, which is a good sign, but still i can hear whatever is going on at the gas station. speaking of light pollution there is certainly going to be some light pollution . so, this picture is taken from my unit. currently, you see most of the ghosts covered by the trees in front of my building, but, as current permit allows, they are going to be removed. this is, i would imagine, the kind of you i will have from my apartment.. i also want to speak up on behalf of other residents in the residential -- okay >> clerk: mr. bock sure we

hear from that apartment anything further? no to it okay. the permit holder? >> testifier: just a viewpoint mac from the image he showed you is no trees on the gas station so the street now. were doing the tree that is in front of you is being replaced with six trees across the street from the gas station and large trees. so, in fact it will be directly -- [inaudible] will be six times -- means you will not see the guest vision in either circumstance. so lay pollution, noise pollution, will not increase. also that site is going to be developed. there has been planning applications filed silver think about the long-term future here,

that something that should be considered here. today's hearing is a tree removal hearing we still have to file our tree planting permit which is a separate application. today, everyone is on the same page about removing the trees and the question is what took place with. we have not filed the permit yet and we worked with a pound to figure out exactly in the trees with the trees and where to put them. so, he is welcome to appeal that, but hopefully we can get to a point that we all agreed that today, which is our tree removal, we still move forward with the project and i pulled up until we figure out eventually what gets put their and give us time to work it out before we file our treeplanting permit >> commissioner: when is that, thomas? >> testifier: we prepared a draft of the permit we have not filed it because we wanted to work with the appellants to make sure everyone was on the same page.

>> clerk: commissioners, the matter is submitted . >> commissioner i would like assurances from that apartment that of a better compromise. even if there is -- multiple parties do not total unhappiness. we have two determines both planting and urban forestry. >> testifier: dept. of public works great as always we can adhere to the guidelines i am here this evening try to get gatekeeper and not on the phone with the appellants the other day was getting excited like but slow this thing out but that is why you talk to your peers and colleagues in you say well, it reasons why we have these spacing requirements we

want to create a planner works long-term and does not create foliage blocking street like in the future because they are doing that across the city. but for certain, we were committed to working with the appellants with the project sponsor in planning and try to figure out how we can maximize the number workplace injuries here while adhering to the guidelines. perhaps someone could look into the spacing of the puc what those requirements are to see the could be shifted in some way. >> commissioner 40 inch box we really even have people insult 40 inch box because there is a crane that is involved. these gees are probably 20 feet, 25 maybe a mac >> testifier: the size of the tree, the height of the tree is still 10-15 feet tall. and certainly not 20 feet. it is only a commitment, i think to try to maximize the size of the tree very first day they go in.

>> commissioner: maples are slow-growing. >> testifier: yes. the good news is having everyone is higher work on this the evergreen species is definitely a way to bridge the gap here. >> commissioner cannot i like the red maples beard of the light pollution as well as the noise during certain parts of the year. >> commissioner [inaudible] they may be greater psychological [inaudible] but they do not block a noise. >> commissioner: i am a little confused because it seems to me most tree removal permits we have dealt with we get very specific about the replacements. december discussion about a permit for placement, so why in this case of a separate direct >> testifier: to clarify, i would say i disagree with the

project sponsor a little bit in that assessment. the permit before he is the tree removal and replacement permit. replacement is a valid point of discussion as part of removal. so, i think this is a tree removal permit with replacement. there are times with dr. moments when of getting down the road, another treeplanting application and it helps us address the planning code requirements for number of trees for linear frontage. there are times when applicants do both and there are times when we use the removal permit in all cities replacement aspect as is part of the true replacement. so, i think it is legitimate to talk about replacement as part of his permit. >> commissioner: in that case, my inclination would be to continue this dialogue because it would suggest that there has been discussions they ran out of time because of today's hearing, and i would be leery of making a decision because i

do not know technically was going to be feasible or acceptable here so that discussions are ongoing, why do not we give this a matter time? >> commissioner is there any time urgency? >> testifier: it would delay the ability for 45 lansing to start construction, which would mean they would delay their occupancy by a month. so i want to remind the commission, this unique project in that as we mention this but 45 lansing is a big [inaudible] postage stamp site. they were able to make the state's requirement on the sites of the planning commission's work required them to go over maintenance of this face in perpetuity. they shared tree [inaudible] so that is a substantial benefit touch

it also powerlines. the consequence of that would be it would delay the permit. >> commissioner: i understand that, but i do not feel comfortable rendering a decision right now. i need the parties to come back with a plan to mac >> testifier: initially were posing red maples and we -- i am not sure what the name is prison evergreens pay she is. that was everyone was comfortable with that. we were going to go ahead and permit that today. the species that was seven trees or nine trees or so around lansing and the gas station. the two issues that came up beyond that were adding two more trees, which got to tree spacing issues too close together and how the trees and squishing the tree

next to the squeak streetlight which is pushing against the coda. public works and planning to feel we can say we can approve them without speaking with the puc. the other issue that has come up, we are trying to switch the last minute i think there is a command to find a different light. working with a pc on that. they need to approve the lights in photometric study when you switch up the street at vastly more analysis mac that also is easily done and submitted to the puc but we can say with certainty into the puc blesses it. there is definite commitment to do both those things, however, those two issues, we will be will to enter >> commissioner how long has that apartment working on the street issue specifically? >> testifier: federate. >> commissioner how long have the plans for this building been in the works? if you want

you can come for to the podium. >> testifier: just to clarify, we did the breakup permits and body has permits refiled virtually mobile separate from the treeplanting. is reasonably should talk well over the place the trees with. i agree with that, but the fact that the street state including -- has all been approved by planning mta, and given the discretion of the local stakeholders as well as planning to figure out exactly what species the types of trees. we all agreed that there is going to be a certain number of trees at a minimum there are going to be there whether it is deciduous or evergreen. the question that we have not filed , that we have not figured out, is to make sure that, if we do plan the evergreens that the rest of the neighbors of them be okay with it. >> commissioner i should have a specific thing it time for arguing a case

>> testifier: i just want you to know we do have separate permits for nl [inaudible] >> commissioner thank you. >> commissioner: you will get another shot at this, but in terms of some of us who [inaudible] >> testifier: one recommendation could be conditioning approval that the tree is not actually be removed until this issue be resolved satisfactorily by all parties. perhaps, years away here is a way for the commission to say -- to proceed with permit issuance of the site permit, whatever >> commissioner: no difference than the demolition permit to the [inaudible] >> testifier: yes. they will be one suggestion. >> commissioner is there something we can do? now okay.

i can accept that. to mesh >> commissioner not to the satisfaction -- what i do not want do is great everyone has got to be happy. >> commissioner: it may not be possible, but i do not think we can have a lot of people have the happy and a couple not happy. >> commissioner: spread the pain. >> commissioner then, i am going to move to deny the appeal and approve this removal permit. >> commissioner [inaudible] >> commissioner excuse me, conditioned upon that the removal does not occur until

the planning permit is issued. >> commissioner the project can still go forward? the initial project and so go forward? because they have to start before they actually start their project at 45, right? >> commissioner no. 45 is almost on. what they do not want is the delay to their occupancy. i believe if i heard correctly. in fact i see it all the time. >> clerk: would you care to see the basis for emotion? >> commissioner: that the removal -- i hate to use the

word wanted -- >> clerk: i was not sure if it was to give the parties more time to work out a resolution? >> commissioner yes. thank you for the suggestion. >> commissioner it was a true rule is not to occur until >> clerk: a planting permit. until a planet planting permit is issued. .>> staff: until a planting permit is issued. very well

there is a motion on the floor than from commissioner, tech to uphold this permit on condition that the tree removal is not occur until the planting permit is issued. this is on the basis of the parties need more time. to seek a resolution. on a motion to up old pres. lazarus aye is present honda aye commissioner wilson dick aye commissioner sweet is absent the boat is 4-0 this permit is uphold with that condition and on the basis. >> clerk: thank you. item he has been withdrawn with and move on to item 9. that his appeal number 15 060 mere talebi vs. the planning apartment approvals of the property at 2744 center street. protesting the issuance on

april 3, 2015 to brian courtney gerardo of an alteration permit. door for this permit is under the only -- [inaudible] person second-floor on the south side and one on the north side all of the work under separate permit. mr. talebi you may begin. you have 7 min. >> testifier: good evening commissioners. my name is a mere kilday talebi and i live at 20 748 steiner street. in a very steep hill between broadway and -- street. i have lived in my house for over 21 years. today i want to present to you an exceptional and extraordinary case. my new wall-to-wall labor, located to mike uphill and south is standing a rear yard extension on the property line. this extension which goes out 15

feet beyond my rear wall impacts are light, air and open space. in addition, it will be huge massive impact. furthermore, the proposed -- will directly look into our bathroom which will impact our privacy. can i have the projector, please, the overhead? [inaudible] the permit holder is located on the south side. this is the existing floor plan of my house and to the left and permit holders house to the right. the permit holders plan construction starts on her property line, highlighted in

yellow and because several feet beyond my deck. the permit holder would be moving the stairs to the southern wall. as you can see, by this exhibit, by moving the stairs adjacent to the southern wall the permit holder is maximizing their terrace space as their living space. i would also like to point out that the wall facing their terrorist is made out of glass doors and windows, so that they can maximize the benefit of the southern son. in the meantime, the construction of pleasant street

walls on the property line on top of the 7 feet retaining wall will block are light and air. this is the back of our house, and this is the kind of son we are presently getting. in this exhibit i would like to stress that the roofline of the neighbor will be extending on the property line and a couple feet beyond art i also want to emphasize the we had a retaining wall of 7 feet, 3 inches, right where the proposed construction is supposed to stop. in other words, will be looking at an 18 foot wall, several feet beyond our deck. this is a picture of the existing 6.5 foot fence

within the two properties which stops at a rear wall. the bottom knob is solid wood in the top of his latticed murk another important aspect overlooked point out in this picture is the retaining wall between the permit holder and their southern neighbor. it is between eight to 10 feet high. they have [inaudible] with no impact on the other neighbor. this is a teams review of the plans and their findings. their findings are midblock open space. rdt, in the review had indicated the site plan must be revised to reflect a site setback. they also

referred the planner to pages 25-27. this is the residential design guideline page 27 requiring the site setback to minimize the impact. the other picture is what my neighbor wants to do and the middle picture is what the -- is asking to do. this study shows the impact on her family room, will he spend the majority of our time. the top is the existing. vs. the bottom which is the permit for [inaudible]. this is the study

of our master bedroom that the top is the permit holders [inaudible] this is a shadow study of our second bedroom. the top is the existing.. what is proposed is the bottom. this picture portrays the massive impact of that post construction on our house. existing is on the top vs. permit holders plan on the bottom. this picture shows the permit holders on the proposal to us in june 1214. propose a 6 foot setback, and yet, they decided to place an outdoor kitchen on the setback, on the

property line, and adjacent to our deck. when i asked mr. gerardo if he could move his outdoor kitchen summerhouse in his huge backward his boss was and i quote "that is an art and efficient use of myspace." this is our proposal regarding for the knee extension and the terrace. the impact will be mitigated when we have no impact on the southern neighbor. really glad to answer any questions they may have. thank you. >> commissioner did the architect for the permit holder holding meetings direct >> testifier: no >> commissioner so when the 311 notification came out they offered no meeting to share

their drawings or anything? >> testifier: no, we have had no meetings can delay meeting i can give you a list of them to you was the application meeting which was very short, a few minutes, and they told us they were going to do this. we had a couple of meetings, 5-10 min. each between the two parties. the total meetings excluding the preoccupation and the neighborhood meetings that we went to war total of 4 min. >> commissioner: so they could have meetings direct >> testifier: the only meeting they had was were they proposed -- the only meeting they had was they proposed a solution which was the kitchen, putting an outdoor kitchen on the property line on the deck [inaudible] and only asked them when we should meet next to discuss this thing, they said this is approved and final. the archetype, he told us does the actual and file members only to have any more meetings. >> commissioner thank you.

>> commissioner i think that is a result of the 311 notice. >> clerk: thank you. we can hear from the permit holder. >> testifier: my name is david step at a am here on behalf of brian and courtney gerardo. personalizing to address one, that was just made about to be no meetings. mr. talebi is being a little disingenuous. there were at least a half-dozen meetings, if you look in his brief it even identifies when the meetings took place at the 311 less than

an hour several meeting lasted an hour and was also given the accessibility of the architects alone to meet. several meetings took place and that is just incomprehensible when he said. in any case from our point out the notice in the agenda tonight is -- was a little incorrect and that identifies the place that were originally approved, which was quite some time ago and those plans been modified by the discretionary review hearing. would have shown you here at this visual is the changes have been made. i will make sure we get through those. this is -- these marks red marks, is whether setback was made to setback the top second floor to align with mr. talebi property. these are also the dormers that were removed it says that

to dormers were built were proved. actually, these two dormers were removed damon mr. talebi raised a very legitimate concern about privacy. brian and courtney removes the two that would have opposed issue the only one that remains maine's accurate front that looks over his property. we can show your picture what that is what there you is roughly from that you can see that actually, that is from the window but proximate in the same location where that -- is so, there was no privacy concerned as a result of these windows a longer. i also want to point out the issue with regard to the light shadow study. the shadow city that mr. talebi has presented to you was done and hypothetical situation. i want to point out

the conditions on the site. this picture is actually from the planning dept. -- they have this and they pointed out that the slope of the sale, as artie said is very steep 20% greater. by the time you get to broadway is at least another 20 feet taller. by the time you even get to this corner which is also steep going from steiner to the east that is another 20 feet. those buildings on the top are actually now about 80 feet above -- both mr. -- home split the shadow, including the landscaping the landscaping actually already impact. >> commissioner uncertainty winter can you indicate [inaudible] tested this is the south and this is north. i

also want to point out that one of the other cop >> testifier: by the way it was a residential design comments were mentioned was the original design, back in march of 2014, these changes were made considerable changes made since then to actually residential design team pointed out that the concern for mr. talebi shadow his persona as windows is actually a problem [inaudible] you can see how this house i should lock the window that shows you is being blocked. this one will show you the fence. the one thing that is hard for me to understand for mr. talebi's comments this notion of 18 feet. i have talked to mr. talebi about it. i do not know how we get to a tv because his

property so much lower than ours. we do know is that the height of the new addition along the property line will be approximately 3.5 feet taller than this fence. it is notice that the top roughly 3 feet of this fence is a lattice, but still it is about 6 feet. then, the property sets back 3 feet from the property line the second story, and it says that 8 feet from the front extension. so, from the second story setback is setback and 8 feet so it is actually [inaudible] on his property. i think that we have addressed the major concern of his privacy. i do not believe we have seen the issue appropriately of any light impact. the commission and the planning dept. reviewed all the same plans and drawings we have seen. there is no