County & Residents, Business Owners Clash Over Proposed Expansion of the Ranch House for Mentally Ill
Complaints regarding drug use, lack of oversight, enviro code violations, and hefty price tag plague the County's home for the mentally ill.
The following story summarizes three opinion pieces recently submitted to The Union by Nevada City resident Pauli Halstead (links to original articles here, here, and here). These separate pieces are consolidated below to give context to readers regarding a contentious situation: a proposed expansion of The Ranch House, neighboring The Willo on Hwy 49 and New Town Rd. The Ranch House has housed severely mentally ill patients for over a decade.
While these pieces were originally printed in The Union, their readership is down, and many community members are still unaware of the proposed development. Pauli Halstead has given permission to republish excerpts of her Union submissions.
Neighboring business owners and residents are in an uproar over the proposed expansion of the Ranch. The proposal is before the Nevada County Board of Supervisors meeting tomorrow, Tuesday, January 24, at 1:30 pm at the Rood Center. I will be reporting on the agenda item and its outcome in a later post.
According to Ms. Halstead’s opinion piece;
“During a November 10 Planning Commission meeting, 11 frustrated neighbors and business owners presented their concerns regarding rebuilding the Ranch House and adding three more units.
It was during this Planning Commission Ranch House neighbors clearly expressed that Behavioral Health and the County Board of Supervisors have a duty to protect the public when inserting high-risk clients into neighborhoods.”
Surrounding neighbors, including owners of The Willo and Rainbow Market, and a nearby school, have been complaining to the County of Nevada regarding lack of daily supervision, consistent drug use, scavenging on nearby properties, property code violations, environmental impacts on a nearby wetland where the county-owned solar array has been installed, and unresponsiveness from county Behavior Health officials regarding concerns over the proposal.
Public Records Requests (PRAs) have been submitted to the county about the property code violations by Michael Taylor, a local contractor, but the county has (illegally) denied that request.
Residents and other concerned citizens demand that by budgeting housing programs for high-risk individuals, Behavioral Health must include sufficient on-site support staff.
In addition, many are calling out an exorbitant $4 million price tag for the Ranch House expansion while not budgeting for the necessary on-site support services.
“It's insanity to spend over four million dollars to build new housing for three additional (six total) clients when there are other properties for sale in Nevada City and Grass Valley that potentially could house more.
My public records request revealed the following:
“$2,777,562 BHCIP CCE (Community Care Expansion) award – “do not yet have a grant agreement from the state; award notification previously provided”.
$1,412,136 NPLH (No Place Like Home*) award – “grant agreement previously provided”.
$4,356,352-total grant funds
“The latest construction estimate is as follows”:
$3,493,048 Construction estimate as of 8/2022”
And while the county is spending nearly three-quarters of a million dollars per resident per year at the Ranch House, the Nevada County Code Compliance has been busy adding 12 new individuals to the homeless population by evicting four families of primarily low-income, including single mothers and children from a 5th wheel, (owner occupied), one two-bedroom mobile home and two outbuildings.
Code Compliance is also requiring the property owner who was housing the family, Tanya Scarlett, to destroy the home rather than assisting in meeting her to meet county codes, thereby ensuring housing for four struggling families.
The county gave Ms. Scarlett the choice of evicting her tenants or paying the original $11,000 in fines and an additional $6,000 per month. The county’s HOME (Homeless Outreach & Medical Engagement) team was sent out there and did nothing but tell everyone they could move to Harmony Ridge, which is recreational camping, not a residential mobile home park.
So while forcing housed families into homelessness, county residents are expected to pay the outrageous price tag of the Ranch House expansion, highlighted in another Union opinion piece by Tom Durkin regarding Code Compliance;
“Nevada County Code Compliance is evicting four families-mostly low-income, single mothers and children-from safe housing when there is no housing to go to. Furthermore, Code Compliance requires Tanya Scarlett, the property owner, to destroy the housing, causing her severe financial hardship.”
Again, in the words of Pauli Halstead;
“If the County is so hell-bent on creating brand new housing for Behavioral Health clients, why not throw some resources into assisting these families in Sue Hoek’s district? This would be a more compassionate solution than evicting….
Grant money is not Monopoly money and is not awarded to Nevada County, only to be wasted. Ryan Gruver and Phebe Bell, Director of Behavioral Health, should be managing this grant funding responsibly. The Nevada County Board of Supervisors and CEO, Alison Lehman, also have a fiduciary responsibility to use California taxpayer funds wisely.”
The BOS must deny approval of this boondoggle project and send it back to the drawing board. Housing more than six Behavioral Health clients with this grant funding should be the primary goal.”
The following is an unpublished opinion piece by Pauli Halstead that summarizes a recent meeting with County officials, neighboring residents, and business owners regarding the Ranch House.
A Meeting Gone Awry: No Resolution to the Ranch House Project
The recent meeting with Supervisor Hall and Ranch House neighbors offered no assurance that the project was going to rectify past problems with the site. No one is questioning the need for compassion and caring for our mentally ill community members, but that doesn’t mean throwing neighbors and business owners under the bus in order to achieve those goals. There has to be give and take.
Phebe Bell’s (Director of Behavioral Health) recent article in The Union states, “We are committed to being good neighbors with all of our housing projects, and as such, we have met with local businesses and neighbors, including joining a neighborhood meeting with Supervisor Heidi Hall to answer questions and receive feedback”.
Bell also stated that during the November 10th Planning Commission meeting, the neighbors expressed negative feelings towards people with mental illness.
If you watch the Planning Commission video, the neighbors did not express “negative perceptions of people with mental illness”, they expressed negative feelings regarding the lack of sufficient Behavioral Health support services. They are adamant that if Behavioral Health wants to house mentally ill clients, then it has to provide more intensive supervision or not have the project in their neighborhood.
Referring to the recent meeting which took place with Supervisor Hall, staff, and the neighbors, Ms. Bell describes a commitment to being good neighbors, willing to answer questions and receive feedback, and establishing open lines of communication.
I was at this meeting. From Bell’s description we were not at the same meeting.
Supervisor Hall supposedly invited the neighbors in order to listen to their concerns, but immediately announced she only had an hour. Additionally, without the knowledge of the neighbors, she invited Phebe Bell, Mike Dent, and project engineer, Mike Wood, for yet another presentation of the project, which neighbors had already attended at the November 10th Planning Commission meeting.
Hall began the meeting, saying she was not there to talk about the past, only the present, which immediately set a contentious tone. Arguing ensued, during which she became visibly angry, making it abundantly clear she was not there to listen to concerns and not interested in concessions to the neighbors.
The result? Nothing got accomplished except more bad feelings. It was really astonishing to watch. No wonder there's dwindling respect for the Board of Supervisors and the County in general. The public is fed up with the condescending attitude of our elected officials and department heads and being treated as if they don’t matter. It was a big waste of everyone’s time.
During the meeting, Hall further described herself as an environmental regulator and continued to misinform that the proposed Ranch House building is a single-family residence, thus conforming to the reapproved septic system.
The Geotechnical Engineering Report, by Charles Kull, states:
"Based on conversations with Wallis Design Studio Architects, we understand that the proposed improvements will likely include renovation of the existing single-family residence into an apartment building with six 400 square-foot units."
The existing single-family residence is not being renovated, it's going to the landfill, (as per Wallis Design Studio). A new six-unit apartment building will be constructed in its place. The new building footprint, revealed in the photos of the engineering report, will be placed, nearer to, if not directly on, the sensitive wetlands. Wetlands protection is one of the main concerns of the neighbors opposing the project.
Nevada County Code, Sec. L-VI 3.7: Centralized Wastewater Disposal Application Process lists a number of requirements for a centralized wastewater disposal permit, when constructing a new building of six or more units. Septic systems for single family homes are different from “State Certified” centralized multi-family systems. The County should not be able to circumvent these requirements by stating the building is still a single-family residence.
Further Concerns:
The county is completely ignoring Tom Cobern's December 2015 letter, to the Eden Ranch Homeowners Association which promises, in exchange for granting the 2016 solar field easement that:
*"The existing house will remain"
*"The remaining 6.5 acres will remain undeveloped"
The county should not be able to change what has been agreed to in the past, or cut corners in the construction of the project, or approval of the septic system. Sufficient on-site Behavioral Health support services must be guaranteed. The Ranch House neighbors need to have their concerns addressed and rectified. The County has received the list of neighbor’s requests in the form of a letter. Perhaps a more constructive meeting where the county acts in good faith would be a solution to all of this.
Pauli Halstead
Nevada City