Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Parks Fees topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board amends Botanical Garden admission ordinance, approves first reading after narrow vote

3005888 · April 16, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Supervisors approved an amendment to a proposed nonresident admission fee for the San Francisco Botanical Garden, adding clearer revenue accounting and language about gifts and services in kind; the ordinance passed first reading as amended.

The Board of Supervisors approved on first reading an ordinance amending the Park Code to establish a nonresident admission fee for the San Francisco Botanical Garden, adopting an amendment that clarified how revenue would be accounted for and broadened language about gifts and contributions.

Supervisor John Avalos introduced an amendment that would revise the ordinance’s language on revenues and on the listing of gifts, donations and services in kind. “I was very torn about this, this new fee,” Avalos said, explaining he had worked on clarifying language intended to capture capital and operating costs incurred by both the department and the Botanical Garden Society and to separate revenues by point-of-sale gate tickets, package sales and other fee revenue.

The amendment was seconded and accepted; because the deputy city attorney said the change was substantive enough, the item required a second reading. The board then took a roll-call vote on first passage of the ordinance as amended. The roll call resulted in nine ayes and two noes; the ordinance passed first reading as amended and will return for a second vote next week.

Supporters said the amendment and the ordinance aim to give the department and the Botanical Garden Society a way to cover capital and operating costs associated with fee collection while documenting revenue streams. Opponents raised concerns about the fairness of a nonresident charge and the ordinance’s potential impacts on access.

The board’s action was procedural: first reading passed as amended; a final vote is required at the second reading.