Committee adopts non‑substantive awning/sign amnesty edits, duplicates file for substantive look‑back and fee questions

The committee debated two related ordinances intended to legalize unpermitted awnings and codify an annual waiver of certain awning and sign fees for permits applied for in May. President Aaron Peskin and sponsor offices proposed a set of amendments; the committee separated non‑substantive clarifications to move forward immediately and directed staff to duplicate the file so a substantive five‑year look‑back proposal could be considered in the duplicated file with additional review.

Peskin warned colleagues that repeated fee waivers carry fiscal consequences for department staffing and services, saying San Francisco “became in large part a fee dependent city” and urging the committee to weigh the economic impact of waiving fees. Planning staff said their finance division did not expect a substantial impact from planning fees under the temporary program, but Building Inspection staff and the Building Inspection Commission raised concerns that DBI relies on those fees and that DBI fee waivers would have a larger budgetary effect.

On the floor the committee worked through language to define the program’s scope (limiting coverage to business signs rather than general advertising), whether the program should apply only to physically existing signs, and whether any language making the program retroactive to an introduction date would be substantive. Deputy City Attorney Kristen Jensen and planning staff advised which edits were substantive and which were not. The committee rescinded an earlier vote to consolidate additional non‑substantive amendments, re‑adopted the corrected non‑substantive edits, and then directed a duplicated file to include the five‑year look‑back and effective‑date changes. The non‑substantive amendments to the original file were adopted and forwarded as a committee report; the duplicated file will be continued to the call of the chair for further review and public comment.

Carl Nasita of the Department of Building Inspection told the committee at least some of the planning‑commission recommendations would need DBI review because of potential DBI fee impacts; the committee asked staff to continue coordination and to provide a fuller readout of possible fiscal implications before any DBI fee waivers are finalized.