Because of the overwhelming public support for the removal of the illegal electronic LED sign at Pacific East Mall, I have placed the resolution below on the April 1 City Council Agenda.

For background, see:

·         Readers Prefer Removal of Pacific East Mall LED Sign, March 19, 2014
·         LED Billboard at Pacific East Mall, March 17, 2014
·         Richmond Residents Overwhelmingly Reject LED Billboards, March 11, 2014
·         LED Billboards Coming to Richmond Highways and Byways? March 10, 2014

The significant issues are:

·         The sign was illegal when it was installed.
·         It is illegal under the current Sign Ordinance.
·         The sign does not identify or advertise businesses at Pacific East Mall. It displays ads for products and businesses elsewhere.

If you want to show support for the Resolution for a Revocation Hearing, email your City Council members at the addresses shown below:

Tom.butt@intres.com; natbates@comcast.net;jovankabeckles@yahoo.com; Mayor@officeofthemayor.net; Jael.Myrick@asm.ca.gov; corkybooze@aol.com;elirapty@aol.com

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND TO REFER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION FOR AN ELECTRONIC SIGN AT PACIFIC EAST MALL
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2009, the City of Richmond Planning Department improperly approved an electronic (“flashing illumination”[1]) sign at Pacific East Mall, and;

WHEREAS, the sign was further defined under the “Use and Display of Signs” Ordinance as an “advertising sign,”[2] and;

WHEREAS, at the time the sign was approved, the “Use and Display of Signs” Ordinance, (specifically RMC 15.06.070(D)(1)(k)), required review in a public hearing by the DRO (Design Review Organization)[3] , notice to property owners within 300 feet, as well as to the appropriate Neighborhood Council and business association, none of which happened, and,

WHEREAS, the “Use and Display of Signs” 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, none of which was done, and,

WHEREAS, If the application had been properly heard by the DRO, it would have been appealable to the Design Review Board, successor to the PDRB (Public Design Review Board), according to 15.04.930.C.5, and;

WHEREAS, under 15.06.070.D(1)(b), of the “Use and Display of Signs” Ordinance at the time the sign was approved, limited approval of advertising signs in commercial districts a maximum total area of fifty square feet and for a temporary period not to exceed three years (15.06.070.D.1(a)(ii) and    15.06.070.D.1(a)ii)(b)), and;

WHEREAS, under “Use and Display of Signs” Ordinance at the time the sign was approved, advertising signs were not allowed within 660 feet of a freeway (15.06.080.C), and the Pacific East Mall sign is more than 50 square feet and is both an advertising sign and is within 660 feet of I-80, and;

WHEREAS, the application for the Pacific East Mall sign misrepresented it as a business identification sign when, in fact, it is an advertising sign (Exhibit A), and,

WHEREAS, neither the process used to approve the sign, the conditions of approval nor the sign itself conforms to the provisions of the previous “Use and Display of Signs” Ordinance, and;

WHEREAS, 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, and,
WHEREAS, The California Building Code, 1.5.4, states:

The issuance or granting of a permit shall not be construed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of any of the provisions of this code or of any other ordinance of the jurisdiction. Permits presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or other ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid. The issuance of a permit based on construction documents and other data shall not prevent the building official from requiring the correction of errors in the construction documents and other data. The building official is also authorized to prevent occupancy of such a structure where in violation of this code or any other ordinances of this jurisdiction, and:

WHEREAS, the former “Use and Display of Signs” Ordinance did have a process in place for revoking a sign permit (RMC 15.06.090) for cause. 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 and;

WHEREAS, current local law (RMC sections 15.04.990.010 – 15.04.990.090) also 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 have to find one of the following Grounds for Revocation or Modification (15.04.990.020):
A. Revocation/Modification for Cause. A permit or variance may be revoked or modified for cause, including the imposition of new conditions upon a finding of any of the following grounds:
1. The permit or variance was issued on the basis of erroneous or misleading information, misrepresentation, or fraud.
2. A term of one or more of the conditions of approval of the permit or variance has been violated or relevant other laws or regulations have been violated.
3. The use or facility for which the permit was granted is so conducted or maintained so as to be detrimental to the public health, welfare, or safety so as to be deemed a nuisance.
4. There has been a discontinuance of the exercise of the entitlement granted by the permit for six consecutive months, and;
WHEREAS, the permit or variance may have been issued on the basis of erroneous or misleading information, misrepresentation, or fraud, and there is substantial public opinion that the sign is conducted or maintained so as to be detrimental to the public health, welfare, or safety so as to be deemed a nuisance.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council directs the Planning Commission to conduct a revocation hearing for the previous approval of the electronic billboard LED sign at Pacific East Mall.

EXHIBIT A

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 with print versions 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 as well as the advertisements that support the media. I especially appreciate local sources of news that include the Contra Costa Times , the San Francisco Chronicle, Richmond Confidential and the East Bay Express.