A new proposal would change rules around the removal of street trees. Urban forest advocates worry this could damage the city’s already fragile canopy.

Trees line Turk Street in San Francisco on Aug. 31, 2026. San Francisco has less tree cover than other cities.  (Nina Glick/KQED)

San Francisco supervisors are voting Tuesday on a proposal to change the city’s street tree rules, despite months of advocacy from environmentalists who say the ordinance would allow developers to pay their way out of tree planting requirements.

Despite its green reputation, San Francisco has the smallest urban tree canopy of any large U.S. city — and one that is actively declining. 

“We have net lost hundreds of trees since our last census in 2017. The city is not doing it,” said Joshua Klipp, a planting leader with Friends of the Urban Forest and former member of the Urban Forestry Council.

In an effort to grow the tree canopy, the city’s longstanding urban forest and climate action plans call for tens of thousands of street trees to be planted over two decades. 

A tree outside of a building in the Civic Center neighborhood in San Francisco on Aug. 31, 2026. (Nina Glick/KQED)

Aiding efforts to meet that lofty goal, city code requires developers to plant trees every 20 feet on the street in front of their lot, unless physically unfeasible. 

The slate of amendments up for a vote on Tuesday, sponsored by Sunset Supervisor Alan Wong and Mayor Daniel Lurie, as part of a broader push to streamline permits, would also limit how residents can appeal city-initiated tree removals.

“Our goal is to balance expanding our urban canopy with streamlining public safety and permitting,” Ian Schneider, the government affairs manager for the Department of Public Works, said during a hearing in July. 

Karen Star (right) sings at a call to action against File No. 251211, a new bill which would allow developers to pay their way out of tree planting, outside San Francisco City Hall in San Francisco on Aug. 31, 2026. (Nina Glick/KQED)

The other changes in the ordinance would ease restrictions on tree removals — which have mostly kept pace with plantings since 2015.

The amendment has also ruffled feathers among the city’s Board of Appeals, a body which provides final review on city determinations. Last week, the Board sent a letter to supervisors urging them to strike out language which stripped it of its ability to hear appeals for hazardous trees, and shortened the process for non-hazardous trees.

Initially, the proposal would have eliminated all appeals to city-initiated hazardous tree removals, but it was amended by the Land Use and Transportation Committee to allow appeals from the Public Works director.

Executive director Julie Lamarre said the process already doesn’t apply to removals in emergency situations.

Trees outside of the Hiram W. Johnson State Office Building in San Francisco on Aug. 31, 2026.

Advocates hold up signs during a call to action against File No. 251211, a new bill which would allow developers to pay their way out of tree planting, outside San Francisco City Hall in San Francisco on Aug. 31, 2026.

“It’s really not a problem. We’re not slowing things up for the department,” she said during the committee meeting in July.

Lamarre said there have been four appeals filed against city-initiated tree removals since 2024, two of which were withdrawn. The city’s separate “emergency” provision bypasses all appeals, she said, and maintaining the appeals process when possible ensures that residents and city workers engage with each other. 

“I do think the appeals process is beneficial in that it does spotlight an area … and it kind of forces the departments and the constituents to talk. I think that’s really beneficial and part of the democratic process,” she said.

The Land Use and Transportation Committee forwarded the proposal with a positive recommendation.