On Thursday, Carson City Supervisors voted to deny three appeals attempting to reverse the Planning Commission’s decision to approve a substance abuse treatment center in North Carson City.
The proposal made it through Planning Commission in October, which will create a 36-bed, 9,200 square foot residential substance use and co-occurring disorder treatment facility at 1625 Vista Lane. Clients will engage in 30-45 day stays which include counseling, detox, group work and more in a closed campus space.
Soon after three appeals were submitted to the city asking the Board of Supervisors to deny the proposed facility, citing the facility should not technically be considered a “congregate care housing” facility, as well as concerns over property values.
The applicant for the property, Vitality Carson City, stated that they already operate a 25-bed residential treatment center on the second floor of the Carson City Health and Human Services Building which has been open since 2012.
The new proposed facility will be constructed near Carson-Tahoe Hospital among other medical facilities and offices.
During any appeals process, supervisors have two options: uphold the Planning Commission’s decision, or find that the Planning Commission erred in some fashion and reverse their decision. They cannot hear any new evidence other than what was presented at the Planning Commission.
Ultimately supervisors voted to reject the appeals and uphold the approval of the Planning Commission.
However, they did add a few provisions to their approval.
The first condition stipulates the project follow approved plans and the project’s “operational representations,” and is requiring the facility to comply with city setback requirements or obtain a variance, as the setback planned does not adhere to city standards.
The facility already proposed an eight-foot opaque fence or wall be constructed on one portion of the facility’s interior courtyard to obstruct views of the neighbors to the south. Supervisors also added a condition that the wall should be screened with “compatible vegetation and natural elements” to be approved of by the city’s community development director.
A major addition is in the type of person allowed to be placed in the facility.
Supervisors stated that the facility will not be allowed to accept any clients in civil protective custody, which is someone who has been placed under the care of the state to protect their health and safety, typically the Carson City Sheriff’s Office.
This was to address concerns that the treatment center could be used for temporary detainees from the Sheriff’s Office who needed to detox but hadn’t necessarily committed any crimes. Limiting this would also limit the number of people who would be “coming and going” outside of the 30-45 typical stays for clients, and would make sure that those clients would be properly screened for prior violent offenses.
The facility also does not take on any clients with a history of violence or sexual criminal charges.
Vitality said they have taken very few CPC stays, and offered it to the Sheriff’s Office during the pandemic when the need was higher. In the past 13 months, they’ve only taken in four CPC individuals.
The first appellant, nearby resident Michael Hartman, claimed the facility would damage property values, and during the meeting he alleged that two of his neighbors had placed their homes on the market due to the facility’s approval.
“The exodus has already begun,” Hartman said.
Frank Gilmore, attorney for the second appellant, a periodontics facility directly adjacent to the property, also said this decision would have an affect on property values due to the fact that “there are certain stigmas, I’m sorry to say,” regarding substance abuse treatment facilities.
He said that nearby business owners and residents have an expectation that the properties would be developed into businesses that better align with the medical park nature of the development.
“Declarations that were created in order to establish this medical park said it will be a medical office,” Gilmore said. “Those declarations were changed in order to put this square peg in a round hole.”
Appellants said the decision would increase crime in the area. However, Carson City Sheriff Ken Furlong said there wasn’t evidence to support that.
After being asked to review four incidents near the current Vitality operation, Furlong wrote in a Nov. 25, 2024 email that none of them had any connection to the operation, and there has never been any significant incidences that he is aware of with Vitality or their patients.
Proposed Location
Public comment mailed in advance of the meeting was split between support for the applicant and the appellants. The most often cited disagreement was property values, and concern of residents of Silver Oak that their home values would decrease if the facility begins operation. They argued this was not the correct location for such a facility.
However, as one public commenter wrote, the medical campus was built before the neighborhood, and always had intentions of providing a variety of medical services in the area.
Michelle Joy, CEO of Carson Tahoe Health, echoed this, stating that Vitality plays an essential role in community healthcare, which results in a benefit for all members of the community, not only the clients it serves.
Joy also wrote that CTH has always had a long-term goal of establishing a “healing hub campus” adjacent to CTH’s Sierra Building, only a block away from the proposed Vitality facility. The healing hub would provide inpatient services to adults and youth for behavioral health treatment, adult substance use beds, crisis stabilization for adults and youth, and outpatient services.
“Currently, Carson Tahoe is already seeing and treating many of the same patients who would benefit from Vitality’s services across from our medical campus,” Joy wrote. “Without the proximity and accessibility of Vitality, these patients often have no appropriate discharge options and end up staying in the Emergency Room (ER) for extended periods.”
This causes problems for the community at large by causing ER overcrowding, longer wait times for all patients, and extended holds for inpatient hospital beds occupied by individuals needing substance abuse treatment.
Joy also said that CTH will soon be reducing ten of their substance use beds to make room for youth experiencing a mental health crisis, which has become an urgent need in the community.
“This makes Vitality’s role in our community even more critical,” Joy wrote.
Many other comments shared this sentiment, stating that the critical need of substance abuse treatment was more important than homeowner’s concerns over property values, especially considering that the facility is located on the medical campus, and separated from the neighborhood by a golf course.
Other commenters took issue with the way those struggling with addiction were being represented.
Serena Dillard, a Behavioral Health Technician with Vitality provided comment that as a healthcare worker and a recovering addict of eight years, she understands the stigma and fear that surrounds addiction.
“The people that come to our program are your neighbors, your moms, dads, sisters, brothers and children,” Dillard wrote. “They are just everyday people who fell to the disease of addiction and alcoholism and believe me when I say, this disease does not discriminate nor does it care who you are or what you have.”
She said some clients were injured in an accident and become addicted to their prescribed pain killers, others couldn’t stop drinking and were charged with a DUI.
“The people that come to our programs aren’t bad people, they are just people who made bad choices … they are eager for change and for a new way of life.”
She said clients are constantly monitored day and night and are never allowed outside of the property without an escort. The facility has operated for over a decade amid the senior center and senior apartments without any issues for those neighbors, who she said often stop to chat with clients during escorted walks.
The term “Congregate Care”
Those against the facility all brought up one thing in common: the fact that the facility was being called a congregate care home which they said does not fit with code or state law.
However, according to Planning Manager Heather Ferris, city code does not specify what types of facilities are considered congregate housing and, more importantly, which are not. It also does not specify what a treatment facility would be defined as.
The description of congregate care is as follows:
“Congregate care housing” means a dwelling providing shelter and services for people, which may include living and sleeping facilities, meals, eating assistance, housekeeping, laundry services, dressing, room cleaning, medication reminders, nursing care, related medical services and personal care. Such facilities may also provide other services, such as counseling and transportation for routine social and medical appointments.
Based on the description and the code, Ferris said, the community development director is provided with the authority to determine what a similar use would be within zoning code. Ferris said other approved projects of a similar nature were established under the congregate care housing definition.
Some residents said that the facility should be designated as a halfway house. However, group homes and halfway houses are considered residential if they serve under seven people; for facilities that serve over seven people, they are considered residential, and would fall under the congregate care designation.
She said since the facility provides meals, sleeping facilities, counseling, transportation and more, it meets the definition of congregate care within the city’s codes.
Board discussions
Supervisor Stacey Giomi also clarified that the congregate care definition comes from the city’s code, not state law, which does make an exception in its definition for treatment facilities. It was also clarified that halfway houses are defined separately within Carson City code.
Mayor Lori Bagwell said that she believes each party involved is telling the truth, and the board has to weigh what the Planning Commission did and ask if they ignored something so vital the board would find they erred in their approval.
“So while we see please from all sides, we see on the Vitality side that people say, ‘You gotta approve it Mayor or Board because we need the service.’ We see on the Silver Oak side, ‘Please don’t approve it because we’re afraid of what’s going to happen to our property values.’ All of those things are true to you. But what we’re going to do is go through the appellant’s items and determine whether or not the Planning Commission erred.”
Bagwell said the emotions being the project are not going to be considered, because that’s not relevant to their decisions.
Supervisor Lisa Schuette said that, based on the information provided to the board, she felt that the findings were appropriate met by the Planning Commission to support their approval.
Supervisor Maurice White agreed, stating: “I do not believe the director nor the Planning Commission abused their discretion in regards to the definition and use of congregate care.”
Giomi agreed and said he believed it was a difficult decision that the director had to make because, “as was stated on the record by both people, it’s definitely not a recovery house. It does not look like a recovery house and ultimately she relied on the definition which is in our code and it feels to me like it’s most appropriately classified there.”
The board unanimously voted after over three hours of presentations and deliberations to uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the Vitality project.
