yard including a half balance. application no 2017/11/22/4735. you have seven minutes. please identify yourself. >> my name is andra roorda. my could on appellant will not be here but she asked me to represent her. >> can. >> clerk: can you speak in the microphone? >> i want to clarify points in the application of 2018. ms. lee my neighbor informed me she is building a greenhouse so her father can enjoy nature outside. her father is a very nice gentleman and i appreciate her

concern. the toilet and electricity are for his convenience. the final plans seem to end kate that the struc structure evolve. it describes it as a shed and then changes to greenhouse and as of last week on the final plan, to residential new accessory building. this final plan includes a bathtub in addition to toilets, sinks and electricity. i have never seen a greenhouse with a bath tub. i would appreciate having my concerns reviewed because of past dealings with ms. lee. we filed a permit appeal in 2016 when two sets of plans for the main residence one denied by the city and one approved were switched and the openers signed off on the incorrect plans. that appeal was upheld because it was, indeed, determined to have been a mistake.

now, with in new addition, there is the expanding project description bath tub and all. i have some trust issues with ms. lee and her project manager amy lee as a result. it has been the contention of ms. wu and myself who are the adjacent neighbors are ms. lee's property as well as others in the neighborhood that ms. lee is interested in ultimately developing the project if current laws change into as many rental units as possible. including this proposed residential new accessory building as known as an accessory dwelling unit. for example, ms. lee owns an apartment building a few blocks away on balboa street and is increasing the rental ye units y six. one also received a per knit to have the living room divided

into two additional bed rams for rental. this is zoned for rental but is an example of the tape of investments ms. lee is utilizing as a developer. i feel they are one resident at 5435 anza is a also a potential income property. i have the original application and i would like to explain why i would like some clarification. i would like to explain -- >> use the overhead, ma'am. number 5 and 5-a indicate the number of stories of occupancy as two. however, number 17 asks does

that create height or story to building. the answer checked is no. if the answer to height is both yes and no which is the right answer? does that leave the door open for future expansion under the permit. number 19 states does the alteration create deck or horizontal extension to building. it is left blank. the plans show the proposed structure as a horizontal structure abutting a portion of the main structure. 20 states if 19 yes state new ground floor air. 19 was writ p in as to answer to number 20. 23 it asks if there is an existing building on the lot. it is marked no. my question is, isn't the main

house considered an existing building on the lot. when i first viewed the plan i asked the planning department if this was permitted. the planning department stated that this structure could not be adjacent to the main building at that is not allowed. the new enlarged footprint increased in depth by 77 and will decrease the open space of the rear garden by that amount. the width of the new footprint also increases by 3 feet, losing open space on the east side of the building. this is a key lot and thus has a small rear yard. together with the increased area and the addition of the 100 square foot greenhouse residential new accessory building much of the open space is lost. the proposed wrap of the accessory build around the rear of the house in an l shape is perhaps a solution to gain more

open space on the lot and thus be in the approved scope of open space. i understand that 25% of the lot is required open space. but if the planning department disallows a structure abutting the main building then the 100 square foot building built as a standalone might take up too much of the small space left. [bell rings] >> clerk: i'm troubled about the foregoing concerns. perhaps the lack of overall information would change in content. i this of respectfully request

either further city investigation into the details of this appeal or if significant violations are present revoking the permit in its entirery. >> thank you. >> you're welcome w. >> clerk: we will now hear from the permit holder. >> good evening, my name is aimly lee. i am here representing ms. michelle lee of no relation who is the owner of 5453 anza street and responding to the appeal of per knit 2017/11ship 22/4735. this was to convict a covered building. appellants have imposed their belief on what they feel ms. lee should or should not do to her home loan that she will live a

home that she will live in. while is irrelevant for the purposes before you, they continue to bring up past permit issues they have incorrectly and unsuccessfully appealed. several hearings and numerous documents review and staples regarding the 2012 permit. ms. lee received unanimous approval at the planning commission as they rejected the request for discretionary hearing to which the board of permit apales also granted the permit in 2016. the permit and associate the plans have been approved by the regulatory agency and reviewed to be following all relevant codes. planning staff noted in the report that the project would not be referred to the commission as it does not contain or create any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. we are confused why the appellants are bringing up inaccurate information on the 2012 permit. a what is important and relevant are the following facts on

november 22, 2017 ms. lee submitted a building permit application with detailed and correct architecturial plans. after review by planning, dbi, d about pw, fire and dbc the plan permit was issued. it clearly showed that the home would undergo construction under the 2012 permit that was recently issued in 2017 dow to the appellant's delay. ms. lee as the property owner has the prerogative to build a garden structure with half bath so her parents can comfortably use a bat bathroom facility witt having to walk into the main house, this in has no access to the main home. appellants state numerous inaccuracies and continue to harass ms. lee. appellants are in correct with the allegation that the garden structure is two stories and does not take into consideration the recently approved home

expansion. there is no approval for a two story accessory building here. they are misreading as the legal description of the main hope is type vb with two stories over basement. and the structure to include a greenhouse. it is one story 100 square feet with a maximum roof top height of 8 feet as you can see exhibit 2. it is incredulous that they are critical and impose their own belief that the garden structures don't knee bathrooms. ' pellants should not be able to make the personal judgment on whether half bath is needed. >> , it is there for their personal and medical needs. appellants allege it will be part after multi2011ing wilding and does not take into account the crept expansion to the home. the home is a single family residence. further more, per the approved plans it is not connect the to the main house and corn administer to the assert, the approved plans reviewed by planning and the building department clearly reference the

expanded design approved and soon to exist new addition under the 2012 permit. if you see exhibit two on pages a-1 a-2, a 3 and a 31 and 32 they all reference the work with the home. the detailed plans showing the location of the greenhouse in the rear yard was approved by the planning department. it is because of the appellants it delays that ms. lee had to move into her rental property until her permanent significant single family home could finish construction. the appellants are julying and d using the situation. any discussion about balboa street is irdevelop rant. ms. lee was raised and educated in san francisco and haven't attended george washington high school in u.c. berkeley. in prior years they accused her are being a foreign

national. once again, it is irrelevant bringing up her personal and economic decisions regarding a permit for a garden structure. the appellant's accusations about profit it is her hope and anyone who owns a home to make some sort of profit when and if she decides to sell the home. the appellants continue to abuse the process creating false information unsupported by facts. the arguments are without merit and failed to demonstrate any reason to reverse issue wans of the permit. the current approved permit has been granted as a matter of right by planning in the building department. we respectfully request that the board deny the appeal and uphold

the entitlement with no new conditions. >> clerk: when >> president fung: when i read the plans i assume what is called a bath tub is now a potting table. >> clerk: thank you. we will hear from the department. >> good evening. cory teague. planning department staff. this appeal is for the report located at 5435 anza street located in the rh-1 zoning district and contains an existing single family home. the subject apale is for a 100 square foot accessory building with only a half bath locate the primarily within the required year yard as was discussed a bath tub is not included in the project. however, as has been discussed this had a prior permit to expand the existing single family home and that was subject to discretionary review'

erhearing and apale before the board. neither the planning commission nor the board took any action to amend the actual proposed addition at that time. this was approve over the counter by planning on january 2018. because it is a completely separate structure with no connection to the existing single family home, no more than 100 square feet and no taller than 8 feet in height it is permitted to be located within the required rear yard per the planning code. and it does in the trigger neighborhood notification per planning code section 311. there is no dbn on file with the property so no bbn notification was triggered as well. although the location and layout is somewhat atippial it does meet planning code requirements and was correctly approved. the only issue related to the permit is something that is somewhat common for projects that obtain addition almery mitts and that is that they show

an existing state that is technically the original prior to the larger addition permit be beginning work. the proposed state shows the row posed envelope authorizized by the earlierer permit. this does not in and of itself indicate that the plan was not correct. >> what would be the legal description from the planning department of this structure? >> you are talking about. >> a legal description? >> yeah. >> i don't know that we would have a legal description. under the planning code section 136 c 22, i think, you can have what they call is a guarden structure. and that is where the 100 foot -- 100 square feet maximum eight feet in height comes in to play is then consistently interpret the over time that that does not have to literally be for garden tools

and what not. it can be used for a variety of uses. >> commissioner honda: garden structure would be the plan that they would use? >> at the top it says greenhouse and in the description, accessory structure and on the back the planner approved and described it as a garden structure. will is no consistent or required way to describe it. >> commissioner honda: the second question is a planning question is regarding the structure is very close or abuts the newly -- the new structure and planning has no issues with that at all? >> the code doesn't speck to dot condition. it was attached and essentially in addition to the exiting structure or there were connections between the structures so that you could walk from one to the other that would be an addition to this structure but the planning code is silent on whether it may or

may not be direct li adjacenly o another structure on the property. >> commissioner honda: sure. >> president fung: we will hear from joe duffy. >> the subject permit to obstruct 100 feet accessory building at the rear yard including a half ba bath was taken in by dbi on november 22, 2017. it was brought t brought to plan january of 18. it was issued by bcp on the 26th of january and then subsequently suspended on february 8. it is to construct 100 square feet new accessory building at the rear yard including a half bath. i did review the plans and there

is plenty of details on there for construction at the property line. it does look to have been properly approved. it is a separate structure. it is not an addition as you heard mr. tate say. so we consider it a completely separate structure. and it was approved properly. there is an exception in the san francisco building code in chapter 106-a where we allow work exempt from permit where there is about 23 items in the code section for separate things and there is one that says from permit a one story detached accessory building or structure used as a tool and storage shed playhouses and similar structures provided it does not exceed 100 square feet. our definition would be a typical garden shed that you buy at home depot, lowe's wherever you go to the hardware store and

put it in the back yard. that is exempt from the permit. this type of construction we want to see a building permit for that. >> i got a question. >> yes, go ahead. >> i know that my understanding is that 100 square feet is legal in san francisco to like you said garden head or playhouse. and that it does not have -- it is not supposed to have its own permanent foundation. is that true? >> yeah, we -- it you are going to put a garden shed it is usually a four inch concrete slab and that is exempt. this is an elaborate building. >> have its own separate foundation. >> and plumbing and it toilet. plumbing and electrical. you wouldn't be able to do it without a pe permit. it does need a permit. >> the last question is the appellant brought up in the permit description she mentioned a couple of the numbers. 23 it says. any other existing buildings on

lot. if yes, so on plot plan and indicates no on number 23. is that an issue with the department at all? >> probably should have said there was a single family dwelling on the lot. i have seen that before. i think the plans show the existing structure on the site plan but probably should have said there was another building on the lot. otherwise it would just be a 100 square foot structure. >> commissioner honda: okay. >> i believe it should have shown the single family residence. the interest story on the billing permit we want the legal decryption of the existing building. mr. teague explained that as well. will is no issue with that. the body of the language of the permit is this is i think it says it is in the rear yard. yes in the body of the language

where you write in the description of work it is construct 100 square feet and rebuilding at the rear yard including a half bath so that doesn't mean you are building a two story structure. simply telling you what the decryption of the existing building is. >> commissioner honda: thank you for clearing that up. >> president fung: is there any public comment on the item. you will have an opportunity for rebuttal. any public comment? no. okay. we will move on to rebuttal. and now the appellant can approach the microphone. as a reminder you have three minutes. >> explain about the bath tub. you explain they said there was no bath tub. >> they said there was no bath tub. >> they are in my plans here. >> i think i said that that was probably a potting table. >> pardon me, sir?

>> potting table. >> oh. >> for plants. >> for plants. >> oh, oh, is that what you -- well, it is described as a bath tub. also, and i do appreciate the explanation but the clarity here is that the legal description of existing building i'm going back to the two stories but i understand you know what is being said. but, the legal description of existing building the stories number of stories is two. the description of building after proposed alteration, two. so, that is how i read it. that it was the same. i thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. ms. lee. this is your opportunity for rebuttal. three minutes. >> i don't really have much to add.

it seems that maybe she misunderstood the billing permit application. michelle lee did fill out the pink form and i think the question number 21 if there was another building i think she was getting it confused with the existing building and thinking this is a permit for the garden structure. it was clearly delineated on the plans and it shows the lot line and the property and so there was no -- just. >> commissioner honda: for clarification, could you indicate on the overhead the bath tub or the nonbath tub just for clarification purposes. >> here could. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> i think you have the permit with you.

>> commissioner honda: joe, do you have it? to the rescue. overhead, please. >> this one right here. >> so it is clearly called toilet. >> commissioner honda: identify yourself for the record, please? >> my name is bill guan. i'm the architect. >> commissioner honda: thank you for clarifying that for us. >> anything further from planning or dbi? no? okay. then, commissioners, this matter has been submitted to you. >> part of the problem when you have typical details. they don't apply.

>> spoken like an architect. >> i will move to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued. >> okay. so from commissioner lazarus on the basis it was properly issued. [roll call] >> clerk: okay. that motion passes. 5-0. >> take a break? >> okay. [gavel] >> clerk: welcome back to the april 18, 2018 meeting of the board of appeals. as i previously indicate the, we are going to hear item 9 next. appeal 18-035 frear stephen

schmid vs. historic preservation commission and kens the subject area is the fulton street right-of-way protesting issuances on february 21, 2018 to the fran arts commission of a certificate of appropriateness for proposed work removing the store to storage the bronze early days group consistent with the purposes of san francisco planning code article 10 to meets the stan dads of article so and the secretary of interior stan cards for rehabilitation of the property located between assessor's block 0353 and block 5354. so we will first hear from the' appellant. seven minutes, please. >> mr. schmid: my appeal is

for the sentimental purpose of assuring that art is recognized and preserved as art. california has passed a civil code section 987 which i cited that expolic explicitly disalloe destruction of art. the historic preservation not only did not follow the law. it did not follow the intended purpose. to think that his -- to think it is historic preservation to destroy the most oldest piece in this civic center historic district. before 1900. it is rather ironic that we are before you today on this

anniversary of the earthquake. the earthquake of 1906. nothing, nothing around here withstood that earthquake but for that monument. but for the components of that monument. and the historic commission has decided to do what an act of god could not do and that is to destroy an alter it. and that is simply improper and not keeping with history as being tolerant and open people, people that are open to art. now art as i argued in my brief is obviously a subjective thing. but no one would question that is a fine piece the art. and no one can question that one does not destroy art. we are not the taliban.

we are not the taliban. we do not go and tear down ancient buddha temples. this is -- it is completely at odds with everything that i learned growing up and being a proud citizen. some of you might be wondering what is the guy from pedaluma filing this brief for and asking for an apale. appeal. historically and this is just for back ground i do have deep roots in this city. for better or worse, m my great-great grandfather was the president of the second vigilante committee in the 1850's and my grand grandfather was the president of the school became the university.

my grandfather was born in san francisco and my mother. my three kids were born in san francisco. and, i practiced numerous years in san francisco and lived here in san francisco. so, it is not like i am antilopeer on than interloper o. i walked by that monument a lot in my life. it is incredibly wrong to think that we can allow the destruction of it. it is contrary to laws, number one. and, also, i would like to add the fact that when this came before the stark commission in 1996, i believe, and as part of the packet that the department made as part of the packet that

i requested administrative notice of, yet the the mayor cap and spoke in favor of this very supporting my very point. i would like to read in the record the mayor thanked the commissioners for accepting the responsibility of providing guidance and leadership in the arts for san francisco. he said that he envisioned the pier ipioneer monument and listo this as the center of civic center -- of a civic center complex. let me repeat that. the center of a civic center complex. now, although it is not part of the record, there is a passing reference that somehow this historic monument is

categorically exempt. denying that it had any -- it as trivial thing. a small structure. well, when the former mayor of the city that put the nice gold on top of this building that restored the glory of this building, when he spoke and said that that was supposed to be the center of the civic center, i think we ought to heed his words. let me go on and just quote from him. he said this is quoting from the minutes. he said that san francisco had always been a site of controversy between cultures. well, amen to that. that is what it is all about. that is why we are san franciscans. there is controversy and you don't destroy it by eradicating something you don't like. you do not hide it away in storage. he went on per the minutes and

said that the monument itself was an artist interpretation of the events of that time that the plaque had been an attempt to address what had actually happened and that the wording had raised questions. that is the whole point of art tortioart,to raise question. 120 years later it is raising questions. [bell rings] >> mr. schmid: it has done its job like all art because people paused, think and considered. we do not destroy art in this country at least not in my mind. in this going on, referring to mayor brown. the history of the recruitment of native americans by the franciscans he said that the franciscans did, indeed

[bell rings] >> come to convert an initial sue of subhumans had be accessory noned and rejected and the serious damage done to the culture could not be attributed to any one collection of people. could not be attributed to any collection of one people. >> president fung: sir, your time is up. you will have three minutes in rebuttal. >> thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next we will hear from the art commission. is there a representative? >> president fung: art commission or hpc? >> clerk: thank you. please identify yourself. >> aim the civic registrar for the arts collection. as a san francisco charter mandated department authorized to act on behalf of the city and county on matters pertaining to

public art. protection of culture is one of the art commission highest priorities but should be understood it is not our only priority. we value highly the well being of citizens. the early days garoppoloing has been a decades long point of concern for the community. extensive depate occurred at the arts commission, the planning commission and library commission back in 1990 to 1996 when it was relocated to the current site to make way for construction of the new library. the solution was to construct bronze plaques at the site. in august of 2017 almost immediately following the events in charlottesville surrounding the removal of the monument to general lee, the contracts commission received a renewed request from the public to remove the early days culture. at the core is the degradation and genocide of natives in california utilizing to broadly depict all flaytive americans

which are now universally viewed as disrespectful, misleading and racist. on october 2, at the a meeting of the full arts commission the commissioners voted to pass resolution 1002-17-251 requiring staff to initiate the review process for the commission to consider removal of early days. staff determined that a certificate of appropriateness would be required from the historic preservation commission because it is considered a contributing feature to the landmark district. the monument is not landmarked, however, the location it located in the civic center historic district which is. as a hearing on february 21, 2018, commissioners voted to pass 201-70-5941 approving the certificate of appropriateness. on march 5, commissioners vote the unanimously 12-0 to pass

resolution 03518057 authorizing removing a and placement in storage of early days upon determination that remove ale of the art work is appropriate under the guidelines based on the criterion of significant adverse public reaction over an extended period of time. throughout this robust public process we have heard clearly from citizens that the continued display of the sculpture caused real harm. mayor lee, mayor farrell and london breed and district supervisor kim have gone on record to voice support of the removal from prominent display directly in front of city hall. the application submitted for the certificate of appropriateness correctly identifies the city and county of san francisco as the property owner and arts commission as the

applicant. the director of cultural affairs is the signatory. the authority over art work is man tated by city charter in section 5.103 which states that the arts commission shall approve the design and location of all works of art before acquired, transferred or sold by the city and county or place the upon and removed from city and county property or altered in any way. maintain and keep an inventory of works of art owned by the city and county and maintain the works of art owned by the city and county. administrative code sections 2-a .150 elaborate providing the term work of art is used for the sections shall comprise of painting muiral decorations stained glass, statues or other sculpt tours, monuments or structures of a permanent nature intended for -- no existing shall be removed relocated or realtered in any way without the approval of the commission

except as provided herein and provides that the commission shall exercise all reasonable commission of policy as connected with the arts as assigned by ordinance or exextip action and continues on the section 2-a. the following responsibilities to the art is commission. the cat that log and care and paint of all statues, murals, a paintings and other art media belonging to the city other than and excepting those located on the property under the jurisdiction of the unified school district and memorial museum, the california [inaudible] the academy of sciences and recreation and park commission. shall be the jurisdiction of the arts commission. so based on the authority given to the arts commission from the people of san francisco and the board of supervisors under the charter administrative code the arts commission acting on behalf of the city and county of san francisco has the authority to proceed with the removal of early day. it adheres to the code of ethics

and guidelines for practice set forth. materials utilized will be specified by qualified professionals and work will be executed by firms with previous experience with historic monuments. no material will be destroyed as a function of the project and all work undertaken will be completely reversible should the city and county desire to reinstall early days at the pioneer monument. the arts commission is open to the future public display in a respectful environment that can adequately contextualize the sculpture. it is planned to be placed in secure fine arts storage. regarding the fine arts preservation act it does not apply to the removal of early days have, the duration of protection civil code section 987 extends for 50 years following an artist's death. because the artist died in 193, the rights and duties under

section 987 expired in 1983 and do not aplay to the removal of the group. for the previously stated reasons and the reasons put forth by the historic preservation commission in approving the certificate of appropriateness the appellant's appeal should be denied. [bell rings] >> thank you. >> president fung: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next we will hear from the planning department. >> good evening president fun anfunandfungand commissioners. specifically the project proposed removal of the grouping titled early days from the granite base. the proposal was to store the sculpture in long-term storage and patch the base.

per article 10 the coa is required construction, alteration removal or demolition of a landmark. on february 21, 2018 the historic preservation commission held a public hearing with full attendance and found that the proposal was appropriate for and consistent with the purpose of article so that it met the standards ever article 10 and the secretary of interior standards for rehabilitation and unanimously approved with the following conditions. first, that upon completion of the project any documentation that is completed as part of the removal and storage should be forward to the planning department to be added to the administrative record for the case and second a plaque should be installed at the site to explain its removal. dedicated in 1894, the pioneer monument is an installation that was installed at the intersection of hyde and grove street but relocated in 199 about on an access to city hall.

it consists of five separate free standing bronze sculptures, a large central figure and four surrounding figural sculptures. bronze letters edentify. the monument surrounded by a low metal fence in a landscaped island. the appellant raise several issues in the brief as to why the commission should not have granted coa. they say they had no standing to aplay. the arts commission ha has specific rights and responsibilities and was an appropriate representative of the city. second, the appellant claims that the commission wrongfully found proposal to meet the secretary of the interior standards considering the changes to the pioneer monument physical presence and character. the commission determined that the proposed work overall maintains the character defining

features of the civic center landmark district because it was limited to the removal of only one of the five historic sculptures. that is only one part of the larger landmark district which includes but is not limited to city hall, the war memorial complex and the civic auditorium. the commission also found that the proposed alteration to the monument and related repair work to the granite base would not affect the overall craftsmanship, setting or relationship to the district. the appellant claims that the issuance of the c of a and a replacement with a plaque with violate the first amendment by favoring some expression over others. there is substantial case law the first amendment does not regulate government speech and the city has the right to express its views by continuing to display the sculpture or removing it.

fourth the appellant claims that the e iv should have been required. it falls in a categorical exemption to conclude, the issue is not whether the city should or should not choose to remove the early days sculpture but whether or not the commission acted appropriately and granted the certificate of appropriateness. to that point the stran arts commission was an appropriate applicant and the commission acted correctly and appropriately in approving. therefore the department respectfully requests that the board uphold the c of a issued with conditions so that the early days sculpture may be removed. [please stand by for change of captioners]

over 100 years ago the monument was erected despite the objections. they knew they were the drunkards and thieves in the city. to the local indigenous people they were murder hers.

they were silenced by white men. mr. smith denounced the removal as fassism. this entire monument is a trickute. it is a -- tribute. it is how propaganda can des sports history and alter how individuals are viewed. society is brainwashed. despite how many lives were extinguished on youther believe all indian people are ignorant. we want the truth to be told. for the statute to be accurate, there would be a handful of native scalps with the purse made from the breast of a indian woman. it would be missing a limb the priest cut off to escape the abuse. the priest would be holding a whip he used to beat the indian

out of a slave. that is the truth. the statute does not speak the truth. its presence continues to perpetuate ignorance. we are not working under the ideology to remove the statutes. we are working to teardown so that truth can prevail. the removal will discriminate in expression over others. i challenge to ask when were my ancestors part of the discussion. we have been silenced and we refuse to be silent any longer. after decades to have it removed to a process we have to stand up against the arrogance of a single privileged white man who is convinced his viewpoint is the only viewpoint that matters.

plea uphold the permits and honor the process to remove this atrocity. >> maybe the woman with the child do you want to go next? okay. we have a couple people. >> barbara mumly is staff at the arts commission. they have five minutes to present. she did not present herself as an employee of the arts commission. she did this at the arts commission and historic preservation. she does the same at sunshine hearings. she is not a member of the public. she saan employee the arts commission with access to documents that members of the public don't have. second, i think all of you are

aware of the fact that the arts commission has a habit of lying. they do not champion street artists. street artists are treated badly during super bowl l. my experience with the board the fact the arts commission comes in with a lawyer with no evidence, no documents to support their claims, and i am left wondering what just happened? it is an outrage. the first amendment is first amendments. if there are violations, there are violations. i believe in reading the briefs that there are issues that can be raised. they should be considered and the arts commission are just liars. they do not champion artists that is why so many are moving out. thank you. >> i am martin.

i am a 30 year resident of san francisco and native-american. when i go by the statute, i see genocide. i came to san francisco because it is progressive. i thought new orleans was our sister city. they took down the confederate statute. the mayor stated every time african-american people walked by they could feel what their ancestors felt in the slavery. i think you should all look at it as a person like me being native the original people of the land, what we must feel. i sat last week with an elder of mine, and she said everything was in balance. there was a time when the mountains told you, when family was coming. when things were going to be ok.

with things like this we are above this, we should look inside, into all of our ancestors that speak to us. they don't tell us the right thing to do. thank you. >> thank you. >> i am dave dippel. i work in museums for a total of 42 years. i am a university-trained cultural anthropologist. i am trained as a field archeologist. i have participated in many excavations and excavations, the last ones being the pioneer's cemetery. my concern here is that we are

editing art. we are trying to edit art history. that particular cultural group is there for a reason. it is about the spanish occupation of california. it was not very nice. you only have to look at what happened in south america and central america to know that. there is a saying of the last great chief of the inkca. a wiseman must trust his heart to know the truth. that is important. it does display a particular culture at a particular time and what they did. it is important as a springboard to look at the rest of the work. it is not nice. at one point i sent an e-mail in

and joked that that particular group, like the confederate sculptors in new orleans has one place, in a grave yard. the ones of grant and whatever should be with the troops, with the people who they caused to be killed. in this case, i do believe that group, if we must edit it should go to mission delores in the cemetery. there are literally hundreds of anonymous graves there of native americans. they are not of any of the other tribes mentioned here. the history of the spanish in california involved forced labor in a mission system. there are 21 of them from 1769 to 1823. there are hundreds of thousands of dead native-americans buried on those places.

if we edit our history, are we going to bulldoze the missions because of what they did? they are there as a reminder of what is improper. if we want to move something else back i suggest we move the headstone for valdez from the film vertigo as a memorial to hitchcock. >> thank you, sir. >> hello. i am eugene phillips. i find this sculpture rather demeaning and rather difficult to view. it does represent a native-american genocide that took place in this country, but

i believe we need to in some ways have the statute remain. i think that it is a lesson for all of us about a crime against humanity that was committed. the harsh reality is this crime is continuing to be committed in this country. we have native-american artifacts destroyed. native american lands taken away. there is a proposal to raise mount shasta dam another 13 feet which would inundate native-american sacred site. this is destruction of important areas. in some ways if the statute stays, there should be additional statutes that really honor and respect the native --

native-american people that stand there. people can see the crime that was taking place in the past but also the strong dynamic of the native-american community and their important plays with in our country, our culture in history. they need to be honored and respected. thank you. thank you. >> i am maria. i am part mohawk and part of the american community and one of the members. i am the person who started to take down the pioneer statute. this is not a new call. like we told you from the beginning of putting up the statute. there was a call to never put it up in the 1800s, 1900s. in the 1990s there was another call. this is a very, very old issue. this has been older than i'm

alive, right? i wanted to talk about ancestors. they survived genocide on this land. i think that not one native-american person will say we ever want to forget the history of genocide. us still living here and breathing is a reminder that genocide happened. it wasn't a cute occupation and forced labor. there was slavery. i may mispronounce your name. one of his ancestors was part of the first committee on vigilance. i did a quick google seven. it says if you look at the third this malissue group included the justice system.

it used trials. it including lip muching de -- lynching and deportation and lynching. it is the lynn negaming that they were proud of deportation. lynching and whipping. that is what we are looking at. i want to be clear that everybody is on board. this is the only person. there is one person that said keep it up. they changed their opinion in the last arts commission. they was like you know what? i did thinking about this and realized i was wrong. i want to think what is before us today. the historic preservation commission, arts commission, numerous members. the former mayor ed lee and the school board, board of supervisors support this. we are waiting to see that

statute come down. this is the only thing holding it back right now. you have a landmark decision. you can join the rest of the nation with moving forward to be progressive and progress of looking at what statutes are really racist represent genocide, sla slavery. is this what we have? that statute doesn't represent that. it is going to be put in storage. most likely moved to a museum where people have the thoughts about genocide. think about the first people of the land. you are sitting on and you benefit from. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment? seeing none we will move to rebuttle. mr. smith. three minutes please. >> thank you. as i tried to be clear in my