Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bureau of Urban Forestry presses for bigger fines, security deposits; board to study code changes
Summary
San Francisco Public Works' Bureau of Urban Forestry proposed higher punitive fines, security deposits and replacement-ratio options to deter illegal tree removal; the Board of Appeals asked staff to research comparable city practices and continued the item to March 10 for a draft letter and further study.
San Francisco Public Works’ Bureau of Urban Forestry on Jan. 6 outlined options to strengthen penalties for illegal tree removals and recommended further study by the Board of Appeals and Board of Supervisors.
Deputy Director Carla Short told the board that legal advice suggested bonds would be onerous for routine, case-by-case removals but that security deposits could be a feasible alternative if implemented through a code change. Short said the department had proposed amendments that could require a bond in certain construction-related removal denials, require tree protection plans, and set bond amounts based on replacement costs or appraised tree value, potentially secured for three years to allow trees to establish.
Short and other staff also described approaches to increase punitive fines within legal limits, citing a prior code change that allowed fines of up to $10,000 in pruning cases as a useful precedent. "If we were saying your fine starts at $10,000 and then you have to pay the equivalent value in trees on top of that, I believe it would be a deterrent," Short said. The bureau suggested alternatives including multiplier-style penalties (similar to DBI’s 2x–9x structure), replacement based on trunk-diameter equivalencies, or fixed replacement ratios such as 3:1 or 5:1.
Commissioners pressed staff on enforcement mechanics and whether a proposed $10,000 base punitive fine would survive legal challenge; staff said a supervisor’s office has expressed interest in drafting sponsorship for code changes. Commissioners also urged tracking and a permit-tracking flag to identify repeat offenders.
Multiple public commenters and advocates recommended eliminating 24-hour emergency removal notices, increasing replacement ratios, and improving public tree data and transparency. The Board voted 5–0 to continue the item to March 10 for BUF to do a comparative review of other California cities and to prepare draft language or a letter recommending next steps to the Board of Supervisors.
