SU0014502 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Administrative Draft Environmental Impact Report Gill Medical Center Project In summary, it is unlikely that relocating the Project site as proposed under Alternative 4 would significantly reduce the Project's contribution to local VMT and associated GHG emissions. Furthermore, relocation to an alternative site is inconsistent with the Project objective to utilize land owned by the applicant to ensure project feasibility. 6.4.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative Determination Table 6-1 provides a comparison of anticipated impacts of the alternatives with the proposed Project. For reasons presented above and summarized in Table 6-1, the No Project Alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) states in relevant part that, "If the environmentally superior alternative is identified as the 'no project' alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives." Among the remaining alternatives, Alternative 2: Reduced Project is considered the environmentally superior alternative. Compared to the proposed Project, the Reduced Project Alternative results in 7,306 tons per year less CO2e, a 76 percent reduction in VMT and related GHG emissions compared to the proposed Project. Thus, Alternative 2 reduces the only two significant unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project (although not to a less than significant level). As shown in Table 6-1, due to its reduced development footprint, Alternative 2 also further reduces all significant but mitigable impacts of the proposed Project and is either similar to or further reduces draft EIR identified less than significant impacts. The primary drawback to Alternative 2 is that as a reduced project it doesn't address the long term need for medical services in the north Stockton Area. Without development of additional new strategically located medical facilities in the medically underserved north Stockton area, in the long term patients and medical workers would continue to travel to other existing hospitals in the greater Sacramento and Bay Areas. Compared to the proposed Project, this would contribute to greater medical service sector area wide VMT, and transportation related air and GHG emission impacts over the long term. Alternative 2 is considered superior to Alternative 3 because connection to City of Stockton utilities would result in greater construction related VMT and GHG impacts than that of the proposed Project. This is primarily due to the length of pipeline construction (approximately 4 miles total) required to connect the project site with the nearest existing utilities. Furthermore, in August 2020 the Project applicant formerly requested water, wastewater and storm water service from the City of Stockton but was denied service based on inconsistency with Stockton Council Policy No. 900-1 and because the City of Stockton Community Development Department determined the proposed use does not conform to the City of Stockton's General Plan. Alternative 2 is considered superior to Alternative 4 because Alternative 4 is inconsistent with the stated Project objective to utilize land owned by the applicant to ensure project feasibility. Alternatives 6-25 October 2021