Board upholds planning denial of billboard replacement, citing code and court findings

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Aug. 17 upheld the Planning Department’s denial of a permit to reinstall a general advertising sign at 1633 Haight St., concluding planning code restrictions and prior court findings preclude replacement.

Appellant Kevin Strain and counsel Tio Torres argued the sign’s removal was not voluntary and described lengthy litigation and alleged hard bargaining by large outdoor advertising companies. They said the property owners had sought to re-establish a successor sign to support commercial leases that would produce substantially higher rent than the historical payments they received.

Planning Department staff, represented by Dan Seider, told commissioners the facts the department considered uncontested: the appellant or the appellant’s predecessor initiated communications that led to removal, a superior court found CBS owned the sign structure, CBS voluntarily removed it, and both Planning Code section 604H and the codified Proposition G (referred to in the hearing as section 611) disallow replacement of voluntarily removed general advertising signs.

Commissioners debated the tension between property-rights claims and plain code language. Some members expressed sympathy for small property owners and concern about market power of large sign companies; others emphasized that the planning code and the courts leave little room for the board to authorize a replacement. Ultimately the board voted 3-2 to deny the appeal and uphold the department’s disapproval, finding the permit did not comply with Planning Code section 604H and that the sign is a noncomplying structure under the department’s denial letter and brief.

The board’s decision leaves in place the department’s refusal to permit a replacement advertising sign at that location absent legislative change or a different court result.