Public Comments

---

General Comments/Questions:

• Did E & F plans require consent from the city? (Answer: City approval is required for changes to traffic flow (i.e. addition of new driveway) Architectural approval is through DSA (Department of State Architects)
• You’ve done an excellent job working with the neighbors, and we need to move forward! All the neighbors (each side) will be buffered by trees, etc.  Thrilled with field space…desperately needed.
• Delighted to see overall plans includes goal of reducing enrollment, and therefore traffic; 2. When she first saw E (now F), was alarmed at where the parking lot is, now delighted that it was made more efficient, and gives more playground area; 3. Neighbors across the street have legitimate concern about visual of front of school, but assured at how pleasant it will be; 4. Doesn’t think it is appropriate to use Vine Street as parking lot and drop-off/pick-up.
• Vine neighbors felt brunt of the staging during the last construction—encouraged District to take this into consideration
• Would like to give the people on Oak the opportunity to see the set-back.  Need to see an elevation from Oak Street to give realistic view; Didn’t know there was a neighborhood representative until last meeting, and doesn’t feel that he/she has the same opinion as many from the area; wants us to know they didn’t give a lot of feedback prior to this meeting
• Glad to be able to see all the schemes; appreciated to see all the trade-offs that need to be made, especially under the constraints.  Appreciate the review of the design goals. First goal, extremely important! The size of the playing field is great…considering the space we have.
• Appreciated hearing the thought behind the placement of the front of the school; means a lot that the committee and David really feel that the movement of the building to the front, is a pedag rationale, not community “want”
• re: Vine St… 10 years ago, the agreement was made with a population at OK much less than it is now; hope the other OK neighbors feel like they’ve been heard… took a lot of feedback from 3/19 mtg; in terms of front of school, confidence in Erwin/us to make it spectacular; created inner courtyard in new plans… will be much better than area by flagpole now for families and students; pleased to hear so many positive comments tonight.
• Very happy that this is a child-centered, child-driven plan; likes that the play area is in the back of the school, away from access
• F is improvement over E; wants commitment that there is a split recreational area ; thinks it is much improved over 3/19
• asked to preserve/protect the green in the area (front of the school); appreciate the opportunity to share the quality of life that they have with every one ; appreciate the Board and the process they are going through; felt the neighborhood was listened to, and the opportunity to make their comments
• appreciate the opportunity to hear the process, what was presented, why decisions were made, etc.; still has doubts about scale of building; scheme F preserves green space in front of school; are we meeting the parking needs that we do actually need?  Let’s maximize spaces of staff lot. Concerned about use of back lot during off-school hours
• appreciate all your work; community will benefit from this all; likes E&F plans, but should add encouragement of biking and walking
• appreciate consideration of feedback given at last meeting; will we be doing this again in another ten years?  Twenty?   Are we looking down the road? (into the future so we can avoid doing this again)

Playground Comments

• Define primary vs. intermediate grades, and limitations on play space & facilities
• Will the facilities be used for adults? (Answer: There is no expected changed to community use from the present)
• Scheme D:  Should you (we) consider closing off the parking off Vine altogether, and using it for play space?
• U10 size field vs. U12… is there intention for artificial turf? (Answer: No)

Traffic Comments

• Have you considered staggered drop off? Pick up? (Answer: Makes scheduling school day extremely difficult)
• Have you done surveys regarding pedestrians and bicyclists coming to/from campus? (will this discourage them?)
• Is bussing a dead idea? (Answer: Bussing study is complete, next step is to survey parents. Costs are extremely high with no state eligibility for funding...still researching)
• Where would the bus drop-off be?
• appreciate consideration of p/u and drop off; but will the placement of the crosswalk put pedestrians walking through the parking lot?
• Concern of walking the corner, as a safety issue, but there really isn’t a good answer,  will it drive more people to park on the Oak side?
• Appreciate the site committee’s work; disappointed with traffic flow, and could be looked at; think creatively to get out of their cars and reduce traffic; city of MP would be interested in looking at bigger picture (bike patterns, etc), reduce need for car drop off
• seems ludicrous that crosswalk is placed where traffic will flow; bussing… would like to see further analysis of envir. impact of traffic now
• on drop off (E&F) will the reversing out of parking spaces as it stands, end up into traffic?   
• seen traffic changes over last ten years; concerned with the numbers of cars turning into lot

Traffic Routing Comments/Ideas

• Have you considered turning OK Lane into a drop off (one way)?
• Left turn only lane will be a catastrophe
• Regarding safety of pedestrians and bicyclist… they seem to becoming south on Oak Knoll Lane (toward Oak), wondering if drop-off lane can come the other direction, from Oak, towards OK Lane

Vine Street

• Parts of Vine Street are part of the city of Menlo Park, not incorporated; concern on end of street: the hill creates blind spots (Leland and Vine), which creates safety issues
• resides directly in front of present staff parking lot; there’s a downhill and a curve; traffic is a high concern for the safety of the children (and all); The condition of the easement is not well kept, needs to be looked after.  Would like to see the lot used for the 29 spaces agreed to previously (and/or within reason), but not abused;
• Vine St residents/University Park have signed petition with three issues:  1. routing school towards Vine isn’t appropriate, nor drop-offs; 2. Not happy with the fact that changes to agreement are being suggested
• Regarding agreement from 10 years ago:  In exchange for egress and ingress of parking lot on Vine… they were not to be taken back 10 years later
• urge that the gate stay locked, as well as gardening there; Vine is too narrow for thru traffic, made better by locked gate; flora is benefit to area, and would be detriment to remove;
• Doesn’t want Vine Street people to think they are in disagreement with them (from Oak Knoll side)… they also see the traffic blockage; would like to see Board remove itself from Vine Street options
• want to thank neighbors who got them up to date, and getting information available;  count 15 kids on Vine with more coming… concerned about their safety as much as those “on the other side”… consider a left turn, so that you don’t have to go towards Sand Hill to get back to west Menlo

Parking Ideas/Comments

• Have you considered using the easement on Vine and turning it into parking space?
• Is there a possibility of putting faculty parking on Oak?
• Implore us to make sure the staff parking lot isn’t able to be accessed by the public. (for safety reasons…)
• If used for after school sports (outside) what is parking capacity?
• We don’t lack parking in new schemes, and need to continue to provide; appreciate Vine St. neighbors giving their feedback
• Underground parking… couldn’t it be under hard courts? (offers larger footprint) isn’t there already an unofficial passing lane? Crosswalk is going to stop traffic coming out of parking lot;

Building Ideas/Comments

• Will there be site poles put up to show scale? (Answer: Not anticipated at this time. The height of the buildings are projected to be within city restrictions for a two story home (i.e. 28 feet)
• Was a basement/sunken building considered to increase square footage?
• the footprint will be larger than the volume of the Hillview gymnasium? Thinks the drawing doesn’t do it justice to show the size of the building. (Answer: The gym will be about 2/3 the size of Hillview's Multi but not as tall, with classrooms surrounding)
• Would like to see shadow lines that will exist

March 19, 2007 Special Board Meeting on Oak Knoll

Site Facility Committees' presentation (click below to download)

Concern about security/safety of faculty parking lot; proposal to increase bike safety/access – consider pedestrian by-pass
Pedestrian crossing pattern is a concern; question about technology design
Proposed design pushes crossing and traffic to Oak;  interim stages will need operational consideration  (staggered recess & lunch during construction, for example)
Concern about bicycle and pedestrian safety
Distribute bicycle parking to several locations to disperse bike traffic
Carefully consider pedestrian access for safer solution; concern about access on Oak causing problems- rethink and open it up; compress construction as much as possible to minimize neighborhood impact
Improved sidewalk/curb could delineate walking area

Number of parking spaces needed; could additional parking be created?  Concern about visual impact of parking on Oak Knoll Lane

Suggests utilizing Vine Street as a parking entrance solution; reclaim front land for playing field
Clarification about Vine Street restrictions/agreements

Use eminent domain to acquire 6 houses on Oak; start school after Labor Day to increase time for summer work
Delaying new drop off construction might keep front playing field available during construction
Will construction noise and dust impact nearby classrooms? Offset impact by modernizing first
Menlo Park’s lack of after school child care should be considered in the school design
Site plans as conceptually presented could still be reviewed for possible child care space