The demand for housing is high enough that agriculture is getting squeezed - high rents make labor cost more than growers can afford. Details covered in the re

The demand for housing is high enough that agriculture is getting squeezed - high rents make labor cost more than growers can afford. Details covered in the report TFA mentions: https://flipflashpages.uniflip.com/2/88537/377983/pub/html5.html https://flipflashpages.uniflip.com/2/88537/377983/pub/html5.... It is the same problem as the rest of the Bay Area - every place wants the tax revenue of businesses and jobs, and expects workers to commute, but no place wants the expense of housing and schools - or roads. Nimby, yes, but also permits: proposals to address a recurring road flooding problem near Pescadero needed ~12 approvals or permits from ~9 agencies. See page 17 of: http://sanmateorcd.org/PescaderoFlooding/Pescadero%20Rd_Butano_Flood_Solutions_Final%20Report%202014.pdf http://sanmateorcd.org/PescaderoFlooding/Pescadero%20Rd_Buta... The SR 92 traffic is very commute dependent. Prohibiting left turns during commute hours might help, but the 92 West to SR 1 North (2 lanes to 1) would still be an afternoon bottleneck. Widening 92 to 3 lanes, and running 2 East/ 1 West in the AM, and reversing that in the afternoon might be a possibility. What endpoints did you have in mind for "another highway near Pescadero"? I can't find a good land use map for the South Coast at the moment, but finding a technically feasible alignment might be challenging, even before the permit/Nimby/EIR/lawsuit rodeo gets started. There are a lot of parks & open space areas in the hills.