San Francisco proposes changes to tree removal and replacement rules

City officials are advancing PermitSF changes that would let developers pay a $2,590 in‑lieu fee instead of planting replacement trees and would remove the appeals process for city‑initiated hazardous removals; supporters say it speeds permitting while critics worry it will reduce trees in neighborhoods.

San Francisco city officials have proposed changes to how trees are removed and replaced as part of Mayor Daniel Lurie's PermitSF permitting reforms. The proposal would allow developers to pay a $2,590 in‑lieu fee instead of planting a required replacement tree, and it would remove the hearing and appeal process when the city initiates hazardous tree removals, the Department of Public Works said. City leaders, including District 4 Supervisor Alan Wong who is co‑sponsoring the legislation, say the changes would shorten permitting timelines and address safety concerns. Critics and neighborhood volunteers say the changes could lead to fewer trees and shift planting responsibility from property owners to the city. Key points: - The proposal would give developers the option to pay a $2,590 in‑lieu fee instead of planting a required replacement tree. - The Department of Public Works has proposed eliminating the hearing and appeal process for hazardous tree removals initiated by the city, saying hazardous trees have fallen during appeal periods. - City officials say collected fees would be used to plant trees in underserved neighborhoods and that the changes could reduce permitting timelines by weeks; Supervisor Alan Wong is a co‑sponsor of the legislation. - Residents and volunteers, including Josh Klipp and the group Mission Verde, say the changes risk losing neighborhood trees; Klipp has started a petition and argued for raising the fee to encourage planting. Summary: Officials have proposed and are advancing PermitSF changes that aim to simplify permitting and address hazardous trees, while shifting some planting responsibility to the city. Community members and volunteers have raised concerns about potential tree loss and the removal of appeal rights. Undetermined at this time.