Most people who spoke at Work Session 4 expressed preference for this scheme. The primary benefits noted were: keeping vehicular traffic to the periphery of the site; tucking a large portion of the Town Center cluster out of view behind the Church on the existing tennis courts; maintaining the existing view corridor through the site from Portola Road towards the western hills and opening a second one over the baseball field. An expressed drawback to this scheme was the introduction of a drive and parking adjacent to Portola Road, and the number of trees within the existing Town Center that would have to be removed to accommodate the new baseball field. On the other hand, people did express support for removing the non-native trees around the Schoolhouse and other areas of the site.

Open Space
Many liked the new parkland proposed where the existing baseball field is now. Some wished for greater separation between the existing oak woodland and the new baseball field, and suggested narrowing the space between the baseball and soccer field. There was concern expressed that the tennis and baseball fences would not be attractive as seen from Portola Road or the south drive.

Creek
Many found the opening of the creek appealing and expressed interest in seeing it opened further. While others also saw it as an amenity, they worried about its safety during storms and wet El Nino years. One participant felt the creek should not be opened for reasons of cost, safety, and the probability of a “designed” creek bed looking contrived.

Recreation
While many liked the general placement of the recreational facilities, some offered suggestions on improving their specific locations and use. Many did not like the location of the maintenance facility at the south end of the soccer field for a variety of reasons – it shortened the soccer field, balls would fly into the maintenance yard unless a tall fence or net was provided, there would be conflict at the parking area between soccer players and maintenance traffic. One person suggested moving the maintenance facility closer to the tennis courts.

Some people were very disappointed that there were only three dedicated tennis courts in the plan. Others want the MUR to include a ball court. Acknowledging that this would increase the size of the MUR, one suggested placing this building along the west property line along the orchard. Some would like to see a dog park on this site. Many would like public restrooms located near the outdoor recreation facilities.

Buildings
Many liked the location of the library away from the recreation fields and the noise they generate. One person commented that it would be nice for the library rooms to offer a view of the creek as in Scheme A. Another noted that there is very little emphasis on art in this or the other alternatives, and went on to suggest a small, dedicated art gallery, similar to when the Schoolhouse was a gallery.

Parking/Circulation
While many liked the concept of keeping parking and circulation at the edge of the new parkland near Portola Road, many had comments on how this parking could be improved. One suggested the parking surface be gravel and not paved. Others would like to eliminate or minimize the parking at that location or move it to the other side of the new drive to not obscure the views of the western hills. Individuals also expressed concern that the plan did not provide adequate parking for the library and the playing fields. A U-shaped drive close to the buildings was suggested to facilitate pick-up and drop-off, which many felt was not realistically addressed in this or any alternative. It was also suggested that the parking at the tennis courts be connected via a new drive to the existing Town Center entrance. Some wondered if the neighboring church would be willing to either provide access or share parking with the Town, two ideas which have to be taken up with the church.

Open Space
Many participants agreed that there is a greater sense of open space in this design. They liked this scheme because it protects the rural quality of the site and fits most closely with the existing environment. This scheme also has minimum impacts to the trees and topography because it keeps the playing fields in place. One participant thought that leaving the open space undeveloped is great, but it came at the expense of the safety due to the access road through the site. A few participants thought that opening the creek was a good idea, especially if it is kept in a natural area of the site.

Recreation
Several participants thought having the sports fields at separate sites was good and thought preserving the location of the existing fields was beneficial. A few participants asked that three tennis courts be built and that the sport court be located apart from them, perhaps close to the baseball field. One participant noted that the baseball field at this size does not support adult activity.

Circulation
Many participants felt that the road through the site would be dangerous, especially for children. They thought that, for this plan to work, there must be a way to ensure that people would be safe crossing the road in the middle of the site. One participant suggested pulling the baseball field into the site so that the road can be on the perimeter. Another participant recommended putting speed bumps on the road and installing fences along the side of the road. Still another suggested diverting the stream a bit and moving parking to the back of the site, eliminating the need for the road through the center of the site. The Design Team noted that the Redwood Grove at the back of the site prevents a road from going fully around the back of the site. If parking were at the Redwood Grove it would not be close enough to the buildings to comply with fire code regulations. Because a few participants thought driving into the center of the site was appealing, one participant thought that lowering the road and building a pedestrian bridge would make the scheme safer and get cars out of view. The Design Team was reminded that this road must accommodate two-way traffic and that people will drop kids off along the road and then attempt a u-turn, creating a traffic backup.

Parking
Several participants had suggestions on how to make the parking more accessible and convenient. One idea was to move the road behind the soccer field for access and handicapped parking only, then add more parking behind the old school house and where the non-native trees now stand. Another suggestion was to move the maintenance yard into the easement (if allowed), allowing space to shift the soccer field south and allow more space for parking nearer the buildings. A third idea was to remove the road and add more parking in the southwest corner of the site because having a parking lot next to the church would be very noisy. One participant suggested that the parking spaces closest to the library be marked with “Please save these spaces for our senior citizens”.

Buildings
Several suggestions about building phasing and usage were noted. One participant thought the town center should have offices on the ground floor rather than the second floor. While most participants agreed that having the classrooms built in Phase 1 was a good idea, one noted that having classrooms opening directly onto a parking lot is dangerous. It was suggested that the science classroom/nature center be situated to access a native plant garden and outdoor exploration area, which could also provide optimal natural light for the classroom as well. One citizen thought that the idea of building a large multi-use room would have to be well planned to ensure maximum usage, considering the large size. Another suggested building four classrooms with movable walls so they can become the MUR. A request for an adequate number of accessible bathrooms was noted. Several participants thought that the pre-school should not be located on public land. The need for a pre-school was recognized, but many thought it should be located elsewhere in town.

In September the Design Team is currently planning to present the two revised schemes back to the Town of Portola Valley at two public meetings:

1. Town Council on Wednesday 9/8/04 at 7:30 PM in the Multi-Use Room.
   
2. Joint session of the Architectural Site and Control Commission (ASCC) and the Planning Commission on Monday 9/13/04 at 7:00 PM in the Multi-Use Room.

Following the first presentation, revised drawings will be available in the Library, Town Hall and on the Town Website for additional review and written public comment.

Based on input at these meetings and written comments from the community, the design team will prepare the Final Draft of the Conceptual Master Plan to Town Council on 10/13/04 at 7:30 PM. The Final Conceptual Master Plan will be presented to the Town Council at a Special Session on November 3 at 7:30 PM.