Santa Cruz County, Neighbors Disagree Over Jurisdiction Issue
By Tom Honig
Supporters of a mental health facility on Estates Drive in Aptos have stepped forward to express their backing of a six-bed residence serving those suffering from mental-health symptoms.
The Times reported in October that neighbors have expressed concern about the facility, saying that its location in a family-oriented neighborhood is inappropriate.
Known as Second Story Peer Respite, it has been operated under funding from a California Health Facilities Financing Authority (CFHHA) grant since 2010 by Encompass Community Services.
Since the publication of the Times report in October, a number of supporters — including some neighbors — have expressed their backing of the facility, essentially saying that the need for such a residence is so great that it should be accepted it into their neighborhood.
Neighbors, however, respond that they understand the need for such a residential program, but that the site’s location in their neighborhood is inappropriate.
One supporter, Elena Broslovsky of Aptos, expressed her opinion in a letter to the Times this way: “Second Story Peer Respite House is Santa Cruz County’s ONLY alternative to inpatient psychiatric hospitalization. It is a successful flagship program, the first entirely peer-run respite house in California. It is a beautiful model in that those who have experienced and recovered from a mental illness are in a unique position to truly help someone who feels their stability slipping.”
She added: “They have created a warm, peaceful, supportive home where clients can go for two weeks to ‘right the ship.’ They can continue to work and go about their lives in all other ways that cause the least amount of interruption and cost the least, far less than hospitalization.”
Neighborhood groups have acknowledged the need, but respond that their neighborhood is a family-oriented one and is not a good fit for such a facility. In some cases, they say, their children don’t feel comfortable going outside.
Says one neighbor, a mother of three: “We have strangers wandering around our block and shooting up heroin, drinking, and urinating on the streets where our children play and walk to and from school every day. The police are here often. It’s a mess and our whole way of life has changed. Our kids cannot even go outside and play without constant supervision. “
The Sheriff’s Office has reported that deputies have responded to the area, but that no serious crimes have been reported.
In a letter to the Times, neighbors Marlene and Robert Coury took issue with one Second Story supporter who had accused neighbors of “having no clue what it means to have a mental illness.”
“This was hurtful, presumptive and totally untrue,” wrote the Courys. “Several of the families in the neighborhood know only too well the effects of mental illness on the individual and their families. Our family is one of those. We are all too aware of the heartbreak and needs of the mentally ill. … Our neighborhood is not objecting to the program. … The neighborhood is objecting to Encompass and Santa Cruz county mental health for the complete lack of honesty, integrity and adherence to laws when placing the Second Story facility in our neighborhood.”
But those who have benefitted from the program describe its value and downplay any risk to those living nearby. “Second Story Peer Respite House was suggested to me as a place with trauma informed care and understanding.”
With the sharp difference in opinions, any final decision on the issue rests directly with the government. And here, too, there’s little agreement.
Neighbors question the legality of Second Story’s use permit, but they face a major challenge from the state of California. Local officials have consistently stated that they don’t have jurisdiction on the matter. Second Story critics have complained often to Santa Cruz County officials, but local officials reply that the matter is out of their hands.
“Operation of the program for six or fewer people at the property is exempt from the county’s zoning code under state law,” said County Supervisor Zach Friend, whose district includes the Second Story site. “Since the Second Story program is authorized and funded by the state and provides 24-hour-a-day care for six people with mental-health disorders in a group home setting, it is a permitted use in all residential zones.”
He added: “Increasingly, the state is taking over jurisdiction for uses like this.”
Even the state Supreme Court has weighed in. The court has stated that state law has “pre-empted” local regulation of mental-health facilities in zones in which hospitals and nursing homes are permitted.
And even federal law may come into play. Under the federal Fair Housing Act and the American Disabilities Act, the county is “obligated” to accommodate persons with disabilities.
This interpretation does not set well with some neighbors. They find it hard to believe that in a county with famously strict zoning standards that the county is powerless to help. Tony Crane, a neighborhood spokesman, speaks of his opposition often during weekly Board of Supervisors’ meetings. He has also raised legal concerns with the County Counsel’s Office. So far, no local government has taken on the challenge of trying to change state law.
Crane doesn’t believe that the state actually is in control. In one of his many letters to the county, Crane says “There is no entity within the state government that is responsible for oversight of mental health programs. This is obviously true for a program like Second Story that is not licensed or certified by the state.” He has directly accused Supervisor Friend of “not doing his job.”
Friend strongly disagrees. In a statement to the Times, the supervisor cites several laws in depth to explain the county’s position: “The operation of peer respite care programs such as Second Story is authorized under Proposition 63 (2004), the Mental Health Services Act.”
He added that Proposition 63 added requirements to establish a program designed to prevent mental illnesses from becoming severe and disabling. The law also requires state Department of Mental Health to contract for the provision of services like Second Story with each county mental health program.
As for the organization that operates Second Story, Encompass Community Services, the commitment remains to continue serving its clients. Monica Martinez, Encompass Community Services CEO, reiterated comments she has made before: “It is not uncommon for mental health programs to have neighborhood concerns that are derived from misconceptions about mental illness. Because of this, we are working with the Board of Supervisors to respond to neighborhood concerns as appropriate.”
Ms. Boslovsky, the Aptos resident who supports the work of Second Story, puts it this way: “I believe that all people can come together in good will and understanding. I know that the staff at Second Story want to live in a safe and supportive neighborhood. I would love to participate in a mutually respectful forum where all concerns can be addressed with good will.”
So far, a resolution seems distant. But discussions certainly will continue.