More community engagement needed for treatment facility

First, the prior sobering station in Burlingame closed due to financial difficulties. Before the county spends state Proposition 1 bond money and matching county funds — reportedly above the asking price — on a new site, residents should be told why retrofitting existing vacant office space or unused commercial buildings was not considered. San Mateo County has seen significant vacancy in its commercial and office stock. Why wasn’t that explored?

Second, the comparison to the La Quinta Inn affordable housing conversion is misleading. Affordable housing residents are stable community members. This facility will serve individuals actively in detox or residential treatment who, by design, are free to come and go. The impacts on a neighborhood with nearby schools and senior centers are simply not comparable.

Third, Supervisor Corzo states there are “few viable locations” in an urban county — yet neither the county nor Horizon Treatment Services has provided any public accounting of what other sites were evaluated. San Mateo County is geographically large and includes areas that are far more commercial or industrial in character. Placing this facility adjacent to a medical center or county health campus would provide appropriate support infrastructure and reduce neighborhood impact. That option has not been publicly addressed.

Finally, the article references “rigorous monitoring” — but residents have received no specifics on how Horizon plans to manage noise, lighting, parking, traffic or where clients go when they leave the facility. Vague assurances are not a plan.

The need for behavioral health services in our county is real. But the process matters. Transparency, genuine site comparison, and a meaningful community engagement process are not obstacles to good policy — they are requirements of it.

Eric Isero

San Mateo