chan here? >> good evening, commissioners. my name is lydia and i am the agent for danny and stella chan who are the previous owners. that is correct. we recently had been discussing with chris about the future plantation and here are three reasons i would object to it. so i understand that the trees were not suitable for the location to begin with. it would have been removed again if stella had the knowledge about the code, and had been doing it in the proper way. instead they proved -- printed and made it unhealthy. instead of asking the city to remove it. they were told it was owner's his responsibility to maintain the tree at the time. if they had done it correctly, the trees would have been removed safely and no replacement would have been needed since it was not suitable [please stand by] to the property. >> the trees are in contact with the wall. recommendation owners to trim the trees away from the wall to prevent excessive moisture build up on the right wall. the excessive moisture suconducive to fungus and damages. we don't want to t

it has lydia chan's name. i do check those from time to time. >> at one point, i would imagine that the previous owner would say i don't own this, why are you calling me? now it is hard for us to enforce something on someone that is not here. that doesn't own the property. >> i understand. we have plenty of folks we never hear from. we send registered mail letter after letter. short of yanking someone out of the home which we will not do. this is someone clearly involved with the current property trying to move forward. >> even if you negotiate they don't have the ability to negotiate. they are not the owner of property. if they agreed to plant or not plant. it has nothing to do with them. if i want to work on your car and i say paint chris' car red, you are not going to be happy with that. that is how i look at it. >> i think we asked the question of council and give them a chance to speak. are we dealing with the right people? is this valid in any way, shape or form. thal appellant is appealing against not t