S.F. tree plan praised despite ‘growing pains’
Lisa Fromer walked out the front door of her Liberty Hill home in San Francisco last Thursday to a sight that nearly bowled her over.
Though she hadn’t seen or heard them coming, a tree-trimming crew had descended upon her Mission District block to prune back overgrown branches. Fromer didn’t like what she saw.
Some of the larger shade trees planted in the 1980s that draped over stretches of Lexington Street, she said, had been trimmed into “unnatural shapes.” But worse still, about a third of the flowering cherry tree she planted three years ago had been cut away and was lying on the street.
“I don’t shock easily, but I was distraught. I went back in the house and just sobbed,” she said. “There are personal connections to trees that you plant and care for.”
Stories like Fromer’s are precisely what prompted District Eight Supervisor Rafael Mandelman to hold a hearing Wednesday aimed at spreading the word about the city’s nascent tree-trimming program and giving officials insight into how it might be made more effective.
Back in 2016, San Franciscans voted overwhelmingly for Proposition E, which shifted the responsibility of caring for all street trees in the public right of way to the city. The measure also set aside $19 million annually to get the job done. Since July 2017, the Public Works Department has been dispatching arborists and tree-trimming crews across San Francisco to care for the roughly 125,000 trees that comprise the city’s urban forest.
Previously, the city had maintained a confusing and deeply unpopular practice of having property owners care for most of the trees. Over the years, costs and confusion among property owners over who was responsible for maintenance led to either poor care or none at all.
“Growing pains are to be expected with any transition of this magnitude, and the implementation of Prop. E, now dubbed Street Tree SF, is no different,” Mandelman said in his opening remarks at Wednesday’s Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee meeting.
Since Mandelman became a supervisor in July, his office has received “thousands of calls or emails from constituents, with requests for help or information on tree maintenance,” he said. In his district, only homelessness has driven more calls to his office.
“Some constituents have raised concerns about trees they believe to be ‘dangerous’ and requiring immediate removal. Some are frustrated with overgrown trees that are not being pruned quickly enough,” Mandelman said. “Others have been concerned to see crews show up to prune a tree that doesn’t appear to need pruning. Still others have been horrified to see beloved trees removed without explanation.”
But despite pockets of confusion and frustration among some residents, like Fromer, who’ve been jolted to find their trees trimmed or removed, officials said the program has largely been going smoothly. Carla Short, superintendent for the Bureau of Urban Forestry, said the city is on track to have all of its roughly 125,000 street trees trimmed by 2021.
The city has taken a “worst first” approach, Short said, prioritizing dead trees, sick ones in a fatal decline and those with serious structural flaws. Much of the work is based on by a recently completed census of the city’s urban forest. For efficiency and cost savings, Short said crews tackle the worst trees first and then prune the surrounding block.
To date, crews have addressed 19 percent of the urban forest, Short said, or around 24,000 trees. Around 1,900 unhealthy or structurally unsound trees have been removed and about 262,000 square feet of tree-related sidewalk repairs have been made.
Both Mandelman and District Nine Supervisor Hillary Ronen applauded the bureau’s efforts so far.
“This is the best program. It was so sorely needed for so long,” Ronen said, calling the bureau’s work “extraordinary.” But both also seemed receptive to residents like Fromer, who have called for the city to do a better job of informing residents about when trimming work will be done and how property owners can continue caring for their trees on their own.
Residents can opt out of the program if they want to, but they’ll need to abide by the city’s standards for caring for their trees.
The Bureau of Urban Forestry is close to finalizing an agreement — possibly by the end of this week, Short said — that would spell out the rules property owners would need to adhere to. In the meantime, the bureau is collecting the names of residents who want to continue caring for their own trees.
Fromer would have kept caring for her cherry tree, had she known that was an option. Months ago, a mailer came informing her that pruning was scheduled for some time between August and November.
“That’s not useful information,” she said. “I support the program, but let people know when you’re coming.”
Dominic Fracassa is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: dfracassa@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @dominicfracassa