San Luis Obispo County approves temporary bridge at Chiquetti Crossing after safety, farming concerns

The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors approved a contract on Oct. 8 to install a temporary bridge at Chiquetti Crossing, voting 3–2 to award a contractor to place and later remove a temporary span while the county pursues a permanent replacement.

Supporters told the board the closure of the existing crossing has created safety risks for school traffic, emergency response delays and significant disruptions for local farms. “This is way more than that. This is a huge safety problem,” said Tom Ikeda, a third-generation farmer who farms on both sides of the crossing.

The board approved what staff described as a single-installation, single-removal contract with an estimated cost of $656,000; staff said the temporary structure would be installed after the rainy season in spring (roughly March–April) and removed before the next rainy season (November–December) if high flows threatened it. County Public Works Deputy Director John Waddell told supervisors the permanent replacement is expected to cost about $8–9 million and is on track for construction in 2027. “It is about, 8 or $9,000,000 … we’re working through FEMA. It has been approved as a project,” Waddell said.

Why it mattered: Residents and farmers described lengthy detours, school-traffic backups and near-collisions that they said worsened after the crossing washout. Speakers said agricultural trucks and slow-moving equipment are being forced onto narrow alternate roads where sight lines and turning radii are poor. “I think it is necessary, to go ahead and move forward with the, the temporary bridge,” said Supervisor John Paulding during debate.

Opponents on the board argued the temporary fix is expensive for relatively short service time and could divert funds from other road maintenance. “I cannot support the temporary bridge,” Supervisor [first name] Pashong said, citing fiscal concerns and the county’s broader road needs. Supervisors who opposed the contract warned the bridge would be in place about eight to nine months a year and could require removal for high-flow events.

Staff and community details: Public Works said the contract covers one installation and one removal; the temporary span is not designed to survive high winter creek flows and would likely be removed for severe storms. Staff told the board the temporary bridge is intended to be used during parts of the next two years while environmental review and design continue on the permanent project. Speakers described prior temporary work: residents said an earlier temporary crossing lasted several years before washing out, and they urged a stronger near-permanent fix. Several farmers and other residents said increased traffic on Harris Bridge and Branch Mill Road since the crossing closure has led to more accidents and near-misses.

What the vote did: The motion to award the base bid for the temporary bridge passed on a roll call with Supervisors Gibson, Paulding and Chair Ortiz-Legg voting yes, and Supervisors Pashong and Moreno voting no. Supporters said the temporary bridge will reduce immediate risk to people, schoolchildren and farm traffic while a permanent solution is built.

What happens next: If the contract proceeds, installation is planned for spring after rainy-season flows recede; staff said the temporary span would likely remain in place for about eight to nine months in a given year and would be taken out if storms are forecast that threaten it. Public Works is pursuing federal reimbursement for the permanent bridge through FEMA’s large-project process; staff described the permanent bridge as a multi-year project expected to be built in 2027 once environmental reviews and funding obligations are complete.

Clarifying details: Staff estimated the permanent replacement at about $8–9 million. The temporary contract awarded covers one installation and one removal; staff estimated the temporary bridge would be installed in spring and removed before the wet season (roughly November–December). Supporters said previous temporary work had remained in place for several years; staff said the newly awarded temporary span would not be designed to withstand major winter creek flows and thus would require removal under some storm forecasts.

Residents and officials requested continued oversight of timeline and funding, and asked staff to return with updates as the temporary installation proceeds and as FEMA funding is pursued.