Stay updated with breaking news from William pasteur. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
to note that there are nine lots between the addresses 1215 and 1275, as seen here. most of them have structures at the rear. eight have structures at the very front. the original structures at the rear were from the 1870 s. within 10 years, the structures at the front were built one by one. my client s property is the exception property that has no front structure. the appellants take the position that all the the existing structure is not historic enough to preserve, that its location on a lot should be memorialized permanently by placing a new structure in the same footprint as the existing law. to help convince you that empty space in front of the current structure has acquired its own historical status, they are making the claims it is very typical to assign historical status to an empty portion of a lot and not a structure. but this is extraordinarily unusual, as our historic expert can tell you. it relied on planning and the preservation commission, who do not ....
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 1 ....
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 p ....
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 th ....
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 th ....