My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1984/04/04 Council Minutes
>
Council Minutes
>
1984/04/04 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2020 11:04:54 AM
Creation date
9/28/2020 11:21:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Council Minutes
Date
4/4/1984
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
. 138 <br /> l April 4,1984 <br /> r <br /> sxw REMOVAL REQUEST <br /> Al xheal,Public worksDirector,gave a brief background regarding <br /> the sign located o the northeast corner of Broadway a California <br /> ue .right of wayandapproved September,1983, ofth <br /> property abutting sa has Council to take <br /> action to requir/allowremovalof the sign <br /> as owner of the sign <br /> has refused to do so. <br /> i <br /> Harold Co, Attorney for Pizza <br /> Hut, <br /> H <br /> Inc., <br /> eotrhle ed L ,briefly reviewed lettrote <br /> City r removal of the sign. He eright-of-way <br /> oke City's 11 <br /> bility <br /> and c ordinances prohibiting use igh £ yfor private <br /> c sevPizza-Huth'. <br /> agreed yreestLPandhold the City harmlese£r mproblemsdietmayarie <br /> from this ac <br /> cautioned Co use permits <br />��. <br /> for curight-of-way Said the ordinance wastvery nclear that <br /> allowed. eisa pre-existing revocable <br /> perunmvtaa the Structural nature of the sign should be considered. <br /> Councilman Pepe pointed the sign was erect f dv g <br /> waput Jones o h i. <br /> could decide to grandfather the sign or <br /> give notice at remove undertheterms f the <br /> Councilman wfelt the s <br /> n did block the small businessman on <br /> Broadway an was not s <br /> being used to advertise the same business as <br /> eS granted to, a also raised the issueo no compensation <br /> to the permit was <br /> use of this right-of-way. <br /> wcihnan M econded by C unerlma son,to M <br /> direct rameval of the sign.a <br /> Roger <br /> Fisher,representing Eric England,permit holder for t , <br /> circulated a r o£pictures shoe the Sign asurroundingsg <br /> businesses. Be said M England hasbeenin nal property n <br /> taxes on this <br /> rtisement ofor <br /> a business andears. He asked <br /> notelimited�to rollerthis <br /> rinkiuse. <br /> He f saidthere/Ying o this sign t <br /> business a feltit should be grandfathered and allowedtostand <br /> as provided dunder.190 of the sign ordinance. <br /> Eric <br /> England c hdin <br /> Sale of the building is about to close <br /> 4.. and the sign is included as pari of the sale <br /> Councilman Langur spoke in favor <br /> of leaving the sign in place and <br /> requested a workshop to look at the matter of sigma on public right- <br /> of way an the City. <br /> Councilman Pope spoke against the motion and felt it should be <br /> grandfathered. <br /> Councilman Michelson reported the Real Estate <br /> Committee had been <br /> j.-. <br /> discussinguse <br /> of <br /> fnCity might-of-way and will be coming to Council <br /> with aome <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.