean, in downtown, if you have two PASs right next to each other, that might not make uh a whole lot of sense uh in the context.

While you could use the fee and loo to upgrade um uh nearby uh city park or or plant uh street trees uh uh in the public right of way or something like that, but usually obviously PAS um approvals come to you, and uh you have discretion if you if you approve the the fee and loo or or you don't.

Got it.

Okay.

And then um there's a couple of um really small changes.

So we uh propose to delete a footnote uh that literally says the same thing uh as a stated in the district regulations.

Um because we have uh reorganized the zoning resolutions, uh there is some uh references in there to section 7K, which doesn't exist anymore.

Uh the regulation has gone to a different place, so that's just updating uh the reference.

The same is true for section 7R that was moved to the appendix.

So we just want to make sure that in the regulations it doesn't say 7R, but it refers to the appendix where it's what's now located.

Um also um we wanted to clarify that a simulated golf course uh is considered an amusement indoor.

So uh one of the issues we have run into is that someone actually wanted to open a simulated golf facility in downtown.

And uh we told them that sounds like a great idea.

Um we think it could be considered an amusement indoor, but then it turned out that simulated golf course is actually a use that's defined in the zoning regulations, and it's only allowed by special permit in one district, which uh didn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.

So uh I mean it's a little bit uh if you remember uh uh a while back we had a definition, a use definition for domestic veterinarians, domestic cats only.

Uh it's really sort of cleaning up and and making the use where certain uses are allowed um more rational.

Um then uh the next one uh in the PAS section.

Um there were just two different uh pieces of information.

So in one section it said that you can have a PA, you can have trails as a PAS if the required PAS is uh more than 30,000, and in a different section it says if it's more than one acre.

So um to to get rid of that contradiction, we propose to reduce uh it to uh uniformly to 30,000 um square feet, and then uh lastly, and that's actually uh the thing that uh was new in the text uh version that I sent to you today was that the parking requirement and contractors material storage yard uh referred to the wrong uh parking requirement in section uh 12.

So this is just correcting uh an error that that was in the regulations, and I believe um that's uh pretty much it.

So in summary, I really think most of the stuff is uh uh upgrades and corrections and not anything of of any major significance, but it will clarify uh uh uh a couple of things that we've been struggling with.

Um, and and makes it easier for both applicants and the zoning board to apply the regulations.

Okay.

That's very good.

Okay, uh any questions from board members before we go to the public.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Oh, I'm sorry, Rosan.

Go ahead.

No, no, Raquel, go ahead.

Um, I just wanted um I just wanted Ralph to just um go over the last slide regarding the RM1 and the other zones, just not yeah, run that by a second.

Uh you mean slowly, yes.

So uh there was an old section 7R that allowed uh special development standards in the RM1R5 and RMF um for for public housing or publicly supported uh housing for affordable housing.

Uh so 7R had been around forever.

Um what we did was um when we reorganized everything, uh we moved 7R into a footnote in the appendix.

We didn't change a thing, we just instead of having a separate section in the zoning regulations, we put a footnote next to RM1, R5, and RMF that basically said exactly the same thing that was uh in section 7R.

Um, but what we did not do was um update it uh in the zoning resolution.

So there's there's no change in those development standards or to which districts they apply.

It's really just that we move them and we didn't update uh the reference.

That's that's really all.

Okay, all right.

Thanks, Ralph.

Yeah, Roseanne.

Um Ralph, didn't we discuss making some changes?

Um to the C D districts, isn't it?

C D where Yes.