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 farrell: we will open 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.