Community Corner

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Sizzler Vote Opens 'Pandora's Box'

The council's decision to grant Sizzler exceptions to the El Toro Road design guidelines will encourage other businesses to also ask permission to operate outside of city ordinances, writes Terry Anderson.

Terry Anderson, a member of the Lake Forest Planning Commission and candidate for Lake Forest City Council, sent Lake Forest Patch the following letter to the editor:

In regards to the outcome of the Sizzler appeal, I believe that I have the interesting and unique position of viewing this from two different vantage points: as both a standing Planning Commissioner and a prospective City Councilman.  First, I believe that we all need to admire and respect our municipal system.  The appeal process works.  If a development applicant is not satisfied with the results put forth by city staff, they can ask for an appeal review by the Planning Commission.  Additionally, if they are still not satisfied with the Planning Commission analysis and decision, they can appeal to our City Council seeking the outcome they desire.  Sizzler has proven that though this path is not easy to traverse, as it shouldn’t be to ensure due diligence, it is doable. So the system does work.

As I mentioned, although Sizzler is an example of the application of the appeal process, where I have trouble with this particular “exception to the rules” is the lack of foundational decision-making and misapplication by the Council, of our long-standing and well thought out municipal ordinances and guidelines.

Find out what's happening in Lake Forestwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Design guidelines are, as Councilman Rudolph so graciously credited former Councilman Dixon as saying, simply that, guidelines - not something "cast in stone" but something meant to direct us, show us how and where we want to go.  So while the Council certainly has the power to "change their mind," in this matter they throw out all the years of work and precedent set by the previous 8+ years of work put into the El Toro Road redevelopment. 

When the Craftsman Style theme was established at the onset of the new El Toro Road, every single developer’s future plans had to integrate that architectural style into every aspect of their design work.  With the exception of Sizzler, every development has met these guidelines without any issues or complaints, and through their cooperation with the city have contributed and benefited from the unquestionable progress and success of the redevelopment project. 

Find out what's happening in Lake Forestwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Sizzler, which has already been granted numerous exemptions from extant guidelines, appealed that their proposed “artwork” was consistent with the Craftsman Style and, somehow, this Council agreed that cowboy hats and boots are indeed “Craftsman.”  Nothing could be further from reality.

The American Craftsman movement arose in the very late 1890s and extended into the mid 1930s. The architectural firm of Greene and Greene, two Southern California brothers and architects during this time period, are still to this day considered prime examples of American Arts & Crafts designers and in turn foundational in the Craftsman design movement.  They created one of the best examples of California Craftsman architecture as seen in their world-famous Gamble House in Pasadena, CA.  Examples of Craftsman-era bungalows reveal that western boots and hats have nothing to do with this style.  Rather, the Craftsman style sought to incorporate natural materials in creating a sturdy structure with clean, simple lines and therefore it is out of place with the El Toro Road theme. Moreover, allowing this applicant this "exception" flies in the face of every El Toro Road redevelopment property improvement to date, and to further complicate the matter, every potential project to follow.  Furthermore, the council’s decision shows a blatant disregard for the efforts of every other business that has complied with the guidelines, and for the success that they have brought in rejuvenating El Toro Road and the quality of life for Lake Forest citizens.

Municipal ordinances, on the other hand, are a completely different matter.  These are, in essence, community "law."  Lake Forest, like most municipalities, has ordinances in place to create and maintain some sense of community order, plan and design.  In this matter, the sign ordinance has been called into question.  Sizzler justified its appeal by saying that the proposed “murals” should be allowed, as the signage ordinance allowed an exemption for “art.”  In direct contrast to what the written appeal had said, the Sizzler representatives admitted that the proposed murals were meant to draw attention to the building for commercial purposes because they were a part of the Sizzler corporate themes and motifs.  Therefore, it holds true that these additions to the building would, and should, be directed both in size and location by out sign ordinance.

Aside from the ethical problems I have with using our nation’s flag as a marketing ploy, for this council to capriciously reject their own established ordinance, in this case as a purported "special case," they have set a dangerous precedent that proven and established laws can be overstepped, even by the most incongruent of arguments.  Rather than go back and review the validity of current "law," they chose to allow this applicant special dispensation - an exception that exceeds established standards by 50%.

The signage ordinance was purposefully created so as to reduce the look of clutter.  What would the El Toro corridor look like today if every merchant with signage were allowed 50% more signage?  Just close your eyes and imagine.

Then there are the outdoor barbeques.  Nowhere in Lake Forest is any other business allowed to cook outdoors, so with this “Pandora’s Box” the Council has opened the means by which every other business in the city can obtain an outdoor barbeque of its own, with no justifiable way to deny such requests.  Surely this will eventually cause problems with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, from who we heard nothing about how the effects of outdoor cooking devices in a commercial setting.  This has been an issue for AQMD in the past, as they continue to look for new ways to cut emissions from all sources, and yet at no time was input asked from this organization.  So not only does the Council’s decision arbitrarily ignore the City’s ordinances and the potential for conflicts with the AQMD, the decision also assumes it is OK for businesses to build items they were specifically instructed not to build, but did anyway.  I do not approve of our municipal systems and appeals process being reduced to a case of “go ask Mom since Dad told you no…”.

Lastly, there is the “investment” argument.  BMW Management, the owner of this Sizzler franchise, invested roughly $3,000,000 to bring this restaurant to our city, certainly not a small sum; certainly worth noting and appreciating.  However, I disagree with certain members of the Council who seem to feel that means just because someone chooses to invest their funds by building on our community that we should allow them to do as they wish without regard for the others around them.  As the stewards of our entire community, the City Council must remember that they need to do what is best for the community as a whole, and not just what is in the interest of one business.

Consider the investment WesTrust made in the Arbor.  They have far more than $3,000,000 in their project, and have had no issue or cause to complain with the City.  However, based upon the decision process used by this council, we should allow WesTrust to add 50% more signage to all their buildings and add whatever architectural elements they like to their buildings, so long as they relate in some way to "the old days."  Mayor Pro Tem Voigts cited our area’s agricultural history as a cattle ranch as proper rationalization for the barbeque and cowboy hat and boots on Sizzler’s additional signage.  Arguably, this is evidence enough of an inconsistency with the Craftsman Style.  If we follow this “logic,” our history as the El Toro US Marine Corp Air Station could also be considered consistent with the look and feel of the Arbor – maybe a nice F-18 on static display.  Nothing says “I Love America” more than that.  It might also interest Mr. Voigts to know that our history as a cattle ranch originated as a land grant to Don Serrano, before this area was a part of the United States.

In summary, this City Council has sent a clear message to all future development projects within our community.  Although the “guidelines” of the city have generated incredible development, growth, and satisfaction, as evidenced by past surveys and polls of community satisfaction which show Lake Forest is an extremely “business friendly” city, this City Council action deviates from our course of proven progress, preferring to say “exceptions are fine,” even at the expense of the greater business and public environment.  It is true, “guidelines are just that, guidelines” and the City of Lake Forest has been, and always will be, willing to work with its local businesses in a way that promotes growth and improvement for all of its businesses, and all of its citizens.  After all, the Municipal Code in this city is not designed to restrict or restrain growth and change, but it does need to be applied to all businesses equitably, consistently, and fairly.  There is a time and a place for everything, and Sizzler’s requested “exceptions” are neither.


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here