San Francisco County Grand Jury
• 2001-2002
Outdoor Advertising Sign (billboard) Enforcement
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 6 findings
F1
The CPD budget does not contain an allocation for the enforcement of outdoor advertising. The June 2001 legislation provides for extensive fines of up to $2,500 per day for not removing those billboards without permits; although that money is designated to pay for enforcement, such fines are not a dependable source of income. Reliable and permanent funding is needed to pay for efficient enforcement. The economic incentives for scofflaw sign companies will increase as the combination of the new billboard ban and the number of legal existing sites begins to dwindle by attrition. Lack of steady enforcement measures would effectively negate the voter- approved ban.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Additional funds could be generated for enforcement by requiring annual renewal of permits and by inspection of existing billboard signs, with a yearly charge per sign. This would facilitate and pay for discovering sites without permits, illegally altered sites, and illegal new installations. Required Response – City Planning Department – 60 days
F2
CPD and DBI electronic files are unable to distinguish outdoor advertising signs (those which do not pertain to an on-site enterprise) from standard signs (those with information concerning activity on the immediate premises). CPD has no way to determine with any accuracy how many legal billboards exist; any change to a legal, grandfathered billboard which affects size, location, direction, and the like requires a new building permit and triggers proof of the grandfathered status (permitted and in place prior to the March 2002 ban.)
Related Recommendations (2)
R2a
Assign a separate and distinct numerical designation to all existing, active, legal outdoor advertising sign permits (to distinguish them from all other sign permits) for entry into the computer system. Flag each for automatic periodic site reviews by CPD. Required Response – City Planning Department – 60 days
R2b
Conduct a city-wide count and permit history of every existing billboard sign. Many of the originally grandfathered signs (prior to 1966) have no permits on file. Researching ownership (which may have changed repeatedly over time); checking the existence of permits or verifying legal status with other evidence, such as dated photos; and entering this information into the database, under the applicable numerical code, would allow staff a way to monitor continued use and to eliminate billboards without permits in a timely manner. Required Response – City Planning Department – 60 days
F3
The City Planning Department at present has neither budget nor experienced staff with time to conduct the much needed census of billboards in San Francisco.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The Planning Director should hire a temporary staff person -- with special expertise to conduct a city-wide survey of all extant billboards -- to enter the information into the electronic database described Recommendation 2a. Under the direction of a professional who has knowledge of San Francisco's billboard history, collegiate Urban Planning interns who are periodically invited to train in the CPD might assist with the accurate, professional completion of such an effort at minimum cost to the City. Required Response – City Planning Department – 60 days
F4
CalTrans requires permits for any billboards within 600 feet of all Interstate and Primary Highways, several of which run through San Francisco’s jurisdiction. No efficient process has existed in the past for coordination between the State and San Francisco outdoor advertising sign permitting and regulating offices. By law the State billboard permits may not violate any City regulations; therefore, the March 2002 city-wide ban now prohibits all new billboards, including those within CalTrans jurisdiction.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
CPD staff and CalTrans Right of Way staff should coordinate immediately to enforce the new ban within the 600 ft. corridor, so that no Cal Trans permits are issued. Failure to do so will cause confusion among billboard businesses and could evolve into costly regulatory procedures. Pertinent billboard census information should be shared regularly between the two agencies. Required Response – City Planning Department – 60 days
F5
There is no comprehensive, easily understood guide to the maze of laws, regulations, policies, and procedures pertaining to outdoor advertising signs. This lack becomes even more significant with the recent ban on new billboards.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
CPD should prepare a pamphlet containing an explanation of the relevant rules for sign regulation, as well as a complaint form to help citizens identify suspected billboard signs without valid permits. That same information should be added to CPD web site. Required Response – City Planning Department – 60 days
F6
Citizen complaints concerning illegal signs are filed with all other citizen complaints received at the CPD and DBI. As a result of this commingling of complaints, response to the questionable signs is frequently delayed. The potential for profit during the delay period can represent an incentive for those wishing to create new signs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
To help each CPD Quadrant Senior Planner quickly identify possible non-compliance situations, CPD should set up a 24-hour call line for billboard complaints only; this phone number should be listed in CPD’s white page telephone directory. CPD should disseminate information to the public by other means, such as placing the public information pamphlet, suggested in Recommendation 5 above, in public places, on MUNI placards (for example, "See an illegal sign? Call XXXX"), and on posters in government offices. Required Response – City Planning Department – 60 days Source References In 2001 an independent professional public opinion survey, by a non-profit organization, reported that 65% of San Francisco voters would approve a billboard ban, and that 15% were undecided. Election results, March 2002 ballot -- voters approved the billboard ban by 79.3%, the second highest Proposition victory margin in city history. (First was the vote for the new Main Library by 80%). Documents Examined CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT • Department Codes: Article 6 (Including Department Code interpretations by the Zoning Administrator and the most recent amendments under the Leno Law), Article 7, Article 9, Article 11 • Zoning maps, showing boundaries of special sign districts • Written statement from the Director to the Grand Jury describing his position on sign regulation • Citizens' Guide to Sign Regulations, Department draft version • March 2002 Ballot Measure, outdoor advertising sign ban BUILDING DEPARTMENT • Department Codes 106.4.1.1 through 106.4.4 • The track of a permit for a sign in the Department tracking system • A Department Job Card STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS) • Instructions for Sign Permit Applicants • Billboard Sign Violations roster, cited since October 1998 along the State right of way through Routes 80 and 101 within San Francisco City and County jurisdiction • State Outdoor Advertising Act, full text, effective 1 January 2000 • California Code of Regulations, Title 4, Chapter 6, concerning outdoor advertising.