I agree with Edwin.
I am fully convinced that all writing 'rules' are there to serve one main golden rule, which is 'do not confuse the reader'. That rule trumps all other rules that conflict with it.
So if one questions whether the comma belongs, what one should not do is knee-jerk to the subordinate 'one-size-fits-all' rule of 'always use a comma there', but regard it by whether it would be confusing to the reader or not. IOW, you can safely eliminate the comma as long as it does not cause confusion.
And no one on earth would be confused by 'I love the city and I …' as everyone knows instantly that the second 'I' will refer to something upcoming and not what the person 'loves'. No reader is that dense, so there is no danger of confusion whatsoever there, meaning the comma is not needed, would be redundant, and would make the sentence more awkward rather than clearer.
I do think one may need a second reason, which may be that omitting the comma may be in the interest of flow. An author may want something to flow quicker or better, and the comma then may be a speed-bump rather than a clarifier. If clarity is not in question and flow is the goal, omitting the comma works just fine.
After all, what is a comma for? It has no 'meaning' the way a word or a letter does, because it is only a little mark. The comma has no intrinsic meaning. It is there only as, and precisely as, something to clarify what is written.