San Francisco Proposal Would Let Developers Pay Fee Instead of Planting Street Trees

San Francisco officials are preparing to review proposed changes to the city’s street tree rules that would allow developers to pay a fee instead of planting trees and modify how the public can appeal certain tree removals.

The proposals, backed by Mayor’s Office legislation amending San Francisco’s street tree policies, are scheduled to be considered by the Planning Commission on March 12. Additional amendments are expected to go before the Board of Supervisors’ Land Use and Transportation Committee later in March.

Supporters say the changes would provide flexibility for development projects and streamline administrative procedures. Tree advocates, however, argue the measures could reduce tree planting and limit public oversight of urban forestry decisions.

Developers Could Pay Fee Instead of Planting Trees

Under current rules, most development projects in San Francisco are required to plant street trees when feasible.

The Mayor’s proposal would give developers the option to either plant trees or pay an “in-lieu” fee of $2,590 per tree.

City officials say the fee could be used to support urban forestry programs and tree planting elsewhere in San Francisco.

Some tree advocates say the option could result in fewer trees being planted. They argue that developers may choose the fee rather than assume the costs and responsibilities associated with planting and maintaining trees. Additionally, the Department of Public Works currently lacks the infrastructure to ensure that each in lieu fee results in a tree planted in San Francisco. In fact, Public Works received $242,000 in similar fees from UCSF back in early 2023 and, to date, has not used this to plant a single tree.

Proposed Changes to Tree Removal Appeals

The legislation also includes changes to the public appeal process for tree removals.

One proposal would eliminate the public’s ability to appeal tree removals when the trees are classified as hazardous.

Advocates of the change say removing hazardous trees quickly can improve public safety. However, some community members have expressed concern about how hazard designations are determined and whether sufficient oversight exists.

I am Josh Klipp, a San Francisco attorney and member of the Urban Forestry Council, and I support removing dangerous trees but I believe stronger transparency measures should accompany any change to appeal rules.

There was a recent case in District 5 where several large trees were initially designated for removal as hazards but were later reconsidered after neighborhood feedback. Tree advocates also note that using a hazard tree designation - without additional checks on oversight and transparency - could result in trees being deemed "hazardous" for the convenience of developers, or simply to avoid a public appeals process.

Shorter Timeframes Proposed for Other Appeals

A separate provision would shorten the time allowed for the public to appeal other city-initiated tree removals.

City officials say appeals can delay infrastructure or development projects and increase costs. A shorter appeal window, they argue, could help streamline project timelines.

Critics of the proposal say that City officials have not provided any evidence that a permit appeal - averaging 75 days - will impact City projects that are often measured in years. Additionally, shorter deadlines may make it harder for residents to gather information or public records needed to challenge a tree removal decision.

But if the appeal deadlines are shortened, the city should also consider accelerating responses to public records requests related to tree removal decisions, a consideration that the City has declined.

San Francisco Tree Canopy Lags Other Major Cities

San Francisco’s tree canopy has been a subject of debate in recent years. According to urban forestry advocates, the city has one of the smallest urban forests among major U.S. cities.

Tree advocates say increasing the number of street trees is important for shade, air quality, and climate resilience.

Some residents have also pointed to vacant tree wells across the city—sidewalk spaces designated for trees but currently empty. A local tool developed by tree advocate Shaun Aukland allows residents to identify vacant tree wells by district and estimate how many trees could potentially be planted.

Upcoming Hearings

The Planning Commission hearing scheduled for March 12 will focus primarily on the proposal allowing developers to choose between planting trees or paying the in-lieu fee.

The broader package of amendments is expected to be considered March 30th by the Board of Supervisors’ Land Use and Transportation Committee, which oversees planning and public works legislation.

Residents will be able to provide public comment during those hearings or submit written comments to city officials.

Debate Continues Over City Tree Policy

The proposals come as San Francisco continues to debate how best to expand and maintain its urban tree canopy while balancing development and infrastructure needs.

Tree advocates say maintaining public oversight and encouraging tree planting should remain priorities. City officials reviewing the legislation say the proposed changes are intended to modernize procedures and provide greater flexibility for projects.

The Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors will determine whether the proposed changes move forward.