“Would you like fries with that?” may become
Westwood’s new motto if certain legislation isn’t
overturned.
Nearly every restaurant, fast food establishment and
homeowners’ association in Westwood has joined forces to
appeal new legislation that would allow an influx of fast food
restaurants into the Village.
Bob Sutton, deputy director of the Los Angeles City Planning
Department, created the Westwood Village Restaurant Interpretation
in order to clarify the definitions of full-service restaurants and
fast food establishments and to introduced a new category, Retail
Snack and Beverage, to the Village.
Sutton could not be reached for comment by press time.
This legislation has instead opened the door for more fast food
restaurants to move into Westwood ““ a neighborhood which many
residents and business owners believe is already too saturated with
eateries.
Sutton’s interpretation was an amendment to the 1989
Westwood Village Specific Plan, originally written to create a
delicate blend of dining and shopping in the Village.
Sutton’s new category allows for an unlimited number of
fast food restaurants.
This will increase the number of fast food restaurants in a
neighborhood that is already over its limit. The Specific Plan
originally designated one fast food establishment per 400 feet of
lot frontage and one restaurant for every 200 feet, with the
exception of Broxton Avenue. Many Village streets already far
exceed their designated amount.
The appeal to Sutton’s interpretation was filed on Oct. 8
by Jay Handal, president of the Westwood Chamber of Commerce, with
the support of multiple homeowners associations and restaurants.
After having discovered and discussed the amendment, the groups
said they believed it was unfairly written without their
consultation.
“The real problem I have with the way the city did this
was that it did it in isolation without talking to the people it
impacts,” said Laura Lake, president of Friends of Westwood.
“It’s just not right.”
The amendment was not released to any restaurant or business
owners in Westwood and would have gone into effect in mid-October
had these groups not discovered the legislation and appealed
it.
Opposition to Sutton’s interpretation believes that this
new legislation runs contrary to the original intent of the
Westwood Village Specific Plan, which was to create a healthy mix
of college-friendly shops and eateries.
“Adding a third category of retail uncaps what can be put
into Westwood and will hinder the mix,” said Michael Madvig,
owner of Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory.
“We have enough food places. What we need is more true
retail such as clothing and shoes,” he added.
Many opposed to the new legislation also question the original
intent of the reinterpretation.
Many accuse Madison Marquette (the largest retail owner in
Westwood, now selling its entire Westwood Village portfolio) and
Brinker International’s Corner Bakery of being the cause of
the change in legislation.
Accusers, such as Sandy Brown, president of Holmby-Westwood
Property Owners Association, said Corner Bakery would have been
unable to enter Westwood under the current law because of an
already present overflow of fast food restaurants. Both Marquette
and Brinker International lobbied to have the definition of fast
food and full service restaurants altered to “accommodate
Corner Bakery,” Brown said.
One basis for this argument is the fact that about nine months
ago, California Pasta Company was not allowed to open on Broxton
Avenue because it was considered fast food, just as Corner Bakery
would have been under the old definition, said Steve Sann, Westwood
Village business and real estate consultant.
In order to open, Greg Crespo, owner of California Pasta
Company, had to change the entire concept of his establishment to
make it a full-service, sit-down restaurant, Sann said.
Because of the new change in definition, Corner Bakery does not
have to do this.
On Nov. 13, Handal filed a new appeal specifically against the
city planning department’s allowance of Corner Bakery to
enter Westwood.
“Some people say that the legislation was rewritten to
accommodate Corner Bakery; some say to clarify the Specific Plan.
In clarifying it, they have muddied it up even more,” said
Handal.
While most residents and business owners in Westwood agree that
the Specific Plan’s definition of fast food and restaurants
must be clarified, many see parts of Sutton’s
“clarified” definitions as irrelevant.
“What they use to classify restaurants in this
reinterpretation is a joke. They should go by the National
Restaurant Association’s definition,” said Steven
Brower, partner of Damon and Pythias.
One aspect of the definition that seems to have little relevance
is that a fast food restaurant may be considered retail if it has
“eight or fewer indoor seats or stools.” Because of
this definition, Baskin Robbins is considered fast food and Haagan
Dazs is considered retail.
In Sutton’s reinterpretation, other such contradictions
arise.
City Bean Coffee is classified under retail whereas Starbucks
and The Coffee Bean are considered fast food. Elysee Patisserie is
considered fast food, but Corner Bakery is considered a
full-service restaurant. Damon and Pythias is classified as a
full-service restaurant, and yet similar South Street is considered
fast food.
Even the owners of some of these restaurants don’t agree
with their classification.
When asked about Damon and Pythias now being considered
full-service, Brower replied, “It’s wrong. I’m
not full service.”