Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Behavioral Health Facility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge San Marcos to oppose proposed Interfaith detox center near schools; city says Prop 1 may limit local land-use control
Summary
Residents and childcare providers urged the San Marcos City Council on April 22 to oppose a proposed 50‑bed Interfaith Services detox facility that speakers said would sit within feet of local preschools, Palomar College sites and San Marcos Middle School.
Hundreds of residents, parents and local childcare providers told the San Marcos City Council on April 22 they oppose a proposed 50‑bed detox facility being proposed by Interfaith Services at a site they said lies immediately adjacent to several schools, preschools and youth facilities.
Multiple speakers told the council they support treatment and second chances for people with substance-use disorders but said the proposed location is wrong given its proximity to children. "The proposed site is right behind the Montessori preschool ... 25 feet from the proposed site, 25 feet from the bus stop for Paloma Elementary, a hundred feet from the San Marcos Middle School," said Jamie Benson during public comment. Several speakers said they reviewed policing and incident data from an existing Interfaith facility in Escondido and found elevated police calls in that area.
Parents, a daycare owner and other residents asked the council to retract any prior support for the location and to help seek another site. "I support second chances ... but this is not the right location. Not next door to our middle school, preschools, elementary bus stops, sports centers, and where kids gather and walk," said Stephanie Serrato, a Paloma Elementary parent. Tilly Messenger, owner of the Montessori School of San Marcos, told the council she had experienced people loitering and aggressive behavior at a nearby church property in the past and said that proximity to detoxing individuals could be traumatic or unsafe for young children.
Speakers repeatedly urged the council to send a formal letter opposing the proposed site or to use whatever influence the city has in Sacramento to block funding allocation. Dennis (last name not provided) asked the council to draft a letter of disapproval to state decision-makers, saying perception of local support matters in state funding decisions. Others asked the council to press Interfaith to find an alternative site farther from schools and child-care centers.
Mayor Jones told the public the city had no unilateral land-use authority over projects funded with Prop 1 money: "The city does not have jurisdiction. With Prop 1 funds, if they are awarded ... the state took land-use decisions... that fall under Prop 1 funds." The mayor said the city did secure a memorandum of understanding with Interfaith that addressed some community concerns (security and similar items) but that the MOU was voluntary and not required. Council members and staff said the Prop 1 award decision is expected in May or June and that the city will then learn whether the project will follow the state process (if funded) or the local planning process (if not funded).
No formal council action was taken on the item during the meeting. Several speakers said they plan continued outreach to the council and state decision-makers; some urged the city to publicly withdraw any implied support if it exists.
