Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board initially approves — then rescinds — first-reading ban on new general advertising on street furniture and public buildings
Summary
Supervisors voted to ban new general advertising on street furniture and on the exteriors of city-owned buildings on first reading, but later rescinded the vote and continued the measure so members could consider amendments and address late-arriving concerns.
The Board of Supervisors considered an ordinance (item 22) that would amend the administrative code to prohibit any new general advertising signs on street furniture beyond the number authorized as of Jan. 1, 2008, and to prohibit new general advertising visible to the public on the exterior of city-owned buildings as of March 5, 2002.
Supervisor McGoldrick urged support, saying voters had twice indicated a preference to limit public advertising and characterizing the ordinance as a way to avoid ‘‘visual blight’’ across San Francisco. She said the measure would not interfere with two existing contracts: the transit-shelter contract (already entered) and a contracted program for "ped mounts" (pedestal-mounted news racks), many of which are already deployed and partially contracted with advertising. McGoldrick framed the ordinance as asserting a public value about the city’s appearance.
Supervisor Duffy and others warned about unintended consequences for future programs that might require private funding, raising the example of bicycle-sharing programs that could rely on advertising revenue. Supervisor Chu and others discussed options for amending the measure later if specific programs needed advertising to operate. After floor debate, the roll call recorded 6 ayes and 5 noes and the ordinance passed on first reading.
Later in the meeting Supervisor McGoldrick moved to rescind the earlier vote and continue the item to the Nov. 18 meeting to consider last-minute concerns and possible amendments; Supervisor Sandoval said he had voted incorrectly on the earlier roll call and intended to vote against the measure on final reading. The rescission motion was seconded and adopted without objection, and the item was continued two weeks.
Ending: The ordinance passed on first reading 6–5 but the board later rescinded that vote and continued the item to Nov. 18 for further amendment and review.
