Welcome back to our โMeet the Candidatesโ series, where District 2 supervisor candidates respond to a question in 100 words or fewer. Answers are published every Tuesday.
District 2 covers neighborhoods in the north of the city including the Presidio, the Marina, Cow Hollow, Pacific Heights, Presidio Heights, and portions of the Western Addition and North of the Panhandle.
Mayor Daniel Lurie and District 4 Supervisor Alan Wong recently proposed legislation that would change the rules for planting and removing street trees in San Francisco.
Currently, residents can file an appealย if the city plans to remove a tree. This new legislation would take that right to appeal away for hazardous trees. Itย would 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.ย
A spokesperson for the Department of Public Works told the Chronicle that they anticipate that money from the fees will lead to more trees being planted, not fewer. Tree removals are a โlast resortโ that mostly happen when a tree has become hazardous, she added.
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 โopportunity for accountability and discussion,โ one advocate said.
San Francisco’s northern and central neighborhoods have more street trees
Map shows the number of street trees per acre, by census tract
Trees per acre:
25.6
0.5
Trees per acre:
25.6
0.5
Note: Data only includes street trees maintained by the Department of Public Works. Source: S.F. Open Data. Map by Kelly Waldron.
District 2 candidate and current supervisor Stephen Sherrill supports the tree-planting fee. In the past, he has supported the mayorโs other efforts to simplify city rules and permitting, such as allowing people to park in their driveways, and allowing businesses to put tables and chairs on the sidewalk without getting a permit first.
Sherrill said he is more skeptical about changing the appeals process.
Candidate Lori Brooke, a longtime community organizer in District 2, declined to say whether she supports Lurie and Wongโs proposal, but said that she is โcautiousโ about the tree-planting fee, because โour goal should be to strengthen the cityโs urban forest, not simply shift it elsewhere.โ
The city has said that it will prioritize planting trees in neighborhoods that are hotter, have worse air quality, and fewer trees.
This weekโs question: Do you support legislation to loosen rules for planting and removing trees?
Mission Local color codes the answers to yes/no questions. A blue background means the candidate answered yes, an orange background means no, and a yellow background means that the candidate dodged the question.
Stephen Sherrill
- Job: Appointed District 2 Supervisor
- Age: 39
- Residency: Homeowner, has lived in District 2 since 2015
- Transportation: Driving, public transportation, biking
- Education: Bachelorโs degree from Yale University
- Languages: English
I think itโs a good idea to make homeownersโ 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.
Right now, homeowners pursuing small projects are often responsible for planting and maintaining street trees, and compliance can be frustrating and inconsistent.
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.
See Sherrill’s full response here.
Endorsed by: Mayor Daniel Lurie, GrowSF, Nor Cal Carpenters Union, San Francisco Police Officers Association, SF YIMBY, Northern Neighbors … read more here.
Lori Brooke
- Job: President, Cow Hollow Association
- Age: 62
- Residency: Homeowner, moved to the district 31 years ago
- Transportation: Driving and walking
- Education: Bachelor’s degree from the University of California, Santa Barbara
- Languages: English
I support expanding San Franciscoโs urban-tree canopy and making it easier to plant and maintain trees.
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.
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 cityโs urban forest, not simply shift it elsewhere.
See Brooke’s full response here.
Endorsed by: Former District 2 Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier, former State Senator and Supervisor Quentin Kopp, AFT 2121, Local 38 (#2) … read more here.
This, Alan Wongโs and Mayor Lurieโs โstreamliningโ ordinance for San Franciscoโs trees, would imperil the cityโs urban forest. Allowing developers and city bureaucrats to decide which trees go and which trees stay is loaded. Developers do not live in our neighborhoods and most DPW managers donโt either. They view trees as an inconvenience and an impediment to profit. Local residents and wildlife view neighborhood trees as a precious asset and public resource. The matter will be heard at a FINAL HEARING this Thursday 3/12 at the Planning Commission. The most controversial and problematic aspect of Lurie and Wongโs new tree ordinance is that it completely eliminates the publicโs/local residentsโ ability to weigh in on neighborhood tree removal once a developer or DPW has cited a tree to be cut down. The lack of a required replacement for any tree that is removed is also a dealbreaker. Decades of scientific data prove that urban tree canopies help filter the air and mitigate temperatures in urban heat islands. Global warming anyone? Eliminating San Franciscansโ abilityโ to participate in decision-making in our communities and neighborhoods is stupid. Mature trees in the urban landscape also require little to no additional water. We should be protecting San Franciscoโs trees. They are an asset. The new ordinance lets developers fee out without replacing trees.
Bassakwards. Alan Wongโs and Lurieโs BuildSF โstreamliningโ of tree removal is idiotic. In 2016, San Francisco voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition E, which transferred the responsibility for maintaining roughly 125,000 street trees from private property owners to the city. The measure passed with 79% approval, creating a dedicated $19 million annual fund for public tree care and related sidewalk repairs, effective July 1, 2017. This is already on the books and should be funded and enforced. San Franciscoโs urban tree forest and canopy should be tended with care and maintained by the city. Yet Lurieโโs administration is focused on โstreamliningโ and giving developers and DPW bureaucrats more say in the fate of our precious neighborhood trees.
The colors used to denote “Answered yes”, “Answered no”, and “Answered ambiguously” aren’t the most colorblind accessible
When the Boys and Girls Club illegally cut down mature Chinese ficuses in front of their Page Street building, the rich symphony of birdsong neighbors enjoyed disappeared instantly.
As a design professional who has attended many appeal hearings, Iโve observed that street tree removals are rarely approved without clear justification. Staff reports and presentations typically explain the rationale, and while appeals are an important part of due process, they seldom change the outcome once the technical review is complete. Most people hate to see trees come down, but it’s a reality of managing an urban forest.