Arts Commission holds closed session after public pleas to save Vaillancourt Fountain

The San Francisco Arts Commission on Sept. 5 convened a closed session to confer with legal counsel over a request by the Recreation and Parks Department to deaccession and remove the Vaillancourt Fountain from Embarcadero Plaza, and to consider the threat of litigation from the artist's attorney.

The closed session followed more than an hour of public comment urging the commission to pause or deny the request and to allow additional public review. "If this request is granted, it would send a clear message that public art in San Francisco does not belong to its residents," said Camilla Baum, a representative of DOCOMOMO US’s Northern California chapter, during the public-comment portion. "We at DOCOMOMO echo the request from the artist family that you pause, reconsider, and understand the irreplaceable value of this artwork before it is too late."

The commission’s agenda item cited the San Francisco Administrative Code and the Brown Act as the legal bases for convening a closed session on threats of litigation. Commissioners voted unanimously to move into closed session with the city attorney present; after the closed session the commission reported that "no action was taken in the closed session" and then voted unanimously not to disclose the contents of the meeting.

Why it matters: The Vaillancourt Fountain, created by artist Armand Vaillancourt, is a longtime fixture of the Embarcadero public realm and has drawn sustained public debate. Recreation and Parks’ request to deaccession the fountain is tied to a planned redevelopment of Embarcadero Plaza. Public commenters asked the commission to require a completed historic-resource review and give more time for stakeholders — including the artist’s family, national preservation groups and international partners — to weigh in.

What happened in the meeting: Commissioners took public comment before the closed session. Speakers included preservation advocates and members of DOCOMOMO US, who called the fountain an internationally significant mid‑century work and said the Recreation and Parks proposal had not meaningfully engaged the public or completed historic review. Bob Pullum, identified as a national board member of DOCOMOMO US, said the fountain "is an international landmark" and urged the commission to deny the deaccession request or at least complete a historic-resource review before any vote. Matt Joseph, a Potrero Hill resident, told commissioners that available public records suggest the fountain has not received concentrated policy review in recent decades and urged the commission to extend the public-discussion timeline.

Formal actions and next steps: The commission voted to convene a closed session to consult with counsel about the proposed removal and related litigation. The motion to convene was seconded and carried unanimously. After the closed session, the commission voted unanimously not to disclose the closed-session discussion. Commissioners reported no formal decision or action to remove or deaccession the fountain during the open meeting; the closed-session report stated no action was taken in closed session.

What the public said: Public commenters asked for more time and transparency. Among their requests were: completion and publication of a historic-resource review before any formal action; meaningful outreach to international and national stakeholders, the artist, and the artist’s representatives; and exploration of private-sector options for rehabilitation rather than removal. Speakers repeatedly asked the commission to preserve the fountain as part of San Francisco’s civic-art collection.

Context and limits: The commission’s authority over a deaccession depends on a number of legal and interagency factors, including agreements with other city agencies and applicable state law. In the meeting the commission identified the Brown Act and San Francisco Administrative Code as governing how and when it could discuss litigation threats in closed session. Recreation and Parks made the removal request to the Arts Commission; the transcript and commissioners’ remarks show that legal, historic‑review, and interagency issues remain unresolved and may require additional proceedings.

What to watch next: The Arts Commission did not take final action to remove the work at the Sept. 5 meeting. Commissioners will either schedule further public meetings, request additional staff analyses (such as a historic-resource review), or take other procedural steps before any final determination. Community members and preservation groups indicated they will continue to press for more public review and for opportunities to participate in upcoming hearings.