|
San Francisco’s urban tree canopy is more than a matter of beauty. Trees provide shade, absorb carbon, reduce heat, manage stormwater, support wildlife and make our neighborhoods healthier and more livable. In a dense city, every opportunity to preserve and expand our tree canopy matters.
On September 1, the Board of Supervisors will vote on legislation proposed by Mayor Daniel Lurie and Supervisor Alan Wong (File 251211) that would change street tree-planting requirements and significantly restrict, or eliminate completely, residents’ ability to appeal certain tree removals.
Now San Francisco’s own Board of Appeals is objecting.
In a letter to Board of Supervisors President Rafael Mandelman, the Appeals Board reports that it voted 4–0 to preserve independent review of City-initiated “hazard tree” removals.
"Critics of government often charge that the government
refuses to abide by the laws that it requires of the public.
Let's not prove them right."
- SF Board of Appeals
The Appeals Board says there is no demonstrated need to eliminate these appeals, it has heard only two since the beginning of 2024, and notes that Public Works already has authority to immediately remove trees posing an imminent danger.
The Appeals Board also warns that having DPW review its own decisions is not an adequate substitute for independent review, particularly when tree removal can cause “irreparable harm.”
There are other serious concerns:
-
Pay instead of plant: Developers could “fee out” of required tree planting, even though DPW reportedly already holds approximately $4.5 million in tree-planting fees.
-
Lose future planting locations: Developers who fee out would not have to preserve space for future trees when locating underground utilities, potentially making those locations permanently unplantable.
At a time when residents are already losing their voice in major decisions affecting their neighborhoods, why would San Francisco voluntarily eliminate another avenue for independent public review, especially when the Board responsible for hearing those appeals says there is no demonstrated need to do so?
| 
