Board of Adjustment Upholds Conditional Use for McDonald’s Drive-Thru

Today the city’s Board of Adjustment upheld the earlier decision to grant a conditional use permit to allow a drive-thru to McDonald’s on the former Sears site.

I’ve got a lot of things I want to say but I’ve pledged not to use that kind of language here. So, I’ll just say this for now:

With development like this, I have serious reservations about the ability of the City of St. Louis to reach its full potential.

– Steve

Ald. Joe Roddy Latest Target of Recall

In 2005 Ald. Tom Bauer was recalled as his constituents were upset over development deals in the 24th Ward. Recently residents began a recall effort against 15th Ward Alderwoman Jennifer Florida, initially over issues related to the proposed McDonald’s relocation but quickly expanding into other issues. KWMU radio is reporting 17th Ward Alderman Joe Roddy is now being targeted for recall over — development issues. The group is originating out of the Forest Park Southeast neighborhood:

That’s where a group wants Joe Roddy out as 17th ward alderman. They cite Roddy’s support for the sale of a patch of Forest Park to Barnes-Jewish hospital as one reason for the recall effort.

But they also say some residents have been upset for years with his support for Forest West Properties, a company owned by Barnes-Jewish hospital, which owns a number of vacant buildings in the neighborhood.

Forest West Properties is buying large numbers of parcels in Forest Park Southeast and seeking demolition of many existing structures, a good many of which could make excellent rehab candidates.

Unlike Florida, Roddy was challenged in the March 2005 primary election. Roddy received 966 votes (63%) to challenger Rodney Burchfield’s 577 votes (37%).

The piece of Forest Park in question had been a part of the same ward as the main section of Forest Park until the last redistricting (2002) when it became part of Joe Roddy’s ward. I think this plan has been cooking for longer than a year — that it would be easier to argue this section of Forest Park was separate if it was indeed in a separate political ward than the main park.

I fully support the recall effort of Joe Roddy. And I’m guessing a good many people out there are tired with the same old status quo from the likes of Bauer, Florida and Roddy. Who’s next? The list of bad development projects is longer than the list of Aldermen…

– Steve

Appeal of McDonald’s Variance to be Decided Today

The McDonald’s relocation on Grand issue will likely be decided by the Board of Adjustment today. I’ve written so much about this issue to date it is hard to continue but I am sure many of you are tired of reading about it. Again, it will soon be over (barring any lawsuit depending upon the Board of Adjustment’s decision).

Here is the short summary to get you caught up if you are just joining us. The McDonald’s located on the corner of Grand & Chippewa (3737 S. Grand) since 1974 is looking to relocate to the other side of Grand on the site of the old Sears store (@ Winnebego, 3708 S. Grand). This places the McDonald’s in a different neighborhood than where it is currently as well as placing it on a corner with a minor residential street rather than being on a major corner.

Today I want to focus on a few points: Issuance of a variance to the zoning code and the design issues involved.

First the idea of a variance.

Prior court cases have determined in zoning matters “the authority to grant a variance should be exercised sparingly and only under exceptional circumstances.” The City of St. Louis acknowledges this from a 1994 court decision:

Authority to grant variance from zoning requirements should be exercised sparingly and in keeping with spirit of zoning plan and public welfare. Arens v. City of St. Louis, 872 S.W. 2d 631 (1994).

You see, the city has no obligation to grant a property owner a variance from the code. A variance is usually granted in the case of a hardship or that without the variance the property would not be able to be used at all. If the Board of Adjustment were to be “in keeping with the spirit of the zoning plan” they’d look at the redevelopment plan for the area which specifically prohibited drive-thru service windows.

A restaurant asking for a variance to the zoning to allow a drive-thru window is not reason enough to grant their request. The courts have agreed.

The zoning administrator failed to exercise good judgment when originally granting the variance. The “substantial and competent” evidence does not support allowing a drive-thru at this location. Numerous people testified that it would harm the “health, safety and welfare” of the public. Furthermore, the zoning administrator, either knowingly or carelessly, characterized letters from Mayor Slay, State Sen. Coleman and State Rep. Daus as being in support of the project. This was untrue, their letters were strictly in support of a new project on the current location of the McDonald’s (see post). The zoning administrator ignore the original evidence presented on February 19, 2006.

If the Board of Adjustment upholds the variance this afternoon I believe they will be acting politically rather than rendering a sound judgement based on evidence presented. We can look at the “F” Neighborhood Commercial District zoning (see code) to see what the spirit of the code truly is:

26.40.015 Purpose.

The purpose of the “F” Neighborhood Commercial District is to establish and preserve those commercial and professional facilities that are especially useful in close proximity to residential areas. The district is designed to provide convenient shopping and servicing establishments for persons residing in the immediate neighborhood to satisfy those basic home and personal shopping and service needs which occur frequently and so require retail and service facilities in relative proximity to places of residence, so long as such uses are compatible with and do not detract from adjacent residential uses. (Ord. 62588 § 5 (part), 1992.)
variance

Clearly, this zoning district is not intended to be a regional auto-centric area but instead a draw for the “immediate neighborhood.” Well, the immediate neighborhood, Gravois Park, doesn’t need or desire a drive-thru restaurant.

Before you tell me these people bought next to a commercial district and they should expect this sort of thing please consider the following, the “F” Neighborhood Commercial District permits many uses:

A. Any use permitted in the “E” Multiple-Family Dwelling District;

B. Art galleries and studios;

C. Bakery Shop;

D. Barber and beauty shops;

E. Bed and breakfast guesthouse, subject to the provisions of Chapter (B.B. 355);

F. Bed and breakfast homestay, subject to the provisions of Chapter (B.B. 355);

G. Bed and breakfast inn, subject to the provisions of Chapter (B.B. 355);

H. Bookstores;

I. Butchershops;

J. Computer stores;

K. Drug stores;

L. Dry cleaning stations (not having on-site processing);

M. Financial institutions;

N. Florists;

O. General offices;

P. Grocery and other retail stores;

Q. Hardware stores;

R. Professional offices;

S. Shoe repair shops;

T. Video and record stores;

U. Mixed uses which include any of the permitted residential and commercial uses;

So while it is reasonable for the residents of Gravois Park to expect any or all of the above uses in the commercial zoning area along Grand, you’ll note a restaurant is not one of them. In fact, in the “F” Commercial District opening any restaurant requires a variance. In this case McDonald’s is requesting two variances — a restaurant and a drive-thru service window.

This is not about being next to a commercial district. For example, I’m sure many of the residents would love to see an urban storefront building on the site in question with an art gallery, hardware store, a florist and bakery — all uses that do not require any variance. Furthermore, I believe most would welcome a restaurant of any type so long as it does not have drive-thru service & excessive parking which comes with noise, trash and light pollution (from parking lot lights).

Also of note are the other uses that require a variance in the “F” Neighborhood Commercial District: bars and taverns, liquor stores, parking lots, private clubs or lodges, theaters and gas stations. I guess we are supposed to be thankful a liquor store didn’t want to relocate to the old Sears site.

Variances from zoning are a necessary evil. Sometimes the letter of the code is too restrictive to a property owner and it is reasonable to grand them a variance so as not to create a situation of hardship. The lot in question is roughly 40,000sf (200ft x 200ft) — not granting a variance for a drive-thru window will not render this vacant land unusable.

Proponents of the project; Ald. Jennifer Florida, Pyramid Construction and McDonald’s; have all argued the McDonald’s will close if they are not allowed to relocate from their current site to this site. They say, they cannot possibly reconstruct a McDonald’s on the current site. This is simply untrue, and I’ve proven as much.

If you care to review the various drawings you should probably start with McDonald’s original proposal. Then you can take a look at their revised proposal prepared for today’s hearing. They had indicated at the last year, through Ald. Jennifer Florida, the revised design would comply with what is considered one of the best guides to integrating drive-thru facilities in urban areas, The Toronto Urban Design Guidelines (large file).

Sadly what they have proposed represents only a minor attempt to satisfy concerns about urban design — they basically moved the building close to one of two streets and made a few other improvements. However, this revised design fails miserably compared to the standards. For a point by point analysis of the revised design vs. the Toronto standards click here.

Perhaps you say it can’t be done. Well, a local licensed architect was kind enough to prepare a couple of examples of placing the new standard McDonald’s building on the site in a more urban fashion more closely following the Toronto standards. See Alternate #1 and Alternate #2. Both are similar with parking toward the back while #1 has a second building facing Grand. You may think that is a long way to walk from the parking to the McDonald’s but in reality those arriving by car will most likely use the drive-thru. By eliminating both curb cuts on Grand this leaves on-street parking intact and reduces conflicts with traffic exiting the site as well as Winnebego.

But what about their current site? Again, I believe they can rebuild on the current site. Yes, it will require a retaining wall to create a more level site but I don’t think they can argue financial hardship. Click here to see the standard McDonald’s building sited on their existing location in an urban fashion. This location even permits them the ability to construct the new building while the current restaurant remains open.

And if McDonald’s choses to rebuild on their current site then Pyramid could build senior housing on the old Sears site, see concept.

The Board of Adjustment will once again take up this issue at 1:30pm today in Room 208 of City Hall. I hope they do the right thing and follow the spirit of the code and deny the variance (grant the appeal). They should see the overwhelming public opposition, the substantial evidence questioning the health, safety and welfare of the public as well as numerous alternative solutions.

– Steve

Smith Documentary Receives Award at Silverdocs Festival in D.C.

Last weekend the documentary film, Can Mr. Smith Get to Washington Anymore?, was honored with the Audience award for a Feature at the Silverdocs Film Festival. Here is how the folks at Silverdocs summarized the film in the program:

CAN MR. SMITH GET TO WASHINGTON ANYMORE? / USA (Director: Frank Popper)—The upstart campaign of politically savvy and energetic newcomer Jeff Smith, run by college student volunteers, takes on the Missouri political establishment with moxie, if not money. Special discussion with filmmaker Frank Popper, featured subject Jeff Smith and other subjects including Communications Director Clay Haynes and Campaign Manager Artie Harris, introduced by WAMU’s Kojo Nnamdi. World Premiere.

Congrats to all those involved in making the documentary. I’m certainly looking forward to seeing this award-winning film. For commentary from those who saw the screening click here.

– Steve

Mayor’s Office Issues Memo on Blog Attack

For those of you following along at home my website was attacked on May 15, 2006. For 90 minutes a computer(s) continually requested the main page at a rate of 20 times per second. This nearly shut down the server that houses my website and nearly 50 others. After learning what had happened the next day I did a post about what happened but did not immediately indicate that all evidence available pointed to the City of St. Louis (the IP address was the city’s). Rather than mention that publicly I wanted to give the city a chance to respond.

Through someone with the city I learned their outside consultant was United Forensics with Josh Restivo as the primary contact. I looked them up via Google and called the office. Mr. Restivo said he was aware of the issue but had not yet investigated. A few hours later I got a call back. In my view he was dismissive. Our conversation was brief and no real detail was exchanged either way nor were any requests made on his part or mine. This was roughly May 18, 2006.

In the meantime I sent the log around to a few computer folks I know to see what they had to say about the possibilities. Nothing was conclusive but most agreed it was conceivable the city’s system was capable of such an effort. I did a new post on June 2, 2006 with my findings and noting the evidence pointed to the city. The response from the city? Nothing. And yes, they do read my posts. Recently a staff person with the Mayor’s office introduced himself to me at a meeting, saying he reads my blog daily, it is on his to-do list. Anything from the city? Nothing.

When Jake Wagman of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch called me up and asked for an interview about the McDonald’s issue I agreed to meet. While we were talking he asked about the attack and asked to see any documentation to verify my allegation. I pulled up the very lengthy access log (a 65mb text file) and showed him normal traffic and then the traffic during the attack. A few days later, on June 8th, the story appears with one small bit on the attack:

Last month, his blog was the target of a cyber-attack that slowed the site briefly by overloading it with hits, making 20 requests a second. According to his records, the attack came from a computer within City Hall or another municipal building.

The attack came just as Patterson began writing about the recall, though Florida says she’s not tech-savvy enough to launch such an assault.

“It took me half an hour to find his stupid blog,” Florida said.

I’m not tech savvy enough to accomplish such an attack so I certainly believe that Google-challenged Florida didn’t do it. Should the P-D have talked to someone at City Hall besides Florida about this issue? Probably. But the response is interesting.

The city managed to find my post from six days earlier and began sending out my text with numbered notes. marked as “ITSA Response Document – June 8, 2006. ” Below is my June 2nd post with the city’s notes and in a few cases my response to their response (indicated by my initials SLP):

How Secure is the City’s Computer Network?

Two weeks ago, on Tuesday May 15, 2006, my website was attacked. I did a post the next day but did not share any details on the source. Well, it was from the City of St. Louis. Not within the city limits but from the government of the City of St. Louis.

Response Note 1 – As of today, ITSA has not received any log information from Mr. Patterson or his website host. ITSA network engineers have requested these logs. Those logs certainly could provide our engineers more information on this activity.

SLP – I talked to one person later that week (I was the party initiating the conversation). We spoke briefly earlier in the afternoon and he said he was aware of the issue (I had privately talked to a few people in City Govt.). When he returned my call a few hours later he was dismissive, suggesting they’d have no way of tracking down such an event due to the large volume of traffic. At no point did he offer further assistance nor did he request the detail log.

Response Note 2 – The chart offered shows a volume of ‘5.51GB’ bandwidth utilized from a City of St. Louis IP address, with no time duration. From the chart, one cannot tell if it was over three minutes or three days or three months. ITSA’s total contracted bandwidth from AT&T is under 300MB, 1/18th the size stated on the chart. The City could not throw over 5GB of bandwidth at any server / website anywhere even if ITSA wanted to.

SLP – The amount of time was mentioned in my very next sentence!

Response Note 3 – The chart indicates that the event ended at 3:24PM on Monday, May 15, 2006. In other words, this happened in the middle of a typical business day. No City ITSA customers reported any internal network traffic problems at this time.

Response Note 4 – If all this dedicated bandwidth from a City IP address had occurred from within the ITSA managed WAN, all other services to internal City WAN customers would have failed and such events would have been logged. No such events were reported by any ITSA customers. No logs of service interruption at the indicated time have been recorded.

SLP – I think we need to compare logs. I want to see what their data shows for the same time period.

For about an hour and a half a server(s) asked for my main page at a rate of twenty times per second. At the time I characterized it as a deliberate denial of service attack.

Response Note 5 – Later in this posting, Mr. Patterson does state that fifty other websites are hosted upon this ‘attacked’ server. Without ITSA seeing any network logs or sniffer data, claiming that his site alone was the target of a planned DoS attack is not supported by any of the presented evidence.

I know a bit more now so let me share what I’ve been told. First, depending upon who you talk to you get a different answer — typical with technology issues. The chart at the right shows information on visits to my site all in mostly cryptic IP address. The top one, however, has been confirmed as being from the City of St. Louis. That IP is their standard outgoing IP for 42 various locations. As you can see the numbers are totally off the chart compared to typical traffic coming from many different ISP connections.

Response Note 6 – There is only one way in and out of the ITSA managed City WAN for public internet access by any ‘internal to the City’ ITSA WAN customer. The IP address listed is the blanket ‘public name’ of any ITSA City customer to the outside public internet. This is a common network management practice.

This is the IP address to the outside world presented by ITSA. Spoofing could be one possible explanation for the events described, since ITSA is physically not capable of generating the volume of traffic under discussion.

The city’s private security consultant did not want to characterize this as an attack. In fact, he said they can’t really track anything down because they have so many sites all using the same IP. I’ve been told attackers can sometimes “spoof” where they are coming from by giving a false IP address but apparently the type of tracking report my hosting company uses sees the real IP.

This leaves three scenarios.

Response Note 7 -actually, there are quite a bit more than just three scenarios – including some third party spoofed a City IP address; or that some other web page on the server was the target. What the City firewalls do track, by design, are failed communications attempts, and filtered internet traffic. This is common network engineering practice.

Some have suggested the city’s server just randomly messed up and began hitting a site by mistake, my site. Can you imagine the odds of that?

Response Note 8 – It is clear that the City WAN does not have sufficient data bandwidth to generate a DoS attack on the scale described by Mr. Patterson. If this attack did occur, it could not have come from the City WAN.

Another is that someone from outside the city’s network hacked into their system so they could launch the attack on my site and do it through the city’s system. That would be a scary thought that someone could do such a thing but I’ve been told it is not out of the realm of possibilities.

Response Note 9 – No one ‘hacked into their system’. There is absolutely no evidence that ITSA City WAN resources were compromised. As stated earlier, there is only one public way in and out of the ITSA managed City WAN, and that is fully monitored by two redundant firewalls.

The other, more realistic, conclusion is that someone did make a malicious attempt to knock out my site from within the system of the City of St. Louis. As I stated above, I’m told they have over 42 locations using the same IP address from the firewall.

Response Note 10 – There is absolutely no evidence, log or reported data communications within the City WAN at this time that indicates any support for such a statement. The nature of the IP address as presented to the ‘outside public internet’ was explained previously. Spoofed IP address DoS are unfortunately common occurrences.

Response Note 11 – The City’s network engineers, United Forensics, contacted Mr. Patterson on May 18, offering help, all of our data on the ‘event’, as well as an offer of 24/7 cell phone contact with our team if any future such event should be seen. No mention of this activity or offer of help by the City’s network engineers is mentioned by Mr. Patterson.

SLP – This is just plain BS. I talked with Josh Restivo briefly twice around May 18th and at no point were such offers made. I didn’t mention this in my post because frankly our conversation was a non-event. I felt dismissed. I think had they known the Suburban Journal and Post-Dispatch would cover the issue at a later date they might have been a bit more responsive to me. To date I have received no direct written communication from the city on this matter.

I’ve reported the abuse to SBC (AT&T), the city’s internet provider. I’ve gotten a response only to say they are looking into the issue. I’m not hopeful they will be anymore forthcoming with information than the city’s security consultant was.

Response Note 12 – Not true. United Forensics and the ITSA team has been very ‘above board’ in relating what we know, what we saw, how our network is engineered and managed, how much data bandwidth ITSA WAN capacity has and how it is allocated, and offered 24/7 help. ITSA and United Forensics offered to review the activity logs from his web host to aid in analyzing the event. The City takes this type of activity very seriously, and we stand ready to help in any reasonable fashion, and to review any and all log data.

SLP – Our two phone conversations — my initial call and the return phone call later that day may have totaled 5 minutes. They blew me off in May and ignored my post on the subject from June 2, 2006 (their responses here are to the June 2 post). It took a Post-Dispatch story on June 8 to actually get something of substance. Granted, I did not pursue them for any greater detail.

My site was slowed to the point of nearly being shut down. Sadly, the attack affected about 50 other sites on the same server including all the other blogs on the STL Syndicate and the Arch City Chronicle . The extra 5gb of bandwidth used by this attack does not come free.

Response Note 13 – As shown to date, a web service provider web site server was attacked, which houses by his own admittance fifty other sites. Without supporting log evidence, stating that ‘his web site was the target of a DoS attack’ is a jump to conclusion. The City and ITSA thank Mr. Patterson for bringing this type of activity to light, so that analysis can be performed and the City network security can be reviewed from a different angle.

Someone probably got a pretty good laugh over the whole deal but it shows a level of immaturity and fear that is unacceptable. If you don’t like my views write a well-reasoned opposing view but don’t resort to criminal activity just because you don’t like the message.

Response Note 14 – The total dedicated bandwidth for internal City WAN users to the outside public internet is 16Mb per second, far less than the 5.5GB presented as on the chart. ITSA has more than enough to do in addressing our internal City customer’s needs than to harass one blogsite. Any pre-disposed dedication of any internal ITSA bandwidth of this purported size in the middle of any business day to any an outside public internet address would be reported as service degradation by our customer community.

If that isn’t enough it seems the Mayor’s office felt the need to clarify the issue with the St. Louis Board of Alderman. Mayor Slay’s Chief of Staff, Jeff Rainford, sent out the following memo that same day:

To: St. Louis Board of Aldermen

From: Jeff Rainford

CC; Jim Sondermann, Ken Franklin

Date: June 8, 2006

Re: Post Dispatch Article

Aldermen:

The St. Louis Post Dispatch this morning alleged that someone attacked a blog run by Steve Patterson from a City Hall computer. The Post-Dispatch reporter asked Alderman Jennifer Florida whether she was responsible for the attack. However, the Post-Dispatch did not ask us whether such an attack could have come from a City Computer. Had they asked, they would have learned that it did not, nor could it have come from a computer on the City network.

When I first heard about this, I asked Mike Wise, our director of technology, to investigate. If someone had done something wrong, we would have acted quickly and decisively.

Mike determined it was not logistically nor technologically possible for such an attack to have come from a computer on the City network. I have attached a copy of his response to Mr. Patterson’s allegations for your information.

I want to apologize to Alderman Florida. In my wildest imagination, I did not think the City’s only daily newspaper would make such an outrageous allegation without checking it out. If I had, I would have shared this information with you earlier. Obviously, I was wrong.

If you have any questions about this matter, you may feel free to contact me or Mike Wise.

Jeff Rainford
Chief of Staff.

You can click here to view a copy of the actual memo. I guess on the off chance someone at the Board of Aldermen didn’t know my name they certainly do now, thanks Jeff! But the part I’m stuck on is “outrageous allegation.” Is it really so “outrageous” to think someone within a major U.S. city government would be capable of such an attack? That the city’s network of hundreds, maybe thousands, of computers could accomplish such a feat? It cannot be disputed that my site was attacked and the evidence I posses suggests the city is to blame.

The P-D ran a story the next day, on June 9, 2006, to offer the city’s side on the attack issue. From the article:

The question, though, is whether the IP address was genuine, or a “spoof,” designed to make it look like the attack was coming from within the city.

“If somebody inside my network was responsible, we are going to find out who it was and act accordingly,” said Mike Wise, director of the city’s Information Technology Services Agency.

Wise said he doubts the attack, if that’s what it was, came from a city computer. The amount of bandwidth required for such an offensive would have slowed Internet access all over city government, he said.

“My phone would have been ringing off the hook,” Wise said.

Brian Marston, who provides Web hosting and support for Patterson’s site, disagrees. He says the city does have enough Internet power to enable an attack. He added that spoofing the city’s Web address would be unlikely – those type of maneuvers are typically reserved for major hack jobs.

I’ll let the computer folks among my readership debate the city’s claim of insufficient bandwidth as it is beyond my understanding. Maybe someone out there with more bandwidth than the city managed to attack my site and spoof their location to incriminate the city?

In the meantime I’m going to sit back and continue watching the various political maneuvering as officials come to grips with the fact they no longer control the local media. It is 2006 and the rules of the game are continually in flux as technology advances. Perhaps this whole event will serve as a wake up call to the suits

– Steve