and previously the would have had to leave the bowling alley and go next door and get their food and alcohol. this way, they can have something within the site. we will be getting something new. those are the two items that were not reported to you tonight. >> commissioners, item 12. >> we have nothing to report. >> item 13, our reach committee. >> we did not meet this month and we have no report. thank you. >> item 14. >> nothing to report. >> vice-president report?

>> commissioner adams: i will be involved and it is important we include small businesses. that is what i consider once in a lifetime. so, yes. other than that, the new castro guide is out. weight distributed 20,000 to hotels and businesses. come and drink and dance and stay in the caster. >> commissioners, item 16. commissioner reports. i attended the council meeting on june 20. i would like to convey from them their heartfelt thanks for our non supportive supervisor -- to

our supervisor. >> that is appreciated. >> commissioner clyde: i was asked to participate in a panel and i would like to highlight that there were several attendees that were looking at developing business with the america's cup, particularly items made in san francisco either for the event but somehow working with the authority. i suggested they contact the office of small business. i would like to put out there that this is such a great opportunity to highlight san francisco. and then my one take away from the meeting was, wouldn't it be great if we had some outlet in

china, and we have an office dedicated to working with china sf. china sf has been an initiative that works with large businesses but there is no reason they could not also -- our small businesses and small local manufacturers could not develop some kind of out what in china, particularly as china is developing and interested in things american. >> commissioner adams: next item? >> the general public comment. >> commissioner adams: seeing none,. >> want to -- i want to extend

an invitation to you. they are interested in finding out what the city is doing in regard to small businesses. i will be meeting with them at 9:30 a.m. to review what we're doing to promote small business. i invite you to attend this meeting. it is in room 201 at city hall. >> commissioner adams: is there a motion to adjourn? >> second. >> commissioner adams: meeting adjourned at 81:15 p.m.

>> the san francisco cons tri of flowers in golden gate park is now showing a new exhibit that changes the way we see the plants around us. amy stewart's best-selling book, "wicked plants" is the inspiration behind the new exhibit that takes us to the dark side of the plant world. >> i am amy stewart. i am the arthur of "wicked plants," the weeds that killed lincoln's mother and other

botanical atrocities. with the screens fly trap, that is kind of where everybody went initially, you mean like that? i kind of thought, well, all it does is eat up bugs. that is not very wicked. so what? by wicked, what i mean is that they are poisonous, dangerous, deadly or immoral or maybe illegal or offensive or awful in some way. i am in the profession of going around and interviewing botanists, horticulturalists and plant scientists. they all seem to have some little plant tucked away in the corner of a greenhouse that maybe they weren't supposed to have. i got interested in this idea that maybe there was a dark side to plants. >> the white snake root. people who consumed milk or meat from a cow that fed on white snake root faced severe

pain. milk sickness, as it was culled, resulted in vomiting, tremors, delirium and death. one of the most famous victims of milk sickness was nancy hangs lincoln. she died at the age of 34, leaving behind 9-year-old abraham lincoln. he helped build his mother's casket by carving the woodallen petition douche the wooden petition himself. >> we transformed the gallery to and eerie victorian garden. my name is lowe hodges, and i am the director of operations and exhibitions at the conls tore of -- cons tore of

flowers. we decided it needed context. so we needed a house or a building. the story behind the couple in the window, you can see his wife has just served him a glass of wine, and he is slumped over the table as the poison takes affect. a neat little factold dominion about that house is actually built out of three panels from old james bond movie. we wanted people to feel like i am not supposed to be in this room. this is the one that is supposed to be barred off and locked up. >> the ole andersonner -- oleander. this popular shrub is popular in warm climates. it has been implicated in a surprising number of murders and accidental deaths. children are at risk because it takes only a few leaves to kill them. a southern california woman tried to collect on her

husband's life insurance by putting the leaves in his food. she is now one of 15 women on california's death rowan the only one who attempted to murder with a plant. >> people who may haven't been to their cons tore or been to -- do serve tore or their botanical garden, it gives them a reason to come back. you think let's go and look at the pretty flowers. these are pretty flowers, but they are flowers with weird and fascinating stories behind them. that is really fun and really not what people normally think of when they come to a horticultural institution. >> "wicked plants" is now showing at the san francisco conserve tore of flowers. unless next time, get out and play.

supervisor kim: good afternoon. welcome to the special rules committee for july 14, 2011. my name is supervisor cam. i am joined by supervisor farrell and supervisor elsbernd and we are also joined by supervisor avalos.

madam clerk, are there any announcements? >> no. supervisor kim: can you please call item no. 1? >> initiative to consider the proposed initiative ordinance to be submitted by four or more supervisors to the voters at the november 8, 2011, election entitled ordinance amending the san francisco park code by adding section 12.49 to ensure equal public access to parks and recreation facilities and prevent privatization of our public parks and facilities. supervisor kim: i like to call supervisor at the los to speak about this. isupervisor avalos: thank you, chair kim, and thank you for being here today.

we have the mandatory ballot measure going before the november ballot called parks for the public. it has caused a large amount of controversy, but this is not the first day we have had a controversy about our parks and will not be the last day, either. this measure that i brought forward with my colleagues has come out of multiple your experiences that the public and many people concerned about our parks have had about how we make our public investments in our parks programs around the city. we have invested them with park bonds, general fund money, support for recreation directors, gardeners, management, staff. as we put these into our parks,

we are finding that we're losing access to our parks in many different ways. the last park bond that we approved was in march, 2008. there was a large amount of controversy about what kind of facilities were going to be in that park bond, one in particular in my district, a clubhouse, but a lot of effort to get that into the park bond. now, as that facility is getting renovated, we're not sure when it will be open, when it will truly be open to the public or whether it will be another clubhouse facility that will be leased out to private entities and the public that had expected that facility to be part of our general public access will be denied access into that facility. that is where the heart of this

matter of this ordinance is coming from. that is about how we make our public investments and how we expect to have the access that we pay for delivered to us. we are seeing that more and more that is being taken away. i understand the need for trying to look at ways to find revenue for the department. i understand we have a budget deficit. clearly it has affected all of our departments around the city, and as a supervisor who has chaired the budget committee, i have seen firsthand the choices before us. in that position as chair of the budget committee, two years in a row, have made a lot of effort to restore funding to the park facilities, both for open space and access. but if we're not going to provide greater general find

support for the park and wreck department, we will be forced to look at ways to bring in revenue that correctly include privatizing some of our facilities, leasing out some of the facilities that have been closed down because the park staff has been laid off or fired. i don't think that is what we expected, and i think we could do better as a city if we are ultimately going to be providing the great general fund support that our parks need. our parks require that greater general fund support because like muni, and probably to a greater extent, the parks are resources that all san francisco residents enjoy. regardless of your economic background, would neighborhood you are in, everybody who lives in san francisco -- what neighborhood you are in, everybody who lives in san francisco has experience is in our parks. and many of them on a daily

basis, a great majority of folks on a daily basis. we need to make sure that the general fund and budget decisions really reflect that great affinity we have for our parks it in this city. i look at everyone who was in this room on both sides of the issue. clearly you are here because you care about our parks. this measure comes out of people who truly care about our parks and what our parks to have greater general fund support and greater access to the public. this measure, more than any, does nothing more than to say we're going to draw a line to where we are going to lease out, we're going to currently at least clubhouses, the ones that have leases can continue with

the lease, and even have them renewed, and clubhouses data not currently leased out on a long- term basis -- and clubhouses that are not currently leased out on a long-term basis will not be able to that in the future. it also looks at the fees for accessing parks. behind this measure, we are saying that we will have no new fees to access edgepark for general access to a parked. it is not about a particular events, it is not about preventing people from holding birthday parties in our parks. i have done that quite frequently as a parent with kids who uses the parks on almost a weekly basis. we have had many parties in the park. we have paid for those parties, renting out the clubhouses for a couple hours at a time, and we have been too many parties that have happened like that over the years. birthday parties, the parks are

a great place to celebrate our birthday parties. for that reason, i wanted to present a cake to light in the mood a bit. [laughter] supervisor avalos: and for everyone who is not having a birthday today, i want to present you with a merry un- birthday cake, and i want to wish you a very merry and happy un-birthday cake. i think this represents the absurd notion that we're trying to ban activities and parks that currently happen all the time. that is not behind this. we're trying to be more expansive about what the language of this ordinance is about. if this ordinance passes, we are doing our department and the citizens of san francisco a great disservice.

this is about the leasing of clubhouses on an ongoing basis, not about opening doors when a daily or hourly basis. this is about ongoing takeaways of our clubhouses, which should offer general public access, and it is about entry fees like the botanical garden feet that had come forward for non-residents in san francisco. we would not be able to apply those access fees and the future if this ordinance were to pass. but if you want to extend the language of this and say it is about something much greater than that and it is about outside the land and not being able to have an event in the park or about not being able to have a vendor, and have a permit to sell in our park, it is not about that. it is not about that whatsoever. so to all, we will have this in

my office. we will slice it up for all who are here. we have birthday hats. we have more to enjoy. we feel that our parks are places where you can wear funny hats and have delicious cake. athis cake happens to be from a union-owned store on mission, and thank you very much. we can't open this up for public comment. bridget we can open this up for public comment. supervisor kim: thank you, supervisor at the los. i-- thank you, supervisor avalo. >> as the author of the charter amendment that allows us to have public hearings, one of the things i had in mind and having these public hearings is for this measure, as opposed to the others, which i think have

separate readings, why is this on the ballot? supervisor kim's proposal emanating care not cash needs to be on the ballot because that was an initiative. this has not been rejected by the board, has not been vetoed by the mayor. the purpose of legislative initiative is to allow that backstop when the legislative body fails to act. why does this measure attempt to ignore the board of supervisors and the legislative process that was created in our charter? supervisor avalos: it really comes out of the experience we have had, the whole effort that the rec and park department had it on the nonresident fees for the botanical gardens, which is something related to this ordinance, if you let me finish, and there is a belief we have already had the experience of bringing the concerns of

privatization to the board of supervisors, and the board of supervisors had voted in a way to allow it to go forward. we wanted to have a way to let it work and let the board decide on the referendum. supervisor elsbernd: when i took fixed out muni to the ballot, i took it to the board of supervisors to be rejected, being the legislative process, getting public input. there will be no public input on this. sure, we have this public hearing, but what you are assuming putting this on the ballot is 100% four-square perfect. i hear what you are saying, what your intent is. i do have some questions. the way you wrote this, i don't know that it fits your intent. supervisor avalos: there are many things that are written that he could say are not i would say this measure is ready to go. supervisor elsbernd: i hear this

is coming out of the botanical gardens issue. are you to believe that if this measure were to pass that the city would be prohibited from creating a resident fee for the botanical gardens? supervisor avalos: that would have to come before the board of supervisors to establish a residency. supervisor elsbernd: but this will not restrict the city's ability to impose a residency. thsupervisor avalos: i think there will be a push to see if it could happen. i am not sure that would actually denied residenc fee. it would come down to the board of supervisors. supervisor elsbernd: the point i am making, there is nothing in here that prohibits the city from imposing a fee, the way it is written. supervisor avalos: we're looking at access and other facilities around san francisco. supervisor elsbernd: fair enough, but please understand this measure that you were here to support does nothing

whatsoever to perfect the imposition of a botanical garden feet for residents. supervisor avalos: except the department has already -- except the park the palm has already said they would not have one. people having a new feed to access a part of the park there were able to access part of a part they were able to before, what to mature that does not happen in san francisco. supervisor elsbernd: fair enough. i heard some folks saying that the botanical garden fee would not be imposed, but the says -- this does nothing to prevent a new fee at the botanical gardens. the next point, we sat on the budget committee lot. there are very few people who understand budget as well as i do. what i need you to do to help me better understand this, you are saying something i think everyone in this room agrees

with, we all agree it is a question of how we get there. we all agree with that. you are saying that we need that, but those things they're trying to restrict are off- limits. assuming that is the case -- supervisor avalos: can leases -- supervisor elsbernd: i am not disputing that. i needed to complete this, specify for me what in the general fund would you cut to put into the general fund, and perhaps been the best for warning of some amendments that you offer to the budget next week to ensure this, or perhaps you could tell us what other revenue ideas with these off the table that you support? supervisor avalos: i actually worked last year and many people in the room worked on the realty transfer tax. that has brought in upwards of $50 million this year. supervisor elsbernd: and thank

you for that. supervisor avalos: i believe we have to make those choices. there are lots of choices we have to make as a body, but i don't think the city has made the right choices when it comes to our parks. i have not shy away from trying to find money from departments that could share that. supervisor elsbernd: i agree, john, you have gone after things. i am just cautious presenting to the voters a measure that, frankly, at this point is incomplete. if you are going to sell the store to the electorate that this type of revenue will be off the table and i want more revenue from the department, i would think a responsible way to sell this to the electorate and give the complete story is this is what that revenue would be for these are things currently funded by the general fund that i would cut and eliminate it to fund parks. because otherwise we are selling the notion of parks for the

people, but we're not saying this program is being cut in the health department or the police department or whatever is going to go way to do that or this parcel tax will be passed or whatever it may be. if you were going to give the complete picture of the ballot measure, and frankly that is the benefit to the first question of the legislative process that is missing in this, if this had been introduced as a typical piece of legislation, you would have the controller's report, the budget analysts report, all of this could be vetted through the public process. unfortunately, the electorate will not have the benefit of that education. i am concerned about that. supervisor avalos: i just want to reply that the electorate and the people of san francisco have had the experience of what it has been like using our parks and allowing the parts to change over the years. i am not here to bash the parks department, but i think under

philip ginsburg they have done a lot of great work with limited funds. but even admire some of the work done around recreation and how it has been offered at. but the experience that people have about accessing parks is very different that this is trying to respond to. we have those choices to make as a city all the time about our priorities. this is one where the voters can express on the ballot. supervisor elsbernd: okay, maybe you could help me understand the legislation in front of us. you happen to have a birthday hats and the cakes and all that because of lack of definition over the lease. what you meanl youease" in here? supervisor avalos: in our findings, we talk about the clubhouses and facilities that

have been leased out on an ongoing basis. it is not unclear based on the findings with the intent is of this legislation. supervisor elsbernd: i assume that you know in the administrative code there is a definition of lease and that is where the birthday had an analogy comes from, and the administrative code specifically defines least as permits. i think that is why we have this issue. again, getting back to my first point -- supervisor avalos: why would the park department want to go with that definition, knowing that is not what is about? if it does pass they're saying they cannot have birthday parties or these events in the parts anymore because we're going to be more expansive on our definition of a lease. based on those findings, we're talking about