Since I published Richmond Residents Overwhelmingly Reject LED Billboards, March 11, 2014, another 28 people have weighed in. Twenty-five are against LED billboards while three favor them, at least at Hilltop. One reader remarks about how you don’t see them across the Bay in Marin, and its economy seems to be doing pretty well, including the lowest unemployment rate in the Bay Area.

One of the un-addressed  issues is whether or not the City should move to reconsider the LED sign at Pacific East Mall.  A legal analysis includes the following:

I confirmed that under the former sign ordinance (specifically RMC 15.06.070(D)(1)(k)), the Pacific East Mall sign application should have included an application for review by the DRO.  Notice to property owners within 300 feet, as well as to the appropriate Neighborhood Council and business association was also required.  Moreover, the ordinance required the DRO to make certain findings.  Specifically, that livability and/or development of the surrounding area would not be adversely affected by such sign, the sign would be placed on a lot or area within contiguous parcels of 10 acres of more under the same ownership or management, and that there would be no less than 1,000 feet between another similar sign. 

Generally, a building permit issued in violation of law confers no right, and may be revoked upon discovery of the error, even after building operations commence.  For example, in Pettitt v. City of Fresno, 34 Cal. App. 3d 813 (1973), the court held that a city may act to deny the validity of building permit issued in violation of the city’s zoning ordinance.  Although an invalid building permit is revocable, the permit holder may be successful in raising a laches defense (i.e. arguing that the city unreasonably delayed pursing their revocation claim in a way that prejudices the permit holder).       

The former Richmond sign ordinance did have a process in place for revoking a sign permit (RMC 15.05.090), which apparently was not invoked in this case.  Under the former process, any sign permit was revocable by the DRO upon a finding of a violation of any of the conditions or terms of the sign permit or of any law, ordinance or provision of the Municipal Code.  Upon its own motion, or at the request of the City Council, the DRO would hold a hearing, then render its findings and decision, which would have been appealable to the Public Development Review Board. 

Current local law (RMC sections 15.04.990.010 – 15.04.990.090) establishes a process for the revocation or modification of a permit.  An action to revoke a permit for cause may be initiated by order of the Planning Commission or City Council on its own motion, and a hearing would be held before the Planning Commission with the right of appeal to the City Council (RMC 15.04.990.030).  While the section provides a number of possible findings that may  be made to revoke or modify a permit (only one such finding is required), in this matter the Planning Commission would likely have to find that the permit was issued on the basis of erroneous or misleading information, misrepresentation or fraud.  

Should the City move to revoke the permit or just let it go? I would like to hear from E-FORUM readers.

Want to receive TOM BUTT E-FORUM and other action alerts on Richmond political and community issues delivered to your email address? Email your name and email address and/or the names and email addresses of others who would like to be placed on the mailing list and the message "subscribe" to tom.butt@intres.com. Comments, arguments and corrections are welcome.  Tom Butt is a member of the Richmond City Council   when opinions and views expressed, without other attribution, in TOM BUTT E-FORUM, they are those of Tom Butt and do not reflect official views or positions of the City of Richmond or the Richmond City Council unless otherwise noted. Visit the Tom Butt website for additional information about Tom Butt's activities on the Richmond City Council: http://www.tombutt.com.  Phone 510/236-7435 or 510/237-2084. Subscription to this service is at the personal discretion of the recipient and may be terminated by responding with “unsubscribe.” It may take a few days to remove addresses from the distribution list.

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

To the extent that content is excerpted under the fair use doctrine from other media, I urge readers to subscribe to the print versions of these media to help support professional journalism and the businesses that publish news, and I urge readers to log in to the online versions to access additional content, related content and unrelated news. I especially appreciate local sources of news that include the Contra Costa Times , the San Francisco Chronicle, Richmond Confidential and the East Bay Express.