Board votes 7-4 for street tree overhaul

The Board of Supervisors voted 7-4 Tuesday to pass a street tree overhaul that would permit builders to make a payment to the city's Adopt-A-Tree Fund in place of planting trees that would otherwise be required with new development. The same ordinance would end the public appeal route through which residents can challenge a city decision to remove a hazardous street tree. The measure passed on first reading, and it will need a second board vote before the changes take effect.

The changes are written into the Public Works, Planning, Administrative, and Business and Tax Regulations codes, which together control when trees must be planted along city streets and who is responsible for keeping them alive. Under the new rules, a developer whose project cannot provide the required trees on the street frontage would instead pay into the Adopt-A-Tree Fund. Public Works staff described the hazard risk assessment the department uses before removing trees, and said money in the fund would pay for expanded planting and maintenance. The measure would also make hazardous tree removal decisions by Public Works final rather than subject to a separate appeal review.

Supporters described the fee as a needed option for sites where a tree cannot fit, and said putting street tree decisions in one department would help build a healthier and more equitable canopy across all neighborhoods. They also said ending the appeal step would let the city take down genuinely dangerous trees without extra delay. Opponents argued the fee would become an easy way for developers to skip a landscaping commitment, and that removing the appeal would weaken protections for mature trees and leave residents with no way to contest a removal on their block. Four supervisors voted no.

The board later handled an appeal over a proposed two-unit development at 2722-2724 Folsom Street. The property's owners were seeking approval of a tentative parcel map, a required step before a parcel can be legally divided. They objected to a condition on that map requiring every code violation to be corrected before the city would give final approval. The owners said no unauthorized dwelling unit exists on the property, contrary to what city staff had identified, and that the condition had no legal basis. City staff replied that requiring code compliance is standard for a subdivision map and that the condition was needed to keep the project consistent with the general plan. The board voted unanimously to uphold the city's approval and keep the condition in place. Motions that would have disapproved the map or ordered written findings were tabled.

During the roll call for introductions, supervisors proposed several housing measures that are not yet scheduled for action. One ordinance would prohibit evictions for rent shortfalls below the fair-market rent, adding a new protection for tenants in that situation. Another would legalize rear-yard structures built as of 2010 that do not conform to current zoning, making those structures legal uses if the measure advances. A third item requests a hearing on using vacant city-owned properties for housing. The roll call ended without debate or a vote, and the items will be assigned to committees; no date was set for any of the proposals. Supervisors also introduced resolutions supporting state legislation, commending local media organizations and honoring a deceased community member.

Public comment during the meeting was dominated by people urging the board to declare an artificial intelligence emergency and to halt or ban frontier AI development in San Francisco. The speakers cited reported incidents of autonomous hacking and warnings from AI researchers about the technology's dangers. Other commenters raised street closure disputes, mental health crisis response and city services. The board heard the comments during the period for matters not on the agenda and took no action in response. A separate public hearing on the Folsom Street appeal had been opened earlier, and the board returned to that appeal for its decision after public comment closed.