Coastal Commission Finds ‘No Substantial Issue’ With Proposed Mixed-Use Project at Former Jack in the Box Site

By LILY TINOCO | Assistant Editor

The California Coastal Commission found “no substantial issue” with a proposed project at 17346 West Sunset Boulevard in Pacific Palisades at its October 12 meeting, in response to appeals submitted by Pacific Palisades Resident Association.

The Los Angeles City Planning Commission previously voted and unanimously approved the project during a meeting in August 2020. The city-approved project includes the demolition of a former Jack in the Box site and construction of a mixed-use property.

The five-story project, proposed by developer Michael Aminpour, will consist of 32,225 square feet of mixed-use development—breaking down into 39 dwelling units, 2,900 square feet of commercial use and 49 parking spaces. Four of the residential units will be set aside for very low-income housing, and another four will be restricted for moderate-income housing.

In 2021, an appeal was filed by Edgewater Towers Condominium HOA and Pacific Palisades Residents Association, represented by Thomas Donovan.

The primary assertion by the appellants was that the proposed development is incompatible with the mass scale and character of the surrounding area, would prioritize residential uses over visitor-serving commercial and coastal recreational uses, and that the city did not provide sufficient evidence that the project is designed to minimize geologic hazards and assure stability and structural integrity, according to the staff report.

Coastal Commission staff found and stated that the conditioned foundational elements will minimize risk to life and property, and will assure stability and structural integrity, the project is not located on a coastal bluff, and the geotechnical reports indicate that the development will not create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability or destruction to the project site.

“Staff recommends that the Commission determine that no substantial issue exists with respect to the grounds on which the appeal was filed,” according to the staff presentation.

Coastal Commission Chair Donne Brownsey commented on the project, saying it would provide “exactly the type of housing that we believe [in].”

“There should be dense housing in a highly commercial area, it is completely consistent with the community character,” Brownsey said. “When we, as the Coastal Commission, are looking for places to put dense multi-family housing units, this development is in the right place for that.”

The Coastal Commission denied the appeals, and the finding of no substantial issue was approved.

In response to the Coastal Commission’s decision on October 12, PPRA told the Palisadian-Post they were left “disappointed, but not surprised.”

“The CCC accepted without facts or analyses the assertion that it was ‘improbable’ for the project to become a precedent for building lucrative, private residential development in lieu of enhancing coastal resources,” PPRA said. “In finding that the appeals raised ‘no substantial issue,’ the CCC continued its pattern of allowing the city to ignore what few protections from unchecked development there are for existing homeowners and the community.”