Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Finding: This Project is infeasible for aesthetic and environmental <br />reasons and is not preferable to the Project. It is rejected for the following <br />reasons: <br /> <br />. Lower but larger buildings would increase storm water runoff by <br />increasing the footprints of the buildings. <br />. Increasing the building footprints would decrease the amount of open <br />space available to employees and make the Project appear denser <br />and less green to the public who are using the public waterfront path. <br /> <br />Furthermore, this alternative does not lessen any of the unmitigated <br />environmental impacts and is therefore not an environmentally superior <br />project. <br /> <br />D. <br /> <br />SPLIT SITE ALTERNATIVE <br /> <br />Description: This alternative would develop the site at a substantially <br />lower intensity (approximately 370,000 square feet less) than the Project, <br />would conform to the height and density limits established by the General <br />Industrial (GI) Zoning District, and would utilize some of the local inventory of <br />available vacant commercial space. This alternative would consist of <br />approximately 200,000 square feet of manufacturing and limited R&D and <br />administrative uses in two buildings along the site's northern boundary. <br /> <br />Finding: While this alternative would result in less development intensity <br />on the site, it would result in similar environmental impacts in the area as the <br />Project. This alternative is infeasible and does not meet the Project's <br />objectives for economic, legal and social reasons. It is not preferable to the <br />Project and is rejected for the following reasons: <br /> <br />1. Socially, this alternative, by splitting the manufacturing use from the R&D <br />use would result in a loss of collaboration and efficiencies between the <br />R&D, manufacturing and administrative functions of the applicant's <br />business. <br /> <br />2. The loss of collaboration and resulting inefficiencies would have a <br />negative economic impact on the applicant's business. <br /> <br />3. This alternative would actually increase traffic in the area, as Abbott <br />employees would frequently need to drive, not only to work, but also <br />between sites for collaboration purposes. <br /> <br />4. Abbott's objectives are to own property and to build facilities that can <br />serve its unique purposes; it is not interested in long term rental of <br />14 <br />U:\ProjectslAbbott Labs\Planning Commission - EIR and Entitiements\Statement of Overriding ConsiderationslAbbott - Statement of <br />Overriding Considertions.doc <br />