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.

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

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.