The City's clearing ads off the streets
By: John Upton
June 25, 2009
 |
| Loud and clear: The City has ruled this JetBlue ad at 310 Grant St. near Union Square is in violation of S.F. sign laws. (Cindy Chew/The Examiner) |
SAN FRANCISCO — Stringent laws governing advertising signs in The City have cleared the streets of hundreds of ads, but have also created a string of costly lawsuits.
In late 2007, the Planning Department began enforcing a 2002 voter-approved law that banned new billboards and similar outdoor advertisements. Signs installed before 2002 without a permit are also illegal under a 2006 law passed by city legislators.
To recover enforcement and legal expenses related to the laws, the department has proposed temporarily tripling the fees that advertisers must pay to maintain legal billboards in The City.
Since enforcement began, 275 of 891 signs scrutinized by department officials were determined to be legal, according to department official Jonathan Purvis.
Of the illegal signs, 408 were ordered to be removed and 208 required modifications, such as a change in size or a new placard to identify the owner, he said.
All told, 221 signs have already been removed and the department has yet to rule on the legality of 635 more, according to Purvis.
Fines in the millions of dollars have been levied on property owners and advertising companies for various violations under the laws, he said.
The revenue will support enforcement efforts, but very little has actually been paid, Chief Administrative Officer Elaine Forbes said.
Some fines have been contested in court, and the laws have been legally challenged. To recoup $152,000 in legal costs and other enforcement expenses, the Planning Department has recommended increasing the one-year annual fee paid by owners from $75 to $211 per sign.
The Planning Commission is scheduled to discuss the proposal today. It will then be considered by the Board of Supervisors, Forbes said.
Advertising company CBS Outdoor considers the fee hike unfair since it will be used to battle advertising companies not playing by the rules, said government affairs Vice President Ryan Brooks.
“I’m not quite sure if its legally supportable,” he said.
Street sweeping
The City imposes fees for billboards and has tried to track down illegal ads.
1,526 Billboards and similar signs identified citywide
891 Signs already scrutinized by city officials
275 Signs ruled legal
221 Illegal signs removed
179 Illegal signs pending removal
208 Illegal signs modified or pending modification to meet regulations
8 Signs ruled illegal, with ruling being appealed
Source: Planning Department
Legal wrangling
The City faces lawsuits, or threats thereof, from companies and individuals regarding billboards.
- Ad company Metro Fuel LLC is seeking to have the U.S. Supreme Court consider its claim that the sign regulations are illegal.
- Ad companies argued in court that a list of advertising signs in The City is proprietary information. A tentative settlement agreement could see some information about the signs released to the public.
- Contest Promotions Inc. claims its plywood-backed signs outside liquor stores and other shops are not covered by the advertising regulations, and it has threatened a lawsuit.
- Property owner Sierra Industries West LP is appealing a judge’s ruling that a rooftop billboard at 290 Division St. is illegal and must be removed. It’s also challenging a $50,000 fine and suing The City for $2 million for its enforcement actions.
- Property owner Hector Navarro is contesting a $50,000 fine for an illegal billboard on Folsom Street and suing for damages.
Source: City Attorney’s Office
