Attachment 13 - Correspondence — Santa Rosa City Council, March 24, 2026

From: Jones, Jessica
To: Bisla, Sachnoor
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Re: Propose Skyhawk Sober Living Development Date: Monday, March 2, 2026 4:14:31 PM
Attachments: image001.jpg
Jessica Jones | Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] From: Annamarie Sarto
Sent: Monday, March 2, 2026 3:45 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Propose Skyhawk Sober Living Development In addition, I would hope that all options are being considered. Just a thought, why not upgrading some of the schools who's campuses are being shut down or other buildings with similar situations?
Thank you,
Annamarie Sarto
On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 1:22 PM Annamarie Sarto > wrote:

To whim
it may concern,
I am taking the time to write to you today which is something I don't usually do. I am a die hard supporter of sober living, attend a 12-step program myself and a believer in second chances, etc BUT I am disturbed and against it being in the Skyhawk neighborhood, especially a 24 bed unit.

For me, It's not about "I don't want it in my neighborhood". but about being in close proximity to an elementary school and so far away from medical services. These are two important things that I believe need to be seriously addressed and taken into account when prior to making a decision about what is good or not good for my community.

All the best,

Annamarie Sarto
From: Jones, Jessica
To: Bisla, Sachnoor
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Pura Vida Support - File No: PLN25-0136 Date: Monday, March 2, 2026 11:08:25 AM
Attachments: image001.jpg
image002.jpg

From: Guasco, Cher <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 2, 2026 10:21 AM
To: Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Pura Vida Support - File No: PLN25-0136

All emails are subject to the California Public Records Act and neither the sendor nor any recipients should have any expectation of privacy regarding the contents of such communications.

From: claudia levin >
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2026 2:45 PM
To: Ben Pahlavan
Cc: _CityCouncilListPublic <[email protected]>; Planning Shared <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Pura Vida Support - File No: PLN25-0136

February 27, 2026

Honorable Members of the City Council,

My name is Claudia Levin and I live southwest of Pura Vida Recovery Services located at 5761 Mountain Hawk Dr. As a matter of fact, I live exactly the same distance (.5 miles) as Pura Vida is to Austin Creek Elementary School.

I have never had a problem with Pura Vida residents coming into my neighborhood where many children and teenagers live, and neither have my neighbors. I frequent the businesses at Sky Hawk regularly and you would never even know there was a treatment center there.

If I were the parent of a teenager I would be more concerned that there was a bar in my neighborhood.

However, there have been no problems with that establishment either over the years.

We all know that there is a great need for treatment services in our region. Pura Vida serves patients who have been referred either through their health insurance, or who have independently sought treatment themselves. There are other treatment centers where the residents have been court appointed, do not want to be there, and often quit their treatment. Pura Vida is strictly volunteer enrollment.

There have been no complaints or issues for the existing 6-bed facility in their nearly 3 years in operation.

There will be no physical expansion of the building for the proposed 24 beds. The rooms will merely be remodeled. The residents are supervised 24/7 by 4 to 6 staff members.

There are no outpatient services of medication assisted treatment on site now or in future. The proposed use is consistent with the City of Santa Rosa General Plan and Zoning.

Pura Vida has
an active and good standing operating license
from the California Department of Healthcare Services. There are strict guidelines that they are obligated to adhere to.

Pura Vida will not cause more traffic. There is more traffic on the highway from new developments of apartments both east (near Boyes Hot Springs/Sonoma with people driving into Santa Rosa, and west of Skyhawk near Safeway.

Pura Vida's impact is minimal.

Pura Vida has a great track record in helping people break the cycle of addiction, has demonstrated its ability to operate responsibly as a good neighbor, and has maintained a well- managed facility that complies with applicable standards and expectations.

I support the Council's approving of the proposed expansion at 5761 Mountain Hawk Dr.

Thank you for reading this and for your consideration.

Claudia Levin

Dear Council Members,

My name is DJ Phimister. My wife and I live near the Skyhawk Village Shopping Center. I am a retired police officer. I have previously served as the supervisor for an investigations unit as well as for a narcotics unit. I am opposed to the application for a 24 bed Pura Vita Community Care Rehab Facility in the Skyhawk Village Center for a variety of reasons.

First, it is being proposed for a location for which it wasn’t designed. The shopping center is designed for the benefit of the local community. Emphasis on local. This is supposed to be a community center that focuses on the needs of the local community. The proposed rehab facility does not meet that criteria. They claim they have had clients from the immediate neighborhood in their current six-person facility. Medical confidentiality prevents there being any way to prove that, but if forced to quantify their claim I would bet that 90% or more of their clients come from somewhere else. Since they have stated the majority of their clients come from Kaiser referrals, there is a good probability that they not only don’t come from the neighborhood, they may not even come from Santa Rosa, or even Sonoma County. On it’s surface, my objection sounds like a typical case of NIMBY – Not in My Back Yard fears. It isn’t. I am solidly behind rehab facilities and what they strive to achieve, but in a location appropriate for their use. There are plenty of other locations within Santa Rosa that aren’t located in a neighborhood center. Choosing to ignore the purpose and rules established for this type of neighborhood community center changes the rules for every other existing neighborhood center. You will be establishing a precedent essentially removing the “serve the local neighborhood” provision from the criteria. Once done, anyone can put anything in the centers as the primary purpose will have been removed. Also, once approved for this center, what is there from stopping the owner from opening another 24 bed facility in any of the other small community shopping centers? Nothing, and he will have past precedence to point to supporting his application. I believe the Council has the authority, as well as the obligation, to say no to this proposal. It’s a bad idea and it doesn’t fit the intention of the Neighborhood Community Center.

Based on input from the Planning Commission meeting, I believe many people believe this facility will increase the number of beds available for rehab in Santa Rosa, something that is probably needed. But it won’t, as the owner has already said he intends to shutter his other facilities and incorporate them into this location. He has never run a facility with this many clients at one location before, so essentially it will be a business experiment which primarily benefits the owner financially. At the Planning Commission meeting I believe he stated the facility charges $24,000 per month per client. He will maintain the same income while removing the cost of maintaining at least two additional facilities, while simultaneously reducing staffing needs. Don’t be blind to the owner’s purpose. Allowing this will substantially increase his business’s bottom line. He may very well want to assist those with addiction. But he’s doing it for a profit and will be using the neighborhood as a business experiment, at the potential expense of the neighborhood. This is a rehab facility.

Drug and alcohol rehab have an expected number of failures. Without a doubt, people will fail in this program and will leave. It is upwards of 40% to 50%, depending on if you are talking about alcohol or drug dependency. The owner stated at the planning commission meeting that they can’t, and don’t, stop people from leaving. He said they will offer to call someone to pick them up or offer to call an Uber to take them where they need to go, but if they just want to walk out, they can do that. Which means we’ll have an addict, most likely in need of whatever their drug of choice is, wandering through the neighborhood. It can happen at any time of the day or night. To my knowledge there is no notification system for the neighborhood or contact with the police made. It is a recipe for disaster at almost four times the likelihood of occurring as the current facility. And statistically, it could occur up to 12 times a month.

The owner has stated he has the support of the local businesses. Understandable, since he owns the building, and their rent may very well depend on maintaining a good relationship with him. Him even asking them for their support creates a huge conflict of interest. It appears most everyone is willing to take the owner at his word as far as staffing, supervision, etc. are concerned. He has stated he doesn’t plan on adding an outpatient clinic (read that as a Methadone clinic) to the location but what is there to prevent it? It was in the original proposal and could be submitted for reconsideration the same way as the 24 bed facility is being considered.

I don’t believe the 24 bed facility should be allowed at this location, but if it is approved it needs to be done with enforceable conditions attached. As an example, he has given what will be the minimum number of staff on hand at any given time. Make that minimum a condition of the approval and determine who will enforce or check to see if they are abiding by that condition. If they violate it once, they receive a warning. A second time, they are fined a hefty sum. A third time and their CUP is pulled.

They have stated they will have trained staff on hand. What constitutes training? Based on the statement of a former employee at the Planning Meeting, it was one day on the job and the next night she was on her own with six clients. I received far more training when I worked at Taco Bell with a lot less at stake.

In their initial application there was a smoking area established for the clients who smoke.

That was later dropped because it was too close to the Scenic Highway. Their resolution was to not address it at all, to simply allow them to go wherever they can that will be within already established legal codes. Which would put them in the middle of the parking lot or on the trail behind the business. The trail is currently unlit at night and often the victim of graffiti, or used as a picnic area for others in the shopping center during the day. Without even addressing fire issues, it’s not hard to visualize conflicts which will occur with this practice. Is marijuana considered a drug and completely prohibited by anyone in this program? It seems logical that it would be prohibited, but it is legal in California so is it possible that what someone might be smoking by the creek could be marijuana? This sounds outlandish and petty, but it’s been my experience that addicts tend to push the boundaries so it’s not outlandish that it might occur.

The areas in the hallway/walkways outside the facility should have security cameras installed with a 60-day requirement to maintain the recordings. This will aid law enforcement should any issues arise. I would also recommend the area/room where the medications are stored be covered with a security camera. The facility professes to be a non-medical facility but admits there is medication stored on site for the individual clients.

This is somehow administered to the clients without the staff being the ones who administer it. Covering this area with a camera and the same 60-day recording requirement will help prevent abuse/theft of the medications as well as make a police investigation easier should some abuse occur. All of the above requirements, and probably more, should be part of the conditions of the CUP .

As proposed, allowing this facility will violate two City codes. It is being allowed in a Community Shopping Center, which by definition, does not fit with what the facility will provide. It is also within 1000’ of another facility. Because the other facility is for physically handicapped individuals, not addicts, and the fact that it is across Hwy. 12, it was deemed not to apply. I saw nothing in the provision allowing for such an exception. In addition to overlooking these two issues, the City will be eliminating seven units of affordable housing, as it will now be one facility once the planned remodeling connecting the interior of the apartments is completed. I believe when the 24 bed facility was proposed three years ago that during the Planning meeting discussion it was stated that the apartments would “stay on the books” because they would remain individual apartments with just multiple beds within the bedrooms. I don’t believe this is possible with the proposed plan. It will now be one facility and should have one address. Additionally, should they not convert the individual apartments to one address, then, technically, there would be seven facilities next door to each other, as they are all currently individual residences. As an example, if there were seven houses on a street with a facility in one of them, they would not be able to expand into the other six houses just by building a hallway connecting each of the houses and calling it one residence. The same should apply to apartments. Is the City willing to overlook the established regulations, establish precedent for every other community center and eliminate affordability housing just so one business can increase it’s bottom line at the potential expense of local neighborhoods? The City shouldn’t be willing to make such an accommodation. It is a total rationalization to say the benefits to the community outweigh the risks in this proposal. Again, the City has the authority, and I believe the obligation, to deny this expansion.

Gordan Graham, a world-renowned instructor on risk management has a saying – “Predictable is Preventable.” I’m sure he has probably provided instruction for some of Santa Rosa’s Police and Fire supervisory staff. We should listen to him. We can predict many of the potential problems this facility will create in this location. Not only for the neighborhood, but for the City. This is not a NIMBY situation. The facility should not be allowed here; it establishes a City-wide precedent, doesn’t fit the guidelines of the intended use of the shopping center, and eliminates needed affordable housing. It is not a Community Care Facility dealing with elderly or developmentally disabled clients. It is a drug and alcohol rehab clinic, with notoriously high failure rates and with four times the number of clients than the owner has ever delt with before. There will be problems. But if for some reason it is allowed, clear, enforceable conditions should be established for the protection of the clients in the facility as well as for the community and adjacent businesses. Failure to abide by the conditions should be grounds for revoking their permit.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards,

DJ Phimister

From: Jones, Jessica
To: Bisla, Sachnoor
Cc: Brown, Madeline
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] To the Members of the SR City Council Date: Thursday, February 26, 2026 8:01:30 AM

From: Guasco, Cher <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2026 7:56 AM
To: Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] To the Members of the SR City Council

All emails are subject to the California Public Records Act and neither the sendor nor any recipients should have any expectation of privacy regarding the contents of such communications.

From: David Wargin
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 8:40 PM
To: _CityCouncilListPublic <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] To the Members of the SR City Council

My name is David Wargin and I am writing to you in support of the Pura Vida "expansion" at their treatment facility in Skyhawk Village business park.

The word expansion is in quotes above because although Pura Vida will be adding more residents to their treatment program, I am aware that while they will remodel the building they will not
expand it.

I myself have been clean and sober for continuous 41 years, with 35 of these years as an active member of the AA fellowship here in Santa Rosa. In my time in recovery I have interacted to various degrees with many treatment sites in Santa Rosa, including but limited to Unique Place, Azure Acres, Turning Point, Athena House and Woman's Recovery Services. Of all the rehabilitation facilities in our city (past or present), Pura Vida is in my mind, the most comprehensive and impressive.

I understand that the Skyhawk residents in opposition to Pura Vida are claiming that the nearby Austin Creek elementary school children would somehow be in danger due to the increase in the number of clients in Pura Vida's treatment program. I must wholeheartedly disagree. If a resident were to leave Pura Vida in search of alcohol or drugs
the last place they would go
to is an elementary school. They would instead head in the opposite direction on Hwy 12 towards Downtown or Roseland which is where there would be people who would get them controlled substances. The Skyhawk residents are operating from an unrealistic position of excessive fear.

I myself live at 5376 Sharon Court which is closer to the Pura Vida location than much of the housing in Skyhawk, as well as the Austin Creek school. I have never personally felt any threat from either the Pura Vida facility, or any of its residents.

Faithfully Submitted

David Wargin

2/25/26

From: Planning Shared
To: Bisla, Sachnoor
Subject: Fw: [EXTERNAL] Pura Vida Support - File #: PLN25-0136 Date: Monday, March 2, 2026 3:03:24 PM
From: Elizabeth Harding
Sent: Monday, March 2, 2026 2:37 PM
To: _CityCouncilListPublic <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Pura Vida Support - File #: PLN25-0136

Hello,
I am writing to you to express my support for Pura Vida's project to move forward and for them to be able to add more beds to their residential facility in the Skyhawk community. I am a licensed therapist working in Sonoma County, and the support that Pura Vida offers to people in need here is very important. It would reach even further if they can add more beds, allowing for more support to our community.

Thank you,
Elizabeth Harding
--
Elizabeth Harding, MA, LMFT

Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist #135626
7 4th Street, office #3, Petaluma, CA 94952
(707) 634-4927
* PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL *
This email transmission contains privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. There are limits to confidentiality when using email. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited and may be a violation of law. If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this message to an intended recipient, please delete the email and immediately notify the sender via the email return address. For removal from future emails, please reply “remove.” Thank you.

From: Gary Roper
To: PLANCOM - Planning Commission; Weeks, Karen; CityCouncilListPublic Subject: [EXTERNAL] Support for Pura Vida Expansion
Date: Sunday, March 1, 2026 12:19:00 PM
Dear Chair Weeks and Members of the Planning Commission and City Council, As a resident of the Skyhawk neighborhood, I am writing to express my support for the Pura Vida Recovery Services expansion at 5761 Mountain Hawk Drive. This support is rooted in the facility's proven safety record, having operated for years at its current location without a single documented safety incident or police call.

I believe it is essential to provide these
services in stable residential environments rather than continuing the harmful practice of pushing all unwanted
infrastructure into low-income neighborhoods.

The Neighborhood Commercial zone is intended for professional and community-serving businesses that meet our local needs. Claiming this facility is an "incompatible" institutional use ignores the fact that our city's own rules allow for community care services to operate in these exact areas. These services belong in residential neighborhoods where people can recover in a stable environment, rather than being pushed into isolated industrial zones or lower income neighborhoods with less organized and less vocal opposition.

The use of fire safety as an argument against this expansion is a common tactic intended to stall essential projects by reframing personal objections as urgent public safety crises. In the case of Pura Vida, these concerns are particularly misplaced, as the facility must comply with strict commercial building and fire codes that exceed the safety standards of the surrounding private residences.

The argument regarding limited egress is equally unfounded, as a professionally managed facility with staff trained in emergency protocols offers a far more organized and safer evacuation plan than a standard, unsupervised private residence.

Invoking fire hazards in this context serves only to mask a fundamental opposition to the presence of a recovery center, rather than addressing any legitimate threat to the neighborhood.

It is important to recognize that while some neighbors express fear, the clients at this facility are likely the only individuals in the entire Skyhawk neighborhood whose drug-free status can be confirmed through daily testing. I strongly oppose the characterization of people in recovery as inherently dangerous or harmful to our community, as these individuals are simply seeking health in a supervised setting. While you will likely hear from many residents using emotionally charged language
like "catastrophe" or “danger” to describe this expansion, I want to emphasize that many other Skyhawk residents support this project and recognize its importance for the health of our community. I urge you to uphold the approval of this permit based on the facts and the critical need for these services.

Gary Roper MD
Skyhawk

From: Jones, Jessica
To: Bisla, Sachnoor
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Pura Vida Support File No. PLN25-0136 Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 8:36:58 AM
Attachments: image001.jpg
image002.jpg

From: Guasco, Cher <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 8:35 AM
To: Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Pura Vida Support File No. PLN25-0136

All emails are subject to the California Public Records Act and neither the sendor nor any recipients should have any expectation of privacy regarding the contents of such communications.

From: Katherine Carroll
Sent: Monday, March 2, 2026 9:23 PM
To: _CityCouncilListPublic <[email protected]>
Cc: Planning Shared <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Pura Vida Support File No. PLN25-0136

March 2,2026

Pura Vida Support - File No: PLN25-0136
Honorable Members of the City Council,

I am writing to express my support for the proposed expansion of Pura Vida Recovery Services at 5761 Mountain Hawk Dr. to increase the number of treatment beds within our city.

Treatment beds and community care facilities are an important component of a comprehensive public health and safety strategy. Programs such as Pura Vida Recovery Services contribute to community stability by supporting individuals in recovery, reducing reliance on emergency and social services, and promoting long- term positive outcomes for residents and neighbors.

Pura Vida Recovery Services has demonstrated its ability to operate responsibly and to be a good neighbor, maintaining a well-managed facility and complying with applicable standards and expectations. The proposed expansion would allow the program to address a documented community need while continuing to operate in a manner consistent with the interests of the surrounding area.

For these reasons, as a nurse in this city, I respectfully support approval of the proposed expansion at 5761 Mountain Hawk Dr. - to Pura Vida, the BEST Rehab for 2026 in the North Bay. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully submitted,
Katherine Nadene Carroll,RN

From: Jones, Jessica
To: Bisla, Sachnoor
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Pura Vida Recovery Service / Drug Rehab Facility - Appeal March 24, 2026 Date: Thursday, March 5, 2026 8:43:32 AM
Attachments: image001.jpg
image002.jpg

From: Guasco, Cher <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2026 8:38 AM
To: Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Pura Vida Recovery Service / Drug Rehab Facility - Appeal March 24, 2026

All emails are subject to the California Public Records Act and neither the sendor nor any recipients should have any expectation of privacy regarding the contents of such communications.

From: Kathie
Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 5:33 PM
To: Stapp, Mark <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: _CityCouncilListPublic <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Pura Vida Recovery Service / Drug Rehab Facility - Appeal March 24, 2026

Mayor Stapp, Vice Mayor Okrepkie, and Council Members,
I am writing to you as I am opposed to the request for an increase in client capacity, from 6 to 24, for the Pura Vida Drug Rehab facility located at 5761 Mountain Hawk Drive.

This location and “facility” is clearly not appropriate for a community shopping center primarily visited by local families and children, and friends.

Although rehab for any drug-induced addiction is a good thing to do, proper facilities to prevent additional problems are also a necessity. The proper location for any rehab facility should consider all parameters of their placement choice.

Here are my concerns as a resident of the Skyhawk community.

From what information I have learned, the Skyhawk Village Center was originally created and permitted with restrictions and purpose:
to benefit the community of
the newly built Skyhawk housing neighborhood. The retailers and business providers included in that site were to be specifically for the Skyhawk Community and its surrounding existing neighbors.

That has continued with occasional
businesses changing and have been restricted to follow the previous City designation within the Skyhawk Village Center.

Therefore, there is a specific
conflict with this expansion request and continual restrictions by now allowing a drug addiction rehab business via a for-profit organization that deals solely with drug addiction clients who are not part of the Skyhawk Community. The clients and staff will not be integrating with the residents surrounding this Skyhawk Village Center.

This then does not fulfill any benefit for the local community as originally permitted and required. And, is a conflict of what each homeowner was promised by City ordinance when purchasing their home.

Also, with the City following CA State designations and financial compensation for maintaining and increasing
affordable apartment housing, this conversion of seven
(7) affordable apartments will be removed, only to house 24 revolving clients. This then eliminates seven (7) affordable housing apartments in your total accounting.

Is the City of Santa Rosa obligated to advise the State of California of the elimination of affordable housing, instead of retaining the building’s original purpose as apartments?

If a client fails protocol during the program’s allotted time frame (weeks to months), they can be terminated in the program immediately and asked to leave for the violation. Or, the client can abruptly leave, by choice, sober or under the influence.

We were advised by the owner during the previous Planning Commission meeting, of Pura Vida’s three options for client to abruptly leave the program should this occur, as the clients are not allowed to have a vehicle onsite with them during treatment:

- call a friend or family member for transportation.
- Pura Vida would call a taxi type vehicle.

Should a client choose the taxi type option, there is no certainty that a client, possibly under the influence of an illegal drug, or possibly without available cash, would stay in the vehicle beyond the driveway or even just get out while being driven down Highway 12. It is not unheard of that someone under the influence of drugs will exit a moving vehicle.
- or, they can walk away on foot, no matter the time of day or night.

If the now former client is on foot, day or night time, it will then move into this third potential results of pedestrian travel:
*As the clients are mostly referrals from various medical facilities after qualifying for detox treatment assistance, they will probably be looking for “home territory”, as most likely they not local residents. So, how do they get back to their residence after an abrupt unplanned exit?
- They will need money for any overnight housing, or procure a vehicle for travel .
- Sadly, people under the influence often resort to the easiest ways:
a) burglary to homes or vehicles for needed items,
b) theft of vehicles for transportation,
c) vandalism due to potential altered behaviors under the influence of a drug,
d) trespass on residential property for overnight stay - or - hiding from any follow up by Pura Vida employees or law enforcement if there is some sort of mental health risk.

Sanitation and hygiene may also be an issue if this is the course taken.
e) pedestrian travel if the wayward client has nowhere to go, and now wanders the local residential areas for options that may present to themselves (an unlocked vehicle for shelter is an example).
f) should the former client meet up with a resident at their home, conflict, verbal or physical, is a possibility.

Lastly, consideration should be two-fold. If the clients become a distraction or create a negative environment for the existing businesses and their customers in Skyhawk Village Center, the residents from all neighborhoods that now frequent the Village Center, will cease to frequent the existing businesses.

This may then cause
the businesses to close and/or move to a less complicated and threatening location.

Or, the businesses may have their employees leaving due to any negative interactions with Pura Vida clients. We did not hear that there would be any restrictions on clients interacting with citizen customers, businesses, and employees of businesses, etc.

Additionally, that loss of these businesses and
community participation will certainly diminish all tax dollars previously received, and possibly limit the entire area’s resale of a strong and steady housing area.

Few
people WANT to live next door to those with drug addiction difficult issues…..would you?
Sadly,
the recidivism rate is still so high...some agencies reporting 40-50% relapsing. And, some of the potential clients in this Pura Vida Recovery Service rehab organization may in fact be trying this path again.

I mention all these potential events with a community of those struggling with drug addiction not as a NIMBY, but as someone who has some limited exposure to that behavior’s impact on others.

I had a cousin who struggled his entire early teens and into his adult life with addiction. The havoc he caused in his own neighborhood, and that of all others he wandered through was difficult. The neighbors were always calling his house for someone to come get him or “control him”. He was VERY difficult when he was “using”. After MANY MANY “rehab facilities”, and frequently removed from them, he was eventually deemed a Ward of the State and into a well-respected locked facility near the Mojave Desert, far from his home, transportation or residential neighbors.

However, he was constantly having drugs
taken away from him because of aberrant behavior, aka “high”. Those drugs were brought by friends there to visit, or were often passed to him through the locked fencing outside the SECURED FACILITY.

Pura Vida's facility is in no way as secure as
the one my cousin was in. Especially with the well concealed creek area, picnic table and lawns at the rear and side of the building.

Additionally, I spent 25 years
as a public safety communications employee, taking a plethora of calls involving drug abuse.

Some were minor, and some were fatal, with emotional trauma at every level for all involved. We all read about these sad events in the news every day. When these issues occur in a residential neighborhood, the entire neighborhood is impacted.

A rehab facility is usually a good thing if run properly and located in a safe environment - for the client, the staff, and the surrounding population. This company appears to be cutting overhead costs by selling its current several single family homes ("consolidating") and moving clients to this crowded and limited client facility.

Pura Vida’s profit margin increase should not be at the detriment of residents in the Skyhawk area and its surrounding neighborhoods. Two Planning Commissioners had some very good reasons to vote no for the initial step to proceed. I would encourage you to discuss with them their positions. This decision is now up to you all to prevent an intentional negative impact on your constituents and community on a whole.

Thank you for your time and consideration of my concerns.

With regard,
Kathleen Ramazzotti

From: Jones, Jessica
To: Bisla, Sachnoor
Cc: Brown, Madeline
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Pura Vida Support - File #: PLN25-0136 Date: Thursday, February 26, 2026 1:56:01 PM

From: Guasco, Cher <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2026 1:55 PM
To: Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Pura Vida Support - File #: PLN25-0136

All emails are subject to the California Public Records Act and neither the sendor nor any recipients should have any expectation of privacy regarding the contents of such communications.

From: Livier Sandoval
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2026 1:49 PM
To: _CityCouncilListPublic <[email protected]>; Planning Shared <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Pura Vida Support - File #: PLN25-0136

To whom it may concern,
I am writing in support of Pura Vida's additional residential treatment beds on Mountain Hawk Drive. I urge you to consider the needs of these marginalized community members and the benefits that the Pura Vida program offers to its clients and to society as a whole. Please allow Pura Vida to offer their services to additional clients by allowing them the ability to add additional treatment beds.

Kind Regards,
Sonoma County Counseling
Livier Sandoval Canepa, AMFT 161270, APCC 21831
Registered Associate Marriage and Family Therapist, Registered Associate Professional Clinical Counselor
Supervised by Marie E. Nersesian, LMFT #119548

Phone: 707-873-4842
Email: [email protected]
Website: https://www.sonomacountycounseling.com/

ZOOM: https://us06web.zoom.us/s/2303572198#success

3434 Mendocino Avenue A Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Fax: (707) 708-2188

8733 Lakewood Drive, Suite 205 Windsor, CA 95492
Fax: (707) 892-2190

Sonoma County CSU, 24-HOUR CRISIS SERVICES:
2225 Challenger Way Santa Rosa, CA 95407
24-Hour Crisis Services: (707) 576-8181

CONFIDENTIALITY & PRIVACY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. In compliance with the Federal HIPAA regulations, please note that this email is not a secure means of electronic communication, and therefore should not include any Protected Health Information (PHI).

From:

To: PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Recovery Center near Skyhawk
Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2026 3:02:24 PM
I am writing IN SUPPORT of the Recovery Center being located near Skyhawk.

My husband and I live on Yerba Buena and often walk to the little shopping center to have coffee at Colleen’s.

Having a Recovery Center in this location is not a problem. Perhaps some people do not know what a Recovery Center is like. As a former marriage and family therapist AND as a sister of a recovering addict, I know how necessary it is to have such centers be located in pleasant surroundings. What the clients (at any Center such as this) are trying to do is to create a healthy and sober living situation for themselves. Being in an uncrowded neighborhood with ordinary folks can be such an environment for developing new and sustaining habits: maybe I’ll even meet a resident or two at Colleen’s.

Marcia Anton
Santa Rosa, CA

From: Jones, Jessica
To: Bisla, Sachnoor
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Pura Vida Support - File No: PLN25-0136 Date: Monday, March 2, 2026 9:53:33 AM
Attachments: image001.jpg
image002.jpg

From: Guasco, Cher <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 2, 2026 8:51 AM
To: Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Pura Vida Support - File No: PLN25-0136

All emails are subject to the California Public Records Act and neither the sendor nor any recipients should have any expectation of privacy regarding the contents of such communications.

From: michelle montalbano
Sent: Sunday, March 1, 2026 10:13 PM
To: _CityCouncilListPublic <[email protected]>
Cc: Planning Shared <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Pura Vida Support - File No: PLN25-0136

March 1,2026
Pura Vida Support - File No: PLN25-0136
Honorable Members of the City Council,

I am writing to express my support for the proposed expansion of Pura Vida Recovery Services at 5761 Mountain Hawk Dr. to increase the number of treatment beds within our community.

As I am sure you are aware, any treatment (especially beds and community care facilities) are an important and necessary component of a comprehensive public health and safety strategy. Programs such as Pura Vida Recovery Services contribute to community stability by supporting individuals in recovery, reducing reliance on emergency and social services, and promoting long-term positive outcomes for residents and neighbors.

I am a local drug and alcohol counselor, having worked in treatment programs with women and children (WRS) as well as
privately. After working in the field for over
10 years, I speak from an educated and experienced perspective. I believe that it is not just our responsibility but our duty as a community to provide the services Pura Vida proposes.

Pura Vida Recovery Services has demonstrated its ability to operate responsibly and to be a good neighbor, maintaining a well-managed facility and complying with applicable standards and expectations. The support of surrounding businesses are proof of this. The proposed expansion would allow the program to address a documented community need while continuing to operate in a manner consistent with the interests of the surrounding area.

I am disheartened by the push back of the local residents. It is clearly their lack of education combined with the inability to see the good that comes from what the Pura Vida Services at Mountain Hawk provides.

It is FEAR based and unfortunate
especially because Pura Vida has not only addressed, but proven over the last 3 years, that the only impact has been a good one.

I read the article reporting the last meeting and quoting the leader of the opposition to this proposed expansion. He stated that they didn’t have enough time to prepare and that they didn’t even know Pura Vida was operating!? Does not that statement, in and of itself, PROVE that there is not a negative impact? He made our point for us! I sincerely believe it would be a sad disservice NOT to approve this expansion.

For these reasons, I respectfully and wholeheartedly support approval of the proposed expansion at 5761 Mountain Hawk Dr. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully submitted,
Michelle Montalbano
Michelle Montalbano
Certified Addiction Treatment Counselor CATC 1
www.heartshealing.love

From: Mike Lemyre
To: PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Cc: Jones, Jessica; Brown, Madeline
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Support for Permit Application @ 5761 Mountain Hawk Drive (Pura Vida) Date: Thursday, March 12, 2026 4:04:41 PM
Honorable Members of the Santa Rosa City Planning Commission and Staff, As a resident of the Skyhawk neighborhood of Santa Rosa, I am writing IN SUPPORT of the 17-bed expansion at 5761 Mountain Hawk Drive (PLN25-0136).

While this project is located in District 3, it has the potential to positively benefit every neighborhood and District in our City. I am asking you to support the expansion of the already existing 7-bed facility at the above location and to refute the, frankly, NIMBY-style arguments of a small number of local residents making the following claims - see below (my responses are in bold italics).

Displacement of Residents: This expansion results in the permanent elimination of 7 affordable housing units at 5671 Mountain Hawk Drive. Wrong: The units in question are NOT designated as affordable housing and there happens to be a significant amount of inventory currently on the market in the neighborhood (at least 9 single family homes with a total of 36 bedrooms for sale; at least 3 rental units with 11 total bedrooms).

Equitable Zoning Protections: Every neighborhood—regardless of zip code— deserves the protection of our "Neighborhood Commercial" zoning laws. If we allow regional institutions to displace local services and retail in Skyhawk, it signals that neighborhood-serving spaces across the entire city are expendable.

Note: One example
of a ‘neighborhood commercial zone’ use is ‘neighborhood-serving professional offices’ (i.e., medical, assisted living, etc.). Surely given the number of residents of the Skyhawk and adjacent neighborhoods, that a certain number of local residents either have been or could reasonably be assumed to require the recovery and medical- related services that Pura Vida provides.

Inadequate Patient Care: The plan to house 24 high-needs patients in a cramped upstairs retail suite (Suites 201-207) does not provide the dignity, space, or therapeutic environment required for successful recovery. We must demand higher standards of care for vulnerable individuals than a "warehouse" model above a shopping plaza.

Question:

What expertise is being tapped or evidence supplied to demonstrate that this facility provides “inadequate patient care”? Have there been any formal reprimands, penalties or other enforcement actions taken against the operator, a state licensed facility?
Loss of Representation: Because our District 3 representative has been forced into a recusal that many legal experts believe is improper, we are relying on you to provide the oversight that our own representative cannot currently offer.

Inaccurate: A recusal does
not result in a loss of representation; it is a voluntary or required withdrawal of an official from a case due to a conflict of interest or bias. It ensures impartiality rather than removing a party’s legal rights to representation. I, for one, certainly trust in this Commission’s impartiality concerning this matter.

Please stand for ALL residents of Skyhawk and our wider community, choosing compassion, empathy and support in voting to approve Pura Vida’s permit application on March 24th.

Sincerely,
Mike Lemyre

From: Jones, Jessica
To: Bisla, Sachnoor
Cc: Brown, Madeline
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] To the Members of the SR City Council Date: Thursday, February 26, 2026 8:01:30 AM
Attachments: image001.jpg
image002.jpg

From: Guasco, Cher <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2026 7:56 AM
To: Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] To the Members of the SR City Council

All emails are subject to the California Public Records Act and neither the sendor nor any recipients should have any expectation of privacy regarding the contents of such communications.

From: David Wargin >
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 8:40 PM
To: _CityCouncilListPublic <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] To the Members of the SR City Council

My name is David Wargin and I am writing to you in support of the Pura Vida "expansion" at their treatment facility in Skyhawk Village business park.

The word expansion is in quotes above because although Pura Vida will be adding more residents to their treatment program, I am aware that while they will remodel the building they will

not expand it.

Faithfully Submitted

David Wargin

2/25/26

From: Skyhawk Resident
To: CityCouncilListPublic; Osburn, Gabe; PLANCOM - Planning Commission; CMOffice Subject: [EXTERNAL] Yes to Pura Vida – Skyhawk
Date: Wednesday, March 11, 2026 2:37:53 PM
Dear Santa Rosa City Councilmembers,
I am writing in support of the proposed expansion of the Pura Vida recovery facility located at 5761 Mountain Hawk Drive.

I am submitting this letter anonymously because my family lives in the Skyhawk neighborhood, very near the existing facility, and the pressure within the neighborhood to oppose the project has become significant. Unfortunately, families who are not actively participating in the organized opposition have experienced judgment and social pressure. My family and I own a home in Skyhawk, and our children attend both Maria Carrillo High School and Austin Creek Elementary.

Despite the intensity of the neighborhood campaign opposing the expansion, I want to share that there are residents within this community who strongly support the facility and the broader need for treatment and recovery services in Santa Rosa.

The need for additional substance use treatment capacity in our community is well documented. Sonoma County’s wastewater drug detection dashboards, which monitor wastewater serving approximately 240,000 residents across Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Rohnert Park, and Cotati, show that our community experiences drug use rates significantly above national averages. Current data indicate cocaine levels approximately 50% above the national average, methamphetamine approximately 168% above the national average, and fentanyl approximately 204% above the national average.
https://gis-community-health.sonomacounty.ca.gov/pages/high-risk-drugs- wastewater-detection
In addition, Sonoma County’s February 2025 report to the Board of Supervisors on opioid-related substance use identified a critical shortage of residential treatment and recovery beds as one of the most significant gaps in our behavioral health system.

Expanding residential treatment capacity is widely recognized by public health experts as one of the most effective strategies for addressing addiction and preventing overdose deaths.

The February 2025 presentation also included
community-specific data regarding overdose and other drug-related impacts. https://sonoma-county.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx? ID=7129389&GUID=21A8E19C-A57C-4250-9F1B-A06438570A61
Put simply, our community needs more treatment options—not fewer.

It is also important to note that Pura Vida is already operating at this location. The proposal before you is an expansion of an existing facility, not the introduction of a new use into the neighborhood. To my knowledge, there has been no credible evidence presented that the current facility has created safety or operational issues in the surrounding area.

Some opponents have argued that treatment should occur in isolated settings rather than within communities. However, research and best practices in recovery consistently show that integrating individuals into supportive community environments is critical to successful long-term recovery. Locating treatment facilities within communities helps reduce stigma, strengthens social reintegration, and reflects the reality that substance use disorder affects every community—including affluent ones like Skyhawk.

Expanding access to treatment is also fiscally responsible for our community.

Individuals struggling with substance use disorders who cannot access treatment often cycle through emergency departments, law enforcement, and other crisis services. Residential treatment programs significantly reduce these downstream public costs while improving health outcomes and stability for individuals and families.

It is also worth noting that individuals in recovery are protected under federal and state fair housing and disability laws, which recognize substance use disorder as a disability. Courts have consistently found that local governments must avoid land use decisions that effectively exclude recovery housing due to neighborhood opposition or stigma. Ensuring that treatment facilities can operate within communities is an important part of complying with these legal protections.

It is also worth noting that Pura Vida operates primarily through private insurance reimbursement rather than public funding streams such as Medi-Cal. Given the data showing high levels of substance use across our region, it is entirely possible that individuals and families from communities like Skyhawk will need access to these services at some point. Access to high-quality treatment should not be limited by neighborhood opposition.

As you consider this appeal, I encourage you to reflect on the broader question facing your Council: What kind of community do you want Santa Rosa to be and will you be responsible for creating? One that responds to public health needs using data and evidence? Or one in which critical health services are prevented and communities are designed by a small, but vocal group of affluent NIMBY community members? While a small but vocal group of neighbors has organized opposition to this project, they do not represent the views of all residents in the neighborhood. Many of us believe strongly that expanding treatment and recovery capacity is the right decision for Santa Rosa and for the people in our community who are struggling with addiction.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge you to deny the appeal and allow the expansion of the Pura Vida facility to move forward.

Thank you for your consideration and for your leadership on this important issue.

Sincerely,
A Skyhawk Resident
Thomas Laudari
Oakmont Village
Santa Rosa, CA 95409
707-322-7009
Pura Vida Support - File No: PLN25-0136
Dear Santa Rosa City Council,
As an individual intimately involved in our community’s Alcohol and Drug rehabilitation community for over 35 years and having worked professionally in a “restorative justice” program serviced by Sonoma County I would like to share my perspective of the project being proposed at 5761 Mountain Hawk Dr., Santa Rosa.

I have followed the evolution of PURA VIDA since the facility’s inception in 2015. I know the founders and many of their staﬀ members personally. The culture developed at PURA VIDA has been consistently professional and nurturing. Both in the level of care for the clients and for the development of the staﬀ, many of whom were once clients of the facility.

The professionalism and mission of PURA VIDA in providing quality health care and recovery services for the alcoholic and addict has served our community well. The transition homes they have successfully developed, known as “Sober Living Environments”, civilly co-exist in residential neighborhoods within our community.

Our community desperately needs another facility such as this. Opioid overdose deaths continue to rise and the disease of Alcoholism persists in our communities. The clientele PURA VIDA is positioned to serve are individuals who have access to health insurance. Such people as public and private employees, students, and wealthy professionals. People who come from similar neighborhoods PURA VIDA is proposing to locate this facility in.

Concerning the site’s location, uniquely it oﬀers the beneﬁt of incorporating a level of familiarity for the clients while in isolation. Thus diminishing the stigma of being institutionalized while the process of awakening to a life free of drugs and alcohol is initiated.

There is a diﬀerence between having an opinion and gaining a perspective. The ﬁrst is a belief based on supposition the latter formed on viewing the facts. I would hope that detractor’s opinions on the worth, necessity, and proximity of this proposed treatment center will be overshadowed by the inherent public good of having such an asset incorporated into our community as I know it would be.

Respectfully Submitted,
Thomas Laudari
Division Director I (Retired)
Supervised Adult Crews
Sonoma County Probation

From: Planning Shared
To: Bisla, Sachnoor
Subject: Fw: [EXTERNAL] Pura Vida Support - File No: PLN25-0136 Date: Monday, March 2, 2026 8:04:25 AM
From: Tim McAllister
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2026 9:40 PM
To: _CityCouncilListPublic <[email protected]>
Cc: Planning Shared <[email protected]>; >
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Pura Vida Support - File No: PLN25-0136

To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected],
Date: February 28, 2026
Subject: Pura Vida Support - File No: PLN25-0136
Mayor Stapp and Honorable Members of the City Council,
I am writing to urge you to uphold the Santa Rosa Planning Commission's 4-2 vote approving Pura Vida Recovery Services' Minor Use Permit to expand their residential treatment facility at 5761 Mountain Hawk Drive from 6 to 24 beds. That decision, reached after careful consideration last November, was the right one. Please do not allow a well-organized opposition campaign to overturn it.

Personal Experience with Pura Vida
I have been part of the recovery community since 1988 and have been continuously sober for over 37 years. I have witnessed firsthand the life-saving impact of quality residential treatment services. My youngest child completed Pura Vida's residential, PHP (Partial Hospitalization Program), and outpatient services and has maintained sobriety for over five years. That outcome would not have been possible without access to comprehensive, evidence-based treatment like what Pura Vida provides.

My wife, a longtime local criminal defense attorney, regularly sees the transformative outcomes of residential treatment in her practice. Clients who have accessed these services achieve permanent recovery and lead successful, productive lives. Without adequate treatment resources, the alternative is continued cycling through the criminal justice system at tremendous cost to individuals, families, and our community.

Critical Community Need
Santa Rosa desperately needs more treatment resources, not fewer. Our treatment infrastructure is fragile, as recent closures demonstrate:

Azure Acres, a 66-year institution, closed October 9, 2025, despite its corporate owner Acadia Healthcare reporting record $3.2 billion revenue. The 54-bed facility and affiliated sites shut down, forcing clients to transfer elsewhere.

Orenda Center, Sonoma County's detox facility for low-income residents, closed July 1, 2023. Services remained unavailable for nearly 12 months, forcing Sonoma County residents to travel 40 miles to Marin County before reopening in mid-2024.

R House, a group home for adolescents with dual-diagnosis, closed in March 2020 after 45 years of

operation due to $250,000 in losses from state-mandated upgrades.

When a licensed, accredited, professionally-operated provider is willing to invest in our community, we have an obligation to facilitate their operations, not obstruct them.

Pura Vida's Proven Track Record
Pura Vida has operated a treatment facility at this exact location for over three years without a single complaint to the City, neighboring businesses, or their landlord, and with zero law enforcement calls for service related to their residents. The Planning Commission recognized this record in November and voted accordingly. The City Council should too.

Key facts supporting this application:
. No service changes: The 24-bed facility provides the exact same services already operating successfully at this site for over three years
. 24/7 supervision: Residents are supervised by 4-6 staff members around the clock, including nighttime bed checks
. Structured environment: Residents follow a structured treatment schedule and are not permitted to go anywhere unattended
. No traffic impact: A professional Trip Generation Memo found no increase in traffic, and may actually reduce it compared to general residential use
. No displacement: All existing businesses remain and have not been negatively impacted; nearly all neighboring businesses submitted letters of support
. Limited scope: No outpatient services or medication-assisted treatment will be provided at the site Regulatory Oversight and Established Precedent
Pura Vida maintains an active, unblemished license from the California Department of Healthcare Services and an active, unblemished accreditation from the Joint Commission. The City has already issued two separate Minor Use Permits to Pura Vida for other locations of the same nature. This approval is consistent with established policy and actively advances Santa Rosa General Plan Policy 6-

2.3: "Prevent, disincentivize, and reduce harmful addictive behaviors." On the Opposition
The Skyhawk United opposition has retained legal counsel, organized a task force, and is actively fundraising to block this project. Their stated concern is addiction and public safety in Santa Rosa. Their actions seek to prevent the very services that address those concerns.

Pura Vida has responded constructively: sharing an updated project fact sheet directly with Skyhawk United leadership, scheduling public neighborhood meetings in early March, and continuing to meet with City Council members and the Mayor. Over three years of exemplary operation at this site speaks louder than any opposition campaign.

Conclusion
The Planning Commission voted 4-2 to approve this permit. The record before you is straightforward: a licensed, accredited operator with over three years of zero-complaint operation, overwhelming community support, and an undeniable public health need. A vocal minority with outside legal counsel is not a reason to override sound policy and deny our community critical treatment capacity.

Every day this expansion is delayed, people in Santa Rosa struggle with addiction, families suffer, and

February 24, 2026
Pura Vida Support - File No: PLN25-0136

Honorable Members of the City Council,

I am writing to express my support for the proposed expansion of Pura Vida Recovery Services at 5761 Mountain Hawk Dr. to increase the number of treatment beds within our city.

Treatment beds and community care facilities are an important component of a comprehensive public health and safety strategy. Programs such as Pura Vida Recovery Services contribute to community stability by supporting individuals in recovery, reducing reliance on emergency and social services, and promoting long-term positive outcomes for residents and neighbors.

For these reasons, I respectfully support approval of the proposed expansion at 5761 Mountain Hawk Dr. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully submitted,

Todd James McKillop, LCSW

Santa Rosa City CouncilMarch 24, 2026

Santa Rosa City Council
March 24, 2026