Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission approves easing awning and projecting‑sign rules to aid small businesses
Summary
The Planning Commission approved a planning code amendment allowing businesses to display their name on both awnings and projecting or wall signs without changing existing size or illumination controls; supporters said it helps struggling small businesses, opponents warned about visual clutter. Vote: 4–2.
The San Francisco Planning Commission on a 4–2 vote approved a planning code amendment that would allow businesses to have their name on both projecting signs and awnings in districts where that combination was previously restricted.
Supervisor Stephanie, the measure’s sponsor, told the commission the change is a narrowly targeted code cleanup prompted by an enforcement case in her district and intended to help small businesses recover from the pandemic. “I was absolutely baffled that during the pandemic, when our businesses were suffering … that I had a business in my district that was receiving emails from the planning department … racking up penalties because he had his business name on a projected sign and an awning,” Supervisor Stephanie said in the hearing.
Staff presented renderings that showed a range of outcomes in different commercial districts and recommended the commission approve the amendment with its existing design and size controls intact. The department emphasized that the proposal does not change numerical limits on sign size, placement, illumination or materials and that illegal signs would remain illegal.
Supporters — including small‑business owners, the Small Business Commission and trade groups — said the amendment will legalize hundreds of existing awning signs and reduce fines for proprietors with limited resources. “This just allows businesses to have their business name on both their projecting sign and their awning,” said Manny Coutinho, a small business owner who called in to back the ordinance.
Opponents, including several neighborhood advocates and design critics, warned that the change could increase visual clutter and degrade certain historic or culturally sensitive streetscapes. Commissioners debated an approach that could grandfather existing uses or limit the geographic scope; some members urged more outreach to cultural districts before expanding the control citywide.
The commission approved the ordinance as framed and passed staff’s motion to move the item forward with a 4–2 vote (Commissioners Imperial and Moore opposed). The department will return any recommended map refinements and implementation details as the ordinance proceeds to the Board for further action or codification.
