made to our community. this has been demonstrated in the last few days. you cannot threaten to do something, without the community rallying to support this. i am very proud of them, and we will do everything they can. thank you. [applause] >> i want to second campos's remarks, and thank supervisor kim for stepping up on this issue. i must closely identified with the lbgt community. the communities throughout the city, in terms of the population and cultural

institutions, and the gathering spaces for the community, this is a critical neighborhood. >> we will move to the final commendation of the day, which has been offered by supervisor mar. supervisor mar: i want to abolish the important collective that has been in the city for several years. i know a lot of teachers from all of other institutions that have often used modern times. this is often a refuge for me, with activists for 30 years supporting the modern times bookstore.

i hope that they can come up and join us. modern times bookstore began in 1971, one of the last remaining bookstore collectivist in the country. and a volunteer collective modern times bookstore, offering community space with literature and events, for several decades. and despite the demise of many other collectives, for about 20 years they have been right at 19th street in the mission, sponsoring many local authors that appreciated the support for the local artists and authors, with the radical and progressive artists and activists from all over the country. i look forward to the ongoing future partnership that this

will continue to provide, with the intellectual and community space progressive community. i know that the landlords have said that they have to be out by april 30, and there is a big party on april 23. and the bookstore is having a lot of great discounts through the end of the month but there are other events as well. i would like to say that you can keep in touch with the collective by joining the page on facebook and also supporting them as an independent collective, the independent bookstore and a dying breed in the country. let me say to all of the collective members, thank you for 30 years of my life and 40 years for the people of san francisco and is great to give you this commendation today.

thank you. >> thank you so much, supervisor. we are so proud of you and grateful to you, or serving the city the way that you do. thank you, so much. i also want to thank the rest of the board for this commendation, and this is an honor to receive this, when we are having to move because of the rising rent, basically. we cannot afford to keep paying debts. i also want to talk about the people -- this is the collective at the moment. there have been many people and i want to talk about michael rosenthal, who is here and he was a collective member for 35 years. he really helped to get the

store started, it was an all- volunteer collective and he was part of that. for all of those years, he kept the store going, and i feel like the commendation is really for michael. there have been over 150 -- 160 or even more people who actually have been working at the store. this is in the last 40 years. we received this in their honor as well. plus, all of the amazing writers, poets and political people who have come through the store, writing these things that we can sell to people and the community, that they want to purchase and read. but also to have made this a

community space, for all of those people, and the incredible bay area community that kept us alive, we have the most loyal customer base. the customer base has a kind of welty to us. we're just grateful that this community has seen fit to make us a community space, and people keep coming there and being there, making this a wonderful exchange of ideas, and art. thank you all, very much. [applause]

>> thank you. and if we can now go to item #3. >> this is an ordinance to update the controls and regulates the agricultural usage in various zoning districts. >> we can take a roll-call vote on the item. [calling role] mirkarimi, aye. wiener, aye. avalos, aye. campos, aye. chu, aye. chiu, aye. cohen, aye. elsbernd, aye. there are 11 ayes. >> the ordinance has passed. next item? >> this is for a settlement

agreement, related to a lease agreement with the san francisco forty-niners. >> can we take this with the same call? this ordinance has been passed. >> item 5 is from the budget and finance committee, to extend the admission fees to the botanical gardens until june 30, 2011. approximating $400,000 from the general fund, to reduce the botanical garden fee revenue, which will be rescinded on the effective date of the ordinance. >> supervisor? >> thank you, supervisor. >> i rise in support of item six, the supplemental appropriations -- this would be $143,000 of the general fund

revenue to replace the non- residency at the botanical gardens. this is not just any general fund. this comes from proceeds from the real estate transfer tax, this was on the ballot last year. this will raise about $35 billion a year, and last year, when i voted to approve the non- residency, i did this with the condition that there be an amendment that said that if we were able to bring revenue to the ballot, we would use this to replace the fee and that is essentially the appropriation for the item. and other amendments were put on the non-resident fee legislation last year. this was to have the fee expire

by the end of this fiscal year, as well as that have the parks department have an analysis of how we use these records and the revenue that was generated. we have serious concerns at the budget committee last year, and the board that we voted on, that the fee would not bring in what was estimated, as the revenue for the botanical gardens. we have said that this has actually played out, if you look at the support. the fees are well below what was expected. a couple of months ago, i was able to go there with my children, and i went in, i was asked for my id and i showed my id. i noticed the next person who came after me, she was very agitated when she got to the gate.

and then she said the f word very loud and began to walk away. i asked her what was going on. and she said she was here every day, and asked for her id, and she had to go back to her house and get this. some of the responses are that she should have had this, but this is unfortunate. some people leave their house without their identification. i had to go back to my house -- and this is something that happens for many people. i went into the garden, with my children, and i managed to talk to the gardener. i asked about the attendance and with this had been like for the past year, at the botanical gardens. he said that the attendance has been down for the last year. but there was an increase around

the holidays. but this was going down again. he said, what he really noticed is that the people who come here to visit to the temple gardens come here for the mission of the botanical gardens. what does this mean? everyone who comes in does not fall in line with the mission of the botanical gardens? i was wondering what this was all about. my children had a good time, and they love going to the botanical gardens. on the way out, i lingered by the gate again, and i noticed a few tourists coming up. they went to the gate, and then they were walking away from the gate. they did not go in because they did not want to pay the fee. there was a couple about 60 years old, riding bicycles. they came up to the gate, and

they were there a moment then they went away from the gate. they said, we cannot go in because we do not have the identification. this has diminished the enjoyment of the part in what this has been like for the decades. this is something that should be open for all. unfortunately, we have a budget deficit and we make the rationale that we have to find revenue wherever we can. can adjust the one feel that we're not going to impose on people in san francisco? i not think that this is asking too much. last year, we passed prop m with many opponents of the botanical garden feet. there was the amendment that was

made, that said that we would use the new revenue to replace the fee. this legislation is consistent with that amendment, and the work that people put in, the time and effort to bring new money to san francisco. we can utilize this in dealing with the budget deficit. a tiny fraction of this new revenue to replace the fee. this is from east bay or other parts of the country, they have to pay as well. they chose not to do this because this is prohibitive. we have several family members coming to the gardens. we can reject the fee, approving the supplemental today, rejecting the non-resident fee in the future. we have the ability -- we have

this in the month of june. merely has done a good job. we can put the money in the budget. we can make this allocation, with all of these things we do with health and human services. this supports everyone in san francisco. i have been fighting for communities across san francisco. this is all part of the overall budget picture. can we have one fee that we will not impose on people in the bay area, and the families who have relatives who want to come visit the beautiful garden? this is in golden gate park.

i have had conversations with several of you and i believe that we can do better to open up the parks for greater participation. i also wonder if we can approve this -- maybe we make the japanese tea garden consistent with the botanical gardens? and we have this with the japanese tea garden. i have not been there since the residency on there. this is something that is open to consideration. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you, supervisor. president chu? president chu: thank you. this has been a difficult issue for all of us and i want to thank supervisor avalos for your leadership on budget issues and on behalf of the parks. i want to thank those of the

community who has been opposed to the non-residency for the botanical garden. this has been an amazing asset for the city, and there is nobody here who does not think that in a perfect world, we should not have to charge anybody to enjoy the beauty of the gardens. we do not live in a perfect world. we just received a joint report. we have to balance the budget, and next year, $480 million. we have $642 million. we have the leadership on passing the proposition last year. this brought in 10 or 15% of the gap this year.

there has been a lot of discussion about the overtones of what this debate will be about. this is a step towards privatisation. i completely oppose the privatizing of the parks. this issue is about the incredible difficult challenges that we have. one of the top things i hear from my constituents every week, there are cuts to staffing -- we have this in chinatown. we have to take care of the children and families. they spoke about stories of

people who are very frustrated. we have heard the incredible frustrations outside of every parks and recreation facility in the city. people were upset about the center is being closed, because it did not have the programs that their families need to have. i do have a difference in perspective. i very much respected this perspective. and i like to offer a couple of amendments to the legislation that the mayor has offered. the first is rather than extending the fees, and definitely, i would like to propose that we extend the fee for a couple of years, in order to be able to reassess at the end of that time frame, but this fee has done. if the economy improves dramatically, i think that we should have the opportunity to

reconsider this at the board. the second thing i would like to include on the record in the legislation is language that says that the board of supervisors does not support a residency now, or ever, in the botanical garden. i know that there are some opponents of the non-resident fee that worry that there is a residency -- at the end of the day, there is -- asking people who are not from sentences go to pay their fair share, this is fiscally responsible to do. i was proud to support local hiring. this is something we did to make certain that our residents are taken care of. we are getting a little bit of revenue from the non-residents who want to enjoy the parks. this is a way to make certain that they are being taken care of.

i would like ask for your support. >> we have a motion to amend item #5. this is seconded by supervisor kim. can we take this without objection? >> we will proceed -- >> supervisor avalos: this is the third year we've discussed the non-resident fee. with all the staff time that is involved, this has taken hundreds of hours. if we have this in a couple of years, we will see this discussion coming up again. i would rather not have to do this. i would rather have a stone on this, and we can bring this back later, and i will be ok with the language on the sunset in a couple of years. but this is the wrong way to go.

we have spent hundreds of hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars to do this over and over again. they are making a home here at city hall because he is here to defend the feet. we will have to deal with this discussion a couple of years from now. the idea about not having language -- that we will never have a resident fee, this does not make a lot of sense. we're making a policy statement in the middle of an ordnance. and all that we need is another ordinance. this is nothing with any meat to this, and no substance. this is an empty statement. we could make that statement possible by rejecting this altogether. >> does anyone else want to speak on the amendment? [reading roll] mar, aye.

mirkarimi, aye. weiner, aye. avalos, no. campos, no. chu, aye. chiu, aye. cohen, aye. elsbernd, aye. 9 ayes and two nos. >> the amendment passes. supervisor mar? supervisor mar: thank you, president campos. i disagree with president chu's statement this is fiscally responsible. this fosters the believe that the non-residency's do not pay for themselves. the rejection shows that for the future revenue, this is a 52%

increase that is highly optimistic. i love how this is open to everyone, not just of the residents but also, this should be free to the non-residence as well. when the board of supervisors passed legislation allowing this last year, i was up -- i was in opposition to that. they approved a city-wide tax increase in november, when the real-estate trust was raised. the non residency, is a slippery slope towards privatisation. and keeping this freak -- to educate me on the process. i am a member of the botanical garden society. i support mr. mackenzie and the staff, and the workers there but this non-resident fee is unwise.

you only have to look at parks and recreation -- there was an editorial that said that the botanical garden fee should apply to the residence, to know that this is a slippery slope and this was always the issue that was before us. this was a slippery slope to the residency as well. one of the peaceful places in this city is the red -- the writ -- the grove, but i also liked the southeast asian cloud forest as well. i think that this should be open to young people like my daughter, to go here, but also for many of the seniors who are there every day, we all support the community efforts to keep this open and free to everyone. i do not support the botanical

gardens that are limited to the elite. this should be open for everyone. i will support item #6 and reject the mayor's proposal for the non-resident feet. >> thank you. when this was first implemented, i was not in support of this. i shared the concerns about what this means to charge a fee to enter a public space. i am very sensitive to this. i am also more sensitive than ever, to the budget situation, and we have all seen the devastating impact of some of the cuts that have been happening, and will continue to happen, and at this time, i am not prepared to take that money away from the department. i understand the supervisor and

his comments about how we want to give them more money and we can do this in the budget process, but the budget is now a zero-sum game. if we give this to the budget process, we are taking this from someone -- someone else. if this is a public health clinic or public safety, or whatever this may be. i will be reluctantly supporting the continuation. i also want to thank the supervisor for his amendment, in making this a two-year extension. i commented on this in the budget committee and i will repeat this comment, that when you hear the two sides talking about the numbers, the attendance, and money, this is like a couple of ships passing in the night. and then, mr. rose spoke about

this during the budget committee hearing, we do not have all whole lot of information. this is about eight months' worth, and we do not have a good comparison data from before. in terms of actually assessing a fee is working, were generating enough revenue, eight months is not enough and having a few more years to actually have the good information about whether we should keep this is a good thing. i will be supporting the measure. >> thank you. like many of you, i have struggled with how we should vote on this, and this piece of legislation. i was also wanted to thank the members of the public who took time to speak to me and educate me on the merits for and against this piece of

legislation and i want to thank the san franciscans that took time to give a tour of the botanical gardens. this experience, as the articulated earlier -- this has helped to shape my support of the amendment, that has been introduced today. and the reluctant support -- i will stand before you to cast my vote. i am talking about the amendment to extend the non-resident fee, and this is somewhat of an elegant compromise. two acknowledged the fact that there is little information to substantiate if this is hitting the mark were missing the mark. in a perfect world we would not need to have this conversation and i wish that all the museums and public spaces to be free of charge.