SALINAS – Monterey County elected officials and Caltrans, after months of trying to come to a compromise on the design of railings along Garrapata Bridge, remain at loggerheads, but they’re going to try again. The Board of Supervisors on Tuesday was presented with a report from Phil Angelo, an associate planner, and Melanie Beretti, the acting chief of planning services and a principalplanner, recommending that supervisors deny an appeal by Caltrans over its proposed design of the railings. The Monterey County Planning Commission had earlier denied the Caltrans plan because the visual and historic character of the bridge would be compromised by the Caltrans design, and that there are viable alternatives to the Caltrans plan. Caltrans appealed the denial to the Board of Supervisors. The issue revolves around the need to replace the railings, many of which are crumbling away. The width of the slits in the railings, called balusters, is what’s generated contentiousness. The current railing has 10-inch wide “windows” between vertical posts called balusters. Citing safety concerns, Caltrans wants to reduce that width of the windows to 6 inches, the current safety standard, or 10-inch windows with vertical steel bars between the balusters as an alternative. But even with Caltrans alternative, the Planning Commission and many in the Big Sur community said it was a far cry from the current balusters that provide scenic views of Garrapata and the sea. Pete Hendrix, the Division 5 traffic division chief, said Caltrans’ top priority is to keep people on the road. “We want to integrate the historic design, but we cannot repair it in-kind,” Hendrix said of Caltrans’ reluctance to build anything that does not meet its safety standards. He brought up the issue of vehicle weight now compared to what vehicles weighed in the 1930s when the bridge was built. The mass of a modern heavy van or pickup hitting the railings was a safety issue, he said. He put up slides for supervisors depicting major crashes involving failed railings, including a fatal crash. But Big Sur resident James Walter said it was disingenuous of Caltrans to show photos of terrible crashes that had nothing to do with the Garrapata Bridge. “They are coming back and repeating the same story with nonrelevant photos,” Walter said. Caltrans detractors argue that there are feasible alternatives to the obstructive design the state transportation agency wants that will be both safe and provide the breathtaking views. But Caltrans was adamant there are no viable alternatives and that its design is supported by both the
California Highway Patrol and California State Parks. “There will be no exceptions to this design,” Hendrix said. The county is involved because it needs to issue a permit to Caltrans based on a planning document called the Big Sur Land Use Plan. Caltrans’ design is not consistent with that plan. “The land use plan is the gold standard,” said Christina McGinnis, who sits on the board of directors of the nonprofit Keep Big Sur Wild. Big Sur resident Martha Diehl said she was “shocked and appalled that Caltrans brought forth safety concerns that do not exist.” She said Caltrans was arguing that the wider slits don’t fit its safety standards, yet Highway 1 itself doesn’t fit safety standards. Diehl is a planning commissioner but emphasized her opinion was that of a resident and not a commissioner. Supervisor Wendy Root Askew said she had researched the issue further since the last bout with Caltrans late last year, and had come to the conclusion that she would support the Caltrans design. “We’ve been lucky we’ve avoided a serious tragedy,” she said. “Denial will cause further degradation” of the rails. Supervisor Luis Alejo said he supports exploring exceptions, and that other places – Oregon, Minnesota and Vermont – have constructed railings that were both an exception and safe. He also noted that the design that is settled upon for the Garrapata Bridge will affect five other bridges along the Big Sur coast that will need repairs as well. Supervisor Mary Adams, whose District 5 encompasses the entire Big Sur coast, concurred withAlejo. “If other states have been able to do it then California should be able to.” In the end, Adams made a motion to create a seven-member working group made up of three members of the community, three Caltrans representatives and a county staff member. The motion passed 5-0. “It seems there is a compromise we can have,” Adams said. “We need to come back with alternatives, otherwise I will need to listen to my constituents and deny the Caltrans appeal.”