Tentative Ruling Hands Loss to City and Beglaris

Judge’s Decision Means “Destroying” Controversial Rustic Canyon Home

An Orange County Superior Court’s tentative ruling made last week orders the City of Los Angeles to enforce its own rules and revoke the certificate of occupancy of a controversial Rustic Canyon home within 60 days. If finalized, the court’s latest decision will force homeowners Vickey and Mehr Beglari to bring their 8,550-sq.-ft. house at 909 Greentree Rd. into “compliance with city municipal code,” requiring them to remove 14 feet–the equivalent of as much as 2,000 sq. ft.–away from their three-story house’s street front. That would “effectively destroy the house,” Beglari lawyer Mark Baker told the Palisadian-Post on Tuesday. Baker, who plans to appeal, called the decision devastating for his clients. “These people, theoretically, are going to get kicked out of their house,” he said. “They can’t sell it. They can’t refinance it. They can’t live in it!” The ruling written by Judge David Velasquez invalidates the decision of the city’s Department of Building and Safety, which had “improperly” calculated the prevailing setback of the street, thus allowing the Beglaris to build 14 feet closer to the street than city code permitted. Velasquez formally discharged the city from contempt proceedings it had faced for failing to follow an appellate court decision. But he assailed the judgment of the Building and Safety Department. A department spokesman said he would not comment on pending litigation. The judge has given the city and the Beglaris an opportunity to object to the decision. City Attorney Spokesman Frank Mateljan said, “In all likelihood we will file something with the court next week, but nothing has been finalized.” The Beglaris’ lawyer, however, said he has no expectation of the judge changing his decision. Five current and former Greentree residents, who took the city to court, are “pleased with the decision” but still cautious about last week’s ruling. Those residents are attorney Ron Oster and wife, L.A. Superior Court Judge Diana Wheatley; attorney John Rosenfeld; and teacher Jacki Horwitz and husband, L.A. Superior Court Judge David Horwitz. (Jacki Horwitz is also a Post columnist but not an employee.) Velasquez wrote that he hoped his decision would “accomplish full and final justice between the parties.” But tension between the Beglaris and their neighbors only seems to have increased. The Beglaris blame last week’s ruling, in part, on their neighbors’ ties to the legal community, Baker said. (Following state law, the court was moved to Orange County because two of the plaintiffs are sitting judges in L.A. County Superior Court.) “In my clients’ view, this was judges helping judges. You’ve got two judges and two other lawyers,” Baker said. Some of the plaintiffs and their supporters suspect that Mehr Beglari, a developer, used his professional ties to gain improper influence within the Building and Safety Department. The Beglaris’ lawyer said that racial biases motivated their neighbors. “They’re an interracial couple. I think that has something do with it. He’s Persian and she’s African-American,” Baker said. The plaintiffs told the Post they would not dignify those accusations with a response. Acting as a spokesperson for the plaintiffs, John Rosenfeld said that he and his neighbors have fought against the Beglaris’ illegal addition because it marred the look of the community and flagrantly disregarded the law. “This house is at the gateway to the canyon,” Rosenfeld said. “All the other houses are set back. That’s one of the things that makes it Rustic Canyon. There are big front yards there, and they’re not built up to the front end of the property. And unless we did something to hold the [Beglaris and the city] accountable, this would become part of the new status quo.” Tension between the Beglaris and their neighbors first arose in 2001. In January of that year, Building and Safety approved a 6,550-sq.-ft. addition to the Beglaris’ existing 2,000-sq.-ft ranch-style house. But when the Beglaris began excavating the front of their 10,000-sq.-ft lot in April 2001, their neighbors suspected that the couple had planned to build too close to the curb, violating the street’s prevailing setback. In October 2002, a zoning administrator with the Department of City Planning reviewed the neighbors’ complaint and agreed. The administrator concluded that the house was 14 ft. closer to the curb than permitted by city code. The reason: the Beglaris benefited from a Building and Safety error that vastly underestimated the street’s setback. But the following February, the City Planning Commission overruled its administrator’s decision, prompting the Greentree neighbors to take the fight to court. In October 2003, a Superior Court judge disagreed with the Planning Commission’s decision and ordered the city to revoke all of the Beglaris’ permits, including their certificate of occupancy. And in December 2004 that decision was affirmed by the Second District Appellate Court to which the Beglaris had appealed. Following other legal delays, Bureau and Safety revoked the Beglaris’ permits in January 2006, giving them one month to comply. However, by the time the February deadline came, Building and Safety had withdrawn its order forcing the Begaris’ compliance and restored their permits. Why? The Beglaris found a way–consistent with an interpretation of Building and Safety practices–to alter the prevailing setback of the entire block: In 2004, they purchased 921 Greentree, only a couple doors down from their other home. The following year, they built a canopy attached to the front of the chimney that stretched five feet toward the curb. Building Safety approved that canopy’s construction. That seemingly minor change had a big effect. It decreased the prevailing setback for the entire block. The zoning code calculates the ‘prevailing’ setback by taking the average of the property line that is the shortest distance from the street (an attached garage at 925 Greentree) and the setback of any properties within 10 feet (the Beglaris’ 921 Greentree). So when the Beglaris asked Building and Safety to restore the permits to their beleaguered house at 909, the department agreed, citing the Projected Building Exception of city code. But last week’s court decision in Orange County found that Building and Safety ‘improperly applied the provisions’ of that code. Neither 921 nor 925 Greentree is a ‘bona fide Projecting Building’ as defined by L.A.’s municipal code–effectively rejecting the city’s decision to restore building and occupancy rights to the Beglaris. —– To contact Staff Writer Max Taves, e-mail reporter@palipost.com or call (310) 454-1321 ext. 28.