Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Permitting Advertising Signs topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board denies rehearing request for billboard permit at 1468 Folsom Street

San Francisco Board of Appeals · April 6, 2011
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Board of Appeals denied rehearing requests related to a billboard permit at 1468 Folsom Street, finding the rehearing arguments were new legal claims rather than previously unavailable factual evidence; the denial carried 3–1.

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on April 6 denied rehearing requests for appeal number 10‑132 concerning a permit for an advertising wall sign at 1468 Folsom Street. The rehearing requests were filed by CBS Outdoor and by a permit‑holder agent; the board previously decided on February 9 to uphold the permit by a 3–2 vote.

Commissioners questioned Guerrero Espinosa (agent) and counsel about lease provisions that assign sign‑related authority to the lessee and about whether payments from CBS or its successors (Viacom) were being made to the landlord or a property manager. A commissioner highlighted apparent contradictions in payment testimony and said the new arguments presented at rehearing appeared to be legal claims rather than newly discovered facts warranting rehearing.

After deliberation, Commissioner Huang moved to deny the rehearing requests. Roll call recorded three Ayes and one No (Commissioner Peterson). The motion carried 3–1 and the rehearing requests were denied. The board’s decision leaves intact the earlier ruling that the billboard permit complies with the code and that the city did not err in issuing the permit.

The rehearing debate centered on lease language about lessee discretion, payment histories and whether agency or assignment issues would change the board’s earlier factual findings. Commissioners indicated that the submissions on rehearing did not present new facts sufficient to justify reopening the matter.