(This is probably a duplicate but my previous email is not showing in the log)
Honorable City Council and staff
Id like to voice my support for the general direction in the proposed SRI/Parkline development. We need the additional housing, and some of the changes are in the right direction.
Id like to injects some comments to be considered while continuing to refine the proposal
1) Our climate crisis has aggravated the incidence of extreme weather, including loss of electrical power during extended periods. The Parkline proposal is already all-electrical, with photovoltaic power and electrical storage systems. It would be useful if those services could be made available to the nearby area in case of an emergency. I believe that is how the new BHCC can help the Belle Haven community.
Something like this would help with goal 6 of our Climate Action Plan: protecting residents from the impact of climate change.
2) Has there been a study / analysis of the pedestrian / cycling flow within the Parkline housing units, and between the Parkline units and desirable nearby facilities?
Looking at the layout in Attachment C, I have two questions.
My first question is: how does somebody living in the new housing units go for a coffee / snack / a chat with a friend? The proximity to the library, the park, and the Arillaga/Burgess/Pool is great, but there are no places where to sit there. Going for a coffee / bite means crossing the train tracks, or at least Ravenswood. There is a proposed "Public Amenity Space" at the corner of Ravenswood and Middlefield but that is in the opposite direction to the "natural flow" towards the library area.
I think it would be important to look at this flow, ideally in the context of the wider neighborhood. This could be an opportunity to tie down the area. A solution need not necessarily rely on the Parkline design: the city of Atherton added a bakery (Mlle Collette) and tables next to the library and something like that could group the wider area.
Tying down the area with an emphasis on pedestrian connectivity would create a stronger community. It would also be consistent with Goal 4 of our Climate Action Plan, reduce Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT).
3) My last thought is also around the layout but now focusing on the movement within the complex. Residential 3 and TownHouses 2 are visually separate from the rest of the residences, and from the Library/Burgess complex. They are also separated by the large office buildings and parking structures, which are going to be empty after hours. I am not privy to all the constraints on the design, but it seems to me this can create segregation within the area. It will also make it more likely for residents to rely on cars for their transportation - again, at odds with our goal to increase a sense of community and reduce VMT.
Would it be possible to find a way to tie in Residence 3 and TownHouses 2 closer to the other areas?
Thanks for listening.
Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart
The Willows (District 2)
Menlo Park
