Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds zoning administrator on billboard-notice dispute; CBS contends city denied due process
Summary
CBS Outdoor argued the city violated its due-process rights by not notifying the company before issuing a permit to deconstruct and replace a billboard at 885 Bryant St.; planning and DBI staff said the permit addressed building safety and in-kind replacement rules. The Board of Appeals upheld the zoning administrator—s determination 4-1.
CBS Outdoor appealed determinations by the Zoning Administrator after a building permit was issued to the property owner at 885 Bryant Street for replacement of a rooftop advertising sign. CBS counsel argued the company has a protectable property interest in billboard structures and that due-process principles require the city to notify sign owners listed in its inventory before issuing permits that would affect those structures.
Counsel cited California precedent recognizing billboards and related permits as property interests that trigger notice rights. He told the board the permit was obtained and the appeal period expired before CBS learned of it, and that, in the absence of notice, the permit process deprived the sign owner of a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
Planning Department staff (John Purvis, Tara Sullivan) and DBI (Lawrence Kornfield) responded that the permit responded to a notice-of-violation for the building and was issued to the property owner to address structural safety. Planning staff noted procedural mechanisms for notification exist (Sections 3.11/3.12 and the block-book notification/BBN process) and that an in-kind replacement for structural safety reasons does not automatically trigger the same discretionary notice. Staff also said the city received an inventory and affidavit from sign companies but that the inventory was intended for enforcement rather than automatic permit notice.
Commissioners debated whether due-process notice was required and whether the burden on planning to provide notice would be onerous; some commissioners said notice would be simple to add. The board ultimately voted 4-1 to uphold the zoning administrator—s determinations. Commissioners noted some of the issues raised would be resolved in court and emphasized that the property owner is primarily responsible for building safety matters.
