San Francisco seeks to cut red-tape on tree removal and replacement process

San Francisco city officials are pushing to change how trees are planted or removed in the city as part of the construction permitting process. 

It's part of Mayor Daniel Lurie's broader PermitSF reforms to cut through red tape. City leaders are calling it a "win-win," but critics say this will ultimately mean fewer trees in every neighborhood. 

Resident Josh Klipp has saved and tended to hundreds of trees in the city's Mission District using water from city hydrants, filling a plastic barrel with the water as he goes on his watering rounds. 

"Trees don't solve our environmental problems, but they do clean our air," Klipp said. "They can't stop wildfires, but they can hold back the particulate matter. They can't stop global warming, but they can give us shade and reduce urban heat islands."  

Volunteers formed a group called Mission Verde years ago and convinced the city's Department of Public Works not to chop down nearly 80 trees lining 24th Street. 

"You can only imagine what this neighborhood would look like if all of these larger stature trees would not be here," said Klipp. 

Klipp is now pushing back against newly proposed rules that would give developers the option to pay an "in-lieu fee" of $2,590 instead of planting a required tree when another tree is removed.

Developers claim the current requirement tied to construction projects can delay and add costs. The policy change would shift the tree-planting responsibility from property owners to the city.

San Francisco District 4 Supervisor Alan Wong is cosponsoring the mayor's legislation. 

"The simpler we can make things for developers and other people who are trying to make changes to their property to build housing, that's a good thing," said Wong. 

"What I have seen is that our city makes a lot of promises about tree planting, but it doesn't live up to them," said Klipp.  

The city says fees will be used to plant trees in underserved neighborhoods, while reducing permitting timelines by weeks. But Klipp says that, as part of the proposed reforms, the elimination of an appeals process when the city initiates a tree removal is even more concerning. He believes that will result in losing more trees across the city, and incentivize developers to get the city to do its tree removals for them on the taxpayer's dime. 

"There are a lot of people who are looking for a good thing to do in this world right now.  Including us in the process is the way to go forward, not excluding us," said Klipp.  

The Department of Public Works declined an on-camera interview but sent a statement instead, reading in part, "We've already seen multiple hazardous trees fall during appeal periods. By eliminating the hearing and appeal process for hazardous tree removal, we can ensure trees are removed safely, before they fall."  

Marie Sorenson lives in the Mission and says that without the appeals process, the trees saved by Klipp and other volunteers wouldn't be here today. 

"I can see them out my window. They're part of the neighborhood," said Sorenson. 

"Trees show us how we can be better stewards of our own city, of our own community," said Klipp. 

Klipp says the new policy will make it easier for developers to permanently design over spaces that might have accommodated trees in the future. He believes it's the biggest fight over saving trees in the city's history. 

Klipp has started a petition to challenge the legislation, and says tripling the in-lieu fee for developers would make them seriously consider planting trees instead of shifting the responsibility to the city. 

This latest reform brings the total number of ordinances enacted or introduced as part of PermitSF to 18 since the program kicked off in February.