"First, property owners who propose to damage historic buildings are subject
to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)...Second, property owners of buildings that
could be
landmarked (local, state or national) qualify for 20-70% property tax
reduction under
the Mills Act"

That was exactly what I meant by "relevant." It helps place your question in
context.

There's a longstanding folk tradition that says that people can do pretty
much what they want to with their own property, within the framework of the
law.  I'm told that it's particularly strong in the Golden State. I expect
that the board felt that letting the guy do what he wanted with the private,
interior spaces was a reasonable compromise that might keep them from being
sued.

-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Ron
May
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 10:50 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: How Do You Feel About Gutting an Historic Building?


Lauren,

"How is that relevant?" Well, I consider historic buildings an artifact of
an
archaeological landscape and wanted to know what people think. There are two
things about California law that make this relevant. First, property owners
who propose to damage historic buildings are subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and my feeling is that gutting a potential
National
Register building (does not have to be on a register) would trigger an
environmental impact report. Second, property owners of buildings that could
be
landmarked (local, state or national) qualify for 20-70% property tax
reduction under
the Mills Act. The property owner last night was defiant and refused to
apply
for Mills Act because he is hell-bent to gut the building and demanded
approval without getting caught up in CEQA. Without judging the historic
board that
allowed the gutting to occur, I was simply seeking comment... and got it.

Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.