While a majority of supervisors expressed support for the local
transportation agency’s preferred choice for the Highway156
expansion project, San Juan Bautista residents filled the board
chambers and widely opposed the option, arguing it’s too large of a
footprint through a valley that locals strive to keep pristine.
While a majority of supervisors expressed support for the local transportation agency’s preferred choice for the Highway156 expansion project, San Juan Bautista residents filled the board chambers and widely opposed the option, arguing it’s too large of a footprint through a valley that locals strive to keep pristine.
The Council of San Benito County Governments at Tuesday’s meeting presented supervisors with an update, while Caltrans District 5 Director Rich Krumholz was there to provide some details, such as there being a $9.6 million funding deficit toward finishing the $37 million project.
At the meeting, a stark difference in opinions became clear between three of four supervisors there – Supervisor Anthony Botelho adamantly opposes the preferred alternative – and most of the residents in attendance, many of whom addressed the board.
Botelho, like many residents, doesn’t believe that San Juan Bautista needs what he referred to as a six-lane highway through town. The supervisor includes northern and southern frontage roads in the equation, while Council of San Benito County Governments interpret the proposal as a four-lane highway with the two supplementary roads. Nearly 30 people spoke at Tuesdays afternoon board of supervisors meeting, with the majority of speakers being from San Juan Bautista.
The three other options on the table include having a four-lane conventional highway with unlimited access, a four-lane expressway with northern frontage roads and limited access, the preferred choice with the two frontage roads or not building anything new.
San Juan Bautista Resident Pauline Johnson said that the board of supervisors should be telling Caltrans to change their minds and not destroy San Juan Bautista.
San Juan Bautista City Manager Jan McClintock said the city needs to spending its money wisely considering the poor economic times. Twenty percent of the traffic, she noted, includes trucks.
McClintock said kids at the local school are breathing in diesel fumes and they are having to deal with the noise. It’s unsafe for the children who have to cross the highway, she said. Caltrans, she believes, won’t build a bridge for people needing to cross it.
San Juan Bautista Mayor George Dias said he doesn’t want to use city funds for this project, that he wants the money to go toward fixing local roads. He said Caltrans has no business telling San Juan what to do.
County of Government Executive Director Lisa Rheinheimer, however, noted how Alternative 2 would take out 206 acres, alternative 4A would take out 128 acres and Alternative 6 – COG’s preferred pick – would consume fewer than 200 acres.
COG and Caltrans officials have expressed growing concern about the perpetually increasing traffic numbers on Highway 156. Krumholz showed at the board meeting that from 1995 to 2005, traffic there had increased from 15,500 vehicles to 24,700. By 2011, Caltrans projects traffic will increase to 26,500 vehicles and 32,200 by the year 2030.
A majority of supervisors, meanwhile, have indicated their support for the preferred choice even against the will of many valley residents.
Supervisor Pat Loe pointed out how 60 percent of the traffic is local.
“I believe we need that frontage road,” she said.
Supervisor Reb Monaco said it’s an inadequate highway and it’s unsafe.
“We need the smallest footprint,” he said. “Compromising is the best way to go.”
But residents there in the traditionally bucolic town, in a congested highway’s path, remain strong in their opposition telling by Tuesday’s turnout.
“It’s bumper to bumper from Hollister to San Juan Bautista,” said resident Ruben Lopez. “I want to get the trucks out of here.”
Projected completion dates
Phase Completion Cost
Environmental August 2008 $3.7 million
Design March 2011 $3 million
Property acquisition February 2011 $14.6 million
Construction July 2011 $47.4 million
