HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/7/2019 Item 15, Schmidt
May 6, 2019
Agenda Item 15
Dear Mayor and Council,
I urge you to deny the Tank Farm/Broad proposal.
This is the wrong development at the wrong location.
Please note the following regarding the old folks home:
1. An “assisted living” complex belongs in a quiet location in a neighborhood, not at one of
the noisiest, busiest 6-and-7-lane intersections in the city surrounded by retail
commercial parking lots and truck loading zones that are part of its own real estate
development. For persons to thrive in such an environment, it must be peaceful and it
must be “connected” to something real – like a network of neighborhood sidewalks.
Contrast this site with that of the Village, whose ladies in walkers ambulate
neighborhood streets, which provides exercise, mental stimulation, and social
intercourse with persons other than those confined to their institution. Where will
people in the proposed facility go for anything like that? There’s no place for them to
ambulate or get away from the dreadfulness of their confinement.
2. The design of the “assisted living” facility bears much in common with the cellblocks at
the Mens Colony – rooms surrounding a secure inner courtyard from which there’s no
escape. Missing are exterior areas for walking and ambulatory connections to other
places. The “independent living” residents can get in their cars and drive someplace nice
– emitting GHGs by so doing, but what about the rest?
3. I have put “assisted living” in quotes above because staff, while calling the project
“assisted living,” provides contradictory information about what this facility actually is. It
seems staff may not understand much about “senior living,” its terminology, its
legalisms. “Assisted living” is a legal categorization for a level of care for those who need
minor forms of help. It is a level intermediate between “independent” apartment living
and “nursing care.” Staff describes this entire project as “assisted living,” stating “The
assisted living facility would include 111 assisted living units. Of these, approximately
50-60% are independent living, with the balance being assisted living, and 28 memory
care beds.” Huh? That makes no sense. How many are actually “assisted living,” 111 or
“the balance?” So, this is apparently not actually an “assisted living facility” but a
facility a minority of whose rooms provide assisted living care. As for “memory care,”
that’s a euphemism for nursing home care.
Staff also misuses the term “age in place” – in fact, stands it on its head. “Aging in
Place” is a movement to provide civic accommodation and supportive services to keep
us in our own homes as we age instead of sending us to institutions such as the one
proposed. It is thus the exact opposite of what staff suggests.
4. Good city planning produces humane and decent environments for people. This plan
produces the opposite. Do the old folks home real estate developers a favor and tell
them to find a better site. Do you really think it’s good to confine people to second-story
rooms 15 feet from Tank Farm Road?
Please note the following regarding exceptions for the mandated creek setback, and other
riparian issues:
5. The project proposes 5,000 square feet of incursions into required creek setbacks, for
which staff “recommends” exceptions. Setbacks are mandated in the city’s well-crafted
creek ordinance for good and plenteous reasons. They must not be treated as
negotiable trifles.
Exceptions to the setbacks are permitted for hardship cases on pre-established lots
where development might not be possible without exceptions. This project is on raw
acreage. There is no need or “hardship” to be accommodated. It’s pure design laziness
and real estate greed to claim a need for any exception.
Do not grant any exception, as none is needed or merited. Protect what’s left of our
creeks!
6. The site plan shows a road along the top of the creek bank. This is very bad riparian
planning. A road at the top of bank creates a total break from a natural area and
isolates the riparian zone into a non-sustainable island. It also poses unnecessary and
unkind danger upon riparian creatures who will seek to come up out of the riparian
zone. Say one of our threatened riparian species, a twin-striped garter snake or Pacific
pond turtle, comes up and decides to sun on the road?
The road should be relocated to the far side of the old folks home, away from the
creek.
Please note the following regarding the retail portion of the project:
7. Putting a strip mall and grocery on this already congested corner is insane city
planning. These uses will further mess up movement at this location, causing further
delay and countering the potential success of the city’s Climate Action Goals for
1
reducing auto emissions.
1
In free-flowing traffic, one can ecodrive, saving about 10% on emissions. In stop-and-go, one’s emissions go up
about 10%. The potential difference between free-flow and stop-and-go is thus about a 20% emissions increase.
Anything the city does to make stop-and-go thus hurts climate action progress.
8. Do we really want the ugliness of a strip mall at such a prominent gateway location?
Why is that good city planning? This is in stark contrast to the other three corners where
development has been more esthetically sensitive.
9. The last thing this city needs is another grocery store. We’ve gone from a dearth,
several years ago, to a surfeit today. Today we have Target, Costco, Whole Foods,
Grocery Outlet, Sprouts, Ralphs, CalFresh, Lassens, Smart and Final, Vons, Trader Joes
and Foods 4 Less – 12 major grocers, or one for every 3,700 of us, which is cutting things
pretty thin for the merchants in this low-markup industry.
New grocers will cannibalize existing grocers and all will get weaker. That is neither
good planning nor sustainable economics.
Sustainable planning means building only what we need. Otherwise we waste non-
renewable resources.
Remember, zoning is a tool that should be used for good city planning and community
benefit, not to accommodate a specific applicant’s claimed development (since among other
things you don’t know he’ll be the actual user of the zoning). This rezoning does the latter, not
the former.
This site is currently earmarked for business park use. That is how it should stay. That’s much
better planning than what’s proposed. It provides an internal circulation mechanism for
controlling congestion at this busy corner and discourages inhumane development.
Sincerely,
Richard Schmidt