Unrelated municipal-news clipping

Therefore, last January 15th, the city ordered the two owners to "commence within 48 hours to take steps to cause the building to be demolished and removed within 90 days." In effect, the city was condemning the burned building. An insurance company agreed to pay the two owners $19,000, which was later said to be about 65 percent of the value of the building. Now, usually, owners in such a situation can take one of several alternatives. Owners could take the insurance money and rebuild. Or, perhaps, rip down what is left of the building and sell the parcel. But, our two owners are caught in the middle. Once the city declared their house condemned, the owners said their loan on the property was "called" by the mortage holder. "We owe $46,000" on the loan, the two told the city council Tuesday evening. "Obviously, the insurance settlement will not cover the loan amount. There is a deficit of $27,000. At this time we do not have $27,000 to cover this. We will be forced into foreclosure," the owners told the council members. The problem the house owners face is that under city code, a replacement residence can no longer legally be built on the commercially zoned parcel. Moreover, the commercially zoned parcel is so small and awkward that many believe the parcel is not practical for commercial use. The owners Tuesday night wanted the council members to find that their house had not burned beyond 50 percent of its replacement value. The 50 percent figure is important because the city codes call for the city condemning property which is burned beyond 50 percent of replacement value. The two owners believe if they can get the city to declare the house less than 50 percent burned and the building is not legally condemned, the two owners can secure successful financing for a replacement residence. The two owners told the council members securing financing for a commercial building would be almost impossible. "Due to the current money market, it would be next to impossible to secure a new first trust deed on a vacant lot of that size," the owners said. "We are asking the city to let us rebuild this house to Moreover, 95 percent of the electrical system had been damaged by the fire and had no salvage value, the city inspector said. Sixty percent of the plumbing had been damaged by the fire with no apparent salvage value except for the main connection, the inspector added. The council members winced when one of the owners suggested that through some maneuvering, the council might be able to find something less than 50 percent damage. So, what are the alternatives? Change the zoning, one someone said. "That's spot zoning and against the state law," Councilman Lance Widman reminded the council. So, the council voted to uphold the city's condemnation of the building and the two owners are faced with a burned home in a commercial zone and a mortgage holder ready to foreclose. The owners were urged to return their problem to the Planning Commission with the hopes of seeking a remedy through some type of zoning variance which might allow what the two owners want - a new two-story home built over three ground-level parking spots. MARY CAN KEEP HER DOGS On as a happier note, we are pleased to report that Mary Jobson will be able to keep her one yorkie and two maltese dogs. The 72-year old Mary lives in a mobile home near Pier Avenue and Valley Drive. City codes allow only two dogs in residential zones and Mary had to come before the city council Tuesday night to get a permit to keep her three dogs. A city animal control officer had visited Mary's mobile home area and found the area in "very good" condition. The dogs were being kept inside a fenced area and Mary said neighbors had never complained about the dogs. Well, at least most neighbors. One neighbor did show up to urge the council to observe the city ordinance limiting dogs to two. The dogs do bark and are a nuisance. Goodnes,, the poor fellow was almost hissed and booed out of town. "My dogs are all I have," Mary said, obviously winning over all the council members. Besides, one dog is 12 years old and "doesn't have that many more years left." Mary doesn't go out much and so her dogs are The case was a little less somber for C.F. Johnson, who had the benefit of following Mary Jobsen to the podium to plead his case. Johnson wanted a permit to keep two rabbits - in spearate hutches, mind you, at 1841 Prospect. Once again, the city animal control officer had made the obligatory visit to the premises, found them in good shape and suggested that as long as Johnson kept the rabbits 35 feet away from neighboring structures, there would be no problem. The council members agreed and voted Johnson a permit for the rabbits. But, as Johnson turned away, flush with victory, he got a parting question from the animal-loving Ms. MacFaden. "Are you sure there are only going to be two rabbits?" Councilwoman MacFaden asked, her grin still showing. "Oh, yes. We're keeping them in separate hutches," Johnson replied. That plan obviously bothered the fun-loving Councilman Lance Widman, who recovered with the thought that "they'll probably find a way." DON'T WANT TRAFFIC SIGNALS City officials are learning that Hermosa Beach neighbors may not want new traffic signals in the neighborhood. Charlie Clark, city public works director, told council members city staff members are considering asking for approval of a traffic signal plan which would allow the city to use $108,00 in county gas tax money which has already been allocated to Hermosa Beach. Under regulations, the city must adopt a priority plan on how the city would use the gas tax money, which is returned to the county for distribution among cities and communities. Clark said staff members had decided that three key intersections in the city should be considered for signalization - Manhattan Avenue and Longfellow Avenue; Manhattan Avenue and 27th Street in the "five corners" area; and the Ardmore Avenue-Valley Drive-Gould Avenue area. Clark is suggesting the gas tax funds be used for traffic signaling, roadway improvements and wheelchair ramps. Clark said his department considers the northwest quadrant of the city "an impacted area" concerning traffic circulation. and that subsequent owners of the business might turn the business into "another saloon" with loud entertainment. The Norfolks repeatedly indicated they do not plan amplified entertainment, but Councilman Lance Widman said he would not support any appeal to the BZA action if a prohibition against amplified entertainment were not added. Councilwoman Mary Tyson expressed opposition to more liquor licenses in the downtown area. Councilwoman Edie MacFaden indicated support for extended hours and a separate bar after being told the Norfolks plan to "dump $100,000" into their new restaurant business. MacFaden expressed concern that the Norfolk couple was suffering because of "lack of city enforcement" of other activities in the neighborhood. Mayor George Barks indicated he would support the request of the Norfolk couple for longer opening hours and a separate bar. The couple indicated it wanted to stay open to serve customers leaving the Comedy and Magic Club adjacent to the Mexican restaurant.

Inererore, iast January oin, the city orderea the
two owners to "commence within 48 hours to take
steps to cause the building to be demolished and
removed within 90 days.
In effect, the city was condemning the burned
An insurance company agreed to pay the two
owners $19,000, which was later said to be about 65
percent of the value of the building.
Now, usually, owners in such a situation can take
one of several alternatives.
Owners could take the insurance money and
rebuild. Or, perhaps, rip down what is left of the
building and sell the parcel.
But, our two owners are caught in the middle.
Once the city declared their house condemned,
the owners said their loan on the property was
"called" by the mortage holder.
"We owe $46,000" on the loan, the two told the
city council Tuesday evening.
"Obviously, the insurance settlement will not
cover the loan amount. There is a deficit of $27,000.
At this time we do not have $27,000 to cover this.
We will be forced into foreclosure," the owners told
the council members.
The problem the house owners face is that under
city code, a replacement residence can no longer
legally be built on the commercially zoned parcel.
Moreover, the commercially zoned parcel is so
small and awkward that many believe the parcel is
, not practical for commercial use.
The owners Tuesday night wanted the council
members to find that their house had not burned
beyond 50 percent of its replacement value.
The 50 percent figure is important because the
city codes call for the city condemning property
which is burned beyond 50 percent of replacement
The two owners believe if they can get the city to
declare the house less than 50 percent burned and
the building is not legally condemned, the two
owners can successful financing for a
replacement residence.
The two owners told the council members
securing financing for a commercial building would
be almost impossible.
"Due to the current money market, it would be
next to impossible to secure a new first trust deed
on a vacant lot of that size," the owners said.
are asking the city to let us rebuild this house to
Moreover, 95 percent of the electrical system had
been damaged by the fire and had no salvage value,
the city inspector said.
Sixty percent of the plumbing had been damaged
by the fire with no apparent salvage value except
for the main connection, the inspector added.
The council members winced when one of the
owners suggested that through some maneuvering,
the council might be able to find something less than
50 percent damage.
So, what are the alternatives?
Change the zoning, one someone said.
"That's spot zoning and against the state law,"
Councilman, Lance Widman reminded the council.
So, the council voted to uphold the
condemnation of the building and the two owners
are faced with a burned home in a commercial zone
and a mortgage holder ready to foreclose.
The owners were urged to return their problem
to the Planning Commission with the hopes of
seeking a remedy through some type of zoning
variance which might allow what the two owners
want - a new two-story home built over three
ground-level parking spots.
MARY CAN KEEP HER DOGS
On as a happier note, we are pleased to report
that Mary Jobson will be able to keep her one yorkie
and two maltese dogs.
The 72-year old Mary lives in a mobile home near
Pier Avenue and Valley Drive.
City codes allow only two dogs in residential.
zones and Mary had to come before the city council
Tuesday night to get a permit to keep her three
A city animal control officer had visited Mary's
mobile home area and found the area in "very good"
condition. The dogs were being kept inside a fenced
area and Mary said neighbors had never complained
about the dogs.
Well, at least most neighbors.
One neighbor did show up to urge the council to
observe the city ordinance limiting dogs to two.
The dogs: do bark and are a nuisance.
Goodnes,, the poor fellow was almost hissed and
booed out of town.
"My dogs are all I have," Mary said, obviously
winning over all the council members. Besides, one
dog is 12 years old and "doesn't have that many
more years left."
Mary doesn't go out much and so her dogs are
The case was a little less somber for C.F. Johnson,
who had the benefit of following Mary Jobsen to the
podium to plead his case.
Johnson wanted a permit to keep two rabbits ? in
spearate hutches, mind you, at 1841 Prospect.
Once again,the city animal control officer had
made the obligatory visit to the premises, found
them in good shape and suggested that as long as
Johnson, kept the rabbits 35 feet away from
neighboring structures, there would be no problem.
The council members agreed and voted Johnson a
permit for the rabbits.
But, as Johnson turned away, flush with victory,
he got a parting question from the animal-loving Ms.
"Are you sure there are only going to be two
rabbits?" Councilwoman MacFaden asked, her grin
still showing.
We're keeping them in separate
Johnson replied.
That plan obviously bothered the fun-loving
Councilman Lance Widman, who recovered with the
thought that "they'll probably find a way."
DON'T WANT TRAFFIC SIGNALS
City officials are learning that Hermosa Beach
neighbors may not want new traffic signals in the
neighborhood.
Charlie Clark, city public works director, told
council members city staff members are considering
asking for approval of a traffic signal plan which
would allow the city to use $108,00 in county gas tax
money which has already been allocated to Hermosa
Under regulations, the city must adopt a priority
plan on how the city would use the gas tax money,
which is returned to the county for distribution
among cities and communities.
Clark said staff members had decided that three
key intersections in the city should be considered
signalization- Manhattan
Longfellow Avenue; Manhattan Avenue and 27th
Street in the "five corners" area; and the Ardmore
Avenue-Valley Drive-Gould Avenue area.
Clark is suggesting the gas tax funds be used for
traffic signaling, roadway improvements and
wheelchair ramps.
Clark said his department
northwest quadrant of the city "an impacted area"
concerning traffic circulation.
ALLAA LA MGA
owners of the business
might turn the business
into "another saloon"
peatedly indicated they
do not plan amplified
entertainment,
Councilman Lance Wid-
man said he would not
support any appeal to
prohibition against am-
entertainment
were not added.
Councilwoman
position to more liquor
licenses in the down-
Councilwoman
MacFaden
support for extended
hours and a separate bar
Norfolks plan to "dump
$100,000" into their new
restaurant business.
MacFaden expressed
concern that the Norfolk
was suffering
because of "lack of city
enforcement" of other
activities in the neigh-
Mayor George Barks
support the request of
the Norfolk couple for
longer opening
and a separate bar.
The couple indicated
it wanted to stay open to
serve customers leaving
Club adjacent to the