Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Street Artist Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals upholds Arts Commission denial of street‑artist certificate
Summary
On March 29, 2017, the San Francisco Board of Appeals denied an appeal by an applicant seeking a street‑artist certificate, finding the Arts Commission’s application requirement for a residence/location was properly applied; the board discussed allowing reapplication if the applicant cures the application and waived a one‑year bar.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on March 29 denied an appeal of the Arts Commission’s denial of a street‑artist certificate, upholding the commission’s finding that the applicant did not provide the residence/location information required by the voter‑adopted ordinance.
The board voted 4–0 to uphold the Arts Commission. Vice President Frank Fung moved to deny the appeal on the ground that the application was not properly completed; President Daryl Honda and two other commissioners joined the motion.
The appellant, identified in the record as "Miss Trebeau," argued she had successfully challenged prior denials on appeal and said Arts Commission staff had made false allegations about her and mishandled applications. She blamed inconsistent communications for past problems and said she was not asked to supply a home address during the application process.
Rebecca Crowell, deputy director of cultural affairs representing the Arts Commission, told the board the street‑artist program is governed by a voter‑adopted ordinance (Proposition L) that requires applicants to provide a residence address and an address where they create the work. Crowell said those addresses let staff and the advisory committee verify that applicants actually make the goods they sell and facilitate inspections. "When someone tries to hide their location as Miss Ditesh has done, the market manager must expend an inordinate amount of time," Crowell said, arguing the denial was consistent with the ordinance and program integrity.
Board members asked legal staff whether a homeless applicant could satisfy the residence requirement by listing a place where they can be found. City attorney counsel said courts have allowed listing an identifiable location (such as a street or intersection) where a person can be located, and indicated that an applicant who submits such a location could meet the ordinance requirement.
Commissioners discussed remedies. Fung’s motion denied the appeal but the board noted it could allow the applicant to reapply if she amended the application to provide an address or describable location that meets the ordinance; the board also discussed waiving the one‑year reapplication bar in appropriate circumstances.
The denial leaves the Arts Commission’s refusal of the certificate intact; the board recorded the outcome as a denial of appeal, 4–0. The Arts Commission had urged the board to deny the appeal to protect the program’s screening and enforcement resources; the appellant said her past wins on appeal and public‑record searches show she has repeatedly been treated unfairly. The board concluded the application as submitted did not satisfy statutory requirements and that procedural remedies (reapplication with corrected information) were available.
The board did not make new determinations about prior restraining orders or employment actions discussed during testimony; those matters were described in the record but the board’s decision turned on the application’s completeness and the ordinance’s address/verification requirement.
