San Francisco Board of Appeals upholds denials of Contest Promotions’ sign permits

The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 4–0 on Jan. 20, 2016 to deny a series of appeals by Contest Promotions and to uphold the Planning Department and Department of Building Inspection’s denials of permits for multiple exterior signs across the city.

The appeal covered dozens of applications (the board heard a consolidated group identified as 6A–6E and later related items) for permits to erect or legalize wall-mounted signs that city staff regard as general advertising rather than the type of "business sign" allowed under local law. Vice President Frank Fung moved to deny the appeals; the motion carried with recorded "aye" votes from President Lazarus, Vice President Daryl Honda, Commissioner Bobby Wilson and Commissioner Rick Swig.

Why it mattered: Contest Promotions told the Board that it negotiated a settlement with the city and then followed the settlement terms — including filing new permit applications and paying sums to the city — only to see the city adopt interim zoning controls and a clarified planning-code definition on the same day the settlement was approved. "The city introduced legislation targeted at Contest Promotions only, specifically designed to eradicate Contest Promotions’ business model," said Jim Rubin, attorney for Contest Promotions, arguing the timing amounted to a "bait-and-switch."

Planning Department staff disputed that characterization. John Purvis, who reviewed the permit applications, said the company’s applications failed to meet Planning Code section 602.3 because the signs "do not meet the planning code definition for what a business sign is" and primarily display brand advertising. Purvis traced the enforcement history to Proposition G (March 2002), a city sign-inventory and enforcement program that began in 2007, and said the July 15, 2014 interim clarification of §602.3 was intended to define the "primary business" on a premises and limit brand-name advertising to one-third of a business sign’s area.

Public comment underscored neighborhood impact. Nearby residents and business owners told the Board the same signs drew graphic images and rotating brand posters that had appeared near schools and historic districts. "My child walks by this every day," said Wendy Rahn, a resident who showed a photo of a poster at 300 Sanchez Street she said was visible from Sanchez School. Other members of the public urged strict enforcement of Proposition G and said the permits, if approved, would subvert voters’ intent.

Legal and procedural context: Deputy City Attorney Thomas Lachritz told the Board the Planning Department and City Attorney’s Office view the 2014 interim controls and subsequent code language as clarifying, not materially altering, the code provisions that the Planning Commission reviewed in 2012. Lachritz also clarified that federal court proceedings between Contest Promotions and the city resulted in an order to continue a prior stay agreement rather than a judicial injunction: "the judge did not enjoin the city," he said.

Board decision and next steps: The Board found the departments acted under the prevailing law when they disapproved the permit applications and denied the consolidated appeals (the initial consolidated item covered 31 contested addresses). The board recorded a 4–0 vote to uphold the departments’ denials and then considered several related appeals presented de novo; those appeals were likewise denied with recorded aye votes. A commissioner recused himself from at least one vote because of a conflict of interest, as noted in the hearing record. Appellants may pursue further administrative remedies or litigation beyond the Board of Appeals.

Actions at a glance: The Board (motion by Vice President Frank Fung) denied Contest Promotions’ consolidated appeals (items 6A–6E covering 31 addresses) and related matters (7A–7B; 8A–8B), upholding Planning and DBI disapprovals. Recorded votes in the main consolidated motion were 4 yes, 0 no; one commissioner recused on a subsequent pair of related items.

What was not decided: The Board’s action upheld the departments’ denials under the existing ordinance and code language; it did not itself rescind or amend the Planning Code. Contest Promotions’ counsel said further court proceedings could follow if administrative remedies are exhausted.

The meeting adjourned after the final appeals were resolved.