[baby crying] good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco historic preservation commission regular hearing for wednesday, february 21, 2018. i'd like to remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. and to please silence your mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings when speaking before the commission if you do care to, state your name for the record. i'd like to take roll at this time. [roll call]

commissioners, first on your agenda is general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter, jurisdiction of the commission exempt agenda items. with respect to agenda item, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. i have no speaker cards. >> does any member of the public wish to speak on a nonagenda item? if so, please come forward. >> mr. president and commissioners, my name is michael levin. i'm just here to ask about something that i'm very concerned about and that is the albert samuels clock on market street. i'm sure you're all aware how it is constantly attacked by vandals. the last time someone

deliberately smashed three of the small clock faces at the base and managed to stop the mechanism so it has been totally stopped for a long time. and i know this has happened so many times and i've seen volunteers fixing it occasionally, putting in a lot of effort to do that. and it seems beyond hope that it's just going to be attacked again. i don't know why, it seems culture has changed. that clock has been around for over 100 years and it was never attacked like that for most of its existence and i've been here since i was born. and don't remember that happening. years ago. so i'm just wondering if there is anything you can do or anything you're trying to do to alleviate the situation somehow. [baby crying] >> thank you, mr. levin. does any other member of the public wish to speak on a nonagendaized item? please come forward. seeing and hearing none, we'll close general public comment.

>> very good, commissioners. that places us department matters. item one, director's announcements. >> good afternoon. tim pride, department staff. the director will not be joining us this afternoon. however, i'm happy to forward any questions you may have to him so he can answer them at a future hearing. >> seeing no questions, commissioners, item two. review of past events at the planning commission, staff report and announcements. >> commissioners, tim pride, department staff. two items to share with you. one, supervisor breed's office arrange add community meeting regarding 930 grow street. last week, planning staff was present along with d.b.i., the precinct police chief, city attorney's office and the project architect and property owner. the primary purpose of the community meeting was to address or respond to ongoing security concerns at the vacant property and planning staff

outlined the building permit and c of a for supervisor breed and the concerned noibs. of the c.o.a. i wanted you to be aware is pending to be scheduled -- or it is going to be scheduled for the hearing on april 4. however, we are asking for a few additional items for your packets. and the owners will be looking into more frequent security patrols in the interim between now and april 4. but just wanted to make you aware so that is on your advanced calendar. and second, just a reminder that a request for discretionary review before the planning commission was filed on the application for window restoration at 56 mason street, which was heard before this body and approved at your november 15 hearing. the d.r. hearing will be heard on march 1. and staff has included the h.p.c.'s comments and concerns in the staff report as well as the transcript of the hearing

for the planning commission's review. so that concludes my update and happy to answer any questions, should you have them. >> thank you. commissioner hyland? >> on 309 grove, was there any agreement to put any current security measures into place? >> that i do have some security measures in place. as part of the interim agreement. such as motion sensor lights and on-site security patrol. but apparently there have been -- there's still activity around the site. people trying to break in. set fires. so, they have agreed to make those more frequent to address those matters in the interim. >> thank you. any other questions, commissioners? no? we can move on. >> very good, commissioners. that will place us under commission matters. item three. president's report and announcements.

>> the announcement i'd like to make today is appointment of members of the architectial review committee. i'd like to continue the appointment of commissioners hyland and pearlman and had commissioner johnck to that committee. >> thank you. i accept. thank you. >> there is no other announcements, item four, consideration of adoption, draft minutes for february 7, 2018. >> commissioners, any comments on the draft minutes? at this time, we'll take public comment on the draft mince of february 7, 2018. does any member of the public wish to comment? seeing and hearing none, we'll close public comment. do we have a motion to adopt them? >> i move we adopt them. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to adopt the minutes, for february 7, 2018 -- [roll call] so move, commissioners.

that motion passes unanimously 6-0. commissioner, that will place us on item five for commission comments and questions. >> commissioner johnck? >> i'd just like to give a brief mention of a wonderful tour that i went on with the port of san francisco central waterfront advisory committee. after the pier 70 historic core. i know the commission has expressed an interest in having an update on how the progress is going. on the restoration. we had a presentation on the historic core as distinguished from the balance of the development, which is also very exciting. but jim maza, who's a major assistant to eddie orton and another gentleman, led us through the spectacular site was building 113 and i just

have to say was astounded on the brilliance of the work that they have done to maintain the integrity of the structure of the historic structure inside a brand-new facility that is already leased out and it was stunning, some of the materials that they used. it was beautiful flooring that they've put in. but all throughout, you felt like you were really walking through the, you know, 100-year-old facility. but yet with modern equipment and computers and everything. and we also went in to a couple of the other buildings, the one building that we did not go into, which is being restored by restoration hardware and niby brothers, that is the beautiful bethlehem steel office building on the corner of illinois and 20th.

which one? >> building 1. >> that is building 1, that's correct. and because they were still a work in progress with their -- but i just want to let the commission know that they -- eddie orton and the group are doing a spectacular job. and at some point, they can come back and present to the commission. but i was very pleased and they were pleased to have a representive from the commission to tour the site. >> thank you. thank you for attending that. >> thank you. >> any other commission comments or questions? commissioner matsuda? >> just a disclosure about the numerous e-mails that i'm sure all the commissioners received about agenda item number seven. and then also one for agenda item number nine. one e-mail for agenda item number seven from sasha cronin,

dated august 2007 that i thought was very helpful for our discussion today. >> thank you. if no other comments, we can move on. >> very good, commissioners. that will place us under the regular calendar. for item six, case number 2017-013417coa at 294 page street. this is a certificate of appropriateness. >> good afternoon, commissioners. jonathan zimmer, department staff. application before you is a request for a certificate of appropriateness for the property at 294 page street, steel landmark number 48. historically known as the dietl residence denlszes, the wood framed building was completed in 1878 from an elaborate victorian stick-style design by architect henry geilfuss. it indicates the one-story ancillary was added between 1886 and 1913. the project proposes to paint a

mural on the north lily street of the rear ancillary structure. the wood siding would be gently cleaned and light water-based paint would be applied through the use of a long-handled sponge. purchase saounlts to section 1006.6s of the planning code, when reviewing is murals, this commission is to consider the placement, size and location and shall not make a determination based on the con tents itself. additionally, section 1005-g2 requires that the h.p.c. receive and consider advice from the arts commission prior to acting on any certificate of appropriateness, applications for a mural. when department staff requested such advice, staff was directed to a meeting of the full commission, the full arts commission in early december where in that commission unanimously approved the subject mural design. minutes from that meeting are included in your packet. the department's received no letters in support or opposition to the project. staff determined that the proposed work will not alter character of features of the

subject property as are detailed in the designating ordinance and will be in conforman cranberrisinger of article 10 of the planning code. based on this analysis and your case report, staff recommends approval a. this concludes my presentation. i believe that a representive from the friends of the you -- from the urban forest is here to answer any questions you may have. and i'm here to do the same. thank you. >> at this time, we'll take public comment then. i have a speaker cord from madelein fortier? >> hi, i'm madelein and i work with friends of the urban forest. i'm the project coordinator for the mural project. i just wanted to give you a little bit of background. it is part of a wider project that we're doing up and down the 200, 300 and 400 block of lily street. we've got about six different murals that are going up between april and june. only one on a historic building. so, definitely good on that

part. and i'm just here to answer any questions or concerns you guys have about the mural. >> thank you. >> any other members of the public who wish to comment on this item? seeing and hearing none, we'll close public comments and bring it back to the commission. commissioner matsuda. public comment is closed. did you wish to make -- >> [inaudible]. >> sorry. >> you'll have to actually step up to the -- >> we'll re-open public comments and you can come to the mic, please. >> i live on the 200 block of page street and the neighbours have been asking questions about what this mural is going to look like, especially since it's a historical building, which is the jewel of our neighbourhood. i've been here 30 years and a beautiful house. and i realise that the lily street side is not the facade, but people kind of would like to see what this mural is going to look like.

especially since the last mural that was put up in our neighbourhood on octavia boulevard, it's the page street at octavia boulevard, theres a huge sign, the letters are taller than i am and it says "great adventure" in giant block letters. hideous colours. and it is peeling. it's not maintained. so, i'm just trying to talk for the people in the neighbourhood. we can't see what it looks like. it's on the most beautiful building in our neighbourhood. >> all right. thank you. >> can we know what the subject matter is? is it a sdmret >> thank you. does any other member of the public wish to comment on this item? if not, we'll close public comment. i wonder if staff could present -- the mural is part of the application, which is available on line if you go to the h.p.c. agenda. there is a photo of the mural or drawing of the mural and maybe he can put it up on the

board. >> so, a standard notice does not include graphics packages. it includes my e-mail address and phone number. i'm the project planner if you request those graphicks are provided and it is included in the packet. and available online. i do have -- this is as well, i mean on sf gov tv, the project sort, please. the location on the lily street side. again, and then roughly an area spanning that whole elevation. and again the content of the mural. subject to the c.o.a. this is indeed the graphic that is being proposed and selected by the friends of the urban forest. >> all right. thank you. >> commissioners, do you have -- >> i just had one question. it says that this is a community challenge grant and that this is one of five murals proposed on lily street. and our -- can i ask you to --

>> yeah. >> thank you. and so just maybe following along public comment, is there going to be any kind of written verbage like a sign or something to indicate that this was through a community process, that this type of design was created and are all the five murals on lily street going to represent lilies? i mean, i just -- if you could give always little bit of background on that. >> yeah. yeah. of course. we do have funding in our grant that we got through community challenge graonlt do signage. that is one thing we haven't addressed get our community meetings. so that is definitely a great idea to have something that explains exactly how the mural came about. another option was to do some signage about the history of lily street so we haven't quite gotten there yet. but the mural process was a very community-oriented process. we flyer the block multiple

times. we put out different, you know, addresss to the neighbourhood through the hey valley neighbourhood association and also through an e-mail tla*is i've created over the course of two to three years. and then we also formed a mural community that we invited to the lgbt centre and i can provide the dates and times and what kind of materials we gave to the neighbourhood. of course, it's really hard to, like, hit every person. there are so many properties up and down the 200, 300 and 400 block, but we try as hard as we can to get the word out through word of mouth and also fliering each property to make sure they know what's going on and we always give opportunities for neighbours to kind of come in and say i want to be added to this particular committee list. so i can be updated so i'm not just blasting out e-mails all the time to every single person. >> right.

>> but, yeah. and we are going to be publishing on our website, the friends of the urban forest website, some language about the cohesiveness of the five or six murals. we're still awaiting on the approval for one. and they're not all going to be lilies. they're kind of a homage to community greeting effort. so, certain murals will be kind of just pure nature scenes. but others, one is going to be commemorating the removal of the central freeway and the building of octavia building and all of these were kind of came out of a process between what the property owners wanted because they did have the final say in the matter. but also with community input and input, of course, from the arts commission. that's all. >> so, maybe you mentioned you shared that you are going to do something about the historical nature of lily street. maybe if when that time comes you can work with planning department staff to make sure

that languages is reflective of what we have in other parts of the city. >> i'm sure we'll be official as we can within our budget. >> because this will be the only one we'll see, right? because all the rest of the properties -- this is the first. but all the rest of the five that you are planning on the street are -- don't involve historic properties. >> exactly. yeah. this is probably our most visible location. there are a couple of other locations -- they will be pretty big. but definitely not an historic building and this one is at the intersection. it will be the most seen. >> thank you t.s commissioner pearlman? >> i just wanted to ask the woman who stood up before if this answered your question. because it sounds like they've done a lot of outreach and, you know, maybe you didn't get it. but, i just want to be sure -- here's someone in the neighbourhood who's one block away who didn't know anything about it. so, maybe you two could talk after this hearing.

but somehow that you get some satisfaction that you are on a list and get some information. i just wanted to make sure that -- >> [inaudible]. >> wait. wait. wait. ma'am, you have to speak into the microphone. >> my question is the property owner wants this to happen. who is the current property owner. >> andrew and caroline chaisson. >> i wanted to make sure that the information you asked for, it was provided by the friends of urban forzoes you feel like you were heard. the graphic design plus any information about the design. >> is the mural going to make the building more beautiful? >> again, those are conversations that are not for this forum. please have that conversation off-line. >> commissioner johnck? >> i thought the maintenance

question was a good one. and i wonder if the friends of urban forest, could you talk about the maintenance? i think that is a good point. >> maintenance is super important. we are required by the community challenge grant to make sure that friends of the urban forzest responsible for maintenance for 10 years. that is a good chunk of time. of course, it is going to be up. further after that. but we're going to have a network of people on the block who will basically let us know if it gets tagged and we have to remove it by city ordinance, i think it is within two weeks. but we'd like to get it as soon as possible because the longer you have the graffiti on the mural, the more it will affect it. and we're also going to be applying it for layers of clear coat to the mural so that will make it easy to clean off without actually damaging the design. after the so years is up, we're going to be formulating a

maintenance plan with the neighbours so it will kind of be a pretty intensive process with everybody up and down the different blocks to either make a commitment that they can work with the property owner to continue to maintain the mural and, you know, get all the information on the paints that they would need to, you know, touch up the mural if need be. but after that 10-years up, it is, again, the discretion of the property owner. i believe. unless it is with historic preservation commission, whether they want to keep the mural or not. so, they could end up just painting over it, which would be sad. but we are required for those 10 solid years to make sure it is maintained. >> ok. and that is in the grant. >> yeah. we're required. >> thank you. >> all right. thank you. >> commissioners, do i have any

other comment? is there a motion? >> i'll move to approve it. great project. >> i second. >> thank you, commissioners. seeing no further comments, there's a motion that has been seconded. to approve the certificate of appropriateness on that motion -- [roll call] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. in places of said item seven for case number 2017-o15495, the fulton monument. this is a certificate of appropriateness.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. the project before you is a request for a c of a to alter the pioneer monument, which is identified as a contributing feature within the civic centre landmark district. originally located further south of its current site, the pioneer monument was completed in 1894 and placed near what was then the location of city hall. which is shown in this image on the screen. after the earth quake and fire and the subsequent reconstruction of city hall in this location, the monument was somewhat left in isolation and during the library's construction in the 1990s, it was relocated to its present site. the current site restored a spatial relationship between city hall and the monument by

placing it on axis with the building in the centre of fulton street. the orderly plan of the civic centre district serves as the city beautiful movement in urban planning and the identifying feature of the landmark district. the monument consists of five separate components. one large central figure, surrounded by four sculptural groupings. all five sculptures are secured to ornamental, granite bases. of the monument's five components, the area proposed for alteration is the early days sculpture, which is located on the granite base closest to hyde street and is circled in yellow in this image. the project sponsor in this case is the san francisco arts commission and allison cummings on their staff is here to present the background on the project and address the conservation work that will be part of the effort.

staff requests that the historic preservation commission determine the appropriateness of the work in conformance with article 10 of the planning code and the secretary of the interior standards. both article 10 and the planning code -- pardon me, both article 10 and the standards secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation allow for alterations to properties within historic districts. if those alterations are executed in a manner that preserves the overall character of the district and if they are done in a way that is reversible in nature. staff has reviewed the proposal to remove the early days sculpture and patch the granite base to its attached and has outlined our findings in the case report. we find the alteration to the monument is reversible in nature, maintains the character defining features of the district and will not affect

the overall integrity of the civic centre landmark district as a whole. therefore, the recommendation is for approval of this certificate of appropriateness. with one following condition -- staff recommends that any documentation of the sculpture removal, such as photographs, conservation methods used in cleaning and storage of the art work and specification of the grant it ins base repair be forwarded to the planning departments for administrative record of this case review. this concludes staff's presentation. i'm available for questions. also ms. cummings with the arts commission has a brief presentation for the commission as well. >> thank you. ms. cummings, will five minutes suffice? thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners.

so, the early days sculpture grouping has been a long-standing point of concern for the community. it occurred at the arts commission as well as the planning commission back in 1990 to 1996 when the pioneer monument was relocated to its current site in order to make way for the construction of the new main library. the consensus solution at that time was to install plaques at the site contextualizing the monument. as a home and also providing the public perspective of the devastating effects that the arrival of the first europeans to california had on the resident native americans. at that point, fulton street between larkin and hyde was intended to become a pedestrian plaza and the plaques were located with the intent that they be easily approachable by the public. as you know, that pedestrian plaza never came to fruition. in august 2017, most immediately following the events -- almost immediately following the events in charlottesville, north carolina surrounding the removal of a

monument to confederate general robert e. lee, the arts commission began receiving renewed requests from the public to remove the sculpture from the pioneer monument. at the core of the repeated requests is the allegorical depiction of native american peoples, using stereotypes common at the turn of the 20th century to depikts all native americans, which are now universally viewed as disrespectful, misleading and racist. on october 2, 2017 at a meeting of the full arts commission, commissioners received significant public comment approval of the removal of the sculpture. and commissioners voted unanimously to pass the proposal within section seven of the guidelines of the civic art collection of the city and county of san francisco in other words for the commission to consider removal of the early days sculptural group of the pioneer monument. for reference, these policies and procedures are included in the last pages of the case

report you have in front of you. former mayor lee, supervisor kim and mayor farrell are on record as supporting the call for removal of the sculpture from public view. should should the historic preservation commission approve it, it will come back to the commission for final resolution. in addition, more information about the project should it move forward. as a function of the removal process, sculpture will be cleaned by conservation professionals under guidelines for artistic and historic works. the granite will be repaired to tex tent that no openings from the former connection points for the sculpture will remain on the horizontal surface that could compromise granite elements over time. materials utilized will be specified by professionals and work will be executed by firms with experience by historic monuments. no material will be destroyed

as a function of this project. the sculpture will be create and placed in long-term, secure, fine art storage. >> thank you. commissioners, any questions for staff? or for ms. cummings and the art commission? >> i'll wait -- >> ok. so, that the time, i think commissioner -- >> i have a question, yes. i'm getting used to the new screen. it's fantastic, by the way. [laughter] >> i can't believe it was in a staff report. if i could ask ms. tuffy to answer a question. there was an e-mail that brought me to think about historical precedence for the commission to be authorized, or authority to remove sculpture -- remove -- what shall i say, features and i think there was an e-mail that said that we first came to deal with this in 2006 or 2007. i don't -- >> yes. it was in the packet. >> there was?

maybe i missed that. actually the staff report was great and it was wonderful reading about the history. but i was interested in the precedent for us having the authority to remove historical features contributing -- >> on that point, i think the comment that you are referring to was in one of the e-mails of public comment. and i do have -- there were a couple of e-mails that came in immediately prior to this hearing. so i printed out what we have received for the commission's review. overall, the public comment that we've received, we received six e-mails, three that were in favour of removal and three that were opposed. but i do think that 2000 comment might be the content of one of these public comment letters. otherwise i'm not entirely familiar. >> as far as precedent for us removing, contributing features.

>> it's -- please let me know if this addresses your question. but commissioner, this commission has perview of any alteration within a historic district. >> so that's where it fits. >> while it is a work of art, it still falls underneath your per view. >> ok. it's just very different. that's all. ok. unusual, shall we say. unique. ok. >> i asked them -- oh, commissioner, do you wants to ask a question? >> yeah. it's mainly a question of curiosity. in the c of a case report, it talks about a very good historical background about what happened in 1993, which i think the arts commission staff shared with us. but i was wondering at that time, i see that there was a lot of good information about proposing a total removal of the statue. was there any discussion at that time about removing this feature?

in 1993, when the statue as a whole was relocated from one point to another? >> i don't -- i didn't find anything in the minutes in terms of the arts commission minutes. >> it wasn't in here. >> no. and so at that time, like i said, the consensus was for contextualization and there was a lot of work done to go through that process. but the larger discussion in terms of -- the major discussion at the time was whether or not it should be moved at all. what i found during my research was that there was a significant backlash to actual moving the monument from its previous location to make way for the library. but in terms of this particular solution of just removing this particular part, that wasn't a large part of that conversation, as far as i can tell from the minutes. >> but there was public comment about that during that time. correct? >> yes. yes. >> that was received about total removal. >> yes. >> and then my second question

is about the plaque. now that -- depending on what we do today or what will happen in the future and this particular feature is removed, how will that be dealt with? >> the intention is to have the plaque remain because it does still speak to the larger monument as a whole and other elements of the monument. so the current plan is to have the plaque remain. >> and the words "early days" -- >> also currently planned to remain. in terms of as it being a function of the full monument. we do not plan to remove those. >> ok. thank you. any other further questions that the time? so, that the time, we'll take public comment on this item. each member of the mrubl have three minutes to speak and there will be a warning buzzer, 30 seconds before your time is up and i'll call the names in the order that i've received them. first i have patrick flanagan

-- actually, why don't i -- all of you who would like to speak could maybe line up. i have patrick flanagan, randy burns, michael levin, malyka clark, jamie villaria and ramon conteros so if the speakers could line up on either side of the hall. >> ok. >> can i speak ?ou >> yes. >> all right. well i don't want to go into the detail how offensive the statue is because the arts commission voted unanimously for its removal. so -- but i just want to remind you of mayor ed lee's -- he was quoted as saying certainly on the streets of san francisco, there ought to be symbols that don't oppress people or remind them of oppression. that symbol continues to be a symbol that bothers native americans. and it bothers all of us.

if it bothers them. >> thank you. the next speaker i have is randy burns. michael levin -- oh, mr. burns is here. sorry. >> hi, my name is randy burns from northern nevada. i moved here 43 years ago. been active in the queer community, including the native american community and i was part of the human rights report before you. when you look back to the index, an image of a conquest k public art and images of mascots, i myself went to school in the state of california and believe me, back then when i was a young kid, there was a lot of talk about columbus. that is another issue. but i'm here today as a native american activist and queer activist to just thank you,

again, because i was left out, the people of colour were left out, the lgbtq history of san francisco. i came before your committee. i wanted inclusion. and when i talk about inclusion, i'm talking about diversity. not racism. not stereotyping. so to let you know that i'm not a heathen, for god's sakes. let's please remove this racist, very slanderous public art that was donated in the late 1800s. i hope you do your homework well because it was originally part of the text that sits at the base of that monument with human rights leader in 1995 and the commission report and i was also at the art commission hearing you had back in september, i believe. or october. so i really encourage all of you to be mindful of our diverse city of san francisco.

and what this public art represents to me as an insult to many native californians, including the newauk and people of san francisco. please consider removing this offensive public art. thank you. >> thank you, mr. burns. michael levin. >> mr. president and commissioners, i'm michael levin, life-long resident of the city. san francisco history buff. praoeshltzer of art. -- appreciater of art. when i first heard about this proposal my initial reaction is how can we remove part of such an historic piece of san francisco. one of the few links to pre-1906 san francisco tonight. the pre-1906 civic centre. a front piece for the first grand city hall that san francisco had. nothing else is left of that civic centre except a couple of

buildings that were built along city hall avenue before it was abolished in 1912, which kind of gives you an idea of where the civic centre used to be. to me, the native american depicted in the early days grouping looks more intelligent than the friar and the other man benting over him. but that is my interpretation. not every person looking at it for the first time will have that san francisco. so i attended the arts commission meeting on october 2. and my proposal was simply to have a larger plaque, a better explanation of what it represents and what the problem is with it. but i listened to all the many speakers and there were a lot more than you see here today who spoke in favour of removing the grouping. and i was very much swayed by what i heard. and i'm willing to go along with them and have changed my position on this for what it's worth that i fully favour

removing the grouping. now i know this isn't in your per view, but there is going to be -- it is somewhat of a problem to have the empty section there where the statue will have been, assuming you vote for this and the arts commission, assuming it's all implemented. ideally, the sculptor should have created an early days sculptural group that showed california native americans as they truly were and in a dignify manner. that didn't happen. ideas were -- ideas were dominating class were so different in those days. i know there will be some pressure to perhaps create a sculpture today when money can be raised to show the native americans much more appropriately. but there will be problems, of course, with any new sculpture if it were to meet the secretary of the interior standards to put something new

with in 1894 monument. so, personally i won't be upset with seeing the platform empty for the indefinite future. and i know this isn't in your per view, but i wish this grouping would end up in a museum as some of the confederate monuments will. ideally with a full explanation of what it depicts and why it was a problem and why it was removed from the pioneer mon yaou.s and i'm glad it will be preserved and properly conserved. i think it deserves to be. not because it shows what -- not because it shows our current point of view, but because it represents the point of view of 1894. it is a work of art. and with a suitable explanation it should be on displays in a museum. >> thank you. >> and thank you very much. >> thank you. mylaka clark. >> good afternoon. art shapes the way we see the world and the perspective of

artists frank happers berger, is not one that is current. if history is written by the victors, then we're asking for a rewrite. just like holocaust memorials in germany, the early days statue belongs in a museum dedicated to explaining racism and genocide. and not in the heart of our city. for people who argue that this is a historical monument, i ask you what about native history? i, as a student of the california public education system, am i shamed of how little i know of native history. the estimated budget for removal is large, but not as large as the debt that every nonnative has to native people. this statue is a slap in the face and is dis.

respectful and outdated. i propose that we find a creative solution, perhaps there is a native artist who could build around or change the context of the statue. give them the budgets, please. when we last spoke to the arts commission, it was suggested that a sign be posted, that the succulence surrounding the plaque in question that was placed in the 1990s be remove ed so that it was more visible. absolutely nothing has happened. as a white person, i often ask what i can do to decolonize. i learned so much at standing rock, but mostly that it is imperative to listen to native leadership. this statue is more than a microaggression. it perpetuates racist attitudes and puts white supremacy on a pedestal that thousands of people are affected by every day. if i were a child, this statue

would inform my viewpoint. i'm not saying that we can erase the violent history and enslavement of native peoples. at the very least, with our current understanding, respect can be shown. this statue literally looks down upon the native. the conquerers seem justified and victorious. we lose a broader perspective, rather than the statue being historical it erases native history. i'm sad to say how little of native history that i know and i wish that we get a broader perspective. thank you so much. >> thank you, ms. clark. marie villanvuara. >> hi. can you hear me? >> yes. >> ok. hi.

i want to say that i had a dream last year in august and i'm not m.l.k., but my dream is pouch i saw the pioneer statue toppling and falling down and at the time the country was looking at all of its racist confederate statues and when i woke up, i said i think it's time. i think it's time that san francisco gets to look at its own racist statues and its own history of colonizization. at that same time, i was introduced to patrick flanagan who let me know about some of the meetings that were happening and out of that started to take down the pioneer statue movement. we made facebook events and literally were on the pulse of what the city wants. what the pulse of what this nation wants and the pulse of what this world wants. i'm told so many times that if

you take down the statue, people will forget the history of the genocide of native americans. well i'll tell you right now i'm a proud native american. i'll make sure no one forgets about the genocide that happened on this stoenl land. i will make sure and i know every other native american who is still live,, breathing and even our ancestors buried in this land will scream from the grave to make sure that no one ever forgets. whose land we're on. who we need honour. and how we want to be honoured. we have been asking for decades upon decades to take down the pioneer statue. when is it all going to happen? you could be allies. you could be a part of history, on the right side. i was there that day. i said i wanted to take down the pioneer statue. so that my child doesn't get to

grow up in a san francisco where they get up to the san francisco bart station and see the depiction of what people think of them. i'm pleading to you, i'll ask you, i'm shedding tears, i'm crying. this is a real, real issue. this is not just some political thing. this is our culture. this is our life being depicted in a racist genocidal society. i'm asking and pleading to please take down the pioneer statue. please vote to remove the statue. however that works out with the certificate of appropriateness and whatever twoeeringing you have to do. but please do that action and send it back to the arts commission so they can have the full unanimous vote again and have this done. let's take care of what we should have done back in the 1990s and take care of nothing that should have gotten up. thank you. and now my native american child just woke up from her nap. [laughter] >> thank you.

ramon quinntero? >> good afternoon. my name is ramon. i work in the tenderloin and i'm here to support the removal of the pioneer statue. the early days section. [baby crying] so san francisco's already moved in the direction of her moving columbus day. and i think this is in line with that. number two, we as people who believe in human rights and i assume all of you think like this. we should not be celebrating colonialism publicly a genocide of people publicly. number three, we know that at the national level, the removal of confederate monuments are happening and i think san francisco needs to also

recognize its own colonial history and its own -- basically its own dark history. and i would put the confederate monuments alongside the pioneer statue as one -- on the same side as the same coin. and even though the particular histories. and the other point i wanted to make is that colonialism and slavery are not worthy of celebration in public space. if we are here to create a better society, a better city, we can't have those type of symbols be displayed in public in this day and age. so i ask you for your wisdom so you support this row move and aspect of the monument.

there is a lot of wars of conquest and other atrocities, but this will be a good start. thank you. >> thank you. jamie velaria? >> thank you for your time and thank you for having this hearing on this item. and also thank you for the observers for the removal. i'm here in solidarity to support the removal of the early days -- as part of the pioneer statue. because this is a landmark located in a public space. we see it every day. we live around the corner. and this chose to honour a history, ugly part of u.s.

history of domination, displacement and destruction of culture that were here before us. and as all of you know, should know that. so please. i hope that this commission makes the decent decision to do and vote to remove this part of the pioneer statue. sometimes an empty base would make more for a poignant symbol to a history we chose not to honour. thank you. >> thank you. other speakers? yes, please come to the stand. >> my name is denny leonard. i lived in san francisco since 1977 from a small indian tribe in oregon, came down here to teach at u.c. berkeley for the school. and reading the book democracy

in america by alexis d. toqueville and in that book, he states that those people he calls native american indians, they're doomed. and watching on getting american indians recognized for restoring the language rights and the congress which we finally got passed and working with maynard jackson and he came up and gave a speech to a large national, american indian group and they were upset that a african american was talking to them and he said don't worry, i'll tell you why it is important that i'm here. he gave his speech talking about affirmative action, political rights and then at the end of his speech, he said and by the way, i'm from a small tribe in africa. and my base has always been tribal and i'm glad to be back home. so, this process has been going on now for a while. and when i think about san francisco, i was with several of the congressional community members about a week ago and they said what makes you proud of being san francisco? i said one of the things that

makes me very proud is the process in which recognition of cultural rights and heritage is retained and sustained by the public policy people who serve in commissions and on the board of supervisors. the indigenous recognition several weeks ago passed, came to one. so, the whole history of philosophy is coming together and the promise of potentially restoring them in the u.s. mint building. i told them that i envisioned when you walk into the mint building, you'll see an indian head nickel and indian head buffalo. any visitors from around the world say yeah, this is american indian land, american indian place and we're coming to american indian territory. so i know that this is the energy of san francisco. it can be done and i know it will be done. thank you very much for your consideration. i look forward to a time when that statue is removed and when we did the indigenous rights,

norman yee suggest add mutual healing so we now are planning to have the italian-american community with the american indian community to come together here in city hall and have a ceremony healing each other. because our history is gone san now we're talking about coming together today to make san francisco stronger. thank you. >> do other members wish to comment on this item? if so, please come forward. seeing and hearing none, we'll close public comment. commissioners, comments? questions? commissioner matsuda? >> sure. just have one -- maybe one last question. i refered to this during our disclosures about the person who gave us a copy of this report from the human rights commission entitled concerns -- issues of concern for native americans in san francisco. and i read it and i thought it was great. under chapter two, under the findings, i think it is finding

number 17 that talks about this particular statue. and then it also talks about the inclusion of a native american representative to help with the decision making process. i guess my question is directed to the arts commission. when this discussion started back last year, did you have some -- one or several representatives from the native american community participate in helping you formulate this decision to move forward? and in what way were they incorporated or included into the conversation? >> well, to the extent that the community drove the process, in terms of coming to the commission and placing the agenda item on the commission agenda for the october 2 meeting, in terms of dialogue with those groups and in terms of sort of planning around that, there wasn't a further --

we didn't pull together a committee along those lines. we took the direction of our commissioners who were very much in favour of the removal and went from that point. >> thank you. commissioner johnck? >> as i came here today, i walked by the children's playground. which was very exciting and i was tempted to run in there because we approved that a while back. as a fitting addition and a new vision for the children of san francisco and our historic civic centre. so i can't help but tie my thinking about the opening of the new playground with the very compelling leadership by the arts commission. and recommending the removal of the early days component of the statue.

and i would like to think that the children who will be using the playground will have an opportunity with the removal of this to have a better understanding of the value of our early people in the city of san francisco and the bay area and california. so i think the evidence is very compelling. for us to approve the alteration of the monument in this way. and i thank the participants who have been part of the leadership, too, to bring this to our attention. thank you. you've been very articulate. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner pearlman. >> thank you very much. and thank you for everyone who's come here today to speak about this. i've been very conflicted about this since we got this material three weeks ago. and not because of the notion

of removing it because i agree with that sentment. and i just think there are so many flaws in the process that i'm struggling with the path from here. i think the staff report, i think there is a lot of flaws in the staff report about the analysis of the -- and, again, don't take me the wrong way, but the analysis of the piece as a piece of art and sculpture, the analysis seemed to focus solely on the relationship of the monuments of the district and not specifically looking at the secretary of interior standards relative to the monument itself, to the piece itself. so, i think there were a lot of conflicts with, you know, things like a property shall be used for historic purposes. the historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. alterations of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. you know, and there is two or

three others, standard three and standard five, where it doesn't feel like the sculpture itself has been addressed. so, that was one concern. i really -- i think mr. levin said it quite well about the what happens from here because, you know, the old expression those who do not know history are deemed to repeat it. and i'm very -- i'm very concerned about not having the story there for the specific reason of people seeing it and that this is part of our history. it is our story. and while it is a bad one and it demonstrates man's, you know, man's baddest -- worstest qualities, i still think there is somehow we should follow through on understanding that. that is what makes always better society today