Common ground is common sense
CalTrans’ current plan for widening of Hwy. 156 will
significantly impact one of San Benito County’s most valuable
commodities
– its farmland. On this point, proponents and opponents agree.
The current plan calls for the construction of a new, four-lane
freeway south of the existing highway. The existing highway would
be converted to a frontage road. The net effect would be a
footprint wider than Interstate 5, which would
consume at least 180 acres including the new freeway itself and
the proposed 60-foot-wide median.
Common ground is common sense
CalTrans’ current plan for widening of Hwy. 156 will significantly impact one of San Benito County’s most valuable commodities – its farmland. On this point, proponents and opponents agree. The current plan calls for the construction of a new, four-lane freeway south of the existing highway. The existing highway would be converted to a frontage road. The net effect would be a footprint wider than Interstate 5, which would consume at least 180 acres including the new freeway itself and the proposed 60-foot-wide median.
CalTrans and project proponents argue that the $70 million project will make Hwy. 156 safer, reduce existing congestion, and provide for future traffic needs. They also argue that since the project is “fully funded,” the county cannot afford to lose the money.
Project opponents argue that the county cannot afford such a significant loss of prime, grade 1 agricultural land that generates at least $2 million in annual revenue. It is undisputed that the size and scope of the project will permanently alter one of the county’s greatest assets. From a safety perspective, the current design will create a condition similar to that of Hwy. 101 near the Red Barn, where cars, trucks and agricultural vehicles will be forced to navigate across four lanes of high-speed traffic. The current design also poses significant environmental threats to remaining farmland, as it will alter drainage and enhance flooding potential. And the current design will not eliminate congestion, since the roadway reverts back to two lanes just past the Union Road stoplight. Thus, it would merely advance the current choke point by five miles.
What has been lost in the debate is any potential for compromise. Yet this potential exists, in the form of one of the CalTrans design alternatives, 4A. The 4A alternative, which was presented in the project’s final Environmental Impact Report, would expand the existing roadway from two to four lanes, resulting in a much smaller overall footprint. Certainly the option is less than ideal. It would require relocation of utilities, and it would still create a wider expanse for cross traffic to navigate.
However, the 4A option would preserve some of the prime, grade 1 farmland that the current design destroys. More importantly, the design is consistent with one of this county’s most valuable resources – its agricultural character. Several years ago, the county was divided by the Measure G campaign. Measure G proponents wanted to rezone significant amounts of farmland to limit owners’ abilities to subdivide it, in the name of preserving the county’s agricultural heritage. Ironically, some of the most outspoken proponents of Measure G are just as outspoken in favor of the current CalTrans proposal, which would permanently and significantly alter the resources and character of the San Juan Valley.
Some opponents of the project, under the moniker “Save San Juan Valley,” have filed suit against CalTrans, challenging the current project design. This effort was not undertaken lightly, but only after CalTrans rebuffed efforts to negotiate a compromise. Trial is scheduled to commence Oct. 5 here in San Benito County. Absent initiation of some conciliatory dialogue between CalTrans and the “Save San Juan Valley” contingent before then, the matter will proceed to litigation, a far from optimal result.
Recently, the San Benito Business Council, the Economic Development Corporation, and the San Benito County Chamber of Commerce appealed to all members of local government “to work together to come to consensus on a design solution that addresses safety and capacity requirements while respecting the environmental and cultural concerns of the San Juan Valley area and its citizens.”
Even the CalTrans District 5 System Management Plan, which sets forth the 20-year vision for projects that affect our county, includes among its key strategies improving safety and security, supporting economic vitality, preserving and enhancing the environment, and reflecting community values.
Both Assemblywoman Cabellero and Senator Denham, our state representatives, have expressed a willingness to step in if the community can reach accord on an alternative. Although time is short, it appears there is common ground upon which to pursue a solution that would maximize the benefit, and minimize the negative impact, on the entire community.
Can we collectively meet this challenge? Can we afford not to?
Christine Breen is an attorney who practices law in San Juan Bautista and resides in Hollister. She can be reached at
co*@de*************.com
.
