County response to questions about the history of the project

Following is a response by Linda Van Fleet, Real Property Manager of the County’s General Services Agency, giving a chronological history of County actions:

11-9-2010 — the General Services Agency (GSA) presented to the Board in open session a conceptual plan for the County’s land surrounding Sunny Acres (which has not been further pursued), and we also requested  specific direction from the Board regarding the Sunny Acres building.  We were directed to begin the surplus and sale process for the building for residential use. GSA staff had received two proposals from a private developers, but any sale of the property to an individual would require several steps that are defined by CA State Code, leading ultimately to a public auction to the highest bidder. Since the property is within SLO City’s planning jurisdiction, the first step was to obtain a determination of general plan conformity from the City.

6-8-2011 – SLO City Planning Commission had a split vote (3 to 3) in a determination of general plan conformity for the proposed 1-3 unit residential project in the C/OS-40 zone. The item was referred to the City Council.

8-16-2011 – SLO City Council determined that the sale for a single family residence, not multiple residential units, would conform to the general plan.  Councilman John Ashbaugh commented that he would like to see the building used as a residential care facility for Transitions Mental Health Association (TMHA), which is an allowed use in the C/OS-40 zone, and the Council added wording to the determination to state that a residential care facility would also conform to the General Plan. August 2011- GSA staff was contacted by TMHA, expressing an interest in the building for a residential care facility.  Staff met with TMHA and SLO City staff to discuss the City’s requirements for such a project.

9-20-2011 – TMHA’s general proposal was presented to the Board in closed session. During the following 3 months, TMHA worked on cost estimates and specifics of a proposal.

12-13-2011 – TMHA’s revised proposal was presented to the Board in closed session on 12-13-2011.

12-13-2011 – The Tribune ran an article about the proposal after interviewing TMHA.  Over the following several months, staff worked with TMHA to determine the easements that would be required for access and utilities.

5-25-2012 –  GSA staff submitted a new request for a determination of general plan conformity to SLO City Planning, which required a portion of the project to be in C/OS-40 zone and a portion in R-1 zone.

7-11-2012 –  The SLO City Planning Commission determined that TMHA’s proposal was in conformity with the general plan.  No appeals were filed.

8-21-2012 – A revised proposal from TMHA was presented to the Board in closed session. In the months that followed, GSA staff worked with TMHA attorneys, architect, and surveyor to prepare an Option agreement with proper exhibits for the site and easements.

4-1-2014 – The Board of Supervisors approved Option agreement in open session.  As for public noticing, the land use issues have been within the jurisdiction of the City of San Luis Obispo.

Three public meetings were held by the City as the proposals were reviewed.  The City was required to notify the public of proposed projects for Sunny Acres.  The County’s Option agreement with TMHA was approved in accordance with CA Govt. Code, section 25372, under paragraph 5 requiring the organization to be “a 501(c)(3) that is organized to provide health and human services,” which does not require additional public noticing aside from publication of the agenda item in accordance with the Brown Act.

As for offering the property to other government agencies, the County Office of Education was interested in acquiring the property in 2003, but after working on designs and cost estimates, they found that the earthquake retrofitting costs made the project financially unfeasible.  I understand that the County has also offered the property to SLO City more than once since the building was closed, but the City also declined.  The Board, at one point in the 1980’s, had decided to tear down the building, but City residents campaigned for the County to save it.  It has taken many years for the County to find a way to do so.