Town Square

Post a New Topic

Woodside council shifts preference on basement ordinance

Original post made on Apr 21, 2016

A majority of Woodside council members now favors an ordinance that would allow the floor area of a new basement to extend no more than 50 percent beyond the footprint of the main residence above it.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, April 21, 2016, 9:42 AM

Comments (3)

Posted by Oh Please
a resident of Woodside: Woodside Glens
on Apr 21, 2016 at 12:43 pm

Notice that Lubin's dump truck argument is based on the premise that the excavated dirt is hauled off the property rather than re-used on site. Of course that might be because Woodside's idiotic regulations punish you for keeping excavated soil on the property.

But then the truck trips are way over-compensated by the owner's checkbook in confiscatory "road impact" fees, so the town wins from a big excavation project like this. Those fees are a major part of the town's revenue.

This is all self-inflicted by Woodside's byzantine and internally contradictory building and planning ordinances and policies. You'll find out if you ever try to build something here.


Posted by Steve Lubin
a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Apr 21, 2016 at 2:28 pm

Dear Oh Please,
My illustrations show the impacts of both keeping the excavation spoils on site and alternately trucking them away. Keeping them on site will likely result in disruption of a large percentage of the site, hauling them away will result in intensive trucking and yes, huge road impact fees.
Here is a link to the illustrations: Web Link
regards,
Steve Lubin


Posted by Oh Please
a resident of Woodside: Woodside Glens
on Apr 22, 2016 at 12:18 pm

Right, look at Lubin's cartoon with row after row of miniature dump trucks, as if he's explaining the issue to a group of school children. We understand numbers, Steve.

Lubin says keeping the excavated soil on-site "will likely result in disruption of a large percentage of the site"; How does he know that? He doesn't know the size of the site, nor the quality of the plans or architects involved. He simply wants to ban it in all cases, a priori. We have an ASRB and a Planning Commission and a Town Council to watch out for unreasonable projects and plenty of engineering regulations to prevent anything unsafe. We don't need micromanaging formulas.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Almanac Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

What to do if you get a noisy Rheem/Ruud heat pump water heater
By Sherry Listgarten | 15 comments | 4,406 views

Do Palo Alto city officials ever, ever have enough money?
By Diana Diamond | 45 comments | 3,262 views

Beverly Hills' hit restaurant Mírame completes the lineup at Menlo Park’s Springline
By The Peninsula Foodist | 2 comments | 2,445 views

Don't Wait Till Your Child is 42 to Say "I'm Proud of You."
By Chandrama Anderson | 6 comments | 2,354 views

Travelin’ Solo: Salvation Mountain and East Jesus
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 1,490 views