photo credit: City of Santa Rosa
Aerial map view of the Pura Vida Recovery Services Center on Mountain Hawk Dr. 
in Santa Rosa's Skyhawk neighborhood.

Santa Rosa's planning commission recently approved an expansion of an alcohol and drug recovery center in Santa Rosa's Skyhawk neighborhood.

Pura Vida Recovery Center was granted a conditional use permit to expand their foot print to 24 beds at their facility in the Skyhawk Village shopping center.

Local neighborhood opposition has coalesced in the group Skyhawk United, and the Press Democrat's Paulina Pineda spoke with KRCB News about the hearing, the plans for expansion and the technical reasoning behind the Planning Commission's decision.

Below is the conversation between Pineda and KRCB News' Noah Abrams.

Noah Abrams: What's going on [with Pura Vida Recovery Services] and the recent hearing that they had in front of the planning commission, and the approval of the expansion by the commission.

Paulina Pineda: Yeah, so Pura Vida Recovery Services already operates a six-bed recovery service center at Skyhawk Village. It's a a small shopping center off Highway 12 and Mountain Hawk Drive in the city's eastern hillside.

They've been there for about three years, but the owner Alex Wignall, who also owns the building, had long looked to expand and a couple of years ago they had proposed expanding to 24 beds but it was shot down after neighbors in Skyhawk sort of banded together. They collected signatures, organized community meetings...back in like late 2022 to urge [planning] commissioners to oppose the project.

Well [Pura Vida] came back earlier this year with a new application with some minor changes, and that went before the planning commission earlier in November and residents they were sort of caught off guard by the application. They thought once it had been denied the first time that that was it. The services while [they are] important, neighbors feel that it's inappropriate for their largely residential neighborhood.

They pointed to the proximity to a nearby elementary school, Austin Creek Elementary, and to nearby park space, and felt that it was maybe better suited in another part of the city. They felt that it could lead to potential safety concerns.

The planning commission, I think, somewhat surprisingly maybe for some of those residents, approved the conditional use permit to expand operations. How these facilities are defined by the state [was a big factor] and under that definition, they're not a medical facility.

I think that's really like what the commission's decision came down to and then in the end, it wasn't considered a medical facility, so it was allowed there and...residents have really pushed back on that.

NA: It seems to be that with this operation, part of the way that the zoning code is administered, it's not something that's subject to greater scrutiny, or a sort of higher level of permitting than what is being applied in the situation.

PP: Right. Even the fact that it made it to the planning commission was sort of rare. These type of conditional use permits typically go before the zoning administrator, which is like a lower-level approval. But because of the community interest, the first application back in 2022 had been elevated by planning staff to the commission. When it came back again, it went back to the commission because that same community interest in the project.

The planning commission was split. Commissioners, including some who were on the board back in 2022 and had initially opposed the project, said that they thought that some of the changes that the applicant had made, particularly removing a proposed smoking tent along Highway 12, had sort of changed their mind. More clarity around the definition in the zoning code and land use regulations...I think also helped them support the project in the end.

NA: So one of the city planning staff said that there haven't been any calls for service that Santa Rosa Police haven't had to go out there and respond. What type of people are enrolling at this treatment center? And if you're a resident, you know, have the concerns sort of been founded, or if you're the owner, have your arguments been justified at this point? You know, what what does this look like for folks who are actually utilizing the services here?

PP: Yeah, the owner Wignall, he had said that most of the clients they serve are sort of in the age range of 30 to 60 years old. They're community members, working community members. He said some of their clients included residents from the Skyhawk neighborhood.

I think he said about like 99% of their clients have insurance and most of those have Kaiser insurance, which is you know one of the largest employer-based insurance programs here in Northern California. The other 1% he said either pay in cash [or get a sponsorship] and he said it was $27,000 for a 30-day stay. So it's not cheap.

These are people who are coming to get services by choice really. He said no one's court mandated to be there. He said they provide group and individual counseling, and group activities and that the average length of the stay is like 60 to 90 days.

For the applicant, for the owner, I do think that he felt that maybe some of the concerns weren't valid. He pointed to support from the neighboring businesses in the shopping center which include a gym, like a salon, a restaurant.

For residents, they pointed to safety concerns, concerns about loitering along the highway and in some of the nearby parks. Staff said that they have not received any complaints tied to that specific location and that police reviewed the application and didn't have any concerns either.