]
Tom Butt Header E-Forum
 
  E-Mail Forum – 2014  
  < RETURN  
  Readers Prefer Removal of Pacific East Mall LED Sign
March 19, 2014
 
 

For background, see the following:

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

Fifty-one people responded to my question, “Should the City move to revoke the permit or just let it go? “ Thirty-seven recommended revocation, while 14 either said “let it go,” or had some favorable comment about LED signs. Several focused on a sign at Hilltop. For example:

While I appreciate your desire to promote a quiet, peaceful city without the nuisance of light pollution, our district (and city) is in desperate need of some external revenue. To bring this in, we need to remain competitive with the other retail stops along the I-80 corridor. That means supporting the installation of a new LED billboard to promote our local business and earn money from advertisers. This is critically important to the residents of Hilltop, and as one I hope I can count on your support in this matter. Please do not let the vocal minority of your neighbors in Pt. Richmond stop our neighborhood from being the success it deserves to be!

One myth that should be cleared up is that these LED signs have some benefit for local business or for neighborhoods. They don’t. I watched the Pacific East Mall sign yesterday rotate ads for Toyota, Coors/Oakland As, United Airlines and Turkish Towel Collection (in Berkeley). These rotated every 6-7 seconds. There was one ad for Tamashii Ramen House at Pacific East Mall, but I only saw it once and it did not seem to be in the standard rotation. According to the websites http://www.adsemble.com/digital-billboards-california-el-cerrito and http://www.digitronmedia.com/ec.htm, the sign owners sell 10 spots a week at $1,500 a spot. That works out to $15,000 a week and about $780,000 a year.

Another code violation of the Pacific East Mall sign is that it advertises off-site businesses, which is a legal no-no.

There is negligible benefit for local business but a lot of money for the sign owner. The Hilltop sign advocate wrote, “That means supporting the installation of a new LED billboard to promote our local business and earn money from advertisers. This is critically important to the residents of Hilltop, and as one I hope I can count on your support in this matter.” I’m not sure how the local businesses and residents are going to benefit from a sign at Hilltop if it is operated like all the other LED signs that sell advertising to the highest bidder.

Based on input from E-FORUM readers, I am going to do the following:

·         Start a process that could result in revocation of the Pacific East Mall LED sign permit.
·         Convene a meeting with Hilltop residents, businesses and outside experts in retail and commercial development to see if we can find a way to facilitate and expedite the transformation of Hilltop Mall to a modern mixed use project.

There is also a big LED billboard fight in Oakland See http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Giant-Bay-Bridge-billboards-light-up-debate-in-5329284.php.

The Pacific East Mall sign rotation is shown below:

Mall Sign

Mall Sign Two

Mall Sign Three

Mall Sign Four

Mall Sign Five

Generally against the Pacific East Mall sign and LED signs

1.       No more Billboards !
2.       I vote to rescind /remove the sign. Sends a message for future applicants as well.
3.       Thanks for asking! it would make me happy if, not only did the city move to ban LED billboards, but if they revoked the permit on the sign at the Pacific East Mall.
4.       I vote to take it down...the only sign there should be for Ranch 99 shops and hahaha it shouldn't glow, blink, flash, shoot fireworks, smoke  or make noise! We have traffic, crazy trains, loud cars and motorcycles that do that! Residents of the nearby apartments and community and shop owners should get big say in it
5.       I replied previously but have an additional thought. Those brightly lit signs are especially hard on us seniors (or anyone) with cataracts. They cause our perception of lights to be diffused and can severely impact driving safety. I had my lenses removed with new lenses implanted. I can now drive without corrective lens restrictions. But I'm sure that there are many drivers on the road that can't afford the operation at the present time. And yes, I think that Pacific East Mall should be made to comply since they apparently didn't file for a proper permit. Keep up the good work.
6.       I hate that sign – a blaring blight at a main entrance to Richmond.  That being said, I’m not one to yank the rug out from under a going business venture where it appears the City didn’t follow its own permitting process requirements.  I would prefer to give the business X years to remove the billboard, where “X” is a reasonable period to recover their initial construction costs plus net profits equal to their initial investment. If there’s any evidence the sign company manipulated the process to skirt permitting requirements, then I vote for immediate abatement.
7.       Revoke it!
8.       I support action to revoke this LED billboard permit.  In fact, I would support a ban on all billboards in Richmond.  They are a flashy form of urban blight, add nothing to the community, and (particularly the LED versions) are retrograde distractions to safe driving (we already have plenty of distractions that make driving less safe--cell phones, e.g.). 
9.       Yes you should move to revoke the permit.  The LED sign is s blight and distraction
10.   Has anyone shared the real dollar amounts earned by cities allowing any billboards? My prejudiced information says the money is scant over the long run and the blight is huge.  When the sign is abandoned ( even removed) the owner of the property has big ground level clean up. Many of the countries I have visited do not allow billboards so driving on those roads is almost as scenic as rail travel. Please no more billboards and no L EDs.
11.   The ADART LED sign at the Pacific East Mall property sticks out like a glowing sore thumb and its sign permit should be revoked.  Forbidding these glowing monstrosities in Richmond would help enhance the "Pride" part of the City of Richmond's own sign logo as far as I'm concerned.
12.   I am against them and what’s interesting is that I’m not even sure they’re effective. I lived in Salem, Oregon for awhile where they had them everywhere and you couldn’t even read what was on it before it rotated to another vendor.
13.   Revoke the permit for the LED Billboard at Pacific East Mall.  They flouted the law; they should not be allowed to continue.
14.   I would love to see that sign go away. I live at Promontory in Marina Bay. I see that intrusive sign from my living room window. Ugly, a real
15.   If the existing Pacific East Mall sign gives credence to more like it, revoke the permit.
16.   That sign nearly caused collisions when it first went up.  It is too distracting on the road.  Plus, the nearby residents are affected by all the excess light.  That can interfere with sleep, which is why so many people are buying blackout curtains for the bedrooms.  We do not need highly lit up advertisements affecting traffic adversely and keeping people awake.   Not healthy, particularly in a community that may lose its emergency room at Doctors Medical Center.  Capitalism has to have some limits!   So yes, revoke the permit if you can.  It was a bad idea, start to finish. 
17.   This reminds me of an old case:  A building official signed-off on the huge billboard at the Bayview interchange.  He didn't have the authority, and it wasn't legal, but we were told that we had no recourse.  David MacDiarmid & I wanted the building official fired, but that didn't happen either. 
18.   tax them until it hurts, and make them police a couple miles of the Ohlone Trail.
19.   I am of the opinion that such billboards with bright lights and changing messages are a traffic hazard.   A static billboard is bad enough, but a motorist can choose to look at it or not over many months or weeks of display.   A billboard that is brightly shining and constantly changing its message seems a distraction to motorists and one that could cause inattention at the most inopportune moment.  I am wondering if there are existing studies on these new billboards and statistics about accidents that may or may not occur in clusters around their current locations?   If they are bringing in substantial contributions to the city coffers in taxes it is hard to say 'No' but I lean anti-billboard in general due to the way that they rape our more picturesque vistas. 
20.   Business interests don’t always trump visual beauty nor visual pollution, except much of the time with billboards. The wonderful technology of LED lighting must have its location limitations not only to protect the residents within 300’ but to the rest of us who commute on I80 and have to see this  commercial distraction. The Pacific East Mall sign was erected illegally, and probably knowingly or the City of Richmond  allowed it to get by them. Mr. Lindsay, Tear the sign down!
21.   Revoke it!  The sign is an abomination. 
22.   Tough call.  I'd like to see it removed but I'm sure their will be some liability issue raised with the city to which I'd be cautious of that liability unless there was some fraud or omission in the original permit application then I'd pursue vigorously.
23.   I am in favor of REVOKING the permit for the horrendous distracting sign at Pacific East Mall and would ask the Council NOT to allow another of these horrible signs at the Hilltop Mall location.
24.   Not to be glib, but shouldnt drivers keep their eyes on the road?  For traffic safety reasons, shouldnt we error against creating more distractions?  If people are reading flashy signs, they arent paying as much attention to the cars around them. I say: no thanks. 
25.   FYI on a clear night the Pacific Mall sign is very visible from 1000 ft up. No one thought about how it can ruin the vista for houses further up.
26.   When I first read about that sign being installed on the pretense of repairing the old one my first thought was “Why was that allowed to happen!”  Flaunting disrespect for the rule of law and the permit processes must not be allowed to happen and this was such a flagrant violation, an in your face action.  Please do EVERYTHING in your power to undo the sign, and make them PAY for this deliberate violation of the law.  They should pay for removal and hefty fines and penalties for their fraud and willful deceit.  A good starting point would be $25,000.....and notice I said starting point.
27.   If the city removes all billboards, the city's own electric bill board on Macdonald, the LED at PEM would that qualify as no billboard old or new so that we do not have a problem with leaving one up that calls to favoritism vs sensorship for others? Prevent the blight before the LED's need repair.
28.   Short Attention Span Theater-REVOKE! Too many distractions-almost got sandwiched again...I ALWAYS try to take SP Ave. to avoid this hazard.
29.   Either review the Pacific East permit, as should have been done originally – with Pacific East paying the review costs – or revoke it
30.   the sign should be revoked and the council member who pushed it through should be "revoked"  too. I am so tired of anything that has gotten built "under the radar" being in effect grandfathered in as soon as people notice what has happened. thanks for asking. And the sign definitely has to affect the livability of the surrounding area. It's gross.
31.   revoke! :)
32.   I say revoke. It's really an eyesore, the bright flashing lights are visible from Marina Bay. If there is a way to shut it down that would be great.
33.   If, indeed, the sign at the Pacific East Mall, was put up illegally, it should either be taken down or fined heavily. It is not a good precedent to allow the sign to stay without some consequences.
34.   DIdn't see this before. Please add me to the "against LED billboards". I live in Richmond Annex and think the City should move to reconsider the sign at Pacific East Mall.  Thank you.
35.   Well, it's hideous, of course. But it's not as though it's detracting from the aesthetic beauty of the adjacent freeway. Does it bother residents in the area? That would be my main concern. After that, who profits from the ad revenue from the sign? Generally my opinion on those who willfully violate permitting conditions is that they should be punished in some way for their deception. So, sure, revoke their permit, unless you can make them pay the city enough money to put a dent in the upcoming expenditures related to the recent housing authority fiasco
36.   Ugly, distracting, visible from far too far away; let's see if we can get rid of it.
37.   Get rid of the sign. Too bad we can't get rid of similar signs in Berkeley.

Generally in favor of the Pacifica east Mall sign and LED signs

1.       The City probably has more important things to do than fight this old battle.
2.       I say, "let it go," as it seems the City has a right to do so.  Once these signs take hold somewhere more will follow.  Look at Emeryville, city of wide-open free enterprise, with lots of LED signage!  Maybe it's great for them, but not for Richmond.  Also, did anyone poll Emeryville residents to find out what they think of "Sign-ville"?  Along the same lines, I wish the San Pablo Casino sign monstrosity were gone.  Is there any talk between the City of San Pablo and Richmond about such a possibility? Is there be a legal case for it? Thank you so much for this, and many issues, where you achieve positive results that favor building quality community, which also builds property values, (eg, look at Berkeley, El Cerrito, and Marin County!).
3.       While I appreciate your desire to promote a quiet, peaceful city without the nuisance of light pollution, our district (and city) is in desperate need of some external revenue. To bring this in, we need to remain competitive with the other retail stops along the I-80 corridor. That means supporting the installation of a new LED billboard to promote our local business and earn money from advertisers. This is critically important to the residents of Hilltop, and as one I hope I can count on your support in this matter. Please do not let the vocal minority of your neighbors in Pt. Richmond stop our neighborhood from being the success it deserves to be!
4.       While I appreciate your desire to promote a quiet, peaceful city without the nuisance of light pollution, our district (and city) is in desperate need of some external revenue. To bring this in, we need to remain competitive with the other retail stops along the I-80 corridor. That means supporting the installation of a new LED billboard to promote our local business and earn money from advertisers. This is critically important to the residents of Hilltop, and as one I hope I can count on your support in this matter. Please do not let the vocal minority of your neighbors in Pt. Richmond stop our neighborhood from being the success it deserves to be!
5.       Leave the sign at Pacific East Mall as it is. If there have been no formal complaints until now then it isn't bothering anyone. I actually like it. It replaced an unglier sign.
6.       Let it go.  Also the reason Marin county seems to be doing so well is because of the wealth of its residents.  We don't have that luxury here.  So I say if it's something that can bring revenue to our area we need to do it. I'm all for a LED sign at hilltop
7.       The sign looks good. Let it go.
8.       Let it go
9.       At this point, I would have to say that this is a battle to let go if I were in your shoes.  Given the number of tussles our CC is involved in right now, this one just seems like "borrowing trouble."
10.   While I appreciate your desire to promote a quiet, peaceful city without the nuisance of light pollution, our district (and city) is in desperate need of some external revenue. To bring this in, we need to remain competitive with the other retail stops along the I-80 corridor. That means supporting the installation of a new LED billboard to promote our local business and earn money from advertisers. This is critically important to the residents of Hilltop, and as one I hope I can count on your support in this matter. Please do not let the vocal minority of your neighbors in Pt. Richmond stop our neighborhood from being the success it deserves to be!
11.   I'd say it's water under the bridge. If we move to revoke it will prompt a potentially expensive lawsuit which we might not win. I don't believe granting an LED sign by mistake sets any precedent for others seeking  such a sign. 
12.   Considering that the City of Albany just recently passed a ordinance to allow an LED sign in the nearby area, and considering the other issues that Richmond has, it seems to me that going through a revocation process at this time would be a waste of time. There are many more pressing visually issues. For example, energy should be placed on making Hilltop more competitive with their Pinole neighbors with new signage and with getting rid of all of the old billboards in town.
13.   While I appreciate your desire to promote a quiet, peaceful city without the nuisance of light pollution, our district (and city) is in desperate need of some external revenue. To bring this in, we need to remain competitive with the other retail stops along the I-80 corridor. That means supporting the installation of a new LED billboard to promote our local business and earn money from advertisers. This is critically important to the residents of Hilltop, and as one I hope I can count on your support in this matter. Please do not let the vocal minority of your neighbors in Pt. Richmond stop our neighborhood from being the success it deserves to be!
14.   If it brings in good money, go for it

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 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.


 

 
  < RETURN