Expanding from six beds to twenty-four beds quadruples the size of the operation and significantly increases the intensity of activity associated with a 24-hour detox facility.
This represents a major escalation in institutional use in a sensitive neighborhood location.
To quadruple the occupancy of an institutional facility in this location is a risk our district should not be forced to take.
A program of this scale functions more like a regional institutional facility than a small residential program.
When a facility grows four times larger, supervision, transportation, staffing, and neighborhood activity all increase.
Pura Vida has not demonstrated experience operating a facility of this scale.
Moving from six beds to twenty-four beds represents a major operational leap requiring significantly greater supervision and coordination.
The staffing levels discussed at the previous hearing raise questions about whether adequate supervision can be maintained for a 24‑bed detox facility.
Staff must monitor residents, enforce rules, respond to medical issues, and sometimes transport residents.
When the number of residents increases significantly, staffing must increase accordingly to maintain safe operations.
This is not a lockdown facility. The owner stated that clients may leave against medical advice at any time.
Because residents can leave the program at any time, there is potential for unsupervised individuals moving through the surrounding neighborhood.
This facility is located along a primary walking route for students at Austin Creek Elementary School, raising direct safety concerns for children.
This creates a situation where vulnerable individuals may enter public spaces without supervision.
Skyhawk is located in a high wildfire-risk area, and wildfire safety is a constant concern for our community.
This specific location also functions as a safety bottleneck in a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone with limited evacuation routes.
To quadruple occupancy to 24 under-care patients—individuals who may not be able to independently drive or evacuate—creates a serious life-safety risk.
Placing 24 residents in a second-story commercial suite further complicates evacuation during an emergency.
This location is adjacent to a major evacuation route for hundreds of nearby homes, making this concentration of vulnerable individuals a serious and unacceptable public safety risk.
There has been no clearly demonstrated or verified evacuation plan for 24 under-care or potentially non-ambulatory patients from a second-story configuration in a high fire hazard zone.
We cannot ignore the lessons learned from past wildfire disasters such as Coffey Park, where evacuation constraints had devastating consequences.
Neighbors have observed smoking outside the existing facility, which further elevates concern in a fire-prone corridor.
Expanding from six beds to twenty-four beds increases occupancy and outdoor activity in an already constrained evacuation environment.
In an emergency scenario, this concentration of vulnerable individuals could overwhelm safe egress capacity and create liability for the City.
Skyhawk Village is zoned Neighborhood Commercial and intended to serve the day-to-day needs of local residents, consistent with the City’s General Plan vision.
Allowing a high-intensity, 24-bed regional institutional hub in this location conflicts with that vision.
This represents a dramatic increase in intensity—effectively a 300% expansion—transforming a neighborhood-serving site into a regional institutional hub that does not meet the day-to-day needs of local residents.
A regional detox facility does not function as a neighborhood-serving use.
The General Plan mandates that CN zones serve the daily, essential needs of local residents—not regional institutional consolidation.
Every neighborhood—regardless of zip code—deserves equal protection under Neighborhood Commercial zoning standards.
While this project is located in District 3, the precedent it sets impacts every neighborhood in our city, including all other districts.
Skyhawk Village has served as a neighborhood center for nearly twenty years supporting small businesses and everyday services.
Introducing a large institutional facility could change the character and function of the shopping center.
If this conversion is allowed here, it signals that neighborhood plazas in Skyhawk—and eventually small shopping centers across the city—are open for institutional consolidation.
This is not just a local decision; it establishes a precedent that affects neighborhood-serving centers across the entire city.
The facility is located only a few feet from a restaurant with a full alcohol bar, and within about half a mile of two marijuana dispensaries and other bars.
This type of environment may not be the most supportive setting for individuals undergoing detox and early recovery.
Location is an important factor when evaluating whether a site is appropriate for a treatment facility.
The facility is located about 0.7 miles from Austin Creek Elementary School and roughly half a mile from Skyhawk Community Park.
These are important gathering places for children and families.
When evaluating land-use compatibility, proximity to schools and parks should be an important consideration.
Many students walk or bike to Austin Creek Elementary School.
This location is directly connected to a key student walking route.
Expanding a facility that brings additional activity and unfamiliar individuals into the area raises concerns about pedestrian safety for school children.
Even where some impacts may seem minor when viewed individually, the combined effect on neighbors’ quality of life is significant.
Increased intensity of use, traffic, outdoor activity, smoking observations, pedestrian safety concerns, wildfire evacuation risks, and the shift away from neighborhood-serving uses all affect the day-to-day experience of nearby residents.
The Council should consider not only the current impacts of the six-bed operation, but also the potential quality-of-life impacts of expanding to a 24-bed facility.
Converting the seven apartments above Skyhawk Village removes residential housing from the neighborhood.
This displaces much-needed housing units and reduces affordable housing opportunities.
In the middle of a housing crisis, we should be protecting residential units—not allowing them to be permanently eliminated for regional institutional consolidation.
These seven units are much-needed housing in Santa Rosa, and many residents are shocked that this project would eliminate them.
We should not be cannibalizing our residential housing stock to accommodate institutional consolidation.
This proposal displaces residents in order to consolidate a regional facility in a neighborhood setting.
Once converted to institutional use, those units are unlikely to return to housing.
This represents a permanent loss of mid-range and affordable housing that our city cannot afford during an ongoing housing crisis.
Removing housing units in a neighborhood served by Austin Creek Elementary reduces opportunities for families who want to live near a strong public school.
Preserving housing near schools is an important community planning consideration.
Skyhawk Village, nearby homes, the elementary school, and the community park together form part of a Complete Neighborhood.
These elements support a walkable community where residents can live, shop, and gather locally.
Allowing institutional conversion undermines the City’s Complete Neighborhood promise for families.
This creates a harmful precedent for both housing and healthcare planning in neighborhood centers.
Commissioner Terry Sanders previously asked whether any study demonstrated the need for a 24‑bed detox facility at this location, and none was presented.
For a four‑fold expansion, evidence should be provided to show why this location is appropriate for that scale and if the expansion serves the needs of the local community.
According to statements made during the hearing, most clients come from the broader Bay Area region, including Sonoma and Marin Counties.
Skyhawk residents are not the typical client base.
This suggests the facility primarily serves a regional market rather than the immediate neighborhood.
The proposal appears to consolidate beds from other facilities rather than significantly expanding treatment capacity.
This concentrates a larger operation in one neighborhood while reducing smaller facilities elsewhere.
Moving beds into a single location may reduce convenient access to treatment services in other neighborhoods.
Distributing services across the city may better serve residents than concentrating them in one area.
To approve this permit, the Council must be able to find that the project will not be detrimental to public welfare.
Given the wildfire evacuation constraints, safety risks, zoning conflicts, and housing loss, many residents believe this finding cannot be made.
This decision is not limited to one district—its implications extend to zoning protections and neighborhood integrity across all of Santa Rosa.
This proposal creates a troubling precedent if high-intensity institutional uses can displace housing in neighborhood centers.
Commissioner Charles Carter stated that he could not make the required findings regarding compatibility and site suitability.
Commissioner Carter’s vote reflects a clear recognition that this project fails key legal findings related to compatibility and site suitability.
The Planning Commission itself was divided in a 4-2 decision, underscoring that significant concerns remain unresolved at a planning and policy level.
He expressed concern that the intensity of a 24-bed facility could change the nature of the neighborhood-serving center.
This aligns with broader concerns that the site is fundamentally unsuitable.
The upstairs nature of this facility above a neighborhood plaza is also a poor design for 24 rehab and detox patients.
If the operation also depends on transporting residents elsewhere for smoking or day activities, that would require a bus or multiple vans, and the site’s parking, loading, and circulation do not appear designed for that level of activity.
This configuration resembles a high-density 'warehouse' model rather than a setting designed for healing and long-term recovery success.
Housing 24 high-needs patients in a cramped upstairs retail suite does not provide the dignity, space, or therapeutic environment required for successful recovery.
From a recovery perspective, placing 24 high-needs clients in 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 and risks failing the very individuals it intends to serve.
The Council should consider the whole of the project rather than evaluating individual approvals in isolation.
Residents remain concerned that this proposal has advanced through piecemeal approvals without fully addressing neighborhood impacts.
The absence of police reports does not necessarily mean the absence of neighborhood impacts.
Some neighbors have observed issues such as smoking or litter that were never formally reported before the last hearing.
From last hearing, we learned that such reports are necessary to show neighborhood impact, we filed reports accordingly for new observations.
Several supportive comments came from businesses that are tenants of the same property owner.
Because of this relationship, those statements may not represent fully independent community support.
Better Santa Rosa
122 Calistoga Road #175, Santa Rosa, CA 95409
Copyright © 2026 Better Santa Rosa - All Rights Reserved.