Friday, August 17, 2018

Yes, the proposed Marinwood Park Maintenance Compound is huge.

Photo from the 3D presentation of the 40 x 150' Maintenance Shed Compound presented by Bill Hansell, Architect and former CSD director. It is twice the size of neighboring houses.  Seen from a height of 138'

Here is a photo from Bill Hansells 8/14/2018 3D presentation of the Marinwood Park Maintenance Shed Compound.

Notice how it stretches behind the full length of two houses on Quietwood Drive.  Wow! It is viewed from a height of approximately 138'.  The angle compresses the apparent height but it will be approximately as high as a roof peak on the ranch houses on Quietwood Dr.(15')   Also,  I do not think the land mass is drawn accurately.  There is too much space between the Maintenance Compound and the creek. 

Only story poles and lot markers will give a more accurate vision of the mass. The Marinwood CSD should place them as soon as possible to gather input from the public

We have learned that support columns will be needed for the interior of the garage area.  This will make parking of our 22' Ford F250 extremely difficult.
Imagine entering a parking garage and having to park seven vehicles inside a 36' x 39' room with two support columns in the middle.  I am sorry, Marinwood CSD, this is a fatal error in the design. If you can't park vehicles inside, we need another design that will accommodate them.
The dump truck and future trailer will need to remain outside as before.  Landscaping material will also need to be outside because the bucket loader will need room for maneuvering.    This project increases the interior/exterior footprint of the current maintenance compound by 200 percent.  

Do not be dissuaded by people who claim we are spreading fear.  We are performing a public service by rigorously examining the plan and sharing it with the general public.  The Marinwood CSD has restricted information.  The more people who know the truth of the project, the more common wisdom will prevail.

Also, look at the Western corner of the entrance courtyard a see a big pine tree. The road reaches about 15' on the other side which is exactly the edge of the horseshoe pit.  I predict that the horseshoe pit will need to be moved if the white elephant is built.

“Stop the White Elephant
In Marinwood Park”

Sign the petition at


  1. It's the same square footage as the two current buildings plus storage for materials, also taking up space currently. The facts show it's no more square footage than the current buildings and storage. Overall less square footage. This is better than what is there now by a long shot. Why do you propose a garage that doesn't fit the needs of the community? Minimal savings, if any, is not worth the lack of needed space. On top of this you're against an imaginary structure, the county hasn't even approved any location. You're Don Quixote.

  2. The new maintenance shed is four times the cubic volume of the existing garage. It is fifty percent taller and twice as big. The storage yard is double the size. The entire footprint is slightly under 6000 square feet approximately 40' x 150'. If you look at the site plan map, there is a large dirt patch that is called "outdoor storage". The purpose of including that is to make the new proposal seem smaller. In fact, the new compound is substantially bigger yet the vehicles and material storage will be handled outside the covered area and most likely outside the compound. The bucket loader on the tractor needs lots of space to maneuver and can only be accommodated outside the facility but the site plan ignores this need. A truck driving through the facility will need to drive down to the meadow to turn around. The soil at the end of the eastern gate is loose fill and will likely not support a heavy truck on the restored stream bank. Please look past the aesthetics and concentrate on the workflow pattern. I am not exaggerating by saying the layout is fatally flawed. You cannot move around inside easily without leaving most of the space open. As a building design, I agree that it is attractive. It is just totally impractical for use as a garage, workshop and storage. I take issue with your characterization that I am Don Quioxte. I have actually measured the ground and calculated the space demands. Form follows function and unfortunately the current design really ignores basic space needs. This is why I call it the White Elephant. Suspend judgement until you measure the actual space. I know commonsense can reign here. The side access garage is far superior. Why do you think government agencies use this type of design. Marinwood CSD is a small district and this project is very impractical. We can build cheaper and use the Hansell design for a meeting room. It is too bad that some people are using personal attacks to fight their battles. The actual measurements should be something we can all agree on. It is not a battle of wills. It is a battle of common sense. (Don't you think it is funny that no one has mentioned a budget for this project?)

  3. No the new maintenance shed is FOUR TIMES the cubic volume of the current shed. It is fifty percent taller. Their is 3200 sf under roof vs 1400 sf for the current shed. The architect claimed that a very large patch of plain dirt is "open storage" to make the new compound seem smaller. In fact, the new Maintenance Compound design is slightly less than 6000 sf. Yes, that is huge for the space considering an 1800 sf side access garage delivers more usable space with access compared to the "drive through" design. The current proposal has severe access problems that are fatal to its design. The only way to prove this is to actually measure the space compared with our equipment. At least half of our equipment will need to be outside in the rain. Does that sound like a sensible design to you?

  4. The new building is replacing two existing structures and existing materials storage for a whopping same square footage. This is fact, whoever is preaching otherwise is quite dishonest. The facts are available to the public on non-opinion websites.

  5. Sorry. That is not accurate. The architect claims "outdoor storage" outside the old maintenance shed to come up with artificially high square footage. He then ignores the outdoor storage for the Truck, trailer and landscaping materials that cannot be housed within the new maintenance compound to claim that it is "not so big". Also, the "unconditioned space" merely lacks windows. Once the building is up, the windows will be installed so "poof" an instant 100 square feet added to the total. The current design suffers poor space planning. A "drive through" path must be left open for access. This wastes about half the space under roof. Support columns makes it very difficult for our 22' truck to maneuver. I suggest you try to work this out with a drawing to fully understand why this plan is fatally flawed. The dimensions can't be fudged so I take issue with your characterization. If I am wrong, I am most happy to correct. People who have taken the time to look at this reach the same conclusion.

  6. You can literally look at the plans and see the square footage of current space and proposed and see the new plan is less square footage. There has been no information to prove otherwise other than hearsay. Total current footprint 4,545 sq ft, total proposed 4,460. Reference -

  7. Sorry. It doesn't add up. You can't simply declare a naked patch of dirt as "open storage" in the old compound and ignore the outside storage in the new compound. The exact dimensions of the new maintenance compound and parking facility have not been defined. Practical considerations of the size vehicles and their mobility needs have not been published. Shouldn't you apply an "apples to apples" comparison?