Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
San Mateo residents press council for action after county backs 69‑bed detox site
Loading...
Summary
Dozens of San Mateo residents urged the City Council to oppose a proposed 69‑bed Horizon detox center at 101 N. El Camino Real, citing lack of notice and proximity to schools and senior housing; the council directed staff to schedule a special meeting with county and Horizon leaders and declined to serve as a county meeting panelist on March 24.
Dozens of residents told the San Mateo City Council on March 16 they were blindsided by a county‑sponsored application that would place a 69‑bed Horizon detox and sobering center at 101 North El Camino Real, near Episcopal Day School and several senior facilities.
“We estimate the proposed building will blot out the sun for a significant portion of the surrounding community,” said Becky Bennett, a District 1 resident, who urged the council to scrutinize the development’s height and setbacks after viewing plans posted March 6. Marjorie Ruiz Hidalgo, Pacific Gas & Electric’s local government affairs representative, and other commenters asked the city to demand better outreach and technical information from outside agencies.
Catherine Collins, vice chair of the Episcopal Day School board, said the site lies about 800 feet from the school and asked the council to take four steps: hold a publicly noticed special city meeting with county and Horizon representatives present; send a formal letter to the state grant agency noting inadequate community engagement; compile an inventory of sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of the site; and request that county and state officials evaluate alternative locations in the county.
City Manager Alex Kojikian told the council the project is a county‑sponsored application to Horizon Services and is not a city project. He said the county submitted a formal grant application to the state in October 2025 and the state recently awarded $25,500,000 tied to this site; the county also committed $2,000,000. Kojikian said state Assembly Bill 531 limits local regulatory review for projects that meet ministerial criteria, and that the city has not been required to issue a discretionary permit on the proposal.
Councilmembers said they heard the public. “There has been tremendous lack of transparency,” Councilmember Diaz Nash said, adding she had received hundreds of emails and would circulate a letter to county leaders. Councilmember Newsom and others said they support detox and recovery services but worry the site’s size and location require detailed planning and neighborhood safeguards.
After discussion the council gave staff two consistent directions: the city will not send staff as a panelist to the county’s March 24 meeting at the San Mateo Event Center, and the council asked staff to schedule a special San Mateo meeting within 30 days to invite county, Horizon and state decision‑makers for an in‑person briefing and to press for a plan for additional community outreach. Mayor Lorraine indicated councilmembers may attend the March 24 county session as private attendees but not as official panelists.
The city manager said the county has agreed to host the March 24 meeting and that Horizon hosted a virtual meeting in February; the city is awaiting additional meeting details and will promote the event once the county shares logistics. Kojikian said the state grant award is currently tied to the identified site and that the city is constrained in what it can require before a formal application is filed, but promised the city will press the county and Horizon for neighborhood engagement and technical details.
Next steps: city staff will schedule a special public meeting in the coming 30 days that aims to secure county and Horizon participation, circulate the council’s draft letter to county leadership and continue coordinating outreach to notify nearby residents of upcoming public events and staff briefings.
