Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Fines Buf topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears Bureau of Urban Forestry on illegal‑removal fines and asks staff for options; item continued to Dec. 16
Summary
San Francisco Public Works’ Bureau of Urban Forestry summarized legal authority and penalty practices for illegal tree removal (Public Works Code article 16, incl. §8.11); commissioners pressed the bureau on whether fines are sufficiently deterrent and asked for follow-up on bonding and proposed code amendments. The board continued the matter to Dec. 16 for BUF/DPW recommendations.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Sept. 2 heard a detailed briefing from the Bureau of Urban Forestry (BUF) and Department of Public Works on penalties and remedies for illegal tree removal. BUF staff outlined the legal authority and common penalties, and commissioners and members of the public urged stronger deterrents for contractors and developers who remove trees without permits.
BUF’s Chris Buck explained the ordinance framework (Public Works Code Article 16) and §8.11 remedies, including criminal charges, civil penalties and administrative penalties. He said the bureau’s administrative practice is to assess either the appraised value of the tree (when appraisal data exist) or a standard in‑lieu fee; the current set in‑lieu fee is $2,122 (covering purchase and planting of a 24‑inch box tree and three years of watering). Buck noted the code sets a $500 minimum administrative penalty and allows the director to impose double the tree’s replacement value for repeat violations within a year.
Superintendent Carla Short told the board criminal fines are capped at $1,000 per infraction and civil penalties are limited in their typical application; for these reasons BUF relies mainly on administrative fines and appraisals. Short said mature trees frequently appraise at values well above the $2,122 in‑lieu fee and the bureau will assess appraised values when the information is available; when appraisals are low, the code floor applies. BUF staff also described appeal procedures (60 days to pay or appeal; administrative hearing with a hearing officer and director decision).
Commissioners and public speakers said the existing fines often are too small to deter wrongful removals by contractors or developers who may view replacement costs as a business expense. Commissioner Rick Swig and others urged consideration of a bonding requirement for contractors, higher punitive fines tied to environmental and ecosystem services, and improved enforcement/collection practices. Public commenters recommended accounting for cultural and ecosystem values and for BUF’s tree census to inform appraisals.
BUF staff said they are supportive of exploring stronger protections but that code amendments would require action by the Board of Supervisors; they agreed to research feasibility of bonding, the status of proposed amendments already circulated to supervisors, collection rates, and legal limits on punitive fines and to report back. Vice President Darryl Honda moved to continue the item to Dec. 16 to give BUF/DPW time to return with research on bonds, proposed code amendments, and options to revise fines; the motion passed unanimously (5–0).
Next steps: The bureau will return with a written response and analysis by the December 16 meeting on whether additional administrative or legislative changes should be proposed to revise fines, bonding, collection, or appraisal practices.
