Search
  • The Pescadero Fish Wrap

February PMAC Pond and Other Ripples

Upcoming meetings; March 10 and April 14.

The council is looking into the feasibility of getting a generator placed at the CSA-11 well site in preparation for upcoming power outages. Any way you cut it, we still need water and especially if there’s a fire threat! According to the census office we were undercounted in 2010 by 3,500 people in the area. (Maybe that’s enough to get Cindy’s rebuilt?)


We will have a speaker at the April meeting to inform us as to how Measure K funds are being spent (invested) to our benefit. Won’t want to miss this one. The CDF will start sending out reminders/notices regarding fire safety around properties. If we get no more rain than we did in February this will be a majorly big concern. There’s been a 2.5-million-dollar grant from CalFire for forest health and fire resilience work in our area, to include Pescadero County Park, Butano Girl Scout Camp and others. In other words, fuel loads will be reduced and even though it’s way overdue, we’ll take it.


MROSD & POST presented their interest in modifying the LCP to allow them to correct and accomplish sales and transfer of donated and purchased properties they own/control. It’s involved and the really big scare is the unintended consequences that always happen in spite of some great and not so great minds trying to pre-think and/or avoid them. It is not a done deal yet, but county planning staff is pretty much behind this effort.


The Farm Bureau and the Ag Council have weighed in with their concerns, but we’ll see where this goes. We’ve posted the slide show and the letter from the Farm Bureau and Ag Council on the PFW website if you’d like to read them. Primary concern is and has always been loss in property tax revenues to the LHPUSD. We’re suffering major losses as a result of non-profit and public benefit entities not having to pay taxes or choosing not to.


Back in 2004 MROSD entered into an agreement with the school district to pay token dollar amounts on property acquired by them (realize that they are funded by the taxpayers in the county. I know it’s weird!) The agreement is not based on actual market value but some odd formula. As those of us that own property in the district know, we’ve subsidized the schools by volunteering to tax ourselves an additional $100 per year per parcel and so far, it’s been $1,400 over the past 14 years. Since this will hit the streets before the election results are announced the 30% increase and another 7-year extension being asked for may or may not pass. So basically, we’re subsidizing (albeit 4 a penitence) the taxes POST and MidPen aren’t paying. Weird again I know.


Maybe there’s a token way they could show their support for the community; Charlea (see the community profile on the cover) has to replace all of the cyclone fencing at the high school baseball field and the estimate she has is $9,000 from All Fence. Can’t do it through the school district as the price would be a minimum of $14,000 so a donation is the only affordable way to do it. If we just had some residents in the top income brackets around here, perhaps they could promote their companies or themselves on the fencing around the field as an advertising opportunity. That’s what they do in the major leagues :-}


Here’s another interesting one from up the Sacramento river.

AB2363 has been enacted.*

It provides the Secretary of Transportation to prepare and submit a report of findings** Current legislation: Allows a reduction of 5 mph from the 85% speed. So if Pescadero Creek Road speeds are at 44 mph from Wurr Road to Wurr Road, the current law would make the speed 45 mph (rounded to nearest 5 mph) Then we would apply a reduction of 5 mph would bring the speed limit in Loma Mar to 40 mph in lieu of the 25 mph that the community wants and needs for its pedestrians and cyclists.


In addition, the current definition of Residential and Business district allows us to restrict speeds in residential and business districts to 25 mph provided:


a) Residential density, if any of the following conditions exist on the particular portion of highway and the property contiguous thereto, other than a business district: Upon one side of the highway, within 0.25 miles, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 13 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures.


b) Upon both sides of the highway, collectively, within a distance of 0.25 miles the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 16 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures


c) The portion of highway is larger than 0.25 miles but has the ratio of separate dwelling houses or business structures to the length of the highway described in either subparagraph 1 or 2 above.”


As the lots are large and spaced far apart in Loma Mar, we could not use the residential or business district definitions to reduce the speed to 25 mph in Loma Mar and be enforced. ¼ mile = 1320 feet. In this distance, there are 10 lots on one side of the road or 19 lots on both sides of the road. But not all the lots have driveways that are contiguous with Pescadero Creek Road so the 25 mph rule cannot apply. If the rule can be adjusted to take into account the lots on the side roads also, then we can make a case for the 25 mph.


For example: re-define residential and business district as a minimum 16 separate dwelling houses or businesses within a 0.25 mile radius would be a reasonable revision to the current regulation to help communities like Loma Mar and other areas in San Mateo County to keep the speed limits low where small population centers concentrate.


In addition, if the state can allow automated speed enforcement cameras for rural districts, then you will have better enforcement also. Currently automated speed cameras are not allowed in California.


***Please write to let him know that you strongly support legislation that will modify the definition of residential and business districts that will help reduce speed in these rural communities and explain the issue that you have and how it affects your community.

The current code is negative to rural communities. AB2363 is trying to figure out if they should change the current code.


So please ask the state to re-define residential and business district as a minimum 16 separate dwelling houses or businesses within a 0.25 mile radius of the center of the speed zone.


-Fil Let, TPFW reporter at large.


Sunshine Valley and Loma Mar you may wish to organize a writing/email campaign.

Contact Davis S. Kim:

Mail:

Davis S. Kim

Secretary of the California State Transportation Agency

915 Capitol Mall, Suite 350B Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone:

(916) 323-5400

(916) 323-5440 fax

Email: the State Transportation

Agency at:

contact.us@calsta.ca.gov

Source links:

* http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB2363

**https://cal.streetsblog.org/2020/02/06/zero-fatalities-task-force-report-change-the-way-speed-limits-are-set/

***https://www.speedingticketadvisor.org/speeding-red-light-camera-california/

0 views

© 2023 by The Pescadero Fish Wrap. Proudly created with Wix.com

  • Facebook Social Icon
  • Instagram Social Icon