my name is paul wormer. i was at a brainstorming session yesterday and facilitator pointed out one thing is killing good ideas and i want to compliment staff with listening to concerns and really addressing the concerns. dennis antelli spoke to that. i did want to make a couple of specific comments about the planning code amendment before you. the first one is one that was made at the last hearing on this item, which is perhaps having p zoning treated as one unit. it's not the best solution, but i understand that that sort of a major revision might not fall within the timeframe. one specific item that i did note in the legislation before you is the restriction of uses to below-ground or first-floor level for non-public uses in a p zoned building, obviously since we're talking about levels and it's not clear to me that restricting the non-public use to the ground-floor is necessarily necessary or desirable. i can conceive of a flush number ofip stances where you may have non-public use that is related to the

my name is paul wormer. there is an interesting problem at work here, and this is the issue of value-creation. and who exactly is value being created for? conversion of this property to office use clearly creates value for the property owner. it is totally unclear if that creates value for the community as a whole? i am finding that people that i did business with in the area have been forced to move, because the rents are very high and going up. and part of this is by your actions and converting and granting cus, you are creating an expectation on part of property owners that we can get more rent. it's really easy to have an unrentable pdr space by expecting office rents from the pdr industries. so your actions on each individual lot change the mindset, change the thinking of the property owners and developer community in a way that simply raises the rents for everyone, who is trying to do pdr. it's removing space for manufacturing. it's making it harder for the existing businesses that have been