San Francisco is weighing a proposal that would let builders write a check instead of planting street trees, trimming public appeals in the process and kicking off a fresh fight over how green the city’s “green” growth should really be.
What the ordinance would change
Filed as Board File 251211, the draft ordinance would loosen San Francisco’s long-standing on-site street-tree rules for new projects. Under the proposal, development applicants could meet their street-tree requirement by paying a per-tree in-lieu fee or by installing alternative sidewalk landscaping, instead of planting a tree right out front.
The ordinance would also exempt accessory dwelling units from the street-tree planting mandate altogether. And when city departments themselves remove street trees, those decisions would become final and non-appealable, shutting down one of the main channels neighbors currently use to contest removals. The measure is sponsored by Mayor Daniel Lurie and Supervisor Alan Wong, as outlined in the Board file.
Why officials say they need the change
City leaders are pitching the ordinance as part of the broader PermitSF campaign to unclog San Francisco’s notoriously slow permitting pipeline for homeowners, builders and small businesses. The mayor’s permitting reforms focus on predictable timelines and centralized workflows, and a Department of Public Works user-fee study and memo say the new in-lieu fee structure is pegged to what it actually costs the city to plant a tree and water it for three years. Those justifications are detailed in a Public Works memo attached to the ordinance.
Neighbors and tree advocates push back
Tree advocates counter that the public appeal process is not just bureaucratic fluff but a key accountability tool that often forces real compromise when the city and neighbors disagree over removals.
"What the appeals process does is it creates this opportunity for accountability and discussion," accessibility consultant Joshua Klipp told the San Francisco Chronicle. His petition opposing the ordinance has drawn roughly 800 signatures, and more than two dozen comment letters have landed in supervisors’ inboxes.
The San Francisco Chronicle also reports that the city has about 125,000 street trees and a canopy covering roughly 13.7% of San Francisco. Public Works plants about 1,200–1,400 trees and removes around 500 each year, a churn that already worries advocates. Critics say allowing developers to routinely buy out of on-block planting could slowly thin neighborhood shade over time, particularly in areas that are already short on trees.
How the fee and funds would work
The draft ordinance sets the current in-lieu fee at $2,590 per required tree, subject to inflation adjustments. Those payments would be deposited in a dedicated account within the Adopt-A-Tree Fund, with spending prioritized in neighborhoods that face higher heat and pollution burdens.
According to the Board file, the fee is calibrated to match Public Works’ estimated cost to plant and water a tree during its establishment period. Planners argue that giving developers this option provides a practical way to comply with tree requirements on tight or physically constrained sites where sidewalk planting is tough to pull off.
What comes next
The ordinance, introduced in December, is still under review at City Hall as supervisors weigh whether faster permits are worth dialing back some tree protections. The debate folds into the larger PermitSF overhaul, with supporters saying the tweak will help clear long permit backlogs and opponents insisting that planting trees on-site is still the most reliable way to grow canopy where residents actually live, walk and wait for the bus.
Expect the Board of Supervisors’ Land Use and Transportation Committee and neighborhood groups to press both sides’ claims as amendments, public comment and political horse-trading play out in the weeks ahead.
