Until Nagel knew how the community felt about turning a portion of Easton into a one-way street, she said she couldn’t make a decision. No one would support spending more money on surveys allowing her motion to die. After more than two hours of discussion, the only thing the council decided to do was revisit the list of replacement trees around the city. Tom’s fate — as the tree lovingly became known during the recent debate — will be discussed at a later, undetermined time.

Vice Mayor Rosalie O’Mahony and Councilwoman Ann Keighran stayed true to their stance of removing the tree for safety reasons.

O’Mahony came down on the side of liability referencing a tree from California Avenue that came down on a bus, costing the city $50,000. Keighran agreed and stayed the path she’s held all along that the root system presents safety issues, meaning removing the tree was the best way to approach the tree.

Councilman Russ Cohen and Councilwoman Cathy Baylock, on the other hand, wanted methods to maintain the tree whether that be a few signs or a small change in the road.

“The tree makes the library safer and I just want to reference what happened last week at Ralston Middle School. … A grandfather accidentally hit the gas than the break … the tree stopped him. My personal preference is that trees keep us safe when we’re walking down the street,” said Baylock.

Emotions aside, Cohen laid out the facts before suggesting putting up two signs; one that says “bump ahead” and the other reading, “bump here,” or “yield to the tree.”

Nagel stood firm that removing the tree was the best option unless the citizens were interested in a one-way street. If the residents were surveyed, she said she’d vote along the lines of their desire.

“If people say a one-way street works for them, let’s go for it,” she said.

Her idea was shot down by councilmembers ready for a decision about the tree and tired of studies. Even if the community was in favor of the option, it wasn’t in the budget at the moment anyway, said Keighran. Even Cohen, in favor of saving the tree, recognized the idea wasn’t currently a realistic option.

Discussion ended with no decision. The only thing anyone agreed on was the need for a better list of replacement trees with options actually available — since apparently not all chosen trees are readily available. The Beautification Commission will revisit this issue.

Without a vote, the decision to stall removing Tom remains.

Through this process, studies found the tree to be in good health despite the uncertain future.

Minimal decay was found on one of the roots, but otherwise the tree is healthy, said arborist Kevin Kielty. Even with the health, Kielty said no arborist could guarantee the safety of the living under or being around large trees but the chance of failure is low.

“We consider the chance of failure to be low, but we can never be 100 percent,” he said. “Anytime you have big trees there could be dangers; could be a limb breaking.”

A few community members spoke in favor of maintaining the large eucalyptus.

Jennifer Pfaf recognized the difference of opinions among citizens.

“About half the people in the city love trees. The other half could take them or leave them as long as it doesn’t cost money,” she said.

Opinions aside, Pfaf stressed the benefits of trees from reducing energy needs to economic gain for a neighborhood. She wanted the city to put money behind the boasted tree city status.

Community activist Stephen Hamilton spoke neither for nor against Tom’s future, but stressed that a complete reforestation plan with funding in place would make such decisions more acceptable to the residents.

“There’s an old saying, ‘The best time to plant a tree, the absolute best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago,’” he said. “The second best time is right now.”

Heather Murtagh can be reached by e-mail: heather@smdailyjournal.com or by phone: (650) 344-5200 ext. 105.