San Martin residents tell commission rapid growth of for‑profit mental health homes strains services

Residents from San Martin raised concerns at the March 27 Santa Clara County Planning Commission meeting about a rapid increase of for‑profit residential mental health facilities near a small cul‑de‑sac in the unincorporated community.

At public comment, Sarah Kuitrignelli (phonetic), who said she lives on a six‑house cul‑de‑sac in San Martin, told the commission the community had two such facilities near her home in February 2022 and that the number had grown to eight. She described frequent law enforcement and emergency medical responses to the neighborhood and called on county supervisors and staff to identify where a saturation threshold would be set, require better notification to nearby residents, and address the strain on local public safety and emergency medical services.

Sharon Luna, chair of the San Martin Planning Advisory Committee (SIMPAC), reported at the commission meeting that the committee had discussed the influx and was working with the county CEO’s office and planning staff to address concerns. SIMPAC considered a separate agenda item about a related two‑year extension for another San Martin project and provided a favorable advisory recommendation (6–0, one absent) on that extension. Luna also said the community is worried about several builder’s‑remedy housing projects in preliminary stages that would add more homes to an area that uses wells and septic systems and rural roads.

Commissioners asked staff whether any county or state agency regulates for‑profit residential mental‑health operations; staff told the commission that jurisdictional responsibilities vary: the California Department of Health Care Services oversees certain Title 22 licensing and compliance issues, the county enforces land‑use and contract requirements, and other state or local agencies may have roles for public‑safety or health‑related regulations. Kuitrignelli and Luna told the commission residents have tried county complaint channels but that responses have indicated limited county authority over for‑profit operators unless contractual relationships exist.

SIMPAC members and local residents requested that county staff consider zoning updates — including the county’s “local serving” or rural‑zoning updates already in process — and to evaluate whether numerical limits or notification requirements should be added for congregations of specific facility types in unincorporated areas.

No formal action by the planning commission was taken on the subject during the meeting; staff acknowledged the concerns and said they would continue coordination with SIMPAC and other county offices.