The razing of two long-vacant homes at 2910 and 2914 Hill St. last month finally wiped out what had been local eyesores for more than a decade.
The houses, which had at one time been assessed at $1 million each, were built in 2003, but because neither had street access, utilities or certificates of occupancy, they had remained vacant ever since. After years of postponed court dates, various ownerships, bureaucratic red tape and even arson, the buildings were finally excavated on Sept. 25.
The original developer, Wayne Ballinger, had never obtained street access or easements to connect electric, gas and water lines to the property. Because he never did so, and because he kept working on the houses after the City of Long Beach gave him a stop-work order, the City refused to issue occupancy permits for the houses.
Although the buildings were actually located within the city limits of Long Beach, the portion of Hill Street adjacent to their front yards was in Signal Hill.
One of the homes had caught fire in 2012, causing $100,000 to $150,000 in damage, and then, on Nov. 12 of last year, both were set ablaze in another act of arson, according to the Long Beach Fire Department (LBFD).
“We don’t know if it was an individual or individuals, but it was a criminal start,” LBFD spokesperson Jake Heflin told the Signal Tribune in 2014.
In February of 2015, the Signal Tribune reported that the homes had been, at least temporarily, saved from demolition.
During a court hearing on Feb. 5, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael P. Vicencia ordered that Long Beach city officials and the property owners, which included Tarzana-based 6 Angels, LLC and BDR, Inc., report to the court every two weeks on the progress of the project instead of allowing the City to tear down the properties for being a public nuisance.
“We’re going to keep this on track, and we’re going to keep a short leash on this,” the judge said at the county superior courthouse in downtown Long Beach. “Moving this project forward is going to make the neighborhood happier.”
Long Beach Deputy City Attorney Kendra Carney had requested during a court hearing on Feb. 2 that the structures be demolished, adding that the property owners had dragged their feet in getting the project done and failed to meet conditions of a stipulated agreement that had been initiated the previous year.
Yet, after receiving extensive testimony from Paul Pfeifle, senior project manager for BDR, Inc., and three Long Beach city officials, Vicencia declared that the City and the property owners were both partly to blame for conditions not being met.
Instead of granting the property owners a 120-day extension to meet the conditions, however, the judge ordered that the City and property owners return to court on Feb. 19 to confer on permit approvals of a sewer system and a street-improvement plan for driveway access that are required for receiving occupancy permits. The property owners also agreed to install fencing around the houses, mount cameras, continue security patrols, remove tarps, post signage and paint over visible smoke damage caused by arson fires.
In an email to the Signal Tribune in early 2015, Steve Myrter, director of public works for Signal Hill, confirmed that the City had agreed to provide water service to the houses.
He said the owners had agreed to pay the cost of constructing new water piping that would extend the City’s existing water-system network and that they also agreed to pay a one-time water-system impact connection fee of $43,875.
However, Myrter said that, as of Feb. 4, the “water-system connection agreement” between the City and the owners had “not been executed” and the fee had not been paid.
Paul Pfeifle, senior project manager for BDR, Inc., said in court that Southern California Edison had approved the design of a “street-improvement plan” that involves the extension of Orizaba Avenue for the driveways, proposing that street-lights be added. However, he said the City of Long Beach’s public works department still had yet to fully approve the plan and provide building permits.
Further complicating the sitation was the fact that Signal Hill Petroleum (SHP) owns an oil well near the property and had requested that the street-improvement plan include specific grading on curbs in order to better access its oil well.
Pfeifle said the property owners had a site visit with SHP on Jan. 15 to discuss the concerns regarding the access to the oil well, adding that email correspondence between the owners, the City and SHP about the issue had first been initiated in October of 2014.
Evan Zeisel, senior building inspector for the City of Long Beach, who also testified in court in February, said there was miscommunication between the City’s planning and building inspection departments about the alterations regarding access to the oil wells.
However, Judge Vicencia questioned why the City took into account requests from SHP, which is a private entity.
“Why is the City going out of its way to accommodate a private entity?” the judge asked. “The frustration that [the property owners] feel, I’m starting to.”
Carney replied by stating that the City was threatened with possible litigation from SHP if the City didn’t take into account the oil company’s requests on an easement.
Evans said what has further complicated the issue is the fires, which he said caused a total of $124,000 in damage to the homes, adding that the houses have to be gutted and windows have to be replaced. He said the property owners have put “more money than anticipated in this.”
However, instead of granting the property owners a 120-day extension to complete construction and receive approvals, Vicencia ordered that the City and the property owners return every two weeks on the progress of the project. Both parties agreed to the judge’s order.
“I’m excited about this,” Vicencia said at the time. “This is going to be great.”
According to a June 5, 2015 Signal Tribune story, Judge Vicencia had issued a judgment on May 8 indicating that, if the owners did not reply within 30 days, the properties could be subject to demolition two days after the 30-day period expires.
“I think for both the city of Long Beach and the residents of Signal Hill who have voiced their concern about the buildings, that all those involved will be happy to see it come to a resolution,” Carney said for that story. “Whether they were completed or they are eventually demolished, a resolution will bring the opportunity to increase public safety.”
A June 19, 2015 Signal Tribune story reported that the Long Beach City Attorney’s office had acknowledged that week that they were moving forward with plans to demolish the two homes.
On the morning of Friday, Sept. 25, after years of court proceedings, complaints from residents and confusion as to who was responsible for the homes, an excavator put an end to the 12-year saga.
Fourth District Long Beach Councilmember Daryl Supernaw, whose district includes the property, was present during the demolition. He had taken office in May.
“I try to get things done,” he told the Signal Tribune. “I knew about these homes. I’ve known about them for a dozen years. I had a good feeling that once I would go into the office, I would get to the bottom of it and get it done. However, I didn’t dream that it would happen this quickly, and I’m ecstatic about it.”
The councilmember said he couldn’t understand why the builders constructed the homes the way they did in the first place. “Someone who’s going to put all that money into a house would have to get it all together,” Supernaw said. “Why would you risk putting all that money into building a home if you didn’t have all the proper legal work? That’s the biggest question to me.”
Supernaw noted that, although it may not be obvious, there is likely a positive outcome from the homes.
“It’s hard to find the good that comes out of any of these situations,” he said. “But, in this case, maybe it will cause us to have better process systems in place. And certainly on this particular property, anything that goes up will be a red flag. It will set a precedent for checking and double-checking for all permits and anything involved.”
Signal Hill City Manager Charlie Honeycutt acknowledged Supernaw’s involvement in addressing the problem, as well as that of the councilmember’s predecessor, Patrick O’Donnell.
“I just want to acknowledge the help from the City of Long Beach, particularly the city attorney’s office, our State Assemblymember Patrick O’Donnell when he was a councilmember at Long Beach, and Councilmember Daryl Supernaw, who continued to regularly push to make this happen,” Honeycutt said, adding that “it was a good learning experience for everybody.”
The city manager also voiced the need to have plans in place for all future properties to be developed.
“It’s good to put this thing to rest,” Honeycutt said. “It’s taken up a lot of staff time on both Signal Hill’s part and Long Beach’s part. We don’t have to really worry about it anymore.”
As for those future plans, Supernaw said that, on his watch, there will be no illegal construction.
“We don’t know what the immediate plans are,” Supernaw said, “but let me tell you, as long as I’m in office there won’t be any building on it without all approvals being met.”
*Reporting by Nick Diamantides, Sean Belk, CJ Dablo, Corey Washington, Cory Bilicko and Denny Cristales.
