Attempt to Halt High-Rise Is 2 Stories Late

Dean Jeffries figured he had done everything right to preserve the panoramic view of the San Fernando Valley that he enjoys from his hillside home in Studio City.

But he found out Friday that what goes up doesn’t necessarily come down--even if it is a building that appears to be too tall to be legally built.

Jeffries went to court to learn he is two stories too late to halt construction of a $4.3-million office building that blocks the view from his Sunswept Drive home of 14 years.

It was a bitter blow to the Hollywood car customizer, who thought he had taken every precaution to keep Ventura Boulevard high-rises from crowding his neighborhood.

When a developer tried in 1980 to build an 11-story office building down the hill, Jeffries rallied his neighbors, hired an attorney and filed a lawsuit that halted grading of the slope.

Then he negotiated with the developer and hammered out a compromise that authorized construction of a scaled-down, 75-foot-high project at the intersection of Fairway Avenue and Ventura Boulevard beneath his house.

A Foreclosure

Before work could resume, however, the project went into foreclosure. Jeffries watched closely when a new builder bought the site and filed new construction plans with Los Angeles officials. He breathed a sigh of relief when the new building permit called for a three-story, 44-foot-high building.

So it was with surprise that Jeffries looked out his living-room window three months ago and saw workers erecting tall steel girders next to his house. Quick consultation with a private surveyor showed Jeffries that the new office building was 95 feet high--and still growing.

Jeffries filed a new lawsuit, alleging that the building violated the 8-year-old height compromise, formalized as a recorded covenant on the property in 1981.

On Friday, Jeffries and his wife, Rosalee, went to court to demand that the top two floors of the new office building be ripped out and that a preliminary injunction be slapped on developer Eitan Gonen to prevent the building from climbing higher.

Gonen countered by contending that removal of the two floors would eliminate 40% of the leasable space in his new building. He estimated that “the sheer cost of tearing down two floors” would be $250,000, although the total loss from demolishing the top of the building would be $1.6 million once everything was counted.

Superior Court Judge Miriam Vogel ruled that Jeffries was too late.

“Construction is 70% complete,” Vogel said of the multilevel structure. “Tearing down a building that is 70% complete is inappropriate.”

Had Jeffries protested “at a reasonable time,” she might have felt differently, Vogel said.

Lawyer Scott R. Gailen said Jeffries repeatedly had been assured by construction supervisors at the site that “they weren’t going over three stories and the level of his back-yard fence.”

He said Jeffries believed them until the steel girders started going up outside his window.

In denying Jeffries’ request, Vogel warned against interpreting her ruling as giving developers freedom to sidestep legal agreements by spending a lot of money on a building.

She said Jeffries can seek a monetary settlement from Gonen for loss of his view. “If your client is correct, I feel he can be compensated,” Vogel told Gailen.

After the court hearing, a dejected Jeffries and his wife said they are prepared to appeal Vogel’s decision. They said they are more interested in the view than in cash.

Gonen’s lawyer, Frederick D. Booke, said he would urge Gonen to settle to avoid the expense of a lengthy court fight.

Gonen disputed that his building has disrupted the neighbors, however.

“They still have a beautiful view,” Gonen said.