Neighbors’ Complaints Stall Work on Garage

Residents in the exclusive community of Brentwood Park are up in arms over Chief Deputy Dist. Atty. Gilbert I. Garcetti’s garage.

The garage, located at the front of Garcetti’s futuristic-looking, $1-million gray brick and redwood home, violates a zoning restriction requiring that the structure be at least 40 feet from the property line.

Garcetti said his three-car garage is 39 feet from the street. The front 25 feet of property, however, belong to the city, placing Garcetti’s garage a mere 14 feet from his property line.

Spoiling the Atmosphere

Most of the other homes are set back 70 to 90 feet from the street and neighbors say Garcetti’s house spoils the country-like atmosphere of the neighborhood.

They also fear that if the garage is permitted to remain where it is, it would set a precedent.

Garcetti, who started construction on the 4,500-square-foot house last year, said he thought his property line extended to the street. Had he been told otherwise, he said, he never would have violated the law and risked angering the people who will be his neighbors.

Garcetti said he did not find out about the violation until October when the city Department of Building and Safety ordered him to “demolish and remove that portion of the building which extends into the required front yard.”

Garcetti filed an appeal and continued to build, an action viewed by some of his neighbors as “arrogant” and “outrageous.”

Notified of Restrictions

Daniel J. Harnett, a next-door neighbor, said that Garcetti was notified in 1985 by the Brentwood Park Property Owners Assn. of local building restrictions.

Harnett and others said they believe that Garcetti’s position helped him get a building permit in violation of the zoning law.

Garcetti denied the charge, saying that his job is to uphold the law and that he would not knowingly break it.

But Harnett said, “What bothers me more than anything else is everybody is afraid of him.”

Harnett, an attorney, said the association had “to go through four (attorneys) outside the county before we could find one who would take a case against him.”

Undone by Arrogance

“I think some kind of agreement would have been made if he hadn’t been so arrogant,” Harnett added.

Retired Superior Court Judge Edward J. O’Connor, who lives on the other side of Garcetti’s lot, said he was approached by Garcetti and asked to remove a television aerial from his roof because it spoiled the view from a large window in Garcetti’s house which faces the judge’s home.

“I told him I would take down the aerial when he tore down his house,” O’Connor said with a smile.

Another Brentwood resident, Timothy M. Doheny, wrote in a letter to the association: “As if an extra-terrestrial style of architecture totally unlike anything else on the street weren’t enough, Mr. Garcetti has tried to force his already completed project on the park residents with a plea of ignorance of the real dimensions of his property; the blame for this to be placed on someone of dubious identity.”

Garcetti said he deeply resents insinuations that he is using the force of his office to get favorable rulings from the city.

“That is the kind of misinformation and half-truths that are being told by some members of the community,” Garcetti said.

“I am not going to give up. But for my job, this would have been resolved long ago,” he said.

Garcetti said that many of his neighbors have great power and wealth.

“All of them are incredibly high rollers. . . . When I see so many people out of work, homeless, that so much time and money should be spent in fighting this issue, it’s almost obscene,” Garcetti said.

The latest round in the Garcetti-Brentwood fracas occurred June 15 when Associate Zoning Administrator James J. Crisp ruled that the Board of Building and Safety Commissioners erred last February when it granted Garcetti a reduced front-yard setback of 29 feet from the public way.

‘Gross Departure’

In his written ruling, Crisp described the 29-foot setback as “a gross and severe departure from existing front-yard setbacks on adjoining property which can be as much as 90 feet . . . and would substantially deviate from the prevailing front-yard setback of 40 feet which is now required.”

Garcetti has until July 10 to appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals. If that appeal is denied, he can apply for a zoning variance. If all else fails, he did not rule out the possibility of a lawsuit.

Garcetti said that a stop order prohibits any more work on his garage, which is the only part of the structure that is not within code. Work is continuing on the inside of the house and he is attempting to obtain a temporary certificate of occupancy, so that he can move in within the next two months, he said.