Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Billboard Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board adopts findings in contested billboard cases, rejects rehearing from Clear Channel
Summary
After extended argument over Planning Code interpretations and voter intent in Prop G, the Board of Appeals denied Clear Channel’s rehearing request and adopted city attorney-drafted findings by a 3–2 vote. The debate focused on whether replacement of a removed general-advertising sign is permitted under §604H and related planning code exceptions.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals denied a rehearing request from Clear Channel and adopted proposed findings prepared by the City Attorney’s Office in a series of contested billboard and general‑advertising sign appeals, concluding the board’s earlier determinations would stand.
Clear Channel’s counsel argued that proposed finding 25 improperly attempts to apply Planning Code §181(b) exceptions to justify rebuilding a sign, and that the facts did not meet the exception’s threshold (which, counsel argued, limits structural alterations to less than half the assessed valuation). In response, the city’s deputy attorney and planning staff pointed to Prop G and Planning Code §604H as the primary legal framework governing general advertising signs and noted calamity clauses (e.g., §181(d)) where applicable.
Aaron Peskin, who identified himself as the author of Proposition G and as president of the Board of Supervisors, told the board the plain language of §604H and voters’ intent preclude reinstalling a removed general‑advertising sign. Planning staff clarified differences between code sections and said the department’s policy and §181(d) (calamity clauses) — not §181(b) — applied where a structure was damaged by fire or other event.
Clear Channel’s rehearing plea was denied after commissioners debated the legal arguments and whether the board should rely on equitable discretion or strictly on code text. On the motion to adopt the city attorney’s findings with minor typographical corrections and the insertion of the word “certain” in paragraph 10 to avoid overbroad language, the board voted 3–2 to adopt the findings as amended.
The adoption resolves the appeals at the Board of Appeals level for now; parties retain other review options noted in the record. The record includes detailed references to the planning code, Prop G, prior Administrative/Planning Commission actions and both written and oral testimony presented to the board.
