HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-15-2016 Item 12, HernandezMUNCIL
-r. 11-r - IG
ITEM NO,: � �
From: lanny < R CEIVED
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 5:20 PM
To: E-mail Council Website NOV 14 2016
Cc: Cohen, Rachel
Subject: Appeal of Sunny Acres Building Approval ? dI�-YRK
Attachments: Sunny Acres Building Appeal Documentation.pdf, SLO Center for the Arts.pdf
Attached is additional documentation for the appeal.
Lanny Hernandez
r�rr:L• I ING: it-IT-116 Kt;LCIVED
ITEM NO.:— I –
LSLONOV 14 2016
6Dear City Council Members. rl C�ERP1(
We are sure that you are wondering what is the purpose of this appeal. This appeal is about competing
visions for the property up the hillside east of the old General Hospital where the Sunny Acres historical
building is located. Some might say it is about a lack of current vision for the property.
Visions
Transitions – Mental Health Association (TMHA) has a vision of rehabbing the historical building and
adding three contemporary buildings on 1.3 acres as part of an ad hoc plan for a portion of an
approximate 30 acres of open space currently used for animal walking, outdoor nature loving,
exercising, walking, running, a natural habitat and other community activities. This vision is a project to
provide residence to benefit 34 recovering mental health patients.
We, members of the adjoining neighborhood, have a broader vision :
1) of providing activities that benefit all segments of the community –seniors, families, students,
etc. – with continued focus on promoting the existing open space activities,
2) of providing enhanced cultural and artist creative support for the many segments of the arts
through the rehabilitation of the Sunny Acres historical building and
3) of providing housing for at least 34 recovering mental health patients of TMHA in an alternative
location.
We have a vision that is consistent with the current use of the property and with the current open space
designation of much of the surrounding area. We have a vision that will provide a benefit to hundreds,
if not thousands, of residents of the county, of residents of the city and to visitors to the area.
Our appeal is to the City Council since no other city body has responsibility for promoting a vision as well
evaluating the big picture issues. Each of the previous reviews (CRC, ARC) of the proposed Bishop Street
Studios only dealt with the details of the project, not the scope of the benefit to the community or the
vision for the property.
At this point in time we are not concerned about what kind of windows should be used for
rehabilitation, whether the new buildings should be stucco or brick or whether a particular tree should
be removed. Yes, these are important details but not the critical issues of 1) what is the appropriate use
of the property, 2) whether the safety of the neighborhood will be insured, 3) whether the institutional
management of the proposed project makes sense, 4) whether the financial cost is appropriate for an
organization basically funded by public tax dollars and 5) whether the organizations sponsoring the
project have performed their due diligence.
Timeline
This is not a last minute NIMBY appeal by neighbors adjoining the property. We have been trying to
work with the City, the County and TMHA since the day the property option was awarded by the county
to TMHA in 2014 - ever since the in -closed -session negotiations were revealed to the neighbors and the
public.
You will notice that we did not say that we wanted to eliminate the proposed transitional housing with
another tlsp. WP said wP wanted to find a way to provide transitional housing as well as a better use for
the Sunny Acres historical building and surrounding property. We want to create a win-win situation —
where the community and the neighborhoods win and TMHA clients also win. We strongly support the
mission of TMHA, but feel that TMHA is proposing a bad solution for a good cause — A bad decision for a
good cause.
Whenever we have expressed concerns about the proposed project, we have been chastised by the
TMHA director responding that we don't care about the mentally ill. That we don't understand the
needs of the mentally ill. That is far from the truth. We are trying to find a path that provides the
needed help for TMHA clients, maximizes the benefits from the property and benefits the maximum
number of community members.
We need to ignore the guilt trip imposed by TMHA whenever its project is questioned. No matter how
"good" the objective is, any project must be evaluated by its ability to satisfy a need, the benefit it
provides, its cost and the alternatives available. Remember, a worthy goal does not justify a poor
decision and a poor use of resources.
Back to the time line. Back in April, 2014, we met with the SLO Mayor, the SLO City Director of
Community Development, with the director of TMHA and with the county supervisor to try to gain an
understanding of the project. We found that there was no vision espoused by the county supervisor.
We found that TMHA could not or would not answer our questions about the profile of the proposed
residents, about the number of new buildings, about the cost of the project, etc. We found that the city
did not have a vision and would only address the project when it was actually proposed for approval to
the city. And then, it would be addressed only as an individual project to see if it met the rules and laws
of the building code. So it was left to us, the neighbors, to fill the gap left in the "system" of finding a
vision.
So we began a three prong effort. One, investigate uses for the building and surrounding property that
provided a benefit to the broader spectrum of county residents. Two, try to find alternative locations
that would allow for at least 34 TMHA clients to reside that met the criteria TMHA used for choosing
locations and that were at least financially feasible. Three, investigate the risk to the neighborhood of
the proposed TMHA project.
Before we proceed, you should understand who and what is TMHA. It is a non-profit business that
provides among other things, housing services for the counties of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo. It
is a 11 million dollar business that receives approximately 90% of its funding from tax dollars that are
funneled through these two counties. San Luis Obispo tax payers provide approximately $6-8 million
each year to TMHA.
Let us discuss each of these areas:
Alternative Use
As previously mentioned, we investigated various uses for the historical building and the surrounding
property. We understood from meetings with our county supervisor and our mayor that the property
had been offered to the City who declined, and to the school district who also declined as well as
evaluated for county uses. We certainly applaud those who had pursued the TMHA uses of the building
for their thinking out-of-the-box, but, in our minds, they failed to enlarge the scope of their thinking.
They continued the all too common narrow perspective thinking of only taking care of their own.
The criterion we applied in our thinking was to find a use that was consistent with the current open
space use of the property and surrounding area, that would not need additional buildings, and that
would provide a usefulness and benefit to a large segment of the community.
After investigating an extensive list of potential uses, one of the neighbors wondered about a use that
would be encouraging the field of the arts.
The arts are important to the development and education of students at all levels, to the creativity of a
large segment of our community and to the enjoyment of most of our community. After evaluating the
various art venues, art organizations and genres of artists, we noted that most were generally focused
very narrowly. There really was not a facility, an organization or a group whose purpose was the
development of creativity across all of the areas of art.
Again, one of the neighbors mentioned the Headlands at Marin which uses an old army base just north
of the Golden Gate Bridge as a center for the arts in the bay area. We contacted them and began to
understand their operation, goals and purpose.
That led to interviews and discussions with many of the art organizations in the county to try to
understand unmet needs of the art community. Several unmet needs stood out.
First, there had been very little collaboration between the various artist and art organizations. Only
recently had OperaSLO begun to bring together dance and vocal arts.
Second, facilities for art organizations were limited. Having a facility that could be the home base for
many of these organizations and artists was needed. One facility that could provide shared office space
and other resources would be very useful. Financial resources are limited for each of these
organizations and shared space would provide significant financial efficiencies. Santa Barbara has co -
located several of their art organizations.
Third, while there are performance venues for very large audiences such as the PAC, the Clark Center
and the CPAC, there were a very limited number of venues for smaller audiences of 100 - 300 and very
limited venues for rehearsals and practices for performing artists. As well, there were extremely limited
facilities to provide gallery showings for visual arts.
Fourth, there was no single facility that catered to all of the genre of art. And no facility that helped to
stimulate photography, film and video making, culinary arts, poetry, screen writing and many other art
forms.
Finally, there is no outdoor facility for performances of these smaller audiences.
Based upon these findings, we created the SLO Center for the Arts concept. This is an entity whose
entire purpose was to stimulate individual and collaborative creativity for most of the segments of the
arts community. An entity that would focus upon collaboration, upon education, upon providing space
and facilities, upon providing a common location for the various art organizations and would be an
entity that would relish and cherish the surrounding open space.
You can get a quick explanation of the SLO Center for the Arts concept by viewing the video at
httpas:/Iwww,youtube.com/watch?v=TZbPuXfUCEr, on Facebook at htto:l/facebook.com/sloarts or by
visiting our website at slo-art.com and clicking on the Video tab. More details about the center are
available at the website.
Alternative Locations
While we were helping to define the concept for the SLO Center for the Arts, we did not want to forget
providing a solution for the need TMHA identified and proposed for the site. We tried to understand as
much as possible the rationale for TMHA choosing the site (other than it was perceived to be essentially
free).
We continued to ask TMHA how many people they planned to house on the property. Their option with
the county allows for a maximum of 34 in the project including the construction of three additional
buildings. It took them approximately 18 months to admit they would build out to the maximum.
We have continually asked what will be the criteria applied to the proposed residents and have not
received that information.
We asked to have a neighborhood meeting with TMHA to provide an opportunity for questions and
answers. TMHA would only meet with small groups of neighbors as part of a tour of their Nipomo Street
Apartments. Comparison of visits by neighbors revealed that different neighbors received different
answers to the same questions — how many units, how many residents, what kind of residents, etc.
during their tours.
TMHA claims to have conducted outreach to the neighborhood on several occasions. The first was a
meeting with the Cal Poly Landscape Architecture class project. No questions other than those directed
to landscaping were allowed and the only questions were addressed by the class professor.
The second was when the landscaping class made their project presentations. The only agenda for the
meeting were presentations by the students and the teacher.
The third outreach was a presentation of the initial plans for the studios at the Sunny Acres historical
building site. The only issues addressed were the neighbors reaction to the location of the new
buildings.
In addition to the public meetings, we met with Jill Bolster -White twice to attempt to answer the
unanswered questions about the project. During the last meeting, we asked if TMHA would work with
the neighbors to find an alternative location and to create a cooperative group to pursue a win-win
solution where TMHA would get the desired housing and the community would get the SLO Center for
the Arts. That and subsequent requests were rejected.
Given the lack of responsiveness from TMHA as to the criteria to be used for evaluating alternative
locations, we tried to reverse engineer the criteria that must have been used in choosing the proposed
site including comments made by the TMHA director as to the value of the proposed location.
We came up with the following criteria:
1) close to the County Mental Health Clinic,
2) close to public transportation,
3) close to downtown facilities,
4) close to TMHA Growing Grounds location
5) owned by the county
6) not immediately adjacent to a residential
neighborhood,
7) access to public transportation without
traversing through a residential
neighborhood,
8) not requiring the expensive rehabilitation
of an existing, in disrepair, structure,
9) a reasonable expected building cost, and
10) is larger than the 1.3 acres currently under
option.
Given those criteria, we have found at least one site that is superior in each of the criterion set forth,
and that currently belongs to the County. If the County is persuaded into providing the land at a similar
cost to Transitions as they have for the Sunny Acres location, the alternative location is clearly superior
in each criterion. Even without that assumption, we would argue it is a better site.
That brings up a question as to why the county would give property for this proposed housing. First of
all, they have already essentially given property for the project with the Sunny Acres historical building
site ($1,000 option cost and $100 to exercise the option). Secondly, the county and TMHA have a
codependent relationship since TMHA provides needed services to the county and the county provides
the lion share of TMHA's funding.
This ideal alternative location measures approximately 2 acres and is located directly on the west side of
Johnson Avenue directly across from the old county hospital. It is wedged between Johnson Avenue on
the east, the County Health Department building on the south and the Master Growers demonstration
garden on the west. The attached aerial map shows the location.
Overlaid on the larger image below, to provide visual perspective, is a 41 -unit low income housing
apartment complex that already exists just down the street on Johnson.
Based upon current construction costs of approximately $150 per square foot, a 40 unit complex with
500 square feet per unit would cost about $3,000,000, well less than the estimated $5 million for the
rehab of the Sunny Acres building, which only provides 14 residential units. Compare the 40 unit
alternative to the entire proposed project of an additional 3 buildings creating a total of 34 residential
units for a TMHA reported $8 million.
Financial Efficiency
TMHA seems to be viewing their proposed project from the perspective of whether they can raise
enough money to fund the project on the Sunny Acres property, not what is the most efficient use of
money available. They should be considering how to create the greatest number of residential units for
their clients. They should be considering what is the most efficient way to satisfy the needs of their
clients. If they can raise $5 million for the Sunny Acres project why not take that same amount of
funding and create 50 residential units. If the need is not great enough for 50 transitional mental health
clients, then they can provide housing for other homeless individuals, or find another use for the unused
funding. TMHA has not performed their due diligence with tax payer funded revenue. One might even
question the due diligence of HASLO in working with TMHA.
All of this assumes that TMHA's move from an inclusional housing approach to a more institutional
apartment building approach is the best solution. The inclusional approach is what TMHA has
historically been using heretofore in creating residential housing for their clients. This is the first and by
far the largest apartment style facility that TMHA has independently created for the mentally ill.
Instltutlonal vs. Incluslonal Approach
From what we have learned, of the 250 beds that TMHA manages, those for the mentally ill have been
in integrated inclusional residences, in neighborhood residential areas where a private residence has
been renovated for occupancy by 3 — 4 client patients. A few have been in large facilities like the one for
which TMHA has some management responsibility such as Homebase on G in Lompoc where only an
extremely limited number of the units are for TMHA clients. And, there is at least one facility that
houses a large number of clients patients, but that is a facility for teen agers for whom, it would seem,
creating a large family environment makes sense.
From our reading of various published articles the consensus of the mental health community is that
inclusional housing of recovering clients is very effective and a superior alternative compared to more
institutional and grouped housing.
Common sense dictates the following benefits of the inclusional approach:
• Duplicates a normal neighborhood environment because it is one
• Prepares for unassisted living through experience
• Behavioral limits set by environment
• Normal neighbors provide behavior modeling
Clients become part of a heterogeneous neighborhood and community
• Neighbors tend to provide support for clients
Why is the TMHA proposal based upon a less effective and perhaps contra -effective, more institutional
approach? That is a good question. We tried to guess the possible answers.
One might be a lack of suitable residential properties. However, if we assume 4-5 residents per
property, we would need approximately 8 properties to match the capacity of proposed project. With a
current $8 million projected cost of the Bishop Street Studios, this would allow for purchasing each
property plus improvement of $1 million each.
A current look at the Zillow.com website shows 68 properties available for less than $1 million each and
21 offered for less than $600,000. And that is in the city of San Luis Obispo. There is no reason to
assume that the total number of beds to be provided have to be in SLO. Certainly TMHA should also be
considering providing housing in the neighboring communities.
So from a effectiveness perspective, it appears that TMHA is making a bad decision for a good cause.
Notwithstanding that argument, we have identified at least one alternative site which is consistent with
the proposed project. Given an actual set of criteria from TMHA we are confident we can find additional
locations.
Risks of Proposed Project
While we have presented rational alternatives to the proposed project based upon providing a better
use of the proposed location to the benefit of a greater number of community members and have
provided alternative location approaches that are more financially and recovery effective, there is still
the issue of risk to the existing neighborhoods around the proposed property. Risks that result from the
behavioral backgrounds of the proposed residents. People with mental health illnesses often have
behavioral issues that involve:
• Sexual aggressiveness — Prostitution and sexual abuse
• Alcohol and Drug Addiction — criminal behavior
• Abusive Behavior — physical aggression and destruction of property
• Depression/ Anxiety/ Bipolar -hyperactivity, impulsiveness
• PTSD
• Psychosis, Pyromania
According to the National Alliance on Mental Health, there is a 60-80% treatment success rate for
schizophrenia, depression and bipolar disorder. That seems pretty positive on an individual basis and it
is. However, when you put several recovering patients together in a group, the chances of all of them
having a successful recovery gets slimmer and slimmer. For example, the probability that 10 recovering
individuals each with an 80% success rate will all have a successful treatment is 10%; for 20 it is 1%; and
for 30 individuals to all be successful is a slim 0.1%. While there will only be 34 recovering individuals at
any time residing, the number who will be residing in the proposed project in a single year may be
significantly more as residents move on to their own spaces.
The issue is not whether there will be problematic residents, but how many, how significant will they be
and what will be their impact upon the other residents and the neighborhood?
How much sexual aggressiveness will be exhibited?
How much addiction will be prevalent and what kind of abusive behavior will result?
An interview with a retired mental health worker confirmed these statistics. She reported that in a
similar environment as the proposed project, residents continued to exhibit prostitution, drug use and
other behaviors that she would not want her children exposed to.
Exposure to Neighborhoods
The proposed project property is adjacent to two neighborhoods with young children. One of the
neighborhoods, Fixlini Street has a direct easement footpath from the property between the houses to
the bus stop on Johnson Avenue. It is the most direct and the most downhill path to Johnson Avenue
from the proposed property. Would you want your family, your children or your grandchildren exposed
to that risk?
f
iII&W st�a¢s TONE
t
1 aTLqmk �%
raarr�e
ZW
Wal" Path E
In addition, the property is currently used by the neighborhood south of Bishop Street as a walk thru
between their neighborhood and the high school. This has been a safer path than walking or riding
bicycles on Johnson Avenue to the high school.
We should not force those families to have to decide between the risks of traveling on the heavily
trafficked street or the high risk project.
The property is closely adjacent to a children's Day Care center.
The property is used every day by families walking their animals and exercising. We have counted more
than 50 visits per day with dog walkers.
In our interview with local social workers, it is not uncommon for the proposed residents to have guests
with similar behavioral issues. Studies have shown that 50% of the homeless have mental illnesses. By
definition many of the proposed residents have been homeless. Many of the homeless have created
friendships between themselves. The proposed project is located in the middle of several large open
spaces on the hillside. It is very possible that the area will become a magnet for additional homeless
seeking shelter. The problem potential may have a momentum for many more than the proposed 34
residents.
Other Deficiencies
As mentioned, the location of the proposed project is on a very open spaced hillside. A hillside of dry
grass in the summer and fall. Typically there is a very high risk of a grass fire. Observations made at one
8 unit TMHA facility has revealed that many of the residents smoke outside their units. Not surprising
since addiction is a common behavioral activity of recovering patients. However, such behavior of the
proposed residents and their guests could be very problematic for the hillside. Of course, a recovering
client whose behavior reverts to pyromania would be disastrous.
There currently is no method set up for reporting problems which might occur within the proposed
project. There is no review and no recourse should any of these risks become a reality. Once this
project is approved, TMHA can continue to operate with more of these risks becoming a problem for the
neighborhoods. This is not wise.
Once approved and constructed, TMHA residents can have as many guests as they want. The studios
can be occupied by more than one resident. There are no controls set up to provide a check and
balance that the facility will be limited to 34 residents. As shown above, the more residents, the higher
the risk of problems.
The project claims to have a single resident manager. However, there is no qualification set forth for the
experience, training and education of the resident manager. We performed an analysis of a recent
proposal by TMHA to the county which delineated the experience, certification and education of their
staff. None of the staff had the appropriate experience, certification, training and education that would
be appropriate for a resident manager. Even if they hire someone who would meet the appropriate
qualifications, TMHA does not have the appropriate backup for this new hire.
TMHA points to their involvement of the Homebase on G project in Lompoc. However an analysis of the
project indicates that the project is primarily for low income individuals with a few units reserved for the
recovering mentally ill. TMHA has not shown any experience or competency with a project of this
magnitude.
None of these issues have been addressed in the TMHA plan. The response to the neighborhood
questions have been to trust TMHA because they are experienced. They are the experts. If someone
opposes the project, "they must not care about these homeless, mentally ill recovering individuals".
Conclusion
Council members, we have shown that the current project as proposed by TMHA, while worthy in its
goals, is flawed in several ways. Another case of a bad decision for a good cause.
The city council has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the members of the SLO Community, to provide
for the wellbeing of the community members, to represent the views of the majority of the community
and to be consistent with the law. Approving our appeal would be consistent with each of those
responsibilities. Not doing so would put the city and the council at risk of violating the Americans with
Disability Act (ADA) and the supreme court decision of Olmstead v. L.C. of 1999 and would continue to
support bad decisions for a good cause.
We ask the city council to reject the project as proposed and send it back to TMHA with the stipulation
that alternative locations be explored and justified from a perspective of 1) financial feasibility, 2)
impact on the neighborhood, 3) safety to the neighborhoods and 4) overall value to the community.
That TMHA work with the neighbors and the community to explore the use of the property in a manner
that is consistent with the current open space nature of the property and consider support for the
development of a SLO Center for the Arts.
That the neighbors work with TMHA and the community to define the criteria for housing for the
recovering mentally ill and to find alternative locations that 1) fulfill the needs of the prospective
residents and 2) that provide a cost efficient solution to the housing needs while considering the
financial resource use efficiency since the majority funding comes from the community and the tax
payers of the county.
Essentially, we are asking for the kind of interchange and analysis that should have been performed
prior to the establishment of the proposed TMHA project. And we are asking for the transparency
which TMHA has resisted and rejected over the last two years as the neighbors have attempted to work
with them to find a win-win solution that 1) meets the needs of TMHA clients, 2) provides safety to the
neighborhood and 3) finds a use for the historical building and the surrounding property that provides a
benefit to the broadest spectrum of the community.
--end--
Confidential
www.sio-art.com
What is the SLO Center for the Arts (SLOCA)?
The SLOCA is a currently a concept for, as its name implies, a center for the arts in San Luis Obispo. It is
conceived as a physical facility where artists of many different disciplines can create, share, present, teach and
experience their art and the techniques for creating it. It will focus on individual and collaborative creativity. It
is a place where the general public can appreciate the art and the techniques used to create the art. And it is a
place where our young people can not only learn to appreciate the art but also learn how to create it. It will
initially focus on local artists, but will evolve to the addition of an artists -in -resident program so that local artist
can be exposed to influences outside our local area.
Which artist groups will to SLOCA target?
The SLOCA concept is to work with almost all artist disciplines — visual arts, creative arts, literary arts,
performing arts as well as other art forms. The creative process applies to all of these groups. We expect to
work with artist who paint and draw; with artists who perform vocally and with musical instruments and those
who create for those performers; with actors, dancers and choreographers ; with artists who create physical
objects of art including sculpture, clay, glass, metal, wood, cloth and other materials; with writers of books,
plays, poetry and screen plays; with film and still photographers and videographers; with culinary artists as
well as those involved in architecture, gardening and landscape.
What will the physical facility contain?
We plan on remodeling the interior of the Sunny Acres historical building to provide studio space, rehearsal
space, class room space, office space, meeting room space, gallery and presentation space and workshop
Conceptual Working Draft
... .........
Page 1
July 1, 2014, Rev. 10/28/16
Confidential
space. In addition, we see using the open space around the building for outdoor studios, as backgrounds and
set areas for artists and models, and as the location for a small amphitheater for outdoor performances.
Beside physical space what will the center provide?
We expect to provide basic equipment used to create the various forms of art. We will have:
• facilities to conduct performing artists productions — stage, lighting, sound equipment, recording and
editing equipment, etc.
• workshop equipment for wood and metalworking
• basic creative equipment — easels, popery wheels, etc.
■ computers with creative software and business software with internet access
• and more.
Who can use the center's facilities?
We expect that the facilities will be used by several classes of artists. The first group will be sponsoring
organizations. We expect that several organizations tied to the arts - visual arts, performing arts and creative
arts - will be sponsors. These organizations will have discounted access to the spaces based upon their level of
sponsorship.
Second, we expect to have a class of artist who will be selected to be Affiliates Artists. Affiliate Artists will have
access to a studio at a discounted rate for up to a 6 month time period. Affiliate artists will selected from the
San Luis Obispo County and will have access to studios and common areas.
Third, we expect to have a class of artists who will be Member Artists. Member Artists will have access to the
facilities and resources. They will participate in creative activities, in collaborative activities and educational
activities, but not have access to a private studio.
Fourth, we expect that local schools — elementary, high school and colleges — will want to use the facilities with
their students and will want to have access to our artists. We would also expect to conduct a summer program
for students to learn creative techniques and be able to create artworks using the center's facilities.
Fifth, we expect that the facilities may be useful for non -artist groups such as local businesses and families.
We could certainly see how the grounds and facilities might be of interest to them for team building events,
social events and weddings.
Finally, we expect to have Artist In -Residence (AIR). These artists will participate in 4 -week to 10 -week
sessions. In -residence artists will have access to a private studio of 100 — 400 square feet and to the in -door
and outdoor common meeting, office, conversational and rehearsal areas. However, the AIR component of
the center is expected to be a significantly phase in the development of the center.
In addition to those users mentioned above, we expect to draw additional visitors from outside the county.
Studies have shown that visiting tourists who come to the area for its cultural attractiveness spend significantly
more time and money when visiting.
Conceptual Working Draft Page 2 July 1, 2014, Rev. 10/28/16
Confidential
How about residences for visiting artists?
We would also like to provide residential space, but see that as a second phase of the development of the
Center. Ideally we would like to build a few bungalows for building and grounds caretakers and for the artists -
in -residence. However, we envision these bungalows to not reside next to the main building. We want to
maintain an image of open space immediately around the building. Ideally these bungalows would reside on
the western edge of the county property so that they will not detract from the historical building. An
alternative would be start off with only a few residents inside the main building while still maintaining a
primary focus on art creation inside the building along with mingling, sharing and educational activities.
How would the Center be managed?
We see the creation of a non-profit organization to manage the facility. It is also possible that an existing
organization in the area could perform that role. Our desire is for the facility to be self -sustainable. We still
need to work out the financial model for the Center. We would expect that the initial cost of the rehab of the
building would be funded through a combination of grants and donations.
Is this duplicating what already exists?
As we understand the situation, there is no current facility whose primary purpose is to stimulate and cultivate
the collaborative creative process across the breadth of arts forms. There is no facility that provides meeting
and office space for our wonderful arts institutions and organizations.
We have a great set of performing art centers including the PAC at Cal Poly, the CPAC at Cuesta and the Clark
Center, but they each have a significant size of audience threshold. The SLOCA would be able to address
performances and groups that fall below their thresholds.
There are several galleries including the wonderful Museum of Art, but no facility that primarily works to
stimulate the creative process of visual arts. Art After Dark and the Artist Tours come closest, but even Arts
Obispo does not have a facility. We have an International Film Festival, but it is primarily limited to one
occasion a year. In the past there has been a writers conference/workshop, but that can be expanded. And so
on.
We have shared this concept with many of the existing art organizations in the city and county and received
positive reactions to the concept.
We would expect the SLOCA to partner and support each of these existing efforts.
Where would the Center be located?
That is a great question. As a starting point we have chosen the property behind the old General Hospital. It is
currently vacant with about 20 acres of mostly open land. It contains a historical building which needs to be
rehabilitated and repurposed. It provides wonderful views and would seem to be a perfect location for a
Center that would be a benefit to the entire community and for which there appears to be no overall vision for
its use.
That site fits the requirements for the center perfectly. It is currently unused. It contains a historical building
that needs to be repurposed and rehabilitated. The rehabilitation process would become the initial project for
Conceptual Working Draft Page 3 July 1, 2014, Rev. 10/28/16
Confidential
the center and its supporting members. Much of the rehabilitation of a similar concept, the Headlands at
Marin, has been performed by the supporting artists and art organizations. The site is adjoining property that
has been zoned as open space. It is located on a hillside which makes an outdoor amphitheater very practical.
It is situated in a location where its public activities will not impact the neighborhoods. The center fits very
well into the open space zoning for the majority of the property. It is public property which most appropriately
should be used to the benefit of the entire community.
However there are issues with that property which would require the support from the County, the City and an
organization that currently has an option on the historical building. We feel that using that site for planning
and conceptualization of the Center makes the most sense since it is quite possible that the land could become
available. We will continue to research other locations for the Center and as an alternative for the
organization that currently holds the option on the building.
What is the next step in moving this concept forward?
Once the plan is complete, we expect to present it to the public to gain support for the concept. We feel that
our current County and City governments, staff and elected, do not understand the potential benefit to the
entire SLO county and city communities. We feel that to convince them we will need a strong outcry from the
residents of our communities.
To date, no one has created a vision for the use of the existing property, only piece meal plans and efforts to
minimize responsibility and liability. The County Board of Supervisors and staff appear to have jumped at
straws that promise to relieve them of their problem child, not to put together a vision that benefits the
breadth of our community. They will need to be awakened to the opportunity.
Who are the targets and stakeholders of the Center and the property vision? And what would motivate
them to join and participate in the concept?
• Artists
o For the visual artists a strong motivator is retail. Secondary would be facilities, then collegiality
and education. For the performing arts rehearsal facilities. All: the ability to meet, create,
share and educate.
10 Art Lovers
o A place for the creative process to be nurtured and flourish. A seed to encourage creative art
when many of our institutions have pulled away from supporting the arts.
• Neighbors
o A vision for a property that has been stagnant for over 40 years. A plan that maintains much
of the open space and maintains the access to that open space by the neighborhood
• Students
o A facility that encourages creative arts, provides programs for learning about the arts and the
creative process. A resource for the budding artist.
• Community
o Avenue that can be enjoyed by the entire community, not just a few privileged.
• Hikers
o Access to a trail head with adequate parking.
Conceptual Working Draft
Page 4 July 1, 2014, Rev. 10/28/16
Confidential
• Nature Lovers
o Access to areas of nature scape and natural open space.
• Dog Owners
o Continued access to the area where they currently walk their dogs.
• County
o Rehabilitation of an abandon building and release of liability that it brings.
• City
o A new area for public use and a potential facility to draw visitors to the area.
What are some concerns about the use of the property for this concept?
There are several areas of concern by the neighborhoods. However, these concerns must be evaluated not
compared to the current status, but to the expected conditions should the Transitions project be
implemented. But that does not mean that the areas of concern should be ignored in the design of the center.
• Brings more cars and uses land for parking and roads at the expense of open space
• Brings more people
• Brings more noise
The plan will be designed to minimize the impact of these issues on the neighborhood.
What kinds of artists would we target?
• drawing
• painting
• sculpture,
• photography,
• film,
• video,
• new media,
• installation,
Literary Arts:
■ fiction and nonfiction writing,
• poetry,
• screen plays,
Perfarming Arts
• dance — performing and creation (choreography)
• music— performing and creation (composition, production and orchestration),
• vocal — performing and creation (song writing and composing)
■ opera
Conceptual Working Draft Page 5 July 1, 2014, Rev. 10/28/16
Confidential
• acting — performing and creation (screen play, director, fashion, sets)
Other:
• art education,
• interdisciplinary,
• social practice,
• architecture,
• landscape,
• design,
• culinary,
• floral,
• and more to be determined
Are you proposing uses for the surrounding property in addition to the 1.3 acres current envisioned by the
county?
Yes, we are looking at a total package forthe unused space behind the old General Hospital. So far, there are
no plans that we have found nor a vision for the use of the property. We are concerned that if it continues to
be viewed piece -meal, we will end up with a mishmash of uses and lose the benefit of a planned vision.
Our overriding perspective is that the property should be viewed as a whole with the primary purpose to
provide a benefit to a broad spectrum of the community. We see the property as a contiguous area that can
be valued by many, not just a few. While the center focuses on the art community, we see its benefit for the
entire community— rich to poor, old to young.
In a similar way, we are looking to add uses to the surrounding property that also provide a broad benefit
target audience. One of the most pressing is the conservation of open space and providing access to it while
not spoiling it. Gardens, landscaping, trails, park -like areas, etc. are the primarily envisioned uses. All of these
fit within the concept of open space.
While the county has already released the 1.3 acres for non-governmental use, how would that work for the
remaining property.
That is a good question. We can understand that the county may not want to provide the entire parcel or
commit to our vision. However, we would ask county do what other agencies in their position have done.
That is to lease the property for a reasonable time period for implementing our vision. The National Parks
Service leases the Headlands Center for the Arts for 20 year periods. That way, if a pressing county need was
identified in the future and the electorate concurred that the new need was a higher priority than the existing
use, the lease would not be renewed.
Previously, you mentioned building bungalows on county property not part of the Sunny Acres option.
Yes, we did. It would be our hope that we could negotiate with the county for the land adjacent to the Sunny
Acres option parcel between the parcel and the adjoining private land to the north and west. If you look at the
Conceptual Working Draft Page 6 July 1, 2014, Rev. 10/28/16
Confidential
map of the entire county property with the Sunny Acres option parcel boundaries shown, you will note that
there is a relatively thin strip of property to the north and to the west with a larger parcel in the corner to the
northwest. If the Transitions project were to proceed, those parcel zoned residential would not be practical
for residential use. Only the corner parcel might be useable, but we cannot image that anyone would develop
that lot given the high density of the Transitions project and the residents status. So we would propose to the
county that those parcels be included in the Sunny Acres option.
What about parking?
Yes, parking is an issue since we do not want to create significant additional parking spaces on the surrounding
property. The general concept of the Center is to maintain as much natural open space as possible. Adding a
significant number of parking spaces adjacent to the building would obviously violate the desire to maintain
open space. Fortunately, there are already more than 450 parking spaces adjoining the general area of the
property. These spaces are primarily used during normal business hours 5 days a week. This would leave
them available for use by Center participants and guests during non -business hours, weekends and holidays.
What would need to be added is some form of transportation from the parking areas to the Center property.
That needs to be worked out, but some combination of the Trolley, shuttle buses, golf carts, etc. will need to
be put in place.
f---
Parking spaces available adjoining the SLOCA property
Conceptual Working Draft Page 7 July 1, 2014, Rev. 10/28/16
Amphorhearre
4
Vegetable gardens
1,�,p4jfdaOr SUjdiOS- and orchard
40 41i
--$Nadve plant
4
-gardons
Trailhioad.
Lizzie and. Sydney
*Won, Street Trails t*
Om '
Can
Reservio) yon
Landscaped and naffiral
areas as sets and subjects
Walking paths- and
for artwork
open areas
Amphorhearre
l: '1 'k -
Sunny Acres Historical Building
•`�ti repurposed with 8ludias. Wwkst'ap,.CJassrooms,
RehearszO an Praciice:Areas. Gallery grid. Kitchen and
Dining, Rcen,. Offices and Office Snace Prescnlatfom Space
anti {I'Ic.Eilrltlli fmin e Ai
'-til a -20
Outdoor
Amphitheater
trk
0IUt11w0r 51.1.19 ZS
x
Y N .
fes. ��'.r,f-?
��-y�5�.�
-.ri. �'
•
•'ki
a •.�
Gardens and Orchards
Confidential
-TIQA U4"
Potential floor plan of the top floor.
Potential floor plan of the bottom floor.
Conceptual Working Draft Page 11 July 1, 2014, Rev. 10/28/16
Confidential
Top Floor with possible use configurations.
i
4
Kitchen and Dining Room.
Conceptual Working Draft Page 12 July 1, 2014, Rev. 10/28/16
Confidential
Potential configuration of the bottom floor.
i
Open, shared office area
Conceptual Working Draft
r -
Page 13
July 1, 2014, Rev. 10/28/16