Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Nuisance Abatement Lien topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Bellflower Council authorizes nuisance‑abatement lien on vacant commercial parcel after demolition

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Bellflower City Council on May 27 adopted Resolution No. 25‑18 to record a special assessment lien to recover the city’s demolition and remediation costs for the vacant commercial property at 17046 Bellflower Boulevard.

The Bellflower City Council on May 27 adopted Resolution No. 25‑18 authorizing recordation of a special assessment lien to recover the city’s costs for abating nuisances at 17046 Bellflower Boulevard, a vacant commercial property that the city demolished this year under a court abatement warrant.

Assistant City Attorney Tim Kamen told the council the city had pursued voluntary compliance for years and, after receiving insufficient corrective action from the owner, executed court‑authorized abatement and demolition work. He said the demolition and remediation costs total approximately $212,000 and that a previously recorded abatement lien of about $11,000 remains, putting the combined amount the city will seek to attach to the property in the neighborhood of $224,000 (plus statutory interest). "A city nuisance abatement lien, is what's known as a super lien," Kamen told the council, meaning it takes priority over most private mortgages if recorded before a foreclosure sale.

The council heard testimony from Josh Golcher, who identified himself under oath as the managing member of Euclid Hazard Capital LLC, the property owner. Golcher said he disputed aspects of the city's chronology and said he had been working with architects and lenders; he asked for an opportunity to resolve the matter. He also said he has retained counsel and stated, "The amount of my damages is almost $4,000,000," referencing his planned claims if litigation proceeds. Council members and staff responded that the formal question before the council was whether to record the lien for costs the city incurred carrying out the court abatement.

Kamen said the city provided multiple written notices by regular and certified mail and email and that the abatement work — including fence installation, removal of toxic materials and demolition — required remediation prior to demolition. He told the council the lender on the property filed a notice of default April 18 showing an outstanding mortgage balance of about $2.2 million; the lender’s 90‑day cure period could lead to a foreclosure auction within weeks. Kamen said that unless the city records its abatement lien before any foreclosure sale, the city risks losing the ability to recover its costs. He said city staff would personally serve the lien notices and expect to do so within days of council approval.

Council members asked for detail about the invoiced work and staffing hours charged to the abatement. Staff replied that invoices included demolition, hazardous‑materials remediation, fencing and landscape removal and that some administrative and legal hours were included with each fully burdened hourly rate. The council discussed adding collection costs incurred after the May 2 demand letter to the recorded amount; staff said they could include reasonable collection costs to avoid returning to council for adjustments.

Motion and vote: Mayor Pro Tem Sonny Santaynes moved to adopt Resolution No. 25‑18 to record a special assessment for nuisance abatement for the property at 17046 Bellflower Boulevard; Council Member Coops seconded. The roll call vote was unanimous in favor (Morse, Sanchez, Mayor Pro Tem Santaynes, Coops and Mayor Dutton voted aye). The council instructed staff to personally serve notice of the proposed lien and to proceed with recordation if the amount was not paid. Staff estimated the lien could be recorded about two weeks after notice, provided the amount remained unsatisfied.

The action preserves the city’s ability to recover abatement costs if the property is sold at foreclosure or auction; owners can avoid recordation by paying the amount demanded before staff records the lien. The council did not set a dollar‑for‑dollar cap beyond the stated invoices, but staff said the recorded lien will include the $212,000 demolition/remediation invoice plus the prior abatement lien of about $11,000, statutory interest at the 10% rate cited in the meeting, and reasonable collection costs after May 2 if the council so authorizes.