From: Trish Durler
To: Stricker, Teresa; Stapp, Mark; CityCouncilListPublic Cc: City Clerk; Manis, Dina; Osburn, Gabe; Bisla, Sachnoor; Erin Carlstrom Subject: [EXTERNAL] Pura Vida Recovery Services/City Council Appeal Hearing Scheduled for March 24, 2026, Agenda Item No. 16.1
Date: Thursday, March 19, 2026 1:38:32 PM
Attachments: Carlstrom lto City of SR 2026 0319.pdf
All:
Please see the attached letter from attorney Erin B. Carlstrom.
Thank you,
Trish Durler, Paralegal
CLEMENT, FITZPATRICK & KENWORTHY INCORPORATED
3333 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 200
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Telephone: 707-523-1181
FAX: 707-546-1360
www.cfk.com
LAW OFFICES OF
CLEMENT, FITZPATRICK & KENWORTHY
INCORPORATED
3333 MENDOCINO AVENUE, SUITE 200
SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA 95403
FAX: 707 546-1360
_________
TELEPHONE: (707) 523-1181
ERIN B. CARLSTROM, CHAIR
STEPHEN K. BUTLER
LAND USE DEPARTMENT
____________
STEPHEN K. BUTLER
(1952-2023)
March 19, 2026
VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Teresa Stricker, City Attorney
City of Santa Rosa
100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 8
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
[email protected] [email protected]
Mayor Mark Stapp and
Members of the City Council
City of Santa Rosa
100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 10
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Re: Demand to Postpone Appeal Hearing for Pura Vida Recovery Services 5761 Mountain Hawk Drive, Santa Rosa, CA
Appeal Hearing Scheduled for March 24, 2026, Agenda Item No. 16.1
Dear City Attorney Stricker, Mayor Stapp and City Councilmembers:
Our office represents Skyhawk United, the appellants, regarding the pending appeal of the Pura Vida Behavioral Treatment Facility currently scheduled for hearing on March 24, 2026, at or around 5:00 p.m.
This letter serves as a formal demand that the City of Santa Rosa (the “City”) postpone/continue the appeal hearing until the District's representative can be seated and participate, so that the District is afforded appropriate representation in a matter of significant local impact.
As the City is aware, the District's representation is presently compromised because Councilmember Dianna MacDonald has been persuaded to recuse herself from this appeal hearing. Proceeding with the appeal hearing without the District representative would effectively require the District to endure a dispositive proceeding without the representation the City's district-based governance structure is intended to provide. At minimum, the City should continue the hearing to the earliest date when the District representative is expected to be seated, and re- notice the continued hearing as required.
Compounding the above, the sitting District representative, Councilmember MacDonald, has been improperly compelled to recuse herself from the appeal because she previously consulted with the appellant group as part of her duties in office (i.e., constituent services and/or routine communications undertaken in her official capacity).
Teresa Stricker, City Attorney
Mayor Mark Stapp and Members of the City Council
Re: Pura Vida Recovery Services
March 19, 2026
Requiring recusal on that basis is improper and undermines representative government.
Elected and appointed officials routinely meet with constituents and stakeholders, including project opponents and supporters, to understand concerns and perform their public responsibilities. Treating such routine, official-capacity consultation as a disqualifying conflict would chill constituent engagement and would, in this instance, deprive the District of its voice on a matter directly affecting it.
If the City contends recusal is required, please provide in writing the specific legal and factual basis for that determination, including: (i) who made the determination; (ii) when it was made; (iii) the authority relied upon; and (iv) the specific facts the City believes create a disqualifying conflict.
Accordingly, our clients demand that the City:
1. Continue/postpone the appeal hearing for Pura Vida Recovery Services;
2. Reset the hearing to a date after the District representative is seated;
3. Confirm in writing that the continued hearing will be properly noticed and that all parties will have a fair opportunity to be heard; and
4. Provide the City's written position regarding the asserted basis for the District representative's recusal, as requested above.
Nothing in this letter is intended to waive, and our client expressly reserves, all rights and remedies available under California law, including the right to seek appropriate administrative and judicial relief if the City proceeds in a manner that deprives the District of fair representation and a lawful hearing process.
Please provide written confirmation by Friday, March 20, 2026 no later than 5:00 p.m., that the hearing will be continued and that the City will not proceed on March 24 th.
Sincerely,
ERIN B. CARLSTROM
EBC/pd
c: City Clerk (via email)
City of Santa Rosa
Gabe Osburn (via email)
City of Santa Rosa, Director of Planning & Economic Development Sachnoor Bisla (via email)
City of Santa Rosa, City Planner
Alex Wignall
Project Applicant
clients (via email)
From: Trish Durler
To: Stapp, Mark; CityCouncilListPublic
Cc: City Clerk; Erin Carlstrom
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Pura Vida Recovery Services/City Council Appeal Hearing Scheduled for March 24, 2026, Agenda Item No. 16.1
Date: Friday, March 20, 2026 3:33:38 PM
Attachments: 2026 0320 - Carlstrom memo to SR City Council re Pura Vida Facility.pdf All:
Please see the attached memorandum from Erin B. Carlstrom. This is in regard to the Pura Vida Recovery Services appeal hearing scheduled for March 24, 2026, Agenda Item No. 16.1.
Thank you,
Trish Durler, Paralegal
CLEMENT, FITZPATRICK & KENWORTHY INCORPORATED
3333 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 200
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Telephone: 707-523-1181
FAX: 707-546-1360
www.cfk.com
LAW OFFICES OF
CLEMENT, FITZPATRICK & KENWORTHY
INCORPORATED
3333 MENDOCINO AVENUE, SUITE 200
SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA 95403
FAX: 707 546-1360
_________
TELEPHONE: (707) 523-1181
ERIN B. CARLSTROM, CHAIR
STEPHEN K. BUTLER
LAND USE DEPARTMENT
____________
STEPHEN K. BUTLER
(1952-2023)
March 20, 2026
VIA EMAIL ONLY:
[email protected]
[email protected]
Mayor Mark Stapp and
Members of the City Council
City of Santa Rosa
100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 10
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Re: Pura Vida Recovery Services / 5761 Mountain Hawk Drive, Santa Rosa, CA Appeal Hearing Scheduled for March 24, 2026, Agenda Item No. 16.1
Dear Mayor Stapp and City Councilmembers:
I. INTRODUCTION & STANDARD OF REVIEW
The City Council sits today in a quasi-judicial capacity. Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5, the Council must determine whether the Planning Commission committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is established if the City has not proceeded in the manner required by law, if the decision is not supported by findings, or if those findings are not supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.
II. PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS: THE V ACUUM OF REPRESENTATION Due process under the California Constitution and CCP § 1094.5(b) requires a fair hearing before an impartial decision-maker.
• Heightened Scrutiny Required: The mandatory recusal of the District Council Member— while appropriate—functionally leaves the most impacted constituents without their primary representative’s vote. To maintain the integrity of these proceedings, the remaining Council must provide heightened scrutiny to the evidence. The "analytical gap" between the facts and the decision must be bridged by the Council’s own independent, robust review.
Mayor Mark Stapp and
Members of the City Council
Re: Pura Vida Recovery Services
March 20, 2026
• Meaningful Opportunity to be Heard: Appellants must be afforded a meaningful opportunity to rebut the applicant’s claims, ensuring this hearing is a rigorous examination of the project's true impacts, not a mere formality.
III. LAND USE INCONSISTENCY: THE "RESIDENTIAL" MYTH
The Planning Commission’s approval rests on the fiction that a 24-bed regional treatment facility is a "traditional residential use." The record proves otherwise:
• Neighborhood Commercial (CN) Violation: There is zero evidence that a 24-bed regional facility serves the "daily needs" of the immediate neighborhood, a mandatory requirement of the CN zone.
• Commercial Operational Profile: This is a 24-hour clinical operation involving staff shift changes, controlled client intake windows, van transportation, and daily sobriety testing.
Characterizing this as a "traditional residential use" to bypass zoning constraints is a reversible error. (West Adams Heritage Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (2024) 106 Cal.
App.5
th 395, 408).
I V. PUBLIC SAFETY: THE WILDFIRE EV ACUATION CRISIS
The project site sits within a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The City’s analysis fails to address a critical safety delta:
• The 400% Intensity Increase: The City’s approval replaces a 6-bed clearance with a 24- bed facility.
• Evacuation Impediment: The record contains no evidence showing that quadrupling the occupancy of this site—introducing a vulnerable population requiring supervised transport—will not impede evacuation for the surrounding 400+ families. A bare conclusion of "no impact" in a high-fire zone lacks the "evidentiary bridge" required by law. (Topanga Assn. v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d. 506, 521.
V. CEQA VIOLATION: IMPROPER USE OF EXEMPTIONS
The City’s reliance on a Categorical In-Fill Exemption (Guidelines § 15332) is legally terminal. • Failure of the "No Significant Effects" Criterion: Guidelines § 15332(d) requires a supported determination that approval results in no significant effects regarding traffic, noise, or air quality. The City relies on a stale 2022 assessment that fails to account for the unique operational characteristics of a 24-bed detox center. (Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086). Further, and problematically, the project did not conform to the applicable zoning standards when approved by the Commission. It is only within the last month that a zoning change has been approved by Mayor Mark Stapp and
Members of the City Council
Re: Pura Vida Recovery Services
March 20, 2026
the Council. To conform to the law, the zoning change ought to have been processed concurrently with the underlying project.
• Unusual Circumstances Exception: Even if an exemption applied, it is barred by the "Unusual Circumstances" exception (Guidelines § 15300.2(c)). The 400% scale change and 24-hour clinical intensity are "distinguishing features" that create a reasonable possibility of a significant environmental effect. (World Business Academy v.
State Lands Com.).
• The Overlapping Exemption Fallacy: The City’s secondary invocation of Guidelines § 15183 (consistency with the General Plan) does not cure these defects. A project must independently satisfy the specific mandatory criteria of an In-Fill exemption, which this project fails to do.
VI. REQUESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROV AL
While the Appellants maintain that the project is legally indefensible, should the Council be inclined to approve the facility due to the nature of the services provided, it is imperative that such approval be subject to the following stringent conditions. These conditions are necessary to "bridge the analytical gap" between the project’s 400% intensity increase and the protection of public safety and neighborhood character.
In the event of approval, Appellants request the following conditions be incorporated into the Conditional Use Permit (CUP):
• Public Safety & Wildfire Evacuation:
o Certified Evacuation Plan: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant must submit a project-specific Emergency and Disaster Plan to the City Fire Marshal for approval. This plan must specifically detail how 24 residents, many of whom may be in varying stages of detoxification or under medication, will be evacuated simultaneously in a single "red flag" event without reliance on street-side parking or blocking neighborhood egress.
o Dedicated Evacuation Vehicle: The facility shall maintain an on-site, 24-hour dedicated shuttle or van capable of transporting at least 50% of the maximum occupancy at any given time to ensure immediate mobility during a fire emergency.
• Operational Compatibility & Nuisance Mitigation:
o Staffing & Shift Management: To prevent "commercial-scale" traffic impacts in the CN zone, the applicant shall implement a staggered shift schedule for the 24- Mayor Mark Stapp and
Members of the City Council
Re: Pura Vida Recovery Services
March 20, 2026
hour staffing to ensure no more than four staff vehicles arrive or depart within any 60-minute window.
o On-Site Intake & Screening: All client intake, screening, and daily sobriety testing must occur strictly within the interior of the facility. No outdoor loitering, waiting areas, or supervised client movement shall be permitted in the shared parking lot or public right-of-way.
o Prohibition of Signage: To maintain the neighborhood character and prevent "regional draw" commercial appearance, no exterior signage identifying the facility as a treatment center shall be permitted.
o Smoking by residents/patients is to be conducted within interior areas of the project, only.
o Operational Capacity Phase-In: To mitigate the sudden 400% intensity increase, occupancy shall be limited to 12 beds for the first 12 months. Expansion to 24 beds shall only be permitted following a public hearing and "Finding of No Nuisance" by the Zoning Administrator.
o Mandatory "Daily Needs" Contribution: To maintain the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) intent, the applicant must designate a portion of the leased footprint (e.g., 500 sq. ft.) for a use that provides a direct daily service to the public (e.g., a community meeting space or neighborhood-accessible retail). o Shift Change Traffic Plan: To prevent congestion at the Mountain Hawk Drive entrance, the applicant shall implement a staggered staff shift schedule. No more than five staff vehicles may enter or exit the site during peak neighborhood commuting hours (8:00–9:00 a.m. 5:00–6:00 p.m.).
• Compliance & Oversight:
o Annual Compliance Audit: The applicant shall fund an annual independent audit to verify that the facility is operating within the licensed scope approved by the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS). Any Class A or B deficiencies reported by DHCS shall be grounds for an immediate CUP revocation hearing.
o Neighborhood Liaison: The facility shall designate a 24-hour community liaison and provide a direct "hotline" number to all residents within 500 feet to address immediate concerns regarding noise, parking, or safety.
Mayor Mark Stapp and
Members of the City Council
Re: Pura Vida Recovery Services
March 20, 2026
VII. CONCLUSION
Even with these conditions, the fundamental legal flaws regarding zoning inconsistency and CEQA exemptions remain. However, if the Council moves toward approval, these safeguards are the minimum required to protect the 400+ families currently at risk. Appellants respectfully request that the Council uphold the appeal and, at a minimum, mandate these protections.
Sincerely,
ERIN B. CARLSTROM
EBC/pd
c: City Clerk (via email)
City of Santa Rosa
clients
From: Terri Griffin
To: CityCouncilListPublic
Cc: Osburn, Gabe; Bisla, Sachnoor
Subject: [EXTERNAL] ITEM 16.1 - PURA VIDA RECOVERY SERVICES APPEAL - March 24, 2026 Date: Saturday, March 21, 2026 12:21:34 PM
Dear Mayor Stapp, Vice Mayor Okrepkie, and Members of the City Council:
As a resident of Santa Rosa for over 35 years, I am writing to express my full support for the expansion of the Community Care Facility operated by Pura Vida Recovery Services at 5761 Mountain Hawk Drive.
I will not be addressing any CEQA, General Plan or Zoning Code issues as those have all been completely and adequately addressed by staff and the Planning Commission. Instead, I would like to speak to you from my own personal experience.
For much of my life I was largely uninformed about the family disease of alcohol and drug addiction, much less the operations of residential treatment centers. That all changed in October of 2023 when a member of my family in crisis decided to seek inpatient treatment for alcohol and drug addiction. Because the availability of inpatient beds in Santa Rosa was virtually non-existent at that time, my loved one entered a treatment center in Petaluma where a bed was immediately available. As any family member can attest, time is of the essence when an addicted loved one expresses a willingness to go into treatment. That quick decision was life-saving for my loved one and life-changing for our family.
And while we are eternally grateful to the Petaluma treatment center for the incredible care and support our family received, it would have been far better for our family had my loved one been able to receive inpatient treatment here in Santa Rosa.
So what did I learn about treatment centers while my loved one was in treatment? I learned that treatment centers save lives, families, livelihoods and communities. I learned that addiction does not discriminate and nearly every family has been impacted by this disease in some way. I learned that that every sector of our community is impacted by untreated addiction yet community stigma is one of the greatest barriers for those seeking treatment. I learned that treatment centers serve people from every walk of life - doctors, lawyers, teachers, corporate executives, employees from major North Bay employers, just to name a few.
I learned that addiction is a family disease and having family members engaged in the treatment process is critical, which is hard to accomplish when family members have to travel to participate in the treatment process. I learned that family involvement in the treatment process improves treatment retention, reduces the risk of relapse, and helps heal past trauma. With the closure of Azure Acres, it is even more critical that we expand treatment services in Santa Rosa to ensure Santa Rosa's families can participate in the treatment of their loved ones without personal or financial hardship.
I learned that treatment is not just detoxification - in fact, many patients do not need to medically detox. Treatment is first and foremost therapeutic and supportive care. I learned that treatment doesn’t end when the addicted person leaves the facility - patients work with treatment center staff to build an after-care support system so they have a much better chance of long-term recovery once in-patient treatment ends.
And while I have no personal experience with Pura Vida Recovery’s inpatient treatment center, I do have personal experience with its family and friends support group. I became aware of this support group while my family member was in treatment, and it became my lifeline throughout his treatment and early recovery. I am not aware of any other treatment center in our region that offers this level of support to families free of charge. It is just another example of Pura Vida Recovery's excellence in the field of alcohol and substance abuse treatment.
I have listened to the concerns and fears expressed by the neighbors, but they are unfounded. Pura Vida has an impeccable record at its existing site and in the community at-large. I can state unequivocally that if this facility were planned in or near my neighborhood, I would welcome it as a much-needed residential treatment facility that serves our residents while promoting a safe, healthy and inclusive community.
Thank you for your consideration.
Terri Griffin
Resident of Santa Rosa District 6
From: DJ Phimister
To: CityCouncilListPublic; PLANCOM - Planning Commission Cc: Skyhawk United; Tracy Gu; Andrew Maynard; Ann Brown; David Chen; Erin Morris; Kathie Ramazzotti; Kelsey Maynard; Kelsey Maynard; Phimister DJ; Richard Golub; Richard Pollock; Rogerio Pereira; Sarah Rochford; weixiang shi; Lisa Pheatt (Attorney)
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Pura Vida Recovery Services / 5761 Mountain Hawk Drive, Santa Rosa, CA Appeal Hearing Scheduled for March 24, 2026, Agenda Item No. 16.1
Date: Saturday, March 21, 2026 4:39:15 PM
Attachments: Smoking area map Pura Vida.pdf
Dear Council Members,
I have just completed reading the Staff Report regarding the Pura Vida facility expansion for the 3/24/26 Council Meeting. I noticed a few items worth mentioning beyond my earlier correspondence.
Increased beds available.
Almost every letter in support of the facility applauds it because of the need to increase the number of beds available for recovery city wide.
The expansion of this facility will not do
that. The owner has already stated he plans to shutter his other facilities and move the clients into this one location. The people writing those letters have been misinformed or they misunderstood what the increased beds at this facility will do. It will only increase the income of the owner, it will not increase the number of beds available to the City.
Smoking area.
The City has basically taken the position that the facility should be approved and the issues with smoking can be worked out later.
I took a look at the map of the facility and
surrounding area, and from what I can tell, the only place they will legally be able to go to smoke is in the middle of the parking lot. The facility is surrounded on three sides by either City park land or eating establishments. Both require 25’ distance for smokers. Based on this, the ONLY location legally available is the parking lot. Allowing people to just freely walk around in the parking lot while smoking would create a pedestrian hazard for all of the traffic going through the lot.
The most practical resolution would be to dedicate two
parking spaces as a smoking area, and fence it with high visibility fencing for the safety of those using the area.
I believe it would take at least two spaces; even with only 50% of the clients, plus staff, we would be dealing with 12-18 people and one space would just not be functional.
I am sure that Pura Vida, as well as the other tenants will be reluctant to give up two parking spaces for this purpose, but there really isn’t anywhere else to go. Which is why I would request that, if this project is allowed to move forward, that a building permit shall not be issued until this issue has been resolved to the satisfaction of all involved.
Perhaps they can create a “smoking garden/pavilion” that could be used by patrons of the other establishments to make it more feasible.
To take the attitude of “we’ll work it out
later” when there is no easy resolution is irresponsible. I’ve attached drawings of available areas based on my estimated measurements, but I would encourage the City to check my findings.
And, again, the solution should be worked out before construction can begin.
Housing trade-off.
Based on the drawings submitted with the proposal, the seven apartments will be condensed into three by adding interior doors or removing some interior walls.
One of
these apartments would be used as an office and the other two would ultimately house the 24 clients. As I proposed in my previous correspondence, this would violate the density issue. Since each apartment has it’s own address, there would essentially be three facilities within feet of each other. The only legal way for this to work is for all seven apartments to be combined into one address, ultimately resulting in the loss of seven rental apartments in the City. Net gain in treatment beds 0. Net loss of apartments, 7. The owner has basically offered the proposition that housing is housing, his clientele are no different than renters, renting the apartments.
He is wrong with this comparison, at best
they could be compared to a motel. Renters live, play and contribute to the community around them on a long-term basis. There is no such commitment from people staying in a motel.
NIMBY.
I said it previously, but it bears repeating, this is not an issue of not wanting the facility in my back yard.
I support rehab facilities when located and run properly. For this facility to be located where it is currently proposed, the City will have to bend the rules and rationalize the objections.
This is just not the right spot. In addition, you will allow the quadrupling of the number of clients with no genuine review of what that means in real life.
The owner has never owned a facility housing 24 clients on one premises before, and certainly not in this type of location.
Everyone seems to be willing to take the owner at his
word that everything will be fine despite there being no evidence to support that contention.
For those who call opposition a NIMBY response, I would respond with my viewpoint – this is a financial experiment/investment by the owner to increase his net income.
He is not doing it for the benefit of the neighborhood, the local community or the shopping center. Even if one were to assume his intentions for assisting recovering addicts is genuine, businesses in this shopping center are supposed to, by code, primarily be for the needs of the local community.
This business, and it is a business, does not meet that criteria and should not be allowed. As the City Council you have the authority, and in my opinion, the responsibility to deny the expansion of this facility.
Best Regards,
DJ Phimister
From: Bisla, Sachnoor
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: Fw: [EXTERNAL] Schwartz- submission against Pure Vida Skyhawk Date: Monday, March 23, 2026 11:30:26 AM
Attachments: Pura Vida Recovery Services Schwartz comments March 19 2026.gdoc Outlook-a3irskij
Sachnoor Bisla | City Planner
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Ave | Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Tel. (707) 543-3223 | Fax (707) 292-0963 | [email protected]
The Planning and Economic Development Department is closed for services every other Friday.
Below is the 2026 Holiday and Office Closure schedule.
2026 Holiday and Office Closure Schedule
Coming soon, the Planning, Building, and Engineering Divisions of the City of Santa Rosa's Planning and Economic Development Department will fully transition to an online application submittal process through the Accela Citizen Access platform. Learn more about the Online Permitting System here
, and more information will be coming soon!
From: David Schwartz <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2026 7:54 AM
To: Bisla, Sachnoor <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Schwartz- submission against Pure Vida Skyhawk
Hello Ms. Bisla,
Attached please find my comments not in favor of the Pure Vida Skyhawk proposal. I intend on attending the City Council meeting and expressing my opinion to the Council.
Sincerely,
David Schwartz
--
sent from HOME email account [email protected]
From: Dave Williamson
To: CityCouncilListPublic
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Regarding the proposed Pura Vida 28 bed Detox Center espansion Date: Monday, March 23, 2026 5:00:37 PM
Attachments: Nextdoor letter sent to Santa Rosa City Council.pdf ☺ This was sent by Dave's iMac ☺
- 1 -
Santa Rosa City Council members:
This is a letter I sent to Nextdoor , so it lacks a professional presentation purposefully:
Drug Detox Facility at Skyhawk Shopping Center?
The Skyhawk Community has spoken – over 500 signatures and many more online comments provide one resounding conclusion:
No Drug Detox Business at Skyhawk Shopping Center
Where I stand with this issue comes from my experience with addicts.
For over 12 years I have provided support for them in every way possible – countless trips to court, jail, driven them to detox/rehab centers, hospital trips for when they OD’d, clothes, food, shelter and being there for them when no one else would, even their parents. I've been hit, lied about, and lied to, had damaged possessions, had countless things stolen from me and far more than that. I will continue to do these things because their lives have changed because of what I have done.
I speak from firsthand knowledge and experience. My sister has been in the trenches for 28 years as the director of a drug and alcohol rehab clinic in the Spokane area, having provided support for thousands of people. There, but by the grace of God, go I, and every one of us.
It is our opinion that the Pure Vida Drug Rehab Center should NOT be housed at the Skyhawk Village Shopping Center. The reasons why may surprise you, but someone who has been an addict would be the first to tell you.
- 2 -
Reasons why the Skyhawk Village Shopping Center should not be home for a drug detox center:
TEMPTATION AVAILABILITY
PRIVACY ACCESS
LOCATION MOTIVATION
RESPONSIBILITY PROPERTY VALUES
INFLUENCE
TEMPTATION
The last thing an addict needs is an opportunity to get their drug of choice while they are withdrawing. A detox center is usually the last attempt they can make to become sober. All their previous attempts failed because of one thing – AVAILABILITY. How do they get it? Through those they know best, their dealer, their family and their friends. Any addict will tell you that who they become when they are at a detox center withdrawing is the very last thing they want someone who knows them to see. They need to be at a place where they have
PRIVACY
Those seeking treatment don’t want to find people they know already to connect with. That provides future opportunity to get drugs. They need to be where their dealer could not get to them. My sister’s place is such a facility: It is at the end of a long road, 50 minutes from Spokane. There's one entrance into the facility blocked with a gate, still quite a ways to reach The Lord’s Ranch. At the ranch, they have 50 acres to keep them busy, all only accessible by a single road.
Skyhawk Village is a bus stop from anywhere in Santa Rosa.
- 3 -
ACCESS
Nothing prevents a dealer from going up the stairs to where they have their drug rehab center. If someone wanted to meet their connection in the parking lot, you can't keep a person under lock & key 24/7.
There are many places they can stash drugs there. All it takes is a little tape to hide the drug somewhere. At the bottom of the stairs they walk around the corner and there’s a bar to be tempted with. You tell me whether it makes sense to have a bar next to a detox center? Until you've dealt with an addict, man or woman, young or old, you don’t know just how far they will go to get their next fix.
THE ANSWER IS HERE!
We all agree that we need Drug detox and rehab centers, right? I’ll cut to the chase so you don’t have to read everything else. It’s all about the
LOCATION
Put it at a place where dealers and friends are not able to easily get to them. Provide a gate so they can’t drive up to deliver the drugs. It needs to be in a place where everyone there is affiliated with the program, not in a place where drugs can be easily stashed where anyone is allowed to go. You couldn’t have a more accessible place than where a bus stop is located. Give these people the dignity of having privacy, where they can yell as loud as they need to and no one will be disturbed. Why spend 2 to 3 times more to have their business here than at a place that would cost far less and they would have far more room than the cramped apartments here, right next to the public? Why is Pure Vida INSISTING on having their business in our - 4 -
shopping center? At Skyhawk we have already given over 500 signatures saying we don’t want them there. Here is the real not -so- hidden reason they would never tell you:
MOTIVATION
Pay attention closely to what’s going on here. Who are their clientele? Not the addicts on the street, but the wealthy professionals who pay $500-$650 every day for their services. Businesses in this local typically charge between $5000 and $20,000 per month. This downtown “premium” usually shows up as:
• Higher daily or monthly sticker price for the same basic level of care.
• Shorter stays unless a patient or insurer can afford longer treatment.
• More emphasis on private rooms, amenities, and “brand” marketing to justify city-center costs.
Their clients will be people who are willing to do whatever it takes and pay whatever it costs to become sober. Professional executives will often get treatment only if they can get back to their job quickly.
The truth of the matter is that most addicts visit rehab centers 30 to even over 100 times in their life. Any addict will tell you that there is no short-term answer. You can bet that Pura Vida knows the recidivism rate for rehab centers is 90%. That means only 10% of those who go to rehab centers actually become sober. Of course there is always the exception to any rule, but usually six months is about the minimum it takes to become truly sober. Any program that offers short term treatment is being dishonest with their clients. Any high - tech, high-priced solution to sobriety has no greater benefit and is nothing more than taking advantage of desperate wealthy people. - 5 -
If you think people who put on rehab services would never be so coldhearted and money hungry, then think again about what their experiences have been. Not everyone who comes out the other side ends up being a saint. I've watched it happen in front of me. They have lived compromised lives for many years. You can’t tell the difference by looking at them. They may be the ones who spent an excessive amount. What prevents them from making that money themselves?
The big question we need to ask Pura Vida is:
Why don’t you provide your services in a private setting?
RESPONSIBILITY
Here is where a cursory assessment of what the common sense needs are for addicts and what is provided for them at the Skyhawk shopping center identifies a severe disparity. Their clients need to be protected from the possibility of getting drugs while they are being treated. I can’t imagine the more public environment than a shopping center where people can be met , drugs can be stashed and children will be exposed. A bar is in the facility where they can get alcohol and meet people to get drugs . The bar is not going to be responsible for identifying who the addicts are. There is no possibility that these people can be held from this temptation. It’s reasonable to consider that a facility that provides treatment in this environment ignores they have made a revolving door business.
INFLUENCE
The Skyhawk Community Park is about 1/2 mile from the shopping center. That's where there is a playground for the kids and drugs are often bought and stashed for pick up. I know because addicts told me - 6 -
they pick up drugs there. What will you be able to do to stop that from happening? Is it worth the gamble that only X# of children will become addicts? How many kids or adults who become addicts do you need to see before you change your mind? When a neighborhood chooses to allow that kind of influence, there will be people who will become addicts because a dealer looked for more clients. How many dealers don’t want any more people to sell to? Where there are dealers, there are gangs that will make our neigh borhood their turf.
They will also frequent the Mahonia Glen apartment complex across from Safeway. These are 99 new low-income apartments, a place where any drug dealer would frequent. Austin Creek runs alongside these apartments. This is where a high percentage of the homeless live, where the drug addicts live. As a result of the homeless encampments there, the creek’s water quality has suffered. * Wherever a dealer is, there is an increase in CRIME, THEFT and DRUGS. Anyone should be able to see this is inviting a catastrophe to come upon our neighborhood. Those who want the rehab clinic in our neighborhood, by default, welcome more of this. To say that won’t happen is just being naïve.
CONSIDERATION
We've already been through this, having provided over 500 signatures from the homeowners here in Skyhawk. There are 500 homes here. The Santa Rosa City Council agreed with us and they voted unanimously, 6 to 0, to not allow them to be here. So what do we have to do to tell them that we don't want them here? When we said a resounding NO, why would they continue to push us around? Why not go to a place where your service is valued by your neighbors? $ MONEY $
- 7 -
Because I genuinely want them to have more rehab centers, I contacted them and gave them three options of buildings that were far larger and ideally suited for their business AND would cost them 40 to 60% LESS than what they are paying for the Skyhawk Vill age property. They gave me no response. WHY do you think that is? $ MONEY $
PROPERTY VALUES
How much are you willing to spend so you can have a drug rehab center prominently displayed next to the sign SKYHAWK? Research tells us that property values near drug rehab centers throughout the US on the average, dropped between 6% and 18%. The average home in the Skyhawk Community costs between 1.2 and $1.3 million. So, $1.25 million x 12% = $150,000. That's the average loss of value per homeowner. Facilities that provide medically supervise d detox centers were among the higher numbers. That is the service they provide. Would you be willing to spend $150,000 so you could be proud to say you supported having a drug rehab clinic near you? How about spending a little time trying to find a place better situated for their needs that costs them half the amount? There is not a single person throwing around the NIMBY word (Not In My Backyard) willing to give up $200,000 of their money so they could be proud to have Pure Vida in their neighborhood. Remember that the next time you see someone throw the NIMBY word around!
WAIT A SECOND…
What do we homeowners get out of this? If we were to choose to have this kind of exposure and influence and will have all these extremely negative consequences, then there has got to be a benefit for us. After - 8 -
all, our kids would face situations that could eventually kill them, there's got to be something good that comes from this.
I’ve thought long and hard - there is NO BENEFIT for our community and no benefit for those seeking treatment. If we were to allow this to happen on our watch, I can imagine the drug dealers would all laugh at us. They would say, “Hey, you invited us over here! We came from the west side because now we have a new market you gave us."
In two days, we have an opportunity to express our opinions to the city Council. Please do everything you can to be at Townhall at 4 PM on Tuesday, March 24th. I will be making a video presentation along with a shorter version of this. They only give us two minutes to express our opinion, unless you come to offer your time to me and to others who have developed a common sense presentation. Please find me there and offer your time to allow me to speak longer.
Sincerely,
Dave Williamson ~
1444 Grey Hawk Way
Santa Rosa, CA 95409
A 25 year Skyhawk resident
*https://www.calstate.edu/impact-of-the-
csu/research/water/Documents/conference/2024/posters/guilford -jacquelyn-rising- waters.pdf?utm_source=copilot.com