was there a history of city- planted trees in this area? >> not to my knowledge. they were planted with permits. i believe they were always planted by the property owners. >> the pair is a very slow- growing trees. good >> this is a slow-growing evergreen pear. the orange trees grow faster. the evergreen pear does not grow upright. >> and the plum? >> aplomb is considered medium, so it is not considered -- plum is considered medium, so it is considered slow-growing. >> you showed it is ok to remove

one of the trees because of the disease. what is the size of the replacement tree? >> 24 inch box. >> what if a compromise or reach -- were reached democrats i think we would be getting closer. we would not -- where --? >> i think we would be getting closer. we would still not have a diameter of we need. it is certainly better than 24. >> we have a question about two 36's. and we are probably getting closer to the same benefits of the trees that would remain in terms of capturing the missions. -- capturing the missions. >> we would see a delay, because they would provide more benefits.

and the analysis it was anything from a 10-year delay. >> what would be a reasonable size fed would address some of the concerns of the apartment house -- that would address some of the concerns the department has? >> generally that would be a 60- inch to 72 inch box. you could get back in here, because they have all lawn area, but that is much more expensive. it involves many more people to get the tree in the ground. gooit all depends on the specie.

>> is there cause for concern about the life expectancy of that tree? >> it is probably leaning because of the wind. it can be hard to attempt to keep them upright with stakes. if it is a windy corridor, they can uproot them. we did try to be thorough in our evaluation, and we look for any signs of displacement in the roots, and which you can see some signal the tree has shifted. we found no indication of that, so it is our feeling it has grown into that lean, so you can try to correct a form. you will never get the trunk corrected, but you can make it a

little more of light through judicious pruning. we do not -- a little more upright through judicious pruning. we do not think it is falling over. >> have you had any discussions about a 60-inch box replacement? >> that did not come up at the department of hearing. >> my last question, it seems as if there is some discrepancy about whether or not there is sidewalk of damage, and the appellant maintains there was and it has been repaired, and my memory is they have stated there was no damage to the sidewalk. >> the sidewalk was in good condition now. it may have been repaired, and that may be why it is in good condition. if this is in good condition and the tree is in good condition,

we do not care if it was repaired in the past or not. the tree is fine, and the sidewalk is fine. if it were not possible to repair the sidewalk because we thought it would impact the tree, that is possible. >> if a tree in the past has been able to damage the sidewalk, the possibility still exists in the future it could do that. >> it certainly does. these trees are less likely to do so because they have a wider space. where we see more substantial sidewalk damages where trees are planted in a small basin and we cannot expand it. any species of tree is capable of causing sidewalk damage. they are living things. evergreen trees are not a species that typically causes sidewalk damage, and yet in this case the property owner has indicated it has. whether it will do so in the

future cannot be predicted. >> this is more of a comment you could respond to, but it seems as though we have a policy that we encourage people to plant trees, and even if if is an esthetic issue, there are some problems with a tree the remains, and the homeowner has been denied the right to remove it. it is not a graeme tree people would drive by to look at, so we might be discouraging people to plant trees if we are going to be so hard on the one they hope to replace it, even if it is is for us that it reasons. what do you think about that? >> i think that is a valid

concern. i would respond the public works code was not written by the u.s. it was written by our legislators with feedback from the public, and as you know, people feel very strongly about the removal of trees, so we have to have some guidelines in place for when removals can be granted. that would satisfy both the needs of property owners and the needs of the public who benefit from these trees and appreciate and value them, so in order to be consistent, our policy is consistent with public works code, which requires we look a condition of these trees before we grant removal. if we can get equal value, in some cases we have approved removal and replacement, but i think the challenge of we are not only on a losing that

benefit, but also losing the establishment of these trees. >> is there any public comment on this item? we will move into rebuttal. if you have anything more to say, you have three minutes. >> first of all, i think all the issues have been put on the table. we would be open to the proposal. we disagree that it is a slight lean. we believe it is a considerable lean, and our research shows it is over the amount it should been taken down the road -- taken down. trees are that should be allowed to prosper, but we do not want to deal with more damage to the sidewalk, but we would be open

to some sort of compromise that involved a bigger trees so that the department of public works would be pleased with that. >> how much bigger would you be willing? what about the '60? >> when i heard about the frame, that is not exactly where i want to go, so maybe there is a balance. >> anything further? on the matter is submitted. >> should we give them an opportunity to discuss a possible compromise and come back? >> i do not think that is necessary. i am not sure the department

will back off from a fairly established position you're a good -- established position. >> id would get similar sidestreet your good -- need would get a similar size tree. >> i am not sure i agree with that. the city replaced them with 24- inch in boxes. i do not think it is fair to make the citizens go through such an elaborate increase in size. i would be willing to consider making both trees and 48 inches. they can still be handled by a

small group of people without extraordinary tools or equipment. >> can we hear from ms. short on facthat, on whether that would e something to do satisfy the department? >> it would involve a crane, but often you can get a crane with tree deliver repair reagan >> it is more of a cherry picker -- you can get a crane to deliver. >> it is more of a cherry picker. >> generally, we do not take out the trees unless they are very unhealthy, but that seems like a substantial contribution, and we do not want to be unreasonable, sir sure.

>> can you give me a sense of the installation? general ballpark. >> typically, we buy it at a reduced cost, and we install it ourselves. i know the cost could be $1,200. with insulation you are probably adding another $1,000. >> how about 60 inch? >> that would be several thousand dollars more. please do not hold me to those numbers. >> that is close enough now to the range. hear from the appellant, because if you are opposed, there is no sense in trying to explore that possibility. >> i would go with the 48.

i want to make sure there are two trees, and we can do the trees we want to do. >> this court has never imposed a 48 on anyone, have we? >> we have, multiple times. >> i take that back. this board has a history of imposing 48 on anyone. that is a reasonable thing to do. i would have been ok with 46. çthe point that was broughtç p having to do with the city policy of making it difficult for people to have trees that match and have a greater potential for success on that particular street as demonstrated by what happened with this shrieve. it seems that i would want to

relax a little bit, but i would support a motion to overturn the department and allow this individual to replace trees so far as he is willing to replace them with 48-inch boxes. >> i am going to make that motion, and given the parties have already stated on the record they would be able to do that. that would be the basis for the motion. >> with the plum tree species specified as a replacement. >> if you could call and roll please. >> as a side recommendation, these trees need to be staked well. there are good details and by details -- bad details.

otherwise you are going to end up with a leading tree again. >> we have a motion to grant this appeal, overruled the denial on condition that those trees be of 48-inch box size, and we are also imposing the plum tree requirement. >> flowering plum. >> 48-internet now box size and flowering plum. -- 48 inch box size and flowering plum. the vote is 4-0. this grant is issued on those conditions. thank you. >> we will call the next item, which is item no. 5, ruth levy

versus the department of public works, appealing the denial of minor sidewalk infringement. we will start with the appellant. you have seven minutes. >> good evening, born. -- board. my family owns the property adjacent to the permit holder. i grew up two blocks from this property. i live in the neighborhood. i have lived there for over 50 years, so i know the neighborhood quite well. my mother had her antique shop on the block. i am quite familiar with it. i live in the city, and i believe the permit holders do not live in the city, so i have concerns about the aesthetics, but i have other issues, too.

this all started because of an accessibility issue, and my niece's a special needs of young woman, so i am very sensitive to disabilities. we have tried to bend over backwards to be in reasonable about this. there seems to be a disconnect between the building and planning, which we discovered, and the department of streets and napkin -- mapping. the proposed ramp is 60 feet long, eight and a half feet wide, and it is described as a minor encroachment. i do not see how a 60-foot long and now is a minor encroachment. it will be eight and a half feet wide, and it will take up most of the sidewalk.

of the biggest problem is a safety issue. the cars on this particular block -- i can show pictures. at a diagonal, so most of theed parking is across this particular piece of property. there are three owners on this block. myself, nopreservation parties, and the property owners. the people across the street do not care. with a diagonal parking, and people getting out of the car would have to walk behind all of the cars to come around to this rounamp. the edge of it goes right to my property. we already have issues about skateboarders. we have graffiti problems.

the junior high-school is about half a block away, so we have dozens of young teenagers coming through. they are issues, but the issue of trying to get onto the sidewalk is and biggest concern. there is a ballet school with people getting in and out of cars with strollers and little children. there are trees along the sidewalk, so there is no access except to go 30 feet one way or the other to get onto the ground. -- on the ramp. it is a shame the owners have to go through lawsuits, but their property was never ada and accessible. the solution would have been

inside the building. i spoke to the architect. they said it would take up too much rentable space. the burden would fall on the community and property owners. i have tended to have struggled. i have a word rents considerably just to keep them around. if this -- i have a word read considerably -- lowered rents considerably. if this goes down, i will lose tenants. there are business issues. this is also an economic issue. i do not know if you would like to see some of the pictures, but i can show them. i was told there is precedent for this kind of brown. -- of ramp. i went to the zen center to look

uat the ramp they have built. it takes up only half the sidewalk. i sat there for half an hour. there were two people who walked by, so it is a completely different environment than what we have. here is a picture of the property we are talking about. one of the shops in this three- unit and building, two of the storefronts have combined. that problem is solved, and that was the worst. they had gotten a minor encroachments, and this issue was solved with a minor encroachment, and what they did was put out a minor amount in

front of the store front. that really should have been solved before hand. here is this little ramp. there is a downhill slope. these are the other two entrances. this was no. 11, which is the most problematic to get into it. this is no longer used anyway. these are minor encroachments. this is where the problem started. i would also like to add that most of the other stores, they

have done an inset into the property with a ramp on the property, rather than on the sidewalk, so i guess my time is out. -- is up. >> we will hear from the permit holders, now. >> good evening, members of the board. goothe u.s. congress signed into law the americans with

disabilities act. for property owners that are not doing remodeling, complying with the ada can be costly. cooperation with the department of public works to allow sidewalk modifications for cost- effective building entrances is critical. it would be a different story if of a property owner was proposing to be model of a building -- to remodel a building. mrs. levy has genuine concerns. i met with her to clarify the design. property owners and tenants were sued in federal court. one of the tenants has closed her business.

this building was originally constructed in 1908 as a masonic lodge with five ground-floor places. we provided accessible entrances. i would like to describe the proposed design and a couple of options and we studied. let me start with the plan. right where my finger is is the corner. that is the entrance, pretty much as it is now, to the village pizzeria.

there are another four stores. today the spaces have been combined, and the other spaces remain the same. this is the optionç we did that was included for a permit. it shows an 8 foot 8 inch wide and ramp, and a four and a half foot wide area between this street and this area. it is not really a ramp. the only thing that is a ramp is

this area, and the rest of it is just a raised sidewalk that is fairly level. we also looked at the notion of having interior, solving the problem within the property itself, and that is shown here. as you can see, for each of these spaces, it would take a fair amount of space to put ramps inside. we also looked at a five-foot wide ramp, but the department

told us of was not a feasible option, because the ruling would be in the middle of the sidewalk. as far as the issue of parking, i know that is a concern that it is going to be difficult to get from the parking space to the sidewalk area because of the railing that runs the length of our split level sidewalk, and along the front of the building, there are eight parking spaces. five of them are actually where the proposed split level sidewalk will be. it is not all of the parking spaces, so of those parking spaces, two will be able to go

around their own car to get onto the sidewalk. the other three cars in the middle would need to go behind a parked car, and it is somewhat similar to a shopping center, were you sometimes need to go to a parking lot area, go behind cars to get to your store, walking down the traffic island. -- isle. ças far as vandalism and graffiti, i recognize that may be a problem, but i cannot see how the railing is going to encourage or increase the amount of graffiti or vandalism. and we have not found out to be the case, and we hdo