Mixed-Use Project at Former Jack in the Box Site Moves Forward

By LILY TINOCO | Reporter

The Planning and Land Use Management Committee of the Los Angeles City Council held a public hearing telephonically on Tuesday, December 8, to consider appeals and findings for the demolition of a former Jack in the Box site and construction of a mixed-use property at 17346 West Sunset Boulevard.

The LA City Planning Commission previously voted and unanimously approved the project during a meeting in August.

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.

An appeal was filed on September 28 by Edgewater Towers Condominium HOA and the Pacific Palisades Residents Association, represented by Thomas Donovan.

The appellant had six main points of contention, including lack of compliance with the community plan, lack of compliance with the Coastal Act, insufficiency of the density bonus findings and more.

Nick Vasuthasawat, planning assistant, began by addressing a letter from planning staff dated December 3 that outlined the appeal points as well as staff’s responses.

He reported that upon further review and analysis of the issues raised, no substantial evidence exists of errors of abuse of discretion committed by the City Planning Commission with regards to the appeal points raised.

“As provided in staff’s letter, the proposed commercial and residential uses in the proposed project are permitted in the zone, and the CPC’s decision is supported by the necessary findings,” Vasuthasawat said. “The appellant has not provided substantial evidence to support their appeal.

“Since their appeal cannot be substantiated, staff therefore recommends that the PLUM Committee and City Council deny the appeal and sustain the determination of the City Planning Commission to approve the requested action for the proposed project.”

Donovan responded by requesting the hearing be continued, stating the CPC relied on unproven statements by the applicant at the last hearing regarding the number of affordable housing units available in the Palisades.

“There are numerous affordable units in the Pacific Palisades … there are at least 24 affordable units and probably more,” Donovan said. “On this basis alone, the CPC decision should be reversed.”

The representative of the applicant, Michael Gonzales, then took over the discussion, saying “it’s clear that the community hates this project but thankfully that’s not the legal standard by which we judge development under applicable state law or under applicable local law.”

He went on to say that Donovan’s suggestions and findings are “misguided” and “misleading,” and that the density of the project is permitted, the project is consistent with the Coastal Act and these issues have been “harmonized” to allow the development of this site.

The PLUM Committee denied the appeals as sustained by the LA CPC determination.

Vasuthasawat said the next step for the project is to make its way through City Council, and that a future date for that to happen is to be determined.