i would also like to recognize the work of john updike, the acting director of the department of real estate who helped us in many of our meetings. we made several presentations along the way to check in as we were working on the document. so the court policies and new acquisition policies are one, a focus on areas that are open space deficient to acquire properties that have identified funding for purchase development and maintenance, so properties that have identified funding to fund the purchase, which is the acquisition, fund the development of turning whatever the property is into a park if it is not already park-like, and to pay for maintenance are also priority in a policy. properties that encourage a

variety of recreational open space uses are also a priority. i can go into a little more detail in this topic, but briefly, properties that are high needs use basically the following four principles -- that it is in area that has high population. a lot of people live there in a ratio to the amount of open space. places with a high percentage of children and seniors, carriers were households are categorized as low-income. we know that when people have less resources, they often are not as likely to go as far for open space. also, freeze and areas that are identified in an area plants of the neighborhood planning department document that would bring additional residential future density to an area, so trying to acquire properties in

those areas so that we can meet future needs for additional parks. also, this policy identifies and prioritizes areas that fall into a gap. parts of the city that do not have parks or a playground within a quarter mile or half a mile would also receive additional consideration. again, the policy asks the commission to prioritize projects that have identified funding in place. this was something that has come up here. it is very important for people when we evaluate a property is that those properties have already had been about funding for the purchase development and support of maintenance -- those properties the price. 17th and folsom have all of these sources. that is one reason why i think that property really met the goal.

the policy also identifies four major types of potential recreation and open space uses and essentially provides a framework to identify which properties meet those needs. passive recreation, trails, other types of passive recreation. natural resources. sites have on them existing natural -- natural resources, and they are usually sensitive to these and the like. polls, playgrounds, those kind of facilities that are more associated with sport, and special features. properties that may have a view or something that is really special about that piece of property on that point in the planet. so it perhaps is something that has waterfront access. the policy also has us identify

for each property other things we want to flag. if a site has challenges in terms of transit, health issues, things like that, those would all be identified in our work sheet. i will show you a couple of documents we have tried to added to the policy to make it easier to use. there is a clear step-by-step process laid out in the policy. any member of the public could -- or the department, staff, anyone could essentially identified a property and submit a form, provide the address and information, and that way, we can always track when a property needs attention. step two, we would do a thorough site analysis, review the site, answers some critical questions, and then we have created this evaluation form, which we feel it is very clear -- it would allow us to communicate with the

public which item -- a single site was identified as a meeting this goal. it would meet hi needs goal. for example, it would have maintenance funds in place. maybe have the fund available, so it would be able to identify what those items are at the park's score high or low on. here is an example of how bad evaluation form would be completed, so it would be very easy to use. then once it had gone through an evaluation, we have in the policy recommended six months or as necessary potentially more frequent presentation to members of the parks and open space advisory committee to get their feedback on properties that are being evaluated that would also be noted on the acquisition roster, and the acquisition roster would be a living document that would show how a single property had been

evaluated according to the new, revised policy. so once it is on the roster, there is still a lot of work to be done, and we would do detailed analysis. often, there's time for identifying a property until it is actually acquired because there is additional work and research that needs to be done. of course, the final step would be the determination of this commission, this commission then may draft a resolution recommending that the property be acquired to the board of supervisors. that is a summary to the revised acquisition policy. thank you. >> we do have public comment. >> let's go to public comment before we take commissioner's comments.

>> good morning, commissioners. neighborhood parks council. i want to commend the work of the department as a whole on revising the acquisition policy. we are at a really important time in our city where we have opportunities left around parks and open space, particularly around the south eastern waterfront and with the development opportunities coming forward, but we also need to be aggressively addressing opportunities to add open space before density reaches a point where we do not have that opportunity anymore. we have had a mix of requests or acquisitions for the department that's been the policy as a whole. the policy, as it stands now really does not respond to the different ways that properties can come into the department. in other words, is it in a high needs area but completely unfounded, or is there some level of readiness? are we going to miss an opportunity? it was difficult for me to

support strategic planning and acquisition of open spaces with a policy that was unexplainable and a roster that was unclear. i think both of those problems have been addressed with this updated policy. through the development of an intake process where it is no longer a mystery how something gets added to the list, and through the recognition that there has been a whole lot of area plans developed since the original acquisition policy was developed, and also by recognizing again the value of our open space fund. we have money that comes in every year for acquisition, and we have been sitting on it, and we need to take advantage of the opportunity. all of the work on the acquisition policy in some ways is prompted by the fact that we have projects that feel right and we do not know how to proceed with them. this clarifies that tool and helps the department leverage opportunities, and i feel really good about the work that has been done. i want to say thank you, and i look forward to using this new updated policy.

>> thank you. >> is there any other public comment? >> i will be real quick, i promise. please pass this because i really do want to go to that opening and i want to live long enough to see it. thank you. >> me, too. thank you. >> is there any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i want to commend the open space committee because i know how much work was put into this. i think members of staff are all pretty wonderful to put such awful considerations into something as important as this department into the city. one issue i will now make my drum beat issue going forward, though, and this has come up in some other issues relative to this department, is maintenance and our ability to fund maintenance. it is one thing to acquire new properties. it is another thing to not be

able to maintain them, and it is one of the things that is breaking the back of this department, that we cannot afford to take care of all these properties anymore. i think that the intake and criteria forms everything that analyzes whether we should acquire a property. but when it comes before this commission, one of the questions i will continue to ask is how we are going to pay for it in perpetuity. that is going to be a pretty serious criteria for me on whether i support it or not. so thank you. >> we did hear this policy at capital committee. maintenance was one of the issues that was brought up, and i believe i believe that the policy does address the maintenance of the -- whether the site is worthy of consideration. i do also want to join my

colleagues in commending neck and bill, and those who really worked on this. the maintenance was and is true that was brought up and this is something that i am also concerned with. thank you for bringing this up. >> seeing no other comments, we have the action before us. this is moved and seconded. all of those in favor, this is unanimous. >> items 10, 11 and 12 have been removed from the calendar and we are on item 13, the 2008 neighborhood park bond >> they were removed early on. >> and then --

>> just say this into the microphone. >> i am the capital planning director. i am here to provide a status update for the neighborhood park bond and i have the presentation that i included. and so, i wanted to start off to say that this is important as we talk about the implementation of the neighborhood parks bond to say that this is the most important works of the capital division, because this has been in place for about one decade and in that decade we have a lot to celebrate, not just over the course of the program but the delivery of a number of -- dozens of great projects, each

of which has its own interesting history, but they have all yielded a memorable project that the public continues to value and enjoy. and so, a few highlights of the accomplishments from the past year or so, we have opened the palace of fine arts, opening in january 2011 and we competed for $5 million for the grant program, not only just for the first new park, and we have completed many, of the golden gate park projects, which include the windmill, which we had a fund capping ceremony for this last week and the 2000 bond project, which was hamilton, the

last project. you cannot drive down the avenue -- avenue without seeing kids and families in that facility. and there is also the playground which also has opened to deep community appreciation, and you cannot go up the street without seeing children and families using the new playground. we are moving forward on balboa park, as part of this initiative. we're making a lot of progress and i think that we have a lot to celebrate. and this is all the work that has been done in golden gate park over the last few years and this is just the proposition for the funding for this program.

this does not include the museums or the major investments that have been made, that delivered a number of projects to the music concourse fountain, the botanical gardens improvements, and repaving in partnership with the nonprofits and the other funding sources. these are the remaining projects that we are working on right now. we're almost there. the goal is, because we receive funding from the state that we have to deliver, those projects by the end of the calendar year to meet the funding constraints -- we are moving forward with those. and so, the 2008 clean and safe neighborhood parks find, before

we go into the implementation, i would like to refresh everyone's memory -- memory about what it took to develop this bond, and the accountability measures that went into this, the direct result of lessons that were learned from the 2000 bond implementation and the overall experience of the capital program. we spent a lot of time working with stakeholders to develop the criteria that would be used to select the project in the bond and to spell out for the city wide programs, where we did not know specifically what we would do to create a clear process, or how those projects would be selected. we also spent with the stake holders of lot of time trying to understand and think of ways to build and to our projects --

taking the time for the appropriate scope of work and budget that was realistic and think about contingencies. we do know that the unexpected things may happen. we had challenges that needed to be resolved and the process that we are obligated and required to go through, and this is out of our control. we respond to those things the best that we can. a lot of the budget measures and process metal -- process measures are in place and they are working. we have to fill that the accountability measures and i think this is important. schedule delays happened because of things out of our control, and this becomes problematic when it turns into overspending. and they require general fund

supplements and renegotiating the scope with these community is expecting a certain product at the end of the day. we have not had that happen because we went through three levels of process meetings to develop the budgets, and the three levels of contingency built into the bond, and all of those measures are working. there have been places where we had to tap into the contingency and this was because of the right reason. when we were starting the project, there were undiscovered conditions that you can't know when you first are planning for these projects. if this is sunset or fulton, where we have to use these contingencies, this is for the actual conditions and that is why this program was designed for. this is helping us to keep the fact that even though there have been delays, the bomb project is still on budget.

this is something to celebrate. the transparency of the criteria used for this project, we know the projects we have been delivering, and we have not seen the intense conflict that characterized the delivery of the 2000 bond, or the accusations of favoritism or political decisions driving what will happen. and these are good lessons learned as we think about the other future bonds and the lessons we want to continue to preserve moving forward. and with the community process, we have the task forces and we have been able to bring these to you, and prioritize list of projects receiving unanimous support from the task force and the community, and this has not always been the consistent history of the capital program and i want to give my staff

credit for taking the time, if this is the 26 meetings or they -- the for some committees, we are spending more time working with the community, trying to scope the projects but i think that this may real -- result in delays but a better project and a higher level of customer satisfaction. we had a plan and the community wanted us to rethink the design elements and we were happy to do this. this is a building that we know will be around for another 50 years, this will continue to serve the community and meet their expectations. it will provide that kind of background and context about why we are where we are and the progress we have made in implementing.

we have to fill all of the process requirements, and we have completed concept designs for all the projects. only mission dolores is left. we are in construction for all of the processes, and we have seen big savings. we're putting the savings as a contingency, to protect us against future, unknown circumstances. we're on detailed design for all of the projects and we're on a steady march to putting the projects out right now. and then we are going this fall -- with lafayette after that, and a steady march to mission dolores. the spending for the bond will go up dramatically as well.

i am not going to go through each one of the scheduled flights, there detailed here for your review. but as we think about the next ballot cycle, the goal is to have all of these projects delivered and constructed by the next election, and people will continue to see steady progress and even though this will not be delivered to the public, you will see 70% construction at this time. so all of this activity results in spending, which is what we need to have happened, with $150 million. the bulk of the spending is driven by construction contracts.

what i have been trying to show is that we are at $44 million annual see a dramatic increase in the amount of money that is spent or encumbered in contracts. and the accelerated rate of spending by construction is going to require a few more items that you will see me approached the commission for. in the fall we will have to read appropriate some of the funding. we have the money we need but this is in the wrong pots. we will have to move the funds around to let us make an offer. this is another huge construction project that will require a $14 million construction project. we will have to move the funding from the neighborhood parks, and then we are also planning on going out for the final bond

sale in spring of 2012, to find the second phase of construction. >> i want to clarify something. the estimates of the project are not changing, but the money is allocated for the project based on the particular bond sale. they have to line up the construction of the bids with the timing of the bond sales and that is why we may need to put money into different buckets because the projects are ready now and the money may not be available until the third bond sale. >> this is a straightforward cash issue. all of that is to say that there is steady progress. and if i could just quickly showed the projector screen, overhead -- i just wanted to show that for five of the

neighborhood projects, we are in construction and he can see the dates we are expecting to move forward in going to bed. and you see a steady march from now through spring and summer to put these projects out, and assuming things go smoothly, these are the completion dates we are looking for as well. thinking. so there have been some delays. it is important that we are candid about this. schedules -- we did not have the accountability measures around and we were more focused on spending and the community progress and the schedules were overly optimistic, given what we know about the city's regulatory process and how the pieces of the process have actually changed since 2008.

the source of these delays -- we are investing more time in community process, and we have had regulatory process issues, and fulton has had the historic assets identified, requiring the additional environmental review, and also, permitting delays, whether this was the department of building inspection or city planning. there is a lot that is actually out of our control and we are dealing with literally, one dozen regulatory agencies that do not report to the commission and have their own mandate to pursue, and that makes the delicate negotiation, and lastly, not unusual, but difficult to predict, the

unknown site conditions. we have seen this at a number of places. you discover things that you did not know where there. so this happens and this is what contingency is for. and as we think about what is working for us, the real cost estimating and taking the time of front to make sure the budget works, contingent with the program level, the clear expectations for the public process. no one has come back to us and said, a major swimming pool -- we have not had these kinds of conversations. having a balanced slayed of projects, we have been able to deliver something for all the different constituencies we server across the city and this is important.

greater accountability and working to unanimous support, whether this was the board of supervisors when we first got the bond on the ballot, we editorials from all the major papers and the continued to work with the stakeholders to make certain that they are on board as we move through this program every step of the way. there are some things we can do better. part of this is the response to the fact we need to have a more integrated project review between planning and capital. and we have had a more pro- active environmental reviews strategy, with more coordination of fundraising. meredith -- we were talking about what the philanthropy strategy will be, with improved

city team work. we're spending as much time talking to these other regulatory agencies as we do to the stake holders, to make certain that there is consistent communication about the project and how they move forward. i think continuing to have outreach and continuing to work with both is as important as when you are giving the outreach to get people to work with you to develop the bond proposal. we have actually improved but there is more that should be done there. and workload management is something that always has taken us by surprise. in the regulatory process, a million-dollar project has as many steps as a $20 million project. and the parks and recreation division is handling well over 30 projects at any given mt.