In a contentious public hearing Tuesday night, the Vacaville Planning Commission voted 5-0 to remove a tree from a Vacaville property.

The tree, a California oak, is 35 inches in diameter and is located on the property of a single-family home. On July 8, the removal was approved, but on July 17, an appeal was raised during a review called by Vacaville City Councilwoman Jeanette Wylie, arguing that staff made an error in requesting the tree’s removal.

“The existing oak tree is located quite close to the center of the site,” said Albert Enault.

In the background, however, it should be noted that the removal of the tree was originally requested last summer, but the city rejected it.

The new prospective buyers filed permits to remove the tree this year, Enault said, but the city required an arborist’s report as well as a minor design review. Shortly afterward, Enault said, the buyers purchased the property.

Eight criteria will be considered in removing the tree, Enault said, including the tree’s size and location, as well as its status as a native or non-native species. The tree is over 45 feet tall and 28 feet wide, Enault said.

The roots extend well beyond the tree’s crown, Enault said, creating what is known as a “drip line.” This drip line extends across the entire property, meaning any development on the property would negatively impact the tree. There are many other California live oaks in Vacaville, he said, but it is a native species.

Other trees would not be affected by the tree’s removal, he said, and it could be replaced by six replacement trees on the property. It is not visually noticeable from the public road, he noted. The city has also reached out to three nearby property owners.

Enault compared Wylie’s “request for review” to a request to submit a paper in a mathematics course. He found that this was not the case for all five of the grounds for appeal cited.

“The grounds for appeal appear to be unfounded and there is no real fault on the part of the director or staff,” Enault said.

City staff noted that there was no opportunity for a CEQA case here and asked the commission to deny the appeal and grant the motion to remove.