If you are interested in this issue, it will be coming up this Tuesday. The Board of Supervisors Meeting will be issuing its decision to deny Caltrans appeal on the Garrapata Bridge Rail Replacement. The committee is in hope that the whole Big Sur community will CHIME IN ….
File # RES 24-120
Agenda # 9.
PLN220090 CALTRANS/GARRAPATA Bridge Railing
Send your comments to: Cob@countyofmonterey.gov
Here is one letter that has been sent:
Hello again, Monterey County Folk…is the continued conversation related to the Garrapata bridge railings still slated for June 25?
Is there a staff report generated yet, and if so, can I/we get a copy?
Has there been any additional communication from CalTrans? In the last working meeting, they were supposed to upload the additional ‘studies’ of different options we had requested to see, I cannot find that information as I look around their web pages. I was also told they would be uploading the ‘traffic study’ they have referenced dozens of times as they resist any suggestion to change speed limits in the area, presumably a day’s work in November 2019, and haven’t seen that either. I’ll ping them with a reminder and will copy Colleen for record-keeping purposes.
Are we, as a committee, done with our work, meaning our activity will be relayed to the Board via the staff report, or would you want us to present anything at the upcoming hearing?
My time away has solidified an opinion to recommend denial of the appeal, because:
CalTrans had one goal, and from their perspective they achieved their goal…developing a railing that complies with safety standards while also trying to relate to the existing bridge design by agreeing to closely match color and texture and refine the edges of small openings punched into a compliant crash-tested railing.
The problem is there are actually 2 goals, one related to safety/code compliance, and another, equally important, to achieve a design solution that doesn’t forever dilute and destroy the iconic and world-renowned architectural majesty of the existing bridge design. The Board has a different standard from Caltrans, to assure both goals are achieved, because the Board is the steward of the Big Sur Coast Highway Preservation Area, and success of this project will only be achieved if the traveling experience along Highway One is protected with the same skill and dedication expended to protect the safety of the travel. That’s why the Planning Commission denied the application, the work to date was not bad, it was insufficient. Creating a website that claims to explain what folks used to experience is not an acceptable mitigation to what visitors around the globe come to Big Sur to experience.
By way of example…here’s a bridge I recently walked past in Luzern Switzerland with concrete detailing that exhibits a refinement lacking in the CalTrans approach so far…I know if they keep working to find a way, they can improve their design solution, but they simply believe they’ve done enough, are unwilling to do more, and they’ve put their pencils down, saying ‘time’s up’:
They’ve settled on ‘good enough’, architecturally, when, in fact, it’s not good enough…and their significant/robust bureaucratic process has yet to achieve the necessary 2nd goal. “Good enough” may work on Highway 101 near Betabel Road, but not on the bridges of Big Sur.