Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Rec topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances Botanical Garden lease and nonresident fee after contested public debate
Summary
After hours of testimony for and against a proposed lease and nonresident admission fee at the San Francisco Botanical Garden, the Budget & Finance Committee approved the lease and the fee by separate roll‑call votes and forwarded both items to the full Board for July 16.
The Budget & Finance Committee advanced a lease and a renewed nonresident admission fee for the San Francisco Botanical Garden on Friday after a long public debate in which residents, volunteers and community groups gave sharply divergent views.
Opponents argued the fee and associated lease elements exclude low‑income residents, create barriers for families and visitors, and are part of a broader trend of privatizing park assets. "The Arboretum should be free for everybody," one public commenter said during the hearing, capturing a recurring refrain from opponents who urged rescinding the fee and restoring $250,000 in Rec and Park funding to preserve access.
Supporters — including trustees and long‑time volunteers from the Botanical Garden Society — described the garden as a specialized living museum that requires professional horticultural care and educational programs. "We serve 10,000 children a year," Garden Society director Sue Ann Schiff said, arguing revenue from nonresident admissions supports school programs, curatorial staff and conservation work.
Committee action: The committee separated the lease and the fee for votes. On Item 6 (the lease/management agreement) the roll call was Marr: aye; Avalos: no; Breed: aye; Weiner: aye; Farrell: aye — the lease passed. On Item 7 (renewal of the nonresident admission fee) the roll call was Marr: no; Avalos: no; Breed: aye; Weiner: aye; Farrell: aye — the fee also passed. Both measures were forwarded to the full Board for consideration on July 16. Several supervisors acknowledged the controversy and offered or accepted technical amendments to the lease language before voting.
Why it matters: The decisions have operational and access consequences. Supporters argued fees are necessary to sustain the Garden’s education and horticultural work; opponents contend fees create income‑based barriers to public parkland. Both sides asked the Board to consider access mechanisms for low‑income residents should the fee remain.
Next step: The lease and fee will be considered by the full Board on July 16. Committee members and members of the public said they expect continued scrutiny and potential amendments at the Board level.
Representative quote: "If the city truly wants to have a world class garden, then let's pay homage to this gem," a supporter said; an opponent replied, "Keep the Arboretum free," summing the divide expressed during public comment.
