requiring those large bike spaces if anyone did a survey on any of the existing ridership. i think of the ross building or 5 or 560 mission which is a newer session. i think the policy is fine but it should be grounded in reality and there maybe some commercial uses where there's going to be a lot less demand >> they have sent you a letter of support. >> and then conversion of auto street parking is there that i process that has to happen

before a space disappears? >> it's off street park. so like a car parking in a garage can be converted >> scald you drive somewhere and you lose a bunch of car spaces. >> thank you. >> i have two questions just for the record we received 3 e-mails i'd like to ask the city attorney just to have it answered. the letter i received on item 12 couldn't be enacted by the commission today because it was not properly noticed with the

text of the ordinance post 72 hours before. and the second one i passed on to you and the third one i don't know how to respond to them. i feel we need to acknowledge receipt of those letters >> commissioner moore we received on the first letter i received a call around 10:00 a.m. that the brotherser couldn't download. the matters have been properly noticed. the link to item 11 consequently provided the public with the same pact that the link would

have provided it's the same subject matter. the public library the counter the receptionist had available hard copies of the document. and after connotation >> point number 2 i am continuing the position in great support of increasing bicycle accessibility and bicycle parking in the city. i think the numbers as they rely to practice and observation at least for the level parts of the city seem accurate. i have a question and that's the question of great certain to me. your idea of making - defineing

bike parking use there is a city aspect to bicycle parking, however, once the piece of metal gets put into active use it is a that was use like a car like a bicycle that's not the issue it becomes an in- i think that the building transparency and grounded - when you look at particular the narrow residential buildings and mixed use buildings to come to items

of how to animate the ground floor. for example, you need in addition to the entrance the lobby entrance you need is another opening. now start to put all those elements into the facade of our ground floor and add another door for our bike parking. you've got a static use. that's not properly architectly discussed and there was only one diagram it was discussed where you take it through the building

and park is into the lobby. when you take a long time finding architectural electrocutions and it could be discretely pushed into a space but we preserve a strong attitude. in addition to that i don't believe and i have to be clear about that that this plane bicycle other than in a bible store to delay bicycles of less expensive is being in- you might see a perfect fit person riding

out there but it's not because you see a bicycle hanging behind a building facade >> having said that in full support i'd like to pull this element out of your proposal and find addition who indeed designed the believes not approve them to have where a bicycle could be and indeed how they could fulfill the demand of not blocking traffic but i'd like to have you think about and i'd like to address - you i'd like to see a stronger explanation and the street plan addresses bicycle parking in a manner we're not starting to

distract from a public grounded. i have to tell you as nice as some of those bicycle racks look when their fulfill utilizesed. i have often taken it upon i move to put a bicycle upright again, there's going to be bicycles falling over. but there has to be something about the clear delineation of not interrupting the pedestrian traffic. when i see your picture here - let me open it real quickly. where you have a large - here

where you have a large number of bicycles i see that on the lower part of the street it becomes difficult to cross the street or do any kind of maneuvering getting into your taxi you have to get by the thirty or 40 bikes. it can't be all the bicycle comfort. i have 3 bicycles i am a rider but it has to a work for everybody else. i appreciate our being open to that >> first dealing with the first matter commissioner moore brought. i can see that on monday this information was assessable.

second in terms actually, it's something thatommissioner moore raised. i don't have a problem with bicycle parking on the ground floor. i find that a lot of vacant ground floor uses. it seems like a lot of the floors have ground floor space but bicycle parking could over a great visible eliminated that makes the space more usually and they could sub divide it. some days i get almost run over on market because a theirs so many bicyclists.

but in terms of the ground floor it has more use. an art gallery assistant an active use but there's not lots of people at the art gallery. so i know we all struggle with the active ground uses but given the number of ground floors and the new buildings this should be viable. i also think there's a greater need for interior used for bicycle i had my bicycle stolen. so the complications of the street parking t is quite a problem.

i'm glad you've communicated with the developers and folks around the city. i actually move to approve. >> both items? >> both items. >> i second that. just to follow up on some of the concerns on active. can you explain why you're saying it's active use? i think this is great i just want to get at why you're making this active use and why this will discourage someone not to have as much retail space are i can see why you want the bike storage space on the first floor but if there's a ramp going down

- i don't quite understand where we're trying to - >> we fully agree we don't want bike space going to some other retail actually use. it came up from the smaller more constrained buildings maybe some of them don't have garages or spaces where bikes to come back located. the way the code is written now, it's strict. the only 25 feet of the facade we have variance. and we want to not have the variance where it's within the first 25 feet.

we would work with folks for better townhomes not requiring variance is important >> so it's basically to solve for the problem where there's no good alternate to put it behind the lobby in the back. can we state that somewhere where it's actually know if it's an active use open the ground floor it wouldn't be taking up space from a retailer or - >> i think we've he tried to we changed the language of active uses. we've tried to the lobby spaces and the bible parking spaces should take up in more than 25

feet so we would put bicycles in the lobbies but this is not our farther active use. so you can certainly look at the words it's in your packet. >> i want to ask mta - those were originally done in prior years but the liability and the opposites that are findings if that's okay? >> you're talking about the bike plan? >> the bike plan part of it. there's been a lot of discussions about some of those

routes and we're, of course, approving the - if that's appropriate to make sure all those options are still available >> we can ask mta to take a look at some of the routes is that what you're asking? >> yes. >> i think the two motions in front of the you are not related to the sequa findings. >> well, it may not be appropriate to put that in. something else we don't get many bites of the apple.

especially the green lanes we want to make sure those are adequate where we have muni stops we so-called they have to come out of those lines lanes and get into the traffic lanes if we could look at those >> that is not in the discussion part. >> and the bike part is really part of the motion i don't have much to add since we're talking about sequa. >> the policy changes to implement the bike is before you. we didn't specifically go over each of those. we're happy to go over the policy changes but not the ng to continue to

go through those various issues. >> yeah, this a bad time to bring up bicycles since a guy flipped me off the other day. on the finding i'm having trouble with the original finding and the revised findings >> now we're present with all the findings together i don't know what were the original and the new ones. i can't figure out if i like the new ones or not. so that's one issue i have.

and given and that raises the other issue unless i'm totally missed something that was presented to the written materials. maybe they're separate. that brings up the other question if this was mandated by the court are not the new finding enough to triggery - reescalation >> the letter was from the attorney for accreditation of adequate review. the attorney said she thought the city shouldn't be acting until we got decision from the

court and we think the city can go ahead. the court asked for more information so we don't think it's necessary for the trial court to act. we've had the representations from the circuit court of appeals. and to the in question about the commissions question because there's no change t what the court of appeals wanted was more information. it doesn't rise to the level of reescalation is required when there's no mitigation issues

that's not clementd or a new alternative. it was really providing for explanations between the conclusion and the factual data >> if that's the case i have a difficult time to figure out where the additional explanation is. in any case i want to weigh in on the active case there are additional issues. in the 40 feet it's quite a bit of frorj.

the ground floor area devoted to bicycle parking in their dental. >> e design as i remember the corners are being devoted to park riding. i think it needs some additional thinking as suggested by commissioner moore and as some the personalities might be around it might be sprelgd in terms of more language in terms of it not about the preferred use and strengthening that language. i'm willing to pass it on with

maybe a condition that that language be developed and brought back to us along that line and the last comment triggered by my comment. but i think if so city wants to continue to be the leader in bicycle uses and parking and everything else there need to be something at the state level to talk about licensing. i don't know about licensing bicycles but to make those folks aware they can't just sail through those intersection.

and also their might be something in terms of i don't know if the city can implement this of requiring bicycles to have certain accessories like a reflector or blinking light. then when i was going downtown it's very difficult when people don't have any reflectors or anything to judge where they're at in the dark. i urge the city through whatever mechanism the bike coalition the mayor's office to try to address many of those issues because i think it's important.

>> i like to make one additional comment to help you what is the core of my objections as an active use are that the project sponsor would be able to use it for a jurisdictions for a 5 feet increase on the ground floor. i don't believe that bible in any form or shape should raise the ground floor if you take it into the use definition. i believe that bicycle parking off the lobby is an interesting task but by saying you've got to have more footage is insult to

injure. i think we should take this further and i can't support the idea of it >> commissioner. >> i think i'm okay in the active use but if there's this notion of provide tiger's retail in here, you know, i'm fine with that. that's kind of encouraging retail like bike parking at levels. we can ask that you craft that i'm fine with that >> commissioner. >> yeah. i have some of the similar concerns. i talked about t that more peo

using bikes and that's good and a certain amount of folks are going to be bicycle and it seems like that our studies are we think this need and it maybe at the captions of retail i you know that folks are supportive but i'm not sure if there's no study done how many people have bikes in blue parking garages oftentimes their empty. so i think that we want to make sure we base our numbers on hard

data. >> thanks a couple of things based on the commissioners commit. we could certainly beef up the language point ground floor space was the last resort. it seems to me that in the bullet we could incorporate some design for the first floor. my understanding the staff could correct me if i am wrong. for a smaller building it couldn't be 40 feet recognizing - sorry >> it's whichever is large. >> large oh. okay that make sense thank you. those are some thoughts based on

the concerns >> yeah, i'm fine with whatever if you want to modify the motions. i think we need to look at what is ground use i have a gallery but it's always empty. but i do think separate from this to be a more robust conversation and what are other alternatives to retail. it can't be just about buying and selling. >> are you accepting an amendment then?

>> i'd like to make a motion to have tha whoe issue of active use reexamined by staff. that will be separate from the parking lot legislation >> are you asking for an overall clarification of active use?. or specifically bicycle 19? >> also consideration be given to look at the possibility of redefining bicycle parking in terms of it's active use is not triggering percent increase. >> do you feel - are you suggesting it not - we