this standard. >> commissioner samaha: treasure island is different, so they'll probably have wheelchair accessibility on trails and some areas, i would think. >> that's right. i'll just add to what jamie said. one of the reasons the city is looking to the federal guidelines for guidance is because the national park service has just gone through lengthy litigation around accessibility and struggles with what is the right amount of access around these trails and they've struggled with that and built those trails out at land's end, and they've been well received by the community and everyone. so those are kind of the standards that are being applied to yerba buena island. and linda, when we come back and talk about the trail materiality, we're also using best practices and research that the park service has been using for durability and

maintenance and what are the right types for those facilities. >> commissioner samaha: thank you. >> president tsen: i would say one of the special reasons of being in the bay area and san francisco is these rustic hiking paths and trails. i can't think of many other cities that have that juxtaposition of being in the city but also being these -- having these rustic nature paths that you can go on, and to keep that character is one of our landmarks, right? so i'm glad that we'll be able to ad the accessibility of some of our trails but keep the rustic part of being in nature, so it's a great combination. miss lai? >> chief financial officer lai: thank you. first question is for bob, actually. is the restoration of these trails fully funded? >> so these trails are all

developer obligations, so nyea, these are all nticd's trails budget. also they're part of the subphase application and part of the transfer of the development parcels in the subphase, we have development bonds securing the construction of these by ticd. >> chief financial officer lai: okay. so far, the design of it, the developer is still finding it to be in budget and we're okay financially on it? >> i might invite kevin up to potentially comment on their budget challenges, but yeah, they are -- they're working to their budget program, yeah. >> chief financial officer lai: oh, perfect. thank you for doing that. it looks amazing. just want to make sure it can be delivered. actually, it's the first comment for you guys. thank you so much for all your work. i particularly appreciate the new clipper cove stair. it's very thoughtful having that landing transition between

the sand and the stair. it's so challenging, i have to say, like, taking kids there, and actually that last step, existing step is really tall, too, and there's no one to dump out the sand in your hshoe, so i'm fairly sure these will be used by families. are we planning for look outs, and dog parks, some water? >> i think the more developed system like hill top park and the dog park and beach park will all have water fountains as part of that. [please stand by]

-- it was really a summary of all of the prior work that has taken place from the design for development and the streetscape master plan and through the major phase application and through the adoption of regulations and the lessons learned in the prior subdivision

application and permitting process. so they had a base of design report which subsidized the criteria that they were using in preparing this application and into these construction documents. so we're hoping that should go smoothly. and then following the approval of the subdivision application, they will be in the permit process. and we again per the mayor's executive director, the goal here is to approve -- to go from initial application or initial permit submittal through final maps and permits within nine months. and we've already begun the mapping project for this next sub-phase which actually is fairly complex because we have to do two trust exchanges with the state lands commission as part of the mapping process,

moving the properties into and out of the trust. so we have begun that process. so i mentioned that, you know, we're talking about what's within the scope of this sub-phase application and this is the major phase diagram as it was set up in the d.d.a. and part of the sequencing or the phasing of development was to include open space obligations contiguous with the development to make sure that some of that open space has been delivered as the island has been built out. and as part of this application we're adding in some different open spaces, substituting for what you can see on kind of -- out on the northern edge of the eastern side of the initial sub-phase, the major phase

application and the d.d.a. originally envisioned that the first part of the agricultural farm would be the first naiz. and instead we're substituting in the eastern shoreline park, including the footprint where the sailing center will operate and as well as a band along what will be fourth street near the sports parks so that we can provide the storm water gardens that are needed for the treatment and the management of storm water flows from the sub-phase area. and part of the reason for that is also where the agricultural farm will be is currently where we're managing the soil stockpile on the island and so that area is not really available to us at this time anyhow. but i think that the eastern shoreline park would be a greater asset for the park as we build out. and another thing that tcid is

including in this major phase application is -- this is, again, a segment of the phasing diagram. we had this area 3-c which is a small pocket between the job property and major phase one. and part of the reason that was in the third major phase is part of what is supposed to be there are two parking garages and the future police and fire station. and per the requirements in the schedule of performance, those facilities aren't required to be built for a few more years yet. but when looking at the challenges of looking at the geotechnical improvement to the site and the building of the utilities underneath the roadway it makes sense to include this zone within this major sub-phase abare application so it can be completed and the geotechnical work can be completed for the same time. so they're including both 3-c

area which i said was part of major phase three in this sub-phase application. the expectation is that, you know, those spaces where the parking garages will be in the future may be used as surface parking lots until the parking garages are needed. but that the schedule of performance will still drive when -- when these -- when the vertical development of those parcels would occur. the other thing that happens as an opportunity including in this major phase is, again, you see that diagram and between avenue d and avenue c which are the lower portions of this diagram, there are three parcels. and i see 4.1 is where the new police/fire station will be

constructed. and ic-4.2, was to be an affordable housing site and ic-4.5, the largest of the two parcels, was a parking garage. what we discussed instead with them is to expand the entire distance between the two streets, but making it more narrow. and as a parking garage, having access to both streets will function better but it will also allow us to connect ic-4.2 which is our affordable housing site with ic-4.3 which is also a type of affordable housing parcel to create a larger affordable housing parcel that we can then develop as either a single site or split into two sites according to our programming needs. and so it's just a way to kind of to give us more efficiencies

in the development of our two parcels and also to make the garage operate better as well. and then another thing they wanted to highlight is that because we're now bringing that additional parcel from phase three into major phase one, that there's a second affordable housing parcel that has been programmed in the d.d.a. in the major phase application which is ic-2.2, which is -- if you look at the orange parcels on this map or the affordable housing parcels, the smallest one there along california across from the western corner of hangar three is ic-3.2. at .4-acres it's really suboptimal for a stand-alone affordable housing development.

we could potentially construct it in conjunction and operate it in conjunction with e-1.2 which is the larger parcel across the street from it, but at this point we're recommending to make that a developer parcel in exchange for a more appropriately sized parcel in a future phase. by bringing 4.2 from major phase 3 into this first major phase we're keeping the number of affordable housing parcels in this phase the same. and we're always giving -- this is a win-win with ticd in terms of giving them more flexibility in how they program and develop that block of ic-2. so that's also going to be reflected in the sub-phase application. and as i said i just wanted to highlight these kind of

bookkeeping changes or mapping changes because a lot of our discussion is focused on the design elements and this is really more related to the phasing and the mapping. i will take any questions. >> president tsen: thank you very much, bob. can you tell us when the application will actually come to the board for approval? >> well, it's -- the approval authority is the directorial approval after we get input from the various agencies, but we'll get copies of it distributed to the board members next week and we'll be providing updates in february and march. it will be around the time of the april board meeting that we would be looking to finalize the approval. >> president tsen: um-hmm. does it go to any of the authorities after the tida. does it go to the board of supervisors? >> now it's strictly a tida

approval. when it comes time to get to the final maps and those are director of works and surveyor recommendations approved by the board of supervisors. and the street improvement permits are issued by the department of public works, but -- so there are other agencies involved in the january 2020 timeframe, but in terms of the subphase application auto a staff level comment from the various agencies and then administrative approval. >> president tsen: thank you very much. so we'll open it up to the board. mr. dunlop, please. >> just two quick questions. the first one -- does this subphase approval -- does that include the toll issue or is that separate or later?

>> this is -- the subphase application is primarily an infrastructure design related document. it does include some of the mapping type of details like i just discussed. but the tolling discussion, that's a separate avenue and that's ultimately an action by the treasure island mobility management agency commission which is the board of supervisors wearing a different hat. >> thank you. and then, gosh, one of your diagrams it noted a 65-foot height limit. do we have buildings in that first phase that are going to be that tall? or is that just, you know, something that you have to put in to keep it in case? >> i'll go back and look at that. but we have buildings in the first subphase that are on treasure island that, you know, the infrastructure is under

development right now. is this the parcel? yes, i think that this is... so in the first subphase that's under construction we have one parcel zoned up to 450 feet in the first subphase. most of the area that is in this second subphase is -- has a general height limit of 65 feet. and then -- but it has the opportunity and the entire zone is under what is called flex zoning. and so this one parcel, the hatch parcel which is a treasure island community development parcel, the lower righthand corner here, that parcel has a flex zoning to be able to go up to 300 feet. and then the rest of the east

side neighborhood is under a flex zoning where individual parcels can go up to 240 feet. that being said, there are provisions within the -- the planning code and embo embodiedn the design of development that create restrictions. so this parcel at the southwest corner of that zone goes up to 350 feet, there's a certain offset to every direction before another parcel can go above the 65-foot limit. so that's the way that it's, you know, the density is kept to a certain threshold. >> i see. in some of the earlier diagrams, when we went down from two towers to one, there's really only an indication of one

building that would go over -- there would be a tower and i would think that 300 feet, is that a tower or is that -- >> yeah, i think that anything that's, you know, i believe above 85 feet you move from the mid-rise to high rise definition under the building code. but, yeah, anything generally speaking on treasure island we have a 45-foot height limit along the shared public ways and then generally uniformally through the rest of the neighborhood it goes -- steps to 65. and then there are a number of locations in the westside neighborhood that are 125. and then there's just a few locations, a couple locations, on the west side that are 240. and then there's the 450 and the 300 and that's kind of the tier.

i can include an update on the zoning in a future briefing. so i can bring that back as a refresher for, you know, the members of the community and as well as the board. >> thank you. yeah, i'd appreciate that. >> president tsen: all right. miss richardson. >> thank you, bob. i was going to ask the question when we are going to get the sub-application so we can begin to digest the information. so we should be getting that probably at the end of this week. one of the other questions that i have and we only have like 30 days to provide the adjacent comments. so looking at the calendar between now and when we do this, we have to realize all avenues for us to be able to meet that deadline and the window, including using i.t.c.

so i'm just reiterating here for the commissioners here, we only have 30 days. and if a lot of work needs to be reviewed with the sub-application. and my number two question is a statement. it's regarding to the sailing center and the marina and the sailing center -- are we going to be having a presentation on the sailing center and the infrastructure, the plan? because it's extremely very important. when we are going to have that if that's going to be part -- all of the elements that will be part of the subphase application we really, really, like the sailing center, i would like to see the configuration and how the space utilization and all of that. so when are we going to be able to get that to review those plans? and, again, if they're going to be going to the overall plan?

and we needed 30 days and the approval date is set for when? so help me out with those questions. >> yeah, so like other vertical development, the specific development within the sailing center site, detail on that, won't be in the sub-phase application. overall as you know the tida board approved the lease with the sailing center, the long-term lease with the sailing center and we have submitted that to the board of supervisors and should be scheduled for committee next month i believe. and with that in place the sailing center's plan is to engage bcdc in the permitting process for their waterside improvements and to begin fundraising to try and finance both their waterside and their land side improvements. in the course of that they'll be

developing more detailed design documents for the land side portion of their site. and we'll bring -- we'll be, you know, attending meetings with bcdc, with them, and we'll bring them back for additional updates to the board as they -- >> so i would like to see, again, the final language that goes into this application. it needs to stipulate what the expectations are with some of this so that -- because that's becoming the backbone, the reference material. so how we deal with that, to be open and tran transparent so tht everyone's obligation is stated there of what this is what is expected. because it will be referenced in the subphase application. and a legally binding document and it's reference material.

so i would like to specifically see how the language that govern all of those, that we need to have to be clear to pay attention to that. again, all of the elements that goes into that plan that will be finalized and approved on april 1st, specific languages there and the direction there, they all need to be in there so that when we get to that particular work and framework for that particular site, then the expectations and the obligations and the authorities and the approvals are there. and, again, and spending time to iron everything out so that the regulatory agendas becomes in place. and so i just wanted to make those additional comments. thank you. >> president tsen: thank you. miss lai. >> thank you. actually before my questions, just a follow-up question on director richardson's question around the marina. i was under the impression that

the layout or the configuration of the marina is stipulated already and the approvals, so there shouldn't be any changes to the configuration, correct? >> so what we've put into the lease with treasure island enterprises for the marina, and distinguishing the marina from the sailing center, is the maximum dimensions of the marina piers, and the -- the actual mix of slips, t.i.e. may modify as they go through the process with bcdc and what specific number of which size slips they're proposing. but the maximum dimension, i believe that it's like 747-by-800 feet, and i'll have a diagram in a later slideshow. but that maximum footprint is

what is specified in our lease and as i said either through getting feedback from bcdc or their iteration of their pro forma they may modify the slip somewhat, but the footprint is the restriction. >> i see. i was under the impression that perhaps the slip next was also conditioned under the board's approval because i recall that being part of the discussion around the -- i suppose the balance between the slips, the larger slips for the luxury top of yachts versus the more economical type of boats. but it sounds like actually that proposed mix was just a proposed mix and it was not tied to the actual approval? >> yeah, yeah. >> okay. so actually -- first of all, i want to really thank you for trying to think outside of the box and thinking of more

efficient ways to maximize the development potential on the island. some of your suggestions were really great. and my question is really related to ic-2.2. so you mentioned that you're proposing for us to trade that one site for a future site in a later phase. i was wondering if there's already been a specific site that you have allocated or you have identified? >> we have two parcels that we've proposed to ticd. when we were originally going to be a redevelopment agency and we were at 30% affordable, there were 24 affordable housing sites identified. and then when we converted to, you know, when redevelopment went away the number of affordable housing sites was

reduced to 24. so two of the sites that we are looking at a believe are c-4.2 and c-6.1. i can look at a map and confirm that for you. those were affordable housing sites that were part of the 24 originally identified for affordable housing. but then they became market rate housing when the affordable housing percentages were reduced. so it just seemed like the most natural place to look because there was thought that had gone into the original map of how to distribute the sites within the development. >> okay. and similar question as director dunlop about the height. so for ic-2, what is the height? >> it's the general 65-foot but it's within the 240-foot flex

zone but on such a small parcel it would be very expensive per floor to go above the base zoning. >> i guess small is perhaps relative on the mainland. >> yeah, yeah. >> and it's like 18,000 square feet is not that small. it's definitely feasible in my experience to have a residential building in that footprint. i guess that my input is just, you know, to caution that whatever site you're looking to slot for that we make sure that we have equal development opportunity. >> that's what we're looking at and part of it was that this was an outgrowth of the work that we did with natalie on planning for the distribution of units throughout our parcels and so, yeah, this was really getting to something that was a hundred units or more and, you know, which is really kind of a sweet

spot for -- as -- i don't speak with authority but as authorities have stated to me this is kind of a sweet spot for the operation of the affordable housing site. >> yeah, i guess that i am just pointing out that, you know, that given that it would be a later phase that we are sort of giving something up, right? it would basically be, you know, a later opportunity to be able to deliver these affordable units potentially and arguably because it's even further out west or whatever, it could be perceived as perhaps less desirable or, you know, less convenient, it's further away from the main corridor. so it's fine that we're giving something up but let's just make sure that we gain something back as well. >> absolutely, absolutely. definitely the proximity to, you know, hangar two and the grocery store would be a greater

distance. right now the number of parcels that we have in -- in major phase one relative to our ability to be able to cash flow the sites, we won't be able to develop all of these sites within this timeframe. so there's not a timing loss per se but definitely the proximity to services and transit is a tradeoff. >> president tsen: thank you miss lai. mr. samaha please. >> just a couple quick questions here. and maybe a bit of a bigger picture. i want to be clear as to what the process is here. so when you mentioned the mayor, you are talking about the current mayor london breed? >> mayor lee issued this directive in september of 2017.

>> to create more housing? >> yeah. >> to facilitate the development of more housing. >> and to provide guidance to the city agencies and the direction of the city agencies to develop procedures and mechanisms for expediting -- >> okay, okay, i just wanted to clarify that. so my question is when you say that it's due in 30 days after the submittal of the application, what do you mean by "agency"? >> again, public utilities commission, sfmta, public works, the planning department, the fire department. those agencies that are involved in the review and potentially the acceptance of the infrastructure being described in the subphase application. >> so within 30 days of all of those agencies are to comment? >> yes. >> and then the approval -- so then once -- so once you have the approval target of april 11th which i guess is 90 days, then the permits -- so

does it come to us before we go to the permit phase? >> well, again, we'll provide you updates along the way per the design review and design approval procedures. the major phase application is a board action and the subphase application is a direct action. but we'll be briefing you along the way. and then after the subphase application which, again, the subphase application is the 11-by-17 glossy book of what is proposed for this sub-phase with a lot of narrative, then -- then they will submit their first set of construction drawings for permit. and by comparison for the prior subphases those infrastructure plans are about this high in terms of the number of construction drawings. and so that process will begin,

you know, later in april or may and the target there is from the first submission of those construction drawings that, again, working with the city agencies that we take no more than nine months to get to final permits and final maps. >> right. i guess that my point is not to get into the details -- the details of the permits and, you know, whether it's, you know, it's structural or otherwise, because we are not equipped -- i'm not equipped on this board to give feedback on those kind of details. but i guess do you expect changes to be made to the actual housing mix or any kind of -- between now and that time period? >> yeah, no -- i think that with the housing mix that i think that we're -- that framework, other than the things that i have just discussed, that

framework won't change even through the major permit process. once the major permit -- the street improvement permit for infrastructure is issued by public works, then ticd will either themselves or by selling parcels to third parties, individual parcels will move forward. and they may -- the subphase application does describe -- it has a list of all of the parcels within the subphase and the proposed number of units to be constructed within each individual parcel, but then as individual projects move forward, then there might be some adjustment, you know, upwards or downwards, based on the design for that site or for the exercising of the flex zoning. >> okay. what i want to do is to reiterate that we maximize the development opportunities here. i was at a function last night

when they were discussing sp-50 which i guess is going to pass this year in california and signed into law hopefully by our new governor which is going to increase densities state-wide. here's our opportunity. we are creating a new development area and a new subdivision and a newer neighborhoods. and so this is the best time to actually to plan to create the best. so thank you. >> president tsen: okay, thank you, mr. samaha. mr. beck, in talking about the zoning and the highlight limits, -- height limits, i'm glad that you will come back to the board on this, but something that i would like to point out is that this massive plan was passed about eight years ago. there have been changes to both building code and building

technologies. 65 feet actually was predicated on sort of the most efficient type of construction, especially for affordable housing, which was five stories of wood frame over a garage. and that's how people got to the 65 feet. but now you've got changes in the building code which can allow six stories of wood frame over, and also changes to technologies, for instance, modular which actually requires a little bit more height between the floors. because you're stacking various modules together. and so i would like to actually look at this 65 feet. i think that it may be at this point in time that maybe too restrictive. and i don't know where this falls into, whether it's the subphase, you know, application, or whether it's a different point in time.

but although it seems like we have a lot of land on treasure island, actually every site has to be intensified so that we can get more housing units if possible. and it's rather arbitrary whether it's 65 feet, whether it's 70 feet or 75. i think that we need to relook at this issue to make sure that we can actually maximize and make it more efficient, particularly for the affordable housing developers on what they can do with this site. where does that discussion fall -- is it within the subphase application or is it a different content? >> that would -- that would probably be a separate process. you know, because what you're talking about there is a modification of the design for development and the special use

district regulations that were established for treasure island. we'd be changing the zoning or adopting new guidelines for exceptions to the adopted zoning. so that would really be kind of a separate dialogue to be initiated either by tida or ticd or the two of us together with the planning department. >> president tsen: um-hmm. well, i would like for you to look into this issue. i think that height limits by a lot of cities and jurisdictions looking at other ways to look at zoning and specific height limits may not be the most perfect way to do it. so if you would look into this issue to see what we can do to allow maybe more height and more density within the limits, that would be very helpful. >> well, and as you pointed out in the case of modular construction you're perhaps talking more height without more

density. >> president tsen: exactly. >> which is particularly relevant as we do have our overall limit for the island as well. but, yeah, definitely something that i can discuss with ticd and take a look when we come back. >> president tsen: great, thank you. yes, miss lai. >> thank you for bringing that up, and i think that bobby also touched on this but i support the suggestion to look at how else we could increase the efficiencies and density on the island. but on the outside we also have to look at whether or not it would exceed the deir that had already been done. that doesn't mean that we can't do it, but when you look at studying that, if you could also tell us what the related consequences are on the environmental study, that would be helpful. i mean, it's possible that maybe we just need to do a more limited environmental study on

adding the additional density. and then the other thing is that the state density bonus -- i believe that does not require seqa, so maybe that's one way to get additional height without actually changing the zoning. and without triggering additional environmental review. thanks. >> president tsen: thank you. so are there any comments from the public on this item? hearing none, next item. >> clerk: item nine, a tour of new york parks. >> so at the end of november, we were able to go tour some parks

thanks in large part to -- or almost exclusively to the connections to reach out to a number of facilities and programs in new york and schedule some people to give us some tours and some briefings. before talking about that, i just wanted to highlight a few things about the treasure island parks and open space program. we discussed it a little bit earlier that the parks are envisioned to be under tida's jurisdiction, not under the san francisco department of parks and recreation. and the open space plan anticipated tida might work with the conservancy and contract out operations. and then in terms of the ongoing funding for the parks, the parks in new york have a number of different models. for treasure island the

community facilities district that we've established for over treasure island is extended. it is scheduled to continue in perpetuity to provide the source of funding for the parks' maintenance and operations. overall we have a wide variety of parks and open spaces on treasure island and on yerba buena island. totaling 290-acres out of the 465-acres of land that we are receiving from the navy. so a significant portion of our -- of the land on the island will be open spaces in the future. and so in terms of the trip to new york on the 29th and 30th, as i said, representatives from tida, chris

meade, and their program director wiggins, as well as christy yard, principal at c.m.g. and the arts commission, toured several parks in brooklyn and manhattan. our interests were in learning about best practices for the development, governance and conservancy of open spaces. and the design and operational considerations and art programs and financial institutional models and the governance and operational rulemaking. this aerial map shows you the sites that we visited. brooklyn bridge park and the brooklyn naval yard and domino park in brooklyn. and governor's island and the highline and hudson yards and the shed in manhattan.

we started the first day with a conversation with charles mckinney and robert balder. charles mckinney was a former chief of design for new york city parks and is now the chair of the city as a living laboratory. and robert balder directs cornell's architectural program in new york city. and charles was able to give us a lot of insights from his career within the park system and now working with some of these types of parks that actually reside outside of the new york city park system. and we then visited the brook bn bridge park which was formally a both a cargo shipping facility on the brook lidg brooklyn wated just in terms of its model. and the portions of the site were turned over to residential

and some commercial development and revenues, tax revenues from those properties are what finance the ongoing maintenance and operations of the park. and the initial m.o.u. was signed for this program in 2002 and construction began in 2008 and as of last summer their construction is about 90% complete. in terms of acreage, they are about a quarter or a little more than a quarter of the acreage of what the parks programs would be on treasure island. and the upper righthand image kind of shows you the length of the system running along the waterfront. this was a cargo facility, so a lot of their -- the park is actually on piers over the water and as you can see looking down the waterfront there. and they have a wide variety of

programs and you can see the second pier in at the top where there's soccer fields and the third pier is harder to see but -- outside of the first pier with the blue oftenning and it's harder to see but it has basketball courts and a skatepark and other facilities. domino park is the second site that we visited in brooklyn. it's part of the redevelopment of the former domino sugar refinery property. and it's opened up a portion of the waterfront there in brooklyn that has been inaccessible, it's within the fence line of the sugar factory for many decades. the factory closed in 2004 and the property was purchased for development in 2012. and the developer here made a choice to build the park first

before or concurrent with their first new residential development. so the park opened up just this past year. it's comparatively small, about six acres, but, again, like our city site park and a lot of our facilities it's along the water's edge and linear, and interesting in those respects. and the brooklyn navy yard was our next stop. this is more of an economic re-use opportunity. the brooklyn navy yard was an active u.s. navy yard up through the 1960s and then it was transitioned to become an industrial park and functioned

in that capacity through to 2011 when the navy development corporation took on a new program to try to renew and to revitalize the industrial park. and they just this past year released an updated master plan. so, again, this is more of an economic re-use opportunity than a parks and open space, but it's interesting to some of what we may try and do in terms of reuse of historic facilities. and the image on the upper left is kind much an aerial of the navy yard in total. and the lower right is an interesting re-use of the historical structure as -- not re-worked but kind of an i.t.

incubator space. and hudson river park. hudson river park emerged from a failed highway project. so maybe akin to our marcadaro. and the plan was to replace the westside highway with an interstate highway. when that highway replacement program did not materialize they have reused the right-of-way that was dedicated to develop the hudson river parks. and a little earlier timeline here and the m.o.u. began in 1992 and construction in 1998. and this extends along 4.5 miles of the waterfront. so there are still portions of the project to be completed to connect the entire 4.5-mile length. but it's still a very sizeable park network along the hudson

river there. and you can see a couple of these photographs were not taken in december and it's kind of showing how the -- how the level of use that the space gets during the warmer months, rather than a cold november morning. and governor's island, governor's island is located just south of manhattan and, again, not unlike ours, more than half of their island is silt land. it is accessible only via ferry. and this is -- it does have an open space program but it's also a program driven development site. their vision statement is to be new york city's most sustainable campus for learning, research, art and culture with extraordinary open space. one of their anchor programs is the harbor school which is a

public high school, magnet school, located on the island which opened up in 2010. and when they first entered into the agreement to take over full control from the state of new york and then first phase of construction began in 2012. and you can see in the first two images a couple of the temporary art installations on the island, the one in the upper left is in the chapel there and in the archway of the building there. and here's an aerial of the island and so that kind of oval-shaped portion at the very top of the island, that's the historic original island. and that's where most of the historic structures on the island are located. and then the southern two-thirds of the island are the manmade

portions of the island. you can see the number of ferry piers around the island. and the kind of dirt portions on the two sides of the island are areas where they're going -- they plan to do economic investment opportunities to help to bring revenues and programs and the green belt that goes through the middle of the island there is kind of their plan -- their existing and planned open space network. and the highling is a former new york central whale way spur on the west side of manhattan that through grassroots preservation effort has been converted into an elevated parkway. and like the grassroots effort to bring the park to fruition, 90% of their operating budget is privately funded. the railway was abandoned as a

functional railway in 1980 and the repurposing or the reconstruction of the park began in 2006 with the first phase opening in 2009 and full build out of the high line by 2014. and, again, this is a mile and a quarter of elevated park running through the west side of manhattan. it really is kind of a sequence of rooms or experiences as you move through the length of the park. at the north end of the park you come to hudson yards which is the largest private real estate development in the united states by square footage. and a little over 12 million square feet of proposed development on this site.

when it struck me that in san francisco we have, under prop m we have a million square feet of office space per year so this represents a decade's worth of new development in san francis francisco. and the construction began in 2012 and full buildout is expected by 2024. and, again, this is being developed above the rail yards. so above the area where long island railroad has its storage on the west side of the island and all of this is developing -- is happening above that. the image on the upper right is a rendering of what the anticipated buildout, when all of the development is complete within the hudson yards area. and some images on the lower portion of the physical models of the planned development, with

the kind of golden basket weave object in the middle of those two diagrams is a component of the art program there. and just to the south of that art work is the shed at hudson yards which is another site that we have visited. and the shed is a performance and gallery and creative space meant to present a commission and present a wide range of performance, visual arts programs. it's philanthropically endowed and to be philanthropically sustained and they'll open this year. they have an endowment for the first three years of operating costs in place, and they're looking to build and to sustain

this program. the image on the lefthand side kind of shows you the model of the building and the righthand portion of that is actually retractible so that can move back against the high rise building on the left and opening up a plaza there or can be rolled out to enclose the plaza to create a larger performance space inside of the structure. and this kind of -- at the i think of hud -- at the edge of hudson yards shows you kind of how -- you see what looks like a green belt or a sidewalk there, and that's actually the elevated level so that the rail yards and the other things are below that throughout the site. and so kind of some of the take

aways from our visit -- open spaces in these areas are operator management and in partnership with conservancy organizations and not through the new york city park system. and the central parks conservancy in the 1980s was what really initiated this movement towards this model in new york. and so one of our areas of exploration going forward is, you know, should we develop a conservancy relationship and what role would that conservancy fill? what is the -- what are the opportunities for philanthropic support for our arts or our open space program and how would we simulate that. and from both the designers and the operators, you know, it's kind of a consistent feedback of planning to design for activation and that's not just

the spaces that you design, but making sure that you have the services and the facilities and the amenities that people are going to want to have when they're within the parks so that the park is not just the space but it's the opportunity and the things that you can do while you're there. and really a focus on family-friendly spaces that families tend to use parks in different ways. they come to parks for longer visits and the larger flexible programming spaces where they can spread out or playgrounds. so those types of design considerations. and on the operations and the maintenance side of things, emphasis of developing standards is a basis for ground-up operating projections. integrating the operation facilities in the design of a parks and open space. we had some conversations around

rules and regulations for open spaces and also planning design for adaptation to climate change and sea level rise. i think that this is an area that has been a focus for our program from the beginning, but hudson river park had some real hard lessons that they learned in the super storm sandy about the impacts that that had on their facilities. and then always planning and design for flexibility and being able to respond to the use that comes to the park even when it may not be being used exactly the way that you originally envisioned that it would be used. some highly successful places, for instance, in brooklyn bridge park are being used as wedding photo backdrops and other things that the designers didn't necessarily think of when they were designing these spaces but that's how pe