Amid all the hand-wringing about parking and traffic issues, did anybody mention that the gym is just one block from the Caltrain station? There are nothing in the rules of indoor volleyball that require driving to the game. Heck, you could even enjoy a postgame beer at the Oasis and not have to worry about driving home.

The library parking lot will be next to the new gym and will be filled up with gym users' vehicles in no time. The plan needs more parking installed next to the new gym.

I like that the civic center is very pedestrian friendly. I hope there still will be good access from the library to the skate park and outdoor basketball courts for skate boarders and pedestrians alike via a path (not for cars) next to Alma. In other words I hope the new Gymnasium near the skate park does not but up against Alma getting rid of the path there.
Also - about parking... I am a frequent user of the library, the pool, the gym,the skateboard park... The parking is already maxed. I agree that the new complex will create a parking problem if more spaces aren't provided in the building plan.

I think all of us want the new facility. There is a major parking problem and it must be addressed. Closing Alma or underground parking would seem to be the answer. As planned, this should not be approved without a solution to the parking problem. If this means expensive, underground parking, then lets spend the funds to do that. Build it right.

where is all the soil from the underground parking going?
Costs for underground parking are at least 3 times the cost of surface parking.

Everyone hates underground parking, and it is much, much more expensive, so I don't think it's a good option.
The city should look at the configuration and placement of existing lots, and maybe do a re-design. The lot by the pool/gym currently has circulation problems.

Multi-level parking lots are expensive, but so is land. Putting in a decent parking structure would be a one-time cost that would free up a lot of green space that we could use forever. It's ridiculous to waste so much park space on cars! For every parking space we lose at least 200 square feet of recreation area.

Burgess is the only real park in our city; it shouldn't be our city's biggest parking lot.

While we're at it, we need to figure out traffic flow. I know this is the boring part of the job (designing a gym is much more fun) but I foresee a block-long line of northbound cars on Alma waiting to turn left onto Ravenswood if the city doesn't come up with a better way to move cars and people.

This gym is long overdue, but let's build it right.

Burgess is the only real park in the city? You must have a very narrow definition of "real park" because I can think of 3-4 wonderful ones off the top of my head.

Yes, I love Fremont Park, great for sipping your latte and chasing pigeons. Can I amend "real" to "full service?" And can we stay on topic and not venture into nitpicks? My points remain valid.

Perhaps there is a way to build a parking structure that doesn't take out as much dirt, but still sinks a two level parking structure, so that it's only 1 1/2 stories high? So, still effective, but yet somewhat more pleasing to the eye? This is a valuable site for our town, and it is truly "full service". The parking is rough, even in the morning for swimming, so we do need to figure this problem out. I can guarantee you this new project will be quite popular, once it's finished.

Traffic is going to jump at an already dangerous intersection -- Alma/Ravenswood. The city should seriously consider restricting vehicles on Alma to right-turn only onto Ravenswood.
It's currently restricted to right turns only during afternoon commute hours, which is widely ignored, but the only time it's not dangerous is in the middle of the night.

All turns from Laurel onto Ravenswood, both north and southbound, should be right only. No straight across, no lefts. Ms. Turner is correct -- it is only safe to make those maneuvers in the middle of the night, and it seems silly to put up a sign saying "no left turns except between midnight and 6 a.m." Let's just get rid of them.

Sorry, I meant from Alma onto Ravenswood, not Laurel. Though Laurel should either become a four-way signal (as we have at all the other major intersections) or the current signal should be modified to add left turn arrows. It is so dangerous right now, and I have seen many near-accidents and close calls, including an Encinal bicyclist struck by a car (not seriously hurt, thank goodness).

Speaking as a resident who happens to be a Library Commissioner, I really appreciate the constructive discussion that has been posted.

Since the public comment clock is ticking, you may wish to post your comments with the City Council: city.council@menlopark.org
and Planning Commission: planning.commission@menlopark.org

I do have my concerns that Library patrons and service levels will be impacted. As a frequent patron and volunteer, I know walking from one end of the parking lot #6 to the Library entrance is a long way, particulary if it raining. :) Also if you have books and children in tow or older folks, making them walk the proposed additional long 1/4 mile to the Library entrance is problematic.

I do believe that a viable solution can be found (parking structure, underground parking, etc.) to reduce traffic and parking issues. But it all rests with the Community making its concerns known.

Sincerely,
Tom McDonough