SF Trees Getting Chopped
By: Patsy Fergusson
Tags: Urban Planning, Environment, Politics, San Francisco, Climate Change

When David Becker happened upon the luxuriant Mayten tree in Washington Square being cut down by a boisterous crew that cheered as each limb fell, he felt awful.

“Decades of growth, shade, and beauty being cut down and cheered on by the workers,” he said. “The sound of the wood chipper gurgling on the beautiful tree… It felt so disrespectful. I’m looking forward to the appeal.”

I met Becker and three other tree huggers while protesting the removal of seven tall, leafy ficus on the Columbus Street side of Washington Square. They all knew each other — I was an outsider. And they all knew a lot more about trees than I did. But as a tour guide in North Beach who stands beneath those trees every weekend, I knew they didn’t look sick. And what I learned in the weeks to follow was enough to fill a book — or at least this column! :p

We coordinated our presentations for the tree removal hearing. And when the decision didn’t go in our favor, we filed an appeal, which is scheduled June 19. But trying to save those seven trees was just the beginning. Group leader Joshua Klipp, a lawyer who lives on Potrero Hill, hopes to instigate adoption of a citywide tree management system which currently doesn’t exist.

DPW’s War on Ficus threatens 6 percent of SF’s street trees, including this one of seven along the Columbus Ave. side of Washington Square. Photo by author.

As it stands now, every city department — DPW, MTA, PUC, RPD — takes out trees whenever they like, Klipp explained. There’s no overarching authority to approve or deny removals. “Rec and Park doesn’t even keep track of the trees they plant and remove.”

And after an unspecified number of ficus dropped limbs on cars, making the City liable for lawsuits, the DPW decided they were arbor non grata and issued an order making it easier to cut them down. That’s resulted in a virtual War on Ficus, threatening more than 7,000 trees — or 6 percent of our entire urban canopy — all over town.

At public hearings and via his Facebook page Guardians of the GalaxTrees, Klipp has joined with neighborhood groups to protest wholesale removals of ficus and other species at Civic Center, where 19 trees near the main library are on the chopping block; Hayes Valley (39); Bayview (60); the Mission District (112); the Richmond (every tree on the Geary median strip west of Stanyan); Market St. (700 trees between 10th and the Embarcadero); and Sharp Park (15,000 trees).

Momentum is growing. A huge turnout appeared at the hearing June 5 to consider the removal of nearly every tree on 24th Street between Mission and Potrero. “It was SO PACKED. They actually had to open up an overflow room for probably a couple dozen people,” Klipp said.

The turnout was huge at the hearing June 5 about tree removals on 24th Street.

“We’re making progress. We’re talking to our supervisors; we’re showing up at City Hall; we’re protesting and appealing large-scale removals and illegal removals by developers,” Klipp said.

While residents were giving impassioned testimony before the one city employee assigned to run tree removal hearings in room 419 at City Hall (who takes notes and then hands them off to the actual decision maker), the Board of Supervisors passed a Climate Emergency resolution on April 2, and Mayor London Breed set the goal for San Francisco to have a carbon footprint of net zero by 2050. Both plans focus on reduction of carbon emissions while ignoring trees.

San Francisco wants to be a leader when it comes to fighting climate change. So why is it cutting down so many trees?

Yet scientists agree that trees are “the most powerful and cost-efficient carbon-capture technology the world has yet seen,” according to Han de Groot, CEO of Rainforest Alliance, who authored this piece in Scientific American. Natural climate solutions like aggressive reforestation “can help us achieve 37 percent of our climate target, even though they currently receive only 2.5 percent of public climate financing,” de Groot wrote.

San Francisco wants to be a leader when it comes to fighting climate change. So why is it cutting down so many trees?

After investing significant time on developing the Urban Forest Plan adopted in 2015, the City failed to fund its recommendations. The UFP calls for our canopy to grow by 50,000 trees over the next 20 years, or 2500 new trees each year, a goal that has never been met. Reports filed by the Urban Forestry Council show dwindling gains each year. In 2014–2015, the year the plan was adopted, our canopy grew by 1,467 trees. Growth diminished to 302 trees in ‘15–16, and 73 trees in ‘16–17. Last year, the canopy grew by a single tree.

Josh Klipp and a crew from Friends of the Urban Forest plant a bronze loquat in the Excelsior June 1. Photo by FUF Planting Manger Kallie Schloemann

But the Department of Public Works sees a rosier picture. “The primary goals of the Urban Forest Plan are being met: creating a municipally managed tree maintenance program and securing sustained funding for that program. Funding for increased planting will take time; we are looking at various options,” spokesperson Rachel Gordon said in an email.

The recent spate of removals is happening because “we finally have the resources available to start catching up on deferred maintenance, including the removal of dead, dangerous and diseased trees that cannot be saved,” Gordon wrote.

Those resources are the $19 million per year that voters set aside for tree maintenance in 2016. The history of San Francisco’s street trees is confusing. After DPW handed over responsibility to property owners in 2012, they handed it back via ballot measure in 2016, along with a dedicated budget. But some interpret the language of the measure to mean that money can only be used for pruning and removals, not for planting new trees.

Then on May 28, an urgent letter went out from the executive director of Friends of the Urban Forest, asking readers to sign a petition pleading with Mayor Breed not to cut $2 million from the draft budget that was meant for trees.

San Francisco is planning to remove 4,000 trees over the next two years, Dan Flanagan wrote, calling it “tragic but necessary because they’re falling and dangerous.” His concern was that there would be no money to replace the trees we have now, let alone plant thousands more.

“I know from my work with Mayor Breed over the last many years that she values trees, so I don’t know why the money was taken out,” Flanagan said on the phone. “We got an overwhelming response and will speak at the Board of Supervisors Budget Committee meeting to make our case.”

At just 13.7 percent tree coverage, San Francisco already has one of the smallest canopies of any major city in the country. New York City, for example, has 24 percent tree coverage. Atlanta, the leader, has 48 percent.

Besides sequestering carbon dioxide and fighting climate change, trees clean the air; filter water; reduce noise; limit erosion; improve mental health; protect property values; provide habitat for birds, animals and insects; reduce urban ‘heat island’ effect; and slow traffic, not to mention providing shelter from rain and sun while making San Francisco more beautiful and green.

Supervisor Aaron Peskin has taken an interest, directing the planting of 20 new trees in District 3 on May 25 and promising funding for more.

And District 4 Supervisor Gordon Mar hopes to hold hearings in June to try to work out a better way to manage San Francisco’s trees.

Meanwhile, Klipp and other activists started a petition asking Mayor Breed to restore the funding for trees and plan a silent protest at City Hall June 13.

The increased attention gives David Becker hope. “Trees have been working for us their entire lives,” he said. “It’s time for us to give back. It’s time to give our trees the care and protection they need.”