is important addition on valencia street a lot of ubers basically use it as a loading zone and the bikes have to go into the ongoing traffic so, please implement 3 mind fully i think there are long processes and short implementation like you didn't repave mission thank you put down a plastic thing the rain is, you know, the thinking inflation is absent worse please take your time and do it right the first time. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment (calling names). >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is nourishing the executive director of walk sf and very excited to be here today to share our organizations strong support for that policy

change this policy will for the first time address really the serious issues with the current ceqa l o s analysis that is developed in 1969 when ceqa was adopted in our great state we know understand the impacts l o s would have on the environment the new also o s policy will have an impact and connect the dots between this policy and the policy you guys adopted the vision zero policy along with the mayor and about 9 other city departments and already this year 5 people have lost their lives while walking in our city improvements currently under l o s improvement that save lives not only they cost our city

years in terms of doing environmental impact reports we pay consultants millions in taxpayer dollars as you recall this vision zero policy was to end all traffic death by 2024 in order to do that we have under 8 years we need to start transforming the way our streets look and feel and educate cyclists and others where they should be how to operate safely we need to transformer our streets in other words, to do that i urge you to adopt this policy today to take steps today towards a safer street and save lives thank you. >> i'll be using the overhead

i'm ilene a resident the park side district to recap the process ceqa began with the governors over as a proposal and the overhead is the recent proposal the second stage from the california rule making the current los is not for sprawl development the mta will assess those impacts and the professor anton from uc berkley has recommended using both los and bmt my neighborhood organization speaks and made comments to the o p r along with the comments spank documents on this commission item as a background sp 7043 is about baseball the

kings were threatening to leave sacramento dearly steinberg with the - represented sacramento sp 73 or 4, 43 was designed to be the springboard for downtown savings time from los to a different metrics and part of design to facilitate this project dearly is not works for lobbying firm and the arena is being constructed at a generous taxpayer subsidy as the rule making is not in place i'll urge the commission to continue this until a final rule making is in place thank you. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and commissioners i'm the transportation policy director at spur

spur strongly supports this long overdue to the transportation impacts we commend the planning department, sfmta and ct and working together on those efforts to reform ceqa you've heard the problems and the number of projects the city and across the student los complicates that process that leads to us 234089 having some of the projects we need implemented transportation projects that drives up the cost of those projects we thank you for moving forward with implementing the measure to the los the bmt that aligns transit first and vision zero and environmental policies rather than working at cross purposes this is one of the most important and common sense

transportation reforms we could ask for we're grateful you're doing this today thank you for your support. >> next speaker >> please. yeah. thank you. >> hello commissioners commissioner president fong my name is janice i am the advocacy director at the san francisco bicycle coalition and a outer sunset recipient i've attended some meetings and lucky to have options how i get around the city i live. >> the way 8 miles from here when i'm lazy i put my bike away and stay in we're grateful to have a city to be multi transportational you've heard if the folks san francisco needs to be a leader in that respect on

behalf of over 10 thousand members of the bicycle coalition urge the commission to adopt a reform from los to bmt today, the mission of the bicycle for transportation and also transmitted into the actions from all 3 corals to protected bike lanes and almost all of these requires a level of environmental review we recognize the important need for the impact when they're not competed and painfully aware that happens with the jewelry box no bike parking or anything could go ♪ formal years with that said, this is the most common sense thing that can be done and so we hope you pass this today and express our gratitude to really a coordinated city effort and

the staff doing the work to bring this before you today thank you >> sir. >> good afternoon, commissioners andy district one recipient you've already had lots and lots of testimony i hope you support that i have told you as a neighbor and in a series of capacitates trying to develop equitable streets in san francisco for everyone's sake and spent hours and hour of my life getting our ceqa with the policies this is a great moments honestly wanted to be here today when the question came to you, you are the lead agencies for the practices of ceqa first and foremost but the folks and the body that decides what the environmental effects are that we care about as a city you as

the the threshold of significance here we are at that moment you've heard from the members of the public that and your staff that the state o p r still getting through the ruling process it takes time but under ceqa it is up to the locality to decide what matters we shouldn't wait for the state and can as should as a aide this was we care about and here's a threshold we're going to set to the decree question to you, we don't center to wait for the state and not wait we've wait a a long time and just thrilled i lived long enough that the question has comment could or come to you today, i hope. >> resolve to practice ceqa and make it for supportive of the goals of the city of san francisco thank you. >> commissioners andy reuben,

junius & rose i'm pile on here for a minute too wow. a long ride i went with bill rolled this out in 2003 it look longer than congratulations to the planning department and the city family and all the hard work this is really is it sounds like - it is huge this entitlements a huge chunk of the ceqa and the los nest it should not have been adopted the first place thank god i urge you to please pass this thank you. >> thank you, thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is a scott with the consumption director for a liveable city i join the past, present, and future plus agencies and all of the fellow recognizes and impose our strong support for that

resolution it will reform san francisco's environmental impact process the mta is a better impact than los it co-related with the environmental impact with the green house gas emissions and air pollution and noise and barriers to sustainable mobility by using the bmt as a measure the commission can help to facilitate critical safety and accessibility and transit performance for wilder sidewalks and ballistic lanes and accessibility projects, transit lanes and others priority measures, walking and cycling and public transportation are more space efficient than automobiles in order to move for people in san francisco as we well know we need and do to sustainably we need to have the space for walking and cycling

and trafficking it often creates diverse feedback for projects that move for people and do so at at benign way they create the los it only looks at the cars and not the people san francisco must do it's part for the global threat of climatic change los reform advances those important goals we urge you to support the resolution and take an important step towards a more sustainable future thank you. >> thank you. >> okay is there any additional public comment? >> on this item you can fill that out later if you want. >> hi my name is john i'm here with the bay area renters

federation we want to support the change away from los we think this is a bad tool that gets used to hamper development through ceqa squatting where people actually squat on ceqa land to stop development in their areas we want to see it used thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? >> okay not seeing any, public comment is closed. and commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i think that is a wonderful legislation we see the ill effects of los type of thinking that have prevailed the bay area and the last 50 to 60 years we see another bore the tunnel that moves the traffic faster but encourages people to live beyond they're very, get there faster and it is same

thing proliferation and businesses and prior farmlands and agricultural lands and far away from almost anything else so in suburban areas that is rare that anyone lives and works and shops in these 3 things don't occur close to each other this will discourage sexual the only thing it what about said of los there are incidents traffic is backed up on the bay bridge and inhale for pollution as you walk along there with them hardly moving and id egging if you moved quicker but i think the solution to that is the solution of decreasing sprawl and moving people closer to

where they work and live and shop that is the goal i'm a little bit confused about how this is go - evaluated because i would assume you took surveys of people and came up with answers as to how far do you drive per day and you asked residents and businesses how far their employees drive maybe you can tell you how you got those numbers. >> yeah. commissioner antonini i think i know but i'll defer to my colleague at the transportation authority because they're the keepers more this. >> drew cooper. >> good afternoon, commissioners so the way we prepared overseeing maps that are the basis for the evaluation we hold a traffic to demand

model this is a series of mathematical models r with people's behavior the foundational material is the statewide survey we sent out or we didn't but the state sent out rather travel surveys to households across the state they reported their trips and the places they traveled to we passed this data and used it to form a model that we used to predict how people will travel bans the land use patterns anticipate and travel options available to them so we put into our model bay area land use and bay area people, bay area transportation options and what comes out are travel patterns and so from

that, we obvious the m t created by people. >> i'll assume you do it both ways interview or take surveys of residents and take surveys of businesses because you have different models based on actually 3 and retail also. >> so the actresses the model are people like in real life people the surveys that we used report where they go to work and shop, and we correlate those things with the type of land use there so if i'm filing out a survey and report i go to work underneath the civic center and others pulling out their map and use that in determining how people choose to come here so

all we've done in preparing the maps observed the job locations and observed the people that travel to and from and the bmt they generate in those trips similar for retail and for housing. >> so a multi question survey you found out where they work and shop and live and put together a matrix bans that. >> yes. >> one thing that's weird the whole thing maybe your preaching to the choir a little bit about firewater use we use the smallest share per capital in san francisco than anywhere the bay area and the survey looks like the average travel from using the phone model around 7 miles per day per paternity i

assume driving is what you're looking at other than walking half of what it is the rest of the bay area but when you're asking for improving you're making us approve to an even same percentage of improvements as the other people that or really the bad guys polluting only (1) 500-0000 per person. >> go ahead. >> good afternoon, commissioners correct me if i have your question wrong but in terms of how the state is directing us to look at this under ceqa we're looking at the expected vehicle million dollars traveled per capita and comparing it to the regional average plus or minus

15 percent so sooushl we're not expecting that most projects in san francisco are really going to need to improve at all because that measure their engaged if is much higher than expected for san francisco projects san francisco is to the subject to you know having to capitol hill to the same degree as a project in say walnut creek. >> it was a little bit confusing i looked at did maps you had the western and southern part of san francisco the red if they had a project have to be better than 15 percent of our ami and above. >> there are similar situations in san francisco prior to a number of changes there are some locations in san francisco that are a little bit above that threshold and those

are projects where they would need to make sure that their were some reductions pieces in place similar to actually as we discussed under the p d m ordinance pretty much all have to be actively about the trip reductions so we'll expect all locations will comply with that. >> and in terms of housing and businesses i think you have to be very careful to evaluate what that project broingz to the table and where the residents were before and the shoppers were before and the employees were before because you build a new project for housing and have a one unit of one to one parking cars get used to one civil right when people lived in newark an

example you have to really compare the impact the positive impact of those projects will have against the situation when same number of people were in a sprawl location and see how many people are moved from that area into a project. >> exactly that's why bmt aligns with other policies in development. >> yeah. >> and then the tms thinking about building transit and it's right away and enables for people to use public transportation. >> there are a lot of transportation improvements that are underway or planned the tsp the fee associated with that has been passed it is

helping to contribute to that effort. >> it has to be a priority and doing everything we can because people are will never tank public transit takes twice as long to get to one place to another we all live busy lives and in a daze time can't spend all the time traveling. >> commissioner johnson. >> welcome back. >> so thank you nice to the back it is exciting i have a couple of quick questions i worry about i had been more of the process i learned about this in 2013 one of the public candle stick park mentioned because of the arena in sacramento that was the redevelopment project in sacramento and heard the advocacy talking about being signed by the governor now we're

here today so this is exciting i have a couple of really quick questions so it is really more for the mta so one of the things that was mentioned the documents was the level of services is continued to be used in some cases in the projects and the documentation i want to get a quick overview of how the level ever services for the transit projects or what the mta is black man on doing with that measure and a couple of questions. >> confirmations thank you victor the level of services is an important thing in measuring things so our transportations engineers will use the level of services for projects or we have maybe substantial - the difference the division they'll

no longer be used under ceqa but not a totally useless tool bans count types of project the future. >> okay. great. and then there are a couple of questions on the mta i suspended that was the answer so i don't agree with this but the metrics for sustainability wider roads and get there quicker and areas that are more assessable by cars what other measures or metrics of site circulation and accessibility are going to be commonly used for example one of the k34r789s said they come from the sunset $8 million out and the level of service will typically be a proxy for how long from the sunset to here if we're not toougz anymore for

ceqa there sort of not a avoid but people will use that what replaces that as metric or a way to getting a proxy how acceptable and how free the circulation is it the projects for new projects. >> i think the planning department and the sfmta really when we talk about saeblts focuses on safety and how safe to get somewhere but we often rely and get a transit and reliable and travel time for example, how long it takes someone to get from a it b and service all an 9 transformation to help people to minimize the time and monitor congestion the city and take into account where there is some specific engineering solutions we can make safety improvements for the use of road by the cost for

bikes and everybody. >> excellent. thank you. >> i think the next person is for sarah john's a quick comment it is interesting us as a planning commission we look at the ceqa reviews for large projects where ceqa and environmental review is necessary we often use the level of services at looking at okay. what will the the accessibility a and and the planning department we don't know what are the impacts for the areas so any way to get the metrics as part of case reports that would be helpful not in the eir we're not looking at the level of service we need other measures that is helpful to us so ms. jones. >> one of the things that is interesting i love the fact we're doing this before the state finalize is that they have

things that don't apply the significant of looking at the percentage above and below we're below the threshold of many areas that did ply to us i was wondering will we be looking at those structural sort of creating our own benchmark for our legislation that will be separate from the state i know we are but will we be below what he on the state will do. >> that's not what we're intending something we talked about when we thought about at the planning department the mta when we first saw where it was we felt like say you said feel like measuring against the regional average and rule out a lot of development in san francisco and we don't want to lose the tool of being able to

improve the projects but we feel like the - we feel like there are better ways to get towards improving projects that is really what the tdm ordinance is about even though compared 20th century to when you're talking about a statewide metric your you know san francisco is great but looking more at the city the status quo is not going to work for us indefinitely we need to improve things to keep moving around with all the growth that is expected so that's why we are - we wanted projects that wouldn't have exceeded significance levels under the los to make active improvements in their trip generations. >> just a general, i want to

see accident significance we don't want a benchmark that is to high but lowering it will help us in decision making processed. >> a check saying okay now the starter is set where they are do we want to default to the state or you know move on our own course at this point so that is what we'll intend to do and intend to continue to be part of the process. >> okay awesome and that that would be helpful to say a real life example hopefully not too broad of a question like the

second street improvement process when we reviewed the eir process and filed the matrix it the future would have been bmt is there a project where what would have changed we're using the ta as a measure as you're going this as a level of service or automobile trips. >> some of the projects we know of that will we're expecting will be affected the 6th street improvement project that is meant to provide for major safety improvements on that very corridor we are not at this point anticipating that will need a environmental impact report 2 would a under a level of threshold that would be one also the second street project is one that we expect the analysis will

change if we make this conversion to stockton street making a winter walk permit i'm thinking about the project but glad you brought up second street that was interesting we found a level of service impact and a moving impact i have an interesting conversation with something another sfmta that said if we were not doing an eir on second street for apple los we would have made that project a low impact that raises one of the factors it los brings about which is if you're doing an eir anyway 24 deincentives other projects if you can get an eir why have other impacts so that is one of the less tangible benefits we hope to see

it as better project. >> thank you very much then finally i know that kim mentioned a couple of times i'm not sure this will help with candle stick point was designed with regional retailed next to the tony wanted to make that comment it is a little bit different. >> there will be projects in san francisco that have impacts that have significant bmt impacts and that is okay and that's something that decision making should understand on a regional level. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> it was a pile on i appreciate everyone other than one speaker supporting this i do and the liveable city is reform and definitely time for reforming that is more relevant

measure today it actually, i think measures the impact on the environment rather than the level of service this is where the world will go not only a more complete look at the environment but hold true i say over and over the more parking spaces we get more big bmt the fact there is a connection and i look forward to the presentation on the shift of the invest portion of the program and great work. >> commissioner hillis. >> yes. thank you all for that i know that making changes to second is not always easy we've experienced that on other items and even kind of smart common sense measures are good with a decade plus thank you 44 for all that advocated and it makes your

job easier and trying to make sense of why good policies sometimes didn't make a second document and the los measures that are a head scratcher we looked at those documents it makes our job a lot easier i supportive in order to get the widespread impact regional or in san francisco that had adopt this and raise this i'm glad we're leading on the charge and other counties and cities the region do we think their embracing it like we are like having everyone think about this or going to be more difficult than some of the - in other parts of region. >> i'll say we're certainly others one end the spectrum in terms of embracing it and the

state process has taken longer even though has we'll have 43 mandated moving away from the level of service in terms of the cities to readiness to switch over and in terms of you know how they stack up against a ripening metric so i think there are some communities that are going to be rushing into that i know there are a number of cities that are positioning themselves to take to be able to take the change right away and some are holding out tooth and nails one of the drafts of the guidelines the state is giving cities a you know essentially a transition period to move into it i hope that as the movement picks up steam and more and more

places see this can work and that we can still capture and disclose all the impacts that people care about there will be more and more movement to embrace it. >> director rahaim. >> a note and add my thanks to sarah that has been championing and to mta and ta for the staff and their work it is important to note this is beneficial to a lot of public projects as well as private especially the transportation project there is a certain irony to look at the level of service impacts and making transit quibble i think this reform has as huge benefit to the publics projects so i'm very supportive and encourage us to moved on this today.

>> commissioner moore. >> congratulations to all you had everybody's support in february but today tops it and today is a streamlined cooperated effort people often extraneous that the city is doing the opposite but we're the first city and it make common sense as far as transportation reform goes obviously it is much in line with california ceqa goal if day one on the los sounds like old-fashioned when you looked it now i'm happy to support it and move to approve. >> second. >> and recommend approval or adopt. >> adopt. >> okay. that's what we do. >> second. >> if no other discussion to

adopt the proposed reform. >> commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner paskin-jordan commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero. >> okay jonas i believe the next item will be a fairly long item does the commission want good aftern back to the san francisco planning commission regular i'd like to remind the members of the audience that the commission does not tolerate disruptions of any kind. proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. commissioners, we left off under our regular calendar on item 8 for case 2015 plus the candle stick point development amendments.

>> good afternoon president fong and members of the commission i'm matthew snyder of the department staff the amendment to the candle stick point for the sdiensz document we refer to as d-4-d we were here with lennar and staff and provided you with an informational presentation and where the project is in status in their moving forward we mentioned at this point we will be back before you for the development documents and here as you may know this project received the master approvals about 6 and a half years ago included ceqa approvals, approvals for amendments to the general plan in creating specific sub area plan for candle stick .5 and the rezoning district our the bayview hunters point and

agreement been planning and occ or redevelopments along with your approval the design for redevelopment document and with your you prevail any establishment of the amendments will be back before you 09 approvals at this point of which was not an approving body do disposition and agreements various landlord exchanges and financing approvals along with other amendment to other city codes which are not under the jurisdiction the planning department candle stick point is within an active redevelopments project area therefore approvals most of approvals that allow construction and cornerstones of implementation happens through our sister agency ocii, however, planning staff is culminated

with the coordination agreement with key stages and the other thing for which we maintain the authority with the design for the document before you today. >> lennar urban the master developer for the proposal has applied to ocii for a sub application for the retail center the used to be the hub of candle stick point developments along with some surrendering surrounding blocks it is understandable the size of this long term development changes to the project descriptions they're seeking and so doing so we have to go back and relook at some of the implements including the d-4-d occ with xhoumsz from planning has prepared an environmental amounted to the

documents the addendum establishes that with a couple of minor changes to the mitigation measures no impacts as otherwise described the final environmental acknowledging the document and it's conclusions are documented before you the actual d-4-d the amendments for the to the d-4-d are- provided you with a staff report and with an all of what those changes are i'll describe it generally and let the master urban designer the author for the d-4-d glow those changes in detail their essentially fall under 3 categories substantive changes height and along some of the main streets that is appropriate in terms of the urban design and the possibilities of additional housing the movement of 3 of the

towers one of which i'll be back to describe a little bit later and some changes to the configuration of some of the streets including the candle stick point retail center. >> we working closely with occ instead of lennar urban in looking at these changes and the ends up we believe that the changes are in keeping with the original spirit of original proposal we believe that they did changes still reflect good urban design as proposed and consistent with the general plan we're recommending approval of the amendments as before you as i mentioned one of the substantive changes the moving of the 3 of the 12 towers that are proposed for candle stick point two of the towers we think clearly really make a minimal difference to the inner design

character of the development and he did third tower tore g was proposed in the retail center has been property to move to the outskirts of retail center we some cornerstones between state parks and managed through the park that surrounds it it which is fast food yesterday, i want to touch on that state parks is unhappy with the change to the tower i want to for the record talk about the prospective is on that we do not share state parks concerns we understood that is a part of character of the area uptown been changing much more urban and ouch be look forward to the interaction between the state park and a more cereal defined urban edge this one change the one tower is not

significant and so we'll recommending it stay as it is lennar and it's boring some ways can shorten that tower provided us with shorter towers quite frankly we thought were unsuccessful and it may have minute missed the adventure state parks is concerned it at other aesthetics that detrimental effects to the overall project undercover officer with planning and occ staff and lennar building the best recommendation to move forward as it is proposed in the development design for development but now that concludes my presentation. several folks are here to talk about it david tom, i mentioned in o b i say author of the d-4-d originally proposed some years and walk us through some of the changes and also here willing la

from ocii staff if you have questions from them, sue and terra from lennar urban are here from the hunters point shipyard c for c advisory committee and dr. honeycutt and linda's is here to provide concludes my presentation. i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and planning commissioners miami i'm available to answer any questions you may have my name is david tom the master plan and coordinator for the candle stick point and hunters point shipyard projects as matthew mentioned i was the original author for the

d-4-d and all walk us through through the compromised changes. >> can you is it possible to - thank you very much. >> those 3 parts to this presentation the first is a fairly high-level overview of the changes being made to the d-4-d and a bit more focus on the building heights and feinstein the tower locations the approval progress we're here to seek approval for the d-4-d changes and then from there we go to ocii for the same thing and some companion documents that are sync in his and before occ and the sub phase of candle stick there are 3 tiers of its been

examined in 3 tiers all the packets 17 by 13 sheets numbing to look at and but the tier one have what are considered the substantial changes and tier two what refer to as refinements and clarifications those are mostly tightening up in way the guidelines will be applied to provide and tighter control more consistent active the needing and then tier one is editorial updates the kind of take the language ailing out of that and replaces that was the tier that was basically tier 3. >> tier one 3 towers i'll come

to those and explain in detail and height increases within the phase one a corner location and along the perimeter streets. >> the tier two changes advantages i'll go through those quickly signage the main change in addition to the signage that talks about new technology as a signage more around and leading up to 23450d when the d-4-ds were put together and messenger separate guidelines that separated residential and commercial because the project is mixed use and clarifications to the height and massing the some - minor changes to the

street cross sections we'll align them more with san francisco standards for example an mid block lanes sometimes pedestrians use but sometimes fire access when the d-4-ds in 2010 didn't meet the minimum standards for fire access and we've increased the block point as i said on the diagram the phasing of the first phase and the minor ones tier 3 when this project was conceived in 2010 a stadium and non-stadium that was cleaned up and james town that was incorporated that was covered by the market-rate developer reasonable person and a separate set of guidelines and smaller editorial the dotted the i's and crossed the t's and now the other way around. >> the candle stick point

major phase one a reminder the scope and scale the project and a lot of the refinement in the d-4-ds document have come but linking the design of this initiative with the d-4-d document the this is a major land use phase and what i'll point out the perimeter red line and this project refers to the red part of the railway center the coming together of the home plate and the third baseline one of the changes at home plate that's been envisioned as a home arts center the guidelines reflect the ability to have a bit more height to really give that

corner prominence and what is first and third baseline the line the phasing line is moved out and makes that bigger there was a thin line across the street we always wanted to be betsy carmichael amongst the center but now a substantial happening across the street with the block site and increase in size there are other related important related initiatives that go longs with this the extend the landscaping the extension of the urban design on gilmore think linked the community through the candle stick for the lands and the alice griffith and in addition to the community quarantined and the initial wedge park a major

bus mall as well as the park space the building height i don't expect you to read the guidelines on this clouded area in red shows the area in which the building height changes are being contemplated and this the performing arts building at the corner some additional design development so far that and we are looking to increase the height to one and 20 feet and provide for flexibility to accommodate the types of uses in there this is xhventh with a significant building at a significant public building at that corner the heights along ingress son and kearney this is moving from 55 feet to feet part of that has

to do with with the height of the retail because the minimum height of the base the 2010 guidelines 12 feet is raised to 20 a portion is a taken up by trying to sure there is a prominent retail face along the streets and it also allows the ability to have variation in height and flexibility in height one of the intents of the guidelines is allows the ability to have increased height on retail the ideas still to have a variety and character along both of the streets and here's another example where the flexibility to go to 85 feet allows for a higher unit and allows for an upper level to roof gardener and created a rich

experience but has the notion of the face of the important streets the proposed tower relocation there are 3 that i'll refer to as specifically tower g is the one that has drawn the most attention tower g was originally con accepted within the retail center the phasing the retail center and the phasing of the tower are not in sync the nature the prioritization of that to get vehicle assess to the tower the idea to move to the edge of walker and combine it the same location as the hotel that

allows the and there is still that tower is not yes, he did. designed but allows flexibility to go after different market and lennar has conversations with the seniors the development having been approximately the hotel and other marketed we feel that is a good move a good pragmatic move and a good move for phasing i'll talk about the implementation the other two towers are moving across that pedestrian view outside of the first phase some jumping across the pedestrian mid block break. >> the distance - the one tower this shows the distances 9. >> thank you, sir, your time is up. >> >> am i cut off. >> that's fine how many more

slides do you have. >> i have r more slides and i'm sorry, i forgot about the 10 minute cut off. >> why not stop and bring up the public comment and commissioners may have questions. >> you know what i - let's give jonas another three or four minutes. >> okay. my apologizes thank you you. >> can i go back to my screen. >> yes. >> thank you. >> so the 3 towers in question this is where they were in the 2010 document this is where they are in the 2016 document document today this and this puts all the towers into context that one tower is 5 hundred and some odd

feet from the state park line the distances from 6 hundred to increase 6 or 40 feet if the park line it puts it into context of the other towers that is an analysis looking at the impact and the middle one moving it and right hand shows if you change the orientation how to use the architecture all the guidelines encourage it kind of initiative to make sure that the interface between the park and buildings are appropriate and finally one view there is a panorama, of course, across the entire site this is the imperial acceptable from the south from the move to the tower there is this impact and the same thing from across from hunters point

it is very minor in terms of it's impact virtually nothing and this shows there was one main view from the hill and from bayview hill that move significantly improves the view to the ocean i won't go into the shadow comparisons the december shadows i won't go into that the state park was to be part of the area that is transformed to have an urban edge to this is some of the words from the policy document florida state parks and these are examples of areas where the interfacing a large park that continues to have a quiet or the proportion but part of an animated city where i'm from and that concludes my presentation. apologizes for the offer n.