San Mateo residents show growing support for controversial treatment facility

But for the last couple months, neighboring residents have made it clear they don’t want the facility near them, claiming that clients would trespass on school property to prey on their children, attract crime and drug dealers to their neighborhood, increase congestion and lower their property values.

Horizon has said previously, and during a City Council meeting April 15, that the facility prohibits alcohol, illicit substances and outside loitering, and clients are also not allowed to bring vehicles on site. Residents are accompanied by a staff member any time a resident leaves the facility during the program. Once they leave the program — whether or not they fully complete it — they are either transported to their next destination by a staff member or have arrangements to get picked up, even if they’re unhoused.

“We have a very controlled and predictable inflow and outflow,” Chief Clinical Officer Derya Ozes said during the City Council meeting, adding that the facility will also have 24/7 surveillance.

At Palm Avenue Detox center in San Mateo, also run by Horizon, Program Director Jeffrey Essex said they have a strict protocol that requires staff to check clients’ well-being every 30 minutes.

“Every 30 minutes, staff makes sure there is proof of life,” he said. “Nobody is leaving the facility without me knowing right away.”

According to data from the San Mateo Police Department, there were 33 calls for service to the detox facility in 2025. There were 11 incidents throughout the entire year when law enforcement had to escort clients out of the facility, Essex said. No arrests were made on the entire block where the detox facility is located last year, according to public records data.

The detox center is also two buildings down from a school, which Ozes said has not posed any issues for students or staff, adding that Horizon is open to having a security officer on the premises to alleviate neighbors’ concerns, though they haven’t needed one in the past.

Still, the discussion seemed to do little to assuage some residents’ and leaders’ concerns.

“What happens if drug dealers are circulating these facilities and how do you address that?” Christina Johnson asked during public comment.

Kathryn Collins, one of the members of the Board of Trustees at the Episcopal Day School, gave a presentation at the meeting about how the facility, which is two blocks away, could pose a threat, or at minimum nuisance, to their school and church.

“Our kids are out on this lawn and at this cafeteria all day long,” Collins said. “Will these drop-offs by police and ambulance have sirens and lights flashing? Is that what our kids are going to experience day in and day out?”

Some commenters, including Tom Blake, said having the site there would negatively impact the county’s tax revenue and increase traffic congestion.

“This is not a good location,” he said. “There is no need to take this site off the tax roll for the purpose of congesting an already congested street.”

Another stated it could lead to individual property values declining. Some, including councilmembers, have said they’d prefer the county purchase a roughly $13 million site on Mahler Road in Burlingame instead — which housed the former sobering center before it closed down.

“The [El Camino Real] site is too small for what they want to do,” Councilmember Lisa Diaz Nash said. “You really have to think of the neighbors, the traffic, the schools, the elderly. It’s all in such an intense space.”

The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors weighed the potential purchase at a meeting last week, a discussion largely motivated by the San Mateo neighborhood opposition, though it also became clear property owners near the Burlingame site were against it.

Other council perspective

While Councilmember Danielle Cwirko-Godycki said the Mahler Road location could be a better fit than El Camino Real, she’s less concerned about children’s safety if the project does move forward in San Mateo.

“I don’t think [the facility] would pose a grave threat. I grew up in Shoreview, and there are a ton of group homes here, and I’ve never encountered an issue,” she said. “However, where Horizon missed the mark, and why I get frustrated with so many of these projects, was there was no desire to engage the community.”

Other councilmembers seem to be open to the project, pending more details and community engagement from Horizon.

“Safety is very important … but I do feel that there is a way to have a facility exist here that would be safe and would work for San Mateo,” Mayor Adam Loraine said. “We have an applicant who has experience operating a facility here, and we as a city have operated facilities that have worked for many years.”

Deputy Mayor Nicole Fernandez said she could support the El Camino site only if Horizon has “made the best attempt and put their best foot forward with engagement,” though she doesn’t feel that has happened yet.

Growing support

Unlike previous community meetings, there has also been a growing presence of supporters for the San Mateo treatment facility, many of whom say the rhetoric asserted by opponents is troubling — that those in active recovery for substance use disorder should be isolated from society and that they’re inherent dangers to society. Some housing advocates have said the opposition mirrors common “not-in-my-backyard” justifications to oppose new development.

David Lim, a San Mateo resident and former mayor, said his children frequently spend time in areas that are close to treatment facilities, including the music school across the street from the Palm Avenue facility, and their safety hasn’t been a concern.

“How we treat those most in need when they need us, is how we’ll be judged as a community,” said Lim, who also lives near the San Mateo Medical Center. “Ask me how many times my kids were harassed, kidnapped or assaulted by those who need our help and compassion. Zero. How are my property values living near San Mateo General? Great.”

Some leaders from the Congregational Church of San Mateo have also voiced their support for the project, and resident Robert Whitehair said treatment centers should be integrated into communities like the one on El Camino Real.

“Treatment services need to be distributed evenly across the county … not just industrial areas,” he said. “Out of sight out of mind is unacceptable.”

Despite the council discussion, city leaders have little discretion in whether to approve the project due to state law, though Ozes said Horizon is open to conducting further research on the viability of the Burlingame site.