Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forest Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors Hear Options to Stop Decline in San Francisco's Urban Forest; AECOM Study Estimates $23M'$31M Annual Cost for Street-Tree Program
Summary
At a Government Audit and Oversight Committee hearing, city staff, consultants and nonprofit partners outlined maintenance shortfalls, DPW's plan to transfer maintenance of ~23,000—24,000 street trees to adjacent property owners, and an AECOM financing study that estimated a municipal takeover of street-tree maintenance would cost about $23 million to $31 million per year; speakers urged dedicated funding and inclusion of park trees in any solution.
San Francisco supervisors and city officials on the Government Audit and Oversight Committee on Tuesday heard a series of presentations and public comments about the city's failing maintenance cycle for street and park trees and possible financing strategies to reverse canopy decline.
Supervisor Scott Wiener, who requested the hearing, said budget cuts over many years have left the Department of Public Works and Recreation and Parks unable to keep routine maintenance on schedule and that the department's recent plan to transfer maintenance responsibility for roughly 23,000 to 24,000 street trees to adjacent property owners is creating inconsistent care and safety risks. "By any measure, this is not the right way to take care of our street trees," Wiener said, arguing the city should pursue a way for DPW to take back responsibility and establish stable, dedicated funding.
Why it matters: city staff and consultants testified that preventive, programmatic maintenance — including block pruning and routine inspections — is more efficient and reduces emergency responses, sidewalk repairs and liability claims. AECOM's financing analysis focused on street trees estimated that, in a scenario to grow the street-tree population while maintaining it over 20 years, the city would face average annual costs in a mid-range scenario of just under $23 million to about $31 million, with variations depending on efficiency gains from block pruning and the pace of planting.
Planning and operations: John Sway, planning department urban forest plan manager, summarized the department's inventory work and said the city's tree population includes roughly 105,000 street trees and about 131,000 park trees. Douglas Legg of the Department of Public Works described the operational reality: DPW has lost more than half of its urban-forestry staff over the past several years and now averages pruning cycles of 10 to 12 years instead of an industry best practice of 3 to 5 years. "Eighty percent of what we're doing is responding to problems," Legg said, describing an emergency-first posture that drives up costs and liabilities.
Consultant findings and financing options: Sarah Heard of AECOM, the consultant on the study, said municipal block pruning could yield large economies of scale, estimating up to ~50% savings versus individual service calls under favorable conditions. Heard summarized financing tools the study judged most viable for street trees in California: a landscape and lighting assessment district (which requires an engineer's report and a property-owner vote), parcel taxes (with various apportionment options) and general obligation bonds for capital planting and early care. AECOM's back-of-envelope figures for a typical 25-by-100-foot lot ranged from about $43'$65 per year as a special assessment focused on operation and maintenance, and $69'$96 per year if the assessment covered full costs including planting and establishment; parcel-tax and flat-tax options produced higher per-parcel estimates.
Liability and sewer claims: the consultants and DPW noted a policy choice unique to San Francisco: the city historically paid for side-sewer claims when tree roots affected private laterals. AECOM warned that moving to a municipal-maintenance model changes liability exposure and that some peer cities instead place side-sewer responsibility on property owners.
Park trees and scope: Recreation and Parks Department Chief Denny Kern said the department's urban-forestry unit manages roughly 131,000 trees on parkland and that, with current resources, a programmatic maintenance cycle could exceed 50 years per tree. Kern urged that any long-term funding approach consider both street and park trees; several supervisors and public-commenters pressed for an inclusive approach.
Public comment and equity concerns: more than a dozen neighborhood and advocacy speakers described local impacts of the relinquishment notices, citing high private maintenance costs (one resident gave a $2,000 estimate to prune two trees) and uneven canopy distribution across neighborhoods. Dan Flanagan of Friends of the Urban Forest said San Francisco's canopy percentage is well below several peer cities and urged the Board to take responsibility for the trees and to adopt policies that remove liability obstacles for homeowners and encourage planting and stewardship.
Next steps: Supervisors closed public comment and moved to continue the item to the call of the chair so staff and board members can refine options. No formal vote was taken at the hearing.
Authorities and references cited in the hearing included the city's Public Works code (Article 16), the California Urban Forestry Act (discussed by witnesses), and prior bond-funded urban-forestry programs referenced by Recreation and Parks and nonprofit partners.
