San Mateo supervisors direct staff to negotiate purchase of Burlingame site to reopen sobering center amid neighborhood fight

San Mateo County supervisors on April 7 directed county staff to pursue negotiations to buy a roughly 2‑acre property in Burlingame (addresses on Bayshore Highway and Mahler Road) that county executives say could quickly house a reopened First Chance sobering center and other behavioral‑health services.

County Executive Mike Caligi told the board the county has a letter of intent for the site at $13,000,000 and said the county would seek to subdivide the parcel so a provider such as Horizon could use part of it and potentially repay roughly half the purchase price from state grant dollars. “If we were able to strike a deal and if the state was amenable to changing the grant for Horizon, we could sell half the property,” Caligi said, adding that reopening First Chance at the Burlingame site could happen in months after due diligence and modest modernization. Caligi said the alternative — building a new Horizon facility at the San Mateo/El Camino site — could take 18 to 24 months to construct.

Horizon Treatment Services’ chief program officer, Daria, told supervisors Horizon plans a 69‑bed residential and detox program with average stays of 30–60 days and said its San Mateo site application matched state siting and safety criteria. “Our programs are evidence based,” she said, adding Horizon sees large clinical reductions in symptoms among participants and that the organization is open to working with the county on site details.

The presentation and extensive board questioning highlighted several practical tradeoffs: the letter of intent price of $13,000,000; the county executive’s statement that the county would initially front the purchase price with the hope of recouping about half via grant funding; the El Camino proposal that had relied on about $2,000,000 in opioid settlement funds; flood‑zone concerns at both sites; and proximity to schools (a supervisor noted the Burlingame site is about a half‑mile from Peninsula High School).

The hearing produced intense public comment: residents, business owners and local elected officials urged both sides. Supporters of the Burlingame purchase stressed rapid activation and existing transit and hospital access at the former sobering center site. Opponents urged keeping the Horizon project at the El Camino Real location in San Mateo, raised worries about outreach and environmental permitting for Burlingame, and said moving the site shifted impacts rather than solved them. Multiple speakers pressed for more robust community engagement before any relocation.

Several commenters raised concerns about Horizon’s licensing history at a Palm Avenue facility, saying state actions had occurred; Horizon’s representative disputed broad safety claims about its Palm Avenue operations but did not concede the specific licensing allegations. Those operational‑history claims remain public‑comment allegations and were not substantiated on the record during the meeting.

The board did not vote to purchase the Burlingame property. Instead, supervisors provided staff direction to pursue a purchase and sale agreement and return to the board for formal approval after due diligence and a required posting period. Supervisors who favored exploring the acquisition cited savings from owning county property versus long‑term leases and the speed with which an existing facility could be reactivated; others stressed that any county investment should be paired with clearly defined, one‑time funds to aid residents losing benefits and to shore up urgent social‑service needs.

Chair Corso asked that, if the county expends public dollars to relocate the project, the board also commit to matching one‑time funding for housing assistance, food and health care for vulnerable residents; several colleagues said they supported the idea in principle but asked that the request be made specific and brought through normal budget processes so the public could comment on line items and staff could vet fiscal impacts.

Next steps: staff will pursue a purchase and sale agreement under board direction, complete inspections and due diligence, and return with a recommended sales contract and an item for a future board vote. The county attorney and executive indicated the board will receive details on flood mitigation, CEQA considerations and any state approvals needed before any purchase closes.