HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-19-2016 ARC-CHC Correspondence - Item 1 (Righetti)1
Christian, Kevin
From:Ray Righetti <cloud9slo@comcast.net>
Sent:Sunday, September 18, 2016 3:32 PM
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:9/19/16 meeting, 1600 Bishop Street / Architectural & Heritage Review
Attachments:pastedGraphic.pdf
9/18/16
Architectural Review Commission
Cultural Heritage Committee & Architectural Review
1600 Bishop Street
File #
ARCH-3336-2016/EID-3562-2016
Gentlemen;
Before I begin comment on the Cultural Heritage Committee and Architectural Review Commission report I
would like to state that I have no expertise or formal training in the matter of community planning, architectural
review or cultural heritage issues. I do however own property on Skylark Lane that I purchased in 2012. I
purchased this specific property because after an extensive search, I found the nature and character of the
neighborhood to be very consistent with the things that matter most to me.
I found a like-mindedness in pride of property ownership, desire to live in a quiet neighborhood, a
neighborhood that enjoyed some relative isolation from busy traffic, a neighborhood inhabited by neighbors that
are very pro-active in their watchful eye for inappropriate incident that would serve to diminish the quality of
life in the neighborhood. A common interest in living in an area with open space access and the considerable
wildlife that it supports, of which frequent our neighborhood.These values all serve to enhance the feeling of
security, wellbeing, and community that we individually have worked for so many years to be in a position to
enjoy. These values were and are paramount to our individual decisions to locate and live in the Wilding /
Skylark neighborhood.
Shortly after I purchased the property in 2012 I learned that Transitions Mental Health acquired the Sunny
Acres building and property and intended to redevelop the site to provide affordable housing to “transitional”
individuals.
As a resident of this neighborhood, and as one who’s concerns are shared by many of my neighbors, I had
questions, certainly not with the idea of actively planning and providing transitional health care through
community projects, but rather where they are located, who will take up residence in the facilities, and how the
facility is staffed and controlled to ensure the continued safety, security, and minimal impact to the
neighborhoods approximate to such facilities.
Having every confidence that the city and county of San Luis Obispo are mindful and cautious in the matter of
civic planning, and sensitive to the stated needs and wishes of local residents and existing neighborhood culture,
I was shocked to learn of what (can only be classified as a “back-room deal”) took place between Transitions
Meeting: ARC/CHC 09-19-2016
Item: 1
2
and our local city and county government, namely that Ownership of Sunny Acres had ben transferred to
Transitions Mental Health Organization for a token fee, and was absent any meaningful input via public forum.
My faith that the system works fairly and objectively to consider the desires of well established neighborhood
environments was shaken further as I learned how past Transitions board of director member, now a city
council member, was a key figure in pushing the Transitions agenda.
To anyone who was paying attention it was patently clear that for events to unfold such as they had, namely
special interest influence of our local government, absent meaningful community and neighborhood input, an
unalterable course was set in motion resulting in a succession of preordained planning and developing approvals
regardless of neighborhood sentiment. The city and county got rid of their “nuisance building”, and are not to be
deterred from cooperating with Transitions as repayment of the favor, regardless of the impact to local
neighborhoods.
Over the last several years, the unfolding of events strongly supports this claim. The few forums for public
comment that neighbors have been able to engage appear to have been intended to be more therapeutic by
design than a process for genuine consideration of local concerns.
Although the Cultural Heritage Committee and Architectural Review Commission report is impressive in the
scope and detail of technical issues that it addresses, it does this while stepping over neighborhood concerns
regarding the preservation of the neighborhood environment that so many have worked so hard to achieve in
their lifetime and retiring years.
The report:
As a resident of this neighborhood, this report does not do much to assuage my fears that the process will move
forward regardless neighborhood or public outcry. On the contrary, it furthers my concern by presenting the
subject on page 1 only as an “ affordable housing residential care facility”. It is not until the last page, page 129
that a clearer definition of the intended residence is presented:
Although this is not news to those of us who have researched what Transitions mental health care is about, I
view this as a continuation of the intentionally less than transparent manner in which this project has been
thrust upon our community.
The questions I have continue and are numerous, and in some cases probably not within the the purview of this
committee, to which I pose the following question; When will the public forum be available to address and
guarantee mitigation of legitimate neighborhood concerns?
The term “mental illness” is very broad and can define illness that ranges from very slight functional or
behavioral issues, to illnesses that predispose the individual to be injurious to themselves and / or the society
around them. In layman’s terms, what specific types of “mental illness” profiles are determined to be suitable
for the dormitory of 34 units that would allow complete freedom of movement to it’s residency within our
neighborhood.
What assurances do we have that the level of staffing that is proposed will not only serve the needs of the
mentally ill residents, but function to serve and safeguard the surrounding community from inappropriate types
of encroachment (increased noise, traffic, etc.)
As a transitional care facility, assuming that the residents are mentally competent to respond to training and
education, does the facility conduct frequent and ongoing screening of it’s patients to ensure:
3
a) the patients continue to demonstrate a willingness, if not a commitment to meet certain educational and
training objectives aimed at self sufficiency.
b) the patients demonstrate compliance with lifestyle and behavioral standards (abstinence from use of illegal
drugs or other substances that prevent sobriety)
c) the patients work towards accomplishment of non-transitional more permanent community lifestyle.
What, (if any), performance standards must be maintained, and what goals must be demonstrably achieved to
allow long term justification for the operation of this facility, and who monitors / oversees facility performance?
One of the key elements that has allowed this project to move forward is the notion that Sunny Acres has been
identified as having historical significance. Curiously currently this structure is not listed as historical resource.
Proponents can only accurately claim that it has been identified as potentially having historical significance.
Acceptance of this questionable notion is clearly designed by proponents to preempt any plans to demolish the
building. The remaining options: leave it as is which invites incidence of vandalism of which there is clear
history, or redevelop the facility for community use.
My comments regarding the cultural or historical value :
Item 1 ARC/CHC 1-2, Figure 1: Although proponents of this project are claiming that this is an attractive
structure, I personally find it ugly and impersonal, and not out of character for the sad history that it
accumulated over it’s 43 years of internment of foster children and mental patients. Prior to the existence of this
building in 1931 it was open-space. Since this facility was closed in 1974 it has been once again been enjoyed
as open space by the residents. This is a more complete history of the land usage that the 43 year occupancy of
this building. The frequent usage by local residence on a daily basis is easily witnessed by the many local
residence that use it for walks through the hillside and surrounding open space.
Item 2
ARC/CHC1-3 Project Description: As a necessary condition of continuing operation, Transitions
magnanimously guarantees one resident facility staff member to be present 24/7. A staff of one individual will
essentially be charged with the responsibility of overseeing the activities of 34 individuals who are clinically
diagnosed as having mental disorder? How does this staff member of 1 live-in resident at the facility, while
sleeping, remain capable of monitoring in real time the activities of the the 34 residents (and their friends whom
I assume are welcome to visit) with which he is charged oversight? Are there visiting hours, or restrictions on
the hours that visitors are allowed?
Item 3 ARC/CHC1-4, Fig 2
How does a multistory apartment complex of this nature satisfy the zoning requirements of low-density
residential.
Item 4
ARC/CHC1-5, Par 3.1
What absolute guarantee do we have this development will not be followed up with rezoning and expansion that
will further encroach on the neighborhood's which surround it. The plan makes overtures that the open space
will be preserved, but how permanent will this agreement be. Is this only a temporary arrangement subject to
change, currently being floated to make the project more appealing during permitting and approval phases.
Item 5
ARC/CHC1-5 I do not understand how the guidelines for the treatment of historic properties would apply to this
when this facility is currently not listed as an historic resource.
4
Item 6 ARC/CHC paragraph 3.3.1 Scale, citing, detailing and overall character misrepresents the fact that the
massing and scale of these new structures is consistent with the closest neighboring structures. I find little
semblance between the architectural rendering of this site and the neighborhood which I currently live.
Item 7
ARC/CHC 1-9 paragraph 5.0 Water availability. In 2014 City acquired additional annual allocation of 2102
acre feet of water from nearby reservoir. I would advocate that we use this water to satisfy existing water
demands, particularly as climatic change suggests increased drought conditions.
Item 8 ARC/CHC 1-11 section 1 item 1, this section states that “the project will be compatible with site constraints and the scale
and character of the site and the surrounding neighborhood. I disagree.
Item 9 ARC/CHC 1-11 item 7, this paragraph defines the demographic which this facility is intended to serve
and names disabled persons, the elderly, veterans, homeless, or those at risk of becoming homeless, for those
seeking conjugate care. It makes no mention of people who are suffering from mental health issues.
Item 10 ARC/CHC 1 - 25 site elevation rendering. How do these multi apartment multistory structures conform to the
requirements of R1 zoning or be considered to be consistent with existing neighborhood building design?
Item 11 ARC.CHC 1-66 (attachment 4) paragraph 3, 1986 George Rosenberger County Gen. services received a
letter from Sandy Mariam Chairman of the San Luis Obispo cultural heritage committee stating that is the result
of their review "while we are sorry to see the building go we did not find it of enough historical or architectural
character to designated as a priority building to be conserved"
Item 12 ARC.CHC 1-67 (attachment 4) paragraph 1, recounts that the executive committee of the board of
directors of the San Luis Obispo County historical society stated that he did not find the Sunny acres to be a
sufficient historic merit to be designated an historic building and therefore takes no position relative to its
preservation.
Item 13 ARC.CHC 1-67 paragraph 2, 1989 San Luis Obispo fire department requested the county to formally
asked the supervisors to demolish the building.
Item 14 ARC.CHC 1-67 paragraph 4, The report dated February 5, 1919 by Fred H shot and Associates Inc.
civil and structural engineer at the request of County Department of Gen. services stated that the masonry walls
were not reinforced. How does this conform to the structural requirements of the building that is located in
seismic zone D
Item 15 ARC.CHC 1-67 paragraph 7, San Luis Obispo city council agenda report on March 15, 1990 for a
listing of seven historic properties was unanimously recommended by the cultural heritage committee to be
added to the cities master list of historical properties Sunny Acres was on the list but the city Council approved
all properties with the exception of Sunny acres.
Item 16 ARC.CHC 1-68 paragraph 2, On August 13, 1996 Robert Hendricks County administrator wrote to
John done the citied ministry to reiterating the offer the board of supervisors to offer Sunny acres to the city for
a dollar a year and stated that if the city was not interested in leasing the building the county would prepare a
request for proposal for private interests to respond for the property if there was no action within a reasonable
time Hendrix was directed to demolish the facility. There was never a response from the city regarding this
offer.
5
Item 17 ARC.CHC 1-77 Significance criteria and evaluation. This section sites the California environmental
quality act provisions and policies for environmental protection it lists five criterion. The association of this
building to these criterion is weak at best.
Item 18 Recommendations: Based on the stated project description, incompatibility with existing residential
neighborhood, absence of specific management practices that would ensure the continued safety and wellbeing
of the surrounding neighborhood, I would urge the committee consider its secondary recommendation for the
city and county of San Luis Obispo to work closer with the community for an appropriate solution.
Item 19 ARC.CHC 1-74 Conclusion is qualified opinion Stating that Sunny Acres is only potentially
significant.
Item 20 ARC.CHC 1-86 environmental factors potentially affected: this table fails to recognize noise,
population and housing, transportation and traffic is being potentially affected by this development. Really?
“A perfection of means, and a confusion of aims, seems to be our main problem”
- Albert Einstein
Respectfully submitted
Ray Righetti