SU0015801 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3 Alternatives were considered to potentially lessen or avoid significant environmental effects resulting from implementation of the proposed Project. Alternatives considered in this Draft EIR include: 3.4.1 No Project Alternative According to the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6(e)(3)(b)), the No Project Alternative is defined as the"circumstance under which the project does not proceed."This analysis will discuss the existing conditions at the time the NOP is published (the environmental baseline) and what could be expected to occur if the proposed Project is not built. Under the No Project Alternative, the Project site would continue to be used for agricultural grazing. If the Project is not approved, the land could be used for another approved use under the San Joaquin County Zoning Ordinance. Currently, there are no competing proposals for the Project site that would be one of the other approved uses. The analysis of the No Project Alternative assumes a No Project situation where the existing agricultural use would be continued as it exists under its current conditions. In the No Project Alternative, the existing environmental setting would be maintained. Changes to the setting, including changes to the landscape (e.g., visual resources, habitat, and land use/agriculture); Project-related impacts, such as construction noise, traffic, and air emissions, would not occur; and potential ground disturbance impacts to cultural and tribal resources and wildlife habitat would not occur. Additionally, the environmental benefits of energy storage would not be realized from development of the site. Under the No Project Alternative, all Project-related impacts would be avoided due to the lack of development of the Project site. There would be no new impacts to the environment. No feasibility issues have been identified which would eliminate the No Project Alternative from consideration; however, the No Project Alternative would not meet any of the Project Objectives. Additional analysis of the alternatives is included in Chapter 5. 3.4.2 Three-Terrace Southeast Corner Alternative Under the Three-Terrace Southeast Corner Alternative, the site would be set back from residences along West Patterson Pass to the north and Midway Road to the west. The facilities would be sited on three terraces with approximately the same final footprint as the Project. Site preparation would require 472,822 cubic yards of cut (65,898 cubic yards more than the Project) and 476,911 cubic yards of fill (71,270 cubic yards more than the Project), as shown in Figure 3-1. Compared to the Project, the Three-Terrace Southeast Corner Alternative would potentially reduce the Project's impacts to aesthetics and noise, due to the increased setback from existing residences. Though none of these Project impacts are significant after mitigation, the Three- Terrace Southeast Corner Alternative, by reducing the proximity of noise-emitting visible facilities to residences,would reduce the potential for aesthetic and noise impacts compared to the Project. The Three-Terrace Southeast Corner Alternative would entail greater amounts of earthwork, generating more construction dust, increased construction and decommissioning emissions associated with earthwork equipment, and increased demand for water for dust suppression. Additionally, this alternative would have a greater potential to disturb cultural resources. The Three-Terrace Southeast Corner Alternative would have greater impacts on air quality, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, and tribal cultural resources. Compared to the Project, Griffith Energy Storage Project 3-4 Tetra Tech/SCH 2022120675 Draft Environmental Impact Report August 2023