we continue, as i said, many of the practices we started in 2008 of conservative cost estimating. we worked with field staff and called in independent cost estimators and we looked at our project scope and -- we have individual 10% project contingencies built into each of the project and a $6 million program contingency because we did not feel confident we would continue to benefit from the current climate through the next six years of the bond. on top of that, one of the main critics of the 2008 bond was around are scheduled and we were focused on the fiscal accountability that we did not apply that same level of scrutiny to the scheduled development. in this case we learned some important lessons and reflected them in the schedules that are before you as part of the bond proposal. we talk to the department of

public works to make sure that had adequate staffing band was to deliver these proposals and wait inc. extended planning phases for sites that we know will require more complex when news, having learned from our previous lessons. with that combined with more permitting time lines as well, we should be able to hear to the schedule outlined and the bond report much more effectively. we have also incorporated the accountability measures in 2008 and those that are being used now for every bond in the 10- year capital plan. in addition to clearly identify projects and scope and budget, we have a variety of forms that -- forums that provide oversight. and as a standard with our general obligation bonds, there is a set aside for the controllers office and to the office to [inaudible]

>> another level of accountability is you need to come back to the board of supervisors. we're the ones who authorize and appropriate these dollars and those are open and public meetings. we have seen where people have had concerns that the sport has had the ability and has demanded the authorization legislation for the preparations of dollars. >> absolutely, supervisor. in addition to the neighborhood parks, we also wanted to continue our citywide programs that allows us to use the bond funds to really balance out the larger projects and make sure that as many parks as possible continued to benefit from the general obligation bond. we have created a number of programs that are not fully defined yet. as a citywide program, there is a competitive process that will fall upon the -- follow upon the bond passage of these programs to set priorities for the

expenditure of the funds and plans for the expenditure of the funds go back to the recreation and park commission. ago back to -- they go back and will end up before the board of supervisors. there is additional commodity process after the bond is passed and develop guidelines for the expenditure of each one of these programs. supervisor elsbernd: could you elaborate on some of those programs? maybe some examples. >> i have a slide on each one of these. starting with playground safety. $15.50 million. we have a number of playgrounds -- the san francisco had a lot of playgrounds. over 180 place structures -- play structures. we still have some playgrounds that need to be improved, brought up to code, have

improvements for disabled access and the like. this $15.50 million will be targeted at the worst playgrounds, playgrounds that have pressure treated lumber that needs to be mediated. -- reim mediated -- remediated. and golden gate heights. supervisor elsbernd: there is christopher but that falls under another category. >> christopher is pressure treated lumber. that falls under another site. and here -- this map shows the spread of potentially -- playgrounds that are on the worst side of condition across

the city. you can see that is spread or isolated to a neighborhood or district. we have the structures across the city so these funds would be eligible toward repeating -- remediating those playgrounds. this is another element. constituents and staff have had the frustrating experience of watching us water a sidewalk. this is a very small step in the right direction. we do feel like with the $5 million we should be able to address some of our highest water using parks and make them less water intensive and that includes parks like alamo square and plaza and even parts of moscone where we have seen a lot of water loss. we plan on using these funds [unintelligible]

we have been successful in the past in obtaining puc funds to address some of these most water inefficient parks. forestry. this is $4 million for the continuation of the forestry program. i want to be clear that this forestry program is about remediating has industries and pose a risk to the public. we have had injuries and fatalities in the recreation and parks system. plaza has seen unfortunate accidents due to trees that have not been adequately dealt with. we want to continue that program. as we look at the map of sites, the first program in 2008 is consumed by any of few specific sites because there was such overwhelming need there.

all those red trees are neighborhood parks that we think will be able to get to with another $4 million to radiate -- remediate and address hazardous trees. supervisor elsbernd: we're talking about trees in neighborhood parks or trees all over rec and park? >> trace oliver rec and park property, including many of the -- trees all over rec and park property, including many in neighborhoods. this is not -- this is a separate program based on separate criteria. we have our arborist who has done all those evaluations and the recommendations that guides the program. supervisor elsbernd: he is here? since we are on it, if you could just answer?

to? -- a question or two. what are these trees that are being cut down and how do you identify them? >> as part of the 2008 bond prices, our firm developed a prioritization for our properties and facilities within park properties. and identified 18 properties as having priority. and to each of those -- supervisor elsbernd: is that a list that is publicly available? people can explore this. ok. >> as part of the individual tree evaluation, we used a methodology that i and my partner developed in 1990 to and it has been applied, it is a rating system that considers

that tree itself and the target that is around the tree. streets, parking, private property, buildings, etc., all the way down to trees, lawns, and landscapes. this is a numerical system and in 2008, part of the aspect of the bond -- establishing a threshold for action that we used in the subsequent actions. i am starting our third ground -- this has been used by the east bay regional park district and at san francisco state as well as a number of other places in the region. supervisor elsbernd: it sounds like a thread that ties this together is the issue of safety.

> yes. 100% for tree risk. the health of the tree is declining. it focuses on the condition of the tree and its adjacency too high traffic or high use facilities. supervisor wiener: i just want -- i am happy to see the has industry money -- hazardous

tree monday in there. i have been working on some hazardous tree issues. what -- it is complaint driven but you cannot always unless you have an expert eye, you might not know. we have the tragedy at stern grove and last year, two times within a month that a tree just topple over. no one was injured or killed. this is a huge capital need of the department and i am glad to see that we are prioritizing it. >> thank you, supervisor. with a limited staffing resources we have come to our forestry crews is almost entirely focused on being reactive and responding to complaints and emergencies that come across their desks and that are called in.

what these funds allow is to take a more pro-active approach towards managing our urban forests and making sure it is safe and also continues to be healthy. so the next program is our trails program. another $4 million. we focus on capital improvements in this program to trails, particularly erosion control and public access. there was a process that identified three criteria to guide the selection of trails that would be funded by the 2008 bond and we wanted to continue the use of those criteria which are excess, conservation, and safety. -- action, conservation, and safety. this program was hugely popular. there was only $5 million budget. we were encouraged by the popularity and success and we

wanted to more than double the program for the 2012 bond. the goal is still to continue to leverage community resources, whether that is in kind sweat equity, people coming in volunteering, donation of resources, and a financial manager. there was a successful community process around developing the criteria for the guidelines of that fund. we have been able to award in little over 17 projects to date to and we have leverage $13 million of that. i think this project again focus on not just your ability to leverage resources but the ability to demonstrate a commitment to the project and to be organized and increase and improve the storage above the park. supervisor wiener: i am a huge fan of the committee opportunity fund -- community opportunity fund. to allow communities to operate

various projects and allow after the fact communities and parks groups to pursue and helped design projects is terrific. i know from my district, we just cut the ribbon on this play area. there was money that the group got for some of the major issues there and also there was a great need. i am thrilled to see it will be a significant amount of money for the community opportunity fund. supervisor elsbernd: the public hearing i attended was one of the biggest one. if you could go back to that slide so we could talk a little bit about that.

i am waiting for the slide. it is $4 million in the spot. can you get into detail and i know it is not specifically identified but if you could elaborate how it -- on how you expect this to be spent? >> we will convene a community and look at the prioritization that was done in 2008, explored just like we did for the rest of the 2012 bond proposal. are the project still relevant, do they still matter, are they still the highest priority? look at these criteria and decide -- would keep criteria as the starting point and see if there are additional criteria that needs to be added or ways for the program to be modified. the focus would be around trills and improving the public policy ability to access our open spaces. supervisor elsbernd: this is

about improving access, not about closing down trails. w>> we occasionally closed down trails. we want to guide the public on to the paths that are built to accommodate that level of intensity of use. supervisor elsbernd: those that are safer for those individuals. in terms of numbers, how does it compare to the dollar amount for this amount of programming? >> it was $5 million the last time. supervisor elsbernd: this is $1 million less. can you tell us some of the programs that were funded with that $5 million? >> yes. there's a number of projects that have been completed or in projects -- process. there is erosion problems at bayview hill and the creeks to peaks program. supervisor elsbernd: that one is close to me. th>> it is part of the larger

vision for our crosstown trail that the city has adopted. it would allow you to walk through this city and in open spaces from the presidio down to maclaren. on the glen canyon, twin peaks, mount davidson peace is the park. we used the bond funds to make a significant contribution toward making that isn't real. and doing work at those three sites. supervisor elsbernd: i do not think the answer -- there is the potential there may be some programs that could be funded by this, correct? >> there is overlap between the sites where we would want to do trailed restoration and sites that are included in the natural areas plan. supervisor elsbernd: more likely than not, the eir will not be

here until, best case, 12 months from now realistically. could be longer. if you had to put a dollar figure on that program -- a ball park, the whole program? >> all the projects? supervisor elsbernd: and assuming it got approved. how much? >> the natural areas plan includes over 32 distinct park sites including sharp park which is 400 acres and it includes large portions of mcclaren which is over 100 acres. to be conservative, you'd be talking $30 million or $40 million. arrange to do everything -- a range to do everything. supervisor elsbernd: not all of this $4 million proposed in the bond goes to the program but some may because there are -- there is some overlap.

>> i am sorry. could you repeat that question? supervisor elsbernd: some of this $4 million may overlap into that program. >> yes. supervisor elsbernd: even if all of it did, best case, this would represent at most 10% of the entire [inaudible] >> we could not proceed -- if there was overlap, we could not proceed with work until the eir is completed. supervisor elsbernd: which means certified by the board of supervisors and if any of this $4 million gets appropriated, it needs to go to the planning process, has to come before this body and this body needs to authorize it. for whatever program you come forward with. it has to go through the community process. >> yes, supervisor. supervisor elsbernd: this is

maybe $4 million and i say maybe. the whole program is four we do not know. probably not all four. out of $195 million. >> yes. supervisor elsbernd: thank you. >> we also heard in our committee process a strong interest in ensuring that resources are dedicated to some of our large signature city-wide parks including golden gate park, like recep, and mclaren park. it is one of the things that we are heartened by to see the level of coherent organizing that has occurred around mclaren and to see those neighborhoods work together to get these funds for the park. it is very encouraging and we hope to make mcclaren as much as an impressive resources as it has the potential to be. there will be some community

processes for each one of these to determine what the specific projects are that could be delivered with these funds. we do think that we've really want to make sure that any projects we move forward with are consistent with existing planning documents and policies. golden gate park has a master plan, lake merced has a very old master plan and lake merced has planning documents. we do not want to upset those processes. we want to do projects that are consistent. with that, i would like to turn this over to my colleague to talk about the waterfront open spaces. >> thank you. and good afternoon, supervisors. the port is thrilled to again be considered in the general inclusion bond. we would like to take a few minutes to tell you what the port has accomplished in the 2008 bond and what the 2012 bonn

could do for the city and the waterfront. let me take a moment to explain the publicly developed vision for open space along the waterfront which is to create an accessible and douzable waterfront for the city. the port's open space policy to create a continuous walkable edge along the entire 7.5 miles of port property. the second is to have a significant public space at intervals which correspond to the dogs before you. the 2008 bond is allowing the port toole -- to allow a significant part of that system. fisherman's wharf is under construction, expected to be completed this summer. the brannan street wharf is in construction on its first phase. pile driving should begin in a few weeks. the 2008 bond funded maybe 15%

of the project. bayfront park edge and mission bay is complete, opening up 1,200 feet of shoreline in that area. crane cove park -- south of mission bay. the public planning process is complete and they are doing design work. we are doing design work on that and the bond will fund the first phase of that. the bayview gateway parke, the design is complete and we're hoping to start construction early next year. blue greenway, there are a number of projects around that. we're in various phases of that including the bayview gateway park and the knicks' bench and of -- the expansion of the park and heron's head park.

it is continuing further south. many or all the projects from the 2008 bond will either be complete or substantially along at the time of the 2012 bond question in november. many of the projects are substantially complete with the exception of crane cove park. the 2012 bond designating $35 million for waterfront parks is configured with geographic equity similar to the 2008 bond with the exception of heron's head. it would include major spending on the two largest new public spaces to be developed along the port of san francisco waterfront. it is in the entire 150-year history. these projects are the northeast wharf plaza in front of the cruise terminal at the base of

telegraph hill. it is under construction now. the steel started going up a week ago. the northeast wharf plaza would be a public space that would allow city residents to fill part of the cruise experience as cruise ships pulled directly into the plaza or adjacent to it, i should say. to enjoy that experience. the other one is critical part which i mentioned which will feature preservation of two historic ships, a beach edge, and putting visitors next door to the gigantic dry dock. the two largest public spaces are relating to maritime activities. we look forward to your comments and suggestions. we attempted to assemble package for the voters to just -- an

idea of a couple -- a couple of the projects. the pier 43 project expansion on to the promenade and also featuring the ferry arch, the most interesting historic structure along the waterfront. and in front of the cruise terminal. argo vista park, a renovation of the park which is tired after 40 years since it was developed and needs that type of renovation. pier 70 parks, a collection of those described but also completing the waterfront edge for city residents. and warm water cove, a park that is also tired and needing

renovation. those are included in the -- as potential project for the 2012 bond. there are a list of projects, they are not a definitive dollar amount or definitive selection that can still be dupes of -- decided upon by actions of the board of supervisors. thank you for your attention and support is honored to be part of this general obligation bond. supervisor elsbernd: just a point i wanted to share with the poor. more a comment for you. what is available to the residents of san francisco on the southern waterfront? it is one of the most hidden gems in the city. i did not discover it until later. we have to do a lot more to publicize the great opportunities that are there. everyone knows about it. what is there in the central and southern waterfront is amazing. >> thank you.

president chiu? president chiu: i wanted to thank you for your work. you answered many questions during committee meetings on a number of occasions and meetings to have with my staff. i know that every single supervisor was eager and anxious to make sure that we'll have projects with needed funding with an hour districts that got funded and i think you did a great job of insuring geographic equity. i want to thank you for all the work you have done, i support this as all of our colleagues do. we still have some work to make sure this gets done in november and i hope that the conversation that we will have today will be able to address issues that still exist and will move this forward well. i also want to thank our office of public finance and the comptroller's office for the

work they did on this as well. supervisor wiener: i have to make this comment just because it will stick under my craw and i'll always feel i need to comment on it and to show that although we care about the projects in our district, it is a city-wide bond. i am very happy that money is in the bond for joe demaio -- demaggio. that is a project that will be a tremendous benefit to the northeast portion of the city which is in desperate need of open space and library space for everyone but particularly for kids. and this is unfortunately, there is a small group of people who have just held up this project and made it difficult and increased the cost and it is tremendous that we as a city are irish boss -- are showing our commitment. supervisor