HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/16/2019 Item 14, Schmidt
From:Richard Schmidt <
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Broad/Tank Farm
Attachments:council tank farmbroad development.docx
When this project came to the council last time, it was inexplicable why planning staff would endorse changes to zoning,
the general plan, and specific plan to enable such a crappy thoughtless project at one of the city’s most visually important
intersections where hitherto considerable care had been used in determining uses and designs at the other three corners.
But that was before we knew of the now obvious quid pro quo with this developer – this crummy deal in return for his
building the city a downtown parking garage. This new wrinkle explains staff’s advocacy for this junk, and also raises the
stench of municipal corruption.
We don’t need, and shouldn’t have, a third-class strip mall at Broad/Tank Farm. The majority of the council must
just say no to this fifth-rate project.
I’m sure some pious souls will tell the council you need the geezer prison which may, or may not, become a part of this
strip mall. (You’re not approving any particular use, but subdivision and zoning entitlements that allow certain uses. You
have no control over who or what ultimately occupies the subdivided project. The project’s designations on the individual
strip mall pads mean nothing.) But we don’t need it, and we don’t want it. We need humane elder housing based on
current elder-care science, which emphasizes things like being a part of life (not being confined to Mens-Colony-like
“courtyards” like this prison would offer in lieu of actual places to walk outdoors) and opportunities for walking and the sort
of exercise that maintains muscles and gets blood flowing to the brain. That’s a recipe for elder health, not this ridiculous
real estate development scheme. And if you doubt that “real estate development scheme” is all this is about, take a look at
the “elder care” outfit top guy’s LinkedIn. He describes his occupation not as elder care but as real estate.
We don’t need a geezer prison in a strip mall, no matter how advantageous that might be to the developer’s bottom line.
And we don’t need the strip mall either.
Council talks about sustainability, but building fifth-rate retail buildings like these when brick-and-mortar is disappearing
means you’re building things that will be torn down in a few years (there’s little adaptability for such buildings), and that’s
the opposite of sustainable city planning. Approval of this project would demonstrate the council hasn’t a clue what is,
and what isn’t, sustainable.
Since not much has changed from before, I’m attaching my previous letter for specific points on the creek encroachments
and geezer prison rather than compose a new one.
1
And if you really want to get into thinking through this project's implications, I've included a piece published in a news blog
featuring this project as an example of how fallen our city's planning has become. But if you don't like being criticized for
your actions, better skip it and avoid being educated.
Richard Schmidt
-----------------
Cry for San Luis Obispo
Once upon a time, writing about a place since destroyed by human greed, a guy wrote a chapter in a book called Thrive
that claimed the burg San Luis Obispo was the happiest place, with the happiest people, in the state/nation/world.
That happiest place, author Dan Buettner wrote, was created from a non-descript redneck Anyplace USA town controlled
by a “reactionary business establishment” through the deliberate efforts of some wise and public-spirited leaders, turning
a drab town into a distinguished and happy place.
This was done, Buettner wrote, through good city planning. Under the 1970s leadership of Mayor Ken Schwartz and
others, city hall’s “focus shifted away from optimizing the business environment to maintaining quality of life.” Through the
tough work of good planning, the urban chaos of Anyplace USA was tamed and changed into something more pleasing;
that more pleasing place, in turn, made people happier than persons living elsewhere.
But that was long, long ago – back in 2008 to 2011, long before the SLO Progressives/Chamber of Commerce stole city
hall and reinstated the “reactionary business community’s” wishes as the city’s top priority.
How this sea-change plays out can be seen at the corner of Broad and Tank Farm, one of the city’s busiest intersections
where six lanes meet seven and tens of thousands of vehicles pass each day.
The intersection, visually, is incredibly important. It’s the gateway to the city for tourists arriving via the airport, with its
ballyhooed non-stop service from Dallas, Denver, Phoenix, Seattle, Los Angeles and San Francisco. That’s a lot of
visitors whose first impression of the city is formed at this busy corner.
Way back in happy-town times, three of the four corners of raw land at the intersection developed, and on each corner,
potential urban visual chaos was averted through thoughtful planning and abundant landscaping.
On one corner is the pedestrian-friendly Marigold shopping center, set back behind a landscaped storm water retention
basin, providing a relaxing view northward at this anything-but-relaxing intersection.
Opposite Marigold is an office park, with street side greenery and buildings set back, again providing a relaxing green
view beyond a huge expanse of asphalt street and moving/stopped vehicles.
2
Opposite the office park is a gas station and car wash, potentially a game-changer for this corner, but good planners saw
its visual impact could be lessened with careful landscaping, including a vegetated roof atop the car wash, which when
you realize what it is, provides a roof-for-thought moment for drivers waiting for the interminable traffic signal to change.
The fourth corner is still vacant land.
So what does city hall think is good there?
How about a strip mall?
Not just any strip mall, but the dumbest most chaotic type of strip mall subdivided into many lots, each with its own
building and a parking around it, no pedestrian connection among the parts, an asphalt jungle of the most retrograde and
chaotic sort.
And, just to make things more incredible, one of those strip mall lots at this chaotic intersection, will be for an old folks
home, right next Tank Farm Road, surrounded by asphalt and adjacent to a proposed grocery store’s loading dock.
So, the careful planning to create a nice entry to the city on the other three corners is to be sacrificed to an Anyplace USA
strip mall.
But don’t worry: a strip mall isn’t permitted at this corner by the city’s planning regulations, so it can’t happen, can it?
Hah! In SLO Progressiveville whatever business wants can, should, and will, happen. Our “progressive” council almost all
learned their civics from the Chamber of Commerce, so that’s how they think. Their lack of planning experience or
knowledge is no hindrance to approving “progress” – ideology is sufficient.
So, to get around the obvious bad planning a strip mall represents, “planning” staff not only recommended to the council
they approve the strip mall, but that they amend the Airport Area Specific Plan, the General Plan’s Land Use Element, and
the zoning code – all of which would, as currently written, prohibit the project. This is pejoratively called in planning circles
“project-specific planning and zoning,” and among good planners, it’s a no-no.
Staff also recommended allowing the developer to build on 5,000 square feet of riparian area that’s supposed to be
protected, as if developing a 10-acre site with care required this sort of exception to the city’s creek protection law.
3
This, dear readers, is what “planning” in SLO has descended to.
Long, long ago, had a project as out of line with adopted planning policies and laws as this been submitted, city planners
would have said: sorry, it’s against the General Plan and zoning code, and we can’t support it.
Long, long ago planning reports to the council included actual analysis of a proposed project, describing ways it conforms
to adopted planning policy, and ways it conflicts with them, offering perspective upon which decision makers could make
an informed decision.
Today, that doesn’t happen. Decision makers get a one-sided advocacy report from staff, no negative information, no
honest analysis, and often false facts.
In this case, false facts about the old folks home are salient examples of shoddy staff work and of their possible ignorance
regarding what they write about. These errors might be amusing under other circumstances.
Staff describes the old folks strip mall place as an “assisted living” complex
Sort of.
Here’s their project description: “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.”
You got that? The way I read this, it’s not an assisted living complex. About 62 of the 111 units are “independent living,”
28 are “memory care” which is a euphemism for “nursing home,” which means a mere 21 are “assisted living.” Each of
these terms has a legal definition, and they are not interchangeable. They describe different types of care, and the state
enforces them.
The developer’s representative mischaracterized the old folks home as “assisted living,” probably to gain sympathy points
with certain parties, and staff obligingly passed along that mischaracterization. Was this to help the project, or because
staff is ignorant of old folks housing’s terminology? I don’t know, but neither’s good.
Staff also advanced other ridiculousisms. For example, they stated this project would allow oldsters to “age in place.”
That’s a gross misuse of this term, which actually means providing civic accommodation and supportive services to keep
oldsters in their own homes instead of sending them to institutions such as the one proposed.
4
But we already know how much the city actually cares about supporting real “aging in place.” When the Anholm bikeway,
which would remove more than 100 residential parking spaces needed by frail, old and disabled residents, those who
suggested better accommodation were told by staff it would merely be “inconvenient” for the disabled to have to park
1,000 feet from their homes! Right.
As for life in this old folks home, I sure wouldn’t want to live in it. Noise and air pollution from the traffic, no place to go
outside except asphalt roads and parking lots, cars driving the circumference of the place – how dismal could they make a
place? To me it would feel more like prison than home.
All of this came very close to being approved by the city council May 7. In the midst of a public hearing, suddenly the city
attorney and city manager had a confab, and pulled the item from the agenda. The city’s not being fully open about why,
but it seems to have something to do with yet another staff screwup concerning a letter from an attorney threatening a
lawsuit if the strip mall is approved, and that letter’s improper handling and distribution by staff. The project’s not dead,
just postponed.
This is what SLO Progressiveville has become – a place, unlike Buettner’s happiest place – that puts monetary values
ahead of quality of life. If Buettner were to write an update he might explain the fall this way: “The town’s focus shifted
away from maintaining quality of life to optimizing the business environment.”
Cry for San Luis Obispo.
-------------------
Please see the attached note
Richard Schmidt
5
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
reducing auto emissions.1
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