Jack in the Box Site Project Defeated Again in Latest Public Hearing

By CHRISTIAN MONTERROSA | Reporter

The Pacific Palisades Design Review Board agreed with its fellow community leaders in opposing the proposed structure at the old Jack in the Box site at a hearing on Wednesday, August 28. 

Citing the same concerns as the Pacific Palisades Community Council and the Land Use Committee, the DRB voted unanimously to oppose the project as proposed. 

Adding on to the opposition, attorney Tom Donovan, who is representing the neighboring Edgewater Towers Homeowners Association, submitted his own list of oppositions with supporting legal arguments. 

In a letter distributed to the board members, Donovan and the Edgewater Towers claim that the project violates a public resource code, stating that “scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance,” according to a copy of the letter obtained by the Palisadian-Post. 

The letter concluded that the project “is not in conformity with the Coastal Act, the community plan and the Specific Plan. The Coastal Commission’s Regional Interpretive Guidelines were not adequately applied, reviewed, analyzed and considered.”

Chaired by Palisadian Barbara Kohn in the absence of Chair Donna Vaccarino, the Design Review Board is a direct subsidiary of the Los Angeles Department of City Planning and poses a large speed bump in the roadway of developer Michael Aminpour, who has been unsuccessful in gaining any community support for his mixed-use project on Sunset Boulevard.

His attorney, Michael Gonzales, was given an opportunity to address the concerns of the audience, but ultimately was unable to change their opinion. 

Gonzales did not immediately return requests for comment and has taken a step back from public comments, along with representatives of the Edgewater Towers, the project’s biggest opponent. 

Neighbors to the proposed project have been vocal about their opposition and gave public comments at the hearing, stating various reasons why it shouldn’t be approved, including the size, the design and setting a precedent for future developers to create similar projects.

The vote against the project is the latest defeat in a public setting after facing opposition every step of the way. It remains unclear what steps the developer will take next, or if he will adjust his project to comply with the demands of the community.