SU0014502 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Administrative Draft Environmental Impact Report Gill Medical Center Project Because it results in an approximately 71 percent reduction in the construction footprint, Alternative 2 would also result in proportional reductions to the following potentially significant but mitigable impacts of the proposed Project: Reduced conversion of active agricultural land from 42.4 acres (proposed Project) to approximately 12.5 acres (Alternative 2), an approximately 71 percent reduction. Reduced construction equipment and operational traffic NOx emissions. Reduced potential impacts to four sensitive plant and animal species as well as migratory birds and raptors. Reduced potential impacts to paleontological resources. Reduced potential impacts due to the routine transport, use, disposal, or accidental release of hazardous materials during Project construction and operation; and, Reduced potential impacts to unknown cultural and tribal resources. The Reduced Project Alternative has the overall effect of reducing significant and unavoidable VMT and GHG impacts compared to the proposed Project, although not to a less-than-significant level. As a tradeoff, the Reduced Project Alternative does not address the long term need for new or expanded medical facilities and services within the underserved north Stockton area. As a result, related regional VMT and GHG impacts associated with medical services industry patient and worker vehicle trips would continue to be substantial in the long term. 6.4.3 Alternative 3: Connect to Public Utilities - Water, Wastewater and Storm Wafer Under Alternative 3, the onsite areas reserved for water, wastewater and storm water utility construction would no longer be required and the Project development footprint could be reduced by approximately 3.7 acres, or 8.7 percent. While connection to public utilities would reduce onsite utility construction related GHG emissions, this reduction is expected to be more than offset by increased NOx and GHG emissions generated due to pipeline extensions necessary to serve the Project. Additionally, due to the length of required connecting pipelines, construction related VMT would also increase compared to the proposed Project. Long-term operational GHG emissions would increase under Alternative 3 compared to the proposed Project due to greater pumping requirements for offsite wastewater transmission and treatment. Finally, long-term operational VMT would be similar to the proposed project. Because it results in only an approximately 8.7 percent reduction in the construction footprint, Alternative 3 would also achieve smaller (compared to Alternative 2) proportional reductions to the following potentially significant but mitigable impacts identified for the proposed Project. Reduced conversion of active agricultural land from 42.4 acres (proposed Project) to approximately 12.5 acres (Alternative 2). Alternatives 6-23 October 2021