. >> prior usage was pdr? >> mixed in the past. >> tara sullivan. i am here representing jim reuben who has been the attorney on the case working for scott sanchez for quite a long long time. scott did an excellent overview for this project so we are hear here for two floors, approximately 40,000 square feet of office space. this will impose fees because right now they have been stayed because this has been continuousl y continued by this board, until our client gets authorization from the planning commission and gets the building permit. that will happen by september of 2019. the central soma plan will hopef ully be approved this fall and that will not necessarily impact the ability of the problem to get an authorization. we won't be able to file until that plan is approved by that gives time to go through the authorization process. in the that time, we will still be paying fees. the property owner is happy to pay those fees. we are happy with the settle ment. they approach the city on their own to do so an we feel this is a good remedy to the prob

supervisor came did introduce some amendments to the benefits package to create a new 10 million-dollar pdr relocation fund. this would be to support p.r. businesses in the area and to mitigate the potential impacts of displacement as the neighbourhood redevelops. as you are probably also aware, supporting p.r. businesses in the area and ensuring no net loss of jobs is a key policy goal of the larger plan. in order to create this 10 million-dollar funds, the supervisor proposed returning the contribution from central stoma to the old mint, back to the 2015 funding proposal, which was $50 million. in addition to lowering funding for environmental sustainability and resilience by 5 million. you have before you the revised benefits package. it will project it as well. this shows the change allocation of funding from, as i mentioned, from the old mint at $5 million, and environmental sustainability and resilience, at $5 million, from a couple different projects to this new p.d.r. relocation fund. i will note that this benefits package is illustrative. it is based on expected revenues from devel

they've had a few private equity firms coming, whether the pdr or all of these guys coming in.ition among the bidders which makes it seem like if there was a price find to be reached, they would have reached it. the fact the company said no at a time when profits, profits are down 29%. the question is, what do they know that we don't know? why are they saying no? is it because they think they deserve valuations of people like the works, backed by softbank and one of the most viable companies? matt: and by all accounts, also a much trendier place to work. would you rather have a we work office or regis office? they are two very different propositions. ruth: which is probably what bidders think. what does the board do? where do they go from here? i'd imagine every activist investor that is in the u.k. space is going to be looking at them and thinking, is there a play to be made here? matt: you have to say, did you want to be worth a fifth of what you are worth yesterday? let's talk about the other big a linda praxair merger, which we thought would be the biggest merger in the spa