Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Street Trees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee forwards two street‑tree charter amendments after robust debate on funding and ballot timing
Summary
Supervisors considered two charter amendments to transfer street‑tree maintenance and liability to the city and to establish a dedicated urban‑forest fund. Supporters urged dedicated funding to preserve the canopy; opponents cautioned about ballot fatigue and asked to coordinate revenue measures.
Get email alerts on the Street Trees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Rules Committee on June 30 considered two related charter amendments to change who maintains street trees and how the work is funded.
Supervisor Scott Wiener presented Item 2 (third draft) to transfer street‑tree maintenance to the city and create a special fund to pay for upkeep — including trees on San Francisco Unified School District property — and Item 3 (first draft) to shift maintenance responsibility from abutting property owners to the municipality. Wiener described a progressive parcel tax designed to supplement a baseline of recent city spending (roughly $8 million average over 10 years) and to generate roughly $10–11 million more annually, producing an urban‑forest fund of about $18 million per year. The draft includes a progressive structure so most single‑family homeowners would pay modest amounts while large commercial parcels pay more.
Public comment included a wide spectrum: Friends of the Urban Forest, community and neighborhood groups, apartment owners and small‑business representatives. Friends of the Urban Forest and environmental advocates said a dedicated fund was the only way to reverse decades of declining canopy and inconsistent maintenance. Business groups and the Chamber said they support city responsibility for trees in concept but warned that the November ballot is crowded with revenue measures; some asked for caps on very large parcels and urged careful coordination.
The committee moved both items to the full Board of Supervisors without recommendation to allow broader consideration of revenue measures and to weigh them alongside other ballot items.
