Board of Appeals continues Rincon Center sign appeals, asks for briefing and written determinations

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on July 12 continued appeals of four sign permits for 101 Spear Street, commonly known as Rincon Center, after lengthy testimony from residents, preservation advocates, city staff and the permit holder.

David Osgood, a long‑time Rincon resident and president of the building’s tenants association, urged the board to halt the permits and require additional review. Osgood presented letters from preservation groups and architects, said the master sign plan (MSP) would place eight large signs along the Mission Street frontage, raised safety questions about sign anchors and called parts of the plan inconsistent and incomplete. “You don’t have complete information that’s been concealed from you,” Osgood said, arguing the record lacked certain engineering drawings and clear dimensions.

The permit holder, Hudson Pacific Properties, and counsel Tara Sullivan told the board the MSP and the four permits were prepared under Planning Department review and found to conform with the Planning Code and preservation standards. Sullivan said the MSP was approved by preservation staff in September 2022 and the four individual sign permits were issued in May 2023. Jared Willis, Hudson Pacific’s director of construction, described design choices intended to respect historic motifs and to improve tenant wayfinding.

Planning department staff — Tina Tam, deputy zoning administrator, and preservation technical specialist Rebecca Salgado — told the board the MSP underwent about a year of staff review. They said the project was reviewed under Article 6 (signs) and Article 10 (landmarks) of the Planning Code, and that the department’s preservation specialist determined the MSP and the four permits met the standards in section 1006.6 and the Secretary of the Interior standards used in local review. Salgado said that for delegated administrative reviews a written entitlement‑level determination is not required by code, though she acknowledged that having a written point‑by‑point finding would be helpful in the context of an appeal.

Board members pressed both sides on legal tests and precedent. Several commissioners said they were troubled that significant changes affecting a city landmark could be approved administratively without a fuller, public Historic Preservation Commission hearing or an explicit written staff finding tied to Section 1006.6. Supervisor Aaron Peskin and preservation groups urged a public vetting, calling the matter “precedential.” Planning and the city attorney cited the 2018 ordinance (No. 179‑188) and the current code language allowing administrative review for signs and awnings on landmarks provided section 1006.6 is met.

Board members also asked technical questions about the permits. Planning described the four permits individually — two wall replacements that reduce overall lettering area, one canopy/tenant identification sign, and two projecting corner signs that the department described as roughly 60 inches tall by 30 inches wide. DBI (Department of Building Inspection) clarified anchor design and said the approved embedment for the project is two inches and that the anchor design was reviewed and approved by DBI engineers.

After public comment, rebuttals and further questioning, Commissioner (speaker 6) moved to continue the appeals to Sept. 6 to give the parties and the department time to prepare written materials. The board asked for written briefs (12‑page limit, exhibits allowed) from the parties and a written memorandum from Planning and the city attorney addressing: (1) whether the Planning Department’s administrative review complied with the 2018 amendment and applicable code sections; and (2) whether Article 11 (preservation in certain downtown districts) or other Planning Code provisions alter the analysis. Briefs from parties and the Planning Department were ordered due Aug. 24 so the board and city attorney could review them in advance. The motion passed 4–0; Vice President Jose Lopez was absent.

Votes at a glance:
- Motion to grant appeals and adopt revised plans for 1863 Pine Street (housekeeping item): carried 4–0 (conditions: incorporate two appellant revisions; work not to commence until building permit 202102084273 is reinstated).
- Motion to adopt minutes of the 06/21/2023 meeting: carried 4–0.
- Rincon Center appeals (four sign permits): continued to Sept. 6, 2023 for further briefing; briefs due Aug. 24 (motion carried 4–0).

What’s next: The board set deadlines for written submissions to clarify the legal standard and the Planning Department’s record of review. The Sept. 6 session will resume the appeals with those materials in the record.