in addition, the whole project is $15 million, roughly. we have talked about varying amounts of what the city's contribution could be to that project. but we were trying to balance the needs of things that a more shovel-ready versus projects that still have a way to go in terms of becoming ripe enough to receive and use the investment. we're working closely with the geneva car our folks. the department is helping to pay for some of that environmental review and the application costs. the city has given, $600,000 in the past, to do planning. our commitment to this project is strong. it is just that is not quite ready yet to meet the legal requirements necessary to be named in the bond. >> [inaudible]

>> good morning, commissioners. my name is janet. i live in district 8 and frequent the so-called natural areas which are becoming less and less and natural. more and more burdens using more and more pesticides and putting up more fences. because of this, i am part of the san francisco forest alliance to which was formed to stop this destruction of national areas. a broad coalition from throughout the city. the rally attracted 150 people with standing room only, and over 2,000 people have signed on. the forest alliance like of a campaign against the bond if it will be used to fund more destructive projects. the current vague assurances about how the bond money will be used do not cut it. i am a wildlife photographer. i observe while life in our parks.

snakes, raccoons, hawks, owls, coyotes, callous songbirds. these animals depend on the habitat that is there now. the trees, the thickets, the brash, much of which is non- native. they're removing the evidence put in grasslands for insects and butterflies. they're destroying the habitat that is currently in place for our animals now live. at the glen park improvement meetings, the consensus was that we wanted our park kept while. instead, they are removing the wild and creating a sarsgaard and landscape, reducing the wildness that we said we wanted. these occurred -- the so-called habitat restoration is deceptive. with these terms involve is a tree and forced and thicket removal to become grasslands. in the process of this destruction, they're using more and more toxic pesticides. usage has increased 300%. unknown to most people to maintain the butterfly habitat,

it requires the use of this parade on toxic chemicals over four months. recent butterfly count was only 17. thank you. >> betsy and newton. >> good morning. my name is tim. i am a citizen of san francisco. i pay property taxes, and i vote. i am here to express my concern about the bond measure. i have always voted for every bond measure for recreation and parks since i have been voting in the city for 30 years. this bond measure has given me thought about not voting yes on this, because in the recreation park is the natural areas program which i think needs to be re-evaluated. i think it is ridiculous. it is time to cut -- it is ridiculous to cut down healthy

trees just because their non- native. on my own mountain ride live, their spring insecticides and pesticides, tier one and two, which are highly poisonous, and we're not sure what the long- term residual effects are going to be. i have always volunteered to help on previous bond measures. i have always voted yes on the them. but this bond measure, i will have to really think twice about it. i think that rec and park needs to be a little bit more transparent about the natural areas program. i feel that they need to let us know exactly how many trees that they want to cut down. from what i have read on their website and others, it is almost 20,000 trees in the whole city and county of san francisco. we rank number 21 at of 22 cities in the united states in forest canopies and trees.

it is a just a citizen and at the my taxes and vote. this is the first time i have never spoken in front of the commission. everybody wants that for the kids. thank you so much. >> good morning, commissioners. i am betsy, the president of the diamond heights community association. our board of directors would like to request that you approve the inclusion of george christopher playground in the park bond measure. there is a great need to replace the playground. it is the original equipment.

as it was explained, the equipment is made out of pressure-treated wood. even though the was right now is heavily coated with paint, the toxins could still be a safety hazard to children. we hope there will be funding to improve the tennis courts in other parts of the park area because the george christopher playground has a very high usage rate. it is used extensively by families and dog walkers and walkers and tennis players and baseball players. also, it is adjacent to a nursery school that uses that monday through friday. our community is really delighted that not only george christopher playground but also the glen canyon rec center is included right now in your list in the park bonds measure. and we do urge you to approve

that. we really thank you for all your work on this part bonds measure. we think the recreation and park department for all the input that they have had. i just want to say that our committee will work very hard to let our community know about the importance of the park bond measure. thank you. >> [inaudible] >> good afternoon, commissioners. mr. ginsberg. i am a 12-year tenant of the harbor. i am here to the object strenuously -- [inaudible] oh, no. i was speaking for the harbor.

i am sorry. you call me out of -- sorry. >> [inaudible] >> hello. i only have a minute and a half? ok. my name is sally. i am here with the san francisco forest alliance. the discussion about trails in the bond that you heard was not the entire truth. the 2008 bond, they had those three criteria, but the trails the could be paid for were only in natural areas. the trellis and three-quarters of the city's parks were exempt and cannot be considered for any bond money. that is the concern people have with the bond and money going to nap. grandview park was one of the first drilling projects use in than money. there was a lot of problems with

the community outreach. they have done a lot more work there than what seems to be just a drill rig construction. for example, they tore out what keeps the sand dunes from moving and replaced it with butterfly habitats but that does not seem to have a lot to do totrailway construction. implementing large portions of the management plan, and they have not approved the eir yet. that is what people want to have -- at the meeting last night for district's one, four, and seven, two-thirds of the people who spoke spoke against using any of the bond money for nap, in particular the trail and forestry. especially the trails issue. i urge you to include language in the bond would state unequivocally that trailway construction cannot be used for trials in the natural areas. it should be for the ones

exclude the last time. at that language is there, i think opposition to the bonn would evaporate. without it, there will be some opposition to the bond. thank you. >> good morning. i live in diamond heights. i am speaking against the natural areas program and not convinced that the bond funds will not be used for nap. we're thrilled to live near glen canyon where coyotes to exist with their neighbors happily. in our own little green space, we have red tails and hawks. we have over 40 varieties of birds in our feeders, including non-native ones. we have also seen skunk's, opossums, squirrels, and other small mammals. clearcutting is a travesty. look at mount davidson. it is like a wound. nap seems to think plans trump

animals. why the need for herbicides? this is a very misguided plan that divert tax dollars to a wasteful, environmentally destructive program. thank you. >> good morning. jason from the mayor's office. thank you for having this hearing today. thank you for having the discussion about how to improve our parks around the city. i am here on behalf of the mayor to comment about the robust process that occurred in the formulation of this bond program. there have been several dozen outreach meetings around the cities. thank you for having an open and transparent process about that. this, we believe, is a balanced and equitable program. parks are an important part of the civic fabric here in san

francisco, and maintaining them and investing in them is a smart strategy for the future. i guess i would just add that we want to make sure there is equity around the city in terms of the project that will be funded by this bond. that is important. parks are an important part of this civic fabric downtown and to the east, west, north, and south. thank you for having this hearing and discussion. we look forward to continuing to work with recreation and parks on this. thank you. >> [inaudible] >> good morning. i live in diamond heights. i appreciate the opportunity to share my concerns with you today. i absolutely love our parks that

i walk everyday in glen canyon. i tried to picnic as much as possible in golden gate park. one thing about san francisco is the areas that come under sort of the natural areas program. the ecosystem has evolved over hundreds of years, and i love having the skunks, hawks, coyotes, howls, woodpeckers, all of these animals, and they're living free in their while. they are my neighbors. we all really get along. i want to preserve this. so, yes, not in favor of the natural areas program, as is currently working. i am very, very concerned that not only monies from the bond may actually go to the program but would be used in a manner consistent with this program's philosophy, which i find to be radical and destructive of all of this natural ecosystem that i loved so much, resulting in

adding toxins and plants that are not going to make it anymore. i really oppose nap. if there were a vote held today on the bond, i would vote no because of my concerns for this. i think i can certainly be brought around if you can get nap and the destructive philosophy put to bed. the presenter presented one of the main concerns, from the citizen outreach, to fix what is broken. i think nap is breaking what is working. we need to fix what is broken. we're in very tight financial times. we should be extremely careful where we spend the money. please do not spend it to destroy what we have. thank you.

>> good morning, commissioners, general manager. i am the director of the parks for people bay area program. we have worked with the capital division for years to help communities in need to improve their parks and open space. i wanted to say quickly that in challenging times like this, a bond can help and be a great way to support communities getting parks and open space that they need the 2008 bond rally helped the trust republic plant leverage a lot of private funding and held at that to the san francisco park system for multiple parts throughout the city. the committee opportunity fund allow this to partner with and help some local communities get park improvements in their parks. we think the 2008 bond was run very well. people were very proud of the improvements that will be happening in their parks. we look forward to more park

improvements. >> good morning. executive director of the san francisco parks alliance. we're the end and a partner with the city for its parks, open spaces, and recreation centers city-wide. we have been partnering and working closely with the staff of the recreation parks department as well as staff at the port for more than six months in exploring in conducting the research feeding the development of this bond measure. and in working with them on the community input workshops and the civic engagement that has fueled the development of this bond measure. the park's alliances not yet formally endorsed this bond measure. we expect to take that up once they file content of the bond is finalized as this moves forward, probably next month. in the meantime, i do want to strongly encourage you to support the process that has been playing out and to move

this process forward by taking this bond measure to the board of supervisors and ultimately to the voters this november. i also want to make a personal observation that in the six months that i have been associated with the new parks alliance and working very closely with most of the senior staff of the recreation and parks department, as well as staff at the port of san francisco, i have been very impressed with their professionalism, with their due diligence, with their expertise, and with the process of a very rigorous process they have engaged in a in putting together this bond. i particularly want to call out dawn for your -- she is wicked -- i am going to talk about her in a third person even though she is here. she is wicked smart. her depth of knowledge in the

data bank in that brain of hers about these bonds in the capital issues in san francisco has been very impressive spirit i want to just call her out in particular is the true asset to the city. thank you. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is ashley, a native of district four. i am also representing districts are drawn the park recreation open space advisory committee, also known as prosac. [inaudible] familiar with the bond process than with their work. the capital division works to develop the preferred is for the bomb, and i believe these priorities are reflected in the proposal. we work with neighborhood groups. to ensure that their voices of the committee were hurt. there has been over 30 community meetings held. just last night, a very productive meeting between the

districts in many people can to voice their concerns. the one major item i have heard over and over again is people's concern with the natural areas program and insuring that no bond money is spent on the program. it is essential to be clear with the committee on whether not it is possible that bond money will be spent on this program or they probably will not support it. the other concern has been that there are not enough funds for maintenance of the project being proposed. it was said that it was upgraded and updated systems with less minutes required. but that needs to be quantitatively demonstrated to the committee so there's harper of the that is the case. i have seen amazing things done in district four across the city. in my neighborhood, mccoppin square is more widely used than i have ever seen it before. a place for many community events are held. the committee opportunity fund is the way for the public advocate for projects within their own parks. that program is slated to be expanded to the bond prices and public involvement, people are developing ownership over their

public parks. beautiful usable parts make livable neighborhoods. i hope you recommend to place this bond on the november ballot. thank you. >> i actually came for another reason. but because i have to sit through all of those -- this bond issue kind of, since i of approved the previous bonds -- essentially a property owner, so i tax myself on doing that. i have noticed chinese capital budgets that all the planning and -- i have noticed by in these capital budgets that all the planning and design, regardless of whether it is a renovation like west sunset which is a new playground with heavy use and needs an upgrade or more means money, it still has a 25% budget, which is over $1 million. compared to other parks would

probably need to appease and because you are rebuilding the whole park in a different way. my question probably cannot be answered here. why is that? is it because it is totally unrelated? these numbers do not mean anything for what they're used for and they're just averaged across the whole system and pay for other things? or is it actually meaningful, and does that affect the decisions that you guys do on what parts get rid of it? because all the money's going into the park and not going into the management or design of it, those might be more attractive to parks that have to have a complete rebuild. thank you. >> commissioners. i have three points. west sunset, this park already

has a bleachers. it is a true urban park, surrounded by buildings. we wonder why the department is proposing natural grass here. there is 7 acres of grass in golden gate park. it would make more sense to keep golden gate park and find an appropriate artificial surface for west sunset. the beach chalet koses been quoted as between $9,000,000.- 884901970 dollars -- cost has been quoted as between $9 million and $12 million. we need playing fields all over san francisco. 2012 bond, you set aside money for golden gate park. i have to admit that among our membership, this offer is met with some distrust. the staff states work will be done in conjunction with the community. however, for the beach chalet project, we found out the soccer

committee was informed and was writing letters to you folks six months before the public about the project. environmental groups had to file two appeals to get the department to file environmental law and get the eir. the eir has cost $800,000. to complete the circle on the argument, if golden gate park had been left with no sports like, you now have $800,000 to spend onwe asked the departmento examine their priorities in golden gate park. thank you. >> thank you. this is about the fourth time i've heard this presentation. i've been to a couple of meetings and i have seen it evolved.

staff has been very forthcoming to suggestions. i'm really sorry about the natural areas program and i hope they decide not to vote against it because of some particular issue. i think staff has put a large amount of time into it from the 2008 bond program, my neighbors have benefited enormously and i've been involved in planning and they have been very forthcoming. i have to say i have to strongly support the bond issue and i hope differences can be resolved before november. thank you.

>> community engagement has been a real factor in putting this together. i have heard a lot of compliments around town about it. i think there is concern about the natural areas plan and we cannot legislate a solution to that. i don't think it ought to be included in language but i would like to encourage folks about how to minimize the negative impact. it is important and it is a legitimate point of view as we try to meet that myriad of demands on how we recreates in san francisco. thank you for that testimony. with that, we have a motion. >> i want to did go to the remarks regarding the national

areas project. i was involved for many years with that, especially when i was president of the commission. with actually passing the eir on this project and i think it is crucial we have key stakeholders from that program supporting this project, so to the extend we can work with those key stakeholders to make this more of a win/win, i would appreciate that. >> there is a motion and a second. all those in favor? it is unanimous. thank you. >> we are now on item number nine, but decker park.

-- boeddeker park. >> let's wait for everybody to exit. >> it good afternoon president and commissioners. i'm with seed capital and

planning division of recreation and parks department. the item before you is discussion and possible action to improve the conceptual program for boeddekker park. this is the third of three parks in the trust for public land. in september of this year, we expect to open about ballpark. we will be back if you approve this conceptual plan in june with recommendation to approve the gift in place. in the ensuing weeks since capital committee, we have close the funding gap. with that, want to turn it over to the director of the parks for people program. thank you. >> thank you very much. we are really excited to bring thisoj