Historic Preservation Commission continues Palace Hotel sign decision after split vote

The San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission on April 3 heard a contentious application to replace the rooftop neon tubing on the Palace Hotel’s two rooftop signs with an LED system and continued the matter to May 1 after a split vote.

Planning staff presented the major permit application (Case 2024-000929 PTA), noting the rooftop neon has been nonfunctional for about five years and that the department had received roughly 220 letters opposing the conversion. “The proposed LED product is designed with the intent to mimic the quality of warmth and light that neon provides,” planning staff said, adding that staff recommends approval with conditions while applying Article 10/11 and Secretary of Interior standards.

The project sponsor said serviceability and safety drove the LED proposal. Charlie Stroud of AeroSign introduced his company’s experience with both neon and LED and argued that “LED when done correctly is a much more reliable method of illumination.” James Tyler, the Palace Hotel’s director of engineering, told commissioners that accessing rooftop neon for repairs requires scaffolding and lengthy contractor waits, and that “the LEDs will allow the sign to stay lit longer.” Kevin Boland, the hotel manager, said the hotel’s revenues remain reduced after COVID and that the hotel needs a durable, lower‑maintenance solution.

Public commenters and preservation advocates urged the commission to retain or restore neon. Woody Labonte, president and CEO of San Francisco Heritage, said the organization “very much supports the retention of neon and not the approval of this project.” Al Barna of SFNEON and other neon preservation supporters cautioned that rooftop maintenance and safety challenges can affect both technologies and that a full neon restoration could be a viable option.

Commission discussion probed technical performance, visual character and enforcement. Commissioners praised the hotel for preserving other historic elements but were divided on whether the rooftop signs’ height (nine stories) and the owners’ financial constraints justified permitting an LED replacement. Commissioners also discussed possible mitigations if LED were approved, including preservation or museum display of historic tubing.

Two motions were offered. A motion to approve the application with conditions failed, and a separate motion to disapprove also failed; commissioners noted that, under the rules, four affirmative votes are required to take final action. To allow a full complement of commissioners to participate and to gather additional cost and mock‑up information, the commission voted unanimously to continue the matter to May 1.

The Palace Hotel sign matter will return to the commission on May 1 with the expectation that the project sponsor provide cost comparisons and in‑situ mockups or samples for commissioners to evaluate. The commission did not approve or deny the conversion at this hearing.