Concerns over the approval of large blade signs on historic buildings dominated discussions at the recent San Francisco government meeting. A key speaker raised alarms about the conflicting information regarding the size and illumination of the signs, questioning the reliability of the sign plan provided by the building owner. "It’s unclear whether those blade signs are lit or not," the speaker noted, emphasizing the need for clarity on the matter.

The speaker also criticized the lack of engineering documentation, pointing out that essential details, such as the number of bolts required for installation, seemed to have vanished from the plans. "That's kind of insulting," they stated, highlighting safety concerns tied to the installation process.

The discussion took a broader turn as the speaker questioned the precedent set by allowing such signage on historic buildings, referencing other local structures that do not feature similar signage. "Show me another building, any building, anywhere in town that has this many signs on it," they challenged, underscoring the potential implications for future developments.

In a passionate defense of the historic integrity of the area, the speaker lamented the changes made to the food court, which they described as once being one of the most beautiful in the country. They attributed the decline of the food court to poor management decisions, including the removal of successful businesses and the destruction of its unique architectural features.

As the meeting concluded, the speaker called for a reevaluation of the sign approval process, urging officials to consider the historical context and community sentiment before moving forward with such significant alterations to the city’s landscape. The outcome of this discussion could have lasting effects on the preservation of San Francisco's historic buildings and the character of its neighborhoods.