mr. snider -- you reference in the text dated september 17th, tdrs. i don't see that in this slide or the subsequent slide. am i missing something? >> no. the tdr requirement, i may have -- there was nothing really that changed in that particular provision. we may not have listed it here because it was really more of a reorganization of where those provisions landed. originally it was in the provision of the special use district. staff, after having worked with these amendments, felt that it was better suited to be in the portion of the planning code that addresses tdr. >> supervisor peskin: you mean article 11? >> no. it wasn't article 11 -- i think it is article 128. let me look real quickly. >> if i can elaborate on what matt just said, the number of amendments in the legislation that are not listed here are really organizational corrections to typos. there was some of organizational provisions that moved from the special use district to 128. that's where the rest of the tdr controls lived. >> your representation is that the practical effect, other

mr. snider -- you reference in the text dated september 17th, tdrs. i don't see that in this slide or the subsequent slide. am i missing something? >> no. the tdr requirement, i may have -- there was nothing really that changed in that particular provision. we may not have listed it here because it was really more of a reorganization of where those provisions landed. originally it was in the provision of the special use district. staff, after having worked with these amendments, felt that it was better suited to be in the portion of the planning code that addresses tdr. >> supervisor peskin: you mean article 11? >> no. it wasn't article 11 -- i think it is article 128. let me look real quickly. >> if i can elaborate on what matt just said, the number of amendments in the legislation that are not listed here are really organizational corrections to typos. there was some of organizational provisions that moved from the special use district to 128. that's where the rest of the tdr controls lived. >> your representation is that the practical effect, other

mr. snider -- you reference in the text dated september 17th, tdrs. i don't see that in this slide or the subsequent slide. am i missing something? >> no. the tdr requirement, i may have -- there was nothing really that changed in that particular provision. we may not have listed it here because it was really more of a reorganization of where those provisions landed. originally it was in the provision of the special use district. staff, after having worked with these amendments, felt that it was better suited to be in the portion of the planning code that addresses tdr. >> supervisor peskin: you mean article 11? >> no. it wasn't article 11 -- i think it is article 128. let me look real quickly. >> if i can elaborate on what matt just said, the number of amendments in the legislation that are not listed here are really organizational corrections to typos. there was some of organizational provisions that moved from the special use district to 128. that's where the rest of the tdr controls lived. >> your representation is that the practical effect, other