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. but we live in a very ugly budget climate, and the economic conditions simply did not allow for us to turn a blind eye and not pay attention to how this potential fee to have an impact on the budget.

i also want to let you know that i opposed the privatization of public spaces, but i am also not convinced at this time that the fee is reaching the objective that this was set up to achieve. given the delayed start in the implementation and the slower than expected attendance, we not have the information to evaluate the success of the program. this is why i will be supporting the amendment to better assess these fees. thank you. >> supervisor? >> thank you for your comments, and the supervisor was speaking and talking about the need to increase the budget of the parks and recreation department. i could see that mr. ginsburg was very pleased with this comment, and we do want have the

parks and recreation department have the resources that they need to do their job. i think if there was one thing that we can all agree upon, it is this objective. this is a question of how we get there. for me, this is an issue i have struggled with. the last time that this item came before the board, i was one of the people who was open to trying this, and i supported at the time because of the dire financial situation we were facing. i also believe that you have to be flexible, especially in these tough times in terms of what you are willing to try, when the services are being cut across the board. we have tried this, and i know that there is the argument that has been made that we need more time. time was given to the parks and recreation department, to see

how the fee would be working. i was voting for this to happen. this has not worked the way that this was described in terms of the amount of money, that they have brought to this department. this is exactly what is shown in the report from the budget analysts office. and i feel that having tried something that has not worked out exactly how it was presented to us, i think that we have the obligation to move on. it also willing to try new things and this has not worked the way that it was expected. in my view, given that, given that there is the inconvenience that is implicated when you ask people for identification, given that this is a divisive issue, i would hope that instead of having to reconsider this

issue, time and time again, that we to think outside the box and figure out a different way to bring more revenue into this department. that is my hope, that instead of having a recurring discussion about the issue that this can be a divisive issue. that we find creative ways to collectively pursue the same goal and the same objective of injecting more revenue into this department. i will be voting with supervisor avalos. i was willing to give this a chance, this just has not worked the way that this was described. i think that the facts speak for themselves, and at the end of the day, the proof is in the pudding. let's move forward and think of another way to inject revenue, thank you. supervisor kim: i want to thank

parks and recreation and their initiative to be a team player, figuring out how to creatively be a part of closing the budget gap, instead of just advocating for the needs that they have, and as a district supervisor i am sensitive to how the parks and recreation centers are handed -- handled, and the basis where people can take dance class is, where you can come in after school, and just in general, there is the quality of life. this is an important part of the development. you have the open space and the parks in this city. that being said, i want to recognize that this is a small, budgetary item. there is a tremendous amount of support and opposition on both

ends. because this is such a small amount of the budget, i think that the cost of administering this has been very high. in terms of how the residents are allowed to come in and when this closes, and all of that, i will be voting against the proposal today. i actually went to visit the garden this past weekend and i got the opportunity to walk through and see how the admission was working and how people come in and out of the garden. this is a beautiful space. i appreciate the endeavor to see how we can raise revenue for the parks, in a way that is less of a burden to other areas. however, i am not certain if this is worth what we bring in, in terms of the outcome.

the reduction in attendance and the questionable issues of where we are -- there are a lot of questions there. we have looked into how long that they can stay. how open at the garden will be. i also wanted to add that i wanted the legislation to be there in june, and i will also be voting against the appropriation. this has pushed me over to voting against the non-resident fee, this is recognizing the proponents of this. they have spent a great amount of time working on the revenue efforts, and i really want to thank you for this. it is important to educate the residents on the importance of generating revenue, for the budget as well. i want to thank those with the other measures, and i want to thank you for this for today.

this is an issue that came up. the one thing i was struck by, was the lack of diversity. i really hope that those two who were against the non-resident fee, that they provide outreach to the variety of neighborhoods and i encourage them to also enjoy the botanical garden. thank you. >> supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: i have been against these fees ever since the inception. i appreciate the perspective of all sides. the bottom line is that i find this strange, that people can park their cars for free all day in the city parks, but we charge them to look at the plants.

this is madness. this is creeping privatisation, and we should look at it from this perspective. our back is against the wall because of the budget deficits that will not be reconciled, the pressure on the staff, to have to find whatever solutions that they are being compelled to find. that is what is before us. this is a sinkhole of other strategies, and this is a mistake. >> are there any additional discussions? the supervisor has requested that we vote on item number 64 item #5. if you can call the roll on item number six, this is the proposal from - >> no. kim, no. mar, aye. mirkarimi, aye. weiner, no.

avalos, aye. campos aye. chu, no. chiu, no. cohen, no. supervisor elsbernd. four ayes and seven nos. >> the ordinance fails. item 5 as ammended. ferrel, aye. kim, no. mar, no. mirkarimi, no. wiener, aye. avalos, no. campos, no. chu, aye. chiu, aye. cohen, aye. supervisor elsbernd. six ayes and 5 nos. >> the ordinance is passed as ammended. item seven. >> ordinaze for -- ordnance for

the treasurer and tax collector for the amount of 240,000 for the financial empowerment during the deposit program, amending the annual salary ordnance, for the grant-funded position of the office of financial empowerment. >> farrel, aye. kim, aye. mar, aye. mirkarimi, aye. weiner, aye. avalos, aye. campos, aye. chu, aye. chiu, aye. cohen, aye. elsbernd, aye. 11 ayes. >> the ordinance is passed. >> ordinance waiving the street encroachment fees for the

unaccepted stairway between balboa and -- >> this passed on the first reading. >> organization for the annual support to the city, approving and recieving the annual reports. this includes the district's proposed budget. >> same house, same call. adopted. >> the resolution for the mayor's office of housing for stabilization funds, for grants for non-profit organization. >> the resolution is adopted. amending the general plan, to adopt the mission's street-scape plan. >> this ordinance is passed. let's move to the 4:00 special

orders. items 12 and 15. >> a public hearing of persons interested in the february 10, 2011 of a final environmental impact report. the motion affirming the certification for the mission street project. 14 reverses the certification, the preparation of findings of the certification. >> colleagues, hopefully qwe don't lose quorum. we have the appeal of the final impact report. for the hearing, we consider the adequacy and the accuracy of the final