Currently, residents can file an appeal\u00a0if the city plans to remove a tree. This new legislation would take that right to appeal away. It\u00a0would also allow developers and homeowners doing renovations to pay a $2,590 tree-planting fee to the city, instead of planting a tree outside their property themselves.\u00a0<\/p>\n
A spokesperson for the Department of Public Works told<\/a> the Chronicle that they anticipate that money from the fees will lead to more trees being planted, not fewer. Tree removals are a \u201clast resort\u201d that mostly happen when a tree has become hazardous, she added.\u00a0<\/p>\n Other city residents disagree. Eight hundred have signed an opposition petition and dozens have sent letters to the city. They see the appeals process as creating an \u201copportunity for accountability and discussion,\u201d one advocate said<\/a>.<\/p>\n San Francisco\u2019s northern and central neighborhoods Map shows the number of street trees per acre, by census tract<\/p>\n \t\t \t\t Note: Data only includes street trees maintained by the Department of Public Works. Source: S.F. Open Data. Map by Kelly Waldron.<\/p>\n District 2 candidate and current supervisor Stephen Sherrill supports the tree-planting fee. In the past, he has supported the mayor\u2019s other efforts to simplify city rules and permitting, such as allowing people to park in their driveways<\/a>, and allowing businesses to put tables and chairs on the sidewalk<\/a> without getting a permit first.\u00a0<\/p>\n Sherrill said he is more skeptical about changing the appeals process.\u00a0<\/p>\n Candidate Lori Brooke, a longtime community organizer in District 2, declined to say whether she supports Lurie and Wong\u2019s proposal, but said that she is \u201ccautious\u201d about the tree-planting fee, because \u201cour goal should be to strengthen the city\u2019s urban forest, not simply shift it elsewhere.\u201d <\/p>\n The city has said that it will prioritize planting trees in neighborhoods that are hotter, have worse air quality, and fewer trees<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n This week\u2019s question: Do you support legislation to loosen rules for planting and removing trees?<\/p>\n Mission Local color codes the answers to yes\/no questions. A green background means the candidate answered yes, a red background means no, and a yellow background means that the candidate dodged the question.\u00a0<\/p>\n Stephen Sherrill<\/p>\n Job: Appointed District 2 Supervisor<\/p>\n Age: 39<\/p>\n Residency: Homeowner, has lived in District 2 since 2015<\/p>\n Transportation:\u00a0Driving, public transportation, biking<\/p>\n Education: Bachelor\u2019s degree from Yale University<\/p>\n Languages: English<\/p>\n I think it\u2019s a good idea to make homeowners\u2019 lives a bit easier (not to mention less expensive!), but I want to make sure the final legislation includes amendments that preserve neighborhood input and maintain a clear appeals process.<\/p>\n Right now, homeowners pursuing small projects are often responsible for planting and maintaining street trees, and compliance can be frustrating and inconsistent. <\/p>\n In the long run, it also makes more sense for the City to plan and manage street-tree planting strategically, rather than placing that burden on individual property owners.<\/p>\n See Sherrill\u2019s full response here<\/a>.<\/p>\n Endorsed by: Mayor Daniel Lurie, GrowSF, Nor Cal Carpenters Union, San Francisco Police Officers Association, SF YIMBY, Northern Neighbors \u2026 read more here<\/a>.<\/p>\n Lori Brooke<\/p>\n Job: President, Cow Hollow Association<\/p>\n Age: 62<\/p>\n Residency: Homeowner, moved to the district 31 years ago<\/p>\n Transportation:\u00a0Driving and walking<\/p>\n Education: Bachelor\u2019s degree from the University of California, Santa Barbara<\/p>\n Languages: English<\/p>\n I support expanding San Francisco\u2019s urban-tree canopy and making it easier to plant and maintain trees.\u00a0<\/p>\n Since the city now maintains sidewalk trees, they are part of our shared public space, and decisions about them should be transparent. There may be situations where a tree creates safety concerns or infrastructure conflicts that require removal, but neighbors should still receive notice when that happens.\u00a0<\/p>\n I also believe we should be cautious about allowing developers to pay an in-lieu fee instead of replacing trees on site. Our goal should be to strengthen the city\u2019s urban forest, not simply shift it elsewhere.<\/p>\n See Brooke\u2019s full response here<\/a>.<\/p>\n
\n\thave more street trees<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/treedensity-copy-desktop.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/treedensity-copy-mobile-1.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n![\"Cartoon](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Sherrill-Yellow-640x640.png\")
<\/p>\n![\"Cartoon](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Brooke-Yellow-640x640.png\")
<\/p>\n