.
Feedback

SONC Land Use Committee Stalls Again on Il Villaggio Toscano Approval

Development team frustrated by committee’s second delay on decision over proposed five-acre, Sepulveda Boulevard housing & retail project.

For a second time in two months, the Land Use Committee of the Sherman Oaks Neighborhood Council backed off on a decision on Il Villaggio Toscano, a $100 million housing and retail project planned for Sepulveda and Ventura boulevards.

Although the developer had made further incremental changes to the project to try to obtain committee approval, those were not sufficient to overcome concerns over the project’s density, size, height and traffic impacts. At Thursday evening’s meeting at the Van Nuys / Sherman Oaks Senior Center, the proposed project was sent back for more work to a smaller, five-person subcommittee.

Committee member and SONC vice president Art Fields said he wanted the subgroup to meet with the developer “to ameliorate some of the concerns of the committee that all we’re getting is a traffic problem.”

No specific date was set for the next reconsideration.

The project’s latest iteration was presented Thursday evening by Paul Krueger representing developer M. David Paul. The newest version includes 399 units instead of the original 500, 7,000 square feet of retail versus the original 10,000 and 13,000 square feet of public space including a quarter-acre “public plaza” with pavers, a water feature and trees.

Krueger said the developer would also provide an enhanced streetscape along Sepulveda Boulevard leading to the project with street trees, planter boxes, sidewalk improvements, bike racks, bus shelters and street furniture to create a “gateway” to Sherman Oaks.

“These are ideas that [Land Use Committee member] Jeff Kalban came to us with and I think they are good ideas,” Krueger said.

Yet, those changes barely registered with the 35 speakers for and against the project, many of whom wore paper badges reading “Right for the Site” or “TOSCANO” with the last ‘O” a red circle with a diagonal through it, symbolizing “no.”

Opponents, as they had in the past, argued that the project is too large and would create further traffic problems in an already traffic-beleaguered intersection. Supporters said the project would bring economic benefits and would help relieve traffic congestion by prompting a change in commuting habits because of the walking-distance proximity of offices, entertainment and bus lines.  

But at the end of nearly three hours of presentation, discussion and public comment, the Land Use Committee members appeared reluctant to recommend approval of all the zoning changes, Specific Plan amendments, density increases and height exemptions the project will require to go forward.

Instead, they began musing about further changes to the project, such as adding more commercial space to make it more of shopping attraction and thereby reduce anticpated morning traffic or adding more public space for recreational uses. Those ideas finally had the development team sputtering in frustration.

“I’ve changed those [architectural] drawings time after time after time,” said architect Wade Killefer. “If I put this park in, Jeff will come up with something else!” 

Krueger argued that more retail would compete with the nearby Galleria and that residential developments typically don’t include open space.

“I’m a little concerned where all this is going,” he added.

In the end, with only minutes left before the 10 p.m. center closure, the committee referred the matter back to the subgroup for more discussion.

"I didn’t think they would vote on it tonight,” said project opponent April Blair, as she left the meeting. “The project is so big and complex and has so many elements.” 

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Sherman Oaks Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
A. Abrams May 19, 2013 at 06:05 pm
As a parent who spent over 12 hours on site volunteering at CHAMPSFEST, I must say that CHAMPSRead More Parent's assessment above of the circumstances is exactly correct.
CHAMPS Parent May 19, 2013 at 05:43 pm
Dear Hollietiger, CHAMPSFEST2013 was an awesome experience for my child. She was there all day andRead More had the best time. When I dropped her off I saw a slew of security personnel checking bags and wanding. She told me security was there immediately and a medic on hand. Her friend is fine and is going to school Monday morning. The hammer was from a vendor. The kid could have grabbed one of the stakes from a tent or a chair. Things happen, but I trust that the school and the administrators did the right thing. It's very counter productive and irresponsible to write things when you don't know the facts. I will support and trust CHAMPS and my daughter is already looking forward to next years CHAMPSFEST.
Evan Sanford May 19, 2013 at 05:02 pm
First of all, I don't know where your child got his information but he is quite uninformed. HeRead More obviously was believing all the rumors spreading at then end of the event. The victim's skull WAS NOT "cracked open and ... bleeding everywhere." CHAMPSFEST 2013 was a public event, therefore open to the PUBLIC. CHAMPS (the school) has no control of mental competency of attendants from other schools. Security was there in droves to protect the entire venue. As far as nothing being reported that is also FALSE. The kid was NOT taken away in handcuffs. Police were there and it is confidential information that was not released to the general population and is not a matter of public record. Second of all, the resources provided by the city were there as a backup (you mentioned "2 ambulances, police fire trucks... Not really sure what police fire trucks are but that's besides the point). We wanted to make sure that in this case of emergency all bases were covered and the safety of the victim was going to be treated properly. Next time you hear about an incident, I would consider the reputation of the people who worked so hard to put on the event and let them handle the situation before posting incorrect information to the entire community.
Jack McGrath May 8, 2013 at 03:38 am
Are there any Wendy Greuel supporters who disagree with me? In Studio City a few do not like myRead More support for Eric Garcetti. Let's hear it for Wendy- I can't hear you?