San Francisco Redevelopment Public Artwork Inventory Findings Report

SAN FRANCISCO REDEVELOPMENT

PUBLIC ARTWORK INVENTORY

FINDINGS REPORT

SAN FRANCISCO, CA [18396]

PREPARED FOR SAN FRANCISCO ARTS COMMISSION January 23, 2024

FINAL

This page intentionally left blank.

This page intentionally left blank.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Project Background & Purpose

The San Francisco Redevelopment Public Artwork Inventory was undertaken with the goal of identifying, inventorying, documenting, and assessing all public artwork that was commissioned or installed in redevelopment project areas under the auspices of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) and its successor agency, the Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure (OCII). SFRA was active from 1948 to 2012, when it was dissolved along with all redevelopment agencies in California, at which time it was succeeded by OCII. SFRA managed the design and installation of numerous public artworks during its tenure. In some cases, sculptures were commissioned by SFRA through design competitions, while others were implemented through the agency’s percent-for-art program. OCII has also continued this legacy of including public art as component of redevelopment projects. However, no comprehensive or central record of these artworks had previously been maintained, and not all of the artworks are currently in the San Francisco Arts Commission (SFAC) Civic Art Collection. While these artworks are located in the public realm (typically outdoors or in a building lobby, and viewable by the public), some are located on private property and/or are privately owned, while others are on public property but not in the Civic Arts Collection, and still others have unknown ownership status.

The need for a more comprehensive account of public artwork installed under the auspices of SFRA became apparent through the process of a community-led effort to landmark the Diamond Heights Safety Wall in 2017.1 Through research undertaken during the landmarking process, it became clear that the sculpture, which also served as a vehicle safety barrier, was commissioned by SFRA through a design competition with input from SFAC Uncovered legal documentation revealed that the sculpture was on a city-owned easement and that the Department of Public Works had been responsible for maintenance and upkeep a fact that was lost over time, resulting in deferred maintenance of the sculpture. In 2018, SFAC formally accessioned the Diamond Heights Safety Wall into the Civic Art Collection and completed a conservation project in the spring of 2023. The example of the Diamond Heights Safety Wall indicated the possibility that there might be other public artworks in SFRA project areas worthy of additional research and documentation.

The Arts Commission engaged Page & Turnbull in 2022 to conduct research and prepare an inventory of all known public artwork in redevelopment project areas that was commissioned or

1 The Diamond Heights Safety Wall is not currently a designated local landmark. San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) Packet 2017-011910DES, December 20, 2017, accessed online June 20, 2023, https://commissions.sfplanning.org/hpcpackets/2017-011910DES122017.pdf

installed under the auspices of SFRA and OCII, conduct preliminary research on the artworks to provide baseline data, and conduct fieldwork to photograph and geolocate each artwork and perform a preliminary conditions assessment.

B. Inventory Scope & Exclusions

The San Francisco Redevelopment Public Artwork Inventory is limited to public artworks located in SFRA and OCII project areas and that were commissioned or installed during the active period of the redevelopment project with some involvement of SFRA/OCII. Involvement of SFRA and/or OCII could include overseeing a design competition, designing an artwork, commissioning or installing an artwork, or requiring a developer to commit funds for public art. Artwork installed in project areas before or after the involvement of SFRA or OCII has been excluded.

The term “public artwork,” for the purposes of the inventory, has been defined as artwork located in the public realm including public parks and streets, privately owned public open spaces (POPOS), and most publicly accessible building lobbies whether or not the artwork is owned by a public or private entity. However, artwork-specific research priority was given to artworks that are publicly owned (or where ownership status was unknown) and/or are located on public property, and artworks known to be privately owned and located in interior building spaces were not documented as part of the conditions assessment.

The following map in Figure 1 illustrates the SFRA redevelopment project areas, and the map in Figure 2 illustrates the currently active OCII redevelopment project areas.

Figure 1. Map of San Francisco Redevelopment Agency project areas, 1987.

Source: San Francisco Redevelopment Agency.

C. Research, Fieldwork & Conditions Assessment Methodology

In order to develop the San Francisco Redevelopment Public Artwork Inventory, Page & Turnbull conducted research at local and online repositories. The project consisted of three main phases, which involved input and consultation with SFAC throughout, and has culminated in this Findings Report and the San Francisco Redevelopment Public Artwork Inventory. The main phases were: (1) initial research and inventory development, (2) preliminary conditions assessment fieldwork, and (3) additional artwork-specific research based on SFAC priorities.

Figure 2. Map of active (color fill), expired (gray dashed outline), inactive (brown dashed outline), and rescinded (pink dashed outline) redevelopment areas overseen by SFRA and its successor agency, OCII. Source: OCII, 2023.

Page & Turnbull’s contract with SFAC also includes a to-be-determined future task for further indepth historic study and/or conservation assessment of specific artworks based on SFAC prioritization following review of the results of this Findings Report.

Initial Research & Inventory Development

The initial research process involved identifying public artworks located in redevelopment project areas, determining whether or not they appeared to have a connection to SFRA and/or OCII, establishing baseline data (artwork title, artist name, year completed, property and artwork ownership status), and determining the approximate expected location of the artwork. The primary repositories consulted included: San Francisco Arts Commission, Civic Art Collection online database; San Francisco History Center at the San Francisco Public Library; Office of Community Investment & Infrastructure, which includes former SFRA records; John Portman Archives, Embarcadero Center Collection; and Ruth Asawa Papers, Stanford University Library Special Collections. At the San Francisco History Center, the primary collection referenced was the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Records (SFH 371); other collections referenced included the San Francisco Ephemera Collection, Robert Durden Slide Collection, James A. Scott Photograph Collection, and San Francisco Historical Photograph Collection. Online repositories referenced included: Calisphere, Online Archive of California, California Revealed, Internet Archive, and Newspapers.com. Page & Turnbull also utilized the “Public Art and Architecture from Around the World” blog database, which has extensive documentation on San Francisco’s public art.2 Page & Turnbull conducted in-person interviews with artist Mildred Howard (August 15, 2023) and landscape architect Peter Walker (July 14, 2023).

The former SFRA records, which are now maintained by OCII, were an invaluable resource, and this project benefited from the assistance of James Morales, Jaimila Cruz, and Carmen Mohr at OCII. Page & Turnbull reviewed numerous files in the OCII physical records archive, as well as SFRA annual reports, “fact books,” and meeting minutes which are available on the Internet Archive through the San Francisco Public Library.

The San Francisco Planning Department provided Page & Turnbull with early drafts of “Redevelopment” and “Public Art & Monuments” historic context statements, which are in preparation as part of the Citywide Cultural Resources Survey (SF Survey).3 Other secondary sources that were consulted included several reports, books, and publications, including: A Survey of Artwork

2 “All of San Francisco,” Public Art and Architecture from Around the World, accessed online June 20, 2023, https://artandarchitecture-sf.com/category/san-francisco.

3 “Citywide Cultural Resources Survey,” San Francisco Planning, accessed online June 20, 2023, https://sfplanning.org/project/citywide-cultural-resources-survey

in the City and County of San Francisco (SFAC, 1975); Art in San Francisco Redevelopment Areas (SFRA, 1979); San Francisco Civic Art Collection (SFAC, 1989); The Fountains of San Francisco (Bernard Katz, 1989); and Outdoor Sculpture in San Francisco: A Heritage of Public Art (Warren and Georgia Radford, 2002).

Page & Turnbull provided the initial inventory to SFAC for review and comment in November 2022.

Preliminary Conditions Assessment

Over the course of several months, Page & Turnbull conducted fieldwork to geolocate and photograph a selection of artworks in the inventory. The bulk of fieldwork occurred from November 2022 to February 2023, with fieldwork for several additional artworks conducted through September 2023. Artworks selected for fieldwork included those that are in the outdoor public realm, located in a SFRA/OCII project area, dated to a period of active SFRA or OCII involvement, and appeared to have some connection to SFRA and/or OCII. Resources excluded from fieldwork included those deemed not to qualify as public artwork (such as fountains with no sculpture component, playground equipment, and integrated architectural features), or were determined not to have a direct connection to a SFRA/OCII redevelopment project. Of the artworks geolocated and photographed, most were evaluated as part of a preliminary conditions assessment; several artworks were excluded from the conditions assessment as they were determined, during fieldwork, to have been demolished, lack a direct connection to a SFRA and/or OCII redevelopment project, are privately owned and located in a private interior space, or were not located.

For each artwork documented as part of the conditions assessment fieldwork, an overall photograph of the artwork was taken, along with a photograph of the attachment method and additional photographs as relevant. The conditions assessment recorded four metrics: high-level qualitative assessment, materials assessment, structural assessment, and treatment needed. These metrics were assessed based on the definitions listed below, which were provided by SFAC. Page & Turnbull created a custom mobile survey application using the software Fulcrum, which enabled the team to geolocate artworks, take photographs, collect consistent data, and produce maps and field reports.

High-Level Qualitative Assessment

1 – Excellent Condition: Newly installed artworks and some recently treated artworks depending on age and type of work.

2 – Good Condition: Works that have been installed in the last couple of years and works that were recently treated depending on the type of work completed.

3 – Fair Condition: Works that are stable but show some signs that condition issues are starting to begin, i.e., minor corrosion in isolated areas.

4 – Poor Condition: Works that are unstable and require treatment in the near future, i.e., light corrosion on a majority of the surface area, or progressed corrosion in isolated areas.

5 – Very Poor Condition: These works require urgent intervention to prevent loss or permanent damage to the artwork, including artworks that have permanent loss or failure of materials.

Materials Assessment4

1 – Most Robust: Granite or solid cast concrete solid.

2 – Mildly Robust: Noble metals (i.e., bronze, 316 stainless steel), hollow cast concrete/stone, or polished granite.

3 – Normal: Terra cotta, marble, travertine, Corten steel, epoxy paint finishes, mosaics, brick, or less noble metals (highly reactive metals, i.e., aluminum, pot metal).

4 - Mildly Fragile: Plastics/resin, tapestry, glass, mirror, fresco, wood, steel + masonry (i.e., hollow cast stone with steel armature), cast iron, or mixed metals.

5 – Fragile: Tempera paint, applied paint/murals (not epoxy-based), electronics, neon, fresco and fresco secco, or kinetic artworks.

Structural Assessment

1 - Appears Safe: Artwork (including attachment method) appears to be in safe and stable structural condition.

2 - Not Safe: Artwork (including attachment method) appears not to be in a safe or stable condition.

3 - Imminent Danger: Artwork appears to be in imminent structural danger (i.e., attachment method is failing, etc.).

Treatment Needed

1 - Maintain: Cleaning, routine maintenance.

2 - Conserve: Stabilization and/or more in-depth treatment required, patina failing, etc.

3 – Restore: Missing parts need to be recreated.

4 A rating was assigned based on the predominant material for each artwork. Some objects are created from a variety of materials, and for these artworks the highest fragility rating was assigned to the artwork.

Artwork-Specific Research Based on SFAC Priorities

Page & Turnbull conducted additional artwork-specific research in the OCII archives, which includes all SFRA records, for selected artworks. More extensive research priority was given to artworks that had unknown ownership status (and the potential to be publicly owned or on public property), select artworks in the Civic Art Collection, and the artworks in Yerba Buena Center. These included:

• Jesus Condemned by Pilate and Lamentation (Aaron Miller Murals) by Aaron Miller

• Three Shades of Blue (Blue Bridge) by Mildred Howard

• Hilltop Park Sundial & Amphitheater by Jacques Overhoff and Michael Painter

• Geary Expressway Underpass Graphics by SFRA

• Standing Figure: Knife Edge by Henry Moore

• Limits of Horizon II by Jan Peter Stern

• Icosaspirale by Charles O. Perry

• Bronze Horse by Marino Marini

• Dandelion Fountain by Robert Woodward

• Lock & Keys for Harry Bridges by Mildred Howard

• The Penguins by Beniamino Bufano

• Vaillancourt Fountain by Armand Vaillancourt

• Aurora by Ruth Asawa

• Sea Change by Mark di Suvero

• Cupid’s Span by Claes Oldenburg and Coosje van Bruggen

• Hard Bop by John Atkin

• Colombo Market Arch by Clinton Day

• Untitled (Mosaic) by Win Ng

• Revelation (Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Fountain) by Houston Conwill, et al.

• Silver Wall by Lin Utzon

• Oche Wat Te Ou (Reflections) by Jaune Quick-to-See Smith and James Luna

• Deep Gradient/Suspect Terrain by John Roloff

• Urge by Chico MacMurtie

• Shaking Man by Terry Allen

• Dare We Dream in Concrete? by TODCO.

Project Deliverables

This Findings Report provides a summary of the project background and purpose; scope and methodology; a brief history of SFRA public artwork; a summary of inventory and survey findings; and recommendations for research, maintenance, accession, and knowledge sharing priorities. This Findings Report includes a summary table of the artworks in the San Francisco Redevelopment Public Artwork Inventory, based on this project, as well as an appendix with field reports for the

artworks selected for conditions assessment. Additionally, Page & Turnbull has provided SFAC with the San Francisco Redevelopment Public Artwork Inventory formatted as an Excel spreadsheet and GIS shapefile with linked photographs and additional research documents and fieldwork data, as well as with copies of research folders with relevant historic photographs, newspaper articles, and documents uncovered during the course of research.

The San Francisco Redevelopment Public Artwork Inventory is expected to be a “living” inventory that can be updated and refined by SFAC based on new research and information that may be available in the future. While the inventory aims to be comprehensive, additional artworks may be identified and added in the future.

D. Project Team

The San Francisco Redevelopment Public Artwork Inventory was conducted by Page & Turnbull of San Francisco, California. Page & Turnbull staff responsible for this project include Ruth Todd, FAIA, Principal-in-charge and Hannah Simonson, Senior Associate, Cultural Resources Planner, project manager and primary author, both of whom meet or exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Historic Architecture, Architectural History, or History. Additional research assistance was provided by Sarah Kefalas, Junior Cultural Resources Planner.

This project was overseen by Allison Cummings, Senior Registrar, Civic Art Collection and Public Art, San Francisco Arts Commission. Additional assistance and input were provided by Lisa Zayas-Chien, Capital Program Manager and Tara Peterson, Program Associate, both San Francisco Arts Commission staff members

II. BRIEF HISTORY OF PUBLIC ART & THE SAN FRANCISCO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

San Francisco has a long history of public art, including outdoor public art. The city’s earliest public art, like many cities, consisted primarily of memorials and monuments.5 Often these were bronze sculptures and fountains gifted by prominent citizens, foreign nations, or local organizations, and were placed in prominent downtown locations or public parks including Golden Gate Park, much to the chagrin of park superintendent John McLaren.6 To manage the influx of sculptures being placed in Golden Gate Park, the Park Commission was granted authority to approve purchase, gifts, and placement of artwork by the San Francisco Charter of 1919.7 The Park Commissioners later formulated an Architects and Artists Advisory Committee in 1924.

Events like the California Midwinter International Exposition of 1894 in Golden Gate Park and the Panama-Pacific International Exposition of 1915 exposed citizens to City Beautiful planning concepts that stimulated interest in civic art. As interest in civic and public art increased and the city grew, there was need for a more comprehensive approach to public art beyond Golden Gate Park. The San Francisco Charter of 1932 established the Art Commission (now more commonly known as the Arts Commission, or SFAC) with jurisdiction, among other things, over the acquisition, placement, preservation and management of artworks in what became known as the Civic Art Collection.8

5 Unless otherwise noted, this section has been developed based on following: Art Commission City and County of San Francisco, A Survey of Artwork in the City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco: Office of Mayor Joseph L. Alioto, 1975); Warren Radford, and Georgia Radford, Outdoor Sculpture in San Francisco: A Heritage of Public Art (Gualala, CA: Helsham Press, 2002); and The Arts Commission of San Francisco, San Francisco Civic Art Collection (San Francisco: The Arts Commission of San Francisco, 1989).

6 McLaren was known to refer to sculptures by the Scots term “stookies” and felt that sculpture detracted from the beauty of the natural environment, so often attempted to hide them by placing them in the trees and shrubbery rather than visually prominent locations. Refer to: Radford and Radford, Outdoor Sculpture in San Francisco, 59-60.

7 The beginning of Section 10 of Article XIV Park Commissioners of the San Francisco Charter of 1919 reads (bold in original): “Works of Art Must Be approved by Commissioners. Commissioners to Pass Upon Public Structures. Monuments. Sec. 10. Hereafter no work of art shall become property of the City and County by purchase, gift, or otherwise, unless the work of art or design, together with statement of purposed location of the work of art be submitted to and approved by [Park] Commissioners […].”

8 While Section 45 of the San Francisco Charter of 1932 established the Art Commission, Section 46 defined works of art as follows: “Section 46. No work of art shall be contracted for or placed or erected on property of the city and county or become the property of the city and county by purchase, gift or otherwise, except for any museum or art gallery, unless such work of art, or a design or model of the same as required by the commission, together with the proposed location of such work of art, shall first have been submitted to and approved by the commission. The term “work of art” as used in this charter shall comprise paintings, mural decorations, stained glass, statues, bas reliefs or other sculpture; monuments, fountains arches or other structures of a permanent or temporary character intended for ornament or commemoration. No existing work of art in the possession of the city and county shall be removed, relocated or altered in any way without the approval of the commission, except as otherwise provided herein. […].”

The 1930s was a particularly fruitful period for public art in San Francisco as New Deal era programs like the Works Progress Administration (WPA) funded numerous building and infrastructure projects that included art components Additionally, New Deal era funding was utilized for the Golden Gate International Exposition of 1939 on Treasure Island, which resulted in the production of numerous works of art that were later distributed throughout San Francisco’s public realm. This highly productive era of civic art came to a close with the beginning of World War II.

By the late 1940s, Abstract Expressionism and new Modern, non-figurative modes of art were being explored in cities such as New York and San Francisco, but these explorations primarily consisted of studio work and work exhibited in galleries. Through the 1940s and 1950s, there was essentially no newly commissioned public outdoor artwork installed in San Francisco. The artwork that was installed during this period had been previously commissioned during the New Deal era. The first major contemporary, non-objective sculpture was installed in San Francisco’s public realm in 1959. It was a fountain designed by sculptor David Tolerton for the plaza at the base of the Crown Zellerbach Headquarters (One Bush Plaza by architects Skidmore, Owings & Merrill), also the first Modernist high-rise in the city. The offset of the building on just one-third of the site and the inclusion of a publicly accessible plaza predating the codification of required privately owned public open spaces (POPOS) in the 1985 Downtown Plan was considered a “magnificent gift of urban space” to the people of San Francisco.9 The success of the Crown Zellerbach Headquarters paved the way for downtown developers to negotiate over what would become increasingly more controversial high-rise projects as fears of the “Manhattanization” of the San Francisco skyline grew. Promises of open space and public amenities were used to soften the arguments for polarizing projects, including, for example, Transamerica Pyramid which offered up Redwood Park as a concession.10

In 1959, Philadelphia was the first city in the United States to implement a formal percent-for-art program. San Francisco followed in 1969 with its Art Enrichment Ordinance which stipulated that two percent of construction costs for new civic buildings and public facilities must be set aside to acquire and commission new public artworks. While Philadelphia was likely a model for the Art Enrichment Ordinance, San Francisco actually had another model even closer to home. In the early 1960s, the executive director of SFRA, Justin Herman, took it upon himself to implement a percentfor-art program within his agency. Land disposition agreements with developers in the Embarcadero-Lower Market (Golden Gateway) redevelopment project area stipulated to developers

9 Allan Temko, “San Francisco’s Changing Cityscape,” Architectural Forum (April 1960) reproduced in Allan Temko, No Way to Build a Ballpark and Other Irreverent Essays on Architecture (San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1993), 20.

10 Page & Turnbull, Transamerica Pyramid Historic Resource Evaluation Part 1 (submitted to San Francisco Planning Department, November 16, 2021), 82, 118-9.

that one percent of construction costs would be set aside for publicly accessible works of art.11 This percent-for-art stipulation took the negotiation over public art out of developers’ hands and formalized it as a requirement within the realm of the Golden Gateway redevelopment project area.

The SFRA percent-for-art requirements ended up providing a massive investment in public art in beginning in the 1960s the first major investment since the New Deal era and left a lasting legacy on public art in San Francisco. Where figurative sculptures and murals predominated earlier public art, the artwork funded by redevelopment projects included important abstract and non-objective sculptures, mosaics, murals, and textile works that brought Modern art into the public realm and out of museum galleries and artist studios. A notable San Francisco gallerist, Paule Anglim, who also worked as a consultant for John Portman to help select artworks for the Embarcadero Center, within the Golden Gateway, was very optimistic about percent-for-art programs and corporate investment in art, saying “These [downtown high-rise] buildings may well be our museums of the future –museums where thousands of people work in close quarters with fine art every day.”12

Furthermore, the SFRA percent-for-art program, while not implemented to the same degree across all future redevelopment projects, was a proving ground, and served as a model that the City picked up and formalized in its Art Enrichment Program in 1969, which applied to all new civic buildings and public facilities. The approach was further codified in the 1985 Downtown Plan one-percent-for-art program, which required new developments of a certain size downtown to set aside one percent of construction costs for new public art a requirement that was expanded to several other nearby neighborhoods in 2013. In fact, the Downtown Plan explicitly cites the success of the SFRA percent for art program which “made a substantial contribution to the quality of the downtown environment” and uses the one percent of construction costs stipulated by SFRA as a justification and basis for requiring the same one percent from all new downtown developments.”13 Even

11 “S.F. Catalog of Public Art Projects,” San Francisco Chronicle, August 2, 1979; Alfred Frankenstein, “Lights, Water, Action At the Plaza,” San Francisco Examiner, June 25, 1967; “Who Pays For Our Public Art?” San Francisco Sunday Examiner & Chronicle, August 8, 1982; Golden Gateway land disposition agreement excerpt on file at OCII PLN-00813; and Letter from William C. Rosso, Director, Architecture and Housing Division, San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, to C. R. Snodgrass, Associate Planner, San Diego Planning Department, April 2, 1971, on file at OCII PLN-00813.

12 Alexander Fried, “Creating Museums in the City’s Sky,” San Francisco Examiner, June 9, 1968.

13 San Francisco Department of City Planning, “Downtown: Proposal for Adoption by the City Planning Commission as a Part of the Master Plan” (October 1984), 95. Full text of the policy reads, “Policy: Encourage the incorporation of publicly visible art works in new private development and in various public spaces downtown. The quality of life is enriched by art and artistic expression in many varied forms. The worker or visitor to downtown spends many hours in an environment of office buildings and commercial enterprises. Art in this environment can offer a counterpoint, attract the eye, stimulate the imagination, arouse emotions or just cause a momentary interest or amusement. In the past, many prominent buildings included sculptured relief, ornate custom grillwork, mosaics, murals, carvings, as well as statuary and other forms of artistic embellishment. Buildings were less separable from art and artistic expression. To reestablish this tradition of enhancing the environment for all to enjoy, artwork should be incorporated in new buildings and public spaces in downtown. Art work is required for all new public buildings of the City and County. The Redevelopment Agency has successfully used a requirement for artwork in its downtown redevelopment projects to obtain major fountains, sculpture, and other artworks which have

beyond San Francisco, SFRA’s program was influential as indicated by the number of inquiries that came to Herman and SFRA from planning departments and redevelopment agencies across the country.14

While a significant investment in public art and influential to local public policy, the SFRA percent-forart “program” was not codified in its redevelopment plans and, as such, resulted in an uneven distribution of public art amongst its own jurisdictional areas. The Modern sculpture in the Golden Gateway was befitting of SFRA’s Modernist architectural and planning project and represented the work of prominent sculptors and artists, many of whom were internationally known, but few of whom were from San Francisco.15 Other project areas outside of downtown, including the very large Western Addition A-1 and A-2 project areas, did not have the same level of investment in permanent public art, especially in the early period of those redevelopment projects.

In the Western Addition, all developers were not required to contribute one percent of construction costs to public art, and some of the public art installed in public spaces, like mini parks, included temporary murals and sculptures that have since been removed. However, several notable artworks within the Western Addition were executed by local artists and are grounded in the particular history and experience of the Japantown and Fillmore communities affected by the redevelopment project area, including Origami Fountains (1975-76; 1996) by Ruth Asawa and Three Shades of Blue (2003) by Mildred Howard.

In the Bayview and Hunters Point project areas, also spanning huge geographic areas, SFRA did not implement percent-for-art requirements for developers in the twentieth century. The only major artwork installed in the southeastern redevelopment areas was Sundial (1978) by Jacques Overhoff in the public Hilltop Park, until SFRA commissioned ten artworks for the Hunters Point Shipyard project area in 2009 (all executed in 2013 to 2015, after SFRA was dissolved and succeeded by OCII). Other than mosaics and murals integrated into several churches, the public artwork installed in the Diamond Heights project area was limited to a ceramic mural that appears to have been installed as part of the Art Enrichment Ordinance at George Christopher Playground and the Diamond Heights made a substantial contrition to the quality of the downtown environment. Sculpture, bas-relief, mosaics, murals, and decorative water features are the types of artw0rk that should be provided. Implementing actions: Require inclusion of artwork in new development. One percent of total construction cost of a new development project should be required to be invested in art works. This is the amount required by the Redevelopment Agency. In City buildings 2% is required to be invested in artworks.”

14 Letters on file at OCII inquiring about the SFRA public art program include letters from Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Santa Rosa; Department of Urban Renewal and Economic Development, City of Rochester; San Diego Planning Department; Springfield Redevelopment Authority, Massachusetts; Napa Community Redevelopment Agency; Chicago Department of Urban Renewal.

15 Letter from M. Justin Herman, Executive Director, San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, to Lewis W. Hill, Commissioner, Chicago Department of Urban Renewal, August 9, 1967, on file at OCII ARC-00331.

Safety Wall (1968) by Stefan Alexander Novak, which was commissioned through an invited design competition. While outside of downtown, three very significant public artworks were commissioned and installed in the Rincon Point-South Beach Redevelopment Area on Port property, during a period where the northeast waterfront was being redeveloped and reimagined, including Aurora (1986) by Ruth Asawa, Sea Change (1995) by Mark di Suvero, and Cupid’s Span (2002) by Claes Oldenburg and Coosje van Bruggen.

After Golden Gateway, the Yerba Buena Center had the most significant investment in public art, as SFRA did stipulate percent-for-art commitment for a number of the developments and included a substantial public art program within the Yerba Buena Gardens complex. Additionally, public properties such as Moscone Center and the Moscone Center Public Parking Garage were subject to the Art Enrichment Ordinance (two-percent- for-art). As previously noted, the overall distribution of public artworks commissioned or installed under the auspices or direction of SFRA was heavily skewed toward redevelopment project areas in and around downtown. Arguably, this distribution reflects the relative construction costs of the redevelopment projects, but also reflects that SFRA did not impose a percent-for-art requirement in all project areas or in all development or land disposition agreements. In a 1975 letter, Herman reflected that “Our [Redevelopment Agency’s] major effort to date has been in the Golden Gateway because it is a high density downtown project visited by large numbers of people.” 16 This logic seems to also account for Yerba Buena Center later being a site of major investment in public art, as it was envisioned as cultural hub of museums, a convention center, and hotels. However, the uneven distribution of artwork also appears to reflect some of the racial and socioeconomic discrimination and bias implicit in many of SFRA’s decisions related to distribution of resources and how public art might also serve communities beyond downtown.

The artworks installed at Hunters Point Shipyard reflect the shifting approach of OCII in selecting and commissioning artworks. Early in SFRA’s endeavor with public art, such as at Golden Gateway, a significant amount of discretion was given to developers to select artworks, while SFRA and SFAC were only involved in a few more high-profile design competitions. In other situations, such as artworks on City property in the Western Addition and Yerba Buena, SFAC often reviewed and approved designs. More recently, artworks have been selected through a request for proposals from artists with more input and guidance from SFAC.

16 Letter from Arthur F. Evans, Executive Director, San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, to Robert A. White, Chief of Planning and Engineering, Napa Community Redevelopment Agency, January 27, 1975, on file at OCII PLN-00813.

III. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

As part of the research and documentation efforts of this project, Page & Turnbull identified 169 artworks that comprise the “San Francisco Redevelopment Public Artwork Inventory.” It is possible that additional artworks may be identified through future research. This inventory of 169 artworks includes artworks that have since been demolished or could not otherwise be located (and may have been relocated, sold, and/or put in storage). Of the 169 artworks, Page & Turnbull conducted conditions assessment survey fieldwork of 43 artworks These 43 artworks were determined to be “In Scope” for conditions assessment according to the methodology described in Section 1.C of this report, whereas 126 artworks were determined to be “Not In Scope (NIS)” based on this methodology. The maps in Figure 3 illustrate the location of the artworks in the inventory. Table 2 provides a summary of the San Francisco Redevelopment Public Artwork Inventory, including all 169 artworks, and a summary of the preliminary conditions assessment findings for relevant artworks. More detailed information about each artwork is provided in the survey field reports in Appendix B of this report.

In addition to the data collected in the conditions assessment fieldwork, the inventory database reveals information about the distribution of artworks across the redevelopment agencies, information about the artists who were involved, whether artworks were retained as public or private property, and the current status of the artworks. Of the 169 artworks, 109 artworks (65%) are extant, 31 artworks (18%) are not extant, and 29 artworks (17%) have an undetermined status (Figure 4) 17 A majority of the artworks were commissioned (97 artworks, 57%), while others were purchased (31 artworks, 18%), and several came out of design competitions (3 artworks, 2%); and 38 artworks (22%) were acquired by other methods or the method of acquisition is unknown (Figure 5). Generally, it was fairly easy to determine whether or not an artwork was located on public or private property, except in a few outlying circumstances. Determining the ownership of the artwork itself was, in many cases, more challenging; when the artwork was owned by the City, it could sometimes be challenging to determine which department or agency had ownership, and whether that same entity had maintenance responsibilities. Of the 169 artworks, 95 artworks (56%) are on private property, 61 artworks (36%) are on public City property, 9 artworks (5%) are on public federal property, and ownership of the property where 4 of the artworks (3%) are located is currently undetermined (Figure 6). In most, but not all, cases, artwork that is located on private property is also privately owned; a known exception is the two murals by Aaron Miller. Of the 169 artworks, at

17 The status of some artworks is currently undetermined because they were located in private interior spaces that were not accessed during this project (most of which were inside the Hyatt Regency or Golden Gateway residential towers); this includes at least nine artworks that are likely not extant based on preliminary research. Of the 109 extant artworks, four artworks have been relocated from their original sites. Of the 31 artworks that were confirmed to longer be extant, 15 were originally located in Golden Gateway, seven in Yerba Buena Center, and six in Western Addition.

least 90 artworks (53%) appear to be privately owned, 57 artworks (34%) appear to be publicly owned by the City (various agencies/departments), 9 artworks (5%) are publicly owned by the federal General Services Administration, and the ownership of 13 artworks (8%) is currently undetermined (Figure 7). 18 Of the 169 artworks, only 24 artworks (14%) are currently part of the Civic Art Collection (CAC), and funding for these artworks in the Civic Art Collection appears to have come from the Art Enrichment Ordinance (two-percent-for-art).

Based on cursory research into the 171 artists responsible for the 169 artworks, it appears that 121 artists (71%) are male, 38 artists (22%) are female, and the gender identity of 12 artists (7%) is currently undetermined (Figure 8). 19 Also based on cursory biographical research, it appears that 114 artists (67%) are White (non-Hispanic/Latino), 7 artists (4%) are White (Hispanic/Latino), 14 artists (8%) are Asian, 11 artists are Black (7%), 2 artists are American Indian (1%), and the race/ethnicity of 22 artists (13%) is currently undetermined (Figure 9). 20 Of the artworks by women artists, about half (17 out of 38) are no longer extant or are likely no longer extant, including all 13 fiber artworks by women artists.21 Most of the fiber artworks were located in the Embarcadero Center and Hyatt Regency Hotel, including several massive multi-story hanging fiber artworks.

The distribution of artworks across redevelopment areas is very revealing as it indicates that the vast majority of artwork was located in the two downtown redevelopment areas Golden Gateway (75 artworks or 44%) and Yerba Buena Center (40 artworks or 24%) (Figure 10). The two Western Addition project areas have the next largest share of artworks (18 artworks or 11%), but many of these artworks were installed quite late in the development of the projects or were temporary (such as murals on walls along mini-parks). The Chinese Cultural Center, India Basin Industrial Park, Mission Bay, and South of Market projects each only had one public artwork, and. Diamond Heights has 5. Rincon Point-South Beach had only 6 artworks (3%), but three of these are some of the largest scale and most highly visible artworks within the public realm. Prior to the dissolution of SFRA, the Bayview and Hunters Point project areas had only 2 total known public artworks (one of which has since been demolished); however, since the formation of OCII, 10 additional public artworks were commissioned and installed in the Hunters Point Shipyard redevelopment area.

18 Most of the artworks with undetermined ownership are no longer extant. Exceptions include the Mary Ellen Pleasant Memorial Park plaque, which may be in the public right-of-way; and the George Moscone bust at Moscone Center, which likely publicly owned.

19 In cases where multiple people were responsible for the execution of the artwork, only the primary artist responsible is included in this dataset; there are two exceptions where both partners in a duo are included in the data set the husbandand-wife team of Cupid’s Span, Claes Oldenburg and Coosje van Bruggen, and Jaune Quick-to-See Smith and James Luna who designed Oche Wat Te Ou In cases where the same artist was responsible for multiple artworks, they were counted multiple times.

20 Refer to footnote #20 above.

21 All three fiber artworks by male artists have also been demolished.

Figure 3. San Francisco Redevelopment Public Artwork Inventory Maps

! ( ! !( (! ( ! !( ( ! ( ! ! ! ( ! !( ( !( !( ( ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !( ( ! !( ( ! ! ( ! !( (! !( (! ( ! ( ! (! ( ! (!(! ( ! ! ! ( ! (! ( ! ! ! ( ! ! (! ( ! ! !( ( ! ! !( ( ! ! ! ! ( ! ! ! ! ! ! ( ! ! ! ( ! ! !( ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ! (!(!(!(! !( ( ! (! ( ! !( ( ! ! ( ! ! ! ! !( ( ! ( ! ! ! ( ! ( ! ! ! ! ( !( ! ! (! ( ! ( ! ( !

! ! ! ! ! (! ( ! !( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ! ( ! ( ! ! (! ( ! (! !( (! ( ! ! ! !

Esri, HERE, Garm n, (c) OpenStree Map con r butors, and he G S user community ! !( (!(!(! !( (! !(

How Acquired

Property Ownership

Artwork Ownership

Figure 4 Status of artworks.

Figure 5 How artworks were acquired.

Figure 6. Owner of property (land) where artwork is located.

Figure 7. Ownership of artwork.

Artist Race

Figure 8. Gender of artist (if known).

Figure 9. Artist race (if known).

Figure 10. Distribution of artworks by redevelopment area

7

22 Artworks that were identified as “In Scope” for the conditions assessment fieldwork are highlighted in light gray. In general, properties that are privately owned or demolished were considered “Not In Scope” (NIS). For further details on determining whether an artwork was considered in scope, refer to Section 1.C. Research, Fieldwork & Conditions Assessment Methodology.

23 If multiple dates are provided, they are generally the year the artwork was completed, followed by the date the artwork was installed or relocated.

24 BV = Bayview Hunters Point; CC = Chines Cultural Center; DH = Diamond Heights; FO = Federal Office Building; GG = Golden Gateway; HP = Hunters Point; HS = Hunters Point Shipyard; IB = India Basin; MB = Mission Bay; RP = Rincon Point-South Beach; SM = South of Market; WA = Western Addition; YB = Yerba Buena Center.

25 In most cases, the location is the property address. In cases where a property is in the public right-of-way and is not associated with a particular address, the approximate location is described, or the nearest address is given.

26 1 = Excellent Condition; 2 = Good Condition; 3 = Fair Condition; 4 = Poor Condition; 5 = Very Poor Condition; NIS = Not In Scope.

27 1 = Most Robust; 2 = Mildly Robust; 3 = Normal; 4 = Mildly Fragile; 5 = Fragile; NIS = Not In Scope.

28 1 = Appears Safe; 2 = Not Safe; 3 = Imminent Danger; NIS = Not In Scope.

29 1 = Maintain; 2 = Conserve; 3 = Restore; NIS = Not In Scope.

42

43

44

45 The George Moscone Bust located in Moscone Center is a copy of a bust that is located in City Hall. While the bust in the Moscone Center appears to be publicly owned, it is not known which agency retains ownership. Interior access to Moscone Center was not available during survey fieldwork, and the artwork is already documented as part of the Civic Art Collection.

47

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations have been developed by Page & Turnbull for consideration by SFAC and are organized in the following categories: (A) Research, (B) Maintenance, (C) Accession, and (D) Knowledge Sharing. These recommendations do not take into account available funding or other agency priorities, which are outside Page & Turnbull’s purview.

SFAC has considered the need for further in-depth historic study and/or conservation assessment of specific artworks based on SFAC prioritization following review of the results of this Findings Report. If approved, this scope of work could include execution of one or more of the research, maintenance, or knowledge sharing recommendations below.

A. Research Recommendations

Recommendation A.1 – Additional Research & Documentation of Aaron Miller Murals

A more detailed summary report on the two Aaron Miller murals (Jesus Condemned by Pilate and Lamentation) appears warranted to fully account for the history of their creation, the biography of the artist, the demolition of the Emanuel Church of God in Christ (1540 Post Street) where they were originally located, preservation efforts to save the murals, and the restoration and relocation of the murals to their current location in an office building lobby. An extensive number of materials were uncovered in OCII records and in newspaper archives, but additional time is required to synthesize these materials and provide a more detailed narrative and history of Aaron Miller and these murals.

Research appears to indicate that the Aaron Miller murals were the property of SFRA, and while there were discussions of deeding them to SFAC in the late 1980s, these discussions appeared to have stalled around 1990, and appears to have been related to an insurance issue 48 Research did not uncover any signed documentation recording a transfer of ownership, so it is implied that the ownership remained with SFRA. Whether the ownership of the murals would automatically transfer to OCII, the successor agency, or another agency or department of the City and County of San Francisco is a question that was not answered by this report, and it is likely a question for the city

48 Additional history about the creation, relocation, and attempt to acquisition the Aaron Miller Murals is provided in the artwork inventory form in Appendix B.1 of this report. An internal SFRA memo dated January 31, 1990, indicates that that the issue of insuring the murals from risk, damage, and destruction and liability for injury of persons and property was a major concern of Richard Szeto of WCPII. Szeto indicated that "the murals [are] priceless and do not belong to him [Szeto], therefore, responsibility [of insurance] should lie on the owners of the Murals." Deborah Lehane at SFAC indicated that "since the Arts Commission was not involved in the review and approval process of installing the Murals, therefore, the Arts Commission cannot assume the liability of the Murals." SFRA questioned whether they had the available funding or would want to carry insurance if the murals were deeded to the Arts Commission. Refer to: Internal SFRA Memo from Isabella Wong, Senior Administrative Assistant, to Shirley Wysinger, Assistant Community Development Specialist, January 31, 1990, on file at OCII PAA-00338.

attorney. Further research is required to confirm that ownership was never transferred from SFRA and to better understand why SFAC accession stalled out. While all research avenues at OCII and the San Francisco Public Library appear to be exhausted, other research avenues may include contacting the current owners of the office building at 1426 Fillmore Street; identifying, contacting, and interviewing any employees of SFAC or SFRA who were directly involved in the relocation of the murals; or contacting the city attorney or OCII or Real Estate staff who may be able to provide additional information

Recommendation A.2 - Artworks on San Francisco Recreation & Park Department Property

Further research on artworks that are located on San Francisco Recreation & Park Department (RPD) property could include additional research in RPD archival files, which was outside the scope of this project. Research could include identifying any meeting minutes and resolutions regarding the commissioning, installation, and maintenance of artworks, as well as review of any other files in RPD’s possession. RPD may have additional materials related to Vaillancourt Fountain, the sculptures at Maritime Plaza, Hilltop Park, and the Buchanan Street Mall.

Recommendation A.3 - Properties Under Consideration for Acquisition

Any properties under consideration for acquisition by SFAC into the Civic Art Collection should be researched further. This inventory provides a high level of research on a large number of artworks. However, a deeper dive may be warranted for any artworks under consideration for acquisition to provide a fuller history of the artwork, including the biography of the artist, the history of the artwork from commissioning to installation to public reception, and the artistic intent of the artwork. A more detailed report with research focused on a specific artwork may identify additional relevant newspaper articles, historic photos, and other legal or departmental documents. The following section C. Accession Recommendations discusses artworks that appear to be on public property, owned by the City, and/or otherwise potential candidates for acquisition into the Civic Art Collection.

B. Maintenance Recommendations

Most of the artworks that are in the Civic Art Collection that were surveyed by Page & Turnbull appear to be in fair to good condition. Artworks that have been identified as a top or high maintenance priority include those that appear to have structural concerns (‘Not Safe’ or ‘Imminent Danger’) and artworks that appear to require restoration or conservation. Artworks that have been identified as a medium maintenance priority are those that may require more limited conservation and appear to be in fair to good condition. Artworks that have been identified as a lower maintenance priority are artworks that only require standard maintenance and are in fair to good condition. These priorities are based only on the preliminary conditions assessment conducted as

part of this project scope, and do not take into account available funding or maintenance jurisdiction.

TABLE 2. MAINTENANCE PRIORITY FOR CITY-OWNED ARTWORKS

Top Priority High Priority

• Hilltop Park Sundial & Amphitheater

• Three Shades of Blue

• Lock and Keys for Harry Bridges*

• Icosaspirale

• India Basin Industrial Park sign

• Nautical Swing

• Urge

• Limits of Horizon II

• Chinese Cultural Center Bridge & Lanterns

• Deep Gradient/ Suspect Terrain

• Vaillancourt Fountain

• Aurora*

• Untitled by Win Ng

• Mary Ellen Pleasant Memorial Park plaque*

• Geary Expressway

Underpass Graphics

• Concrete Vertical Curl

• Revelation (MLK Jr. Memorial Fountain)

Medium Priority Lower Priority

• Bronze Horse

• Spider Pelt

• Shaking Man

• Refrain

• Aaron Miller Murals*

• Cupid's Span

• Sea Change

• Butterfly Girl

• Oche Wat Te Ou - Reflections

• Silver Walls

• Dare We Dream in Concrete?

• Gigantry

• Standing Figure: Knife Edge

• Stream of Consciousness

• Diamond Heights Safety Wall

• Flotilla

• Frame

• Untitled by Keith Haring

• Bayview Horn

• Hale Konon

• Dandelion Fountain

• Autoscape #3

• Origami Fountains

• Driving Me Up a Wall

• George Moscone

• Visions from the Past/Visions of the Future

• Whirligig

• Twin Spin

* Pending confirmation of city ownership.

Artworks Under Threat of Demolition

Three artworks identified in this inventory appear to currently be under imminent threat of possible demolition and/or are in the process of being relocated: the Chinese Cultural Center Bridge & Lanterns, Buchanan Street Mall Concrete Curl, and the India Basin Industrial Park sign.

Recommendation B.1 – Retention and/or Relocation of Chinese Cultural Center Bridge & Lanterns

As part of a Portsmouth Square Area Project being undertaken by the San Francisco Planning Department and RPD, the bridge, which spans from Portsmouth Square to the Chinese Cultural Center inside the Hilton Hotel (750 Kearny Street), is slated for demolition. A landing and portcochere portion of the bridge attached to the hotel, on the hotel property, is proposed to be retained. It appears that all of the lanterns on the bridge will be demolished. The proposed fate of

the lanterns on the retained landing is currently undetermined. Conversation and coordination with Planning and RPD is recommended to better understand the plan for the lanterns and to determine whether some or all of the Chinese Cultural Center bridge lanterns can be retained and/or salvaged or relocated. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Portsmouth Square Area Project includes mitigation measures related to removal, relocation, storage, and relocation of “all plaques and monuments” in Portsmouth Square, as well as salvage of character defining features of historic architectural resources (which includes the bridge), but the lanterns are not explicitly discussed.49

Recommendation B.2 – Retention of Buchanan Street Mall Concrete Vertical Curl

Coordination with RPD and the Department of Public Works (DPW) should occur to ensure that the Concrete Vertical Curl remains as the design progresses. The project appears to currently be progressing through schematic design block-by-block. Page & Turnbull recommends that SFAC engage in interdepartmental communication to ensure that the Concrete Vertical Curl is strongly considered for retention as DPW develops the schematic design for the block between McAllister Street and Golden Gate Avenue. Revisiting the original blue and white stripe paint scheme may be considered.

The Buchanan Street Mall has been largely altered and reconfigured from its original 1975 design by recognized landscape architect of merit Peter Walker of Sasaki, Walker & Associates. The Concrete Vertical Curl appears to be the last remaining feature of the original design. While not installed as “public art,” the concrete curl was part of a larger snake-like landscape feature that was part of a designed landscape that sought to integrate art and artistic expression into park design. RPD is currently engaged in the design phase of a Buchanan Street Mall Renovation Project. The “Conceptual Design” prepared by the Office of Cheryl Barton (dated February 27, 2020) notes “existing sculpture to remain,” referring to the Concrete Vertical Curl 50 It is not known if the Concrete Vertical Curl is included in current design iterations.

Recommendation B.3 – Retention of the India Basin Industrial Park Sign

Page & Turnbull is aware that RPD is currently in possession of the concrete letters that make up the India Basin Industrial Park sign by Michael Manwaring, which was removed from its original location to accommodate the construction of the new Southeast Community Center. The letters are currently being stored by RPD, which has expressed its intention to re-install at least some portion of the sign

49 San Francisco Planning, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), Portsmouth Square Improvement Project, Case NO. 2018-013597ENV (December 2021), accessed online September 19, 2023, https://citypln-mextnl.sfgov.org/SharedLinks.aspx?accesskey=73237afbfe47160c4d54af8c82a69d9c415f6552443e460fd761640b56625154&Va ultGUID=A4A7DACD-B0DC-4322-BD29-F6F07103C6E0.

50 Office of Cheryl Barton, Concept Plan: Buchanan Mall (February 27, 2020), accessed online September 19, 2023, https://sfrecpark.org/DocumentCenter/View/17909/200225_BMAL-Concept-Boards_rev

at the new India Basin Waterfront Park (900 Innes Avenue), which is currently under construction. There has been some discussion about whether to only install the words “India Basin Park” or “India Basin,” but that retention of the sign does not appear to be part of any formal mitigation measures or agreements. Coordination with RPD is recommended to ensure that at least some portion of the sign is retained and reinstalled, and that the sign is reinstalled in a manner that is consistent with its original design (especially in terms of the spacing of the letters).

C. Accession Recommendations

Page & Turnbull understands that there are numerous considerations that inform SFAC when deciding to formally accession an artwork into the Civic Art Collection. The following is a shortlist of artworks that are (or appear to be) owned by the City and County of San Francisco most of which are also located on city-owned properties and, therefore, have potential to be considered for accession into the Civic Art Collection.

1. Hilltop Park Sundial

2. Aaron Miller Murals51

3. Geary Expressway Underpass Graphics

4. Mary Ellen Pleasant Memorial Plaque52

5. Dandelion Fountain

6. Lock & Key for Harry Bridges53

7. Aurora

8. Cupid’s Span

9. Three Shades of Blue

10. Yerba Buena Center Artworks

a. Deep Gradient/Suspect Terrain

b. Oche Wat Te Ou - Reflections

c. Revelation (MLK Jr. Memorial Fountain)

d. Shaking Man

e. Silver Walls

f. Urge

g. Whirligig

11. Hunters Point Shipyard Artworks

a. Bayview Horn

b. Butterfly Girl 51

c. Flotilla

d. Frame

e. Gigantry

f. Hale Konon

g. Nautical Swing

h. Refrain

i. Stream of Consciousness

j. Visions of the Past – Visions of the Future

D. Knowledge Sharing Recommendations

This project has unearthed a unique body of research that starts to paint a more comprehensive picture of public art in San Francisco, and shines light on some of the lesser-known public artworks in the city. As such, it would benefit SFAC and the wider San Francisco public to share this knowledge in various formats.

Recommendation D.1 –

Website or Printed Brochure Documenting Public Art in Redevelopment Areas

Consider publishing a webpage on the SFAC or OCII website and/or a printed brochure that shares the findings of this project. At minimum, this Findings Report could be made readily available to the public as a research tool. A webpage with information about the project goals, brief history of public art in San Franisco redevelopment areas, and a summary of findings could include a story map or other graphics that make it easy for members of the public to learn more about these artworks whether or not they are part of the Civic Art Collection.

Recommendation D.2 – Install Plaques at Artworks that are City-Owned

While many of the artworks on city property have plaques including some at Yerba Buena Gardens and Hunters Point Shipyard even though they are not part of the Civic Art Collection, there are a number of artworks on city property and/or that are city-owned that do not have any identification plaques. Permanent plaques, or even more temporary QR code signage, could help members of the public learn more about the public artworks in former redevelopment areas. For example, the Aaron Miller murals do not have a plaque, either inside or outside of the building, and, as such, the story behind the murals had been largely forgotten.

Recommendation D.3 – Educational Cross-Programming with Other City Departments

The San Francisco Public Library has expressed interest in hosting some kind of educational programming around public art, which could include lectures and/or small exhibits at the main library and/or branch libraries. Additionally, the San Francisco Planning Department is currently

engaged in the Citywide Cultural Resources Survey (SF Survey), part of which involves the drafting of a Historic Context Statement on public art. There is an opportunity for the Library, Planning Department, and SFAC to collaborate on programming that provides public education and could contribute to the SF Survey efforts, which is heavily invested in public engagement.

Recommendation D.4

– Inter-Department Knowledge Sharing

The San Francisco Planning Department would benefit from the San Francisco Redevelopment Public Artwork Inventory data related to extant public artworks to inform the SF Survey. Excel or GIS shapefile data could be shared with the Planning Department to be integrated into their Arches cultural resources database, which will also be shared with the public. The shared data could focus on background information such as artwork name, artist name and biography, year of installation, type of artwork, and research notes, but might exclude conditions assessment information.

Recommendation D.5 – Conference Presentations

SFAC should consider sharing this inventory project at conferences, such as the Americans for the Arts annual convention, International Conference on Public Art, Association for Public Art, or other conferences that are relevant to SFAC. It is likely that other jurisdictions have bodies of public art related to redevelopment (or even early percent-for-art collections) that likewise may not have been comprehensively inventoried or studied, and this SFAC project could serve as a case study and model for other commissions.

V. BIBLIOGRAPHY

The following bibliography includes all sources cited in this Finding Report and major research sources. However, not every research source utilized for artwork-specific research is cited; artworkspecific research sources are included in the San Francisco Redevelopment Public Artwork Inventory Reports in Appendix B.

Published Books

Art Commission City and County of San Francisco. A Survey of Artwork in the City and County of San Francisco. San Francisco: Office of Mayor Joseph L. Alioto, 1975.

Katz, Bernard. The Fountains of San Francisco. San Francisco: Don’t Call it Frisco Press, 1989. Radford, Warren and Georgia Radford. Outdoor Sculpture in San Francisco: A Heritage of Public Art Gualala, CA: Helsham Press, 2002.

San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. Art in San Francisco Redevelopment Areas. San Francisco: San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, 1979.

Temko, Allan. No Way to Build a Ballpark and Other Irreverent Essays on Architecture. San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1993.

The Arts Commission of San Francisco. San Francisco Civic Art Collection. San Francisco: The Arts Commission of San Francisco, 1989.

Public Reports & Documents

San Francisco Administrative Code. Sec. 3.19. Appropriation For Art Enrichment Of Proposed Public Buildings, Aboveground Structures, Parks And Transportation Improvement Projects. (2%for-Art Art Enrichment Program.) Accessed online September 19, 2023, https://www.sfartscommission.org/content/art-enrichment-ordinance.

San Francisco Arts Commission. “Policies and Guidelines for the Civic Art Collection of the City and County of San Francisco Under the Jurisdiction of the San Francisco Arts Commission.” Resolution #0406-15-121. Updated December 9, 2020. Accessed online, September 19, 2023, https://www.sfartscommission.org/our-role-impact/about-commission/policiesguidelines/Public-ArtCivic-Art-Collection.

San Francisco Board of Supervisors. “Charter of the City and County of San Francisco: As Amended in 1903, 1907, 1911, 1913, 1915, 1917 and 1919. San Francisco: San Francisco Board of Supervisors, 1919. Accessed online September 19, 2023, https://archive.org/details/charterofcitycou1919sanf.

. “Charter of the City and County of San Francisco: Ratified by vote of the People, March 26, 1931 - Approved by the Legislature of the State, April 13, 1913 - In full force and effort, January 8, 1932.” San Francisco: San Francisco Board of Supervisors, 1932. Accessed online September 19, 2023, https://archive.org/details/charterofcitycou1932sanf

Findings Report San Francisco Redevelopment Public Art Inventory [18396] FINAL San Francisco, CA

San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) Packet, 2017-011910DES, December 20, 2017. Accessed online June 20, 2023, https://commissions.sfplanning.org/hpcpackets/2017011910DES122017.pdf.

San Francisco Planning Department. “Downtown: Proposal for Adoption by the City Planning Commission as a Part of the Master Plan.” October 1984. Accessed online September 19, 2023, https://archive.org/details/downtownproposal1984sanf.

. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). Portsmouth Square Improvement Project, Case No. 2018-013597ENV (December 2021). Accessed online September 19, 2023, https://citypln-mextnl.sfgov.org/SharedLinks.aspx?accesskey=73237afbfe47160c4d54af8c82a69d9c415f6552 443e460fd761640b56625154&VaultGUID=A4A7DACD-B0DC-4322-BD29-F6F07103C6E0.

. POPOS and Public Art Map. Accessed online September 19, 2023, https://sfplanninggis.org/popos/.

Public Art & Monuments Historic Context Statement [DRAFT]. Citywide Cultural Resources Survey (SF Survey). September 28, 2022.

Redevelopment Historic Context Statement [DRAFT]. Citywide Cultural Resources Survey (SF Survey). No date.

. “San Francisco Fine Art Guidelines.” Implementing the San Francisco Planning Code, Section 149, Requirements for Art Works in the Downtown Area. Approved by San Francisco City Planning Commission, July 24, 1986. Accessed online September 19, 2023, https://sfplanning.org/resource/san-francisco-fine-art-guidelines.

. “Today’s Downtown Gallery: Public Artwork created by the 1% for Public Art Program codified in the Planning Code.” No date. Accessed online September 19, 2023, https://default.sfplanning.org/publications_reports/Todays_Downtown_Gallery_printable_gui de.pdf

San Francisco Planning Code. Sec. 429. Artworks, Options To Meet Public Art Fee Requirement, Recognition Of Architect And Artists, And Requirements. (1%-for-Art Requirement.) Accessed online September 19,

https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/sf_planning/0-0-0-42644.

Office of Cheryl Barton, Concept Plan: Buchanan Mall (February 27, 2020). Accessed online September 19, 2023, https://sfrecpark.org/DocumentCenter/View/17909/200225_BMALConcept-Boards_rev.

Newspaper & Journal Articles

“$1 million of public art to grace public space in Bayview.” San Francisco Chronicle, May 23, 2010.

“A look at the City’s open spaces.” San Francisco Examiner, March 14, 1976.

Coffelt, Beth. “Public Art: Part II.” San Francisco Sunday Examiner & Chronicle, August 8, 1982.

Doss, Margaret Patterson. “Art in the Golden Gateway: San Francisco At Your Feet.” San Francisco Sunday Examiner & Chronicle, June 11, 1967.

Finley, Elizabeth Navas. “Fiber Art.” San Francisco Chronicle, October 10, 1984.

Frankenstein, Alfred. “Lights, Water, Action At the Plaza.” San Francisco Examiner, June 25, 1967.

Fried, Alexander. “A Modern Problem of Fountains.” San Francisco Examiner, June 20, 1965.

. “Creating Museums in the City’s Sky.” San Francisco Examiner, June 9, 1968.

. “Red Tape Hurts Civic Projects.” San Francisco Examiner, December 29, 1968.

. “The City’s Justin Herman Art Heritage.” San Francisco Examiner, September 2, 1971.

Herman, M. Justin. “The City Must Dare A Little: A Defense Of Its Art Taste ” San Francisco Magazine (February 1969), on file at OCII PLN-00813.

Hill, Anita. “Yerba Buena Gardens Becomes Reality.” San Franciso Examiner, October 10, 1993.

Maatz, L. G. “In the financial district – galleries for the people.” San Francisco Examiner, November 18, 1973.

“Most of San Francisco’s art survives quake unharmed.” The Orlando Sentinel, October 29, 1989.

“S.F. Catalog of Public Art Projects.” San Francisco Chronicle, August 2, 1979.

Temko, Allan. “Public Art: Winners, Losers.” San Francisco Examiner, September 9, 1979.

“Who Pays For Our Public Art?” San Francisco Sunday Examiner & Chronicle, August 8, 1982.

Archival Repositories

San Francisco Public Library.

Arts Commission. Meeting minutes, agendas, annual reports. Accessed via Internet Archive. Board of Supervisors. Meeting minutes and agendas. Accessed via Internet Archive. Department of Public Works. Meeting minutes, agendas, annual reports. Accessed via Internet Archive.

Recreation & Parks Department. Meeting minutes, agendas, annual reports. Accessed via Internet Archive.

Redevelopment Agency. Meeting minutes, agendas, annual reports, fact books. Accessed via Internet Archive.

San Francisco Public Library, San Francisco History Center

James A. Scott Photograph Collection (SFP 24).

Robert Durden Slide Collection (SFP 42).

San Francisco Ephemera Collection (SF SUB COLL).

San Francisco Historical Photograph Collection (SFP 162).

San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Records (SFH 371)

Office of Community Investment & Infrastructure (OCII).

ARC-00061, ARC-0062, ARC-0064, ARC-00331, ARC-00371, ARC-00578, ARC-00597, ARC-00820, ARC-00864, ARC-1001, ARC-1004, ARC-01028, ARC-01036, ARC-01038, ARC-01102, ARC-01114, ARC-01121, ARC-01129, ARC-01131, ARC-01155, ARC-01156, ARC-01158, CRA-00016, CRA00019, CRA-00058, CRA-00064, CRA-00090, CSR-00486, ENG-00022, HSG-00095, LGL-01147, LGL-01688, PAA-00026, PAA-00103, PAA-00157, PAA-00168, PAA-00188, PAA-00251, PAA00256, PAA-00338, PAA-00462, PAA-00539, PAA-00543, PAA-00744, PAA-00752, PLN-00812, PLN-00813, R102021565, RED-01242, and RED-01249.

John Portman Archives. Embarcadero Center Collection.

Stanford University Library Special Collections Ruth Asawa Papers.

Internet Resources

“All of San Francisco.” Public Art and Architecture from Around the World. Accessed online June 20, 2023, https://artandarchitecture-sf.com/category/san-francisco.

“Browse the Collections.” San Francisco Arts Commission. Accessed online September 19, 2023, https://kiosk.sfartscommission.org/.

“Citywide Cultural Resources Survey.” San Francisco Planning. Accessed online June 20, 2023, https://sfplanning.org/project/citywide-cultural-resources-survey.

“Completed or Inactive Project Areas.” Office of Community Investment & Infrastructure (OCII). Accessed online September 19, 2023, https://sfocii.org/completed-project-areas.

“Public Art.” San Francisco Arts Commission. Accessed online September 19, 2023, https://www.sfartscommission.org/our-role-impact/programs/public-art/.

“Public Art Trust Guidelines.” San Francisco Arts Commission. Accessed online September 19, 2023, https://www.sfartscommission.org/our-role-impact/about-commission/policiesguidelines/public-art-trust-guidelines.

VI. APPENDICES

Appendix A – Artwork Photo Contact Sheets

The following photograph contact sheets for the artworks in the San Francisco Redevelopment Public Artwork Inventory are organized first by artworks that were deemed “in scope” for the purpose of conditions assessment, followed by those that were deemed “out of scope.”

2, Standing Figure! Knife Edge, GG.jpg

19, Icosaspirale, GG.jpg

25, Limits of Horizon II, GG.jpg

76, Concrete Vertical Curl, WA-2-1.jpg

78, Origami Fountains, WA-2.jpg

16, Bronze Horse, GG.jpg

23, Untitled (Mosaic by Win Ng), WA-2.jpg

42, Vaillancourt Fountain, GG.jpg

77, Mary Ellen Pleasant Memorial Park plaque,

84, Hilltop Park Sundial & Amphitheater, HP.jpg

17, Dandelion Fountain, GG.jpg

24, Diamond Heights Safety Wall, DH.jpg

47, Chinese Cultural Center Bridge & Lanterns,

78, Origami Fountains, WA-2-1.jpg

96, Driving Me Up a Wall, YB.jpg

112, Aaron Miller Murals, WA-2-1.jpg

114, Geary Expressway Underpass Graphics, W

114, Geary Expressway Underpass Graphics, W

126, Oche Wat Te Ou - Reflections, YB.jpg

108, Twin Spin, YB.jpg

112, Aaron Miller Murals, WA-2.jpg

114, Geary Expressway Underpass Graphics, W

120, Dare We Dream in Concrete!, YB.jpg

127, Revelation, YB.jpg

111, Spider Pelt, YB.jpg

113, Aurora, RP.jpg

114, Geary Expressway Underpass Graphics, W

125, Deep Gradient!Suspect Terrain, YB.jpg

128, Shaking Man, YB.jpg

129, Silver Walls, YB.jpg

133, Urge, YB-1.jpg

139, Cupid's Span, RP.jpg

152, Bayview Horn, HS.jpg

155, Frame, HS.jpg

131, Whirligig, YB.jpg

135, Lock and Keys for Harry Bridges, YB.jpg

141, Three Shades of Blue, WA-1.jpg

153, Butterfly Girl, HS.jpg

156, Gigantry, HS.jpg

132, Sea Change, RP.jpg

136, Untitled (Sculpture by Keith Haring), YB.jpg

151, Stream of Consciousness, HS.jpg

154, Flotilla , HS.jpg

157, Hale Konon, HS.jpg

158, Nautical Swing, HS.jpg

159, Refrain, HS.jpg

160, Visions from the Past!Visions of the Future...

1, June '61, GG.jpg

5, Lemon Drop, GG.jpg

8, Austerity, GG.jpg

11, Untitled (Mosaics), DH.jpg

14, The Universal Nerve, GG.jpg

3, Fountain of Four Seasons, GG.jpg

6, Oval 1963, GG.jpg

9, Racoon Straits, GG.jpg

12, Untitled (Stained Glass Windows), DH.jpg

15, Cathedral Hill Sculptured Pylon, WA-1.jpg

4, Untitled Mural (St. Aidan's), DH.jpg

7, Shooting Star, GG.jpg

10, Unknown Title, GG.jpg

13, Colombo Market Arch, GG.jpg

18, Fountain (Untitled), GG.jpg

20, Pacific Bird, GG.jpg

26, Peace Pagoda, WA-1.jpg

29, LaPell D'Un Poble, GG.jpg

32, Ceramic Murals, DH.jpg

35, Hiro II, GG.jpg

21, The Penguins, GG.jpg

27, Brick Sgraffito Wall, BV.jpg

30, Untitled (Sculpture by Freda Koblick), GG.jpg

33, Blocks, GG.jpg

36, Two Steel Sculptures (1EC), GG-1.jpg

22, Baldacchino at St. Mary's Cathedral, WA-1.jpg

28, Rolling Discs, GG.jpg

31, Unknown Title (African style sculpture), WA34, Cubes, GG.jpg

36, Two Steel Sculptures (1EC), GG.jpg

37, Two Steel Sculptures (2EC), GG-1.jpg

39, Untitled (Sculpture by Frederick John Evers

43, Fujiya, GG.jpg

46, Interface, WA-1.jpg

50, Canopes-Ackenar, GG.jpg

37, Two Steel Sculptures (2EC), GG.jpg

40, Untitled (Two Wall Hangings by Francoise G

44, Rivington Series, GG.jpg

48, Africa 9, GG.jpg

51, Desert Fantasia, GG.jpg

38, Two Columns With Wedge, GG.jpg

41, Untitled (Wall Paintings), GG.jpg

45, Souvenir En Bleu, GG.jpg

49, Burst, GG.jpg

52, Eclipse, GG.jpg

53, Finder Arch, GG.jpg

56, Island Chop Suey, GG.jpg

59, Opus 63, GG.jpg

62, Screen Sculpture, GG.jpg

65, Unknown Title (painting), GG.jpg

54, Flamenco, GG.jpg

57, L'Oeil, GG.jpg

60, Phenomena Tide, GG.jpg

63, Unknown Title, GG.jpg

66, Unknown Title (painting), GG.jpg

55, Hojarasca En Mil Rojos, GG.jpg

58, Moses de Leon, GG.jpg

61, Revival, GG.jpg

64, Unknown Title (painting), GG.jpg

67, Untitled (Two Wall Hangings), GG.jpg

68, Untitled Supergraphic Murals, GG.jpg

71, Citrus Wall, GG.jpg

74, Chronos XIV, GG.jpg

80, Two Open Rectangles Eccentric Variation VI

83, Chthonodynamis, GG.jpg

69, Untitled Wall Panel, GG.jpg

72, Space Continuum Two, GG.jpg

75, Legs, GG.jpg

81, Wall Canyon, GG.jpg

85, India Basin Industrial Park sign, IB.jpg

70, Wendell's Body, GG.jpg

73, Untitled, GG.jpg

79, Sky Tree, GG.jpg

82, Yellow Legs, GG.jpg

87, California Redwoods, YB.jpg

90, Victorian House , YB.jpg

93, Itaka's Cascade, GG.jpg

98, Souvenir of San Francisco, YB.jpg

101, La Chiffonniere, GG.jpg

88, Communication is at Our Fingertips, YB.jpg

91, Wire, Cable, Microwave & Satellite Commu

94, The Tulip, GG.jpg

99, Tholos Across, YB.jpg

102, Mistral, GG.jpg

89, Lenses, YB.jpg

92, Cristobal's Trapeze, GG.jpg

97, Morengo, YB.jpg

100, Untitled (Artwork by Gustavo Rivera), YB.jpg

103, Portrait of Georgia O'Keefe, GG.jpg

104, Fat Dancer (8!18), YB.jpg

107, Spiritual Survival of Humanity, YB.jpg

115, Man With Flame, YB.jpg

118, Exterior!Interior (Studio View), YB.jpg

122, Stream of Vessels, YB.jpg

105, Figure Emerging (12!18), YB.jpg

109, Unknown Title (WW 83), YB.jpg

116, Venus with Rope, YB.jpg

119, Les Funambules, YB.jpg

123, Street Singing, FO.jpg

106, Rain Mountain (8!18), YB.jpg

110, Big Heart on the Rock, GG.jpg

117, Pine Tree Obelisk, GG.jpg

121, Map No. 33, YB.jpg

124, Cho-En Butterfly Garden, YB.jpg

130, George Moscone, YB.jpg

138, Nightingale, FO.jpg

143, Don't Nod, FO.jpg

146, Maps, DNA and Spam, FO.jpg

149, Evolves the Luminous Flora (Tutubi Plaza),

134, Pneumatic Dreamer, YB.jpg

140, Will We Get Here Now, FO.jpg

144, I Did Did I!, FO.jpg

147, Sky Garden, FO.jpg

150, Hard Bop, WA-2.jpg

137, 1965, 1970, 2002, FO.jpg

142, Minna Street Fountain, YB.jpg

145, Level as a Level, FO.jpg

148, Systems Mural Project, MB.jpg

161, African-American Historical & Cultural Soc

162, Unknown Title (Mountain, Sun, Water Mur...

165, On Their Own, YB.jpg

168, Obelisk, RP.jpg

163, Unknown Title (Sculpture in Bush & Brode...

166, Unknown Title (Vertical Metal Sculpture), Y

169, Charlie Brown, RP.jpg

164, Yellow, Blue, Red Grid Mural in Mini-Park , ...

167, Rain Column, RP.jpg

Appendix B – San Francisco Redevelopment Public Artwork Inventory Reports

Appendix B.1 – Conditions Assessment Survey Field Reports (“In Scope” Artworks)

The following survey field reports were created for the artworks in the San Francisco Redevelopment Public Artwork Inventory that were determined to be “in scope” for conditions assessment.

• 2, Standing Figure: Knife Edge, GG

• 16, Bronze Horse, GG

• 17, Dandelion Fountain, GG

• 19, Icosaspirale, GG

• 23, Untitled (Mosaic by Win Ng), WA-2

• 24, Diamond Heights Safety Wall, DH

• 25, Limits of Horizon II, GG

• 42, Vaillancourt Fountain, GG

• 47, Chinese Cultural Center Bridge & Lanterns, CC

• 76, Concrete Vertical Curl, WA-2

• 77, Mary Ellen Pleasant Memorial Park plaque, WA-2

• 78, Origami Fountains, WA-2

• 84, Hilltop Park Sundial & Amphitheater, HP

• 95, Autoscape #3, YB

• 96, Driving Me Up a Wall, YB

• 108, Twin Spin, YB

• 111, Spider Pelt, YB

• 112, Aaron Miller Murals, WA-2

• 113, Aurora, RP

• 114, Geary Expressway Underpass Graphics, WA-2

• 120, Dare We Dream in Concrete?, YB

• 125, Deep Gradient/Suspect Terrain, YB

• 126, Oche Wat Te Ou - Reflections, YB

• 127, Revelation, YB

• 128, Shaking Man, YB

• 129, Silver Walls, YB

• 131, Whirligig, YB

• 132, Sea Change, RP

• 133, Urge, YB

• 135, Lock and Keys for Harry Bridges, YB

• 136, Untitled (Sculpture by Keith Haring), YB

• 139, Cupid's Span, RP

• 141, Three Shades of Blue, WA-1

• 151, Stream of Consciousness, HS

• 152, Bayview Horn, HS

• 153, Butterfly Girl, HS

• 154, Flotilla, HS

• 155, Frame, HS

• 156, Gigantry, HS

• 157, Hale Konon, HS

• 158, Nautical Swing, HS

• 159, Refrain, HS

• 160, Visions from the Past/Visions of the Future, HS

Appendix B.2 – Inventory Reports (“Out of Scope” Artworks)

The following abbreviated inventory reports were created for the artworks in the San Francisco Redevelopment Public Artwork Inventory that were determined to be “out of scope” for conditions assessment.

• 1, June '61, GG

• 3, Fountain of Four Seasons, GG

• 4, Untitled Mural (St. Aidan's), DH

• 5, Lemon Drop, GG

• 6, Oval 1963, GG

• 7, Shooting Star, GG

• 8, Austerity, GG

• 9, Racoon Straits, GG

• 10, Unknown Title, GG

• 11, Untitled (Mosaics), DH

• 12, Untitled (Stained Glass Windows), DH

• 13, Colombo Market Arch, GG

• 14, The Universal Nerve, GG

• 15, Cathedral Hill Sculptured Pylon, WA-1

• 18, Fountain (Untitled), GG

• 20, Pacific Bird, GG

• 21, The Penguins, GG

• 22, Baldacchino, WA-1

• 26, Peace Pagoda, WA-1

• 27, Brick Sgraffito Wall, BV

• 28, Rolling Discs, GG

• 29, LaPell D'Un Poble, GG

• 30, Untitled (Sculpture by Freda Koblick), GG

• 31, Unknown Title (African style sculpture), WA-2

• 32, Ceramic Murals, DH

• 33, Blocks, GG

• 34, Cubes, GG

• 35, Hiro II, GG

• 36, Two Steel Sculptures (1EC), GG

• 37, Two Steel Sculptures (2EC), GG

• 38, Two Columns With Wedge, GG

• 39, Untitled (Sculpture by Frederick John Eversley), GG

• 40, Untitled (Two Wall Hangings by Francoise Grossen), GG

• 41, Untitled (Wall Paintings), GG

• 43, Fujiya, GG

• 44, Rivington Series, GG

• 45, Souvenir En Bleu, GG

• 46, Interface, WA-1

• 48, Africa 9, GG

• 49, Burst, GG

• 50, Canopes-Ackenar, GG

• 51, Desert Fantasia, GG

• 52, Eclipse, GG

• 53, Finder Arch, GG

• 54, Flamenco, GG

• 55, Hojarasca En Mil Rojos, GG

• 56, Island Chop Suey, GG

• 57, L'Oeil, GG

• 58, Moses de Leon, GG

• 59, Opus 63, GG

• 60, Phenomena Tide, GG

• 61, Revival, GG

• 62, Screen Sculpture, GG

• 63, Unknown Title, GG

• 64, Unknown Title (painting), GG

• 65, Unknown Title (painting), GG

• 66, Unknown Title (painting), GG

• 67, Untitled (Two Wall Hangings), GG

• 68, Untitled Supergraphic Murals, GG

• 69, Untitled Wall Panel, GG

• 70, Wendell's Body, GG

• 71, Citrus Wall, GG

• 72, Space Continuum Two, GG

• 73, Untitled, GG

• 74, Chronos XIV, GG

• 75, Legs, GG

• 79, Sky Tree, GG

• 80, Two Open Rectangles Eccentric Variation VII, Triangle Section, GG

• 81, Wall Canyon, GG

• 82, Yellow Legs, GG

• 83, Chthonodynamis, GG

• 85, India Basin Industrial Park sign, IB

• 86, Working of the Holy Spirit, WA-2

• 87, California Redwoods, YB

• 88, Communication is at Our Fingertips, YB

• 89, Lenses, YB

• 90, Victorian House, YB

• 91, Wire, Cable, Microwave & Satellite Communication, YB

• 92, Cristobal's Trapeze, GG

• 93, Itaka's Cascade, GG

• 94, The Tulip, GG

• 97, Morengo, YB

• 98, Souvenir of San Francisco, YB

• 99, Tholos Across, YB

• 100, Untitled (Artwork by Gustavo Rivera), YB

• 101, La Chiffonniere, GG

• 102, Mistral, GG

• 103, Portrait of Georgia O'Keefe, GG

• 104, Fat Dancer (8/18), YB

• 105, Figure Emerging (12/18), YB

• 106, Rain Mountain (8/18), YB

• 107, Spiritual Survival of Humanity, YB

• 109, Unknown Title (WW 83), YB

• 110, Big Heart on the Rock, GG

• 115, Man With Flame, YB

• 116, Venus with Rope, YB

• 117, Pine Tree Obelisk, GG

• 118, Exterior/Interior (Studio View), YB

• 119, Les Funambules, YB

• 121, Map No. 33, YB

• 122, Stream of Vessels, YB

• 123, Street Singing, FO

• 124, Cho-En Butterfly Garden, YB

• 130, George Moscone Bust, YB

• 134, Pneumatic Dreamer, YB

• 137, 1965, 1970, 2002, FO

• 138, Nightingale, FO

• 140, Will We Get Here Now, FO

• 142, Minna Street Fountain, YB

• 143, Don't Nod, FO

• 144, I Did Did I?, FO

• 145, Level as a Level, FO

• 146, Maps, DNA and Spam, FO

• 147, Sky Garden, FO

• 148, Systems Mural Project, MB

• 149, Evolves the Luminous Flora (Tutubi Plaza), SM

• 150, Hard Bop, WA-2

• 161, African-American Historical & Cultural Society Mural, WA-2

• 162, Unknown Title (Mountain, Sun, Water Mural), WA-2

• 163, Unknown Title (Sculpture in Bush & Broderick Mini Park), WA-2

• 164, Yellow, Blue, Red Grid Mural in Mini-Park, WA-2

• 165, On Their Own, YB

• 166, Unknown Title (Vertical Metal Sculpture), YB

• 167, Rain Column, RP

• 168, Obelisk, RP

• 169, Charlie Brown, RP