On Thursday, employees with Lefler’s Tree Service made the final verdict on a tree that has been a source of controversy for one waterfront community.

Climbing its trunk and trimming its branches, workers felled the Douglas fir in three pieces, which were then hauled through Eagle Harbor to the nearby Strawberry Plant Park.

It had been two years of frustration for Janet Sturham, the board president of Sun Day Cove condominiums at the west end of Winslow Way. She has been trying to remove the tree despite a lengthy process with the city’s Planning Department.

“I’m happy that it’s over, two years is too long to wait for something like this,” Sturham said while watching workers gather branches from the shore.

The Douglas fir in question hung over a marina dock used by Sun Day Cove residents and was rated an 8 on a hazard scale of 1-10. Its roots were clinging to a receding embankment that was slowly being eroded by the waters of Eagle Harbor, threatening the nearby marina.

Initially the city agreed with Sturham that the tree needed to be removed. A letter dated Dec. 11, 2006 sent by the interim planning director James Harris showed that Sturham was approved to remove eight Cypress trees and the bent Douglas Fir. Acting on the letter provided by the planning director, Sturham had the eight Cypresses removed and began contracting for the removal of the Douglas Fir.

It is then that the process got caught up in a bureaucratic tussle that was spearheaded, Sturham believes, by members of the planning department who impeded the tree’s removal due to personal beliefs.

A complaint was made by a nearby land owner regarding the removal of the eight Cypresses and the proposed removal of the Douglas fir. Although the land owner had no legal claims to the Sun Day Cove property, city planners acted on the complaint because Sturham had failed to pick up her clearing permit and instead acted on the written word of Harris. Letters from the city advised Sturham that she could face civil penalties or criminal misdemeanors for removing the trees.

Another planning director who replaced Harris, Greg Byrne, also questioned Sturham’s legal authority to make decisions for the Sun Day Cove property owners, based on the complaints. In a letter dated Dec. 13, 2007, Byrne asked Sturham to prove her legal authority as Sun Day Cove board president instead of asking the complainant to prove he had a legal right to object to the tree’s removal.

The ordeal has left Sturham upset with her treatment by the city’s planning department and the experience.

“Trying to follow and adhere to the regulations of this cumbersome permitting process is one matter,” she said. “But to have to deal with the extreme views and attitudes and attacks of certain members of the city’s planning department who process these regulations is quite another matter.”

Eventually, after proving her right to make decisions for the Sun Day Cove owners group, the city admitted in April 2008 that “mistakes were made” in the handling of situation and that it was “understandable” that she had acted on the written word of a previous planning director for tree removal.

Kathy Cook, the city’s current planning director, was not involved in the original dispute, but has since worked with Sturham to correct the situation

“I heard her concerns and I talked to staff who were involved,” Cook said. “It was a complicated situation, but it happened under the direction of two previous directors, and we can only learn from our previous experiences.”

Since then, Sturham has continued to press her case to the mayor and city staff members. Her tenacity has culminated in an approved application for the tree’s removal.

“I am hesitant to be too critical, but I thought I was treated unfairly,” Sturham said. “I never got an explanation of what happened. They acknowledged mistakes were made, but they never said they were sorry.”

Although this process has left Sturham disillusioned with the permitting process at the city, another leaning tree, labeled a 7 on the hazard scale, is currently being monitored and may have to be removed in the future if bank erosion continues.

“We have another one now and we can’t take that one down because it’s not a danger yet,” she said. “But at some point in the future we’ll have to go through this whole process again.”