Portola Valley commissions weigh siting, costs for Ford Field restroom and concessions project

Portola Valley planning and architectural-site-control commissioners on June 17 reviewed an early-stage feasibility study for a proposed restroom and concession building at Ford Field, pressing staff for a topographic survey and parking-impact data before sending recommendations to town council.

The study, presented by landscape architect Brian Fletcher of Calendar Associates, laid out three preliminary sites: one in open space near Highway 280 (site 1), one within the scenic/view-corridor near redwoods (site 2), and a site within the existing parking lot (site 3). Fletcher said the study's immediate goal is to produce clear, actionable alternatives for council consideration and to identify funding strategies but that the project remains at an early phase.

Why it matters: Commissioners and members of the parks subcommittee said a clearer record on where the creek's top-of-bank and the 75-foot view-corridor fall is required to evaluate whether any location complies with setback rules and fire-safety constraints. Several commissioners favored removing site 1 from further consideration because of access, utility and oak-tree protection concerns; others urged narrowing the choice to site 2 or site 3 so the consultant team can focus limited survey resources.

Cost, fundraising and manufacturer options were central points of contention. Karen Asi, a parks-and-recreation committee member, said her committee's earlier estimate for a joint restroom-concession structure was roughly $500,000 (with a $180,000 state grant and $190,000 in pledged donations, $80,000 of which is contingent on concessions). Asi told commissioners she would have recommended against holding the meeting if the higher consultant figures had been shared earlier.

Fletcher acknowledged range and uncertainty in early estimates and explained major cost drivers: contractor mobilization and bonding, grading and drainage (stormwater triggers can increase cost), utility extension and annexation for sewer, and a manufacturer cost plus a typical 30% markup for contractor and site work, plus design and construction contingencies. He presented two manufacturer types: a higher-end public-restroom vendor and a lower-cost CXT-style prefab that has produced lower bids for similar projects.

"What we're trying to do is develop a very focused and quick effort plan to understand the feasibility," Fletcher said, adding that a topo survey and clear definition of setbacks would help narrow feasible sites.

Several commissioners pressed for detail before advancing a recommendation. Commissioner Nicholas said he could not support moving forward without a clear funding path, calling the higher estimate "$3,000 a square foot" in the town's current fiscal situation and recommending a pause unless a significant donation surfaced. Commissioner Lance urged preserving parking and keeping any building close to existing utilities to limit additional cost. Commissioner Jenna questioned the feasibility of planting screening under redwoods because of root systems and suggested alternative screening methods if greenery will not grow.

On concessions, Fletcher described three service levels. Level 1 is packaged food only; level 2 (the likely preference for Little League) allows refrigeration and warmers; level 3 would be a full commercial kitchen. Commissioners and the parks subcommittee noted the existing snack shack is largely used by private groups (Little League) and suggested that council be presented options: restroom-only; restroom plus a renovated or replaced concession; or remodeling the existing shack.

Next steps and transparency: Staff and commissioners agreed the project needs a topographic survey and a parking-count/impact analysis to present comprehensive options to council. Fletcher and staff said they would post the meeting's updated cost slides and the presentation to the town website after the meeting; staff also agreed to clarify which written public comments have been received during the safety-element review (a separate agenda item).

The commissions did not take any formal vote on the project at the meeting; rather, they requested the additional site-survey and parking data and asked staff to return with revised alternatives and manufacturer comparisons for review before the council considers funding or direction.