SAN MATEO The San Mateo City Council held off allowing a controversial process to create a new Peninsula Avenue and U.S. Highway 101 interchange to move forward Tuesday night, instead ordering further in-house study. Before a council chamber packed with more than 40 residents and business owners who may lose their property to sale or eminent domain if the project moves forward, the council said it needed more information but declined to get a consultant involved, the next stage in a formal procedure to consider the work.
The interchange reconstruction is being considered because the intersections leading to the nearby Poplar Avenue southbound interchange have a much higher-than-expected accident rate, and because Caltrans is performing work in the area anyway as part of its auxiliary lane project to widen the highway. Any project would be a Caltrans project, but that agency has said it will not move forward without City of San Mateo approval, Public Works Director Larry Patterson said.
We don't want to go to the consultant stage yet,? Mayor John Lee said. Rough sketches of potential interchanges at Peninsula show right-of-way issues? suggesting possible property demolition along Amphlett Boulevard, Peninsula Avenue, Idaho Street and Bayswater Street. Between 15 and 40 parcels could be impacted, depending on the design, Patterson said. Any project and its projected traffic impacts will also affect Burlingame, and Councilmembers Jack Matthews and Carole Groom called for a joint study session with that city. Burlingame Mayor Cathy Baylock spoke against creating a full interchange at Peninsula. In the 1960s, she said, You saw neighborhoods torn apart [by freeway construction] that are only now starting to recover.?Some residents spoke in favor of further examination of the interchange given the accident problems at Poplar, and many spoke of the need to address that safety concern through various means. But overwhelming numbers were concerned about the loss of private property. We have a garage-door business [on Amphlett]. For us to move out is going to be so cost-prohibitive. This is our retirement,? Burlingame resident Lynn Lenardon said. Herman Fitzgerald, an attorney representing 40 property owners, said his clients oppose any interchange plans. He urged caution in further consideration. What we know in politics is that the preliminary matters all too often become final,? Fitzgerald said.
- Written by Fiona
Thank you, Mayor Baylock, for speaking up on Burlingame's behalf. This is the wrong path for them to pursue and simply transplants one problem area to another.
Posted by: | February 22, 2006 at 04:37 PM
I would say the Daily Journal's account is more accurate. I was in the audience and there was around 200 people there, not 40. An earlier Examiner article also said no one was upset by th e proposal, but clearly there is some concern. Why is the Examiner trying to make it seem like it's less of a big deal than it is?
At the weekend, the Journal reported the attorney asked for a delay, and it is good the city listened. These are people's homes!
Posted by: Stephen Blair | February 22, 2006 at 07:08 PM