Samples from Commissioner Jennings' PowerPoint on the Beach and Casino zoning district...

I thought it would be interesting to compare the Singer Plan to the Commissioner Jennings' famous PowerPoint presentation from July 2007. This is where she laid out the dangers of having or maintaining a building 75 feet from the seawall. Below is the current Michael Singer plan - showing no alternative option for building placement.
This shows the relationship of the current building to the existing seawall - no change.
Title slide from Commissioner Jennings' PowerPoint:

This is generally how the Beach and Casino zoning district passed and here she points out the required setbacks that she thought were too close to the seawall. The existing building is about 75 feet from the seawall.
Here she proposed a larger setback - more than double the existing setback. How is this accommodated on the new plan which leaves the existing building intact?
One of a number of dramatic images used by Commissioner Jennings to convey the message that the existing building and what would be allowed through the rezoning is too close to the seawall.
The Commissioner then went on to introduce the concept of managed retreat - regulating bodies taking the initiative when they have the chance to move buildings out of harm's way and further inland.
One of the key ways this "managed retreat" is accomplished is through establishing appropriate setbacks.
Look at the position of the existing building and the number of improvements proposed by the Singer Group that are seaward of the Coastal Construction Control line. Is this still a concern? Why hasn't this come up again in the discussion of a new building and the 160 foot setback? What has changed to not make this an issue?