By Thomas K. Pendergast

Green dollars may replace new tree leaves for property owners developing lots smaller than 50,000 square feet, if legislation going before the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is passed that will give them this option.

The legislation from S.F. Mayor Daniel Lurie’s office is co-sponsored by District 4 Supervisor Alan Wong and was passed by the Land Use and Transportation Committee, after a unanimous vote in favor with a recommendation for the Board to approve it.

“This legislation makes it easier for homeowners and small projects to navigate a permitting process that can be difficult, costly and time-consuming, without sacrificing our commitment to growing San Francisco’s urban forest,” Wong said, in an emailed statement explaining his position. “It removes unnecessary barriers to new housing while directing tree-planting dollars where trees can thrive and neighborhoods need more canopy.

“The legislation also creates a more sensible process for tree removals, allowing genuinely hazardous trees to be addressed quickly when public safety is at risk while preserving appeals for other removals,” Wong stated. “Overall, it’s a more practical system that balances housing, public safety, and our commitment to a healthy urban forest.”

Elizabeth “Liz” Watty, the director of current planning at Permit SF, said there are four variables that determine if a development project is too large to qualify for the in-lieu fee option: the lot must be more than a half-acre in total area; be more than 50,000 square feet of new construction; be at least 150 feet of lot frontage on the street or take up the entire lot frontage of a full city block between two streets.

“If the lot contains one of those four conditions, and the scope of work is either new construction of 10 dwelling units, new construction of 10,000 square-feet of commercial use, an addition of 20% to an existing building on that lot, or a change of use of 10,000 square feet of a PDR industrial project to a non-industrial project,” Watty explained, “so, it’s in those circumstances that the project would not be eligible to fee out.”

But some, like Shaun Aukland of FairTrees.org, do not like removing new trees as a way to expedite the process, citing possible long-term effects.

“To help developers speed up the permits, don’t sell off our urban canopy even more. Even with these amendments, this just means more pavement,” Aukland said. “If developers ‘fee out’ they will route water and electrical lines without regard for trees; retroactively moving utilities to plant a tree is financially impossible….

“If you do not mandate tree infrastructure at the outset, the site becomes unplantable forever. This will create a race to the bottom, where developers just write a check to stay competitive.”

City planners propose the in-lieu fee money “will be dedicated to a separate account within the Adopt-A-Tree Fund, creating a sustainable funding stream” that can be used to pay for more trees citywide.

But people like Margaret Dietz, who wrote the Board in opposition to the plan, are skeptical about this approach.

“Allowing developers to pay a $2,590 fee instead of planting a street tree is a gift to the real estate industry,” Dietz wrote in her letter. “Developers will choose the fee over navigating the City’s planting requirements.

“The legislative digest claims these pooled fees will go to ‘low-canopy areas.’ The actual text of the ordinance deposits these fees into the general Adopt-A-Tree Fund with no geographic spending restrictions,” she wrote. “Without a statutory requirement to spend these funds in designated environmental justice communities, this expansion creates an unregulated slush fund.

At the committee meeting on July 27, District 7 Supervisor Myrna Melgar asked how contributing to the fund could guarantee equity in tree distribution between the different areas of the City.

Ian Schneider, from the San Francisco Department of Public Works, admitted there was no way to absolutely guarantee an equal distribution of new trees across the City.

“We cannot predict whether or not people will fee out or not. But in the scenario where people are choosing the in-lieu fee over planting the tree in front of their property, that would put the funds … directly into a place that has to be used for street-tree planting,” Schneider said.

He also claimed the department has “millions of dollars dedicated for funding in very specific areas in equity, it actually helps putting that money in funds,” he said. “It does help staff to have some discretion in where trees are planted. So, we do intentionally come to every district to plant trees every year and we do foster partnerships in every district.

“Once we can start delivering the higher volume of trees, people will feel more assured that their neighborhood will not be missing the trees,” he continued. “Because it is in our adopted plan that we will plant at all the available street-tree planting locations.”

But some, like Dr. Kate Hellenga, suggested that such hopes are unrealistic and seem to miss a couple of bigger issues, like climate change and policies that could trend in favor of racial inequality.

“As the climate warms, we need more trees, not fewer, to prevent heat islands and maintain quality of life,” Hellenga wrote to the Board. “Our existing policy is already environmentally problematic and has classist and racist impacts. Mayor Lurie and Supervisor Wong’s ordinance would exacerbate those problems, especially because development is far less likely to happen in the wealthier neighborhoods – so they will keep their trees, and neighborhoods with more people of color or lower incomes will lose even more of their already-sparse trees,” she wrote. “Neighborhoods and their residents should have a say about the environment where they live, work, play and pay taxes.”

The proposal is headed before the Board of Supervisors on Sept. 1.