>> two are activated and then you'll review if you look at the department of public health we're required to go back if ever that additional sector and

cherry pickers with the connecting cable. >> there's also the issue of in the specs the power range the low exceeds the maximum allowed. >> i don't believe that's correct he's an rf engineer and sometimes i pretend to be one but i'm not. >> we've seen him in times. >> good evening, i'm bill hammet. to answer the question about the

antenna it's a tri-directional antenna and all directions are to be active and the sheet 1 drawings indicate the active sectors provide additional detail in sheet 2. there's one direction across the street whereas at that distance levels would be low. the other two generally go up and down the street though they're facing the buildings to some degree. >> the second question was related to when i saw the spec sheet it showed the power range the higher end exceed the maximum, is that correct? >> i'm not familiar with what sheet you're talking about. this is the specification sheet for the antenna itself? >> yes. >> the antennas are fabricated and can handle a variety of

power up to some maximum. for this case and other cases they don't run as much as power as the antenna can handle like you don't drive your car the maximum it can go. for the antennas they put in small radios to get the desired energy coming out. the levels are low. they're low-power facilities only intend to go a couple box. >> i'm looking at the com scope specifications. >> that's exactly what i'm talking about. if you read in there there's the maximum power capacity the maximum power you can put into it and these are running at 25 watts or so, very low power into the antenna itself. >> so how do you test that you are not exceeding the maximum of 2100? >> the way we test is we come in with a bucket truck and go up to the antenna and go around the

antenna looking for where the maximums are to see it is indeed the antenna that was specified and oriented in the direction it was specified and measured the distance to the occupational and public limits because it's what we calculate ahead of time for the signage for somebody working on the pole in front of the antenna and go any place where a painter or somebody might have occasion to be other than on the pole and measure what the levels are at that location. in order to confirm or test whether those facilities or where the exposure levels are less than the federal standard and we've done this at hundreds of sites in san francisco. >> commissioner: is that data available publicly? >> yes, it's written up and provided to the department of public health for their records and have the initial study and

evaluation followed by the follow-up report part of the public record. >> commissioner: thank you. >> so you've been before this body many many times. this is the first time i've heard that the antenna has the capability of being tri-directional. every time you've been before us you stated the antenna can only go two ways. you never mentioned it has the ability to go three ways. >> they make antenna are 380 degrees opposite or three direction are 320 degrees. >> so it's not a standard antenna? >> it is. they make antennas that are omni-directional. >> again, we've had hundreds of cases and they've all been bi-directional antennas. you've said they were bi-directional. >> two weeks ago was a

tri-discretional. only two were activated. when we say bi-directional the industry means two opposite directions 180 degrees apart. >> it's the first time we found it has the capability of going tri. the next question is how many people ask for the readings or of the antenna? >> people have asked for the readings? >> it's not required but we'll do that if we can schedule it so the people there at the time of testing we go in and i put the meter in the tenant's hand and they go in their house and measure the wireless router and a variety of things. >> commissioner: thank you. >> i was told the district

supervisor is always advised in the noticing and i have to take exception the d.t.a.s report clearly says each antenna is tri-directional and has a condition if we ever add an additional direction we have to go back to you so it's clearly on the report. it's just the way the antenna's manufactured. it can look three ways but we only use two in most circumstances. sometimes we use one, sometimes three. >> thank you, counselor. >> commissioner: if you're finished we'll move on to public works for public mapping. >> hi, i'm amanda higgins from hub bick works. public works believes that we followed the article 25 of the public works code process in the permit. the department of public health

found that this application complies with the article 25 public health compliance standard. the planning department found this application complies with the t.r.b. compatibility standard so based on this public works tentatively approved the application on december 19, 2017. they noticed the approval through a mailing in a posting. public works held a public hearing to consider protests and based on the hearing officer's findings, the director of public works approved the permit. i wanted to clarify that one of the appellant's concerns was about notice prior to the tentative approval. so under article 25, there actually is no required notice prior to an application being

tentatively approved. also regarding the required noticing of the tentative approval i have code 25 section 1512 -- >> that's you, gary. >> it does say the notice of mail of notice to approval is to any person owning property or residing within a 150-foot radius and we interpreted that to be properties within 150 feet need to be mailed noticed. also, in terms of the notice of the posting, the applicant is required to post the notice for approv approval in conspicuous places. it doesn't have to be posted on

the pole. so we looked at verizon's signs affidavit and determined they did meet the section 1512 noticing requirements. we also received several protests including one from the co-president michael gains and one from the appellant members of the lower merchants and neighbors association. we also received a signed p protest petition that listed 25 signatures of the lower haight merchants neighbors association and this was given to the public works hearing officer. so i've asked the planning department and public health department attend the hearing to answer any questions you have

about ceqa review or department of public planning review. >> commissioner: thank you. planning? >> good evening. i'm representing the planning department. if i could briefly just give you an overview of how the planning department would review the referrals. these are reviewed by the planning department twice through our capacity at the lead agency for ceqa we do review all these for environmental clearance under ceqa. second, each site comes in as a dpw referral for individual review as well. so with that, i'm happy to answer question it's have you them and would like to read knee record what our recommendation for approval was for this site at 443 haight. >> commissioner: go ahead. >> clerk: >> at the personal wireless

facility the department determined it would not significantly degrade the aesthetic attributes for the special designation which is the haight valley historic residential district and the proposed wireless facility would not detract from the characteristics of the neighborhood or commercial zoning district which is in this case a small case commercial neighborhood district which satisfies compliance with article 25 of the code. h happy to answer questions now or later. >> tase -- it's in the historic district in >> yes. >> are you aware of the form -- >> oh, yes, i can clarify. if the appellant con bring -- can bring that back up i can

clarify. >> commissioner: is that supposed to be blank? >> the form we called the cat-x form the last page is called the sep 7. that's generally left blank unless there is a modification in the -- >> commissioner: hold upon can you -- hold on. can you bring that to the overhead, please? >> commissioner: this new product producter -- projector is awesome. >> page seven is always left blank unless there's a change later on if the project is modified. >> commissioner: it says to be

completed with project planner. >> sure at the top says step seven of the modification. that's if there's modification later so we would not fill that out on the initial project review or completion. >> commissioner: okay. i think that was my question. >> okay, thanks. >> commissioner: thank you. >> thank you, is there any public comment on this item? if you could approach the microphone, please. >> whoever would like, please come forward. >> clerk: three minutes. >> good afternoon. pet peter alexander. we're in a frequency suit and to pretend it doesn't affect us we question not against flesh and blood but the principalities of

the air. the verizon towers can change frequencies from the flip of a switch from france calder in the '30s from the founding father to psycho tronices there's a bulk of evidence to understand the nazi mind control. 80% of our military who saw suicide never saw action but all heard recognition. mass shootings by those overwhelmed by crazy-making voices which is vt2 voice to skull perfected over 50 years in our prison system and we know that the reason they are control versus crazy is because they all do the same thing. currently, we're also dealing with the ongoing weaponized

parasitical pandemic with the aluminum dust and the -- what's that call the morgallenes in our food, body, our air in the weaponized parasitical assault. they enter the body and end up creating with all the aluminum already in us, we become receptacles for antennas which is why they can control people's mind especially people stressed or troubled or what have you a little bit more easily. operation crimson mist was used in uganda and chicago and berkeley and ferguson and more so. there's plenty of people who know all this is true. san francisco had a $500 million lawsuit regarding a psychotronic attack that was accepted by the

first judge on its merit and psychotronic energy weapon was designed to blow out mayor lee's heart for cause, okay. you can look the information up and look up the revolution radio archives of which a lot of information is there. so i'll finish by saying under the big money and guys of better reception, they demand you deny and ignore the obviousness and overwhelming attempt for succession for they've been as ghoulish as we've been misled and foolish. there's more information and no lack of information regarding the technology and the fact that they can alter, no matter what they tell you, they can alter the frequencies and what they do with these frequencies a dozen different ways without you ever knowing it. >> commissioner: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> i'm representing the lahamna neighborhood. we want to represent why verizon should not be granted. calcations were taken -- calcation taken at 10, 20 and 5 and leading out the highest reading, the 20. and the reading device could not decipher which wireless source was exceeding from and one kansas exceed it and you couldn't know it and this leaves neighborhoods vulnerable. we took our own mer urments and

it's 150 feel from cvs at 499 haight street with measuring devices we can determine the frequency at the corner of haight and fillmore. it's not viewed from verizon's photo it can cause accumulative stress when co-existing with the proposed antenna. the antenna transmits hot spots too high by biological engineer standards and higher than what the department of health has submitted. first at 94,000 microwatts and two months later at 150,000 microwatts per centimeter and because it's a tri-directional retirement it can go into people's windows and antennas should not be placed less than eight feet from a window and it's also close to the proposed

property. the property and two others set back from the curb approximately 13 feet and set back from the applicant's property to the east and west eight feet. there's a usable patio space where people hung out and this was not included in verizon's specks. the pursuit of happiness by other property owners with architecturally designed order s based on the zoning law of the neighborhood and the exercise right by the property owners, a deck, storefront or new building would bring the property line and window approximately six feet from the proposed site and this is against the planning department's w.t.s. standards and this is one more stressor we must deal with and stumbling children i must mentor and let's

pretend it's not exempted and you had ample community input and let's pretend fcc maximal density output allows to dwelling units where residents are exposed against their will. let's pretend there's directionality and the power is not 269 and therefore does not exceed limits. let's assume verizon does not know -- i have a few more lines -- thank you. i appreciate it. >> clerk: next speaker, please. >> commissioner: no clapping, please. >> hello. i'm rick schafer. i live 100 feet away across the street and my concern here is

that it's two-fold. one is i'd like to get a signal on my cell phone but i want to avoid getting fried. i understand the technology's a lot like a microwave oven. so i'd like to know from the buildi building department or new laws to but a barrier around my living space to get my signal if i choose to use this company verizon. otherwise >> interview: want to get no signal. i don't want the energy to go into my space. then there's this talk about tri-directional or bidirectional. there's residents on all side of the antenna and closeby but on all sides of the street and like you said there's another antenna on the corner of the block.

so it seems to me discussing the kind of antenna you got there is like trying to make the discussion go away and start dealing with something technology but we're dealing with real people here. another comment is that verizon sent the information to the owner's of buildings. well, the owners don't live in those buildings so they won't have any worry about this antenna. the people that live in the build who will are going to beered, we're going to be concerned. be bothered, we're going to be concerned. why doesn't verizon put a sign on the actual location? and the signs that were put up don't say anything about the health issue just that it's going to be in the area. my main concern is i'd like the

law -- a new law to be created that says this is how to protect the neighbors. this is how to protect yourself. this is what the building department's going to do and say we're going to test the barrier and verizon is going to be able to send their signal through that barrier and when we build a barrier, verizon will use the other side, our side of the barrier to make sure we're get safe level. at some point they may change they're numbers and intensity. if they do that, they have to retest. >> commissioner: thank you. >> clerk: thank you, sir. >> hello. i live nowhere near it, i live a mile away but i have good friends of mine for 30 years so i support them. i'm here to inspire you to

think, to work, i worked at bell labs we're a nobel winner in astrophysics and have a ph.d. from cornell in millimeter wave. and i know how life say living matter reacting to waves. the government and radar research in the '50s showed the biological effect of waves. i've read it. it's a massive amount of data. nobody in their right minds even an engineer would take on a massive readings and that's what they're counting on, the public not being able to understand it and a worked for qualcomm and four silicon valley start-ups. none of these are allowed to have a division that investigates the effects of these waves therefore, it is up to you to support and help

people that are requesting your investigation and help. we know you get sued for speaking out. well, we don't like this either but we do it at our own expense. these waves do interact with our bodies and minds. you should see this. can you imagine a bee, a little bee, they've discovered a small change in the proteins in the brain was causing their aggressive behavior. just a tiny snap of a dna molecule of changing the proteins. amazing. we claim there's no effect. the studies show millimeter waves do react with the neurons in the brain. have you noticed any accelerated aggressive behavior in human beings recently? crazy, huh? it's up to you to look. now to the items i've been asked to address. one, i looked at the verizon signal on haight street there's three bars, what's the antenna for? many encouraged me to speak to

the idea that the issue of wireless proliferating around the world is similar to tobacco cover-up. i'm resist tant -- resistant to discuss that. and proliferation of wireless is far beyond the tobacco concerns. why? wireless. it's every where. rubber stamping these technologies not resisting. there's other ways. fiber optic to the home. guess why we don't do it? the year 2000. it's too expensive. stand up and ask for fiber to the home. it's light. it's beautiful. thanks. >> thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm atto duffy in market area

one of the most dense areas of the city and we have many of these antennas on the street now. i also have training in biochemistry and radio frequency as well and there's preexisting reasons to have concern. a lot of times with technologies like this there's a tendency over time for the regulations to be stricter and stricter with time and it seems that could be the case with this technology as well. we have a statute coming up that would be allowed today but wasn't allowed in 1985. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm joel vadola. you can get any study. we don't have solid proof but it's common sense. some people can just feel things or are allergic to things other

people aren't and it's obvious some people feel it even if you're okay with perfume, somebody else can't breathe. i appreciate the power you guys have but there are people out there who don't feel right about it so it's one of those things. and i just want to finish this. let's assume verizon doesn't know if they'll modify or not and pretend neighborhood organizations who received envelopes for the insistence and the residents had tentative approval. let's pretend we already have service and don't want verizon. let's pretend they met all the requirements, they still don't meet the supposed strict requirements set by the city and county of san francisco and their departments. please deny the permit. >> commissioner: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. any more public comment on the item? if you can approach. >> i'm harold lopez. i live on skyland page.

there's a school there. i walk from the bus stop down that way and around the corner from there. i'd like to know what's happening with the school? will it affect the school and the kids or what? that's what i have to say. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, sir. we will now move ton rebuttal. >> commissioner: let me have one minute.

>> clerk: we're resuming. >> there was on in tnot a notif on the pole. that's my first point. my second point is about the three tri-directional. i appreciate they say they're not activating the third direction. i find it confusing, and i hope you do as well why they're not activating it and how do we know if they do start to activate the third direction? i find it very troubling they

have this tri-directional tower around they say, oh, no, we're only using two. i have trouble believing verizon and i'm confused and shocked by the article 25 interpretation how you can interpret it doesn't need to go to homeowners or residents as either/or. i want to give a medal to anyone who has a red or black shirt. i wouldn't give it just to the black shirt or red shirt but either. that is resident, tenant and owners. i do not believe when article 25 was written they wrote in such a way tenant would be excluded with 60% to 75% of the city.

when you look at the list of owners, many don't live anywhere near haight street. if not, let me be clear on the ask, the ask is either to deny the permit or alternatively require verizon to start the process from the beginning. >> commissioner: you have 20 seconds. >> i'm done. >> commissioner: okay. >> we have lots of signatures. they actually do live on the block. so just to let you know there's lots of lots of people who live on the block who fight verizon saying it's going to improve -- and people want it and it's

going to -- >> commissioner: ms. shelby, i have a question. your brief didn't have a name of the author. >> of the author? >> commissioner: then there's a second that was quite extensive that was also not authored. is that you? >> the brief was probably less than 12 pages. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner: there's no legal requirement just curious. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from verizon >> clerk: president fung and members of the board. >> a couple points. one commentator said it's a

frequency suit and that's probably true. it was measured by the department of public health and all the frequencies in the area are less than 1% in the area for the facility to be installed is also less than 1% of the frequency standard but it is something we live with and regulated. clearly if any of you ran for congress, i'd vote for you but this is an issue before congress and determined by the federal government and the fcc has an open docket of reviewing the standards and it's something that is of concern. people pay tension with respect to the phones and in terms of technology, these are 5 watt

radios, extremely low wattage. the antenna adds 10 times of gain to put out the signal. that's how they work. if you're going to increase the wattage of the facilities you need to increase the radios. in other areas we have bigger radios but there's no such intent here and clearly there's condition number 6 said if we ever modify the facility we have to go through the process. there is no down-tool the third antenna faces into the houses. it would be stupid to turn that on because it's a waste of signal. we're using it up and down the street and the same facility we've used in most of san francisco and fully recognized by the department of public health. with regard to noticing many

were there and here because they got notice and we have a photograph and affidavit and post the full final determineti determinetion -- determination is contained in that posting. article 25 posts notice. verizon wireless is very concerned about its public illage, the sale of the product ima image, the sale of the product and in complying with laws. we hope you agree as well. i'd be happy to answer any questions and bill hammet is here to answer technology questions. >> are you authorized for a tri-directional antenna. >> i don't know what you mean

authorized. >> can you use a dual or tri? >> it doesn't address the directions of the antennas in any way. in fact -- >> commissioner: is there anything that indicates you have to use dual, omni, tri. >> our occupation. we have to show emissions and comply completely with the fcc standards. we hired a professional engineer's report showing emissions from this facility and they're well below the fcc standards. b.p.h. under article 25 has to confirm it complies -- >> commissioner: the question is can you use the duel and tri and you answered the question. >> if it's modified we have to file again. >> clerk: mr. higgins, do you have anything further? >> i have a question for ms.

higgins. >> commissioner: there's no raul. you're solo now. congratulations. so the question is someone mentioned how often do people ask for the readings of the antennas. is it through you or department of public work. >> they did say the applicant has to have a procedure for these requests so i believe a lot of times what i tell the public is to contact the applicant at the notice listed on the filing determination. i believe that's what people are doing without going to me. i do get sometimes where the applicants know me and -- sorry, the public knows me and will copy me in the request.

since january of 2018 i've probably seen like five. >> commissioner: thank you. >> i have a question which may be for you or mr. albright. the required notice or once the permit's been okayed and the notice goes out, that list comes from -- >> the mailing list? >> >> the mailing list. >> the applicant is required to generate the notice and i believe what they normally do is they go to the assessors or the tax collector for the list of who owns these properties and they're responsible for making -- ensuring their radius is valid. they're also required to mail the neighborhood association for any neighborhood contacts the planning department maintains. the planning department has a website where the applicants can download the spread sheet

listing the neighborhood contacts. >> commissioner: so there's no way you can determine if someone is residing at the property they own or not? >> as far as i know, no. >> thank you. >> clerk: commissioners. this matter is submitted. >> commissioner: commissioners. >> commissioner: i believe the permit was properly issued. i'll start with that. >> i'll start. so as someone mentioned that we're frayafraid to get sued an that's not the case. we stepped up to the plate. this is probably -- we're probably at 3,000 hearings for mobile cellular facilities at this point.

we care a lot. we all have a family. i live in san francisco. article 25 was written because these companies have procedures and you can contact your representatives. this body is only here to determine whether the permit was issued properly according to the guidelines and in this case it was. the question the appellant had were answered sufficiently and this permit was issued properly. >> commissioner: i'm in concurrence. >> that would be my motion. >> clerk: we have a motion from commissioner honda to deny the peel on the basis the permit was properly issued. on that motion. commissioner fung.

>> president fung: aye. >> clerk: the motion passes. we're going to take a five-minute break. we do have a high volume of speakers for this item so if you get an opportunity, can you please fill out a speaker card and be prepared to give it to gary contera when you come up and line up against the wall and >> clerk: welcome back to the june 13, 2018 board of appeals meeting and for those who stood up the request from the

sheriff's office is to sit back down and when it's time for public comment we have 10 people standing against the wall and the sheriffs will coordinate to keep the meeting orderly. i appreciate it. [question off mic] >> clerk: sit close. i think it will be fine. i can't guarantee where you'll be at, sir. so we're moving on to item 7-a and 7-b. they'll be heard together a hearing request for the fulton street right-of-way and they're requesting a rehearing of a peel 18-035 schmitt versus the

commission and the board voted on the basis the historical preservation commission acted incorrectly because the review was inconsistent of a typical review of historic piece and the historic preservation commission does not satisfied standards to the secretary of interior standards for rehabation. the determination holder is the art commission and appellant is schmidt and to meet the secretary of interior standards for rehabilitation at the property within block 0353 and 0354 and case number 2017-015491coa.

each group gets three minutes or if it's a combined presentation six minutes and appellant will have six minutes. so we will start with the art commission. will you be giving the full presentation or three minutes? >> three minutes and deferring. >> clerk: thank you. >> great. good evening commissioners. thank you so much for you're time this evening. i'm the director of cultural affairs for the san francisco art commission. the art commission and historic preservation commission respectly the board rehear the issuance of certificate of appropriateness of the pioneer monument and we'll show it's an extraordinary case and a he hearing will give the board. and the commission will recount now facts and circumstances known by the board at the time of appeal may we will have

affected the outcome. at the outset, we know what the appeal does not present. it does not present the due process of a property rights issue and is located on city land and belongs to the city and the absence does not effect property rights and the appeal does not involve the first amendment. no individual rights of expression is at stake in this case. the only stregs -- expression is of the public by putting it in a public venue, in fact in front of our city hall. what's at stake is the right of the community to express its values of the statue at this location. the community was measured by selected and appointed officials have expressed the values clearly and emphatically and on multiple occasions. the art commission exercising

its charter responsibility for art over numerous decade decided unanimously on two occasions the statue should be removed from the civic area and put into art storage. the human rights commission note the statue celebrates the conquest and genocide of native american community and sends a devastating message to our native american communities and an affront to san francisco values. the board of supervisors adopted a resolution signed by the mayor supporting the remove from the civic senator area and cites extended opposition from the general public to the sensitive nature of native americans and stated in 2017, quote, the streets of san francisco there ought to be symbol don't depress people or remind them of

oppression and it bothers native americans and bothers us if it bothers them. these officials have recognized the statue is out of place in our community. not everyone will agree but it's a community decision and the officials express values in speaking nor community. we should not have the statue in the civic center area any more than we should have a statue of robert e. lee. no property rights are implicated and we appreciate your consideration of a rehearing. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from the historic preservation commission. >> good evening, president fung, i'm the historic preservation officer with the san francisco planning and the overturn of the certificate was pred kated on the find -- predicated was it was inconsistent with past

decisions with character-defining features and was inconsistent in the application of the secretary of the interior standards. the issue was not raised by the appellant's brief and the h.b.c. didn't have an opportunity to clarify in applying the standards. the department respect if i requests a rehearing to provide an opportunity to demonstrate the h.p.v.'s review fold standard procedure. landmark buildings are individual structures under the planning code. districts however, are designated as larger geographic areas and by definition contain more historic features. here, it occupies 15 city blocks containing prominent government and cultural buildings and open space. generally speaking, standard practice would require an evaluation of the pioneer

monument project in the context of the entire district. it would not be standard practice to evaluate the pioneer monument in isolation because it is not the sole feature designated under our landmark's ordinance. therefore the historic resource benchmark is the district as a whole. the application of the standards was consistent with standard practice and legal requirements. the standards were authored by the national park service and are applied throughout the country through local interpretation. they're not prescriptive and allow for flex act in their application and the standards do not inhibit alteration to historic resources. they guide how historic resources can change while retake the features that make them distinct. the decision on the pioneer monument project was consistent with the types of changes the standards are designed to address.

our rehearing request outlines the examples where the application of the standards and standard 2 is consistent with the review of the pioneer monument project. our brief provides h.b.c. decisions on a variety of projects in the civic center district in the last five years. just like the case before you, the project's altered features of the district, moreover, our brief offers an alteration to an individual landmark the new mission theatre where they received federal tax credits for consistency with the standards. so in conclusion, a rehearing will ensure the board has all the necessary facts upon which to make their decision and we request you rehear this item. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> commissioner: a question. has h.p.c. ever issued a c.o.a. for what is clearly a piece of art versus the more general

defined historic resource? >> they have. on two recent occasions to provide example, one would be an example in the civic center landmark district included in our brief for an art installation on the side of the bill graham center currently under construction but the c.o.a. specifically acknowledges the commission does not review content of art only the best practices in installing that art and making sure that art is not detrimental to the character of the district. the second is on an individual landmark the rear portion faces lily's ally and a mural was paint on the back sponsored by the arts commission. at that time the h.p.c. also issued a c. of a. for that in particular going back to the bill graham center at the c. of

a. there are alteration to the elevation of the bill graham center and auditorium that again the commission balances all policy and guidelines they have before them primarily the secretary of interior of standards in decide what's the best approach in deciding the project can proceed in plan while respecting the character of the district. >> commissioner: thank you. i have a question for m mr. decani. i'm assuming that the art commission either rotates or moves the artwork or curates the artwork in either this or other historic landmark districts.

have you ever had to get a c.o.a. before? >> we have the right for display or removal of art on public land. we do that as a function of our duties every day and week at the art commission. a lot of the work in the historic buildings are moved in and out, we're resident of the veterans war memorial building and work with that body in terms of display of art in that body or building and we have, as tim mentioned, gone to historic preservation on a couple occasions for certificate of appropriateness to make sure year not impacting the interior standards in terms of putting new work in that district. we went with them to ensure the remove of the early day statue would in the impact the broader district but it's important to remember in this instance the actual sculpture is not a landmarked object. it's residing within the

landmark district so the question is whether the remove jeopardizes the district. >> commissioner: thank you. >> clerk: we'll now hear from the appellant. stefan schmidt. have you six minutes. >> good evening. president fung and fellow commissioner. i think the prior decision obviously in my opinion should stand. there's been no showing of any injustice here. there's no showing of any extraordinary instance here. all the evidence that they've even spoken to were evidence or argument that could have been made and should have been made at a prior hearing and frankly even if it had been made, none of it addresses the central issue this board voted on and correctly voted on and that is simple application of law.

i think that's what -- going back to the last hearing -- and i think commissioner honda addressed that. but, you guys are acting as judges. you're not up here to make the law. there's lots of people here that disagree with my position. they have representatives, they can go change the law. i'm only here to see that the law's enforced. and i want to see the law enforced. i believe in the law and i also believe fundamentally that art should not be destroyed. and that's ultimately the issue here. and there is art that's going to be destroyed. the notion that you can piecemeal the early day statue from the creation, the art piece is an insult to any artist. you can't pick and choose what part of the art an artist

creates and say oh, we'll keep that and disregard that. it's dumbfounding to me you have two institutions here. you have a historic preservation institution going to chuck out the window the oldest piece of art here in this area it's older than any of us in this room or older than the building. it's older than any other attributes to this historic district. as i quoted in my brief, and as discussed at the last hearing, this was recognized by former mayor brown. it was relocated because of the new library. probably the old library now by passage of time but the point is it was recognized at that time that whole pioneer monument was conceived to be a central piece

of this national historic district. and for them to get up here and argue that somehow it's not important belies history. if that's truly the will of the people here, then let they can try to get a ram through a resolution before the board of supervisors. i was the only one to speak against it. no one else spoke for it. not one supervisor spoke up regarding it and it was done by a non-vote. if it's true will of the people of san francisco is the pioneer monument be removed and let them do it by the proper channels, but in my opinion, and i think you've shown this, there's no question each one of you is acting as a judge and judges do

not make rules and regulations. that's for supervisor peskin. he can start that process but you have properly applied the law in my opinion and there's no showing here that somehow you're application was injust, number one, or in any way wrong. the instances they cite almost trivialize. they cite the relocation of a playground here in the civic center. come on, let's get real. they cite