Coordinated Public Hearing Speech Template Packet

26 one-minute standalone speeches for random speaking order

These are the points that should be repeated most often because they go directly to findings, precedent, public safety, and compatibility:

• Point 19 – Required Conditional Use Permit Findings

• Point 5 – Wildfire Risk Considerations

• Point 6 – Neighborhood Commercial Zoning Purpose

• Point 7 – Character and Function of the Shopping Center

• Point 12 – Housing Loss

• Point 20 – Commissioner Carter’s Concerns

• Point 15 – Demonstrated Need

• Point 11 – Current and Potential Impacts on Neighbor Quality of Life

Because speaker order will be random, every speech must stand fully on its own. No speech should depend on another speaker going first, last, or in the middle.

Each person should make one clear argument, give one or two support lines, and end with the same respectful ask: “For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to uphold the appeal.”

Do not rely on sequence. Instead, use disciplined repetition. Multiple speakers should repeat the strongest themes: wildfire and evacuation risk, Neighborhood Commercial zoning conflict, housing loss, required findings, citywide precedent, and poor therapeutic design.

Do not say “as previous speakers mentioned.” That assumes order and wastes time. Treat each speech as if it may be the only one the Council hears clearly.

Each of the 26 speech templates now appears at least once in Section 3. Some speech templates appear in more than one category because they cover more than one theme.

• 4 speech templates on A: wildfire / evacuation / bottleneck risk — Speech template #1, #2, #16, and #20

• 4 speech templates on B: zoning / neighborhood-serving use / citywide precedent — Speech template #7, #14, #19, and #23

• 4 speech templates on C: housing / complete neighborhood / school-adjacent housing — Speech template #3, #10, #21, and #25

• 7 speech templates on D: required findings / Commissioner Carter / lack of demonstrated need — Speech template #4, #5, #8, #11, #13, #22, and #26

• 3 speech templates on E: school route / non-lockdown / pedestrian safety — Speech template #6, #10, and #24

• 3 speech templates on F:recovery-environment failure / upstairs design — Speech template #9, #15, and #20

• 2 speech templates on G: consolidation of beds / loss of access in other neighborhoods — Speech template #12 and #23

• 2 speech templates on H: community observations / tenant support bias — Speech template #17 and #18

• 3 speech templates on I: Quality of Life — Speech template #7, #17, and #24

• Start with your name and, if relevant, your district or neighborhood.

• Keep the tone strong but respectful.

• Say clearly that you support recovery services, but this is the wrong location and scale.

• Speak more slowly than normal. These scripts are written to stay within about one minute even for slower speakers.

• Use the “Talking points covered” label below each speech template to help assign speakers without repetition.

● If time allows, each speaker should add one short personal sentence about why these matter to them.

Examples: “My family uses this shopping center every week,” “My child walks this route to school,” “As a resident of another district, I am concerned about the precedent this sets for my neighborhood,” or “I support recovery services, which is why I want them located in places designed for them.”

4A. Priority speech template list if time is limited

Highest priority – must include if possible

• Speech template #2 — wildfire / evacuation / required findings

• Speech template #5 — Commissioner Carter / required findings

• Speech template #7 — CN zoning / citywide precedent

• Speech template #3 — housing loss / complete neighborhood

• Speech template #4 — no demonstrated need / regional use

• Speech template #15 — poor recovery environment / upstairs design

• Speech template #20 — wildfire / Coffey Park / inability to make findings

• Speech template #26 — broad closing summary

Second priority – add these next if you have 12–14 speakers

• Speech template #6 — non-lockdown + school route

• Speech template #10 — housing near school / family planning

• Speech template #12 — consolidation of beds / loss of access elsewhere

• Speech template #13 — legal findings / zoning / school route

• Speech template #14 — shopping center character / equal zoning protection

• Speech template #23 — non-District 3 / citywide precedent

If you can include 15–20 speech templates, also add

• Speech template #11 — operator experience + staffing + Carter

• Speech template #16 — under-care residents + evacuation risk

• Speech template #21 — housing crisis / public welfare

• Speech template #24 — child safety / school / park

• Speech template #25 — complete neighborhood / citywide fairness

Recommended minimum packages

• If only 6 speech templates: Speech template #2, #5, #7, #3, #15, and #26

• If 8 speech templates: Speech template #2, #5, #7, #3, #4, #15, #20, and #26

• If 10 speech templates: Speech template #2, #5, #7, #3, #4, #6, #10, #15, #20, and #26

Talking points covered: Points 1, 6, 19

Section 3 label: Wildfire / evacuation / bottleneck risk

Good evening. My name is __and I’m a ___. I support recovery services, and to be clear, we welcome the existing 6-bed facility in our community and hope it continues to serve people in recovery at that scale. Our concern is not the current 6-bed operation. Our concern is the proposed 24-bed expansion, which is the wrong project in the wrong location. Expanding from 6 beds to 24 beds is a major increase in intensity. Neighborhood Commercial zoning is intended for neighborhood-serving uses that meet the day-to-day needs of local residents, not for a 24-bed regional institutional hub. This proposal does not just add intensity. It changes the basic function of a neighborhood commercial center. Because of the scale, the zoning conflict, and the impact on the surrounding neighborhood, I do not believe the Council can comfortably make the required findings. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to uphold the appeal.

Talking points covered: Points 5, 19

Section 3 label: Wildfire / evacuation / bottleneck risk

My name is __and I’m a ___. I want to focus on wildfire safety. This site is in a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and also functions as an evacuation bottleneck. The proposal would place 24 under-care residents in a second-story commercial suite, and no verified evacuation plan has been shown for that scenario. We have learned painful lessons from past wildfire disasters. In a fire-prone area with limited egress, this is not a theoretical concern. It is a life-safety concern. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to uphold the appeal.

Talking points covered: Points 12, 14

Section 3 label: Housing / complete neighborhood / school-adjacent housing

My name is __and I’m a ___. I want to speak about housing. This project would eliminate 7 housing units in a city already facing a housing crisis. Those units are part of the fabric of a Complete Neighborhood, alongside homes, the school, the park, and local services. We should be preserving residential units, not converting them into higher-intensity institutional use. Once these units are gone, they are unlikely to return as housing. This is bad planning for Skyhawk and bad planning for Santa Rosa. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to uphold the appeal.

Talking points covered: Points 15, 16

Section 3 label: Required findings / commissioner concerns / lack of need

My name is __and I’m a ___. A Planning Commissioner asked whether any study demonstrated the need for a 24-bed facility at this location, and none was presented. At the same time, statements during the hearing showed that most clients come from the broader Bay Area, including Sonoma and Marin Counties. That means this is not really a neighborhood-serving use. It is a regional use placed into a local neighborhood center. If the City is going to approve a four-fold expansion of this kind, the applicant should at least prove why this site and scale are justified. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to uphold the appeal.

Talking points covered: Points 20, 19

Section 3 label: Required findings / commissioner concerns / lack of need

My name is __and I’m a ___. I want to emphasize that even the Planning Commission was not comfortable with this project. Commissioner Charles Carter said he could not make the required findings regarding compatibility and site suitability. He specifically raised concerns that the intensity of a 24-bed facility could change the nature of the neighborhood-serving center. That is a serious warning from someone charged with evaluating land-use compatibility. The Council does not need to guess whether these concerns are real. A Planning Commissioner already said them on the record. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to uphold the appeal.

Talking points covered: Points 4, 9, 10

Section 3 label: School / park / pedestrian safety

My name is __and I’m a ___. This is not a lockdown facility, and the owner stated that clients may leave against medical advice at any time. The site is also near Austin Creek Elementary School and connected to a key student walking route. Many children walk or bike through this area. A project of this scale introduces additional activity and the possibility of unsupervised movement through a child-centered neighborhood environment. Recovery services are important, but this is the wrong location and the wrong scale. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to uphold the appeal.

Talking points covered: Points 6, 7, 11

Section 3 label: Quality of Life

My name is __and I’m a ___. Skyhawk Village has served for years as a neighborhood center with small businesses and daily services. I want to be clear that we welcome the existing 6-bed facility and hope it continues to operate successfully here at its current scale. Our concern is not the current 6-bed use. Our concern is the proposed expansion to 24 beds. The City’s General Plan and Neighborhood Commercial zoning framework are intended to protect centers like this for neighborhood-serving uses that meet the day-to-day needs of local residents. A 24-bed regional institutional hub does not do that. Approving this project would convert a neighborhood-serving commercial center into a regional institutional use, which is exactly the kind of zoning drift the Council should prevent. That would not just affect Skyhawk. It would signal to the whole city that neighborhood centers can be converted away from local-serving uses into institutional uses. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to uphold the appeal.

Talking points covered: Points 21, 19

Section 3 label: Required findings / commissioner concerns / lack of need

My name is __and I’m a ___. I am concerned that this proposal has advanced through piecemeal approvals without addressing the full neighborhood impact. The Council should consider the whole project, not isolated pieces. When all the issues are viewed together—wildfire risk, loss of housing, zoning conflict, and scale—it becomes clear why the required findings are so difficult here. Looking at each piece separately can make the project seem smaller than it really is. But taken as a whole, this is a major transformation of a neighborhood center. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to uphold the appeal.

Talking points covered: Points 8, 20

Section 3 label: Recovery-environment failure / upstairs design

My name is __and I’m a ___. I want to speak about whether this site is appropriate for recovery. The facility sits just a few feet from a restaurant with a full alcohol bar and within about half a mile of marijuana dispensaries and other bars. That environment does not seem supportive for people in detox and early recovery. The project is already being criticized as a poor fit for the site, and this is part of that problem. A site can be wrong both for the neighborhood and for the patients. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to uphold the appeal.

Talking points covered: Points 13, 14, 10

Section 3 label: Housing / complete neighborhood / school-adjacent housing

My name is __and I’m a ___. Removing housing units in a neighborhood served by Austin Creek Elementary reduces opportunities for families who want to live near a strong public school. Housing near schools is part of sound community planning. In Skyhawk, housing, school, park, and local services all work together as part of a Complete Neighborhood. Replacing that balance with institutional use weakens what the City says it wants neighborhoods to be. This is not just about one project. It is about whether Santa Rosa will actually protect family-oriented neighborhood planning. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to uphold the appeal.

Talking points covered: Points 2, 3, 20

Section 3 label: Required findings / commissioner concerns / lack of need

My name is __and I’m a ___. I am concerned about staffing, supervision, and whether the operator can actually follow its promised operating agreement. At the last hearing, Sage Cleik testified that as a 19-year-old medical assistant student, after only one day of training at a Pura Vida home, she was told she would be alone with residents at 5:00 a.m. on her second day. If Pura Vida could not safely staff a small six-bed home without relying on a student with one day of training, it is reasonable to question whether it can reliably follow staffing and operational commitments for a 24-bed facility. And if the proposed operation depends on transporting residents elsewhere for smoking or day activities, that raises another operations question: what vehicles will be used, where will they park, and how often will those trips occur? A 24-bed facility could require a bus or multiple vans, and the site’s parking and circulation do not appear designed for that level of activity. That goes directly to whether this site is suitable and whether the Council can rely on the applicant’s promises. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to uphold the appeal.

Talking points covered: Points 17, 18

Section 3 label: Consolidation of beds / loss of access in other neighborhoods

My name is __and I’m a ___. This project appears to consolidate beds from other facilities rather than meaningfully expand treatment capacity. That means one neighborhood takes on more intensity, while other neighborhoods may lose convenient access to smaller facilities. Good planning distributes services where possible. It does not concentrate impacts into a single neighborhood while reducing convenience elsewhere. This is not only a District 3 issue. It affects how treatment access is distributed across the city. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to uphold the appeal.

Talking points covered: Points 6, 19

Section 3 label: Required findings / commissioner concerns / lack of need

My name is __and I’m a ___. The Council must be able to find that this project is not detrimental to public welfare. But the evidence points in the other direction: wildfire constraints, school-route concerns, housing loss, and incompatibility with Neighborhood Commercial zoning. If the legal findings cannot be made comfortably, the permit should not be approved. These standards exist for a reason. They protect neighborhoods and ensure consistency in land-use decisions. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to uphold the appeal.

Talking points covered: Points 7, 6

Section 3 label: Zoning / neighborhood-serving use / citywide precedent

My name is __and I’m a ___. This project changes the character and function of the shopping center. Skyhawk Village was built to support small businesses and everyday services. If a neighborhood plaza like this can become a regional institutional hub, then no neighborhood-serving center in Santa Rosa is really protected. That is why this is not just a District 3 issue. It is a citywide precedent issue. Every neighborhood deserves equal protection under the same zoning framework. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to uphold the appeal.

Talking points covered: Points 20

Section 3 label: Recovery-environment failure / upstairs design

My name is __and I’m a ___. From a recovery perspective, this project is also the wrong design. The upstairs layout above a neighborhood plaza is a poor setting for 24 rehab and detox patients. A confined upstairs suite creates a high-stress institutional environment rather than a therapeutic one. Recovery requires peace, reflection, and physical space. This design provides the opposite. If we truly support recovery, then we should expect a facility design that supports healing, not one that risks failing the very people it is meant to serve. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to uphold the appeal.

Talking points covered: Points 5, 4

Section 3 label: Wildfire / evacuation / bottleneck risk

My name is __and I’m a ___. The wildfire issue is especially troubling because the residents here are not just ordinary apartment residents. They are under care, and many may not be able to independently drive or evacuate. This is also not a lockdown facility, meaning supervision is already a concern. Combining those facts with a second-story suite in a constrained evacuation area is extremely dangerous. We should not create an avoidable life-safety risk in a high fire hazard zone. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to uphold the appeal.

Talking points covered: Points 22, 11

Section 3 label: Quality of Life

My name is __and I’m a ___. I want to address neighborhood impacts that affect quality of life. The absence of police reports does not mean the absence of impacts. Neighbors observed issues such as smoking and litter but did not always report them before the last hearing. When those day-to-day issues are combined with increased activity, traffic, and neighborhood disruption, they directly affect quality of life for nearby residents. The Council should consider not only current impacts from the six-bed operation, but also the likely quality-of-life impacts of expanding to 24 beds. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to uphold the appeal.

Talking points covered: Points 23

Section 3 label: Community observations / tenant-business support bias

My name is __and I’m a ___. I also want to note that some of the supportive comments at the hearing came from businesses that are tenants of the same property owner. That does not necessarily mean those comments are invalid, but it does mean they may not represent fully independent community sentiment. The Council should weigh those comments alongside the many residents and families who are directly affected by this project. Community input should be evaluated carefully and fairly. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to uphold the appeal.

Talking points covered: Points 6, 16

Section 3 label: Zoning / neighborhood-serving use / citywide precedent

My name is __and I’m a ___. The project is being proposed in a Neighborhood Commercial zone, but most clients come from outside the immediate neighborhood. That mismatch matters because CN zoning is supposed to serve local daily needs, not operate as a regional institutional hub. The burden is local, but the use is regional. If the facility does not primarily serve local residents or function as a neighborhood-serving use, then it is not consistent with the intended purpose of a Neighborhood Commercial center. That is not just a policy concern. It is a zoning compatibility problem. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to uphold the appeal.

Talking points covered: Points 5, 19

Section 3 label: Wildfire / evacuation / bottleneck risk

My name is __and I’m a ___. We cannot ignore the lessons of Coffey Park and other wildfire disasters. This site sits in a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone with limited evacuation routes. The Council must be able to say this project is not detrimental to public welfare. With 24 under-care residents in a second-story suite and no verified evacuation plan, I do not see how that finding can be made. And if the operation also requires transporting residents off-site for smoking or day activities, then that transportation is part of the project’s real intensity. A bus or multiple vans would add loading, unloading, parking, and circulation demands to a site that already appears constrained. That is not just a traffic question. It is a physical suitability question. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to uphold the appeal.

Talking points covered: Points 12, 19

Section 3 label: Housing / complete neighborhood / school-adjacent housing

My name is __and I’m a ___. Santa Rosa is in a housing crisis, and this project would permanently remove 7 housing units. That alone should give the Council pause. But it becomes even more serious when those housing losses are used to support a high-intensity institutional use in a neighborhood center. The Council must decide whether that outcome is really consistent with public welfare and sound planning. I respectfully believe it is not. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to uphold the appeal.

Talking points covered: Points 15, 20

Section 3 label: Required findings / commissioner concerns / lack of need

My name is __and I’m a ___. No study was presented showing the need for a 24-bed facility at this location. At the same time, a Planning Commissioner said the required findings could not be made. Those are two major red flags. If the applicant wants a four-fold expansion in a sensitive neighborhood center, the burden should be on the applicant to prove the site is appropriate. That proof was not provided. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to uphold the appeal.

Talking points covered: Points 18, 6, 7

Section 3 label: Consolidation of beds / loss of access in other neighborhoods

My name is __and I’m a ___. I do not live in District 3, but I am here because this decision affects the whole city. If services are concentrated into one neighborhood while other areas lose access, that is a citywide planning problem. And if a Neighborhood Commercial plaza can be converted this way in Skyhawk, similar centers in other districts could face the same pressure. This is not just about one neighborhood. It is about whether neighborhood-serving spaces across Santa Rosa remain protected. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to uphold the appeal.

Talking points covered: Points 4, 9, 10, 11

Section 3 label: Quality of Life

My name is __and I’m a ___. I want to focus on the quality-of-life impact on families and children. This is not a lockdown facility. It is near a school, near a park, and connected to student walking routes. Those facts matter because they affect the daily experience of the families who live here. This proposal is not just about one isolated use. It changes traffic, safety, neighborhood character, and the overall quality of life of nearby residents. I do not believe that level of impact is compatible with this location. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to uphold the appeal.

Talking points covered: Points 14, 7, 6

Section 3 label: Housing / complete neighborhood / school-adjacent housing

My name is __and I’m a ___. Skyhawk Village is part of a Complete Neighborhood. Homes, school, park, and local services are supposed to work together. This project pushes that environment away from local-serving uses and toward regional institutional use. If approved, it tells every neighborhood in Santa Rosa that their local plaza may be expendable. That is not the promise of the General Plan, and it is not fair to families citywide. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to uphold the appeal.

Talking points covered: Points 19, 20, 5, 12

Section 3 label: Required findings / commissioner concerns / lack of need

My name is __and I’m a ___. At the end of the day, this appeal comes down to whether the Council can make the required findings honestly and confidently. We are not asking the City to shut down the existing 6-bed facility. In fact, we welcome it in our community and hope it continues to operate successfully at its current scale. Our objection is to expanding it to 24 beds in this location and at this intensity. We have wildfire evacuation risk, housing loss, a zoning conflict, a questionable recovery environment, and Planning Commission members who could not support the project. That is too much unresolved risk for one neighborhood to carry. Recovery services matter, but this location and this scale are wrong. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to uphold the appeal.