Project Q & A
Fact or Fiction. Some of the information about the proposed project is either not available, unclear, misleading or wrong. This section is an attempt to provide documented answers to the various questions that are being asked. If you have a question not addressed here, please ask us. If you have a documented answer, please tell us.
(Either click on a questions below to see the answer or scroll down to see all the questions and answers)
Why are the neighbors objecting to the proposed Sunny Acres Historical Building project?
There are several answers and it depends upon the neighbor.
- Some are concerned about the risk of having mentally ill patients living within a stone’s throw and walking distance of their homes and children. Walking being a key word since Transitions director Jill Bolster-White stated that a reason for picking this location was that it was located close to downtown SLO so that the patient-residents could walk in to town, could walk to the bus stop and could walk wherever they needed to go. The most likely path to do this walking is through local neighborhoods. While it is most likely that many of the client residents will pose no direct threat to the neighborhoods, the risk of patients not following their prescribe treatments is real, of “falling off the wagon” is real and of exhibiting objectionable behavior is real.
- Some are concerned that there have been no details of exactly what Transitions plans to build and who it will house. The majority of the responses by Transitions has been how successful they have been in fulfilling their mission with their existing projects. However, in terms of residential care housing, the majority of their projects have been housing units where they have purchased an existing property and placed clients into a single residential lot. Most of their projects house 1 – 5 clients. This has been a successful model for Transitions and other similar organizations. This has been successful because it places clients in a normal residential environment. However, the Sunny Acres project, according to the agreement with the county, is expected to consist of four buildings with up to 35 units. That is more like an large apartment complex and more like a institutional facility for mentally ill. Exactly the opposite of the model which has been successful nationally and locally.Transitions says that the lack of details is because they haven’t work out the details. They imply that because they have been successful with their previous projects, we should “just trust them” to do the right thing. Neighbors are hesitant to accept the trust me argument and will be concerned until details are provided. Trusting the County Board of Supervisors has resulted in this current situation with no previous voice in the decisions. Neighbors are afraid that following the ‘trust me” philosophy will continue to produce similar results with a project in which there was not concern for neighborhood impact nor input from the neighborhoods.
- Some are upset that the governmental organizations (County, City, etc.) completely failed to consider the neighbors in their plans, negotiations and agreements. That all the efforts and discussion to put the agreement in place occurred behind closed doors. While this all may have been legal, it certainly is not in the best interests of the constituency of these elected officials.
- Some are upset because only one option was considered by the Board of Supervisors. It appears that there is no “plan” for the use of the property above the old general hospital. It appears that the County, in its efforts to exit from responsibility for the Sunny Acres Historical Building has jumped at the proposal from Transitions to “take the problem building” off of the county’s hands. But in doing so, have not considered what might be a better, more community beneficial solution for the property. The property is located on the hillside above Johnson Avenue. It has spectacular views. It is a great open space with green grasses and plenty of wild life.Currently many people use it for animal walking, for exercising, for just enjoying nature. The number of current users outnumber the initial 13 residents of the historical building. Neighbors feel that if the property is going to be developed, then it should be developed in a way the benefits more than a few client residents as proposed by Transitions. This property should be developed to the benefit of the entire community. It should include the open space that currently exists. The building should be used to its maximum benefit for the entire community. Not just viewed as a problem that needs to be resolved with the first option that presents itself. We expect our County and City to provide creativity and vision for the residents to evaluate, not to just view a situation as a problem that needs to be shuffled off the table to the first alternative available.
- Some neighbors are concerned that the value of their property will be negatively affected. That no matter how safe / unsafe the neighborhood becomes if this project is completed, potential buyers will find the property less desirable and that will decrease the value of their property. I find it hard to imagine that when a potential buyer hears that within walking distance there is a mental health residential facility housing between 13 and 34+ client residents, that the potential buyer will jump at the chance to purchase the home at a premium price. And that consideration will be independent of how nicely landscaped the project becomes. I would not want to be the owner of the 10+ lots for sale at the end of Fixlini. This project will decrease the marketability of those lots. And will negatively impact the City’s goals of increasing residential inventory and meeting housing mandates. Again, common sense must be applied here no matter what Transitions response might be.
How many client residents will there be?
We don’t know for certain. The agreement with the County does not restrict the number of residents, just the number of units allowed. The agreement calls for a maximum of 35 units to be constructed or renovated. They could be mix of studios, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom units. Extrapolating two bedrooms with only one resident per bedroom could yield 70 ish client residents. Even studios could have more than one client resident per studio.
Most recently, in a letter to the neighbors, Jill Bolster-White, stated that there will only be 35 client residents. However, the agreement with the County does not stipulate the number of units per building, the size of each unit or restrict the number of client residents. And for the current and proposed zoning for the property, they are allowed to have “residential care facility – greater than 7 residents” as indicated on Table 9 of the City Zoning Regulations, dated December 2010. So there appears to be no limit based upon the City zoning whether Open Space or Residential.
Doesn’t Transitions already have a 39 unit facility, Homebase on G in Lompoc?
That is a good question. It seems that Transitions is stretching the truth.
According to the letter from Transitions to the neighbors, “TMHA operates a housing program called Homebase in Lompoc, which has 39 studio apartments.” Our questions should be – Is this the same kind of facility with the same expected residents as the Sunny Acres proposed project?
Checking Google for “Homebase Lompoc” results in a link to a page for the Santa Barbara County Housing Authority (HACSB) for “Homebase on G” street. That page states “The need for housing of chronic homeless, mentally disabled, and other low income residents of Lompoc, coupled with the aquistion of a vacant parcel of land by the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara, ultimately culminated in the creation of “Homebase on G”, which consists of 39 units of high quality, small studio apartments.” (note: spelling error for acquisition is theirs not mine).
The important thing to note is that this project appears to be a HACSB project which according to Transitions is “operated” by Transitions. From the description on the website, it appears that Transitions may operates it, but it is not a Transitions project; and that while it may have mentally disabled clients, it does not necessarily have them. It sounds like it could be a totally different kind of a facility than that which is proposed by Transitions.
In a discussion with Jill Bolster-White, she admitted that only a few of the units are reserved for mentally disabled patients. So it is not like the proposed development on the Sunny Acres site.
What are the restrictions on the use of the property according to the County option agreement?
Paragraph 21 of the Option agreement states that the new owner of the property is restricted to: “(a) use the Property as an affordable housing for the mentally disabled population, and related and ancillary uses such as offices for staff and counseling”. However, there is no stipulation as to the minimum number of client residents, which means that Transitions could just use this property for great view office space as long as they have one resident.
Who will be the client residents of the project?
Good question. We don’t know. In the Tribune article published on April 4, 2014, Jill Bolster-White is quoted as saying “Most people we have in our programs are people who have a substantial impairment with mental illness,” On a recent radio talk show, Jill Bolster-White, Transitions Director, said that they may be people with criminal background. But the net is that we do not know and we can only assume the worst since we are not being told who they will be and what will be the criteria for choosing them. Transitions says they screen the client residents, but do not say what the screening process considers.
Will there be live in doctors, nurses, psychological therapists, and medically trained care givers and guardians?
We don’t think so since the Option agreement only calls for a property manager -“The Project shall include an “onsite” property manager. The property manager shall either live on the Property or shall work substantially full time on the Property and, in either case, the property manager shall not be required to remain on the Property at all times.”
Won’t the lack of 24/7 full time care givers be a problem for the safety of the client residents and the neighborhoods?
That is certainly a potential problem and risk creator. But we cannot answer that question without knowledge of the Transitions’ plan.
How big an organization is Transition and do they bring revenue to the City and County?
Transitions Mental Health Associates is very old and respected organization. Last year their revenue was almost 10 million dollars. Most of that revenue came from the county governments of San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara. So their revenue comes from our tax dollars.
Will this be a locked down facility?
No, the purpose of the facility is to allow the client residents to be integrated with the community. For them to be able to walk to public transportation, to walk downtown, to walk to their employment at the Growing Grounds on Orcutt and Johnson and to be and feel independent.
Will the facility be fenced off?
We don’t know as Transitions has not provided details. We do know that according to the Option agreement with the County, they will be fencing off the existing Sunny Acres Historical Building while they are in the 5 year Option term before they actually purchase the building for $100. But we have no information about whether it will be fenced off when it is occupied.
Will the neighborhoods be safe with this facility within walking distance?
That is a good question and one that we cannot answer. Common sense says that there will be an increased risk to the safety of the neighborhoods from the client residents. Whether than translates into an incident per day, per week, per month or whatever, we don’t know. We are investigating statistics from other similar situations.
Why has Transitions chosen to create a larger than typical facility for this location?
Another good question. As we understand, their historical and successful model has been to locate in a residential neighborhood by acquiring or leasing a single family dwelling and placing several client residents in the home. Maybe by adding a 1-4 additional units on the property. This gives the client residents an opportunity to model neighbors behaviors, to create relationships with neighbors and to feel part of a neighborhood. Why they would deviate from this model to a more classic institutional arrangement is a good question. History has shown that larger institutional approaches were more for keeping patients away from “normal” people than integrating them into a community.
Doesn’t the proposed project seem expensive?
Another good question. According to Transitions, they expect to spend more than $5 million dollars to make the existing Sunny Acres Historical Building usable for 13 client residents. That is approximately $1 million for each 3 client residents – more than $380,000 per unit / resident. That seems very expensive to us. I would think that residential property could be purchased in much of the county for a similar amount and provide a complete household.
Some of what you are saying is different from what I was told by Jill / Transitions.
That may be true. We are only calling facts information that has been documented and can be confirmed in writing. We are finding that each person who has had a direct conversation with a Transitions representative reports a slightly different set of facts. It could be that responses to questions are designed to get a positive response or that the facts are in flux. Either way, we feel that we need to deal with documented facts. We have asked for more documented facts from our very first contact with Transitions.
If Transitions is only planning on renovating the Sunny Acres Historical Building and not constructing the additional three buildings, would that make the project more acceptable?
I think that a reduced number of residents, all other things being equal, would reduce the risk to the safety in the neighborhoods. However, without knowing the criteria for choosing client residents and other facts about the project, it is difficult to know if that reduction would make the increased risk acceptable.
However, to be able to make that conclusion, a reasonable person would need some written assurances that the additional buildings which Transitions could build according to the Option from the County are not going to be built. As well, there would need to be some consequences should those written assurances be violated.
But also note that reducing the number of client residents only addresses the risk to the safety of the neighborhood issue. It does not address all the other concerns of the neighborhood.
In the letter to the neighbors, Transitions said that the client residents will be permanent residents and that their experience has shown that 70% of their current residents have been so for four or more years. Doesn’t that answer your concerns?
Actually, no. First, we don’t know that this facility is going to house an exactly representative group of client residents as the existing residents.
And secondly, saying the 70% have stayed 4 years means that 30% of the them have been shorter time residents. If we assume that their reported experience was based upon 100 residents, then 30 units or residential spots have been occupied by clients who stayed a shorter time. If those 30 spots were occupied for an average of one month per client resident each over the four years that Transition is talking about, there would have been 1,440 residents (30 spots times 48 months) who used those 30 spots over the 4 years. Wouldn’t saying that only 70 of 1510 client residents have been there for more than 4 years communicates a very different message.
That is why we need facts, not generalizations. I am not saying that there have been 1,440 residents who been residents compared to the 70 who have been there for four years, but it is easy to make a statement that seems good and then realize that you have been making a poor assumption as to the goodness of the statement.
I was told that the City was planning a 50+ condo unit use for the property, wouldn’t a 14 unit project more acceptable?
Again, show me the facts. First, it is the County that owns the property, not the City. Second, Derek Johnson, Community Development Director for the City, and Jan Marx, Mayor, indicated that there were no plans for the property from the City perspective. The only City effort for the property was that the current LUCE update project did have that area as one of its areas of analysis.
In an email to me from Derek on April 28th, he responded to the following questions (cut and pasted from his email to me):
- Is there a master plan for the area? No
- What is the history of ideas for the property in the past decade or so? In the last 10 years there has a proposal for a community school and single family home.
So, someone is fudging the truth or trying to deceive someone or providing “facts” that are not true.
I think, at this point in our thinking, anything less than an optimal project for the property, that maximizes the benefit to the broadest and deepest parts of the community, would be unacceptable and will face strong objections from the neighborhoods. While we were complacent a month or two ago, now we have awakened and will be a force in the community. Agencies and elected officials that do not consult and take input from the neighborhoods that are affected should beware.
How does the LUCE (Land Use and Circulation Elements) Update figure into all this?
The LUCE update has been in process for a couple of years. It is funded with a grant from the State and must be wrapped up this year in order to complete the grant. It is providing an update to the General Plan for the Land Use and Circulation elements of the General Plan. One of the areas being considered for update is the General Hospital area.
The promoted intent of the two year effort was to bring community input into the Planning process through a series of workshops and including a task force of City and non-city folks to research the needs and thoughts of the community. Several alternative plans were propose for the area. (see the documents section of our website).
Most recently, a final draft was submitted with changes made by the City Council, dated January 28, 2014. Changes were made to the final drafts that seemed somewhat different from the public comment versions. These changes seem to have added a statement specifically referring to the “residential care facility” use of the areas considered for rezoning. We are investigating who and how those changes were generated and included.
While the LUCE effort was positioned for 20 years from now, the City website is www.slo2035.com, the actual date of the change to the General Plan may be much quicker. The next meeting / workshop for the LUCE effort will be May 31, 2014. I will update this section as we find out more about LUCE.
Notwithstanding our lack of knowledge, we should all be participating in this project and providing our input as it could influence our neighborhoods sooner than we think.
What do you think should be done with the property?
If you look at the ad hoc group’s objectives/goals outlined on our website, you will see what we would like to accomplish. Please read the updated goals and the thinking that has evolved to come up with those goals.
A quick summery of the goals is that we would like to replace the Transitions’ proposed development with one that provides a broader benefit to the community and that we would be willing to help Transitions pursue its goals in other locations.
We would like to create an Arts / Creativity Center that would be a benefit to the entire community not just 13 to 35 client residents. The property is used by more people than that every day for dog walking, exercising and enjoying the open space of nature.
An Art / Creativity Center would be used by the various Arts oriented organizations in the county to encourage the creation of the various arts objects/programs by painters, sculptors, photographers, writers, musicians, dancers, actors, vocal performers, composers and the like which would be a benefit to the entire community. The property would have open space for these artists to work and experience as well as for visitors to come and enjoy their work and the open space. We would like to create a plan for the area that maximizes the community benefit and that leverages the unique characteristics of the property.
Could this concept actually bring revenue to the community?
Yes, it could. A similar concept, Marin Headlands, in the Bay area is quite successful. However, the specific answer is that not only would it benefit existing residents, but it could bring in outside tourists much like Mozaic, our Farmers Markets, Concerts in the Plaza and other community cultural programs do.
How could this become a reality?
Ideally, we would work with Transitions after they agree to terminate or assign their option with the County. Together we would develop a plan for the property. Together we would go to the County, the City and other organizations as well as funding sources that would both help with the property development as well as help Transition to continue their successful neighborhood client resident program of acquiring residential lots and making them available to client residents.
Transitions has shown the community that there can be funds available for helping to renovate the Sunny Acres Historical Building. We would like to help Transitions use this knowledge and experience for the benefit of the entire community.
If one of your answers is wrong, will you correct it?
I have attempted to make this a fact based Q & A. You should be able to confirm the truth of my facts from available sources. If you question a source, I would be happy to direct you to my sources. If you have conflicting facts, please send them to me so that I can correct my answers. However, do not send me something like “I was told this.” I would need written documentation that can be confirmed. Click on the Contact menu item to find my email address at the bottom of that page.