The Recreation and Park Department and the Port of San Francisco have prepared a $185 million Parks and Open Space Bond for the February 2008 ballot to address the capital needs of the City's neighborhood parks and improve open space quality and access along the bay shoreline.
Park Advocates from each district gathered Wednesday, September 5, 2008 from 6-8pm at City Hall to hear Dawn Kamalanathan, Planning Director of the Recreation and Park Department and Dan Hodapp from the Port present the proposed bond projects. Following the presentation, park advocates gave their feedback. Please click here for a pdf of the full meeting notes.
Community Feedback Highlights
Project Concerns: Meeting participants were asked to indicate any projects that would discourage them from supporting the proposed bond. Comments included concerns about:
- Waterfront Projects
- Fisherman's Wharf
- Free Standing Restrooms (too costly at $400,000 each)
- Bathrooms not needed (e.g. Mountain Lake Park, Alamo Square and Buena Vista)
- Planning activities are inappropriate for a bond
Some community members stated they would be discouraged from supporting the bond if the projects or actions below are not included:
- Systemic approach to solving city-wide issues such as irrigation or fields.
- Landscaping
- Natural Areas
- Clear administration of projects
- Camp Mather
The crowd cheered in support of putting more money into the Opportunity Fund and trees.
Bond Questions and Concerns Summary
Bob Nelson – Alamo Square Park: Don’t want slated bathroom, want irrigation
Alamo Square Park is worse off from the work done in the park with the $2M from the 2000 Bond because they broke the irrigation system. Alamo Square wants their irrigation fixed, not a restroom as is slated for this bond.
Edward Evans – Boeddeker Park: Rec and Park needs more ADA Accessibility
Rec and Park Response: 25% of the cost of each project is added to make it ADA compliant, which is legally required.
Charles Spencer – Fillmore/Turk Mini Park: Western Addition’s High Need is not in bond, especially Buchanan Park Mall and Fillmore/Turk Mini Park.
Ahsha Safai – District 11: Waterfront projects are not an appropriate use of bond funding, especially Fisherman's Wharf. Where are the children in the bond?
Richard Magary – Buena Vista Park: Why don’t the project costs add up?
Why does the total of the Neighborhood Projects only add up to $104M when the breakdown lists $124M?
RPD RESPONSE: There is a difference between cost and contract cost. When you add contingency and soft cost on top of the baseline cost, you come up with $124M. In other words, there is a 20% add-on for soft costs.
Tom Radulovich – Livable City: Natural Area are nowhere in the bond, more value should be captured from new developments, alternate financing such as community benefit districts and developer fees should be used for waterfront parks, connectivity of waterfront is important, the waterfront should be a stand alone bond.
Linda Richardson: Where are the park projects in the Southeastern Neighborhoods and why isn’t the projected density being taken into account? Where is the community input?
The greatest opportunity right now is in the South Eastern Neighborhoods. But where do these neighborhoods show up on the project list? The Bond should focus on these neighborhoods and the selection criteria should focus on these new communities, assimilate growth, and take into account projected density. Linda’s main point was that RPD needs to get community input. Community input has been completely absent in this whole process. It is important that RPD approach communities for input because it is the community that can identify best with the needs of their neighborhood parks.
Mary Harris, President of District 11 Council: Why wasn’t the community involved in the process? Why isn’t the Geneva Office Building on the list—it meets all the criteria? Why weren’t the Better Neighborhoods Plans used to pick Projects?
No community meetings about the bond held in District 11. They were told to go to the Sunset. In addition, community meetings were only held after the project list was a “done deal”. The selection criteria are a joke. For example, the Geneva Office Building meets every criteria, yet it did not make the list. Why didn’t RPD use the Better Neighborhoods Plans to pick projects? The Geneva Center is the center of District 11 and could be a successful community center with high quality programming. District 11 reiterates Asha’s comment about the high number of children in District 11 and the disproportionately small number of projects in District 11.
Greg Garr – Nature in the City: Where are the natural areas? The environmental caucus will oppose the bond unless 5% of the bond is allocated towards natural areas.
Natural Areas Program makes up 27% of RPD land (1100 acres), yet receives less than 1% of the budget. It has 14,000 volunteers per year. Examples of Natural Areas Projects include: Glen Canyon Park, Lake Merced, Buena Vista. This is important for our children and future generations.
Friends of Joe DiMaggio: Is there hope for parks to receive funds from the bond if we are not on the project list?
RPD RESPONSE: There is the matching grand fund. Also, the bond is only one tool in the RPD “park financing toolkit”.
NPC RESPONSE: This is why the Opportunity Fund is so important. When there is no citizen oversight in the project selection, there’s got to be a large opportunity fund.
Friends of Geneva Office Building: Why weren’t the Better Neighborhoods Plans used? Where is the Geneva Office Building?
Why didn’t the selection criteria for the Parks Bond include the Better Neighborhoods Plans? For example, the Balboa Neighborhood Plan identifies areas of need and improvements on existing open space. Friends of Geneva Office Building recommends that every bond project should be an opportunity fund project.
RPD RESPONSE: RPD has demonstrated that it has the ability to leverage more than $400M from state and federal funds. Yomi’s point is that the $124M going towards Neighborhood Parks projects could leverage additional funds. He also reiterates that the bond is only one financial strategy in RPD “tool-kit”.
Leah Shahum, SF Bike Coalition: How will the opportunity fund work? Who would decide on the projects and administer the grants? How much of that money would be eaten up by administrative costs?
NPC RESPONSE: The Opportunity Fund could be treated like the old Open Space Fund with PROSAC deciding on projects. Whatever the body it must be citizen-based.
MAYOR’S OFFICE RESPONSE (Alfredo Pedroza): There are a number of positive models for grant programs including: Community Challenge Grants. These are small capital grants ranging from $30K-250K.
RPD RESPONSE: Mini-parks are a perfect example of how the matching grant program should work. The matching grant program is ideal for projects that require unique solutions – “neglected nooks”. With regards to who would administer the program – the Parks Commission or PROSAC would be the administering body. RPD would also create a Task Force to develop rules for the program. The administrative costs would depend on the size and type of grants.
Park Advocate: Who will be doing this work? Where will the personnel come from?
This was a question regarding personnel – Who is going to do the work on all of the new projects? How many new personnel positions are going to be created?
RPD RESPONSE: This issue is being addressed and RPD has discussed this need with the Board of Supervisors. RPD recognizes that they cannot invest without providing the necessary staff. To date, RPD has the funding to hire 37 new gardeners, 15 custodians, and 10 new rangers.
Linda Harte – FACE, Friends of McLaren Park, District 10 and 11: $400,000 for a restroom is too high, the bathroom at Jerry Garcia Amphitheater in McLaren Park is brand new so why is it receiving a new restroom? The new Crocker Amazon Playground needs a restroom.
The Jerry Garcia Amphitheater DOESN’T NEED a restroom! However, the rest of McLaren park has other, huge needs. She questions the legitimacy and accuracy of the list and wonders how the projects were chosen. Crocker Amazon Playground, a brand new facility, does not have a restroom, though it is desperately needed. However, it is not on the project list.
RPD RESPONSE: Clarification – the list includes existing restrooms – because a restroom is on the list does not mean that it needs improvement. The list highlights gaps and existing improvements. RPD wants to reiterate that there is a $1.7B need in the city, and the bond is ONLY a start, because you have to start somewhere. The bond is meant to start fixing the most immediate problems.
