Mobile’s tree commission has voted to permit the removal of dozens of live oaks along Broad Street as a part of an extensive redevelopment plan designed make the corridor more pedestrian-friendly and visually appealing.

The split vote, which may lead to an appeal before the city council, came during a Tuesday meeting at which several people spoke in favor of doing everything possible to save live oaks, arguing that the trees’ massive limbs and expansive canopies make them both a signature element of the city and a blessing to anyone out and about in summer heat.

The 50 or so trees in question are not among Mobile's oldest and grandest, with most estimated as being 40 to 50 years old and many described even by supporters as stressed.

The project driving their removal is an extensive, multimillion-dollar redevelopment of Broad Street, a major roadway that forms part of the perimeter of downtown Mobile and separates it from Midtown. After years of trying, the city won a $14.4 million federal TIGER grant in 2016, and that is the biggest portion of funding for the project. City Engineer Nick Amberger told members of the Tree Commission Tuesday that millions more have been committed by the city and the Alabama Department of Transportation, with the Mobile Area Water and Sewer System "likely to be a very significant contributor as well."

The area affected stretches from the Canal Street intersection south of Government Street northward to the Bishop State Community College campus, around the corner where Broad turns into Beauregard, to North Lawrence Street. It includes intersections where Dauphin, Government, Spring Hill Avenue and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue cross into Downtown. More than one speaker at Tuesday's meeting used the phrase "concrete jungle" to describe its lack of visual appeal.

Amberger said that project designers had grappled with the challenge of representing competing goals and interests into their plan.

The number of lanes will be reduced, he said, and the lanes themselves will be narrowed -- which Amberger said represented a major compromise on the part of ALDOT. Bike lanes will be added, and in some places on-street parking also will provide a buffer between vehicular traffic and pedestrians. He said that 60 or so live oaks -- those deemed to be in good health and to have adequate space to thrive, many of which are near Bishop State -- will be preserved, and that an extensive landscaping plan calls for more than 200 new trees to be planted.

But none of those new trees will be live oaks. That presented a major stumbling block for several citizens who spoke, and concerned some members of the commission.

Resident Bill Boswell said that he was in favor of the project in general, but was distressed by the city's removal of trees over the last few years.

"These are icons that this city really depends on for its reputation," he said of the live oaks. "This project can be designed to make it work with oak trees. It's just a situation where we need innovative engineering and the idea that we can keep part of our heritage without sacrificing it for the sake of trying to make our city more connected."

"We all want bike paths, we all want sidewalks, we all want to be able to get around our city and enjoy its beauty," Boswell said. "But if the trees are gone and we're putting back trees that aren't representative of our great city … this came to us as a great big surprise."

"Many of the trees are stressed, no doubt," Boswell said. "But the funding from the city has not been there and that's why they're stressed … some of the trees will have to go, we understand that. But not 55, for crying out loud. And where is that going to stop?"

The city's plan calls for planting a mix of bald and pond cypress, nuttall oaks, Chinese pistaches, date palms, magnolias and crape myrtles. Several speakers voiced the view that these wouldn't provide the quantity of shade that mature live oaks do. Amberger said the mix was "designed to be something that is sustainable to work within the confines that we've got."

Real Estate broker John Peebles described himself as "someone who for 40 years has come down to hearings like this to advocate for existing tree cover." But in this case, he said, he endorses the transformation that the city wants to bring about with the TIGER grant. "The live oak lobby, of which I consider myself a member, is going to have to give a little bit here, or else we're going to have to shut the whole thing down," he said.

One member of the commission, Jesse McDaniel, pushed for a delay to allow more discussion. Amberger, who said the design process for the project had involved extensive community outreach, said the complexity of carrying out a federal grant, and deadlines looming in a few months, meant there was no time for delay.

Redesigning the project to accommodate the oaks would mean taking out lanes and other features considered vital, Amberger said. Carrying out the project as planned but leaving the oaks in place would leave the trees in constrained settings that doomed them to decay.

Tree Commission member Cleve Formwalt said its’s true that many of the city’s live oaks struggle because they don’t have enough open ground or otherwise come into conflict with buildings and utilities. But some of the blame for that falls on the city, he said. “We’re not building the place where we can put the live oaks,” he said.

Ultimately, McDaniel voted against allowing the removal of the trees. A majority of the commission voted to permit their removal, however. Commission member William Rooks, who voted for it, said the city needs to designate areas where it will fully commit to preserving and planting live oaks, so that actions like the Broad Street tree removal can be offset.