July 06, 2021


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Higgins Way (correct me if I'm wrong) is the only access to the proposed development. It's going to be interesting (if that's the word) in the event of a fire. Lots of forested land, brush, plenty dried out from the worst drought in 400 years; a recipe for disaster. It's unlikely that a house will catch fire internally, what with sprinklers no doubt required, but that's not where it's going to come from. How about lack of fire insurance? The insurance industry is already running for the hills (no pun intended) when it comes to California. That part of Pacifica is Tier 3, extreme fire danger on the CPUC FireMap.

Peter Loeb, Wm. Boyce, Peter George, and Skeptical:

There is a lot to unpack here to respond to your comments. I am going to speak with our traffic engineer and get his thoughts as he is the expert. I take your comments seriously and need to do my research to respond appropriately. You will hear back from me in a few days.

One bit I can share is we have considered parking on Higgins would continue, albeit on a widened street allowing for proper vehicle passage. We planned for the mountain bikers to begin their ride at the top of the hill in the parking lot located in front of the community center in the middle of the neighborhood.

Re: traffic counts. The conservative figure that traffic engineers use to calculate the number of vehicle trips per day per household is a multiplier of 5. So, 125 units x 5 = 625 additional vehicle trips per day for the Higgins Way project at buildout. Add 18 units for the Hillside Meadows project x 5 = 90. Add 54 units of the Pacifica Highlands project x 5 = 270. Higgins Phase 1 and 2 + Hillside Meadows + Pacifica Highlands = 985 additional vehicle trips per day. Other traffic analyses may use a larger multiplier, but a conservative estimate is around a thousand new vehicle trips per day added by all these projects if they were to happen.

I had to laugh when I saw this in the traffic report: "San Mateo County Transportation Authority are planning on widening Route 1 between Fassler Avenue/Rockaway Beach Avenue and Reina Del Mar Avenue from four lanes to six lanes. The project is still in the planning stages of development. Once completed, that project will significantly reduce the queuing that presently occurs on Route 1 in the northbound direction during the morning peak traffic period." This is false. That project is not on the books. Caltrans shelved highway widening after it was sued in federal court and lost. The City Council sent a letter formally asking Caltrans to withdraw the project. If the traffic report is depending on highway widening in its analysis, its conclusions are wrong.

Wow, I know Higgins Way from past experience and that is one substandard street if I've ever seen one. I feel for the people who live there; once this large development is approved by our wholly owned, real estate industry subsidiary City Council, the Higgins Way folks will be scarewed.

Here is the traffic report link (actually all the reports, look for the one with the appropriate name). If this is the wrong link, John, then fine, correct me. But you can't say "Peter George is posting incorrect information" without posting a link to the correct information. That would be a really fast way to lose credibility. I know it does not work like that in court, and it does not work like that here either.


Some highlights (Appendix C): Meadows + Woods = up to 100 extra car trips an hour. And that is only phase one of Woods. So in round figures, let's say up to 150 trips an hour at peak once Woods Phase 2 is built out, too. One vehicle every 24 seconds. John, maybe you live in a San Francisco home with such a large setup back that you would not notice an *extra* car going past every 24 seconds? But please don't patronize the people of the southern side of Linda Mar saying that you "expect" one *extra* car (on top of current conditions) every 24 seconds "is not an issue". It is. You lose all respect by trying to brush this away. Even without Phase 2, it is an extra car every 36 seconds at peak. These are your reported numbers, John, not mine. So don't try to distance yourself from them -- and if I'm wrong, then post links to the correct data, not a blanket unsubstantiated dismissal.

An *extra* vehicle every 36 seconds at peak just with Phase One. And this is without any ongoing construction traffic (which could last up to ten years, per John).

And please don't use the tired "These are two/three separate projects" divide-and-conquer approach, John: Yes, of course they are. But the traffic impact is not "separate things" for current residents -- it is one thing. At least own that.

Another note for anyone reading the report: Take all the Highway 1 numbers and conclusions with a grain of salt since this report does not include the proposed 50+ new homes at Rockaway. Might be other proposals missing, too. The proposed church at Cape Breton is not mentioned, for instance. John will say these other proposals were not available at the time the "Woods" traffic report was written -- which is fair and true. But it means that the report cannot be fully trusted on the Highway 1 numbers for this reason.

Also, John, where are you proposing the residents, trail goers, and school goers of Higgins park if you are proposing limiting parking along Higgins? Is it true that the widening of Higgins would take significant land (maybe 10 feet?) away that folks currently use that land for parking in front of their homes on the north side of Higgins? Nowhere in the 338 pages (yes, 338 pages, dear reader) did I see a parking analysis along Higgins. Did I miss it? If so, what's the page number, John? If it is not there, then as a good neighbor you could not propose to take parking away on a heavily used residential street without studying it first, right? Please post a link to your report, because I'm pretty sure it is not on the city website.

John -- Interesting that you would accuse someone else of creating straw man arguments at the same time you point to a statistic re unvaccinated people to defend your refusal to provide specific citations to the evidence you claim supports your arguments. Noted.

[Sidebar -- I can pretty much guarantee you that the people who will be fighting your developments in court are vaccinated (because they are intelligent and well informed).]

As for your claim that plan-related documents are well organized, thus we should spend our time trying to find the evidence you claim supports YOUR arguments -- for fun, I spent a few minutes looking for the traffic study that reflects the assertions you have made here. The only document that sounds like it pertains to traffic is titled "Higgens 1 traffic report." I am not sure what Higgens 1 is, but it is described as an "80 lot, single family detached residential subdivision off of Higgins Way in the Linda Mar area of Pacifica." Eighty single-family homes is not the 150 + units under discussion, so this appears to be a partial study at best.

Then there is this quote from the study (which is dated May 2020):

"Levels of Service have been calculated for the existing conditions scenario using the analysis methods contained in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. The results of the LOS calculations are summarized in Table B on page 8. The calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix B. The LOS calculations do not necessarily reflect the extensive queuing that occurs on westbound Fassler Avenue and northbound Route 1 during the morning peak traffic period. The LOS calculations are based on the actual volumes entering the intersections and not on the volumes that could enter the intersections if adequate capacity was in place. The City of Pacifica and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority are planning on widening Route 1 between Fassler Avenue/Rockaway Beach Avenue and Reina Del Mar Avenue from four lanes to six lanes. The
project is still in the planning stages of development. Once completed, that project will significantly reduce the queuing that presently occurs on Route 1 in the northbound direction
during the morning peak traffic period.

This text (from the traffic study) sounds like assumptions about traffic were made based upon a plan to widen Highway 1. Can you please tell us more about what you think this plan is? The one the traffic study based its assumptions on in May 2020? Inquiring minds want to know how well informed this traffic study actually is.


The reason why we have public document disclosure for real estate development projects in California is to provide members of the public the opportunity to inform themselves on the projects under consideration for approval by the local government. Accessing this information is easy. It is organized in a very logical way. If a person is having a problem navigating the city website, they can call the Planning Department, which will assist them.

If a person is not willing to click through to the documents or call the Planning Department for assistance, then maybe they are not really interested in educating themselves about the factual details of the project. Some people have uninformed opinions and do not want to invest the time and effort to learn the facts. It is the primary reason why 30% of the country has yet to get vaccinated against the Covid-19 virus.

I intend to make the education process easy for everyone. For those people who have visited our website at www.lindamarwoods.com and left their email addresses, I intend to invite them to online videoconferences that I call town hall meetings. In these meetings, I will be listening to their comments and answering their questions about the development plans I have submitted. The participants will have all the time they need to learn about the project. I will be starting the town hall meetings soon.


In response to your post, the San Francisco Chronicle reported this morning:

"Two-thirds of companies in the region expect fewer people in the office once the pandemic ends. The shift could lead to a permanent drop of 1.1 million commuters a day, according to the Bay Area Council."

Our vision for Linda Mar Woods is economic integration. There will be a variety of houses for people with different incomes. Yes, some people living there will continue to commute to work. But most will probably work from home two days per week. This represents a 40% drop in commuters per week.

What is the relationship between vandalism and a public discussion about a proposed residential real estate development?

Are you saying I made this up? Go to the entrance at the end of Higgins and you can see for yourself.

On one hand, we should not worry about traffic because your buyers will be working from home; on the other hand, you will be catering to schoolteachers, firefighters, police officers, and other first responders, who, by definition, cannot work from home. Noted.

Also, there are plenty of ways you could guide people to the documents you claim support the statements you are making here, including putting those documents on your website, then linking to the pages/studies/etc. here. The fact that you respond to valid questions by telling people to go hunt for the evidence you claim supports your position -- without providing anything more than the vaguest citation to a mass of documents on a city website -- speaks volumes. You are a lawyer, correct? Is that how you would respond to a judge? Again, noted.

The more you talk, the less credible you sound.


They also have a Facebook page. Haven't seen any inaccuracies yet.

How extraordinary! Nonresident developer corrects residents who live here and experience traffic every single day. Predicts most will be working from home. How many low-income residents targeted in your sales pitch have the luxury of working from home?

Vandalism is terrible. The Quarry owners started reporting vandalism, too, when their arguments weren't hitting home.

Peter George:

Further to our conversation about the traffic impact of new development in Linda Mar, the Silicon Valley Business Times reported today that a plurality of employers in the Bay Area are expecting employees to work from home two days a week going forward. This is what I think will be the new normal.

The reasons are the pandemic has proven there is no loss of productivity by employees working from home, it is highly desired by employees, it reduces stress on employees, and the amount of office space needed by employers is reduced so it lowers overhead cost.

Peter George:

I want to thank you for your civility. It is clear that you are skeptical about the development I am proposing. Your questions and comments have been thoughtfully presented. I appreciate that.

Last week someone opposing this development vandalized and defaced a monument sign I had constructed at the entry to Linda Mar Woods. The sign was a work of art built to U.S. National Park standards that cost $8,000. This is part of an effort I have started to clean up access to the woods. I am creating a new and improved trailhead for hikers and mountain bikers. So far I have repainted the gate and replaced the signage affixed to the gate at the southern end of Higgins Way. I have also repainted the fence next to Shamrock Ranch at the northern end of Higgins Way and cleared out overgrown tree branches constricting the pathway to Higgins Way. My next step is to organize an initiative to make repairs to Old San Pedro Mountain Road by cutting back the overgrown bushes and weeds that are choking the path and filling in the potholes with gravel. I have identified several locations where I think I can create overlooks with benches where hikers can take a break and enjoy the ocean and valley views. My objective is to improve access to Linda Mar Woods and the quality of the experience for both hikers and mountain bikers.

There is an organization called "Protect San Pedro Mountain" that is opposing this development. They have a website and an Instagram account where they are spreading false information about the project and inciting the recreational community by saying we are going to shut down access to the woods and destroy the mountain biking pathways and amenities constructed by the mountain bikers. We are not shutting anything down. We are doing the opposite. We are cleaning up and restoring long-neglected features and making the experience of Linda Mar Woods more accessible, better, and free for everyone.

Peter George:

I do not have links to the reports you are asking about. Our files are on private storage devices or private cloud service accounts. The files were sent to the Planning Department, and they are publicly available there.

Our traffic analysis was conducted using traffic counting devices, so it is based on hard data, not gut feeling.

As for my gut feeling, I tried to anticipate future events based upon the most current data available. It is too early to collect hard data using traffic counting devices to establish behavioral patterns of drivers in a post-pandemic world. But I do get out and about and see with my own eyes what is happening. I can tell you as a fact from personal observation that traffic is much lighter now and has been throughout the pandemic period in the Bay Area and in particular on Highway 1 in Pacifica. This is not a gut feeling. The question is whether this is the beginning of a new way of life, and I think it is.

The number of homes planned at Linda Mar Woods is 125. At Hillside Meadows it is 20 without counting the ADUs. The two projects are not connected. The Linda Mar Woods project is an outdoor recreation-oriented project. The Hillside Meadows project is a multigenerational housing development. It is intended to provide housing for families with aging parents who want to offer elder care within the home by the extended family.

It is unfair to compare the traffic volume on Higgins, Peralta, and Adobe today with traffic after the projects are built, assuming that the condition of the streets is the same as it is today. There is no question that Higgins is a substandard street. Higgins does not meet minimal city engineering standards and is too narrow. It is already congested south of Adobe Drive. Going north, Higgins is a one-block dead end, so there is no traffic flow. The road in front of Shamrock Ranch is used as a driveway, not a street. To build Hillside Meadows, we are going to remove the barrier blocking Higgins and build a proper road to connect to both Adobe and Peralta. The new road will handle traffic from 20 new homes easily and there will be no traffic impact on the community. At Linda Mar Woods, we have to either widen Higgins south of Adobe or prevent street parking on Higgins, or (most likely) a combination of widening and limiting street parking to enable smooth traffic flow and allow traffic to move properly. Our traffic engineer has determined with hard data that both projects will have little traffic impact if Higgins is rebuilt to proper city standards. It is like Safeway when it is moderately busy and there is only one checkout open. Customers get queued up and it is a disaster. But this is an artificial chokepoint. If you open more checkouts, suddenly the queue disappears. This is the same with Higgins. Currently, you have a substandard road with a dead end that blocks traffic flow to Peralta. When the road is rebuilt to proper city standards and the chokepoint removed, traffic will flow smoothly. This is a fact.

As for how many years of construction, that is different for Hillside Meadows and Linda Mar Woods. Both projects will be built in phases, with the first phase being the construction of the road and infrastructure. Since the projects are not connected and Hillside is further along in design, I expect the opening of Higgins and the construction of the road connecting Adobe and Peralta to happen first. The homes will then be constructed in two or three phases. At Linda Mar Woods, the construction of the new loop road and the widening of the existing road will probably take place at the same time. Thereafter, the homes will be constructed in phases, which could take place between five and ten years, depending upon housing demand and the state of the economy.

I do not know how many truck journeys will be required to build each project. To a large degree, this will be determined by the method of construction used. I have been researching using either a panelized or modular construction method where large sections of each home are factory built and brought to the site to be assembled. This is faster, cheaper, and involves less truck traffic. The architect I am using is Toby Long and he is an expert in this kind of housing construction. Look him up at https://www.cleverhomes.net.

Trying to compare the two projects to a hypothetical high-density development near transit, services, and access is an exercise in futility. I support this kind of development, but the General Plan and zoning laws do not. State Senator Scott Wiener and others have been pushing hard in the state Legislature for laws that will overrule local General Plan and zoning prohibitions to encourage high-density development like this without success so far.

We have a housing shortage in California that the state has determined is a public emergency. We must build new housing where we have in-fill sites that can be easily connected to utilities. Both Hillside Meadows and Linda Mar Woods meet these criteria and are suitable sites for housing development. This is not a situation where stopping the development of new housing is the best option for the community. New housing is the only option.

Unfortunately for the people of Pacifica, John, traffic patterns don't follow your gut impressions. But thankfully, traffic patterns are easily recorded, and recent actual numbers (not the gut impressions of optimistic property developers) show traffic volumes now close to, or exceeding, pre-pandemic levels. For example (one of many reports one can easily find based on actual numbers, not gut impressions; links to source data at this URL):


And do you really think that the folks living on Peralta and Adobe should accept the word of the property developer that 150+ new units (or what the total of Meadows + Woods both phases + whatever including all the ADUs is -- please correct me, you know the exact number, I don't) will generate no "issues" on their streets? You said yourself, "We have studied the hell out of this." As well you should. So why not post links to your expert traffic reports here, rather than telling each of us to individually go and find them for ourselves in the warren of the city website? You must have the URLs right in front of you.

Tell us, how many truck journeys alone in the years of construction would your developments generate? And for that matter, how many years of construction? You must know the numbers -- it's your job, and you studied the hell out of it. So simply tell us, since you "expect" they are "not an issue" and thus nothing to fear. Call me cynical, but I'd rather see the expert reports rather than basing this on the property developer's "expectations." Thanks.

For an added bonus, would you please compare and contrast those numbers with the car traffic/truck traffic projections from a hypothetical high-density development not on a slope/hilltop, or a dead-end road on the suburban fringe, but rather near transit, services, access etc. Few can argue the need for more housing in our area. But there are so many negatives to the "Woods" location (slope, grading, wildlife impacts, recreational impacts, oversize footprint, access, traffic, water, fire risk, median cost, viewshed impacts, the list is near-endless, as others have pointed out far better than I). Thus it is only right and proper therefore to compare and contrast your "Woods" to an equal number of housing units in a different locale. Because at the end of the day, provision of housing units is the main motivation, right?

Peter George:

You can find the traffic engineer's report on the Pacifica Planning Department's project website.

I do not agree with your premise that all traffic from Higgins will default to Peralta. I think it will select the route that will get the driver to the place he or she wants to go the fastest. That is determined by the relative demand at a given time of day on Peralta vs. Adobe.

I also think we are going through a fundamental change in work as a result of the pandemic. Every major employer in the Bay Area has instituted some kind of work-at-home policy. This has reduced traffic loads all around the US and in Pacifica. I have experienced this firsthand. Also, retailing has changed, with more people opting to shop online, having products delivered to the home. This includes Amazon, Target, Safeway, and local retailers as well. Finally, many people are opting to have food delivered to their homes by Uber Eats and other food restaurant delivery services. It is now very important to have reliable broadband so we can all use these services.

Another interesting trend is the explosive growth in electric bicycles. I own two and ride them as often as I can. They can be used for local commuting and shopping. Pacifica has made a serious effort to improve bike lanes throughout the city.

I do not expect to see traffic as an issue in the development planned for west Linda Mar.

John, I never mentioned traffic originating on Adobe. I'm talking about traffic going to/from Higgins -- the Montessori School, trailhead, and the significant traffic you will generate if the "Woods" gets developed. It is very easy to foresee that once Higgins is open to Peralta, then basically all that Higgins traffic will no longer turn right on Adobe as they leave but rather will go straight across that intersection to/from Peralta. If you consider the distance, the topography, and other factors, if you are trying to reach Highway 1 from Higgins, you will have every reason to take Peralta, not Adobe. I just hope everyone living along Peralta (as you rightly point out, currently a quiet road) realizes that if all these projects (Meadows, Woods, etc.) all go ahead, then the people on Peralta, even more so than the people on Adobe, will be most affected downstream. Can you point me to the official traffic expert reports, please? I'm clearly no expert, I'm just using common sense. I'd like to see how that matches with the expert opinion and see how they model these things. Thanks.

Peter George:

My conversations with the owner of Shamrock Ranch are private. I am sure she would not want me telling you about her business, just as you would not want me telling people about your business.

I do not agree that the majority of traffic heading for Linda Mar Boulevard will use Higgins Way to Peralta Road. For the people living on Adobe and Higgins, perhaps yes. But not for others who live east of Higgins Way, no. People will not backtrack down Adobe Drive to Higgins to loop around the school to get to Peralta Road. If they were inclined to do this, they would loop in front of the school now, and they do not.

As for traffic flow in front of Shamrock Ranch, it is currently a dead end and there is no traffic flow. Removing the fence and constructing a proper road will produce traffic. We own the strip of land between Shamrock Ranch and the school and we need to open up the dead end for our Hillside Meadows project.

Exactly what we are doing, Carl. Just archive this thread.

The nonsense with the 2018 election, and against a City Council member, the 2017 fake petitions financed by the CAA, which resulted in evictions (and the RVs), were easy to get away with during Sherman's ownership of the Trib. We have a local weekly newspaper again, run by people who live here, not Marin. No suppression of news, or information.

Thanks for the reply concerning Peralta, John. So to answer my other question, how are you working with Shamrock Ranch to mitigate the significant impacts on them? Once Higgins opens to Peralta, it is easy to foresee that the majority of Higgins traffic (trailhead, school etc.) will take that route to Highway 1 over Adobe (imagine entering it into Google maps -- it is easy to see it will prefer Peralta for all Higgins-bound traffic). Plus the significant additional impact of the "Woods" development -- if it goes ahead. Not hard to imagine the traffic in front of Shamrock Ranch will increase a hundredfold literally overnight (what do your "official" traffic experts say on the numbers?). What are you doing with the folks at Shamrock to mitigate that? Plus folks further down Peralta? As a good neighbor, it would be unthinkable that you are not already working with them on this point. And I don't mean just asking them to fill in an online survey.

Carl May:

There is nothing I can write that will overcome your cynicism and negativity.

You start with the belief that change is bad, everyone is a crook, no one tells the truth, and public officials are either bribed or incompetent. There is no way to have a conversation based upon facts and reason with someone who holds this worldview.

Your view seems to be in fashion today. I however refuse to embrace it. I personally think you would be better off suspending your cynicism and investing your time learning the facts and making an evidence-based judgment on the issues.

Stop making straw-man arguments where you set up a false premise and then criticize it. You say:
"Touting popular 'outdoor recreation' allows development interests to ignore the extensive environmental damage caused by some forms of activity, such as undisciplined gung-ho mountain biking, often to the detriment of other outdoor activities, such as hiking and the calm and solitude one can get from being in nature." Your premise is that our development is ignoring extensive environmental damage caused by certain activities. This is false. We see the environmental damage and are going to reverse it by rationalizing and improving what is now undisciplined. We are not going to shut down the mountain bikers. We are going to renovate what is there so it does not damage the environment and build other paths for the bikers in an environmentally responsible way. We are also going to renovate and improve the walking trails and separate free-ride mountain bikers from nature lovers because their uses are incompatible.

Good luck to you.

Don't expect historic, physical, or numeric facts to halt or even bend the semantics and spin of the well-practiced PR section in the developer's playbook. And why should they? Recent elections in Pacifica have been bought by saturating voters with lies funded by outside real estate interests. Touting popular "outdoor recreation" allows development interests to ignore the extensive environmental damage caused by some forms of activity, such as undisciplined gung-ho mountain biking, often to the detriment of other outdoor activities, such as hiking and the calm and solitude one can get from being in nature. Ridiculous claims that adding more vehicles to narrow and already congested roads will ease traffic problems go unchallenged. Uncritical local officials readily accept studies by rent-a-scientists selected and paid for by developers. Silly claims (based on rigged governmental income standards) that new housing will be "affordable" for locals who really need it get feel-good approvals from local officials immersed in and owned by the real estate and development industry. Through it all, the public is constantly bombarded by the failed but enduring economic principle that growth is synonymous with the greater good.

Going back and forth on details with those selling over-development merely aids developers with developing their spiels. Energy would be better spent in making the public aware of what is going on and how it will make their lives worse.

Peter George:

We own another property located next to Shamrock Ranch that we call Hillside Meadows. Included in the property is a strip of land that extends along the front of the ranch between the ranch and the school from the northern end of Higgins all the way to Peralta Road. When we build Hillside Meadows, we will construct a new road to connect Higgins to Peralta. This will create a second path for people living in west Linda Mar, besides Adobe Drive, to reach Linda Mar Boulevard.

The two projects are not connected. The construction of the Higgins Road extension is not connected to or dependent upon the construction of Linda Mar Woods.

By the way, I am gearing up to start holding online town hall meetings with people interested in speaking directly with me about the projects I am planning. If you are interested, please go to the Lindamarwoods.com website, take the surveys, and list your email address so we can send you an invitation to participate in a video call.

And what do the folks at Shamrock Ranch think about the Peralta connection plan? I presume you are working closely with them on the 18-unit development?

John Kontrabecki, are you proposing opening up Higgins Way all the way to Peralta? I did not see that as part of any plans I have seen. How would you navigate the slope and where would you connect to Peralta? Does your property extend to Peralta? I would be extremely keen to see this on a map, thanks!

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Red Rocks, Colorado and Utah

  • IMG_0955
    By John Maybury riding Amtrak

Southeast France

  • 30-Sainte Agnes
    Photos by John Elk

Viva Mexico

  • Mexico 01 Mexico City Cathedral
    Photos by John Elk

Snow Train

  • IMG_0830
    Photos by John Maybury, onboard Amtrak's California Zephyr


  • 7-Samakand
    Photos by John Elk


  • 12-Chateau de Commarque sunset
    Photos by John Elk


  • 5-Cado
    Photos by John Elk

Canyons, Cliffs & Clouds

  • IMG_0714
    Photos by John Maybury


  • 44-Ravello
    Photos by John Elk

Australian Rainforest

  • 2016_0529reunionfamily0032_opt
    Photos by Joel Maybury

Pacifica Shorebirds

  • 20110819_7165.2
    Photos by Paul Donahue


  • 20-San Agustin painted statue
    Photos by John Elk


  • 27-Okavango elephant
    Photos by John Elk


  • 16-Etosha rhinoceros
    Photos by John Elk

Scary Pumpkins

  • Unknown-16
    Photos by Ray Villafane

Big Sur

  • P1030837
    Photos by Dave Yuhas

Joshua Tree Natl. Park

  • Img_0815
    Photos by John Maybury

Gray Lodge

  • IMG_0985
    Photos by John Maybury

Yachats, Oregon

  • IMG_1044
    Photos by John Maybury

Bagpipes on the Beach

  • Img_0258
    Photos by John Maybury

Tucson Botanical Gardens

  • Img_0794
    Photos by John Maybury

Pima Air/Space Museum

  • Img_0758
    Photos by John Maybury

Desert Springtime

  • Img_0839
    Photos by John Maybury