In 2009, roughly 2,000 young trees were planted in the Richmond District along Anza, Balboa and Cabrillo Streets and on some intersecting Avenues. It was part of a San Francisco Department of Public Works (SFDPW) initiative to green more sidewalks in the city.
Last week, The Chronicle wrote about the Mayor Ed Lee’s plans to trim $600,000 from the budget, which is what the city projects they will pay for street tree care next year:
The mayor’s solution: dump responsibility for 23,715 of the 38,559 street trees under the city’s jurisdiction. That means more property owners will be on the hook for pruning trees, caring for them when they’re sick or damaged, and paying for sidewalk repair caused by root damage – costs that could be substantial.
This could prove fatal for many of the new trees that were planted back in ’09, many of which had to be replaced after they proved defective. At the time, the SFDPW was able to lean on the contractor that supplied the trees to replace them.
Mayor Ed Lee’s move to cut maintenance budget for the city’s trees is surprising, given his recent zeal for tree-ing the city. Back in March, Lee helped honor Charlie Starbuck, a community member who has planted over 7,000 trees nearly every weekend over the past 30 years.
At the time, Lee was quoted as being in support of further greening the city, including the maintenance involved. “A healthy and vibrant urban forest is a gift we can give to the future generations of our City. I am proud to support San Francisco’s Arbor Day, which focuses on not just planting trees, but maintaining them,” Lee said.
Guess he’s changed his tune now that the city is facing a projected $306 million budget deficit.
The Friends of the Urban Forest are calling Mayor Lee’s proposed cuts “a tragedy”, citing concern for the health of existing trees and the unanticipated costs of tree maintenance being pushed off to property owners.
They’re asking supporters to send emails to Supervisor John Avalos, urging him “to reject this ill-conceived plan.” Avalos is sponsoring a hearing on this issue that will take place today at City Hall. Friends of the Urban Forest will stage a rally at 10am to voice their concerns at the meeting.
What do you think? Is it fair for the city to shirk these costs and pass them into property owners? Leave a comment to let us know.
Sarah B.
Charlie Starbuck with Mayor Ed Lee. Photo courtesy of DPW.
Supervisor Avalos is not on the Budget Committee this year, but he sponsored a hearing on this issue that will take place at the City Operations Committee today. The Chair of the Budget Committee is Supervisor Carmen Chu: carmen.chu@sfgov.org.
@Debbie – Thanks for the correction! I updated the post.
Sarah B.
Here’s a proposed compromise: the city passes responsibility for tree maintenance to property owners, and property owners are allowed to deduct tree maintenance expenses from their property tax bill.
Fair? What do you think?
I planted two New Zealand Christmas trees in front of my house more than forty years ago. A few years later, with the blessing of the city, neighbors planted more. Some lived, some were eventually removed, but all have caused ongoing problems with sidewalks and sewers.
All of the responsibility for pruning these trees as well as sewer and sidewalk replacement has always been the responsibility of the homeowner. Our block (47th Avenue between Balboa and Cabrillo) is definitely enhanced by the now-mature trees. It is not without a cost, however.
BS. what about the elderly who cant afford this, physically or financially? they should be allowed to remove the trees if they cant upkeep them.
As a business owner on Clement St., and unlucky maintainer or a Ficus street tree, we have spent literally thousands of dollars on sidewalk repairs and pruning during the last 10 years. I applied for a Tree Removal permit (NON refundable $250) to replace it with a less root-destructive species, but was denied…even when told them I was signeds up with FUF ‘s tree planting program. They had ZERO sympathy for how much we’d spent maintaining THEIR tree. The City won’t even let you plant that species anymore, I was told, because they are so prone to lifting sidewalks. No effect on their decscion. Tempted to pour something nasty around the roots.
one can hope that the GG park tree-chopper chops down the unwanted costly trees in the neighborhoods. no, not very green, but if the city’s goal is to bankrupt its citizens and businesses, one can hope…
A nice gesture by the City might be to work a deal with property owners and the City’s public works cement shop for a reduced rate on sidewalk repairs…SOMETHING to help reduce the pain.
“something to help reduce the pain?” that’s like the city telling residents/businesses, “im going to cut your fingers off, but i’ll leave one to ease the pain.” grrrrr.
I agree that being able to deduct the cost of maintenance from a property tax bill would be ideal. Not sure if that saves the City much money in the long run. Trees make neighborhoods look so much nicer AND they enhance property values. I’m in the process of applying for a tree permit and sidewalk greening permit in order to improve my front yard. I wish my neighbors would do the same, but they cite $$ as their excuse. Yes, it’s costly, but to me it is worth it – I’ll forgo a fancy car and new clothes in order to have a nice home/yard greet me at the end of a long work day.
To NancyDrew,
Deducting the cost is but a small concession. The cement work in front of our business had cost us THOUSANDS in not more than 15 years. We now need to have the Terracotta sewer line dug up and replaced…don’t want to think about THAT cost :-((.
As a home owner in the Sunset, I naively a planted Strawberry tree in front of my house, through FUF. Like you, I like trees. I think they add value, character, and quality of life to a neighborhood. Well guess what…the Strawberry tree, which is not known as a sidewalk wrecker, is now about 20 feet tall and lifting 4 squares of my sidewalk. I contacted FUF to see if they could broker some kind of deal where people who plant trees through them might get some kind of break from the City’s DPW Cement shop, since the City helps out FUF and encourages people to plant trees. Well, they thought it was a nice idea, but the City wasn”t interested. The City WAS interested in my neighbor who over pruned her Strawberry tree (planted during the same FUF planting)…they fined her $1800. I paid $150 to have mine pruned and feel like I got off pretty easy. The “other” possible down-the-road costs to put in your budget for that nice tree you’re planting.
This will undoubtedly have unintended consequences — i’ll bet many property owners would opt for a one-time cost for tree destruction or removal (legal or not) rather than the unknown and open-ended costs for tree maintenance.
Sorry about the typos as they weren’t in before I hit Post…seems like there is a glitch in this website
@Fred – No worries, I cleaned it for you.
Sarah B.
I had heard that the trees planted on Anza, Balboa and Cabrillo about 3 years ago were to be maintained by the city for their first 3 years, and after that it would be up to the homeowner? The FUF trees are planted with the understanding that the owners are responsible for the health of the tree, which includes watering and appropriate pruning. Before we get to destroying and/or otherwise removing trees, perhaps some sort of neighborhood plan could be worked out regarding tree care, where some neighbors might have the knowledge and the ability and the tools to do the pruning.
Obviously there a lot of hacks out there who offer tree care who don’t have a clue – see the above comment on “over pruning”. Maybe the City or FUF could offer pruning classes for tree owners?
There is no question, that although trees are beautiful and enhance the property, they can cause damage to sidewalks and sewer systems, even if the correct sort of tree is planted! In my eyes, they are worth it.
To Sue,
Trees do add much to a neighborhood, and are great to have. I only want to point out that what starts out initially with the excitement of the planting, to the fun of watching it grow and mature, to the pride in the beauty it lends to the front of one’s home, has an expensive other side that isn’t realized until years later. I think it’s a great idea for homeowners to learn to prune their trees, but not everyone can, nor do they want to invest in ladders and loppers for when it gets larger.The expense of having it professionally pruned was worth it to me because our tree is quite large now, with a complicated ladder structure.
The real expense comes when the roots lift squares of sidewalk and worse, if the roots invade the clay portion of the sewer line. The cost is thousands of dollars, and for people who don’t have a lot of extra money lying around due to the bad economy, it can be very challenging. Having the City suddenly dump the financial responsibility on homeowners who had no input on whether or not to have one in the first place, is a huge burden for some, and unfair for those whose budget forces them to decide between maintaining their house (painting, roofing, etc.) and a tree they wouldn’t have planted if they knew the expense. A much fairer way would be for the City to continue maintaining the tree, but either bill the homeowner directly at a discounted rate (they don’t need to make a profit like a private company would in setting rates), or give them the option to spread it out over a number of years on their property tax bill.
I live in the Inner Sunset and we have just gone through this. All of us have just spent thousands of dollars to repair the sidewalks in front of our homes. The City didn’t have the money so they pushed that on homeowners. The cement wasn’t even dry and another letter was taped to our door saying the trees in front we now our responsibility as well. The whole process seems random – targeting some neighborhoods over others. I requested clarification from DPW. Here is the correspondence.
ME: I looked on your site at the trees that are maintained by DPW and those neighborhoods that are ‘mixed’, etc. I’d like to know how these designations were determined. Why are some neighborhoods forced to maintain city street trees and others not. What is the criteria?
RESPONSE FROM DWP: Your email was forwarded to me regarding the tree maintenance responsibility. The trees that are maintained by DPW are mostly trees that were historically planted by the City, and were generally on large commercial corridors (e.g. Market St., Mission St.) or busy one-way streets (e.g. Pine St.). These designations were made years ago, and the best understanding I have was that the trees planted by the City or through a special funding program through the City are the trees that were maintained by DPW.
The mixed responsibility streets are streets that were more recently planted by the City to try to increase the tree coverage in areas of the City where it was lowest, this includes primarily some streets in the Sunset, South of Market, and in the Bayview. Because the City undertook the planting, the trees are maintained by the City. However, the majority of trees are actually the adjacent property owner’s maintenance responsibility, they maintain about 2/3 of all the street trees, and the City maintains only about 1/3.
There is actually a proposal that is being explored to “relinquish” maintenance responsibility of most City-maintained trees back to the property owner, because the recent budget cuts have significantly cut the budget for the Department’s tree care program. This is something that is being looked at currently as a way to bring the Department’s assets in line with our resources, but would also be more equitable than the current shared responsibility.
I hope this answers your question. Please feel free to contact me with other questions.
ME: Thank you for responding to my email.
I think the word ‘relinquish’ is an interesting choice. It implies that the homeowners would actually desire such additional responsibility. And I certainly don’t understand how you feel more equitable..they is no equality in a non sharing situation.
Homeowners on our street just paid thousands of dollars out out of their own tight pockets to may repairs on the city’s sidewalks. The city ‘relinquished’ this responsibility to the homeowner because of ‘budget.’
Before the cement is even dry another letter shows up informing the same homeowners that they are now responsible for the trees on the street and will have to pay out of pocket because the city again does not have the ‘budget.’
You don’t have the money so you just assume struggling homeowners do. Equitable?
I have an 18 foot olive tree in front of my home. The spec requirement sheet you sent me says I have to prune the tree up 14 feet. And leave four feet? Are there not exceptions to smaller trees?
I consulted an arborist who said that on top of looking ridiculous a severe pruning like that may harm or kill the tree.
If the tree dies, you’ll fine me. If I don’t prune the tree, you’ll fine me.
What do you want me to do?
Best Regards,
If people weren`t so cheap and just planted their own trees/grass the city woulden`t have to forcefully make people maintain these trees. Throughout the sunset and richmond all,and I mean all front yards are either overgrown with weeds or just simply cemented (which is a discrace) and that is no way ANY human being should live or the neighbors that have to look at it. I have several trees on my property and I have never had a problem with them, in factthey are very easy to care for. I have seen very few trees around here that have so called pulled up cement or streets, comparing the sunset and richmond to the marina or st. francis wood really shows how ugly this place is, I mean if anything their are not enough trees. So for all you cheapos out there suck it up and act normal.
Hey, Josh…get a freaking LIFE! You think the people who posted about tree expenses are making it up? Glad your trees haven’t cost you any money, but that ain’t the norm.
To me, this is related to another policy the city has — which is that, while you do not OWN the sidewalk in front of your house, the property owner must bear all the costs of maintaining it!
I found this out when my real estate agent parked 3 doors up the street, curbed his tires —and had one popped by a piece of rebar sticking out. A neighbor said to call the city and they’d fix it. they did. And then, 3 weeks later, i was hit with a notice that I had to replace 90% of my sidewalk — at my expense or they would send out a city, union crew. Well, my sidewalk had some cracsk — but no worse than any of my neighbors. I have to say that it was clearly “payback” for having asked the City to fix the rebar.
Four years after condo-ing our two-flat building (resident occupied now for 7 years) my1924 flat, I was hit up with a charge (believe it was $150) becuase I have — as most of us do — a metal gate at the bottom of the stairs up to my front door. Why? Oh, because it opens outwards over THE CITY’S sidewalk! (Gate has been there for maybe 50 years!) As if that wasn’t enough, there are small brick planters in front of my home — I was charged the same for them, too — because they are on the CITY”s sidewalk! (No grandfathering in? There have probably been there 50 years, too). Even better, when I called to complain — they said they were being nice — that the bay window on the top floor is in the AIR SPACE OVER THE CITY’S sidewalk — and they could charge me for that, too!
Oh, it gets better — I thought this was a one-time charge…but no! They were intending to charge me this each year! So, in effect, I was going to pay $300 extra in property tax per year.
Oh, I have also pulled into my own parking lot at 11 p.m. on a Thursday night (quiet block) and had a parking person literally LYING IN WAIT to slap a $100 ticket on me for “parking” in THEIR driveway. I never even had the chance to get out of my car — he came up and scared the bejeesus out of me — and NO, they cannot ticket someone in their driveway whenthey’re still sitting in their car — but he did!
I am delighted to see this photo of Charlie Starbuck being honored. I didn’t know he was involved in this. I know Charlie as a fellow volunteer with the Presidio Park Stewards, working to re-establish and maintain native habitats throughout the Presidio. Charlie is aextremely dedicated and has been doing this work for years. He is a truly delightful man who gives much more to all of us than I had realized. We are all blessed to have him in our midst.
Hey, JOSH…I’m not here to start a flame war, but you only see things through your own filter. You will be surprised to hear that I agree with some of what you say. As a S.F.native, who grew up on 29th Ave in the Sunset, I too hated that a lot of people cemented over their front lawns. But back then, their wasn’t a lot of talk of drought resistant landscaping (that I remember as a kid), so people chose no watering and unfortunately a lot, concrete. My family didn’t do it, but our lawn looked like heck.
When I bought my house in 1992, I wanted to have the nice lawn I didn’t as a kid. So, I planted one, and watered it, and fertilized it, and it looked great. I also like trees. Our family is fortunate that my Grandfather bought 160 acres of mixed Conifer forest in the Stanislaus National Forest in the 1920s. We manage it for sustainabilityty and enjoy going up their many times a year. So, seeing the lack of trees on our block, I organized my neighbors into taking part in a FUF Tree Planting program. We planted 6 trees in and around the middle of the block. That was around 1994 or ’95. I watered mine regularly and personally pruned it for the first few years. It took off and became a large, healthy tree…so much so that it outgrew my abilities to properly prune it, so now I pay a local arboristst to do it right. It is also, unfortunately, lifting 5 squares of my sidewalk. The City hasn’t tagged me yet, but I know I’ll eventually have to spend my tight funds on fixing it.
There are a lot of people in the Avenues who are renters. Some care how their place looks, and some, like the college students across the street from me, don’t. Like you, I wish they would take a little pride in their front weed patch and do something. Unfortunately, I don’t know of a way to force someone to take care of their yard other than to complain to the City. But this problem is as old as time.
There are also people that for no reason of their own, can’t afford to water a lawn or have the landscaping redone for drought tolerance Or, they’re Seniors and can’t physically do either. So Josh, you going to ring their door bells and tell them to suck it up? Don’t paint everybody with a broad brush. When the City suddenly dumps an expense like sidewalk root damage on a homeowner that doesn’t have the extra funds, it can be really tough. That was my original point, not to start a philosophical argumentuement about who can afford to PLANT trees or grass, or take care of their yard. For you to say those who can’t afford to do so are cheap is an arrogant and idiotic statement.
Fred, I see how it could be anoying forced by the city into doing something you dont want to do but the fact is, 90% or more, of the sunset and richmond do not have a grass front lawn or a tree in front of their house, and now that the city is sticking people with caring for these trees everyone wants to complain. Now most of you are worried that these trees will lift up your sidewalk and will be stuck with the bill but the reallity is that it will take 20-30 YEARS for that to happen so the only thing you have to do is water the tree and it will do fine. Fred, you also say people who are elderly or physically cant maintain a tree well, my 80 year old grandmother has a small front lawn and a tree and she pays a gardener 30 bucks to mow her front and back lawn so the truth is people dont want to not they cant.
I fortunately or unfortunately don’t own a home in SF and it is awful the burden that the city’s tree planting is imposing on the residents. What I would like to do though is take a saw to the overgrown trees and bushes on the Geary medians of the richmond district. Why are some completely bare and others so overgrown the branches block the turn lanes?
Glad I doin’t live in “Josh’s World”
To Carey,
One of the reasons Geary St. median looks crazy is lack of funds, same reason this thread is going. I also believe that there is also some type of transition in plant type going on (though that’s only something that sticks in my mind from something I THINK I heard).
A related thing to all this that worries me is backlog of uncut, dangerous trees. There are quite a few dead Monterey Pines close to roadways or play fields in the parks or green belts. I watched a clearly dead Pine stand along Park Presidio for at least a year, while other thinning/pruning went on nearby. The thing finally came down on it’s own, crashing down on another healthy tree and wiping it out. That could have been a person walking their dog. I guess the city would rather pay a lawsuite after someone is injured or killed after tha fact, than be responsible and cut out obvious deadly hazards. I guess we all have to get on the horn to the Rec and Park or Dept. of Urban Forestry and light a fire under them.
You see the geary boulevard median, park presido, sunest boulevard, lake street ect. all have an abundance of trees and nature all of which was planted by the city. Right now the city is trying to improve our neighborhood by planting much needed trees that otherwise would never be planted so I dont see what the problem is. Trees are easy to care for and are a much needed feature most of this neighborhood is missing. About 50 years ago ALL of the houses in both the richmond and sunset had a grass front lawn, that was the way this neighborhood was intended to look so you are not overwhelmed with cement. So realistically all the cement front lawns you see now should have never been aproved by the city, and it is only now, where just about every house has a cement front lawn that the city knows they need to bring nature back to these neighborhoods.
Grass takes a lot of water, so the droughts in the 1970s kinda wiped out a lot of lawns..bringing nature to The City isn’t free,
The city’s policies and behavior put homeowners in a Catch 22. Homeowners have to pay all the costs of maintenance, preservation and sidewalk and sewer line repair while city employees turn a blind eye to trees causing huge damage. They routinely deny removal permits without good reason and are holding homeowners’ hostage, in effect, taking property rights homeowners should have. Just because that’s how the city operates doesn’t mean it’s a good idea, so the extremely rigid resistance by the DPW is way out of line. Sidewalks are being ruined by badly planted trees all over the city, especially by New Zealand Christmas Trees, which are also a sticky nuisance in addition to lifting up the sidewalks. A reasonable policy regarding street trees that destroy side walks is sorely needed, not the policy currently in place, plus widespread information distribution of how to plant and water a tree so that its roots are not shallow, described in the following paragraph:
The key to getting tree roots to grow deep so they DON’T endanger sidewalks is to water it in the first three years with a tube filled with rock that goes 12″ into the ground. Another key is to remove at least half of the trees in the FUF website recommended for planting, because they are a serious problem as street trees.
This impasse with the city’s total lack of cooperation when homeowners repeatedly have to repair sidewalks due to an improperly planted tree by previous owners, even when the homeowner follows the rules, pays the money and applies for a removal and replant permit. This impossible policy has to be changed, and it should not have to take a class action suit to accomplish it. Homeowners love trees as much as the city does, but not ones that cost them $6,000 every seven years to repair the sidewalk.
The first change should be to require the city employee to make a visit to the site where a homeowner has applied to remove a tree and honestly try to understand the homeowner’s plight when they apply for tree removal, then work with them, rather than routinely denying all permits. If they say they don’t have time, that’s invalid–a visit should be a requirement of processing the permit. Seeing a condition is worth a thousand words and pictures! If the city won’t agree to visit all sites, then they should abolish the requirement for applying to remove it–now THAT would save some money in the city budget–eliminating an unnecessary “service.”