job of finding the quantitative elements. this is going to be a very difficult final decision for us and anybody else. >> would this come back to us? >> no. >> this it. we're just commenting on the e.i.r. >> clarifying comment. mitigation measure, interpretation, does require the sponsor to hire consultant to create a historical study in san francisco during the 1960s. is it your request that they produce something in addition to that or expand the scope of that? >> yes. >> commissioner black: and a

panel. >> it's visual and it's oral. it included sound and video. i thought it was well written. it was very inclusive of the impact of what a rock and roll interpretation would be. >> the question more does scope of the study consultants hired for, is it extensive enough. it's not necessarily a context statement on counterculture of san francisco. >> it's not. it does give the respons sponsoe option to expand the scope. >> commissioner black.

>> commissioner black: thank you. in light what was just said, a phase one of a counterculture study could occur. this project will be the genesis of that. do i think that's an interesting concept. i do think this is an appropriate site for that to begin. that it be done with it in mind that something bigger would grow out of it. >> commissioner pearlman: rock and roll museum west. i think from what mr. bueller said, he was requesting that we ask that there will be funds as part of a mitigation measure to do the study about counterculture. not that it necessarily had to be part of the interpretive part of the mitigation measure, that there be funds provided for a

study be done about san francisco counterculture. we're sort of on the same page. i think we're all on the same page that that will be our request in addition to that particular mitigation measure that we also request that mitigation measure be expanded to include funds to do a counterculture study. does a make sense. >> do we want to request staff to write a letter? mr. frye? >> we're requesting a letter to the planning commission stating that we reviewed the e.i.r., we agree with the findings relative to historic resources that the alternative adequately addresses preservation alternatives preserving the project or the

building. >> add to the mitigation measure about including funds to fund citywide counterculture context statement. >> any additional commenteds. >> right on? >> on the mitigation, that should happen. i expressed this. mitigation should be done. >> that is part of it. >> no matter what. >> it's part of any project. >> i want to clarify that. >> president wolfram: thank you very much. case number 16.

certificate of appropriateness. >> good afternoon commissioners. the inflatio application befores request for certificate of protonesofappropriateness to deh one story garden house located at 3620 buchanan street and construct a new four story eight

unit residential building. the one story garden house and poot yeo are located on the same parcel designated as city landmark number 58 also known as the merryvale san francisco gas light company building. the property was designated in 1973 for association with the san francisco gas light company and north beach station. the garden house and garden patio are noncontributing features to the overall significance of the landmark site as they represent changes to the property that took place after the period of significance of the site which is identified as 1893 to 1958. additionally the garden house and garden patio are not associated with events or persons that have made significant contributions to local state or national history and are not considered examples of work by a master architects.

they will be considered significant in their own right. the proposed project was heard by the review committee of the historic preservation commission on august 15, 2018. a.r.c. provided comments on the project with regard to material and entryway. staff finds that the proposed work conditioned as recommended, will be in conform with the planning code. the proposed design appeared to be compatible with the character of the landmark site with specific regard to scale, materials. the proposed project will not destroy our alter or remove character features of the atlanta mark site and the special form of the landmark. additionally the project will

maintain set back of the buchanan street to allow for greater visibility of on the site at the pedestrian level. staff recommendation. s for the project can be found on page 8 of the case report. the first condition is that a part of the site permit submittal, the project sponsor shaz submit final material for the proposed brick clodding and metal railing to be approved by preservation staff. the second is also part of the site. the project sponsor shall submit final details for the proposed windows and entryway to be reviewed and approved by preservation staff. for the third condition, i would like to make a correction. which is included in your packet. the third condition should

state, the project sponsor shall complete a site visit with department preservation staff not preservation enforcement staff to verify compliance with the proofed project description. sense the commission packet were distributed the department received two letters in opposition to the project which i have a copy of for the record. this concludes my presentation. i'm available for any questions and we do have the preservation consultant as well as the project architectur architect. >> thank you. project sponsor want to come forward and do a presentation? >> good afternoon, my name is maggie smith i'm a planner. we have been providing preservation on this project.

i will provide an overview of the site which includes a nonhistoric garden and nonhistoric building. located at 3620 buchanan street. i will review the capability with the landmark building.

>> with a new paving and plantings to become the courtyard as it is today. the garden house workshop and the adjacent altered courtyard garden are not associated with the development of the san francisco gaslight company. the northbeat station where the landmarks endorse or the -- although the designation notes of the garden house workshop as being equally impressive, the one-story building is an altered vernacular building with a mixture of architectural styles. the garden house workshop and

courtyard garden are not individualist resources and are not contributing or character defining features of the landmark number 58. this was determined in our resource development from 2016 which was confirmed by the planning department and our preservation team. the 1973 landmark designation did not provide a list of character defining features that we did provide a detailed building description. we have identified the character defining features which include red brick construction, massing, roof structures, fenestration, decorative terra-cotta lentils, arched entrance and open space surrounding the building. the proposed project has gone through several iterations to improve its compatibility with landmark 58. we have determined that the project complies with the standards for rehabilitation, especially standards two, nine and ten. the proposed project will

demolish the nonhistoric garden house workshop and a portion of the nonhistoric courtyard garden to construct a four-story multifamily residential building the proposed project has been located at the southern portion of the site so as not to remove historic fabric. most of the courtyard garden will be retained so that qualities of the site are only minimally changed. the building will still dominate the corner and will be spatially separated from the new building. it will be smaller than that of the historic building. the primary façade of the building has a stepped back amassing some more sightlines of the historic building are retained. if the project is removed in the future, the essential -- essential form of the historic property would not be impaired. the proposed height of the new building will not exceed the overall height of the historic building. the new building will also have a rectangular massing and street frontage similar to the -- historic building as well as the surrounding context.

the new building will be of its time and distinct from the historic building. it will also incorporate materials at a color palette that are compatible. the first three stories will have brick cladding of a similar tone and texture to those of the historic building to address comments from the a.r.c. meeting and accent band of dark brick has been incorporated. the change in material and color palette of the fourth story visually reduces the conveyed massing and relates to the dark tone of the roof. the windows of the building will be picture frame windows. we have found the proposed project to be compatible with and differentiated with -- from landmark 58. come lies with the stan mark -- the standards. -- it complies with the standards. >> thank you. good afternoon.

my name is ian birch. i will try to get to our slideshow as quickly as possible i know i have a short time. our focus was on the massing and the site strategy. i seem to have a problem getting the image up. there we go. thank you. the red cladding indicates the areas we have responded to since the a.r.c. meeting. this is the landmark 58 building courtyard in between -- the courtyard is approximately 50 feet separating the historic building. the proposed building as a frontage on the sidewalk of about 30 feet and the majority of the massing is set back from the sidewalk about 11 feet. i'm talking round numbers to get out of the fractions. the building on the corner -- corner was a recently completed 5098 bay which is showing stoops

onto the sidewalk which were not built for certain reasons the percentage of the open space that we are occupying is about 15% of what is existing open space. this is a view looking towards the bay from the intersection of buchanan. again, looking down the sidewalk and trying to choose the sidewalk experience. you will see here in the center of the image that we are proposing to remove about 24 feet of existing brick wall to allow for a fence to be introduced to allow for views from the sidewalk into the garden and also into the ground floor apartments. this is looking back the other way. followed by a close up showing opening up that wall allows the building itself to be seen and

the landmark building and the garden and to the entrances. our idea was to create a cloistered file and not have the massive and new building dominate at the sidewalk will be respectful of the landmark building was still trying to create a pedestrian presence at the sidewalk level. these are views, going through them quickly. this stuff is also in your package. of aerial views of the rear of the building. and this is the view of the three buildings with the different window treatments, different brickwork. we are going for a stack bond of a norman brick proportioned tile

these are images of railings in the context of the neighborhood. i thank you for your time. i am available to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. >> commissioners, any questions firsthand before we go to public comment? >> we will take public comment on this item. does any member of the public wish to speak on this metrically if so, please come forward. if there is any public comment, now is your time. time is running out. come forward. [laughter] >> who wishes to speak? >> mr buehler. [laughter] >> good afternoon. i'm here with san francisco heritage. i am not here to comment on the

design today. i'm here to request a continuance. we have been working with the project sponsor to schedule a time for our projects and policy committee to review the proposed project and provide our formal comments. that will be occurring on november 30th. i look forward to providing our formal comments after that time. thank you. >> thank you. does any member of the public wish to speak? >> excuse me. hi. my name is lanie and i am a native san franciscan and a homeowner at 3615 buchanan street for 24 years. as stated on your website, san francisco's character depends on the retention of its rich

historical fabric, maintaining and rehabilitating older buildings and neighbourhoods. with recorded documentation from city officials, along with the signature of the then mayor that has been presented to the commission, i'm wondering why we are even here. that mary felt landmark should never have been considered being torn down as it violates a signed city ordinance. thank you. >> thank you. does any other member of the public wish to speak? i think i saw some. >> can you please speak into the microphone. right there in front of you. >> arnold cohen. i have slides that i would like to project on the wall. >> you can put them right under the projector on your right side

yes. that is good. >> can you speak more into the microphone? >> this first line is a block diagram from the assessor's office and it is block 459. lots three is what we are talking about. it is an l-shaped lot and it is kind of hard to see the numbers but you will see some numbers and i will read them off real fast. 118, 68, 69 feet et cetera. these are the numbers that describe the legal description that are in all of the documents that we are referring to. the documents are referring to the l-shaped lot. this is resolution 88, and again , it's hard to read. but this is where the landmark

preservation advisory board -- your predecessor, designated the l-shaped lot as the landmark 58 and it also mentioned the garden , and the garden shop as being important to the landmark. then that was passed to -- oh, i wanted to say, if you will look at the bottom of the thing, you will see this is a signature. she is here today. she was there. so she knows more about this than anybody else. than the landmark preservation board, they sent it to the planning commission and the planning commission approved it, and scent it to the board of supervisors. if you can see it there, it is there file.

this ordinance talks about the landmark, the l-shaped lot. they define it as the l-shaped lot in the ordinance. and then the supervisors passed it, and as they do, they vote on it two times, and you can see their first one, and the one to the right to, and you can see the mayor's signature. he signed it. and what they said in that ordinance is the l-shaped lot is the landmark. and then finally, this is the recording in book 847, page 109 of the official records of san francisco. you will see the legal description, with all those numbers, defining the l-shaped lot as what it is.

>> i will have to ask you to wrap it up, please. >> i am. right now. in this recording, there is another significant sentence that retains the effect of this designation is to impose certain controls and standards on the said property and on the improvements thereon. >> thank you. does any other member of the public wish to comment on this item? >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm very concerned about this. i did not think this would be on your calendar today. because some of us appear to talk about this at the a.r.c. meeting and those commissioners had questions. i assumed it would be back and forth. i am extremely concerned about this. the proposed building takes up a lot of the open space. the open space was already

diminished in the nineties but the owner's desire to put in a camouflaged place for equipment to go. so the whole of the open space is now down to almost nothing. also the new building will go into the open his quite -- space quite a bit. it is very high. none of those things are good and the little building, the little gardening cottage, we did want to protect. but in the seventies it was too young so we could not. i think this site has been milked for all its worth up until now. and i think anymore is just -- >> or a review. the neighborhood has been

meeting on site with the project sponsor and mr arnold has done a fine job in organizing them all in our story here such pleas don't think about housing. don't think about the issues. i assume you all read charles (-left-parenthesis which details the historic preservation issues

very well written and will mean here is hauling. because it is way, they live and work hard she had used the said and he says well here so it is in fact have part of the historic landmark. it is what they do for developers, i guess. if you know the project and if you know the rules, there's a lot of inaccuracies in that report. planning from the beginning has been in favour of the new building.

the preservation planners, one of which is behind me said in one letter to somebody that it's not a national landmark. it is not a state landmark. is only a local landmark. if you know the rules it is the same theme. if it is a local landmark, is not acceptable -- it is therefore acceptable to go through the process. don't even consider a certificate of appropriateness. just tell them to go away. >> thank you. does any other member of the public wish to speak to this matter? >> good afternoon. i'm here representing the 28 homeowners at 1598 bay street. the building next door. i will keep this brief. we are opposed to the project because it is compromising this building. one of the central issues is

whether the landscape gardens above the building are part of the landmark status. a number of landmark documents refer to these gardens and history goes back to 900 and -- 1906 in the proposed pot this project would demolish much of these gardens. quote a special character i emphasize special architectural ecstatic interest and value of this landmark just by his designation and it goes on to state that the handsomely landscaped and spacious areas between the buildings and the original complex for use by refugees following the 1906 earthquake and fire. the gardens have always been part of the value of this landmark asset. that is point number 1. point number 2, all the documents refer to the lot and the building. not just to the building. everybody, wants to turn -- skip over this point but they do not address this point. it is the entire lot.

and third, common sense would suggest demolishing much of the gardens and putting in a large building that overshadows the historic building. is out of balance. it is too much building on too small lots. one thing i would note is that when paige and turnbull was a pure a few minutes ago, they emphasized were noted that the open space was an important part of the historic assets. she said the open space -- the importance of the open space. it seems to me that is one of the core issues. to what degree is the open space the gardens? i think all of us would agree that we took away all the gardens and built a very large, much larger building that would overshadow and compromise this important asset. we are talking about matters of degree in my mind. this is too much of a building. another thing was noted in the

hearing a couple of months ago. there's a petition that was provided with the 100 neighbour signatures opposing this project that is important to note there is broad spread concern for the immediate neighbours. there is concern over what is being done here. show at -- i would ask that you at least have them go back and redesigned the building to not compromise the gardens. and to seriously consider what it means when they designate this entire lot as a historic assets. thank you very much. >> one question for you. 5098 bay. is that the new building that is also on the same lot that this originally was? it is on the corner? >> it is in a separate lot. >> when it was originally built it was. >> ok. thank you.

>> are there any other members of the public who wish to comment on this matter? we will close. if not -- we have more public comment? >> yes. >> i live at 1550 bay and my view, if i still have one, is of buchanan street. i would like to say that there are 39 tenants with that same view. we all just have the one window because there aren't any sidewalls or back walls. if a building goes up there, it will cut out our light completely. not to mention, of the slight view. i think it is our duty as residents of san francisco to see that historic landmarks as designated by her predecessors are preserved and maintained. thank you.

>> thank you. does any other member of the public wish to comment on this item? >> my name is sharon. the landmark was based on resolution 88, what you all have had for a while. and measures describes the property, including in paragraph 13, quote an equally impressive garden shop ". it was the entity. its special character, history and ecstatic -- aesthetic values and interest that was the landmark, not just the brick buildings. but all of the area including the garden and the garden shop.

and the documents -- in the documents, which was mentioned previously, in the first paragraph, the effect of this designation, this is regarding maryvale is to impose certain controls and standards on the said property and on the improvements thereon as set forth. thank you. >> thank you. does any other member of the public wish to speak on this item? >> good afternoon, commissioners i own an apartment building right across from the proposed project.

i had this building built in 1973. i have been there for 45 years. i know all the history of the street from the beginning. from the gas stations that were there and then they all disappeared. since i was there in 1973, i had a lot of interaction and talked with owners of the antique store they were there when i was there and i talked to the owner themselves and they were very proud to have that building as historic and they always told me that they wanted to demolish the start of the historic and landmark area. they assured me. they know, very well that this is a historic site. and i talked to my tenants and

they all agree that this building on the corner should be preserved including the backyard in the garden area. when i was living there on the top floor facing the garden, i used to see a lot of celebrations going on from time to time that includes all the way back to a small building. i also want to say that the brick wall surrounding the building on buchanan street is considered part of that historic area. when the new proposed building was reconstructed, 24 feet of it was part of that landmark area. i urge you to deny the plan for this building. >> thank you.

does any other member of the public wish to comment on this item? seeing and hearing none, we will close public comments. i will bring it back to the commission. we have numerous requests. the main one is to continue this item to the policy committee. this item has been around for a while. i am a little concerned about that particular request. and also i think there have been a lot of comments about the landmark designation and the map of the property. i would like to remind the commissioners is nothing in article ten that disallows any addition being placed on the landmark property. so that is one item. the second thing is even though the original ordinance does mention the garden shops, it is the description of the ordinance that talks about the specific gap electric complex on the gasworks and this site was

originally dominated by large gas structures. commissioner commissioner highland? >> thank you. i have three things to say. i think a continuance would be in order. i usually don't do this but i would motion that we continue this item until -- i think there's more work that needs to be done with the community on evaluating this project. i make the motion that we continue this item. i have two comments to make. one is on the period of significance. i think when it was landmarked and identified it as the antiques and the period of significance only goes up until 1958. i find that troublesome. i think there's potentially a second period of significance that includes the antique. that would create a challenge for the analysis of whether this is a contributory or not to. it is basically saying it is not historic because it's -- because it is beyond the period of

significance. there is a potential for a second period of significance. and last, i have a real concern on the actual design. if i could ask staff to put up on the overhead the cover -- coversheet. it shows the whole city block. >> i think it's the first page. >> it's a first page. -- it's the first page. there is. i think this says it all. i think we are talking about a very large landmark building which is a two story with an attic on the corner. we are building now a continuation of the four story building the flat roof.

i think the current project that's already been built, which is on the right, this new project just continues that. this is a much larger building then what would be appropriate next to this landmark. >> i have a motion to continue this. >> i second the motion. >> ok. do you want to jump in for a second? ok. >> yeah,. it's troubling on so many levels both to support the project and not to support the project. mr morgan mentioned there'd been no review. which i find absolutely impossible. if there is historical analysis, it means there was a review. i just want to be clear that just because you may not agree with the review, doesn't mean it hasn't been done. i assume, would you just tell us

what was reviewed, and what were the issues for the review? >> sure. the project and submit an environmental evaluation application. it was reviewed by our environmental staff as well as myself as a preservation planner from separating out prep actors preservation, environmental looked at all different environmental topics including soil hazard and the project sponsor has enrolled in the program. the department of public health helps to oversee the cleanup of any toxic soil. that was cleared through that. and then the preservation review included the historic resource evaluation report that was prepared by page and turn both. staff report viewed that report and went back and forth and looked at all the information and ultimately concluded that the garden house and the patio were not contributing features to the landmark site and were not significant in their own

right. we did do a historic resource assessment on these specific creatures of the site and concluded that they were not significant enough in their own right or as part of the landmark a review was conducted and the environmental document did go out for notice. it was a ten day notice. >> ok. i appreciate that. >> i had one more thing. so i think it is interesting what commissioner highland said. there is a conflict between a period of significance that ends in 1958 and it's called the maryvale antiques which did not exist in 1958. it did not exist until after the period of significance. you have this conflict in the original documents that are calling out antiques which does mention the garden and the garden shed. along with the gas building.

and the history discusses the gas building and its uses on the site. but may be she is the only one who can answer that. how did the period of significance not continue? this is just travelling. i agree with commissioner highland that the continuance makes sense so that that can be evaluated and ms. miss platt quoted very clearly that at the time in 1973, it was only 15 years old or so, asked was i. so therefore it obviously couldn't be considered as part of that. and of course, now it is 45 years old. it is 60 years old. nevermind. so that creates the question about the period of significance >> i just did exactly what

commissioner highland said about his first two points. we are talking about a resource -- we don't want to chip away at a historical resource and we will not get it back. so we need to be very careful about how we proceed. >> thank you. did you have a comment? >> i do have a comment. however, i am happy to weight until just before the vote. >> thank you. >> obviously this could only be described -- it apparently started from -- i don't want to use this question, with the landmarks people did botch it. and we have to deal with that unfortunate situation.

it is extremely troubling that we would be confronted today after people have done so much work to get ready for this hearing with a request for continuance and with absolute wait, as far as i can see, no justification for the motion for the continuance being delayed until today. i think it is somewhere between reprehensible, and completely irresponsible unless there are some facts which i don't understand. however, because the thing is in such a state, i don't know how we could proceed. but it is not because heritage has not been able to organize

its affairs in such a way that they could meet with the people involved in this. if that were the only reason, i would vote to know continuance. but because these other things that have been brought up, i think it might be a bad use of our time to hear the matter today. >> thank you. commissioner black? >> i concur with the continuance in particular the period of significance. it is troubling. when a decision is made it is important that there be confidence that the decision was properly looked at, and that the materials were organized and due process occurred. while i don't wish to create

further delays, i do think there are certain matters that need to be resolved in order for the final decision makers on this project to have confidence that agencies have looked at this properly, have given their opinions, and that they can then act in a way that gets them the best choice, and also that's less unchallengeable. >> i would ask the commissioners , this project has a 2016 application number and page and turnbow has done a very extensive report and staff has done extensive follow-up for two years. by continuing it, we need to be very specific. what are we asking for? are we asking for somebody to hire another consultant to do another report? are we asking for another entity to come on board? i am very troubled by the continuance because i'm just not sure what exactly by extending the time forward, what -- how it

will benefit the project. i'm also concerned that we are mixing up nostalgia for a very charming garden house for what is about historic resources and a specific building that has these gigantic things which are not about little charm and guarding -- garden nostalgia. and i'm just not sure what the continuance will get us accept a delay which will add to the cost of the project and were not necessarily -- will not necessarily produce a different result. i'm sure the neighbours will still be opposed to the project. they will have views that they will be impeded. i'm not sure how the continuance benefits s. >> can i ask staff, forgive me if i missed it in this report, i read it carefully but it is possible i missed it. at what level has a city attorney's office been involved in some of these issues in terms of reviewing the controversies?

>> i think we need to establish if there is a controversy. >> ok. [laughter] >> fair enough. >> if i may, to follow-up on commissioner black's question and commissioner highland's comment, i do think if a continuance is granted to, i think staff will need some guidance on exactly what should be brought back in the architectural review committee hearing. there were questions around the garden structure and the garden. we feel that staff has adequately responded to those questions in the packet and to the a.r.c. memo and we did concur with the report that these items were not significant or contributing, although they are part of the landmark site. we felt it was pretty clear that the h.p.c. has jurisdiction over this part of the property but that the designating ordinances do not include these as contributing features and we

feel confident of that. they did give some additional design comments to staff and the applicant and we felt those were adequately addressed as well. if there is a dispute now over whether or not this garden structure may be character defining or may be a resource in its own right, that wasn't -- we felt we had answered that question. so i think to the president's comment, as it another consultant? is it going back to the a.r.c.? doing did -- do we need to hash out for the design questions that the a.r.c. may have, those are the things we need to know. at least on face value, we think we have responded to everything that the a.r.c. asked for. but certainly, if you have outstanding questions, we will do our best to answer them if you do decide to continue. >> i'm sorry character that include the period of significance? >> that did include the period of significance.

usually in this case, which we have done before, is that often if there is a coach house or an ancillary structure on a contributing property, we will have an applicant filed a separate hre so we can determine if that is actually part what part of the site. in the past we have found that sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't. in this case, we felt fairly confident that because not only both the garden and the garden structure had been modified in the 1990s, well beyond the presidency at the site, that also there was not any -- i'm sorry. i lost my train of thought. but basically, the analysis for significance and integrity did not seem to apply in this case. >> thank you. commissioner black cat did you have a comment? >> i'm done. >> at the a.r.c., i was

interested in the cultural landscape features of the property, and what i was looking at was the value of the garden house, and the natural landscape and i wanted some more attention to that. granted, this is not a landmarks cultural landscape. if there had been an opportunity for that somewhere along the line, i think that would have been important. so i wanted to see -- and i thought the design -- so the other recommendations from the a.r.c. were attention to design. may be that could further bring out the value of the open space even with the demolition of the garden house. so there has been some attention to the design and there was

mention of that during public testimony. but i am still not comfortable with voting on something like this with the question still open. i seconded the motion for a continuance because the other -- same thought that commissioner highland brought up was the idea about the additional period of significance. to me there is something that happened in between, along the lines, from the giant death structure to today. i am looking at this building of the garden house and the landscape as being important features. i think i'm not just comfortable with the evaluation that has been done for those features and how they relate to the landscape and particularly in clarification to the legal question, i haven't heard

whether that -- >> what legal question? >> there is no legal question as far as interpretation of what the landmark covers. >> i don't believe there is. >> what it comes down to is is there anything -- his or anything that can be done to make me more comfortable with treating the elements of the cultural landscape? >> thank you. >> thank you. i wish that before i spoke i had had the benefit of mr fry's comments. because now i'm beginning to think that what would be done if there were a continuance? it seems to me, and i don't know here so i am asking for the help of the other commissioners, so we have a period of significance that ends in 1958.

would it be at all proper for us to say, weighed a minute, now all these years later, we are just adding something to the period of significance, one based upon what was done years ago, someone has spent a great deal of time and money developing this project. it seems to me that may be described as moving the goalposts are changing the rules i am not sure it would even be legal for us to do that. i just don't know. it does give me considerable -- considerable pause. and then -- so that is a real problem for me. i don't yet know -- i can't answer your question, mr president, what would be done, what would be done.

in light of this thinking about the period of significance and the work that the staff had done in trying to evaluate what is really covered. as i looked at all the descriptions of the l-shaped lot and so forth, i thought, what they're doing is they are locating the piece of property. locating the priest of -- piece of property is fairly noncontroversial. it is on the piece of property where things fell down. i think it's fairly -- it was fairly clear to me that the importance of the property was not an antique store. that the real nut is the gaslight staff. and that has nothing to do with the garden which has been modified significantly. that is in the nature of a garden that it gets modified.

so now i'm really not as in favor of the continuance until someone tells me, ok, this is what's going to be done, and this is why it's justified to impose more financial cost on everybody. >> thank you. >> i really want to say how much i appreciate president will from 's comments. it is something we miss often is the word "nostalgia." this is one of those cases where there is enormous nostalgia for the antique store and the owners i think what commissioner john -- johns said about the property , and mr cohen has made abundantly clear to us many times, is that this is the property that this building sits

on and that happens to have open space is like a part of it but it is again the gas building and the development of pg and e. and that whole thing. it is not about the development of antique stores, and the buildings that were used for antique stores, and gardens related to antique stores. that is not what this is about to. although it's called the maryvale antiques throughout the entire description. i sort of also agree about that was not really made -- that was not clarified at the time that the landmark was written back in 1973. the other thing i wanted to say was the people who are opposing it are very clear about the fact that we can never change a landmarked. there's a sense that we can't touch it because these things are there and it says these rt