Alex Zielinski, Way Out West

A Chinese elm's roots alter the sidewalk on Folsom St. If Mayor Lee's budget passes, property owners may be responsible for fixing it.

Due to looming city budget crises, Mayor Ed Lee recently proposed a budget package that would shift the city’s responsibility for 24,000 trees onto the property owners by 2018.

If the proposal passes, property owners would be responsible for pruning, repairing cracked pavements due to overgrown roots and the overall health of trees on the sidewalk in front of their property. In some cases, property owners might have to hire arborists, an expense that can run up to $400 per visit. They might also have to bear the expense of hiring crews to prune bigger trees, which can cost hundreds of dollars.

Property owners who neglect their new duties would face city fines reaching $500 per citation. The city plans to maintain trees on public property.

The budget Lee proposed would cut $300,000 from an already tight street tree care allowance, which is presently $2.2 million.

Supervisor John Avalos isn’t a fan of Lee’s plan. In June, he sponsored a hearing to discuss different ways to the pay for maintaining city trees, said Frances Hsieh, Avalos’ aide.

“With the economy the way it is, it’s understandable that the city has to make these cuts,” Hsieh said. “But we’re looking to pay for long-term care, the burden should not be put on the property owners.” 

The cut comes on the heals of a recent push by San Francisco city officials to promote “greening” initiatives as part of a wider effort to create a livable city.

The Richmond District received 2,000 new trees in a 2009 project. In 2005, former mayor Gavin Newsom launched “Trees for Tomorrow,” which aimed to expand the city’s urban forest by 25,000 trees within five years, a number that was exceeded by 1,000.

The efforts fall in line with a 2006 master plan produced by the Urban Forestry Council, which advises city departments. The plan called for the city to increase its canopy cover from 12 percent to 15 percent by 2016.

But with an ever-shrinking city budget, the Department of Public Works says it can’t regularly maintain all city trees. And so they’re shifting the burden onto the property owner.

Already property owners are responsible for about 89,0000 of the city’s approximately 100,000 sidewalk trees. While there are many reasons for this, the main one is that property owners planted them.

Arborist Altman Chris Altman sees this transfer as both a financial win and environmental boost.

“When I first heard about the transfer I thought, ‘Ooh, more work for me!’” said Altman. “Plus, the city’s arborists often unnecessarily cut trees and there aren’t enough of them. This could lead to better overall tree care.”

But many tree advocates think otherwise.

“I believe it’s a tragedy,” said Dan Flanagan, executive director of Friends of the Urban Forest. “The city should be taking care of their trees for long-term community benefit.”

Friends of the Urban Forest, which promotes planting trees in San Francisco, plans to hire a consultant to research tree care practices nationwide. The aim is to create a more cost-effective and environmentally sustainable system to care for trees. Once a plan is developed, the organization will present their idea to city officials.

“I want to do it right,” Flanagan said. “Thankfully the city and the supervisors are really listening.”

Supervisor John Avalos supports Friends of the Forest efforts. While Avalos hasn’t proposed a solution, at his June hearing ideas like using voluntary donations and adding fees onto new developments to pay for tree care were floated as options, says Hsieh.

The city’s Urban Forestry Council doesn’t support the transfer of tree maintenance. In a resolution passed in June, the council said, “the transfer of street tree maintenance is harmful to the long-term viability of the City and County of San Francisco and its environment and deplores such action.” 

Arborist Judy Thomas is also frustrated by the city’s plan. She says most homeowners are loath to shell out big bucks for an arborist and that leads to the gradual destruction of trees. She would rather see the city hike taxes to pay for tree experts. Thomas owns Plant Consultants, a commercial tree consultant firm Bay Area Plant Consultants.

“For me, it’s not a matter of personal profit-making, it’s a matter of endangered tree populations,” Thomas said. “If we raise taxes, trees will benefit and the city will benefit.”