After hours of deliberation and public comment at both its April 14 and April 28 meetings, the commission voted to uphold an earlier decision that denied the granting of a tree-removal permit.

Adelgunde DuVall originally applied for a permit to remove a 40-year-old coastal redwood tree that has caused damage to the lawn, driveway and street in front of her Swarthmore Drive home. DuVall was granted the permit last year, but the commission revoked it July 23 when neighbor Tom Corson appealed the decision. But the city has since changed its tree ordinance, so DuVall was allowed to appeal that denial.

At the April 14 public hearing, she said she was concerned that the severely cracked, uneven driveway was a major liability since someone could easily trip and be injured.

The commission voted 3-3 on the issue at that meeting, so the item was continued to April 28 and more information and alternatives were requested from city staff.

Jim Dillinger, who rents the home from DuVall, said at the second meeting that although city arborist David Babby recommended several alternative actions to removing the tree, those had relatively short lifespans of 10 to 25 years, and two arborists hired by DuVall recommended removal as the only safe option. He also said that Babby told him in private conversation that he would remove the tree if he were in the same situation.

"The only long-term, viable solution is removal of the tree," Dillinger said. "Anything less is simply a temporary solution ... with no consideration of what Ms. DuVall might face in the future. If the damage to the street were to stay stagnant, it's still beyond what is normal and acceptable."

Several friends voiced their support for DuVall's concerns, but quite a few neighbors spoke in opposition of removing the tree.

Mary McGuire, a Swarthmore Drive resident, said that, despite Dillinger's mention of both issues, she did not feel there was a real threat that the tree would fall over if the roots were simply trimmed, nor that the roots would cause damage to the gas main that runs beneath the tree.

"PG&E told us pretty unequivocally that there is no imminent danger and that they will continue monitoring the situation," she said, referring to an April 15 letter from a Pacific Gas & Electric representative. "And the redwood is a stable tree. Having the trees together enhances the stability of the tree. The other thing to note is that the arborist's report gave it a stability rating of 100 percent. If some rare unforeseen thing happened and it fell over, there is no liability."

The commissioners, led by newly selected Chairman Mohammad Garakani, discussed the removal and what message either approving or denying it would send. Commissioner Michael Schallop said he worried that denying the permit could actually result in pre-emptive tree removals.

"What policy message are we sending?" he asked the other commissioners. "Cut down trees under policy before they become a problem?"

But other commissioners, especially Susie Nagpal and Mike Uhl, argued that the appeal did not meet the strict criteria of the new tree ordinance.

"Whether we like it or not, the determination is [ordinance code section] 15-50," Nagpal said. "That's really the basis of our determination."

Uhl agreed, saying there was "nothing compelling" about the case that would cause him to trigger a removal permit. He added that he had not heard from the property owner that simply cutting the roots and repaving the driveway—one of the city arborist's recommendations—would cause a serious financial strain.

"Trees are an asset, not a liability," Uhl repeatedly said. "I get the feeling the property owner is looking at it as a liability."

The commission voted 5-2, with Garakani and Schallop opposed, to deny the permit.