Reeves & Fentis comments on grading

Former Long Beach Deputy Prosecutor John Fentis made comments to the LBPost regarding the lack of action by the Prosecutor's Office on the controversial grading at the Los Cerritos wetlands buffer in March. Prosecutor Tom Reeves was asked for a response. And Fentis was asked to respond. Reese declined additional comment. The following are the texts:

FENTIS: "As a former prosecutor for the City of Long Beach, I can state, without hesitation, that there should have been a misdemeanor prosecution for grading without a permit. Virtually any violation of the Long Beach Muncipal Code can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor under Section 1.31 of the Code. I should know as I prosecuted dozens of Code Enforcement cases during my nearly 25 years in the office.

"Another example of no enforcement under politically motivated circumstances. I could really get into a discussion about a lack of environmental enforcement by the City of Long Beach, but I'm sure the response would be "there's no money in the budget"....the truth is that there is no commitment to ensuring environmental compliance for the benefit of the citizens by the Long Beach City Prosecutor's Office....there hasn't been for 4 years now and there won't be until you, the citizens, elect a prosecutor who is environmentally sensitive "

Dear Mr. Reeves:
John Fentis made the (above) comments to the LBPost regarding the Sean Hitchcock grading of the buffer area at Los Cerritos Wetlands.
Any response?

Dear Mr. Segura:
I don't believe my opinion of Mr. Fentis's opinion has any news value.
Tom Reeves

Dear Mr. Reeves:
Can you explain why your office has not taken action against Sean Hitchcock's grading (without a permit) of the buffer area at Los Cerritos wetlands?

REEVES: "If a grading permit was required, as your question assumes, the city department or state agency responsible for issuing permits would determine what steps to take. A subject matter expert in that department would determine if a grading permit and or other permit is required. If a permit was required, it is not uncommon for the department to seek compliance without referring the matter for prosecution. If the department does not get cooperation and or compliance, it may decide to submit a request prosecution or to pursue an administrative process.

"To present a criminal case, the department would have to make an initial determination of which laws were violated, gather the facts, assemble the documents, identify witnesses, conduct interviews and assemble and present this investigation to our office. This office does not file criminal cases based on third person accounts from newspapers, web-blogs or web reports.

"No request for criminal prosecution with an accompanying investigation has been submitted to this office and the statute of limitations has not run on potential offenses. However, without pre-judging a filing decision, our office would have to consider the following circumstances in making a filing decision: the potential defendant has already paid double the permit fees as a penalty, is fully cooperating in remediation, and will incur substantial additional expense to complete remediation.

FENTIS: "While Mr. Reeves is correct in alleging that it is the responsibility of the permitting department to refer the matter for prosecution (in this case Building & Safety), it is not unusual for the Prosecutor's Office to make inquiry as to whether a newsworthy case (which this was) is being investigated so that it may make preparations to receive the case for prosecution once it is referred. Additionally, for an office that makes news relative to Community Outreach in an effort to improve the quality of life for Long Beach citizens relative to slumlord structures and other code enforcement issues, I am somewhat surprised that the Prosecutor's Office did not make any inquiry here. To say that the potential defendant is paying double the penalty is ludicrous when you consider that a criminal fine for a misdemeanor violation carries with it a $500-1000 fine which is virtually tripled because of the California Penalty Assessment Law. It would also result in a potential conviction which might have an impact on the defendant's Contractor's license. Additionally, in this case, Sean Hitchcock is in the construction business and he should flat out know whether or not a permit is required. At the very least, he should ask. We are not talking about hand dug piles of dirt here. We are talking about the use of earth oving equipment which, more often that not, would at least trigger an inquiry on the part of a reasonable and prudent contractor as to the necessity of a grading permit. We don't know what remediation is being done and at what cost....

"There were several cases of a code enforcement nature that I handled during my tenure with Mr. Reeves where I was in communication with members of Building and Safety before the case was ever referred and with full knowledge on the part of Mr. Reeves. One involved the use of land as a container storage site without a permit having been issued where substantial grading had been done. I don't remember the name of the defendants, but I did file the case after several citizens complained about the number of semi-trucks entering and leaving the defendant's property. The Long Beach Municipal Code clearly states that construction work (including grading) requires a permit. That permit is obtained either through Building and Safety or the Planning Department. In this case, a member of the construction industry did a substantial amount of grading work without a permit. The pictures taken of these events speak for themselves. If you don't obtain a permit then, in my view, you are strictly liable for the consequences. This individual clearly and unequivocally ignored and disrespected the law. Had he tried to get a permit, he might have incurred further obstacles such as an EIR (environmental impact report) or other similar frustrations. While I understand the difficulty in trying to accomplish what he did without the burden of compliance with process, it is clear to me that he deliberately chose to engage in impermissible conduct without regard to consequence, thereby taking his chances. This is simply unacceptable if we are to apply code enforcement requirements in a fair and even-handed way. As for news value relative to my comments, I would invite Mr. Reeves to re-visit his debate relative to marijuana dispensaries and tell us how that is any more newsworthy than environmental compliance. If his answer is, yet again, to suggest a deferral of prosecution until a case is brought to the office, then I respond by saying that Fire and Health won't invest their resources to investigate matters of environmental violations because they know that their cases will not be prosecuted. All this comes from someone who, at least during my time in the office, demanded that his prosecutors engage in more proactive conduct by going out into the community for the purpose of discovering code enforcement violations."

REEVES: As I previously said, the speculation and opinions of Mr. Fentis are not news. My response is to decline the inviation to engage in a debate of opinions.