not only was the study area rich in 19th century buildings and historic resources but only excluded two of the lots from the potential historic district and that he found. what unusual circumstances are there here? we have been building that was made it to the secretary of the interior. there was a prior deal which was required and it was thrown out. the developer settled and then exceeds the scope of work. i will answer any questions. are there any questions? but moved to public comment for individuals who wish to speak on behalf of the appellant? i have a number of speaker cards. if anyone else wishes to speak, stepped up to the microphone. she i live in two places up. over the last there has been a blight in my neighborhood that has affected my home, the project of where i live. i m there because frankly i don t feel i have been represented either from the planning department or the russian hill neighbors or any of those who i thought would protect me or would do b
supervisor campos: your argument would be that there is no substantial advantage? correct, we have not been presented with any substantial evidence. supervisor cohen: did the report also look at the potential impact of the new construction for surrounding properties that might be included in a new historic district? yes. the department invited the new project and took into consideration the offsite historic resources of any potential historic districts and considered that with the proposed project. president chiu: any follow up to your question? supervisor cohen: now that you call me, i think i will ask one more question. this building will be eligible for the inclusion in that district, right ms. tam? this building is not a historic resource or a contributor to the district, but we do believe it is compatible with the district. president chiu: any additional questions to planning? seeing none, we will go to the real party of interest for a presentation of up to 10 minu
supervisor cohen: did the report also look at the potential impact of the new construction for surrounding properties that might be included in a new historic district? yes. the department invited the new project and took into consideration the offsite historic resources of any potential historic districts and considered that with the proposed project. president chiu: any follow up to your question? supervisor cohen: now that you call me, i think i will ask one more question. this building will be eligible for the inclusion in that district, right ms. tam? this building is not a historic resource or a contributor to the district, but we do believe it is compatible with the district. president chiu: any additional questions to planning? seeing none, we will go to the real party of interest for a presentation of up to 10 minutes. i am rick gladstone. to my right is sam kelley, an attorney in my office to advise me on this for several years. as you know, the client provide
therefore you bear on the side of having an environmental review? i do not know what planning has to say about that. thank you. joy naverette of planning staff. we responded to that in our pocket. the substantial evidence rule is the standard of review for determination of whether a building is a historic resource for the purposes of ceqa. it is not their argument that requires us to prepare an eir. in the city of fresno in 2008, the court concluded the substantial evidence rule and not the fair argument test applies to a local agency determination of whether a building that has not previously been determined eligible for the california register of historic resources has not otherwise been determined to be a historic resource, such as in this case. supervisor campos: your argument would be that there is no substantial advantage? correct, we have not been presented with any substantial evidence. supervisor cohen: did the report also look at the potential impact of the new
presentation of up to 10 minutes. good afternoon. on understand you received over 275 pages of information regarding this appeal. you should have been two page appeal letter from the appellant and you should have something from the product sponsor. he should have a planning department appealed response and lastly he should have a late submission by the appellate which contains over 80 pages. because the planning department did not receive the late submission from the appellant until last friday, we did not have a chance to respond in writing. in today s presentation i will go over the issues brought before you in the letter. there are two main points that i would like to go ahead and highlight in the response from the department and the first one is that large trade is not a historic resources. this is a two-story single- family dwelling located towards the real portion of an up sloping lot. the rear portion. the front portion was excavated in the 1990 s. here is the appr