Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board pauses Main Library plan to remove 19 ficus trees, orders collaborative replacement plan
Summary
After hours of testimony from community groups, the Library and Urban Forestry, the Board continued appeals over removal of 19 ficus trees at San Francisco’s Main Library to March 20 and directed a collaborative plan for phased removal, larger replacement trees and site alternatives.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Jan. 23 continued two appeals challenging the San Francisco Public Library’s order to remove 19 ficus trees around the Main Library to March 20, directing the Library, the Bureau of Urban Forestry and community groups to prepare a collaborative plan addressing phased removal, replacement locations and feasibility of moving a nearby bus shelter.
Appellants representing friends of the Library, environmental groups and neighborhood advocates urged the board to pause any wholesale removal, arguing the mature ficus provide shade, habitat and air‑quality benefits and that the Library and Public Works had not given adequate notice. Deetra Bowler (represented at the hearing) and Casey Asbury asked for phased removals, ecosystem assessments and options to plant offset or replacement groves nearby rather than immediate felling.
Library facilities director Roberto Lombardi described building maintenance problems and a history of site issues including standing water in tree basins and pedestrian safety concerns at a high‑use location. Lombardi said the Library has funding and intends to plant large, 48‑inch box replacements quickly and to work with community groups on mitigations.
Chris Buck, urban forester with San Francisco Public Works, presented the Bureau of Urban Forestry’s ficus removal criteria and a tree‑by‑tree evaluation: many of the subject trees show codominant stems, narrow attachment angles and included bark that make the upper canopy prone to sudden failure, and several basins show standing water that promotes root rot. BUFF proposed spacing changes on the Hyde Street side because bus shelter and streetlight locations constrain replacement density and recommended red maple (acer) species for water tolerance.
Public commenters presented petitions (more than 2,000 signatures), cited canopy‑loss statistics, urged phased removals, and proposed alternative planting locations (the former BART plaza, Orpheum frontages and other Civic Center sites). Following extended public comment and department rebuttals, Commissioner Anne Lazarus moved to continue the appeals to March 20 and asked the Library, BUFF and appellants to produce a joint plan that: (1) identifies at least three additional planting locations to compensate for lost canopy, (2) lays out a phased removal and replacement timeline, (3) evaluates moving the Hyde Street bus shelter and (4) reports whether the Civic Center Commons project will affect the planting plan. The board voted Aye and continued the matter.
The continuation gives city staff and community groups four to eight weeks to work on a detailed mitigation and replacement plan before the Board of Appeals revisits the appeals.
