by Michael Rothmann, Committee Chair
Mike.Rothmann@thd.org
On December 9, Mayor Daniel Lurie and District 4 Supervisor Alan Wong sponsored an ordinance to amend the Public Works Code Article 16 regarding street trees. The proposed changes follow a questionable removal of healthy trees in U.N. Plaza by the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department (RPD) for the construction of a skate park. The disposal circumvented the opportunity for public appeal, broke removal laws, and prompted the Board of Appeals to chastise RPD on the record. Instead of owning the mistake, the department seems to have convinced the Mayor and Supervisor Wong to change the law.
While some of the proposed changes to the code streamline development in acceptable ways, such as exempting homeowners from burdensome tree planting requirements when they build an ADU, others go too far and would significantly disenfranchise the people of San Francisco.
In a White Paper legal analysis of the proposed amendments, Josh Klipp, a perennial tree advocate and member of the Urban Forestry Council, sums up the most harmful changes into two main points: “[The proposed amendments would] 1) allow development projects to satisfy street tree planting requirements through payment of an in lieu fee or providing alternative landscaping; and 2) eliminate appeals to the Board of Appeals for tree removals undertaken by City departments and commissions.”
Replacing tree planting requirements with sidewalk gardens or a $2,500 in lieu removal fee isn’t enough to meet San Francisco’s self-proclaimed urban forestry goals. In 2014, the Urban Forest Plan called for 50,000 new street trees by 2034. As reported previously in this column, the pace of planting has not nearly kept up. Substituting tree replacement requirements with a payment of $2,500 barely covers the cost of planting a replacement tree and doesn’t take into account the cost of three years of required watering during the establishment period.
Eliminating the Board of Appeals from the review process disenfranchises the public and invites corruption by the Department of Public Works (DPW) and RPD. In January 2023, THD filed an appeal of a permit for the removal of three ficus trees in front of 69 Green Street. The trees had been approved for removal by DPW. But with our protestations, they were reassessed. The trees were ultimately deemed non-hazardous and remain standing today. Without that appeal, the public would have lost those three street trees solely to improve the view from a new construction project.
This is just one of many examples. Another involved 78 ficuses slated for elimination on 24th Street. After a large community response, that number was reduced to 33. Sustained neighborhood engagement following the appeal led to the formation of Mission Verde, which ultimately replaced all of the removed trees and established a grassroots watering program.
Under the proposed amendment, the public would still be notified and permitted to protest removals. But all final decisions would rest solely with the director of DPW, with no independent and public oversight. When coupled with proposed zoning changes, these amendments have the potential to give outsized influence to developers and city departments and silence communities.
Klipp doesn’t merely critique the proposals—he offers constructive alternatives. Among them are increasing the in lieu fee to $7,500, a figure that more accurately reflects the true cost of planting and maintaining a replacement tree; extending legal protections to trees under the jurisdiction of RPD; expediting permits for tree planting and sidewalk gardens; expanding grassroots and community-based partnerships to support urban forestry; and exploring the use of the Urban Forestry Council as a mediation or review body rather than eliminating department oversight altogether.
Often under the guise of crisis and in the name of expediency, power is taken out of the hands of the public. If San Francisco’s leadership intends to streamline development, it must do so thoughtfully and in a way that keeps its residents’ interests represented.
Take action by emailing the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor to ask for changes to these proposals that retain your voice in City decisions and better reflect our commitment to urban forestry.
