Guadalupe County residents press commissioners to drop Hoffman Road from draft thoroughfare plan
Loading...
Summary
Hundreds of residents and multiple commissioners sparred over a draft Guadalupe County thoroughfare plan after maps showed a proposed expansion of Hoffman Road that residents say would take private land, cross floodplain and unstable bluffs and risk repeated costly repairs. Commissioners agreed to revise maps, post updates and hold a workshop to consider next steps.
Hundreds of residents, many from Hoffman Road, filled the Guadalupe County courtroom on Jan. 6 to oppose a proposed extension and realignment in the county's draft thoroughfare plan that would widen Hoffman Road and build a new river crossing.
Residents said the plan, as presented in a recent engineer's draft, would require large right-of-way acquisitions and imperil homes, farmland and wildlife habitat. Mark Valley, a Hoffman Road resident, told the court that "approximately 35 properties would be subject to eminent domain" and warned that "at least 7 cases, homes would likely be seized entirely, including multiple generational family homes that cannot be replaced." Several speakers also raised floodplain, erosion and abandoned-well concerns along Salt Creek and the Guadalupe River.
Why it matters: The thoroughfare plan is a high-level map county staff use to anticipate future road corridors and influence developers' responsibilities. Residents said the Hoffman Road alignment as drawn would single out rural property owners for disproportionate impact and risk repeated damage because of the area's hydrology and steep bluffs.
County engineering manager Barry Black told the court the plan "represents a projected growth" and stressed it is a 30,000- to 50,000-foot look at where connectivity may be needed in the future, not a construction decision. Commissioners acknowledged substantial public concern about notice and mapping. Commissioner Ott and others said updated maps had circulated among staff and some meetings but were not consistently posted online, leading to confusion in Precinct 1.
The debate centered on three practical questions: whether consultants had field-surveyed the corridor, whether adequate hydrology and topography analysis had been performed, and how residents would be notified of revisions. Mark Valley and others said the county's contracted engineer "did not physically visit or scout the Hoffman Road corridor before recommending this alignment," a point several commissioners said they would verify.
Court response and next steps: After extended discussion, the court agreed to coordinate precinct-specific edits and to post updated maps to the county website. The judge proposed a workshop-style meeting in late January to review changes; commissioners tentatively agreed to consider a Jan. 27 workshop to present revised maps and discuss the timeline for public notice and possible phased approval. "We will let you know when we want to have another conversation about the thoroughfare plan," the presiding official said, adding the court would try to strike a balance between planning for growth and protecting rural landowners.
What was not decided: No formal change to the thoroughfare plan was adopted on Jan. 6, and no new environmental or hydrological studies were authorized in court that day. Commissioners directed staff and the contracted engineer to return with updated maps and clarified timelines so the public could see and comment on a coordinated version before any vote.
Next procedural step: The court asked staff to post updated maps and to consult with commissioners about whether Jan. 27 is feasible for a public workshop; a formal public-notice and publication schedule will be required before the topic is set for a final action vote.
