July 06, 2021


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

Jay Bird:

This property is not on San Pedro Mountain. This is misinformation created and promoted by the Protect San Pedro Mountain Group. The mountain is about a half-mile to the west of the property.

Shouldn't this thread be titled "Linda Mar Woods on San Pedro Mountain"? Just looking at it, people wouldn't know it's on top of San Pedro Mountain.

We are studying putting a single-lane parking lot with 30 spaces next to the Montessori School to provide the mountain bikers with a safe place to park, unload their bikes, and gather as a group before they ride into Linda Mar Woods. Currently they park on Higgins Way, which turns the street into a one-lane road. Our plan will be safer and more convenient for both mountain bikers and the residents of Higgins Way. The parking lot can also be used as a turnaround for delivery trucks and emergency vehicles.

The correct map is now posted at the top of this thread.


John Maybury-

I am going to post a correct map shortly.

"This has misled the public by featuring a map that does not fully represent the project." It's YOUR map that you submitted in your application. If anyone misled the public, it's you.

If the map is wrong, then post a correct map.

What's wrong with this picture?

The only part of the map that was submitted to the Planning Department that is not complete is the parking lot mentioned in item 5. All the other information was included in the application submitted and was not shown on the map posted on this website. Look at the list of seven items and you will see they are not shown on the map. This has misled the public by featuring a map that does not fully represent the project.

"The application for this project is not complete and the map is a work in progress. This map is inaccurate and misleading because it is incomplete." So a revised application and map will be submitted to the Planning Department. That's very different from saying, "The blog has featured an incorrect map of the project since the beginning." The blog has featured the map that you submitted with your application. That's on you, not on the blog.

What's wrong with this picture:

1. It creates the false impression that we are going to develop the entire site, and we are not.
2. The map does not identify the dedicated open space areas that represent the majority of the property.
3. It does not show the 40-foot conservation easement at the back of each lot to separate the lots from the conservation easement areas.
4. It does not show the easement running the length of the development that creates a buffer and a hiking trail between the lots in the center of the project.
5. It does not show the parking lot we are planning near the entrance to the property for the mountain hikers who are now parking on Higgins Way.
6. It does not say that there will be a prohibition against interior fencing to maintain the open forest feeling in the project.
7. It does not say the only trees that will be removed are those that are in the path of the road we intend to construct, within the foundation of the homes we will build, and are either diseased or dead. The idea is to preserve the forest.
8. It does not say that we are going to expand and enhance the hiking and mountain biking trails on the property.

The application for this project is not complete and the map is a work in progress. This map is inaccurate and misleading because it is incomplete.

The developer said, "The blog has featured an incorrect map of the project since the beginning." The site plan at the top of this thread is the one submitted in the application to the City of Pacifica Planning Department. Is this site plan incorrect?

John Maybury:

I also want to take up your suggestion for live conversation. I am fully vaccinated and wear a mask. I am happy to do live Zoom calls. If anyone is interested, email me at lindamarwoods@gmail.com. No noms de plume, please.

Will do. No problem. And thanks to everyone for agreeing to wrap up this discussion and take it live. I think it deserves a wider audience than what Riptide can provide. Maybe a public forum or the Pacifica Tribune website.

John Maybury:

I agree that this has become tiresome. But the blog has featured an incorrect map of the project since the beginning. I am having a correct map prepared and would like you to post it when it is ready. This will be very soon.

Bravo, Rocky! You have made a dent in our collective psyche. Let us play on.

Oh, I like the idea. I heard there was an underground vault somewhere in Pacifica where the Illuminati were plotting to overthrow the City Council and install their Grand Whizzer as our Overlord so all development would be approved no matter how extreme or insane. Prove me wrong.

I agree, and I may end up missing the daily dialog. Maybe we should create a phantom controversy to occupy us on Riptide. What say you, Rocky?

But John, it's been so much fun.

Dear John Kontrabecki and The Other Side: I want to thank all of you for your thoughtful comments on Linda Mar Woods. I think we all have learned a lot about the development, but it feels like we have reached a stalemate in the discussion, and I am frankly tired of seeing it go around and around in circles. May I suggest that John meet with The Other Side in a public place to hash this out, and let Riptide get onto other business. Please wrap this up as soon as possible, and then I will close this thread.

John: Statistics are important because they represent the truth that is not open to any interpretation. Whereas you use words like "small fraction", "many", "not all", these words can be taken to mean almost anything between 0 and 100%. "Not all" could truthfully mean 0.001% or it truthfully could mean 99.999% -- you know that better than anyone. You write answers that are defensible regardless of anything. I'm trying to engage with you on the specifics of the project. But when you use phrases like "many", and "not all", then all you are doing is giving a non-answer that looks like an answer. I can't engage with someone who will not answer my questions. Are you saying in all the maps you've made, you've not made maps and calculations of this stuff? I can show your engineers how to compute areas and percentages off a map if they need some pointers. It will only take a few minutes.

If you go back through this entire thread you will see far too many occurrences where I asked very specifically for numerical answers to my questions -- and I'm frustrated because all I ever get are slippery verbal answers. Answers that you can always claim were truthful in hindsight no matter what you decide to do (occupational hazard, I guess?). The more slippery answers you give, the more it looks like the project has something to hide. If that's not reason enough for you to start providing specifics, then I'm not sure what is. Also waiting on the answer for the insurance question, too. Thanks.

Peter George:

You wrote: "I'm still waiting for the statistics, by the way. The percentages of trees removed, land graded, and land paved."

I cannot tell you what percentage of trees are to be removed because we did not count all the trees on the property. It would be a waste of time. We only counted the trees located within the roadway and the sidewalk area on both sides of the road, and then only the larger heritage trees.

If you can tell me why these statistics are important, and I agree with you, I will ask my engineer to do the calculations. I do not see the point.

This is a 58+ acre site. The graded and paved area represents a small fraction of the total site area.

Previously Impartial:

Please answer my questions.

1. What would you do about the unrelenting lies being spread about Linda Mar Woods by the Protect San Pedro Mountain Group?

2. What is "unprofessional" about calling out the BIG LIE strategy the Protect San Pedro Mountain Group is following?

John: Going back through this thread, I now count at least 14 clear, direct questions I asked on which I never got direct answers. My frustration is the only answers I get are typically lawyer truth-stretching and avoidance ("never answer the question, just tell them what you want them to hear"). My frustration is that this outreach is clearly so much less than it could have been. Every engagement I have with the "outreach" of this project is an exercise in frustration. If that is a criticism of you, rather than the project, you are welcome to see it that way, I guess. But are you saying someone else is in charge of the outreach other than you? Was someone else responsible for first mentioning Nazis in this thread? OK, so now I'm waiting on 16+ answers...

LAFCO? Commonly referred to as "LAUGHCO" for its highly politicized, pro-urbanization, pro-overgrowth, anti-environment, developer-loving board, it is usually dominated by its two sold-out county supervisors--whichever two county supervisors are on it at any given time. For decades the people of unincorporated San Mateo County have been fighting it to avoid consolidation and maintain a degree of local control over our lives. That degree of local control, often expressed through our local special districts, has been one of the few avenues for maintaining a decent quality of life over the decades in the face of wealth-serving government at the county and state levels.

Forest? Only the biologically and ecologically ignorant call a species-depauperate weed patch of introduced and invasive trees a "forest." There is nothing truly natural about such a place.

The carpetbagging voice of newly self-assigned superiority may attempt to take over righteousness and authority using the misdirecting and erroneous techniques of the developer's playbook, but the ploy fails under the slightest real-world challenge and objective scrutiny.

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