City Planning to Hear Revised Plans for Jack-in-the-Box Location, but the PPRA Requests a Delay

A 60-foot tall structure is proposed for the former Jack in the Box site, which would have 40 apartments with commercial space on the ground floor.

Palisades residents discovered that City Planning will hear the revised plans for the proposed 5-story, mixed-use building/apartment at 17346 Sunset, the site of the former Jack-in-the-Box, on July 6.

In August 2019, the Pacific Palisades Community Council wrote that the proposed plans violated the Pacific Palisades Commercial Village and Neighborhoods Specific Plan, which limits buildings to a maximum of two stories at 30 ft. with a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1:1.

In its motion to the City, the PPCC argued that “The Project’s mass and scale are clearly out of proportion to all other similarly situated buildings which front the same (south) side of the street as the Project, and its visual impact on pedestrians as well as nearby residences is out of character and will be significant.

“The proposed building would rise 60’9″ and comprise 15,000 sq. ft., incorporating 40 dwelling units (four of them low-income units). The plans also include 36 subterranean parking spaces, a rooftop green space, and commercial space at street level.” (To read the complete story, visit: https://www.circlingthenews.com/community-counci…-oppose-proposed/).

A week later, the project, designed by Farzin Maly, was brought before the Pacific Palisades Design Review Board (DRB), which also rejected it.

The DRB told the applicant, California Food Managers, LLC —  whose principals include Beverly Hills investors Michael Aminpour, Dan Ashoori and Jack Farshi —  that the project was not compatible with the one-story buildings on either side of the proposed site. DRB members also noted that the proposed structure, which would include ground-floor retail, didn’t have a setback.

On June 16 last week, the Pacific Palisades Residents Association sent a letter to City Planning, c/o Nick Vasuthasawat, Planning Assistant, asking to postpone the upcoming July 6 meeting. The letter stated:

Dear Planning Board Members and Hearing Officer:

On behalf of the Pacific Palisades Residents Association, I am writing to urge you to postpone the hearing that is currently scheduled for July 6, 2020 at 12:30 p.m. I do so for several important reasons.

 First, and most importantly, the developer’s revised plans for his proposed project have not yet been made available to the public. Because of that, the time remaining until the hearing is far too short to permit organizations and individuals to review them, take positions, and provide intelligent comments.

 We are an organization that has made sound planning and growth in Pacific Palisades our primary focus for 60 years. In this case, we previously expressed our strong opposition to the developer’s proposal as it was originally submitted. So, too, did the Pacific Palisades Community Council, its Land Use Committee, and most importantly, the only local body with an official role in the approval process, the Pacific Palisades Design Review Board. Each of these positions was taken by a unanimous or near unanimous vote.

 Today, however, I do not address the revised proposal that will be considered on July 6th, which one of our Board members, Carol Bruch, shared with us. Rather, we want only to point out the obstacles to a useful hearing on July 6th. 

The site elevation measurements that you asked the developer to make at Edgewater Towers will not be made until Monday, June 22, 2020, for example, and the condominium’s office does not know when the surveyors’ report will be made available to them or the public. In addition, the long weekend for the Fourth of July will take place immediately before the announced hearing. 

Further, many organizations and their boards meet only monthly, and often less frequently over the summer. Finally, many people schedule their vacations to take advantage of long-weekends. This timing could not be much worse.

The matter before you is of great importance to our community. We are already dealing with the disadvantages of the pandemic. Please postpone this meeting for at least a month, and preferably until September, so that everyone can participate in a fair and useful process.

 Sincerely,

Sarah Conner, President

To contact Vasuthasawat, email Nick.Vasuthasawat@lacity.org) or Councilman Mike Bonin via Field Deputy Lisa Cahill (lisa.cahill@lacity.org).

The DRB opposed the project along Sunset because it was not compatible with the one-story buildings. They also noted that the building across the street had setbacks which lessened the appearance of mass.
Photo: L.A. City Planning

This entry was posted in Real Estate. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to City Planning to Hear Revised Plans for Jack-in-the-Box Location, but the PPRA Requests a Delay

  1. Mike Sternfeld says:

    Hello Sue,
    Mike Sternfeld here again. Sorry to be a pest. However, I am not understanding something. If the PP Design Review Board says that buildings should not be more than 2 stories, how did all of those other multi story projects behind this proposed complex and all the other across the street. Are they not in PP area? Any comments or ideas?
    My biggest complaint about this project is the parking situation. There are 40 units and 36 spaces? Huh?? Forgetting for a minute on the retail spaces that need parking, since FOUR of the apartments will be for low income, I wonder, wonder, wonder who will NOT get an assigned parking space? Hmm…
    Then is the issue of retail parking, and guess where they will park? Next door where the other small shops are. It can get crowded there already without extra businesses to feed. Very unfair to the existing small businesses already in that strip mall.
    OK, done complaining for now.
    Thanks for listening.
    Mike

  2. Eileen says:

    Thank you Susan for sharing this information and thank you to Sara Connor for writing a clear and reasoned letter. This important matter should not be “slipped by” or even have the appearance of that. It is my belief that the current proposal is to tall, inadequately “stepped back” and should have move affordable units inside.

Comments are closed.