Dedicated to Empowering and Informing the Burlingame Community

We have not had a Guest Author on the Voice in quite awhile, but when San Matean David Long asked me why I had not weighed in on the “sobering center” controversy I asked him to pen his perspective for us. I wasn’t really paying attention to the issue when it was in San Mateo and he has, as you will read here. The DJ had a piece two days ago that noted

San Mateo County will purchase a $13 million Burlingame property to hopefully open up a sobering station as soon as possible, house the Pride Center and provide an option for a treatment facility, with supervisor approval Tuesday. The property of more than 2 acres at 818-828 Mahler Road was the former site of First Chance, a 14-bed sobering center operated by since-closed nonprofit StarVista.

Since First Chance closed, individuals who get arrested for driving under the influence are brought to county jail, rather than a station that promotes wellness and provides offenders with resources and opportunities to rehabilitate. It costs double the amount to house a DUI offender in a county correctional facility than a sobering center.

Here is David’s perspective on the switch from central San Mateo to Mahler Rd.:

San Mateo County’s proposed sobering and treatment center at 101 N. El Camino Real has felt like an experiment in how many bad land-use decisions could be shoe-horned into an already congested corridor. 

  • Dense residential neighborhood? Check. 
  • Multiple schools and daycares nearby? Check. 
  • Dense senior housing within walking distance? Check. 
  • Breakneck traffic at a pockmarked El Camino intersection seemingly designed by bumper-car enthusiasts? Absolutely

And yet somehow, this was presented as the “best” location for a large detox and treatment facility projected to generate up to 17,000 annual client trips with 24/7 intake activity?  Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed.

On Tuesday, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to purchase the former sobering center property on Mahler Road in Burlingame for $13 million. Only a single speaker opposed the purchase. Even the Burlingame City Council – never mistaken for a drum circle – gave Mahler Road unusually ‘high’ marks at its 4/20 meeting. Why? Because Mahler Road makes sense. 

At two acres, it’s a large parcel in a light industrial and emerging biotech corridor with sparse nearby housing. It sits just one mile from Highway 101 and three miles from Mills-Peninsula Medical Center. Most importantly, it has a long, proven history as a sobering center serving San Mateo County. The Mahler sobering component is expected to open within six months. By comparison, the 101 ECR proposal likely faced a three-to-five-year runway filled with entitlement battles, lawsuits, redesigns, and enough public hostility to power a small city. 

Burlingame’s Supervisor Jackie Speier deserves enormous credit for recognizing the broader potential of the Mahler site. In addition to treatment services, discussions have included a future home for the San Mateo County Pride Center – which has been without a permanent location since 2024 – as well as possible housing for essential service workers increasingly priced out of the communities they serve.

Which makes San Mateo’s Supervisor Noelia Corzo’s continued attachment to the 101 ECR location all the more puzzling. This debacle echoes her divisive performance during COVID while serving as SMFCSD’s school board President, where her stubbornness and delays reopening San Mateo public schools were epic. Her tone-deaf obstinacy has triggered a June primary write-in candidate (Taso Zografos) and a recall effort (you heard it here first). 

At some point, leadership means recognizing when a better option has emerged. Corzo’s four Supervisor colleagues did exactly that. They listened to residents, looked at operational realities, and pivoted toward a faster, cheaper, and far less divisive solution. 

These are important services that our families, friends and neighbors need ASAP. The Mahler location delivers services quickly and in a location that is well suited for this use. Only time will tell, but San Mateo County appears to be getting this right. 

David Long is a San Mateo Park resident who continues to view the failed 1909 Burlingame annexation effort of his neighborhood as one of local history’s great missed opportunities.

—————

With all the fuss about commercial properties not turning over and thus never being revalued per Prop. 13, my hope is that even if the County did get a deal at $13 million, I hope they are paying full property taxes on the purchase. We shall see how the Broadway overpass handles another 17,000 trips per year. And yes, San Mateo Park would have made a great addition to South B’game. Thanks, David.  I happened by 818 Mahler and snapped this photo. The building really looks like it needs some love.

Posted in , , , , ,

5 responses to “Sobering up in Burlingame instead of San Mateo”

  1. JP

    I hope they have enough parking for all the sobering up that needs to happen. The hotels must be just thrilled with their new neighbors. Take out from the lobster place will be convenient.

  2. Michelle

    Noelia is awful and not very bright. When she spoke to a group I’m in when running for BOS she was asked about the delays in school reopening when she was on the school board. She said that she had recently (in 2022, 2 1/2 years after the first Covid school closures) attended a conference where she learned that other states had reopened their schools much earlier than here. She said she had NO IDEA that other states had done things completely differently. Knowing these things was literally her job as a school board member but she willingly chose ignorance (or was lying) to pander to teachers’ unions and hurt kids. I was shocked that she was elected, but she will probably fail up just like David Canepa (who at least isn’t stupid, just power hungry with no real principles.)

  3. Phinancier

    That sounds like the true skinny on Canepa. Looking at the Irizarry mailer you see a guy nobody ever heard of bringing in Speier, Church, Eshoo, Mueller, Pine, Pine, Corzo. David hasn’t spent much time team building on the BOS.

    Wanna bet the hotel GMs on the Bayfront are a little miffed about sobriety nearby?

  4. Grace

    Not so fast Michelle. I beg to differ on Canepa’s intelligence. When Callagy introduced the item, he said that the County would be using a portion of the interest from the Circle Star sale that netted $80M 13 years ago to purchase the Burlingame site. (Currently 40M in interest). Then Canepa said “it is important for the people to know that this is not going to cost the taxpayer a dollar. It’s coming from the proceeds of Circle Star.” Apparently, he has never learned about finance and opportunity costs which is scary given the budget he is in charge of spending.

  5. Phinancier

    The County will not be paying property taxes on this property. That means we are losing whatever the prior revenue was and losing out on the 1% or $30,000 per year that a private buyer would have paid. It’s an expensive good deed.

Leave a Reply


The Burlingame Voice is dedicated to informing and empowering the Burlingame community.  Our blog is a public forum for the discussion of issues that relate to Burlingame, California.  Opinions posted on the Burlingame Voice are those of the poster and commenter and not necessarily the opinion of the Editorial Board.  Comments are subject to the Terms of Use.


All content subject to Copyright 2003-2026

Discover more from The Burlingame Voice

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading