Interview with Lanny

Lanny:  Before any questions are asked, I want to admit that I completely qualify as a NIMBY.  The county property in question borders my back fence.  And, all things being equal, if you had asked me if I wanted any development on that property, I would have answered NO.  I was completely happy with the open space.  The abandoned building, Sunny Acres, was just fine with me.  It was boarded up and the only issues were with the teenagers who would try to gain entrance and were sometimes successful.  Since it is posted that the building contains asbestos, we would warn the teenagers not to enter and sometime call the police to keep them from putting themselves at risk.  Other than that, the building posed no threat to the neighbors.

Q: Why are you opposing the proposed Transitions Mental Health project?

A: There is a bit of a story behind my position.  First you must understand that the neighborhood has recently completed the opposition of the proposed 88-unit apartment complex just north of our neighborhood.  The school district had proposed this complex on surplus school district property directly adjacent to a residential neighborhood.  They only planned for access (ingress and egress) to be on an existing street that was currently high density at peak hours.

The school district has subsequently dropped the plan but  in the planning process, expended over $500,000 over several years.  Wasted tax payers’ money.

Then, just months after the decision to drop that project, the neighbors find out about another proposed project to the south of the neighborhood.  This project has been negotiated between the SLO County board of supervisors and Transitions Mental Health Associates behind closed doors over the period of several years without any input from the neighborhood.  The neighbors felt attacked again.

Since the only details available were in the form of a newspaper article in the Tribune on April 4, 2014, we lacked details of the proposed project.  However, the salient points of the article were:

• 35 units
• $5 million cost estimate
• Occupants were “people who have a substantial impairment with mental illness”

I subsequently met with Jill Bolster-White, Transitions Executive Director, asking for more details of the project and told her that based upon the information available the neighbors would be opposing the project.  She asked what Transitions could do to mitigate our concerns.  I responded that we needed details of the project so we could then know what specifics to mitigate.  How could we suggest mitigation for details that were not available?

Q:  Why did you get involved?

A:  Since I had been providing an information portal (website) for the opposition to the 88-unit school district proposal, I was asked to provide a similar portal website for the neighbors to centralize information and dialogue about the Sunny Acres proposal.  I agreed to do that even though I was not sure about how I felt about the proposal.

As I began to learn more about the process that led up to the Option agreement, I was concerned about the lack of transparency and information about the plan.  It seems that most if not all the negotiations were held in closed door session between the County and Transitions with some involvement or knowledge from the City.  It does not appear that any of this was not legal, it was apparent that the public and the neighbors were not considered – legal but perhaps not ethical.

Q:  So now we know how this all started, but what are the objections.

A:  The objections vary by neighbor.  Some are concerned about the risk to their family safety of having mentally disturbed patients in close proximity to their homes and children.  Some are concern about the impact upon property values.  Some are concerned that these client residents will be walking directly down their streets to gain access to public transportation.  Some are concerned that adding 35 units with each potentially housing more than one occupant could add 35 – 100 new residents.  Some are concerned that high density housing doesn’t fit the neighborhood.  Some are concerned that once this facility is added, no other use for the remaining property will be practically available. Some are concerned that they will lose the use of the open space which is currently used for walking, animal walking, exercise and nature observing by adults and children as well as a path between the south residents and the high school.

Q:  Why don’t you want to help mentally disturbed people?

A: That is a big jump in logic and a mistaken one.  Just because someone opposes the Transitions proposal does not mean they oppose what Transition does or that they do not want to help mentally disturbed people.  It is kind of funny how all the folks who support the Transition proposal verbally or with support letters and articles assume that those opposing don’t want to help mentally disturbed people.  That is not true.

More than half of Transitions revenue comes from SLO tax payers’ funds though the county.  Each of us pays for that.  You do not see the neighbors picketing the county for those expenditures.

In fact, most if not all of the neighbors have a very positive feeling for the work that Transitions has performed in helping mentally impaired individuals.  They especially applaud the residential inclusion program where a few client residents are housed in neighborhoods, become part of the neighborhood and where resident neighbors provide modeling for appropriate behavior.

I visited the Nipomo Street Transitions facility and was impressed.  It fit the model that has been successful in helping Transitions clients.  I felt positive enough about that facility that I offered to help find similar property for additional sites to duplicate the success of that model.  I personally told Jill Bolster-White that she should be proud of the work that Transition has accomplished.

Some of our neighbors who are opposing the project say they would not object to a project similar to the Nipomo Street installation in their neighborhood.

Q: Then, why are you involved in opposing the Transitions proposal?

A:  I am involved for three reasons.

First, to support the concerns of my neighbors.  They have legitimate concerns and no details have been offered to answer those concerns.  The only responses have been 1) to promote what Transitions has previously accomplished, 2) to reestablish the need for housing and 3) asking the neighbors to  “trust us” to do the right thing with the property.  The neighbors  have, what appear to be, valid concerns about the increased risk to the neighborhood, about the impact upon property values, about the increase in density, about the impact upon the neighborhood culture, about consistency with the current types of buildings and about the growing trend to replace single family neighborhoods with higher density buildings (so called infill).

Second, because the project doesn’t seem to make sense from a business perspective.  According to Jill Bolster-White, “we may only create 13 units” by only rehabilitating the building and not adding any new buildings.  At a cost of $5 million plus expenses for roads and utilities, that translates to almost $400,000 per unit / studio resident.  There are houses in the county that can be purchased for a lot less than $400,000 for a complete lot and house.  Each of those could house several client residents.

Even the Nipomo Street project which is located in the core downtown of SLO only cost $1 – 1.5 million for 8 studio apartments plus community rooms and offices according to Jill Bolster-White.  Three additional sites modeled on Nipomo Street would house 24 (not just 13) units for a cost less than the proposed Sunny Acres project.  The Sunny Acres project just does not seem to make sense economically.  Even if the money doesn’t come from Transitions directly, it still is a poor use of funds.  And there seem to be better uses of that amount of money which would translate into more benefit for more Transitions clients.

Thirdly, I see that the proposed use of the property is a poor use of a wonderful piece of property and the historic building.  The proposed use would provide a benefit to 13 – 35 client residents.  But shouldn’t that property be a benefit for the entire community, not just a few client residents.  There are many pieces of property that would be better suited for Transitions’ housing.  Right across the street from the General Hospital building is a two acre piece of county property that would make a great site for Transitions.

Our alternative approach is to create a vision for the property and the building that would provide a broader benefit to the community.  A benefit to the children of our community, to the artists of our community, to the seniors of our community, to Transitions’ clients and to the entire breadth of the community.

In talking to representatives from the County and the City, there is no explicit vision for the property above the old General Hospital.  Most of it is zoned Open Space which is used to keep the property available for the benefit of all.  Some of it is zoned Low Density Residential with the assumption that family housing might be placed there.  However, the current LUCE (Land Use and Circulation Element) update for the City’s General Plan has part of the land currently zoned as Low Density being upgraded to Medium Density residential.

Still, no one has provided a vision for how the property should be used in the future.  Since no one seems to have the vision, then it is up to the neighborhoods most affected to provide that vision.  And the vision that we have created is designed to benefit the entire community, not just those of us living adjacent to the property.

Q:  Why are you opposing the project now instead of waiting until the details are presented and the project goes to the City for approval?

A:  I mentioned the school district project for 88-unit apartments earlier.  In that project for which the neighborhoods were successful in getting the school district to back off, we waited to make significant opposition until the EIR was completed.  The school district spent over $500,000 over several years in planning that project.  That was $500,000 of tax payers’ money that will not be spent on the education of our children.  That is $500,000 that was wasted except for filling the pockets of a series of consultants.  We don’t want for that to happen with this project.  We care enough about the need that Transitions fulfills that we don’t want a penny wasted that could be used to fulfill their primary mission – helping mentally disturbed people.

Second, we are concerned that if we waited, whoever has been driving this effort so far will have developed momentum with the existing agencies so that no one will question the validity of the project.  That there will have been so much philosophical investment by those involved that no other options will even be considered.

Q:  What concerns you most about how Transitions has reacted?

A:  My first concern is that Transitions appears not to have a plan.  If I were a developer of a similar project, I would have penciled out the costs of purchase, the cost of acquiring funding, the cost of building and rehabilitation, the cost of operations and the on-going costs for the use of the property.  I would know how many units I could build and the costs.  I would have projected the revenue for a variety a use options. And, therefore, would know the feasibility of all of the options.  It appears that Transitions has not done any of this planning.  So I am concerned about the ability of Transitions to make this kind of a project happen.

My second concern is that Transitions could have involved the neighbors in their planning earlier.  The only reason Transitions has made itself available to the neighborhoods now is because we made an issue of their lack of communications on the Dave Congalton radio show.  While Transitions espouses working with the community, they could have informed the neighbors about their plans three years ago when they began negotiating with the County and with the City.  Workshops, community meetings, neighborhood meetings, all could have been used to communicate their plans.

Third, there has been a concerted effort to put down our opposition to the project.  There have been personal phone calls to our neighbors from a well know city official asking for project support.  One person called it, “calling in the favors”.

Fourth, a letter was sent to the neighbors with a series of half truths about the project.  Such a response makes me wonder what else that Transitions is saying is also not true.  And the letter implies that our response is perfectly normal for people who don’t care about the mentally disturbed or who are not intelligent enough to understand a simple option agreement. Communicating a perceived lack of empathy and intelligence in my neighbors does not sit well with me.

Q:  What do you propose instead of the Transitions project?

A:  Our vision is that almost the entire property above the old General Hospital that is not occupied remains open space. That a trail head be developed with a connection to the High School Trail and the Sidney Street Trail.  Since there is already significant parking in the area for existing facilities, it would take pressure off Lizzie Street and Sidney Street parking.

Second that the Sunny Acres Historical Building be rehabilitated into the SLO Center for the Arts.  This facility would provide studio space, classrooms, presentation space, gallery space, kitchen space, dining space and office space for the Center.  The Center would be modeled, as much as possible, from the highly successful Marin Headlands project in the Bay Area.  Rehabilitated, this building would provide approximately 10,000 square feet in two floors.

Third, that the area in front of the building be used as an amphitheater for small performances and lectures for performing arts vocal, musical and performing artists.  This is not a PAC, a CPAC or a Vino Robles, but an area somewhat larger than the amphitheater in the Mission Plaza.

Fourth, that the grounds around the building and the entire property be a combination of natural groundscape and maintained landscape to provide for the current users of the property who walk animals, who exercise and who just enjoy the natural setting.

Fifth, that outdoor studios be provided for painters, artists, photographers, film and video artists, writers, sculptors, etc.  That Gardens be developed to serve as backgrounds and set locations for these artists.

Finally, that facilities be provided to facilitate the creation, education and viewing of all forms of art including painting, drawing, writing, composing, dance, music, vocal, culinary, photography, film and video, gardening, and landscaping.

So that in total, the Center would provide a benefit to the artists, to our children and adults who would use this as a focal point for education in the arts and for all those of us who enjoy art – the creation process as well as the fruits of the process.

Q:  How feasible is it?

A:  A good question. When we discussed the project with a local group coordinating arts in the county, there was extreme excitement that it fulfilled a need that current agencies and facilities do not.  In discussion with planning consultants about the feasibility of creating funding and a sustainable business model, the response was also positive.  However, as with many visionary projects like the PAC, it will require had work and commitment to overcome the challenges that exist.

Q:  What would be your involvement?

A:  That also is a good question.  I would hope that we can draw upon a cadre of committed people from the arts community, from the City and the County and from potential donors to help design, specify, build and run the Center.  I am willing to continue with my time and effort to support all that needs to be accomplished.

Q:  What needs to happen for this to work?

A:  This will change as we proceed down the path.  But for now we see the following challenges:

• Create a team to manage the various tasks,
• Solicit funding and funding options,
• Convince the County co-dependent Transitions Mental Health Association to assign their option for the property to us,
• Convince the County to accept the assignment and modify the terms of the option to allow for the SLO Center for the Arts,
• Convince the County to let us plan for the entire unoccupied property surrounding the Sunny Acres Historical Building,
• Design the physical aspects of the Center including the refurbishing and rehabilitating of the Sunny Acres Historical Building,
• Get approval from the City to implement the plan and
• Define a sustainable business model for the operation of the Center.

Q:  You mentioned truths and half-truths, what do you mean?

A: See my notes “Truths and Half-Truths”