San Mateo hears SMCTA update on US‑101/State Route 92 direct connector; council to draft opposition letter

San Mateo City Council received an informational update April 7 from the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA) and the Transportation Authority (TA) on the proposed US‑101/State Route 92 Direct Connector project and the current environmental review schedule.

The presentation, led by Carolyn Mamaradlo, senior project manager with the SMCTA, and Amy Linehan, TA government and community affairs officer, described a multi‑phase Caltrans implementation process, four alternatives under study (including a no‑build option), and a roughly three‑year timeline for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), with a draft targeted for public circulation in fall 2026 and a final EIR by summer 2027. Mamaradlo said the project team “fully recognize that we should have done, more early on to inform the community about this project” and emphasized that “no decisions about the project's approval have been made.”

Mamaradlo and Linehan described two related efforts: a near‑term area improvements package (work on four ramp locations to improve safety and merging, with construction expected to begin in May and continue about two years within Caltrans right‑of‑way) and the longer‑term direct connector, a managed‑lane concept that would create a central median ramp to allow higher‑occupancy vehicles and buses to move between the freeways. The presenters said there are currently no funds secured for final design or construction and that any property impacts would follow Caltrans’ prescriptive right‑of‑way process and be disclosed in the Draft EIR.

The presentation summarized the alternatives under study: Alternative 1 (a westbound morning peak connector), Alternative 3 (an evening‑peak connector), Alternative 2 (a reversible gated facility combining the benefits of 1 and 3), and the no‑build option. Linehan described the public participation plan for the environmental review phase, calling the Draft EIR public comment period — anticipated to be 30–45 days — the most influential opportunity for community input: “The public comment period that Caltrans will host in conjunction with the release of the draft environmental impact report is the best way to influence which direction this project goes.”

Public comment ran roughly 40 minutes and drew more than three dozen speakers in chambers and additional callers online. The large majority of speakers opposed moving forward with the connector as designed. Common concerns raised included potential seizure of homes via eminent domain (residents repeatedly said the plan could affect about 33 houses on Adams and Washington streets and a neighborhood park), health impacts from increased air pollution, induced demand (speakers argued added capacity will encourage more driving), construction impacts to local access and the Bay Trail, and use of limited public funds that some commenters said should instead go to transit, bike and pedestrian improvements or last‑mile connections across the San Mateo Bridge.

Residents and neighborhood association representatives described personal hardship and uncertainty for homeowners in the project area. Olivia McNally, president of the Shoreview Parkside Neighborhood Association, said removing 33 homes and a park would be “personal,” noting possible housing‑value and equity impacts. Other speakers urged the council to write a formal letter opposing the current project alternatives and to press transportation agencies to prioritize transit and active‑transportation investments.

Several speakers also asked for clearer, earlier outreach and multilingual materials for impacted residents. Linehan said the TA will provide a project webpage, multilingual fact sheets (English, Spanish, simplified Chinese), office hours for nearby neighbors through the month of April, and focused topic discussions as part of Phase 1 outreach.

After public comment and a short council discussion, the council indicated majority support for drafting a formal response to the TA and related agencies. Council members agreed that San Mateo should send a letter expressing concerns and asking the TA/Caltrans/CCAG to reconsider the project scope and alternatives, and to avoid “sliver takings” or eminent domain of homes or parks. Mayor Newsome and Councilmember Swirko Guditsky (council spelling in the record varies) were identified to draft the letter for return on a future consent calendar for full council approval; councilmembers also discussed sending letters to CCAG, Caltrans in Sacramento and state legislators and offered to reach out to Foster City to coordinate positions. No formal roll‑call vote was taken at the meeting; council direction was recorded as consensus to prepare a letter and return it for approval.

Key technical and schedule points presented to council included: the project initiation phase completed in 2021; the environmental review phase running through mid‑2026 for technical work with a draft EIR expected in fall 2026 and selection of a preferred alternative targeted for early 2027; the final EIR projected for summer 2027; the near‑term area improvements work slated to begin in May and occur within Caltrans right‑of‑way over roughly two years; and that no design or construction funds for the long‑term connector were yet secured. SMCTA/TA staff reiterated that the Draft EIR will disclose any remaining property impacts and that Caltrans will approve the selection of a preferred alternative.

Councilmembers also raised other local infrastructure concerns they said should be considered alongside the project, including culvert and flood‑control capacity under Highways 101 and 92, the condition and height of sound walls, potential impacts to protected bike lanes under SR‑92 at Fashion Island/Nineteenth Avenue, and long‑term funding constraints. Several councilmembers urged the TA and Caltrans to consider alternatives that would prioritize transit, last‑mile connections across the San Mateo Bridge, and bike/ped investments rather than managed toll lanes.

The meeting closed with staff and council agreeing to return with the drafted letter for full council action. The presentation materials and a project webpage will be posted by the TA; the Draft EIR and formal public comment period will be Caltrans’ responsibility when released. The council did not adopt any ordinance or formal resolution at the session.