Los Angeles herald., 1892-06-28

place on July 20th. The date for the
issuance Of the bonds was fixed for No
vember l, 1892.
The ordinance was then passed.
MsCELLANEoUs.
A supplemental report of the city en-
gineer was submitted. It consisted OF
an ordinance OF intention to improve
Winfield street. The ordinance was
| passed.
The petition of M. G. Marsh and 9TH
! ers fof sewer on Ionia street was
granted, on recommendation OF the
sewer committee.
New specifications for street sweeping,
| prepared 30 that bids can be advertised
| mended by the board OF public works.
| The city clerk was then instructed to
advertise for bids in accordance with the
specifications. for one week, the bids to
be received July 9th.
Action on the Southern Pacific and
Davies franchises, which had been con-
tinued from the morning session, was
deferred until the next session.
PETITIONS AND PROTESTS.
The following petitions were referred
to the appropriate committees
Petition of j. B. Brown ct al, prop
erty owners on First, between Grand
avenue and Bunker Hill avenue, stating
that said street was graded by private
contract. as per instruction of council
in 1898, by d. F. Donegan, and asking
that proper record be made of the paw.
ing.
Petition of I. w. Hellman, owner of
lots assessed for opening and widening
Seventh street, asking that $166 paid by
him as penalty on said assessment be
refunded on the ground that it became
delinquent through delay that was no
fault Of his.
Petition of M. s. Cummings and
others, asking extension of time for
completing grading of Hope street, be-
tween Twenty-eighth and Thirtieth
streets, because of sickness in the fam
lily of j. ". Petello, delaying the work of
cement curbing.
Petition of Donaciana Reihm, owner
of q city lot, asking deed from the city
to perfect her record title.
Petition of Bonfilio, McGaughey and
others, property owners on Wall street
between Fifth and Seventh, asking for
cement sidewalks six feet wide on both
sides OF the street.
Petition of Curlett & Essen, @. H.
Brown, A. M. Edelman and sixteen
other prominent architects. The text of
this important petition is as follows:
Inasmuch as the construction of busi-
ness blocks in this city to accord with
similar works in other large cities, and
equally for the benefit of owners of real
estate and improvements and for general
utility, architectural and constructive
effect, is seriously restricted by the or
dinances, attention is called to these
facts:
First-The construction of modern
building containing half basement
with stores above, suitable for
insurance, exchange, real estate and
other similar Offices, is almost abso-
lutely denied by reason of the alb
sence OF license that gives the con-
structor OF such buildings permission
to use certain portion of the sidewalk
next to the building for the purpose of
entrance and lighting to the basement.
The erection of such blocks as the Me-
vada. Thurlow. st. Anne, Merchants
Exchange, Crocker, Stock Exchange
and others occupying thousands Of feet
frontage on Montgomery, Sansome and
OoAluIulb utk0otn IA 0bu IaucloCO,
would be an impossibility here in Los
Angeles, unless special permission is
sought for and granted for sidewalk
business frontages to be divided into two
types, first for retail and wholesale
stores, wherein the floor is on level
with the sidewalk. and, secondly, half
basement and store above. We have q
surfeit OF buildings of the first type and
their monotony of appearance does not
favorably strike visitors. That build
ings of the second type would add to
tie general Improvement of surround
ing real estate is proved by the Bone
brake -Bryson block and California bank.
San Francisco allows about two-thirds
Of the sidewalk for such purposes and
an ordinance to similar effect passed in
this city would be of great value to the
city as well as to property owners.
Second-There are many substantial
pieces of masonry here IN the nature Of
party walls, enclosing and division
walls, which, in the event of additions
in height or perhaps size of the build
ings. would be technically too thin for
use, leaving no other alternative on the
part Of the owner but complete demoli-
ton in case he makes improvements;
and in the event of the subject being q
. party wall. and the co-terminus ad-
joining an owner unfriendly to such de-
molition and restoration, would entail /
an absolute inability to further improve
his real estate in the manner it perhaps
deserves. iFaps
We, therefore, would suggest that
where masonry in such cases is de-
6cient, that if the strength, laterally
and vertically Of sucn wall, is aug
mented by means Of steel and concrete
construction equal to the values Of
masonry that would be constructed in
conformity with our building laws, as
determined BY engineering formule,
Council then adjourned.
Ef- M0NTE,S RIRTHDAv