doesn't make any sense. these should be -- the public should be able to look at a building and kind of understand that it's a demo, or not, and it's not clear. the public brought up a building that you can see through, but it's not a demoby anybody's definitions. that just doesn't work. it hassto pass a logic test, and i don't think they do. most planning staff and dbi staff have starts down paths. i've heard comments from commissioners that can make that definition a lot easier. the difficulty is when do we discourage demolition or when do we say it's okay to demo a building? we certainly want to discourage it when it's a historic resource and it fits in the neighborhood character. we want to discourage it when

it's rent controlled. we've kind of uncovered buildings that are rent controlled that weren't in the plans or understood to be rent controlled, so we want to discourage those. but i think when we did during the much maligned residential expansion threshold, we actually tried to encourage demolition of nonsignificant nonhistoric buildings where you could build more units, where you could building a two unit building where there's a nonsignificant single-family home or build a three unit building. i think we should still do that. i think we should densify because that's going to be the affordable housing stock of the future. so i think there's elements of r.a.t. that we should pull back into this discussion. i agree that we need one

definition of demo. there's too much gray area amongst this. i agree with miss sciutis. it'll be interesting to hear why you think there should be two definitions of demo, but i think one would be more consistent with enforcement, and for setting forward policy goals. so i agree with everything that's been set out in enforcement and penalties, and we should set a timeline to meet, whether it's a couple months to meet from now or less when we hear back from the group that's working on these issues, 'cause i know supervisor peskin's been on it also and look to staff kind of come back, hold public meetings on this, get further input from those that have come here, those that haven't to testify on this issue and come back with real solutions, so thank you all for coming back and taking the time to do this, our

fellow dbi commissioners, my commissioners, but mostly the public that have come and the staroom, and i

s see gallagher is here. you know she means it when she talks. i'm surprised sue hester sisn' here. there was one particular speaker i felt was more interested in creating facts that didn't exist and was more interested in staying in the turmoiled times that we're in,

but everybody else was in tune with whether you like it or dislike it, we need to do something. trust is the word that was used, and it was used there by mary. i think the trust is broken, and i think we have an opportunity to address it here and fix it. i have some comments here, and i apologize if i'm repeating myself, but the planning code and the building code are in conflict. we all agree in that, and with one another, and they create a series of cruise confusing and frustrating -- of confusing and frustrating incidents for our neighbors. the planning code section 317, it is confusing. it's labor intensive, and particularly to the planners, and for them to implement. i think we've seen that in the presentations here today. there is often confusion in the field with the contractors and dbi inspectors trying to address, for example, the dry rot, waterproofing, and other

random unexpected field conditions while a hearing to the current demopolicy planning code of 317, and that was brought out, i think particularly in the structural presentation here today. what it does is, to me, in my opinion is it creates many judgment calls for dbi inspectors who are stuck balancing 317 with other portions of the building code, and i think that's something we need to help them out with, and i know there are some building inspectors that feel very strongly. some have ten, 15, 20 years in the field dealing with this. neighbors don't ubds the difference between a demoand an alteration, and it's not their fault. it's just that complicated. we need to do more, excuse me, user friendly transparent system to establish the difference, and i'm hoping in our working groups that that will come out of that. demo versus alteration and the planning process.

currently, there are two very different processes for these two types of projects. there is the market incentive to be an operation, which i think is apparent on some of the projects to be in trouble. if a project starts out as an alteration but due to some unexpected field conditions become a demolition, there can be belong delays in the process, and the project sponsor will need to start the process all over again, and it just doesn't make sense. i'm big on the current penalty system is restrictive. it's not transparent to the public, and it doesn't adequately address misrepresentation of plans which we've talked about here today. it's a big one, and it's a big one in my book. projects demoed beyond the scope of work but demoing what is not considered demolition. a project sponsor who chooses to illegally demolition a

certain domain. it's certainly been in the papers, and there's a few bad actors out there, and they need to be addressed. the professional design teams must conduct themselves in a very high standard, and those who work -- [ inaudible ]. >> -- to be punished. i would -- at this stage, i mean, i think to commissioner hillis's point, that i think we should -- both our directors, i know director hui, if we could put a work group together and work on some solutions and answers to this hearing today, and i don't know the time frame. i'd lean towards staff, is it two to three months that they'd need for something like this. but i also think it's important to capture what supervisor peskin is trying to did a as well legislatively so that as we could in a timely fashion give some language that ecowork

and legislatively push this through the system and so we could put this to bed once and for all, start out fresh and see how we do with a new policy and get one that goes where it needs to go. >> just to answer your question, three months would be a good starting point to look at a first stab at a proposal. i think it would be helpful to have representation from the two commissions, working with supervisor peskin's avenueoffi think we could have something before our office goes on recess in august. >> president hillis: i think that would work. sometimes we throw out like a committee or a blue ribbon panel or something like this, which isn't going to solve it on its own. we've got processes where we solicit comments from everyone who has stake in this to really

kind of formulate and start floating ideas. again i wouldn't wait three months to come back and present those ideas. i think we're encouraging to go out and talk through solutions, to community groups or having meetings at the department to we get responses and start to get some of that feedback and come back with something that we can continue to evolved. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: at what time are we dpg to soob our two computer systems be integrated, because i i this it would be a helpful tool to expedite the process? [ inaudible ] >> september. >> and i was to strent to stre commissioner walker said that. i did not say that. i understand go live day for a fellow with dbi to be september

4th. >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: just to reiterate, i think we need to make sure whatever we come up with, we need to have the rent board's opinion, the dbi opinion, because there is a tax, so that they're tuned into this as well as well as the city attorney for potential state law stuff. >> president hillis: any other comment, director ram or director hui? >> just to thank everybody for coming. there was one idea thrown out that commissioner melg talked about, ju -- melgar talked about, i think that director hui talked about taking that job. but thank you all for your comments today, and i think we'll organize the hearing within the time frame you talked about, probably this summer. >> president hillis: thank you. and certainly we can be updated

as this moves along. we can hold an informational at the planning commission to get an update where things are. dbi can do the same, so we look forward to that. >> yeah. i look forward to workforce between our department and planning. and we can give you any drafts or welcome one to two commissioners want to join us to how to discuss. we have little bit idea how to do it, but right now, after the hearing, we heard about the rent board situation and all those, i'm going to engage them into our equation. >> president hillis: great. lr all right. thank you very much. >> commissioner mccarthy: no, thank you, everybody. thank you commissioners. look forward to it. .

>> hi, i'm ryan a prlth letting project manager with the sfpuc working at the sfpuc is a fast-paced environment the puc is american people eye person so breath and depth allows us to work on allows me to move across my career path. >> fill the roadway. >> our unique projects is the

heritage puc water treatment long-term improvement plant it's one of the largest projects i've managed and supervised to be successful as a project manager you have to be hard working and self-motivated and being adaptable is important because the construction it is very fabulous that get me up in the morning you're going to be project solving and seeing the project go to me that's fun, i like coming to

>> i'm going to call the meeting to order. good afternoon, everyone. it is now 1:04 p.m. with our brand-new monitors. you all will look gorgeous. it's 1:04 p.m. this is the regular meeting of the commission on community investment and infrastructure, the successor agency to the san francisco redevelopment agency for tuesday, april 17, 2018. welcome to the members of the public. my name is 34 arilee mondejar, and i am the chair. madam clerk, please call thei .

madam clerk, please call tand . madam clerk, please call the roll. [ roll call. ] >> clerk: madam chair, all members of the committee are present. next item is announcements. the next regularly scheduled meeting will be held on monday, april 23rd, .

>> clerk: the next order of business is item three, report on being as taken at a previous closed session meeting if any. there are no reportable actions. the next item of business is item four, matters of unfinished business. there are no orders of unfinished business. next is item consisting of consent and regular agenda. first, the agenda, 5 a, approval of minutes of march 18, 2018. madam chair. >> madam secretary, do we have any speaker cards for this item? >> clerk: yes, madam chair, we have one speaker card. ace washington. [ inaudible ] >> commissioner mondejar: mr. washington, before you speak, i just wanted to indicate that because of the length of the meeting this afternoon, we're

going to limit our public comments to two minutes. thank you. >> thank you. i've been triained to do three two, one, minutes. starting in may, it's going to be aceonthecase.net,.org,.com. everybody's going to be saying where's ace at? efrk everybody's going to be following me. now i'm so happy to hear that your director's going to sit down with me, so everything else is taking a bat seat. and then the other big problem is i see my buddy here. how you doing, buddy? we go way back before all you all. we go way become before the white press, when i interviewed

him. that's the good guy. i'm supporting him. so i'm going to take a back seat, back there. you ain't got to worry unless i hear something that's out of order. i'm going to sit back in the back and help myself because things are starting to happen now. my name is ace, and i am on the case. >> commissioner mondejar: thank you. >> clerk: madam chair, with you have no further questions public comment. >> commissioner mondejar: h r having no more speaker cards, there is no more public comment. [ inaudible ] >> commissioner mondejar: public comment for the agenda, for the minutes -- only for this item, the minutes, so come back later. thank you. so now -- okay. thank you. i need a motion to approve the minutes. >> i move. >> commissioner mondejar: okay. moved by commissioner rosales,

seconded by commissioner bustos. madam secretary, please take a roll call. clerk clerk commission members, please indicate your vote when i announce your name. [ roll call. ] >> clerk: madam chair, the vote is four ayes. >> commissioner mondejar: the motion carries. madam secretary, please call the next item.

[agenda item read] [agenda item read] good [agenda item read]

. >> clerk: madam director? >> commissioner mondejar: thank you, madam secretary. through the chair, this is a major milestone for the project. as you know, the approvals occurred in 2010. the hunters point shipyard redevelopment plan and the bayview-hunters point redevelopment plan and dda was approved in 2010. it was a nonstadium alternative. since then, the 49ers have left san francisco and have constructed a new stadium in santa clara, so the developer is now proposing a more robust mix of land uses that is phased

better to respond to market conditions. prior to that, or since then, there's been various amendments to the dda, and -- which was allowed for early transfer of the candlestick point stadium to accelerate development within the existing stadium site, and also subsequently, the proposition o was approved in 2016 that exempted the project from the prop m limitation on a cap on office space. and as a result, last summer, the board, the commission, d.o.s. and the mayor approved amendments to the dda to reflect the prop tigs o approval by the voters. i want to acknowledge activities to date. there's completion of phases one through three of alice griffith, yielding over 300 units, and phases four and six of alice griffith in various

stages of construction. there's also the completion of the commercial kitchen, which is a state of the art 10,000 square foot commercial space. the developers also started construction on the actual building. i do want to also acknowledge that navy continues to do cleanup, and they're committed to doing the -- redoing the work for 100% of units. they're also drafting a work plan that will be made available for 30-day public comment review period, so the navy will work with the u.s.epa, the department of toxic substance and whatever -- control, as well as the california department of public health and of course with local public health department. they are expected to be here today to respond to specific questions regarding the cleanup to finalize details of the work

plan. i should note before any transfer 6 land to occii, the federal state and local agencies overseeing the cleanup must review the remediation and the statement of intended use. i also want to acknowledge that my team have just done an amazing job, and they've just done an amazing job partnering with all the city agencies, sf mta, public utilities commission, rec and park, planning, environment, the mayor's office, and public health, as well. in just getting us through the process. i also want to acknowledge cac who has held most of the public community outreach, and i see mr. honeycutt is well, so i

want to thank them, as well. with that, without giving too much of the presentation, i'm going to turn it over to sally who's going to lead the presentation this afternoon. thank you. >> commissioner mondejar: thank you. >> thank you, director, and good afternoon, commissioners. we're here today to seek your approval on a number of actions related to proposed changes to the candlestick point and hunters point shipyard two phase project. you heard about these proposed changes from the master developer at our last mission meeting and workshop on march 20, but now, ocii start will walk you through the details of the amendments that you will make to make in order to implement this readvisvised pr. the mouse doesn't work. fyi. okay. so our agenda for today is as

follows: i am going to give you a quick overview of the approval actions before you and highlight some of the key existing project requirements that will continue as part of the project. we're going to be spending a lot of time talking about changes, but i wanted to reinforce some of the many benefits that this project will continue to deliver, and then i'm going to give you a broad brush overview of the rationale and the summary of what these project changes are. i will then hand it over to my colleague, jose campos, who is our planning and redesign manager who is going to go over the new proposed shipyard proposed development, and walk you through what the environmental review we undertook while we were reviewing these proposed changes. he will hand it over to jonathan plowman, and he's going to go through the detailed changes of the various project documents like the parks and open space plan, the transportation plan, etcetera.

and therngs i'll wrap up with a review of the requested dda amendments, go over what the community outreach efforts were, and leave you a current status of the developers and contracting workforce efforts, and then i'll go over the last steps in funding and approval. so as our commission secretary readout to you, there are six items before you. including approving the amendments themselves, and approvaling a new development plan, conforming amendment to shipyard phase one's dda and then of course amendments to the candlestick point shipyard phase two dda. just to orient you to what we're talking about, here's a map of candlestick point and phase two is located in the southeast part of the city. and again, just a quick

highlight of some key milestones that the project has undergone as the director mentioned, the dda for the candlestick and phase two project was approved in 2010, and there has been significant work done to date. the work related to these particular proposed project changes really began in earnest this year, and so now here we are in 2018 seeking approval for those changes. so as i mentioned i wanted to just go over briefly some key project and program requirements that will continue to be embedded within this project through its build out, and you know, of course, one of the most important benefits is the housing program. the very robust program. overall, the project, as codified which the dda, 35%

units would be below market rate. it was specifically designed to create what we call the housing ladder, which creates housing opportunities to families with incomes across many other incomes. you can see the breakdown of the different types of housing that we work on from alice griffith to more typical stand-alone affordable housing, and we through our housing program, we serve a spectrum of needs from seniors, families, homeless families and individual and those with special needs. the developer will contribute to the bmr housing program on the moderate income side through conclusionary units and then also creating a workforce tier of units at a higher range of 140 to 160% of ami. so here's just a visual represent of the housing ladder, and you can see the number of units that each

income tier would provide. another key element of this project is the community bhen fits program, and here's just moorely a summary of the many different types of programming, funning, and other initiatives that the developer in the project will provide over the length of the buildout. and you know, there is an active project, and you have been getting reports from the developer, as well as ocii start over the last several years on their progress, but just wanted to highlight a few accomplishments already done to date, which as the director mentioned, you know, the developer has advanced the infrastructure for the first four phases of alice griffith and provide construction subsidy for the first four phases, as well, and completed that now commercial kitchen, started construction on the artists building, provided financial contributions, and you'll hear about their ongoing

compliment through t compliment -- commitment through the contracting program. and now you'll hear what are our goals through the proposed contract changes? to just give you a little background is the original dda contemplated two options, a stadium option and a nonstadium option, and a lot has changed since 2010. one big change is there are no longer any 49ers in san francisco, so when the developer looked at the nonstadium option, they felt that it didn't respond as well as it could to both market conditions and to the project site itself. so in a nutshell, the changes -- the proposed changes are intended to bring a greater mix of land uses to the phase two site by increasing square footages of uses that are already contemplated, and then adding some new uses to the site. and then, also, trying to leverage as much housing entitlement as we can. it would also allow some

additional flexibility in the project by creating an approval path, subject of course to cac, commission and environmental review, but of course the most obvious change that you'll see and hear about today is the physical land use plan is changing, particularly in what we call the southern part of the shipyard south or you'll hear about the warehouse district, but really, it's a reenvisioned street block plan that more closely aligns with the his toric layout of the shipyard, and this was designed by an award winning architect that designed the new african american history museum, the smithsonian in washington, d.c. it increases the potential fore the developer to retain the existing buildings, to potentially allow for this be adaptive reuse. also with that changed street grid kim an opportunity to

increase and then reconfigure the parks and open spaces and make some improvements to that programming. and then that also allows them or through this process, the developers could potentially create green income and sustainable infrastructure programs that we're calling an ecogrid, and you'll hear more about that from jonathan. so very quickly, just a quick visual. on the left you'll see the 2010 shipyard land use plan, and on the right, the 2018. you can see that change in the street grid particularly in the southern part of the shipyard. but just to break it down a little bit by subject matter, you can see more housing, the total housing count would actually go up by 172 units, and we're able to accomplish this because there are 172 units unbuilt from the phase one entitlement. they're not planned to be constructed, and so we're able to capture that unused entitlement and bring it over

onto the candlestick and new phase site. so the total count would go unto 10,672. there would also be a shift in the allocation between candlestick and shipyard. you can see that on the slides reque with the different colors there, and then you're going to hear more about a change in candlestick. at i mentioned the parks and open space plan changes as a result of the change in street grid and changes almost 1 is 37 acres. the biggest changes really occur on the nonresidential side. overall, the commercial and nonresidential uses would increase by a total of about 2.1 million square feet, and the green table on the left shows you the proposed

increases to land uses that were already contemplated, so it would be adding about 1.3 million square feet to the r and d and office entitlement. the orange table on the right shows the new entitlement buckets that would be created. 410,000 square feet for potential institutional uses that could be educational in nature, and then, 75,000 square feet of a new use called makers space that i will give you more details on later in the presentation. you have a more detailed version of this chart in your packets. this is just focusing in on that total column, but again, you can see the total changes proposed to the candlestick and shipyard phase two projects, and then, the new total of about 6.7 square feet in nonresidential uses and again the totals of housing and parks and open space i mentioned.

so to implement these changes, there are a large number of amendments that we need to undertake starting today, and that's because there are a large number of controls and documents that govern this project, and this is just an image to kind of give a sense of how the project entitlements are managed through this project. and so of these, the ones that just turned green and underlined are the ones that we are amending, and you're going to hear about those today. but the largest by far is our dda. this is our major agreement with the contractor to build out this project. it is compromised by the body of the dda itself and all of the documents having to do with the build outside, so anything that's being amended is laid out through these project

changes. now we'll get into a little bit more of the details, so now i'd like to hand it over to jose who's going to talk about redevelopment plans, the d fore d and the environmental review. >> thank you, director. >> thank you, sally. good afternoon, commissioners. to start, i would like to present to you some highlights of the redevelopment plan amendments, and starting with the hunters point shipyard, the plan amendment would change the names of land use districts to match a new vision for phase two on the hunters point shipyard. also land use definitions would be modified to match the updated vision. this calls for more specific commercial land use categories such as makers space, and the more diverse mix of uses including the hotel and different types of schools. the amendment would clarify that sustainable private infrastructure such as an ecogrid infrastructure would be

permitted. it includes a total maximum square footage limitation. the development limitations found in the shipyard plan would be adjusted by reducing the maximum square footage of r and d office and therefore increasing the square foot i can't imagines for recreational and increasing the hotel and central land usages. the dda amendment under that, the maximum square footage of r and d office would be increased to match the maximum permitted under the redevelopment plan. finally with the plan amendment, up to 118,500 square feet of r and d office allocated to the shipyard could be shifted to candlestick point, subject to future commission approval. now onto the bayview-hunters

point reveemt plan amendment, this governs candlestick point. this plan amendment would allow the conversion of uses within candlestick point between certain commercial land use categories, subject to commission approval and not an exceedance of the plan's limitations on development. the plan would also be amended to allow that transfer of 118,500 square feet of r and d office uses allocated to the shipyard to candlestick. and finally, the plan amendment would shift the jamestown parcel, which is located on jamestown street and not owned by the developer out of zone one and into zone two of the plan, which is governed under the planning department's -- department and the planning code. here's a map showing in blue the jamestown parcel that would be removed from the development project by excising it from zone one of the redevelopment project area. now, with respect to the d for

d, with the stadium option gone, five point engaged london base arc tech sir david ajay -- [ inaudible ] >> -- to align with the shipyard's historic street grid and the creation of large blocks. both of these aspects would allow the developer to maintain more of the large industrial buildings that currently exist on the shipyard and celebrate them by -- [ inaudible ] >> -- starting in the north -- [ inaudible ] >> -- the north shoreline district is residential in isn't that true and lower in building heights. it would serve as a continuation of the hunters point hill development down to the northern waterfront. as you see in the center in red -- in green, the village center is the home of the

artists building and the commercial kitchen, and it's a prime location for future maker spaces and retail. [please stand by for captioner switch]

. >> it calls for an appropriate massing around the green room and the water room of heights and importantly a stepping down in building heights from the hill top to the waterfront. and here is a rendering of those building heights as they step down from the hill top to the waterfront.

as i mentioned earlier, the vision calls for large scale development blocks partly to attract commercial tenants who will need large floor plate office space. the working group team tested many of these blocks. the mapping i show you now is just a standard building envelope that follows a standard set of development controls, such as maximum height, building set backs, the street wall requirements, coverage, dilate, etcetera. to make sure that the architecture buildings are attractive, the working group creates a menuapproach to architectural controls, so looking at the potential of a big box, we decided to look at how can we shape that and --

in -- especially given the size of these blocks to ensure that the architecture is attractive. so we came up with these controls, and we came up with this menu approach. depending on the size of the building, a certain number of points are required, and here before you is the menu of the architecture controls. will rememberer and the architect gets to choose among the list of the controls and they focus on facade composition, bulk and massing as seen from afar and as seen from up close as a pedestrian, very importantly, ground floor activation. for the test that i'm going to show you in a moment, and we tested many of these blocks, the bolded controls are those in the test fit that the architect and developer chose in each category. as you can see, the number of points required, two in one category and one in the bulk and massing category, and four in the building enhancement and public realm enhancement

category. out of this came this design, which basically proved to us not only that even with large blocks, we can encourage and require good design, but also one that is economically viable, and that the developer will be able to build. so while that concludes my overview of the d for d, for the record, staff requests a modification to the commission's d for d approval resolution. right now, the state lands commission is reviewing height increases that we are proposing to confirm that the trust value of state trust lands within the shipyard is maintained. so we recommend that your approval resolution be modified in order to accommodate any minor revision that state lands may request, and we ask that the executive director be able to make any conforming changes if they are proposed by state

land. now onto the california environmental quality act. the commission is requested to make ceqa findings as part of its approvals today. in summary, in 2010, the san francisco redevelopment agency commission and the planning commission certified the project's environmental impact report in 2010. the lead agency, ocii, since that date, has issued four addenda to the environmental impact report. the ceqa findings that the commission would make today are based on the conclusion of the addendum to the eir which study the environmental effects of the updates to the project as proposed. the addendum, which you have, recommends modifications to 16 mitigation measures that were adopted in the original eir's mitigation and monitoring program -- or in the eir's mitigation and monitoring program.

addendum five concludes that the amendments are within the scope of the project that was originally analyzed that will not result in any new impacts or a substantial impact in previously identified financial impacts, and there by does not alter the conclusions reached in the eir. so this concludes my portion of the presentation, and i pass the baton to jonathan. >> thank you, jose, and good afternoon, commissioners. i'll just walk you through the planning document amendments involved in these changes, and i'll just say at the outset there's some really positive changes that are in here, and we're really excited to share them with you. firstly, with the schedule of performance and the phasing plan, these together set the schedule for completion of

project infrastructure, including the parks and the offsite streets, schedule of performance provides the completion dates, and the phasing plan identifies the locations of the infrastructure. in the phasing plan amendments, hunters point shipyard's being reduced from four to three major phases, and reduced from 17 to sixsub phases. the geographic sequence of is changing. it was to develop clockwise. under the current proposal, development would start at the inland core and progress outward toward the shoreline, and at candlestick point, major changes are already reduced from four to three, the sub phases are used from 18 to 17 and the geographic sequence of development is changing slightly. previously the first phases involved alice griffith, the retail center and adjacent housing and then development

two progress outward towards the shoreline. under the proposed changes, the first phase will not be changing, they will still be alice griffith, retail center and adjacent housing, but then development would move to candlestick point south and then candlestick point north, and this indicates the proposed phasing for candlestick point and shipyard. these tables show the current schedule of performance and proposed performance. i just wanted to mention that schedule is based on our current best estimates, but they may change based on things such as the schedule maybe of transfers. for the park and open space plan, i'll just say thanks to the staff of parks and recreation department. the parks and open space parts contains plans and schematics for the parks.

the acreage has increased by 10.7 acres. this is due to a number of changes, including approximately five blocks that had been development being converted to parklands in the north shoreline neighborhood. i'm going to try to use the new neighborhood designation so i'm getting used to it, but that's the northern part of hunters point shipyard. another reason fore the increase in acreage is the reorientation of the street grid in the warehouse district. there's also a new privately owned public space being added in the warehouse district, we all it the gre all -- call it the green room, a and it effectively replaces three smaller parks. there's also at the end of dry dock four, an enlarged and reconfigured plaza called the water room. also, new children's play areas, dog runs, and exercise

areas have been added in a number of the parks, which is a really exciting change, and centralized areas for stormwater treatment have been added in north side park, water pront prommenaenade park. here is the currently proposed plan for parks and open spaces, and here is the proposed plan. very briefly, i'll just give you a look at the two of the more significant open spaces that i've mentioned. this is the location of the water room. again it's at the end of dry dock four, and this rendering shows you what that open space might look like. as you can see it really celebrates the waterfront location, and there's amphi theater style seating along the edge of the dry dock. this is the edge of the green room, a publicly accessible

open space, and here's what that might look like. it's a large rectangular park framed by commercial and residential blocks, very much in the spirit of san francisco city parks, which occupy four city blocks such as alamo square. next i'll speak with the transportation plan. it establishes the transportation infrastructure for the project and it's extremely lit cal because we're bringing thousands of workers and residents to the site. it's going to play two really important roles. first it's going to knit new neighborhoods, and provide access to critical destinations like downtown san francisco, the balboa park b.a.r.t. station, and the bayshore caltrain station. now this slide covers the basics of how that happens, and this isn't new, but i wanted to go over it briefly. there are three muni routes that are going to extend out,

the 24, the 29, and the 44. also there will be a new service, the 48, which will one to the bayview site. there will be bus rapid transit service. there will also be a candlestick park -- candlestick point express bus to downtown. this center will also be accessible to the primary bicycle facility running through the site and to potential future water taxi service at dry dock four. and finally, there will be a full-time transportation coordinator whose job will be

to monitor and manage the project transportation needs and to recommend measures as needed to make sure that transportation goals are achieved. so the point i want to leave you with is just the project's not an island, and we're not planning just for the site but also for the bayview neighborhood and how the bayview neighborhood will participate in the project and benefit from the changes it brings, and that includes having high quality options to walk, bike, take transit or drive between the bayview and the project site. the changes to the transportation plan include readvising the street pattern in the warehouse district so that it follows the historic street pattern. there's a new pedestrian and bicycle bridge acrossing dry dock four which is really great because it's going to knit together the two halves of the shipyard. there's some changes to the primary bicycle route which runs through the whole project site. in the northern part of the shipyard, it's been enhanced. it was previously a bike lane. now it's going to be a

separated bike lane and cycle track, and in the southern part the warehouse district, it was previously a bicycle -- excuse me, a separated bike way cycle track on crisp road. now it's going to be a bike path by itself running through a number of the open spaces and across that bridge on dry dock four. so -- and this is new. result you'll be able to bicycle through the entire point from candlestick point to hunters point shipyard on a facility at no time will have you to share space with automobile traffic. there are transit phasing updates responding to changes in the schedule of performance and sf mta service plans. this figure just shows those public transportation services i've mentioned, including four muni routes connecting the project to third street, the brt service, connecting to caltrain and b.a.r.t., and the

express services going downtown. and this figure shows the bicycle and pedestrian networks which includes that bicycle facility, separated from auto traffic running through the entire project. this rendering just shows you the two bridge -- well, first bridge that i've discussed on dry dock four which was a bicycle pedestrian bridge, and potential second one further out toward the bay which would be a pedestrian only bridge. and in this figure, you can see the dedicated bus lanes for the bus rapid transit running alongside of the green room. and before i go onto the sustainability plan, just wanted to express our thanks to the staff of the sf mta who collaborated very closely on all these changes. so the sustainability plan identifies project sustainability goals. on this we worked closely with the department of the

environment staff and they worked on these. the updates are the addition of a facility for recycling water, a geothermal system, and collectively, we're calling this the ecogrid. the district geothermal heating and cooling system uses the relative ground temperatures to heat and cool buildings. during the summer when it's relatively cool underground, the liquid will be cooled and used to coal buildings. during the winter, when it's relatively warm underground, the liquid will be warmed and used to heat buildings. the recycled water treatment plan will divert waste water from the city's sewer system and recycle it for things like watering lawns and flushing

toilet doe toilets. the treatment plan will use purification technologies that produce very little odor and it will be enclosed in an indoor space. it'll be located on crisp road where it'll be surrounded on several sides by open space, and specifically the future open space maintenance yard. next, the infrastructure plan which details the infrastructure the developer is required to construct. it consists of two volumes. we're not amending the first volume, candlestick point, amending only the second point, hunders point ship ward phase two. the streets and the utility systems are of course updated to conform to the new street grid, and this is a really important and i think a really great change that's being made. the design criteria for sea level rise are being