New location for treatment facility gets complicated: San Mateo County hits different opposition in Burlingame after responding to backlash over San Mateo proposal

“Speaking on behalf of the City Council, we oppose the project’s current siting and support the county’s proposed acquisition,” she said during public comment at a Board of Supervisors meeting April 7, adding that the latter is “a more appropriate location.”

The original proposal from Horizon calls for a 69-bed facility comprising 16 sobering center beds — a jail alternative for nonviolent DUI offenders — 17 detox beds and 36 beds for residential treatment services, all of which would prohibit alcohol, illicit substances and outside loitering. Clients are also not allowed to bring vehicles on-site.

The nonprofit was awarded $25 million from the state as part of the last round of funding from Proposition 1, a 2024 ballot measure that goes toward building and upgrading critical behavioral health infrastructure and facilities throughout the state.

The county’s financial commitment for the original San Mateo proposal is $2 million but, in response to the backlash, it’s now exploring a potentially $13 million purchase of the Burlingame site in large part to assuage residents’ concerns.

Because one of the buildings at the Burlingame site housed the former sobering station First Chance, run by the now-shuttered nonprofit StarVista, County Executive Mike Callagy said the center could be quickly revived.

“What this opportunity would present is the ability to open First Chance rather quickly again, and I certainly believe that is a priority for the county,” Callagy said during the meeting, adding that they hope the county could recoup half the $13 million if Horizon agreed to purchase part of the property, though it’s not guaranteed.

He added the rest of the site could be a lucrative long-term investment and provide the county with other needs such as office space or storage.

But it quickly became clear that several residents and property owners near the Burlingame site were also against having a treatment facility built near them, potentially throwing a wrench in some supervisors’ plans for a seamless location transfer.

“The economic impact would be substantial,” John Kellites, general manager at the Hilton San Francisco Airport Hotel in Burlingame, said during public comment. “Placing a high-turnover detox facility here deters visitors, reducing occupancy and affecting local funding.”

Another property owner nearby said the county has made “no community outreach” to the surrounding properties and hotels.

‘Disappointment’ with opposition

The ongoing discussion highlights what many health advocates and leaders say is a troubling narrative, 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.

Compared to a community meeting in March, the April 7 supervisors meeting drew more county residents in support of the original San Mateo proposal.

“The opposition of this project is rooted in prejudice, in fear,” the Rev. Alvarado Duran, of the nearby Congregational Church of San Mateo, said during the meeting. “We host recovery groups every week … and at the same time we run preschool and child care programs, and for more than a decade, we have served vulnerable children and adults and not experienced one single incident or complaint.”

While she supported continuing negotiations for the potential property acquisition, Supervisor Lisa Gauthier said she was “very disappointed” that neighbors near both sites are opposed to having a facility near them.

“I always hear, ‘we don’t ever want anything new or different in our neighborhoods,’ and that is very unfair,” Gauthier said. “I’m listening to the business owners from Burlingame, and they’re opposed to having anything in Burlingame. I’m listening to the residents of San Mateo, and [they] don’t want it in San Mateo.”

Supervisor Noelia Corzo, who represents the district where the San Mateo proposal is located, has maintained support for the original plan.

“I am concerned about the fact that we, as a county, would be willing to spend $13 million on relocating a site that we could have for $2 million,” she said.

Precautions

In addition to prohibiting illegal substances, alcohol, loitering and client vehicles at the proposed San Mateo site, parking would accommodate no more than 20 employees that would be present at any given time. Eliseo Becerra, chief of special operations at Horizon, said that any time a client leaves their facility, detailed discharge plans and transportation arrangements are made to take them to their next destination and level of care, even if the client decides not to complete treatment. Clients are also always accompanied by a staff member when leaving the facility during an outing, he added.

Horizon also operates Palm Avenue Detox, which is also a few buildings down from a small school, and the Burlingame building on Mahler Road is a few blocks from Peninsula High School, a continuation school.

The San Mateo Police Department responded to roughly 33 calls for service at the Palm Avenue detox facility in 2025, also run by Horizon, though zero arrests were made on the entire block where the facility is located, according to public records data.

Between May 1, 2024, to May 1, 2025, there was one arrest made on Mahler Road — where the former sobering station was — and the neighboring Hinckley Road combined.

Open to new site

Still, Becerra said that Horizon would be open to moving their proposed site from San Mateo to the Burlingame site, however, it would require a robust review to assess potential fiscal impacts.

Apart from Corzo, all supervisors said they’d support exploring a potential purchase of the Burlingame property, yet some added they’d need additional information to make a final decision, such as whether the state approves the location change on the Proposition 1 grant and if Horizon ultimately approves the change.

“The decision isn’t being made today,” Mueller said during the meeting. “There is a bunch of information that we’re going to need at the time we make that ultimate decision.”