Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Union Bank Signs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board overrules zoning administrator on Union Bank signs, allows both signs to remain 8 years
Summary
The Board of Appeals voted 4–1 to overrule the Zoning Administrator's request to revoke two high-rise signs for Union Bank downtown, imposing an 8‑year period before the signs must be removed and reserving adoption of formal findings for a later date.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Dec. 16 overruled the Zoning Administrator's request to revoke two large downtown signs for Union Bank, imposing a transitional period for the signs to remain in place. On a motion from Commissioner Michael Garcia the board voted 4–1 to overturn the revocation and require both signs to remain for eight years from permit issuance; findings will be prepared and returned to the board for adoption.
Planning and DBI staff argued the signs present a difficult interpretation of Section 607 of the planning code and stressed that only a limited number of similar signs have been permitted historically. Zoning Administrator Larry Badner told the board that planning and DBI review did not show public records supporting approval of similar tall signs downtown and explained fee and cost comparisons used in his review.
Union Bank counsel emphasized vested‑rights and estoppel arguments, saying the bank made financial decisions and relied on permits and prior agency interactions. Counsel asked the board to consider amortization of the bank—s investment (the bank proposed multi‑year amortization periods) as part of any remedy. Some commissioners noted the city can rescind permits issued in error but said fairness arguments warranted a limited transition period rather than immediate removal.
What the board decided: The board overruled the request for revocation and set an eight‑year period from permit issuance for the signs to remain in place, with the condition that sign copy not be replaced during that amortization period. The board voted 4–1; Commissioner Mandelmann voted no.
