and we heard michelle address the issue and she doesn't know the exact figure, but some of the slack -- some of the loss that would be achieved by removing these trees, will be taken up by the fact that eight trees will be replaced by 14 trees. well, nine, because one has been allowed to be torn down. what will be gained i think is terrific. one, we are going to reward people for caring about their neighborhood and trying to do something that is beneficial to the streetscape and the beauty of this city as they are trying to dofment i think i would feel better about this if the neighborhood -- i intend to try to argue that the bureau of urban forestry be overturned and let these people do what they want to do but i would like it contingent upon the

fact that they would accept ongoing responsibility after three years have passed when they would have to take responsibility for the maintainance of the new trees and they would continue to take responsibility for the trees as well as for the surrounding sidewalks. i don't know how we would get to that. commissioner fung: i think that's something they would want to do and keep these trees artificially small. commissioner garcia: they don't have the sporns built. commissioner fung: -- responsibility. commissioner fung: the city may take a different king ept as to the natural growth of these trees. for me, there's two issues

here. one is the rights of the property owners to have the type of tree that they want in front of their house. i'm not necessarily in agreement what their final approach is going to be, if it's similar to the 700 block. i think in an urban setting, there are still certain proportions between the buildings that are inherently there and the type of street trees that should be planted and how it frames that particular building. the 700 block is not what i would recommend personally, but i think that is what is desired by the owners. and i think it's also not quite correct to discuss the

ecological benefits, yes, there may be 14 trees, which is more than the nine, but they are going to be a lot smaller and i'm not sure it will ever reach the same level of benefits in terms of the coverage that ms. short is always pushing. but, you know, i think for me it's partially a renewal from those that are there and the fact that there is some self-determination that we should respect. >> are you finished with your comments for now, commissioner fung? commissioner fung: i'm finished. >> i'll jump in, i'm leaning in different directions. i do think -- commissioner fung mentioned the benefit of the mature trees can't be matched by the mall smaller, even more

smaller trees. and that i think there might be a problem with these particular trees. ultimately growing taller than the neighbors want and the idea that they be kept artificially small, i'm not sure how that could be accomplished. i would be concerned that that wouldn't happen. but most of the arguments we heard were really about esthetics and the 700 block and i wonder if we are going to make a decision to take out mature trees based on that's correct i wonder if this block is a good block for that given that this streetscape is going to change profoundly when the four new houses are going to be built and we don't know what that's going to look like.

three or four new houses. but it did look like a good percentage of the block would be new streetscape. i hate to take out mature trees now not even knowing what the rest of the block will look like. and then i have one final concern making me lean against -- making me lean towards supporting the department and that is -- i'm concerned about setting precedent and saying i would like to take out this mature and healthy tree because it blocks the public's view of my beautiful home. and we have that over and over and over again in the city i just wonder that as a precedent. those are my comments for now. >> i'm also leaning to uphold the department. i think this case presents more compelling concerns and i have

a great appreciation for the community coming together and all the testimony that was provided. i really appreciate hearing from the public. i think, however, on principle, it is difficult to remove -- i personally find ap bunch of trees quite attractive. and those aren't my houses up there hiding. so that's why it was good to hear from you, but everyone has a different view point. so i also think that what commissioner garcia suggested sounds creative in terms of having the owners who seek to replace the trees then incur all costs to maintainance of the trees and sidewalk and take

it away from the city. that would be an economic benefit to the city. i don't know if that's feasible and given that probably not every homeowner is actually present from that block. that would then be stuck with that bill. the other thing that i wanted to mention -- well, i think that's enough. those are some thoughts on where my leanings are right now. commissioner garcia: let me come back at it. it is strange when i first got involved with the board of appeals, three cases that traced the rights of plan departments to dictate things that had to do with esthetics. and so, because that precedent or that practice lies with a planning department, i don't think it's strange to impose the same type of thing on the

department of public works or the bureau of urban frofert try. certainly, -- forestry. i don't think there are blocks similar to this one. i don't think there are enough blocks that are one block down from another block that has done something similar. so i don't feel like we have to worry about precedent. i don't think that's a real issue. and to be clear, i never suggested that we would have a balance that we would get 14 trees when we had whatever number it was before the nine. the gap was close somewhat so there would be atenation of issues. i think this is very worth while and i think issues raised by each commissioner could still be goirble. we heard that because of slope and those issues of 24-foot

tree would be better. it's hard to imagine that 36 couldn't go in there. to me, size is still highly negotiable. something else that for our architect is more involved with the scale of the building in terms of the scale of the tree, could certainly be achieved and we could talk about a large tree. what i guess what i would like to do is suggest that we continue so that there can be some discussion about maybe a size tree that would be more satisfactory to the department, more satisfactory to the commissioners up here and so that maybe something could be hammered out where the homeowners would come back and say in terms of other benefits to the city that do have to deal with costs, we will assume

our responsibilities and aten -- attendant costs if we are allowed to replace these trees. future sidewalk damage would be assumed by the homeowners. future maintenance of the trees. i don't know if there is any support for that. suggestion that we continue this in the hopes those kinds of things happen. >> one of the things that ms. short said was she wasn't sure of the size of the tree trunks and maybe it would allow for that assessment of the comparative value versus replacement. i don't know if that's something ms. short would be open to. >> i have a quee for ms. short in addition to that question. those figures -- those numbers would be numbers you could

crunch and have available for us next time. is there a reason the city has not maintained them to be the same height? >> well, generally, we allow trees to grow to their natural form and pruning, we don't try to reduce the height of trees unless there is something that would require that. these trees are growing at different rates and different heights and when we are pruning them not to maintain a certain height. >> the height of the trees suggested to be planted and commissioner fung said they could be kept artificially small. if the city were to continue to maintain the trees and those trees were planted, those trees would also be quite tall. >> eventually, they would grow to probably 25, maybe 30 feet over time.

if the city had maintenance responsibility, we would not keep them artificially small. >> thank you. commissioner garcia: could you place restrictions on the degree to which they are pruned to be kept small? could that be part of the kings si? >> certainly -- contingency. it is certainly to do crown reduction of a tree if it is done correctly so it is not damaging to the tree. i don't know if it would be possible to make that a contingency of a plan that the trees must be allowed to grow to their natural form. that is maybe a question for the city attorney. >> i'm sure he enjoys being able to answer that. >> are there privately maintained trees that are required to be kept at a certain height, to your

knowledge? >> no. not through some sort of city mandate. certainly trees that are under high voltage lines have to be kept away. that is the electric company's responsibility, not the property owners'. commissioner fung: commissioners, i think -- there is no sense in having ms. short provide us sizes of trees of existing trees if the -- there is no -- in either situation, you know, whether we are going to allow the demolition of those trees or whether they stay. the question really here is whether there is any sentment for what commissioner garcia

has brought forward and if there isn't, at least three votes for that, i would behest tant to drag all these people back out here. >> how would you feel what was proposed? commissioner fung: i think that is a reasonable approach. commissioner fung: ap continueance, but on the basis that we're looking at -- an appropriate-sized tree that doesn't look like a mere shrub the minute they plant it and that's to be negotiated with the department of urban forestry. species, also. and i think -- i probably would not consider any conditions on whether to allow these trees to

grow to its natural height or not. >> one concern i have with commissioner garcia's proposal is that i think it would be next to impossible to enforce the condition like that on homeowners and i think, you know, these trees want to be grown to 25 or 30 feet. so within a number of years, we'll have the same issue in terms of blocking the view of the beautiful homes. commissioner fung: one thing you should be aware of, what ms. short was talking about was takeing an existing tree and reducing the crown. there is a difference between planting an immature tree and then pruning it to the shape and size you want.

>> well, i hate to go against the idea of a continueance for more information. i think those tend to be useful. however, i don't think i'm going to change my vote. and that would mean we continuity anyway depending upon the potential votes of commissioner wang, because we're missing president peterson. we would -- >> are you talking about a continueance. commissioner garcia: if you have no intention of over turning, you are being asked. commissioner wang: i think part of the -- what i definitely feel would be interested in

hearing what the department has to say after having a chance to measure the trees and make an assessment that she could bring back, ms. short to bring back to the board and give us more information. i'm willing to continue and i'm open to changing my leanings based on additional information. i'm not going to be close-minded. commissioner garcia: we might have the votes for a continueance and i will ask the appellant and asking if you are interested in continuing. how much time do you think this process would take? you want a month or more? >> i'm going to be out of town starting the end of the month. so it might -- if it's possible to schedule this for next week.

september 22, i will still be here. we actually have all of the data that we need. it just requires me to sit down and look at some scenarios with possible replacement trees. we have all the measurements. commissioner fung: want to talk about a potential date for a continueance. you may step forward and discuss that only. >> i will be out of town on september 22. but i'm happy -- commissioner fung: full board meeting would be october 13. >> i think we should do it on the 22. commissioner garcia: when will you be back. >> end of the 13. >> the 20 i will be here. commissioner garcia: mr. bartlett, would you prefer to be here and do it on the 20 or be dealt with next week?

>> i would like more time to work with her office. address the species of trees we selected. we looked at a 10-page fax. we are happy to look at all different kinds of trees. vice president goh: since we are talking about coming back. i'm interested in seeing what the streetscape will look like with the buildings you have proposed. >> more information is better, including graphics. >> good idea. commissioner fung: director, you wanted to say something? >> specify what the board is expecting of both parties so there is no question in anyone's mind. so perhaps commissioner garcia restate what you would like from d.p.w. and ms. short state

what you would like from the appellant. commissioner garcia: the issue has to deal with, at least the people, the size of the tree that is going to go in. and we're not saying to you know matter what size you put there going to necessarily agree with you. but if you were to come back with a tree that is of a larger size and more proportional to the buildings over there, you might get votes you don't currently have. >> you are asking the appellant to come back with an alternate replacement trees? commissioner garcia: alternate size-ed tree and also the issue of -- i'm assuming it is a savings to d.p.w. if they -- ms. short, is that correct, the responsibilities for the trees as well as the sidewalks? >> yes. commissioner garcia: so we need something -- do we need a legal

opinion on whether or not that's possible or is that something that could happen? >> the public works code of enforcement allows the director of the department to relengthish to property owners by sending them a letter. but it is a process for that. commissioner fung: in this particular incident, we are asking the appellant to make a proposal that they are volunteering certain things related to the maintenance of the trees and sidewalks. >> assuming the director sent a letter and no rejection, then it could move forward. >> i mean those people are not on notice on that and they aren't all parties to this proceeding, so this board couldn't issue an "on the record"ing the homeowners to maintain the trees in the

future without that process going forward. commissioner garcia: i'm proposing that mr. bartlett and his group come back and say having polled the people involved in this, there is a willingness, something greater than a willingness on our part to have this happen. no one is imposing that upon -- >> what are you saying, mr. bartlett, he would be responsible for all 14 trees? the adjacent property owner -- commissioner garcia: that's what i'm suggesting but not that we are going to impose this on them as much as they make that offer and it might sway some of the members of this board knowing they are going to relieve the city of that financial burden. they are offering to relieve the city of that financial burden. >> who's they? >> the people severely involved in this appeal.

commissioner fung: it's up to them to make a proposal. >> i think your concern is the they needs to include every single property owner on that block. commissioner garcia: we have suggested they come back with a proposal something of their choosing and not something we impose upon them. and i think it's pretty clear at least what i would hope they would do is that they decide among themselves and the legality of it can easily be worked out if we find out that all of them are willing and part of their proposal is that we will go through the processes necessary for us to take over these trees and the maintenance of sidewalks. . .commissioner garcia: they are

cell buehrle -- note severally -- they are severally doing this. this is something that can easily be worked out. mr. bartlett is capable of explaining it to the people who are not here. commissioner hwang: so, commissioners, would you like to set a limit, or will it be an oral presentation? vice president goh: i think what

we're asking for mostly are the exhibits. so we have heard that what we would like to see from ms. short, the benefits from the trees, given their trunks, or whatever your language is for that, and we have the will we would like to see from mr. bartlett is about the trees, and then i would like to see a drawing of what the streetscape is. was there anything else? ok. does someone want to move for a continuance? commissioner hwang: we need to set the page limits. vice president goh: 3 pages. vice president goh: why 3? -- commissioner garcia: why 3?

vice president goh: i made it up. you can change it. commissioner hwang: unlimited exhibits. i am sorry. i interrupted you, commissioner garcia. vice president goh: -- commissioner garcia: i move that we continue this for all of the reasons previously stated. commissioner hwang: and i would add that it be delivered to the board the thursday prior to the hearing. secretary pacheco: the motion is from commissioner garcia to continue this until october 20, to allow time for the dpw and the appellant to produce additional information. additional briefing is allowed at five pages per party, all due on the same day. on that motion, commissioner fung, vice president goh:,

commissioner hwang. it passes. commissioner hwang: commissioner hwang: welcome back to the board of appeals meeting on september 8, 2010. mr. pacheco, could you please call item eight, our last item? secretary pacheco: item number eight, appeal number v10-075,

anne kenney vs. the zoning and illustrator dealing with 48 newton street, protesting the granted on july 1, 2010, of pravin patel, rear yard vari ance. >> good evening. it should only be in extraordinary circumstances or when it would cause difficulties or unnecessary hardship. basically, this is a case where mr. patel created hardship for himself after blatant disregard of the building permit process. mr. patel began addition on his house without seeking a permit

in his first place, and when he did file for a permit, he requested a building permit for a two-unit permit, and under the code, the section that nms. kenney is in, you are only allowed a one-unit permit. there is still remarkable evidence to show that there is a two-unit plan proceeding. there are two mail slots. there are two dresses, two -- two addresses, two satellite hookups.