Skip to main content

tv   Mayors Press Availability  SFGTV  September 3, 2016 11:00pm-12:01am PDT

11:00 pm
that. the sky line building [inaudible] >> as we'll see in future hearings soon future hearings, the 85 foot rezoning height limits along market street [inaudible] noe and this property- >> good point >> impacted potentially by both of these properties. >> starting again on page 22, i can never pronounce this. king mong [inaudible] thank you. is also being proposed for designation and through the-is this a national register? >> no, japan town y. >> japan town y so this is one maybe to consider prioritizing. the trade school-
11:01 pm
>> there isn't really work done at all? >> correct. and same for trade school and marine firemans union building, we had a initial meeting with the owners and that is about it. planters hotel would be a relatively quick designation for staff to put together but have done very little work on that as well. in terms of the residential properties at the end, all most no work is completed there. not sure where these fit in your list of priorities. and then lastly, the boat house building was tabled bithe commission because the commission felt you could address it once the full district came forward and know the district has been-as quee know the district has been tabled now. >> golden gate park >> we have the landmark designation
11:02 pm
complete for stowic house. the renovation is complete so if the commission felt that was worthy of just moving forward we can certainly do that. again, that is one where it is sort of just sitting there. >> the stand theater >> we had a discussion with the owner about that and they haven't reengaged us since it opened so there hasn't been progress there. >> i had a question about the strand theater, my understanding is the only thing left is the facade and there is nothing of the interior that is left. >> that is correct. >> there are portions of the theater shell that are there but they have been altered. >> pretty significantly. >> they were pursuing article 11 designation which is limited to the exterior and we made them aware it is up to the commission to decide whether or not enough of the building
11:03 pm
is retained to warrant designation >> that doesn't seem like a high priority. it is renovated and not going anywhere. >> i think with most of the property said on the existing work program we made aside from the residential buildings we made a lot of progress. >> [inaudible] >> it seems to me that we have made as you pointed significant work on a lot of these and they are sitting there and my inclination is move those forward to have resolution that will clear our decks, so to speak. on the golden gate park lake house, i would be very content to let that stay where
11:04 pm
it is until the rec and park decide its position as we have got other things that i feel are much more pressing than golden gate park which seems to be in really good hands. there are so many of these that just really need an serious look and so i was thinking, if we can get the ones that are substantially completed and add to that group any of those that are threatened, then to me that would be-like group number 1 and it-i would say which in group number 1 moves first and which moves 4th should probably be left up to the staff to figure out the most
11:05 pm
organized way to move forward with that. once we do, we get those things organized then the ones in the middle where we need a report or we have a owner that is a little on the fence or something like that, then i thichck think we could address those separately in another meeting and so that is how i would approach that if i were the czar. i am interested in the van ness street lamps. i don't have a feeling that i know where we are on that. >> you want to address the street lamps at the moment? >> sure. commissioners in 2011 -just prior to that my recollection is, the landmarks board included them
11:06 pm
on the work program considering there was a project in the pipeline for the van ness brt. i think in 2011 if was the commission then decided there were other priorities and so they fell off of the work program and you added other properties. that's my recollection, but if you remember differently we can always go back and listen to the tape. >> i don't remember it falling off as a priority, but- >> i don't remember taking it off, maybe it fell off by accident. [laughter] regardless of whether it fell on or off why dont you tell us the status of the project because isn't the project cleared to remove them all or- >> yes, the outstanding item now is the
11:07 pm
remainder of the light standards within the civic center landmark district when the commission asked which can be repaired and retained with a emphasis on the 4 directly across city hall and off plaza or veterans memorial plaza. that is where it is now. it was vetted through a eir process, which the landmarks board had a tupt to comment on and then we had multiple hearings through the certificate of appropriateness. >> what happened i think in the eir process 1 the light poles were determined not historic resource because they lacked integrity because they had been moved and not because of the condition? >> that was the primary reason and they are different-they had modified since the original installation.
11:08 pm
there was a wpa project that modified them. >> as part of the bus rapid transit project mta feels they can't reuse the light poles and don't work with alignment of the streets so have gotten approval to remove them all? >> correct >> accept for the ones in the civic center. that is where the lights standards are today. i don't recall discussion where they took them off the program. maybe they are absent that day, i don't remember. >> we'll go back and look. we'll listen to the tapes and report back. >> i don't want to spend a lot of time listening to 4 years of tapes and allocating resources. >> i guess the point is there is nothing that can be done, they are already going to be removed >> yes, the current proposal is remove them all. >> right and between now and
11:09 pm
december. >> the ones under the purview of the commission are the ones- >> within the civic center. right. >> which we haven't seen a final proposal on yet. >> as i recall for me, it was a serious issue about having these posts slowly detearierating because nobody would maintain them. everybody said it is not our deal, so- >> that is for ones within the civic center district which are only 4 >> if that apply tooz the one in the civicsenter it must apply to all the others. >> there are 200 >> that is correct they can not be reused or integrated into the current design for van ness brt. >> that has always been a
11:10 pm
concern i had. if they were to stay there, how would that work actually? >> mta is without deal wg the mechanics of all that and who is responsible, mta stated that they would largely just be decorative light fixtures under the other mandatory or required light standards and infrastructure they are required to run on van ness brt >> who would maintain them? >> it could not be mta. >> commissioner hasz >> thank you. just from a construction side because i live in the marina and travel van ness and when the light pole thing came up it took a long time observing light poles down and the way they are built is concrete around rebar and they busted open and rebar
11:11 pm
expands and pops the concrete off. in my opinion there is no saving them because they are just built strucktually unsound and you would literally just tear them apart and rebuild them and it is brand new light poles. i just sonet think there is any saving them in a safe manner. there is concrete falling off and those things will just knock right over. as much as i hate to lose them i dont think there is a reasonable financial way of saving them. >> i also add this project hasz has been going through years of process and shocking it takes so long to build bus rapid transit in a area that needs bus rapid transit. adding the [inaudible] would take a gigantic step backwards and something that hasz gone through hearings for years so wouldn't support it at this point. i think if
11:12 pm
we can do what we can to save the 4 in the civic center we should, but don't support adding the remainder to the program. >> commissioner hyland. >> i don't have a buzzer. i have one question, are the light poles the van ness light poles the only item we discussed today not listed in the staff report? >> i think so >> other than the sky line realty building. >> yes . and the rousso district is listed in red, it say-it is request to add it. >> request to add it. we are actively working on it so wanted to show the hours and how we track it but it isn't actually on the work program. >> okay. i would be complete support of what commissioner johnck
11:13 pm
said and take care the ones we initiated and have work need ed to complete them and bring the ones at risk up to the first group and let staff figure how best to putting those that are on the first category to completion. >> can we identify which are at risk if that is the category? >> i think staff we have recommendations and certainly hearing from you what additional recommendations you would add-i mean, the high temple, the glady [inaudible] office building is in a area where there is a lot of development and across the street from the stud. the lray theater, mission street, chompy building, maceys is selling a lot of their stores, the old i magnum store can be argued as being a
11:14 pm
potential- >> they are selling the mens store. >> [inaudible] >> they were closing 100 other stores. those are the ones that certainly the grand orienta and buildings around souckt park we understand that is a priority. the gal vunizeing work building is pursuing national status on their own which we thought is a great way-because they are seeking [inaudible] too. i think that could be handled by the property owners. 6th street lodging is a area that will likely have development pressure which central soma area plan passes and can preserve part of article 11 district rather than article 10 if you choose. this is all off the top of our
11:15 pm
heads. more anecdotal information than perceived threat. >> commissioner johnck >> i just want to say the only building we haven't had part of discussion is palace of fine arts and potential- >> that is already a landmark. >> i know it is already a landmark but thought we need to discuss it. >> there is discussion about bringing rec and park having present their proposal but it hasn't gone anywhere and selected [inaudible] it is sort of on hold. commissioner hasz. >> commissioner hyland. >> are any of these candidates for the cultural heritage business registry? >> [multiple speakers at same
11:16 pm
time] >> community thrift would likely be eligible. >> i don't know if there is something we could encourage the district supervisor to consider pushing those forward. >> some of the nonprofits- >> the cultural center. >> is that something you need official from us or write a memo to the supervisors and request their support? >> i think we would start with mentioning during our regular office hours with the supervisor jz go from there. >> can you do that? >> absolutely. >> so i guess the question is there a reason not to include the complete list as part of the work program. we have a record of it and remove or modify property said later but move forward with ones that have had the most work
11:17 pm
undertaken and properties identified as threaten if that is your immediate priorities. given the number of properties there isn't a point prioritizing all of it. that will include adding the rousso district. >> commissioners, as a reminder and also for the benefit of the public, as we discuss the properties, once the commission agrees the list makes sense we will start engage the property owners so more information will come to light then that may incluns which ones you decide to prioritize, so after this hearing we'll engage with each of the property owners and let them know of the commissions intent and departments intent. >> right. yes, commissioner matsuda >> but the next meeting can you give a quick summary of what your
11:18 pm
proposal is? >> sure. >> that would be great. >> at the next quarterly report which is september. >> right. can i make general comments? thank you very much for this, it is great to see-i so really like the little thermometer, it helps a lot. i wonder maybe next time just for a quick visual overview if you could just make one. the red, those that have been landmarked and receiving priorities so we can see where we are in the district and where see see the empty holes. >> like a map? >> yes. >> actually the map can have the categories, 4 categories whether it is modern or underrepresent ore cultural ethnic that is a interesting way to see that >> that is a great to see the visual of the whole city where we can see where we are not identifying.
11:19 pm
i like the fact on the website now there is information about process for communities who want to nominate buildings in their districts, but what may be helpful would be a real life sample of something that you feel [inaudible] and easy to understand and somebody can just say i get it, let's take this asure timp temperate and work from there. i don't know if this is good or bad thing but can you remind me about what park and rec and feelings about not wanting to [inaudible] golden gate park 6789 i know they got a lot of state money a long time ago to start doing a lot of renovation and maintenance and just assumed from that point on they would start to work to identify a lot of the
11:20 pm
historical very famous sites and just kind of didn't follow through with that. am i opening up something we shouldn't talk about? >> we haven't had a discussion with rec park in a number of years but where we ended the conversation and their primary concern is delynninated boundaries around the elements within golden gate park that was truly significant under the purview of this commission and rec park commission. they felt a blanket district designation would leave too much open to interpretation and there was concern about everything from maintenance to landscape features to actual buildings of where all the pieces would fall in terms of process. we were starting to make progress on that but again, other priorities came up and we knew it would take a long time to get everybody on
11:21 pm
the same page and so that is why we pushed it down to theened of the list. >> i don't know if commissioner hyland would feel strongly about this but maybe we can work with them to put some methodology or some framework for guidelines as to what may be considered historic or culturally significant within golden gate park so they have something to work off with and something on the website something to identify the great sites probably no one knows about. >> it would be interesting to look at central park in new york is a landmark district and interesting to see how they deal with that. it hasz the same size and maintenance and issue squz somehow they manage to continue to do improvements. >> at least people can know--
11:22 pm
>> yeah >> they also have central park conservevancy so there is a private public partnership. >> landscape is a criteria we have on this so could be a possibility. do we need a motion for this item? is this a action item? >> commissioners there wasn't a motion included in the packets but differ to the commission secretary if something needs 250 be formized. i think we heard your comments and know what we need to provide in a month so keep the conversations mubing and other designations moving forward. >> it was a non action item just for review and comment so think the submitted of your comments will be reviewed by staff and followed up appropriately and if i heard there will be a follow up in september so
11:23 pm
you will hear back from staff. >> i have one comment. i want #d to laugh about that as recently as about 18 months ago we were complaining we were not landmarking enough and our jobs were not fulfilling enough because of that and now we have a plethora of action items for this so i'm really pleased to see how far we have come in a very short period of time to really beef up this part the program we thought was inadequate so congratulate the department on all the work you have done on this. >> staff and intnchs. >> yes, thank you hanna. >> excellent presentation. >> that places on item 7. the mission murals inventory project. this is a informational presentation.
11:24 pm
>> are we ready for mr. fry? >> i think [inaudible] giving a quick bio mpt >> alright. >> mr. fry, we are waiting for you. >> pardon me. before lyndy presents i want to formally introduce, lyndy see crest with the department as part of summer internship program and done work on mission murals inventory coordinating with a variety oof players which she will go into more detail and a lot of good has come out of
11:25 pm
the project and been able to use it in the day to day work already and there is interest in having lyndy author a journal article about the program in the near future. with that, i like to introduce you to lyndy and have her share her great work with you. >> welcome. >> good afternoon, lyndy see crest. the item before you is a mission murals inventory project. my internship project was to create a intrentory of murals to aid in cultural and hisical muralsism the mission is known for viberant murals that add beauty and demonstrate the rich latino cultural for tourist and resident to enjoy. this was collaboration with sf heritage and [inaudible] the goal was to create a internal [inaudible] reviewing projects involving murals. the end
11:26 pm
result is inventory documented mural documentation, gis layeroffs the murals and sf property information map flagging parcels that have murals. the methodology was simple, i researched how other jurisdictions handled mural preservation and how art is organize #79d. researched the mission dist rth and community mural movement to get context for the area. lastly, researched specific murals to find information to add to the inventory. i also visited proceeda [inaudible] archives and conducted interviews with [inaudible] it gain more information about the murals. a survey was conducted in order to document the existing murals. the mission trail mural walk map was used as the boundary because it had money murals located. this extend from 17th street
11:27 pm
south to bourno heights and dolores street east to potrero. other murals were found by walking and talk toog community members who showed me their favorite murals. all the murals surveyed was created which include mural and artist information, location information and background information. there are over 500 murals documented so as you can see the categories are magnifyed and can see which things we looked for for information. things like title, date of completion of the mural, artist information--the mission murals were born out of the sxhunty mural muchbment of the 1970. the political issue squz termile of the late 60's caused many to speak out. murals were painted
11:28 pm
all over the country as a way for working class people to express what was important. the primarily latino population in the mission was influenced by mexican murals and [inaudible] muralist [inaudible] the result is the largest concentration of community murals in san francisco. community murals are also unique in they are painted by or with community members rather than simply for them. the themes reflect values of the community and common themeerize social and political issues, pride of latino heritage and celebration of life. this timeline shows various community organizations founded during the movement included gallery [inaudible] the mission cultural center for latino arts and [inaudible] mission
11:29 pm
art 415. also shown are important people, events and praunlects and history of the mission murals. for example, [inaudible] was a collaborative of female artist who painted large outdoor murals focus on political and social change but through womens perspectives and experiences. part of the inventory includes a classification of the murals. during my interviews with susan sur vaunt as helped categorized murals most significant. there are 3 separate categories, legacy, ken temporary and temporary murals. legacy murals are most significant. this also is the first mural a part of historic murals clusters such as 24th street mini park and cesar chavez
11:30 pm
elementary school. it was murals painted by veteran aurtest of the move including [inaudible] contemporary murals are those painted after the mural movement usually in the 2000 who contributed to mission district and work is highly valued and respected by community members. temporary murals are painted over our changed. usually alley [inaudible] for temporary service like [inaudible] temporary murals preserving the art space for artist to express themselves is more valued that preserving a specific mural for long periods of time. some existed for a few years where this one was painted a year to less than a year later.
11:31 pm
one the greatest threats the community murals face is change of ownership. the new owners having no ties or obligation to the #c3450u7bty will be unaware of the importance to the mural and may do work that impacts the mural. this legacy mural by veteran artist [inaudible] was completely painted over leebing a blank wall. the goal of the project was to create a tool for planners that will help address this. the inventory and gis layer and resulting block book notification in the property information map will be used to flag buildings so planners are aware of them. this is timely considering the changing demo graphics. we have documentation to provide feedback about the existence of murals.
11:32 pm
hopefully the tool helps preerfb the cultural elements in a changing environment. this concludes my prezen taishz and happy to answer questions, and thank you, that was a fantastic presentation. >> how do we get a list? >> you can contact the planning department. >> happy to share that with the commissioners. >> i'd like a copy of the presentation or some generally [inaudible] these presentations are posted to the website so you can find it there and can forward it to the commissioners. i like to share with other people. >> thank you. great project. at this time we'll take public comment. any member wish to comment on the mission mural inventory project? seeing and hearing none, we'll close
11:33 pm
public comment and any other comments on that project? >> how long [inaudible] >> they are presenting the final projects over the next couple weeks and they are gone august 26. >> you should have all received invitations to the project presentations. >> great, i think-mrs. parks. >> presenting the final project next week i think monday, wednesday, thursday and friday. >> i think that is right. great, thank you and so glad to have you all here and hearing is closed. >> very good commissioners. do you want a brief break before starting? [meeting adjourned]
11:34 pm
11:35 pm
11:36 pm
11:37 pm
11:38 pm
11:39 pm
11:40 pm
11:41 pm
11:42 pm
11:43 pm
11:44 pm
11:45 pm
11:46 pm
11:47 pm
11:48 pm
11:49 pm
11:50 pm
11:51 pm
11:52 pm
11:53 pm
11:54 pm
11:55 pm
11:56 pm
11:57 pm
11:58 pm
11:59 pm
12:00 am
>>[gavel] >>