Laserfiche WebLink
Another aspect that can be considered in a plan alternative is reducing the amount of green <br />space in the interior of the project between the buildings; the community is not going to <br />access those areas - only the tenants. While it is desirable to have some green area and patios <br />for the tenants to meet, take breaks and socialize, if those areas are reduced and perhaps <br />upper level decks created, buildings could potentially be widened to help reduce building <br />heights. <br />I am disappointed to think of the amenity center as being part of a larger building as <br />suggested in the alternatives - that negates the feeling that it is a welcoming space for <br />the community as being inside an office building makes it more of a tenant space. I would <br />prefer to see the return of the stand alone amenity center for both the tenants and community. I <br />prefer the location in what is roughly now the large parking lot by the basketball court on <br />the western side of Island Dr - I think having it at the lower elevation of the property (versus on <br />the other side of Island Drive and uphill as proposed in the alternatives) is more appealing and <br />makes it more accessible to the community, especially those who would be walking there from <br />the majority of the nearby communities. In addition, that location is the direction of where the <br />“active green space” is being planned, as well as in the direction of the library. Anyone who may <br />be at the library could then easily walk to the amenity center to have lunch, which would be <br />welcome since the cafe in the library closed. The active green space (outdoor fitness area, <br />basketball & volleyball court, perhaps bocce), can extend from the amenity center down towards <br />the library. <br />I understand Longfellow’s desire to build two office buildings in the currently open areas as you <br />enter the development on Island Drive as part of Phase 1, however I think an amenity center in <br />the area I described would be more appropriate for the community. Other open areas, such as <br />the original amenity center location and the hotel location could be developed as office/lab <br />space as part of Phase 1, thereby giving the developer’s tenants space to move into without <br />disruption instead. <br />There are a number of concerns that came out of the webinars and sensitivity analyses which <br />compared the existing conditions (at @62% occupancy), 2050 conditions of the property as is <br />under the Westport Plan, and 2050 conditions with the 3.3 m square foot plan Longfellow has <br />submitted that the project alternatives do not adequately address, especially since the <br />alternatives are closer in size and scope to the Longfellow plan than the existing Westport Plan. <br />With regard to the landfill at this site, Alan Friedman, one of the experts from the Regional Water <br />Quality Control Board, indicated that it may not be a good idea for so much more density <br />and weight on the landfill. Increased building heights and subsidence due to the building <br />heights will result in a degradation of waste in the landfill which will become more uneven over <br />time. Seeing how the alternatives are only a 10-20% reduction in density and most buildings <br />retain their 100’ +/- height (plus mechanicals on the roofs), it does not seem that the alternatives <br />go far enough in alleviating those concerns. <br />Mr. Friedman also indicated that redevelopment would worsen or result in new impacts to the <br />storm drainage and waste water systems. In addition, water storage capacity is at its limit <br />under existing conditions and insufficient even under the Westport at full occupancy <br />conditions, so clearly insufficient under the Longfellow plan and the alternatives.