this up to public comment. i have a number of speaker cards. we can do you going. [names are called] why did you come forward? we have a huge stack, so i am sure you are part of it. is ri [a jere. [ -- rupa here, please? you a first. >> i would like to address the issue of the national areas program. i would really love to be able to support this bond, because i think there are some great projects under it that are very badly needed. at the same time, i am very concerned about the expenditure to support this in ramp. i know the expenditures would

not take place until the rep was certified. that is not what we have been seeing on the ground. we have seen projects go through that seemed to be the projects that should be evaluated, and should not be happening. i know there are social trails that are causing problems. social trills are the trills that exist because people use them. they exist only because people use them. my feeling is that it is quite disrespectful to the community use of these parks to close down trails in this fashion. the other issue is that once these new trails are built, the first thing that happens when the natural areas take over a park, is they put up signs saying "please stay on the designated trails." they should a big trail, and

some of them are beautiful, through the park. but they do not want people to go anywhere else. this means the parks are restricted in used to everybody. thank you. >> figure very much. next speaker. -- thank you very much. next speaker. >> we have been fighting with this program for over a decade, primarily for grandview park. grandview is one of the first parks to have worked on the trails of restoration part of the park spawned. the community process was seriously flawed. the park neighbors were never contacted, the neighborhood association, when rec and park was developing the plans. they did contact the advocacy groups. ironically, it resulted in the closure of the only trail that

accessed the park from the north and west. in addition, they did wholesale habitat conversion in places that were not close to any trail, removing plants that held the sand in place to put in a new butterfly habitat. it is hard to see how this was part of a 12 restoration. it was similar to the habitat conversion called for in the management plan for grandview. it is now a fait accompli in those parts of a grand view. whether the sand will drift remains to be seen. there were similar plantings in some of the other parks. rec and park has used money set aside for trail restoration for the management plan, even before it is implemented. those plans are very controversial. there needs to be a lot more

public comment on them. we hope you ensure the bond money is available for use in all the areas in rec and park that desperately need trial restoration. chairperson farrell: next speaker? >> my name is tim. i live in district 7. i am a homeowner. i pay my taxes, and i vote. lucy is one of those people who wrote checks and never got involved with anything political. two months ago, i was reading our community newsletter, and there was an item about the natural areas program. while reading it, as my property border lines the nap area on mount davidson -- what is going on? the want to cut down over 2000 trees on mount davidson. i am not against taking down and

the trees that are dying or hazardous. but to take down trees that are healthy and just to plant native grasses, when it still has not been determined what native grasses are, to a city that has the bottom 2% of the native canopies is a waste of taxpayer money. the more i started investigating nap, the more i found out how little transparency they have. i have never received anything regarding nap spring herbicides in the areas behind my house, taking down trees, closing down trails. i am very concerned. i have voted for every part bond there is. this is going to make me have to rethink that, if we cannot come to some kind of compromise regarding nap money.

thank you very much. chairperson farrell: next speaker. i would like to call a few more cards. kathy beshear, carolyn johnson, fran martini, and others. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is linda schaefer. i serve on the committee of fashion elite -- affectionately referred to as prozac. i have been party to a lot of presentations made by staff members on the various elements of the 2008 bond. i was very impressed with all of the planning that went into those presentations. they were always very thorough. they answered all of our questions very patiently.

in connection with the word -- sorry. what was reported about the expenditures on the programs that work in that 2008 bond, i have been impressed with the execution of all of the elements of that 2008 bond. i would separately like to thank supervisors elsbernd and wiener for the comments and questions that have been raised. i hope everyone can come to see that this is a bond. there are other issues related to the natural areas program that will come up in separate conversations. but i hope everyone can see that there is no need to incorporate those discussions into the

discussions about this bond. sorry. i am having one of those days where i cannot speak english. thank you very much. chairperson farrell: next speaker. >> my name is kathy bear. i object to any funding for the natural areas project. i lived in san francisco 10 years. before i learned about nap, i never paid attention to politics, and have never been involved in my neighborhood, mount davidson. i am concerned by the plan for cutting down healthy trees, closing trails, and wasting money that is desperately needed for part infrastructure and programs. it appears some of these activities were carried out under the trails and forestry portion of previous bonds. i would like to see responsible management of our parks and forested areas, which includes

removing truly has industries. nap goes too far, and there is no demonstrated necessity. the approach of preferring native plants for the sole purpose of introducing species into areas where they do not currently exist is an experiment that is totally inappropriate in urban parks. nap is not accountable to anyone. the most affected residents were never asked for their input, and never told about what would happen in their parks. everyone i talked to is called the same thing. they know nothing, and are very outraged. the representatives dismissed concerns of the public, and act as though our areas are in a state of emergency. if the bond excludes nap, you would get greater support. supervisor wiener: mr. chairman, i need to leave now. i have been informed items two

and three can both be continued one week, and i will see you next thursday. chairperson farrell: thank you. >> thank you for hearing us today. i am a native san franciscan. i live a block from mclaren park. i raised a family of a block from mclaren park. in 2007, even though i was always volunteering for part issues, i realized we were not represented in the 2008 bond at all. through letter-writing and stewardship, we finally were able to get maclaren in the 2012 bond, and fought to have it raised up to $10 million. the only way of getting funding is through this fund. it is not like golden gate park.

it does not get funding to other areas. $10 million may seem like a lot. there are other parts receiving more funding. i think mcclaren could use this opportunity now to go ahead and repair the millions of dollars of damage. in 2007, they said there were $58 million of restoration required. it is getting worse. everything is breaking down. there is a need for forestry. trees are diseased and coming down on the trails. they are buckling into the irrigation system. it is endless. if we could use this opportunity to get mcclaren fixed, it is a start. >> my name is fran martin. i am a board member of the san francisco parks alliance. i urge you to support the november bond.

the parks in district 10 and mclaren are in desperate need of capital improvements. furthermore, throughout the city, there is need for improving our dilapidated infrastructure. i would also like to urge you to insure the city budget allocation be increased. the only 1.96% of the city budget is allocated for our pd. park users represent one of the largest constituencies in san francisco. the bond measure and increase in budget are necessary and supported by the overwhelming majority of city residents. i had not meant to comment on this, of $4 million is a drop in the bucket. there is an issue regarding the national areas program. the problem can be solved

through community planning and better communication. chairperson farrell: thank you very much. mr. paulson, before you come up, let me call some additional speakers. [names are called] please come on up. whoever wants to come forward. mr. paulson, please feel free to line up. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i live on cambridge street in san francisco. i have been there 40 years. i raised my children in that area. i am a senior member of friends of mclaren park, and also help mclaren park. believe me.

we have a major facility at mclaren park. mclaren park, as you know, is 400 acres. it is the second-largest part. unfortunately, for many years, you neglected that park. nothing has been done on it. every time there was a budget, they have spent it somewhere else, but not on mclaren park. we have baseball fields. we have soccer fields. we have tennis courts. we have lakes. we have amphitheaters. we have parking around the amphitheaters. we have lights around it. and mcmahon of the lake is filled with sediment. there are dead trees all over the way. you cannot walk on the walkway, because the roots have deteriorated and the asphalt has never been repaired.

this time, at least, i am glad you brought up this park. i really support it. i had a project, which i submitted. i would like you to also have a look at it. i have a description of what needs to be done. i have submitted it to puc. hopefully, they can give us a fund to go with this project. environmentally, it is very sound. i got five copies for you gentleman to read it and give it consideration. thank you very much. chairperson farrell: thank you. next speaker. >> my name is bruce. i am here to represent the friends of the car barn. it is owned by rec and park, and has been for nearly a decade. unfortunately, it has suffered

by not being included in prior bonds. because of things having to do with environmental impact reports, we are not included as a designated portion of the current bond that you are now considering. therefore, we are at this point reliant solely on the potential for the opportunity fund it to exist -- to assist us. therefore, i am asking for you to make sure that the community opportunity fund does not go below $12 million. that is kind of a magic number, in terms of how much we can possibly be able to make use of it. obviously, this would all come back to you for decision making. we are also asking that the current prohibition against the use of bond fund this for planning and design is removed,

because that is holding us up, in terms of what it is we want to get done. we cannot use the funds that would be, shall we say, designated under the community opportunity fund under the current language. we are also asking that community opportunity fund's been made available during the first year after the bond is passed, so that we can proceed with our plan. we want to cooperate with the city in terms of funding this. we are working on getting private funds to match. by the way, i want to say i am supporting the bond, whether we get a mention in it or not. it is very important that these bits of language that change in order to assist us, or we are going to lose the building. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

my name is rose mary cameron, and i am privileged to be the president of the board of the san francisco parts alliance. i want to thank all of you for your ongoing support of san francisco's parks and waterfront. i believe we all know a debt of gratitude to earlier generations for their vision and willingness to make investments necessary to really build the park system that we have, which is worthy of the recent recognition by the trust for public land. notwithstanding that, we all know that our system of parks desperately needs a capital bond to infuse major funding into it for the needs so well highlighted by don a few minutes ago. the board of directors recently voted overwhelmingly and

enthusiastically to support the parks bond measure. in fact, i would like to share with you that we went one step forward. we also voted unanimously to provide a very significant contribution a campaign that hopefully will be set up at such time as the board of supervisors hopefully votes to place this bond measure on the ballot. we believe this bill was well crafted, and that it includes major investments throughout the city. to speak about the specific project, i would like to introduce matt o'grady, the san francisco parts alliance executive director. >> thank you, rose mary. supervisors, the park's alliance has been intimately involved in the planning, molding, and crafting of the bond measure before you.

in fact, the park's alliance was involved in all three previous bond measures, all of which passed. we have improved citywide parks, all across the city. there are highlights. the first is playgrounds. the park's alliance has introduced a playground report card, which scores every playground in the city for its safety. it has identified those in greatest need of repairs. the latest edition will identify 16 playgrounds that are failing, that you would not want to take your kids to. this would address all 16 of those failing playgrounds. then comes the waterfront.

you have heard about the blue- green way. this would include strategic investments that would realize the vision that the parks alliance has for a long-term collaboration with the port of san francisco and many other agencies to completely transform the waterfront that supervisor tells bird was referring to. we are pleased to see -- that supervisor elsbernd was referring to. we are pleased to see this will reduce maintenance costs and help update the parts for users, and again, will reduce maintenance costs, which is important, given the operating cost cuts. we strongly endorse this bond measure, as proposed.

>> my name is glen gauge. i live in diamond heights area, close to glen canyon, where i like to walk almost every day. at the moment, i cannot support the bond, due to nap and policies like nap. one of the things i love about the city is our natural areas. i would love to keep the natural. i do not want to pull up bushes that are growing and try to replant them, and how to use pesticides to keep the bushes from coming back. i love the wildlife. if we take the trees down, we are going to lose everything. it is something you will not be able to turn back the clock on. i am absolutely opposed to nap and its policies. under any name, i am against it. until i can feel comfortable the bond money is not going to

support these policies, i cannot support the bond. thank you very much. >> after mr. -- chairperson farrell: after mr. paulson, we have further speakers. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am not convinced the bond funds will not be used for now. we have read tailed hawks, woodpeckers, and over 40 species of birds who visit our features, including the non native, but much-beloved wild parrots, as they are called. we have also seen skunks,

possums, squirrels, and other clear favorites. look at mount davidson. it is like a wound. nap seems to think plants cut -- trump animals. poison has been used all over glen canyon. nap is a misguided plan that diverts our tax dollars to a wasteful agenda. >> ♪ city country roads take me home with a song for those bonds make it safe make it pretty make it better, won't you? you make a blue-green city.

make it better in the city night city was ous -- ours and i still can see blue-green city in my dreams wo-wo-won't you president chiu love the parks, do some park to love someone like you the trees and plants oh, how they grew love, won't you do we need a better better from you love you do ♪

thank you, mr. paulson. next speaker? >> honorable supervisors. supervisor chiu:. your district, our district? district three. i support the bond majors as -- measures as written. i'm a volunteer in the natural areas program. and i'm a forest-loving person and i would like to commend the city and county of san francisco and in familiar the board of supervisors over the last 20, 30 years for having pulled off what at one time looked to be impossible, a broad agreement by various sectors of the community on how to manage parks and public lands and i think this present bond measure which has to do with capital investment is a very good way to do that and

you'll have me out there supporting it. forests must be managed at great suspense. dogs must be walked, at great suspense. games should be played, lawns must be weeded and mowed. playing fields must be surfaced and graded. there's been a lot of misleading and inflammatory rhetoric. i'm not sure really what the motivations are but it's interesting that many of the speakers who speak against the natural areas program start out by confessing their ignorance and truly that's a genuine problem. i think the coalition of cooperation, the community spirit that was developed a couple of decades ago is always in danger of being lost and stigmatizing natural areas is easy for some aggressive individuals who have no part to play in the community other than trying to gain a position

for themselves. i don't know when -- what their motivation is but i would ask this committee to recommend the bond at written. >> thank you very much. next speaker? >> i am a disenfranchised individual who didn't know about the natural areas except for complaining about herbicides and saying it's necessary for native plants. all we learn about is plan for cutting trees in january and definitely grateful for san francisco.org. i would never vote yes on any bond. unless there is a law -- there should be a law in the books forbidding the use of herbicides plain and simple and for bidding the cutting of healthy trees which don't pose

any danger. there is no signs thunder program. nothing. there was a book "invasive biology." there is a great letter written for t.i.r., which is by -- scientists i don't know if you read those things -- people assume that native is good. then invasive quote-unquote is bad. it's not necessarily so as a matter of fact, they find that invasive species were high for adolf hitler. it's not necessarily only good people who do that. there is no mandate and no science behind that.