as a non pdr use. and they were in lease negotiations and it was a valuable lease and unfortunately that lease was lost because the l.o.d. was released and the l.o.d. said that because the office upstairs is considered to be accessory and not principal, that you have more than 5,000 square feet of pdr and prop x is triggered. under prop x you need to re pace .75 square feet and this almost never happens as a practical matter. what it does it forces people to look for another space to convert it to pdr use because you are not allowed to use the existing space and convert it to pdr. so what prop x does, if you are over the 5,000 square foot threshold it effective low just locks you into pdr use. >> i think that was the idea and i believe that was supervisor jane kim that initiated that way back in the day. so, your client occupied this property up until when? >> our client has owned this property for a long time. i would be speculating to guess for how long. i think it's been probably more than 20 years.

as a non pdr use. and they were in lease negotiations and it was a valuable lease and unfortunately that lease was lost because the l.o.d. was released and the l.o.d. said that because the office upstairs is considered to be accessory and not principal, that you have more than 5,000 square feet of pdr and prop x is triggered. under prop x you need to re pace .75 square feet and this almost never happens as a practical matter. what it does it forces people to look for another space to convert it to pdr use because you are not allowed to use the existing space and convert it to pdr. so what prop x does, if you are over the 5,000 square foot threshold it effective low just locks you into pdr use. >> i think that was the idea and i believe that was supervisor jane kim that initiated that way back in the day. so, your client occupied this property up until when? >> our client has owned this property for a long time. i would be speculating to guess for how long. i think it's been probably more than 20 years.

one of the ways to do that was to enable some of the required pdr to be swapped out for the retail. we should mention that the retail in the proposed legislation is very tailored in terms of its size and in terms of the type of retail making sure it is neighborhood-serving. the final substantive requirements is regarding exposure requirement for dwelling units. as you may know, planning code requires dwelling units either face public right of way and/or courtyard or internal open space that has particular dimensional requirements. what we have been finding is that these dimensional requirements for the likes of certain central soma through the development and city, a lot of these developments were seeing variances. instead, what we are proposing now is that that exposure requirement be relaxed for central soma and simplified such that it would be simpler for the projects to meet that requirement. supervisor, that concludes my presentation. i would be happy to go back to the slide and go through what we are calling the clarifying amendments. we can walk through those, why we think th

one of the ways to do that was to enable some of the required pdr to be swapped out for the retail. we should mention that the retail in the proposed legislation is very tailored in terms of its size and in terms of the type of retail making sure it is neighborhood-serving. the final substantive requirements is regarding exposure requirement for dwelling units. as you may know, planning code requires dwelling units either face public right of way and/or courtyard or internal open space that has particular dimensional requirements. what we have been finding is that these dimensional requirements for the likes of certain central soma through the development and city, a lot of these developments were seeing variances. instead, what we are proposing now is that that exposure requirement be relaxed for central soma and simplified such that it would be simpler for the projects to meet that requirement. supervisor, that concludes my presentation. i would be happy to go back to the slide and go through what we are calling the clarifying amendments. we can walk through those, why we think th

one of the ways to do that was to enable some of the required pdr to be swapped out for the retail. we should mention that the retail in the proposed legislation is very tailored in terms of its size and in terms of the type of retail making sure it is neighborhood-serving. the final substantive requirements is regarding exposure requirement for dwelling units. as you may know, planning code requires dwelling units either face public right of way and/or courtyard or internal open space that has particular dimensional requirements. what we have been finding is that these dimensional requirements for the likes of certain central soma through the development and city, a lot of these developments were seeing variances. instead, what we are proposing now is that that exposure requirement be relaxed for central soma and simplified such that it would be simpler for the projects to meet that requirement. supervisor, that concludes my presentation. i would be happy to go back to the slide and go through what we are calling the clarifying amendments. we can walk through those, why we think th

us because pivotal to this is what woz the cause of death in this case, then we have to look to the pdr d, which is the police department and recording devices to see what they caught on camera. then you have to factor into this case. the training of police officer in dealing with the mentally ill, usually police departments aren't trained very well in that regard, and that's the complaint 23 4. i'm sorry. high up, michael. it appears as though i might be having trouble with my microphone, hoping that you can still hear me. but what will the family in this case i need to prove here. well, they're gonna have to prove the cost of death, especially in light of the george floyd incident where that officer put in media on the neck of mr floyd. you would think officers around the country would learn. don't get your anywhere near someone's net. no if he died from a see ation. get both foreigners say that it doesn't bode well for the police department. the other issue here. heather is the police department stepping back and saying, you know, we're not gonna let it any information out right now.

. >> my question relates to slide, it's on the same topic of the pdr testing, relates to a slide in dr. zhang's testing as well as table 18 in the briefing document. although there's concordance, as you just stated, in general between the testing done at the site and the centrally-concurrent testing, in this table all of the differences appear to be in the placebo group which seems a little bit odd. are we to interpret in general that one of these tests is more sensitive and the other is less specific? or how are you interpreting the differences? >> i'm sorry, i'll have to find the table you're referring to, but the tests, as i mentioned, used in the central laboratory are all fda-authorized and 99.9% sensetivity. and i think similar specificity as well. so in terms of the samples analyze ared, like i mentioned in the presentation and briefing document, there was some selection bias involved in which some got sequenced first. so, again, those samples were more severe cases, samples that had onset 14 days or after, so -- [inaudible] would have met the primary endpoint were sequenced fir

think is happening here with regards to the small business is being worked with as a result of the pdr extension and their customers? >> i think a lot of the changes that have been made to cbp have been important for some small businesses. i've responded to many of their needs and so we applaud the congressand this committee's leadership for making that happen . moving forward, i think it's important that we can continue to identify those jobs as well as opportunities in the next round as it goes out the door to make other changes as they may be needed where we are in the pandemic right now. and i look forward to working with you on this . >> thank you. >> now we recognize the gentleman from arizona. >> thank you madame chair and at this time i will not take the whole five minutes. you were very gracious. i like to go back to the point i was making with respect to innovation and finding a way to create more capital opportunities and i didn't get a chance to get to this pender. i appreciate your willingness to always comeforward to members of the house and share your perspective . some