Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Behavioral Health topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

County to retrofit former medical building in Paso Robles for 26 behavioral‑health beds under $21.6 million state award

El Paso de Robles City Council · February 4, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

San Luis Obispo County told the Paso Robles City Council it has a conditional $21.6 million state award to acquire and retrofit 416 Spring Street for psychiatric and crisis residential care, adding about 26 beds and aiming to open in 2028–29; operations would be funded by Medi‑Cal, county officials said.

San Luis Obispo County officials told the El Paso de Robles City Council on Feb. 3 that the county has been conditionally awarded $21,600,000 in state Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program funds to acquire and retrofit a medical building at 416 Spring Street for psychiatric and crisis residential care. County staff said the project would add roughly 26 beds countywide — including a 16‑bed psychiatric health facility (adult and youth units) and additional crisis residential treatment beds on a second floor — and that ongoing operations are expected to be funded through Medi‑Cal.

Nicholas Drews, the county presenter, said the site is an existing three‑story medical facility on the county health campus, which reduces construction needs and should allow the county to bring beds to North County faster than building a new facility. "This turns out to be one of the best locations that we could have possibly hoped for," he said.

The county reported the conditional state award covers acquisition and retrofit costs; Drews said a small local match (about 10%) will use opioid‑settlement and Mental Health Services Act funds rather than local general‑fund dollars. He told the council the county approved moving forward with acquisition in a unanimous 5‑0 board vote on Jan. 27 and that the county expects the facility to be ready to receive patients in 2028–2029, with a state drop‑dead deadline of June 30 for meeting program requirements.

Council members pressed county staff on referral processes and whether North County residents would receive priority for beds. Drews said referrals for this level of care typically come through hospitals or law enforcement when a patient is placed on a 72‑hour psychiatric hold; the county's stated goal is to keep county residents local so fewer patients must be transferred out of the county. "The goal is to eliminate any sending out of county," he said.

Public response at the meeting was mixed. Supporters included a representative of a local mental‑health nonprofit who emphasized the need for pediatric beds and family access; a resident described traveling hours to find a youth psychiatric bed. Other residents expressed concern about the Spring Street location, arguing the corridor functions as an entrance to the city and asking whether the public would have sufficient opportunity for input. One commenter calculated an approximate per‑bed cost of about $807,000 and said that figure felt high; the county reiterated that the site is an existing medical building and said substantial exterior changes are not expected.

County staff said the facility is intended to improve continuity of care, reduce out‑of‑county placements and shorten emergency‑department stays by providing a local 72‑hour stabilization option and longer residential step‑down treatment where medically appropriate. Drews also described plans for case management and post‑discharge connections to housing partners such as CAPSLO and ECHO.

Next steps, according to county staff, include finalizing qualifications for design and construction work, completing acquisition, and returning to city staff and the public with implementation details; the county said it will coordinate with the city on a "good neighbor" approach and ongoing outreach.

The county presentation and public Q&A were informational; council members did not take a city policy vote on the project at that meeting.