Board Delays Horizon Recovery Center After Burlingame Left Out of Process

The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors hit pause on a plan to hand a County-owned Burlingame site to Horizon Treatment Services for a behavioral health recovery center — after County Counsel admitted he never notified the city where it would be built. Six public commenters and Burlingame's mayor used the brief special meeting to challenge the site choice, the broken process, and the risk of losing grant funding if delays mount.

• Horizon Treatment Center decision postponed after County acknowledges Burlingame officials were never notified of the special meeting — six months into the process

• Burlingame mayor calls the process "messed up," raising sea level rise, liquefaction, and therapeutic suitability concerns about the 826 Mahler Road site

• Housing and community advocates push for an alternative San Mateo site, warning that further delay jeopardizes grant funding already in place

• Consent items approved 5-0, including certification of the June 2, 2026 primary election results and two labor resolutions

County Counsel's Mistake Forces a Reset on Behavioral Health Center

The board convened a special meeting to approve a framework granting Horizon Treatment Services control of the County-owned property at 826 Mahler Road in Burlingame for a recovery center. Instead, the item was pulled before any substantive board discussion — after County Counsel Nibbelin acknowledged a significant procedural failure.

The basics: Horizon Treatment Services provides behavioral health treatment. The County proposed transferring operational control of the Mahler Road site — a publicly owned property in Burlingame — to Horizon for a recovery center. An alternative site at 101 North El Camino Real in San Mateo has been championed by community organizations.

Why it matters: The County has been deliberating this project for more than six months, yet the City of Burlingame — where the facility would be located — was never given a noticed public meeting to weigh in. The admission raises questions about intergovernmental communication on projects with direct neighborhood impacts, even as advocates warn the region desperately needs behavioral health treatment capacity.

Where things stand: County Counsel Nibbelin opened the meeting by requesting a postponement, conceding the oversight plainly: "I realized this morning that I spoke to many people about today's special board meeting. I did not notify the Burlingame officials, the city manager, or the council there." He said he would appear before the Burlingame City Council on July 6.

Six public commenters weighed in before the vote, and their testimony revealed a community divided not over whether a recovery center is needed — all speakers supported Horizon's mission — but over where it should go and how the process has been handled.

The Site Debate

Carol Eldridge, representing One San Mateo, and Ken Chan of the Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County both argued forcefully that the alternative site at 101 North El Camino Real in San Mateo is the better location.

"I feel the need to express my chagrin that the conversation about site selection has evolved so far away from the needs of the community members who will utilize this treatment center in an effort to reclaim their lives," said Carol Eldridge, representative, One San Mateo.

Ken Chan, representative, Housing Leadership Council, echoed the point: "We want to reiterate our clear preference for the San Mateo site. It's closer to the community members that are most in need of these services. It's better situated along a transit corridor and much more accessible for clients, staff, and visiting family members."

Both organizations offered conditional support for Mahler Road if the County supplements the site with co-located services — including veterans services, LGBTQ+ programming, and medical clinics — and provides transportation assistance to overcome the site's isolation. Eldridge urged the board to consider recommendations in a joint letter submitted by both organizations.

Funding Clock Is Ticking

Chan delivered a pointed warning about the cost of delay: "Any further delay risks jeopardizing the grant funding already in place. We urge you to take the necessary actions to keep the Horizon Recovery Center moving forward."

The tension between process and urgency defined the meeting. The County needs to move to preserve grant timelines, but the procedural failure made moving forward untenable.

Burlingame Pushes Back

Mayor Michael Brownrigg of Burlingame delivered the meeting's sharpest critique. He thanked the board for the postponement, then unloaded on the process:

"This will be the first noticed public meeting in the city of Burlingame. The question has been underway in San Mateo for over six months. But this will be the first time our residents and businesses will be able to comment on the record. That by itself I think should tell you that there's something messed up with the process."

Brownrigg emphasized that Burlingame is not opposed to Horizon's services — but has substantive concerns about the Mahler Road location, including sea level rise, potential liquefaction, and whether the site is therapeutically suitable. "City of Burlingame welcomes Horizon and the services it provides. We are not persuaded that this is the best spot for those services," he said.

Aftercare and Transit Gaps

Former Milbrae Mayor Ann Schneider raised a practical question that other speakers did not: What happens to clients after treatment? She noted that patients discharged from Peninsula Hospital's ER and people contacted by Burlingame police frequently end up at the Millbrae BART station — "the one place they're familiar with."

Schneider added that the County has compounded the problem by cutting support at that very location: "The county stopped providing Measure K funds for Life Moves operations to help people at the BART station and there is no one at Millbrae BART to help them."

Other Public Voices

A public commenter named Bruce questioned the board's legal authority to transfer a publicly owned property to a private organization, asking supervisors to identify the constitutional or statutory basis for the action. Linda Chang voiced support for the San Mateo site over Mahler Road.

Decisions

Supervisor Jackie Speier sought assurance that Burlingame council members would be able to speak at the rescheduled meeting. County Counsel confirmed.

The board voted unanimously to pull Item 1 and reschedule it to the July 7 regular meeting, while approving the remaining consent agenda items. (For: 5 — President Noelia Corzo, Supervisor Jackie Speier, Vice Chair Ray Mueller, Supervisor Lisa Gauthier, Supervisor David Canepa; Against: 0; Absent: 0.)

What's next: The Horizon Recovery Center item returns at the board's July 7 regular meeting. County Counsel is expected to appear before the Burlingame City Council on July 6. The one-week window gives Burlingame its first formal chance to participate, but does little to resolve the underlying site debate — or the grant funding risk that advocates flagged.

Minor Items

• June 2, 2026, primary election results certified via resolution accepting the Chief Elections Officer's official canvass. Required legal step to finalize election and nomination outcomes for San Mateo County offices.

• Anthony Nuanes honored with a resolution for receiving the 46th Annual COPE Banquet Unity Award from the San Mateo County Central Labor Council. Sponsored by Supervisor Noelia Corzo.

• Carlos Tapia honored with a resolution for receiving the 46th Annual COPE Banquet Unity Award from the San Mateo County Central Labor Council. Sponsored by Supervisor Noelia Corzo. A public commenter named Sabrina spoke against both COPE resolutions, arguing that official county resolutions risk politicizing government and favoring specific interests.