City Council and Concurrent Authorities
September 26, 2023

PlayBooster® (5-12 years)
PHASE-1 Direct Bury Mixed Material UNIT TOTAL
QTY NO. DESCRIPTION WEIGHT
(lb)
PRICE
(US $)
WEIGHT
(lb)
PRICE
(2023)
PlayBooster® Bridges & Ramps
1 193171C SwiggleKnots Bridge w/o Deck Connections 141.0 7,470.00 1 193173C TightRope Bridge w/o Deck Connections 57.0 2,030.00 Mainstructures
1 193168B Netplex 7-Post w/3-Roofs Steel Posts and DB 1323.0 13,425.00 1 193175A Skyport Climber for 7-Post Mainstructure 452.0 25,420.00 Motion & More Fun
5 166809A E-Pod Seat 11.0 375.00 55.0 1,875.00
1 193174A Sol Spinner DB1 128.0 2,830.00
Overhead Events
1 193170A LolliLadder w/2 E-Pods 81.0 3,070.00
Posts
1 111404F 108"Alum Post DB 28.0 360.00
1 111404C 132"Alum Post DB 31.0 450.00
1 111404O 132"Steel Post DB 42" BURY 78.0 360.00
2 179595O 204"Steel Post For Vibe Roof DB 123.0 585.00 246.0 1,170.00 Roofs
1 179594A Vibe Roof 81.0 1,635.00
Slides
1 183176A Rush Slide DB Only 255.0 5,595.00
Freestanding Play Motion & More Fun
1 158107A Cycler DB Only 48.0 1,800.00
1 120876A Spring Pod DB 20.0 525.00
Signs
1 182503C Welcome Sign (LSI Provided) Ages 5-12 years 24.0 0.00 Freestanding Play (2-5 years)
PHASE-1 Direct Bury Aluminum UNIT TOTAL
QTY NO. DESCRIPTION WEIGHT
(lb)
PRICE
(US $)
WEIGHT
(lb)
PRICE
(2023)
Freestanding Play Learning Wall
1 184891A Bongo Reach Panel 27.0 1,030.00
1 184886A Navigator Reach Panel 26.0 760.00
1 184892A Ring-A-Bell Reach Panel 24.0 1,115.00
1 184885A Trail Tracker Reach Panel 14.0 535.00
Learning Wall Posts
5 115201A LW Post 10"Panel DB 14.0 315.00 70.0 1,575.00

SUMMARY WEIGHT
(lb)
PRICE
(2023)
PlayBooster® (5-12 years) PHASE-1 3,048.0 68,015.00
Freestanding Play (2-5 years) PHASE-1 161.0 5,015.00
ALL PHASES PlayBooster® 2,956.0 65,690.00
Freestanding Play 253.0 7,340.00
Total 3,209.0 73,030.00
EXHIBIT 3
Ross Recreation Equipment Co., Inc.

EXHIBIT A 182
Exhibit B:

Insurance Requirements
(Design and Installation of Four Playgrounds Project WP22026) Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees.

MINIMUM SCOPE AND LIMIT OF INSURANCE
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:

1. Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office Form CG 00 01 covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury and personal & advertising injury with limits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location (ISO CG 25 03 or 25 04) or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.

2. Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 0001 covering, Code 1 (any auto), or if Consultant has no owned autos, Code 8 (hired) and 9 (nonowned), with limit no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

3. Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
(Not required if consultant provides written verification it has no employees)

4. Professional Liability/Errors and Omissions Insurance appropriates to the Consultant’s profession, with limit no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000 aggregate.

If the Consultant maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City of Stockton requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or the higher limits maintained by the contractor. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City of Stockton.

Other Insurance Provisions
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

EXHIBIT 3
Ross Recreation Equipment Co., Inc.

EXHIBIT B 183
Additional Insured Status
The City of Stockton, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Contractor’s insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10 11 85 or if not available, through the addition of both CG 20 10, CG 20 26, CG 20 33, or CG 20 38; and CG 20 37 if a later edition is used). Additional insured Name of Organization shall read “City of Stockton, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers.” Policy shall cover City of Stockton, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers for all locations work is done under this contract.

Primary Coverage
For any claims related to this contract, the Contractor’s insurance coverage shall be primary and non-contributory and at least as broad as ISO CG 20 01 04 13 as respects the City of Stockton, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City of Stockton, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. This requirement shall also apply to any Excess or Umbrella liability policies. The City of Stockton does not accept endorsements limiting the Contractor’s insurance coverage to the sole negligence of the Named Insured.

Umbrella or Excess Policy
The Contractor may use Umbrella or Excess Policies to provide the liability limits as required in this agreement. This form of insurance will be acceptable provided that all of the Primary and Umbrella or Excess Policies shall provide all of the insurance coverages herein required, including, but not limited to, primary and non-contributory, additional insured, Self-Insured Retentions (SIRs), indemnity, and defense requirements. The Umbrella or Excess policies shall be provided on a true “following form” or broader coverage basis, with coverage at least as broad as provided on the underlying Commercial General Liability insurance. No insurance policies maintained by the Additional Insureds, whether primary or excess, and which also apply to a loss covered hereunder, shall be called upon to contribute to a loss until the Contractor’s primary and excess liability policies are exhausted.

Notice of Cancellation
Each insurance policy required above shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except with notice to the City of Stockton.

Waiver of Subrogation
Contractor hereby grants to City of Stockton a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said Contractor may acquire against the City of Stockton by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. Contractor agrees to obtain any EXHIBIT 3
Ross Recreation Equipment Co., Inc.

EXHIBIT B 184
endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City of Stockton has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.

Self-Insured Retentions
Self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City of Stockton. The City of Stockton may require the Contractor to purchase coverage with a lower retention or provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention. The policy language shall provide, or be endorsed to provide, that the self-insured retention may be satisfied by either the named insured or City of Stockton. The CGL and any policies, including Excess liability policies, may not be subject to a self-insured retention (SIR) or deductible that exceeds $25,000 unless approved in writing by City of Stockton. Any and all deductibles and SIRs shall be the sole responsibility of Contractor or subcontractor who procured such insurance and shall not apply to the Indemnified Additional Insured Parties. City of Stockton may deduct from any amounts otherwise due Contractor to fund the SIR/deductible. Policies shall NOT contain any self-insured retention (SIR) provision that limits the satisfaction of the SIR to the Named. The policy must also provide that Defense costs, including the Allocated Loss Adjustment Expenses, will satisfy the SIR or deductible. City of Stockton reserves the right to obtain a copy of any policies and endorsements for verification.

Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers authorized to conduct business in the state with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City of Stockton.

Claims Made Policies (Professional & Pollution Liability only) If any of the required policies provide claims-made coverage:

1. The Retroactive Date must be shown, and must be before the date of the contract or the beginning of contract work.

2. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the contract of work.

3. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claimsmade policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the contract effective date, the Contractor must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of work.

EXHIBIT 3
Ross Recreation Equipment Co., Inc.

EXHIBIT B 185
Verification of Coverage
Contractor shall furnish the City of Stockton with original certificates and amendatory endorsements or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause and a copy of the Declarations and Endorsements Pages of the CGL and any Excess policies listing all policy endorsements. All certificates and endorsements and copies of the Declarations & Endorsements pages are to be received and approved by the City of Stockton before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Contractor’s obligation to provide them. The City of Stockton reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time. City of Stockton reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances.

Subcontractors
Consultant shall require and verify that all subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all the requirements stated herein, and Contractor shall ensure that City of Stockton is an additional insured on insurance required from subcontractors.

Duration of Coverage
CGL & Excess liability policies for any construction related work, including, but not limited to, maintenance, service, or repair work, shall continue coverage for a minimum of 5 years for Completed Operations liability coverage. Such Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the contract of work.

Special Risks or Circumstances
City of Stockton reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances.

Certificate Holder Address
The address for mailing certificates, endorsements and notices shall be:

City of Stockton
Its Officers, Officials, Employees, and Volunteers
400 E Main Street, 3rd Floor – HR
Stockton, CA 95202
EXHIBIT 3
Ross Recreation Equipment Co., Inc.

EXHIBIT B 186
Subject:

CITY OF STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA

CITY MANAGER ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE
Directive No. HR-15 Page No. 1 of 14
DISCRIMINATION AND Effective Date: Revised From: HARASSMENT POLICY 7/27/09 5/1/2015 4/6/09
3/1/2010
(see below)
PER-015 (Sexual Harassment in the Workplace) revised from 10/21/94, 5/1/95, 1/1/98 PER-037 (Sexual Harassment Investigative Procedures) revised from 2/15/93 I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to reaffirm the City's commitment to demonstrating respect for all individuals by strictly prohibiting discrimination and harassment, including sexual harassment in the workplace. This policy defines prohibited behavior and conduct, and sets forth a procedure for reporting, investigating and resolving complaints of discrimination, harassment, in the workplace, including retaliation and hostile work environment.

II. POLICY
A. The City of Stockton prohibits any form of discrimination and/or harassment of any person based on race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, military and veterans status, physical or mental disability, medical condition, genetic characteristics or information, denial of family and medical care leave, marital status, sexual orientation, sex (including gender, gender identity, gender expression, transgender, pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding), political affiliation, age (40 and older), concerted labor activity, or any other category or attribute consistent with state or federal law.

All such discrimination and harassment is unlawful and shall not be tolerated. In addition, under the federal Affordable Care Act (ACA), the City of Stockton prohibits discrimination and/or harassment, or retaliation against an employee who obtains coverage, receives a tax credit or subsidy through the Health Care "Market Place" or "Exchange."
B. It is an unlawful employment practice to discriminate against or to harass an unpaid intern or volunteer on the basis of any legally protected classification unless an exception applies, such as a bona fide occupational qualification.

C. The City will neither tolerate nor condone discrimination and/or harassment of employees by managers, supervisors, co-workers, or non-employees with whom City employees have a business service, or professional relationship.

D. All City employees and non-employees share a responsibility to assist in EXHIBIT 3
Ross Recreation Equipment Co., Inc.

EXHIBIT C 187
EXHIBIT 3
Ross Recreation Equipment Co., Inc.

EXHIBIT C 188
EXHIBIT 3
Ross Recreation Equipment Co., Inc.

EXHIBIT C 189
EXHIBIT 3
Ross Recreation Equipment Co., Inc.

EXHIBIT C 190
EXHIBIT 3
Ross Recreation Equipment Co., Inc.

EXHIBIT C 191
EXHIBIT 3
Ross Recreation Equipment Co., Inc.

EXHIBIT C 192
EXHIBIT 3
Ross Recreation Equipment Co., Inc.

EXHIBIT C 193
EXHIBIT 3
Ross Recreation Equipment Co., Inc.

EXHIBIT C 194
EXHIBIT 3
Ross Recreation Equipment Co., Inc.

EXHIBIT C 195
EXHIBIT 3
Ross Recreation Equipment Co., Inc.

EXHIBIT C 196
EXHIBIT 3
Ross Recreation Equipment Co., Inc.

EXHIBIT C 197
EXHIBIT 3
Ross Recreation Equipment Co., Inc.

EXHIBIT C 198
EXHIBIT 3
Ross Recreation Equipment Co., Inc.

EXHIBIT C 199
EXHIBIT 3
Ross Recreation Equipment Co., Inc.

EXHIBIT C 200

BOND FOR FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

That we, ROSS RECREATION EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC., a (STATE OF CALIFORNIA CORPORATION), as Principal and
, a corporation, organized and existing under the laws
of the State of and duly authorized to transact business under the laws of the State of California, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City of Stockton, a municipal corporation, duly created and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, as obligee, in the just and full sum of ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-NINE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FIFTY-FOUR AND 62/100 DOLLARS ($139,954.62), in lawful money of the United States of America (being 100% of the contract price) for the payment whereof well and truly to be made to the said CITY, the said Principal and Surety bind themselves, their successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.

The condition of the foregoing obligation is such that the above bounded Principal has simultaneously entered into a contract with the CITY, to do and perform the following work, to wit:

PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
(PROJECT NO. WP22026)
NOW, THEREFORE, if the above bounded Principal, CONTRACTOR, Company or
Corporation or its subcontractor, shall well and truly perform the work contracted to be done under said contract, then this obligation to be null and void; otherwise to remain in full force and effect.

No prepayment or delay in payment and no change, extension, addition or alteration of any provision of said contract, or in said plans or specifications agreed to between the said CONTRACTOR and the said CITY, and no forbearance on the part of the said CITY shall operate to relieve any Surety or Sureties from liability on this bond, EXHIBIT 3
Ross Recreation Equipment Co., Inc. 201
and consent by said Surety is hereby given, and the said Surety hereby waives the provisions of Sections 2819 and 2845 of the Civil Code of the State of California.

SIGNED AND SEALED on
APPROVED AS TO SURETY: By:

PRINCIPAL
SURETY
APPROVED AS TO FORM & CONTENT:

LORI M. ASUNCION

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
By:

ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
By:

DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
EXHIBIT 3
Ross Recreation Equipment Co., Inc. 202

BOND FOR LABOR AND MATERIAL
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

That we, ROSS RECREATION EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC., a (STATE OF CALIFORNIA CORPORATION), as Principal and ,
corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of and duly authorized to transact business under the laws of the State of California, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City of Stockton, a municipal corporation, duly created and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, and unto any and all material suppliers, persons, companies, or corporations furnishing materials, provisions, provender or other supplies used in, upon, for or about the performance of the work contemplated to be executed or performed under the contract hereinafter mentioned, and all persons, companies, or corporations renting or hiring teams, or implements of machinery, for or contributing to said work and all persons who perform work or labor upon the same, and all persons who supply both work and materials, and whose claims have not been paid by the contractor, company or corporation in the just and full sum of ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-NINE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FIFTYFOUR AND 62/100 DOLLARS ($139,954.62), in lawful money of the United States of America (being 100% of the contract price) for the payment whereof well and truly to be made to said CITY and to said persons jointly and severally, the said principal and Surety bind themselves, their successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.

The condition of the foregoing obligations is such that the above bounden Principal has simultaneously entered into a contract of even date herewith, with the CITY, to do and perform the following work, to-wit:

PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
(PROJECT NO. WP22026)
NOW, THEREFORE, if the above bounden Principal, CONTRACTOR, Company or Corporation or its subcontractor, fail to pay for all materials, provisions, provender, or other supplies, or teams, used in, upon, for or about the performance of the work EXHIBIT 3
Ross Recreation Equipment Co., Inc. 203
contracted to be done, or for any work or labor done thereon of any kind, the Surety on this bond will pay the same, in an amount not exceeding the sum specified in this bond, provided that any and all claims hereunder shall be filed and proceedings had in connection therewith as required by the provisions of Division 3, Part 4, Title 15, Chapter 5, Article 1 of the Civil Code of California, provided that in case suit is brought upon this bond, a reasonable attorney's fee shall be awarded by the Court to the prevailing party in said suit; said attorney's fee to be fixed as costs in said suit, and to be included in the judgment therein rendered.

No prepayment or delay in payment and no change, extension, addition or alteration of any provision of said contract or in said plans or specifications agreed to between the said CONTRACTOR and the said CITY and no forbearance on the part of the said CITY shall operate to relieve any surety or sureties from liability on this bond, and consent to make such alterations without further notice to or consent by any such surety is hereby given, and the said sureties hereby waive the provisions of Sections 2819 and 2845 of the Civil Code of the State of California.

SIGNED AND SEALED on .

APPROVED AS TO SURETY: By:

PRINCIPAL
SURETY
APPROVED AS TO FORM & CONTENT:

LORI M. ASUNCION

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
By:

ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
By:

DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
EXHIBIT 3
Ross Recreation Equipment Co., Inc. 204
City of Stockton
Legislation Text
File #: 23-0730, Version: 1

APPROVE MOTION TO AUTHORIZE THE PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC EXTENSION

AGREEMENT FOR THE MCKINLEY PARK RENOVATION PROJECT

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve a motion to approve and authorize the City Manager to execute the Gas and Electric Extension Agreement with Pacific Gas and Electric in the amount of $135,632.34, for the electrical and gas upgrades for the McKinley Park Renovation, Project No.

WR21017.

It is also recommended that the City Manager be authorized to take appropriate and necessary actions to carry out the purpose and intent of this motion.

Summary
The McKinley Park Renovation project site is located at 424 East 9th Street, at the southeast corner of 9th Street and El Dorado Street (Attachment A - Vicinity Map). McKinley Park encompasses approximately 22 acres and is the largest municipal park in South Stockton.

The McKinley Park Renovation will provide picnic shelters, a softball field, children’s play area, trees, restroom, basketball and futsal courts, soccer field, landscaping irrigation system improvements, pathway lighting, walking trails, parking lot modifications, and swimming pool and bathhouse renovations.

The project requires Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) to upgrade the existing electrical service. A Gas and Electrical Extension Agreement (Attachment B) needs to be executed for PG&E to start ordering the material necessary for the electrical upgrades. Staff recommends Council approve the PreQualified Bidders list and authorize execution of the Gas and Electrical Extension Agreement. The project is anticipated to be advertised for construction bids in October 2023.

DISCUSSION
Background
The McKinley Park Renovation project site is located at 424 East 9th Street, at the southeast corner of 9th Street and El Dorado Street (Attachment A - Vicinity Map). McKinley Park encompasses approximately 22 acres and is the largest municipal park in South Stockton. The project was included in the 2022-2027 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) with project funding from Proposition 68 grant, State grants, Transformative Climate Communities Grant, and Measure M funds.

City of Stockton Page 1 of 2 Printed on 9/20/2023
powered by Legistar™
205
File #: 23-0730, Version: 1
On January 26, 2021, by Resolution No. 2021-01-26-1212, Council approved a Professional Services Contract with Callander Associates, for the architectural design and engineering drawings for a complete renovation of McKinley Park. The project design is 100 percent complete and is expected to be advertised for construction bids in October 2023. The project will provide picnic shelters, a softball field, children’s play area, trees, restroom, basketball and futsal courts, soccer field, landscaping irrigation system improvements, pathway lighting, walking trails, parking lot modifications, and swimming pool and bathhouse renovations.

The McKinley Park Renovation project will require electrical service upgrades to accommodate the new pool house building, restroom structure, ball court lighting, and pathway lighting at McKinley Park. Consequently, PG&E requires the project to include the installation of necessary conduits, transformer pads, and pull boxes per PG&E standards. PG&E will complete the electrical service upgrade and energize the system.

Present Situation
Electrical power upgrades are being coordinated with PG&E for the project. PG&E will be performing the final power upgrades and energization of the system. PG&E has provided a Gas and Electrical Extension Agreement for their scope of work. PG&E offers two payment options for this type of project: the 10-year refundable advance option and the non-refundable 50 percent discount option. The 10-year refundable advanced option for electric is for development or subdivision projects and is not applicable to this project. Therefore, the 50 percent non-refundable option in the amount of $135,632.34 is applicable.

The Agreement amount is over $100,000 and requires City Council approval. Staff also recommends Council approve a motion to authorize the City Manager to execute the Gas and Electric Extension Agreement.

FINANCIAL SUMMARY
Sufficient funding is available in Project No. WR21017 for the Gas and Electric Extension Agreement with PG&E in the amount of $135,632.34.

There is no financial impact to the City’s General Fund or any other unrestricted fund as a result of taking the recommended action.

Attachment A - Vicinity Map
Attachment B - Gas and Electric Extension Agreement
City of Stockton Page 2 of 2 Printed on 9/20/2023
powered by Legistar™
206
MARTIN LUTHER KING JR./CHARTER WAY

EL DORADO STREET

AIRPORT WAY

SPERRY RD

FRENCH CAMP ROAD

EIGHTH STREET

MCKINLEY PARK AND SWIMMING POOL RENOVATION
352-(&712:5

CITY OF STOCKTON

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
N

PROJECT LOCATION

VICINITY MAP

NOT TO SCALE
LEGEND

PROJECT LOCATION

CITY LIMIT

COUNTY LIMIT

ATTACHMENT A
207
124090369
June 02, 2023
Customer Payment
Coupon
References
Notification # 124090369
Contract # 50082238 V1
E16-PM # 35372280
EOL1-PM # 35372280
Customer # 3533580
City of Stockton
22 East Weber Avenue Room 301
STOCKTON, CA 95202
Customer Payment Summary
424 E 9TH ST, STOCKTON
Please pay the Total Due based upon the payment option(s) you selected on page two of the enclosed Gas and Electric Extension Agreement.

Payment Options Subtotal Total Due
10-Year Refundable Advance Option Gas and Electric $255,861.84 $255,861.84 Non-Refundable 50 percent Discount Option for Gas and
Electric
$135,632.34 $135,632.34
10-Year Refundable Advance Option for Gas and
Non-Refundable 50 percent Discount Option for Electric
$135,632.34 $135,632.34
Non-Refundable 50 percent Discount Option for Gas and
10-Year Refundable Advance Option for Electric
$255,861.84 $255,861.84
Outdoor Lighting Non-Refundable Payment $0.00
Important Payment Information
To complete your contract ONLINE
Follow the instructions provided with your electronic contract Submit payment at https://www.pge.com/contractpayments
To complete your contract BY MAIL
Please make check payable to: PG&E or Pacific Gas and Electric Complete, sign and return the enclosed agreement(s), the SACAC form and the customer payment coupon with your payment
Remit payment and SACAC form to:

PG&E CFM/PPC Department
PO BOX 997340
Sacramento, CA 95899-7340

IMPORTANT MESSAGE
Please review the enclosed information
and total due. This document needs
to be returned with the enclosed
agreements.

If you complete your contract ONLINE,
a copy will be saved to your Customer
Connections Online (CCO) account at
pge.com/cco.

To learn more about PG&E's gas and
electric safety initiatives and resources
please visit pge.com/safety.

Have Questions?
Please Call 1-800-422-0436
ATTACHMENT B 208
Gas and Electric
Extension Agreement*
* Automated document,
Preliminary Statement, Part A
"PG&E" refers to Pacific Gas and Electric Company, a subsidiary of PG&E Corporation. ©2015 Pacific Gas and Electric Company. All rights reserved.

Form 79-1169
Advice 3579-G/4607-E

124090369
For Internal Use
Notification # 124090369
Contract # 50082238
E-PM # 35372280
G-PM #
E-Prior MLX/PM#
G-Prior MLX/PM#
Customer # 3533580
1V
Re: 424 E 9TH ST, STOCKTON
June 02, 2023
City of Stockton
22 East Weber Avenue Room 301
STOCKTON, CA, 95202
Dear+$55<%/$&.

We are writing to let you know Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) will extend its facilities to provide the requested gas and electric service to the project address listed above. PG&E's costs have been developed based on the choices and information provided in your application and may change if you make changes. This letter, including PG&E's tariffs, which are incorporated by reference below, will serve as our contract. As required by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), special facilities will be handled in a separate contract.

Please complete the following four steps to execute this contract. 1 Review the following work responsibilities and cost information.

Work To Be
Done By

GAS MAIN GAS SERVICE ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION ELECTRIC SERVICE Trench Pipe Trench Pipe Trench Substr. Facilities Trench Substr. Facilities

PG&E X X
Customer X X

GAS ELECTRIC
Total non-refundable project costs $0.00 $15,402.83
Refundable extension costs $0.00 $241,171.75
Allowances (credit) - $0.00 - $712.74
Net refundable amount = $0.00 = $240,459.00
10 YEAR REFUNDABLE OPTION
Net refundable amount $0.00 $240,459.00
Credit for value of design and/or
facilities provided by applicant - $0.00 - $0.00
Total non-refundable project costs + $0.00 + $15,402.83 Total (if you select this option) = $0.00 = $255,861.84 NON-REFUNDABLE 50% DISCOUNT OPTION
Net refundable amount $0.00 $240,459.00
Discount: 50% of Net refundable amount - $0.00 - $120,229.50 Credit for value of design and/or
facilities provided by applicant - $0.00 - $0.00
Total non-refundable project costs + $0.00 + $15,402.83 Total (if you select this option) = $0.00 = $135,632.33 Potential refund per residential lot/unit $0.00 $0.00
Potential reimbursement per service completion
Pressurized or energized system $0.00 $0.00
Not pressurized or energized system $0.00 $0.00
Reimbursement for other work
performed $0.00 $0.00
All amounts include the Income Tax Component of Contribution (ITCC) PG&E is required to charge customers, where applicable.

DEFINITIONS AND

EXPLANATION OF TERMS
(For more detail see rules 15 and 16):

Total non-refundable project costs include costs
for work such as electric trench and excavation,
conduits, inspections, streetlights, conversion from
overhead to underground and contract processing.

Refundable extension costs include costs for
facilities such as electric conductor, transformers
and poles; gas pipe, gas share of distribution trench
and regulators; and meters.

Allowances are a credit against refundable
extension costs. They are based upon the number
of residential units expected to be connected within
the first six months and the expected annual nonresidential net (distribution) revenue from your project.

Allowances granted under either option are subject
to deficiency billing if the number of residential
units connected or the annual non-residential net
revenue falls below the forecast used to calculate
the allowances.

Net refundable amount is the portion of overall
costs eligible for refund to you based upon
additional residential meters being set or upon
increases in non-residential annual net (distribution)
revenue. A cost-of-ownership charge is assessed
against the Net refundable amount (except for
individual residential applicants) per Rule 15.

Potential refund per residential lot/unit is for
those lots/units for which you did not already
receive an allowance (i.e., units not expected to be
connected in the first six months). Any refunds may
be decreased or eliminated by cost-of-ownership
charges assessed under the provisions of Rule 15.

Potential reimbursement per service completion is
the amount to which a customer may be entitled for
performing certain service connection work PG&E
would otherwise perform when installing service
extensions and are not to be confused with refunds.

Reimbursement for other work performed is
the amount to which a customer may be entitled
for performing certain work (other than service
completions) that normally is PG&E's responsibility.

ATTACHMENT B 209
Gas and Electric
Extension Agreement*
* Automated document,
Preliminary Statement, Part A
"PG&E" refers to Pacific Gas and Electric Company, a subsidiary of PG&E Corporation. ©2015 Pacific Gas and Electric Company. All rights reserved.

Form 79-1169
Advice 3579-G/4607-E

124090369
2 Select one of the following payment options.
#opt1#
10-Year Refundable Option for Gas and Electric
#opt2#
Non-Refundable 50 Percent Discount Option for Gas
and Electric
#opt3#
10-Year Refundable Option for Gas and NonRefundable 50 Percent Discount Option for Electric #opt4#
Non-Refundable 50 Percent Discount Option for
Gas and 10-Year Refundable Option for Electric
Gas
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
+
+
+
+
Electric
$255,861.84
$135,632.34
$135,632.34
$255,861.84
-
-
-
-
Advance
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
=
=
=
=
Total Due
$255,861.84
$135,632.34
$135,632.34
$255,861.84
3 Review these important terms and conditions.

This Gas and Electric Extension Agreement is controlled by, and incorporates by reference, PG&E's tariffs, including Gas and Electric rules 2, 15, and 16; the Distribution and Service Extension Agreement-Provisions (Form 62-0982) and the General Terms & Conditions for Gas and Electric Extension & Service Construction by Applicant (Form 79-716), all as approved and authorized by the CPUC. This agreement at all times shall be subject to such modifications as the CPUC may direct from time to time in the exercise of its jurisdiction.

You can view PG&E's tariffs online at pge.com/tariffs or contact the PG&E representative listed below. Additional details underlying the amounts shown in this agreement, as well as the calculation of allowances, refunds or deficiency bills can also be provided by your local PG&E representative. 4 After completing steps 1, 2 and 3 and having checked one, but only one, of the four payment options above, please complete and return the following items to PG&E.

Sign and return this contract as indicated below.

Submit the Payment Coupon with Total Due based on your option selected.

Sign and return the enclosed Statement of Applicant's Contract Anticipated Costs (SACAC) [Form 79-1003] (explanation in box to the right).

Please provide your payment and required forms within 90 days from June 02, 2023. PG&E is not bound by the costs set forth above if payment and the signed forms are not received by PG&E within 90 days.

If you have any questions, please contact Brad Joaquin
at 877-743-7782 or by email at [email protected].

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
What is the SACAC form
Under PG&E's rules 15 and 16 you have a choice:you can
perform the work yourself, hire a qualified contractor to perform the work or hire PG&E to do the work. We are
required by the CPUC to provide you with PG&E's costs.

This form identifies our cost for the refundable service that is PG&E's responsibility to install. PG&E's costs were
developed based on your choices within the application and may change if you change that choice.

How do I fill out the SACAC?
If you want to do this work yourself or have a qualified contractor do this work, please enter your estimated costs in the section of the SACAC form entitled "Applicant Costs" or check the box in the section entitled "Applicant's Election Not To Provide Costs," sign and return to PG&E. PG&E will send you a revised agreement by return mail only if you choose to provide your estimated costs.

If you want PG&E to do this work, please check the section "Applicant's Election Not to Provide Costs," sign and return the SACAC form along with a check for the Total Due
based on the option you selected above.

You must return the completed SACAC form to PG&E
regardless of who you choose to do the work.

Please follow payment instructions
found on your Payment Coupon.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company
This contract has been reviewed and approved by:

Jennifer Betancourt
Service Planning Supervisor
Customer
Agreed and accepted by:

City of Stockton, A GOVERNMENT AGENCY
Authorized Signatory +DUU\%ODFN
Title &LW\0DQDJHU
Signature #sigMLX#
Date #sigDateMLX#
#titleMLX#
#Form 79-1169#
ATTACHMENT B 210
124090369

STATEMENT OF APPLICANT'S CONTRACT
ANTICIPATED COSTS.*
Project Name: Mckinley Park Renovation Project
Project Location: 424 E 9TH ST, STOCKTON
Notification Number: 124090369
PM Number(s): (Gas) (Electric) 35372280

APPLICANT COSTS
The following statement must only include the contracted anticipated installed costs of facilities installed by the Applicant that are refundable and that are PG&E's responsibility under its tariffs.

The costs provided by the Applicant must be taken from the Applicant's contract with its contractor. If the Applicant will be performing the work itself, the Applicant must also complete and sign this form.

The Applicant's statement of costs will be compared with PG&E's estimated installed costs of the same facilities, the lower of which will be used to determine the amount subject to allowances and refunds in accordance with the provisions of PG&E's Gas and Electric Rules 15 and 16.

If the Applicant chooses not to provide its costs, it must complete the last section of this form. Until the Applicant either provides the refundable cost from its contract with its contractor (or its own cost, if applicable), or returns this form indicating that it will not do so, PG&E will not proceed with any work on the Applicant's project.

Applicant's statement of costs include: overhead or underground service conductors, poles, service transformers, connection fittings, service pipe, valves, service connections, and other PG&E-owned service equipment, as detailed in Gas and Electric Rule 16.

Applicant's statement of costs DOES NOT include: inspection fees, nonresidential service costs, regulators, or PG&E-owned metering equipment.

Form 79-1003
Tariffs and Compliance
Advice 2458-G-C/2379-E
Decision 03-03-032
* Automated document, Preliminary Statement, Part A Effective: July 1, 2004

GAS ELECTRIC
Residential Service Facilities: Residential Service Facilities:

Applicant: $ #applicantCostGas# Applicant: $ #applicantCostElec# PG&E: $0.00 PG&E: $0.00
Number of gas service: 0 0Stubs: Number of Electric service: 0 #Form 79-1003#
June 02, 2023
ATTACHMENT B 211
124090369

GAS ELECTRIC
Gas Distribution Facilities
and Non-Residential Service Services:

Electric Distribution Facilities
and Non-Residential Service Services:

Applicant: $ #gasDistFacilities# Applicant: $ #elecDistFacilities# PG&E: $0.00 PG&E: $71,611.09

GAS DISTRIBUTION TRENCH
Applicant: $ #gasDistTrench#
PG&E: $0.00
Applicant's statement of costs include: cables, switches, transformers, distribution main, valves, regulators, nonresidential service costs, and other distribution facilities required to complete the distribution line extension, as detailed in Gas and Electric Rule 15 as PG&E's responsibility.

Applicant's statement of costs DOES NOT include: inspection fees, tie-in of system by PG&E, distribution substructures, electric trench, conduits, feeder conduits, or protective structures, as detailed in Gas and Electric Rule 15.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

APPLICANT'S ELECTION NOT TO PROVIDE COSTS: (if this option selected, box must be checked) I choose not to provide to the utility my refundable costs for this project as taken from my contract with my contractor, or as performed by myself, and acknowledge that PG&E will use its estimate of the refundable costs for this project in the contract between it and me.

Executed on #signDateSACAC# at
(Date) (City)
By:

Print Applicant Name: City of Stockton, A GOVERNMENT AGENCY #sigSACAC# Signed:

Title: Signatory
#titleSACAC#
Form 79-1003
Tariffs and Compliance
Advice 2458-G-C/2379-E
Decision 03-03-032
* Automated document, Preliminary Statement, Part A Effective: July 1, 2004

#applicantSACAC#
+DUU\%ODFN
ATTACHMENT B 212
4 4
0 Engineering & Administrative Costs $0.00
Inspection Fees (+) $0.00
Others (N/A) (+) $0.00
Electric Metering (+) $0.00
Service Tie-In Cost (Energized) by PG&E (+) $0.00
Including Applicant Design Value of $0.00
Service Cost - Applicant installed # Services 0 (+) $0.00 Service Cost - PG&E installed # Services 0 (+) $0.00
Total Estimated Cost of Service Subject to Allowance (=) $0.00 Cost of Service Within Allowance:
less Total Residential Service Allowance
(not to exceed Total Estimated Cost of Service Subject to Allowance) Excess Service Cost
Estimated Service Cost Within Allowance (Total less Excess) Average Cost per Lot or Unit Within Allowance
Excess Service Allowance Applied to Distribution Line Extension Refundable Amount per Lot or Unit:
$0.00 X 0 (-) $0.00 =
$0.00 / 0 = $0.00
(=) $0.00
(=) $0.00
$0.00
Allowance
- $0.00
Ave. Cost / Unit
= $0.00
Service Tie-in Cost by Applicant (+) $0.00
**
Including Net Joint Pole Credit Value of $0.00

June 02, 2023
Applicant: +$55<%/$&.

Project Location/Name 424 E 9TH ST, STOCKTON
Cost Breakdown
Total number of residential lots/units for this project:

Total number of non-residential lots/units for this project:

Total number of combined meters:

Cost of Services:

Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Detailed Cost Sheet - Electric Distribution
and Service Extension Costs
References
Notification # 124090369
Contract # 50082238 V1
E16-PM # 35372280
EOL1-PM # 35372280
Customer # 3533580
ATTACHMENT B 213

Allowances
Residential:

Amount Subject to Refund
Engineering & Administrative Costs $74,080.15
Including Applicant Design Value of $0.00
Tie-In of Distribution by PG&E (+) $46,564.43
Electric Metering (Non-Residential Projects) (+) $2,237.68 Other Taxable charges ( N/A )
PG&E installed - Cost of Distribution Line and Non-Res Svcs.

Applicant installed - Cost of Distribution Line and Non-Res Svcs. (+) $0.00 (=) $194,493.35
Inspection Fees (+) $0.00

SUB TOTAL
Total Refundable Amount (+) $241,171.75
(+) $0.00
(+) $71,611.09
plus ITCC @ 24% (+) $46,678.40
Less Total Allowances (not to exceed Total Refundable Amount) (-) $712.75 Balance: Net Refundable Amount $240,459.00
10 Year Refundable Advance Option
Balance: Net Refundable Amount $240,459.00
Less Credit for Value of Applicant Design Work $0.00
Less Cost of Dist. Line Ext. and Non-Res Svcs. installed by Applicant Less Distribution Substructures by Applicant
Net 10 Year Refundable Advance Option Amount
Non-Refundable Discount Option
Balance: Net Refundable Amount
Less Credit for Value of Applicant Design Work
Less Cost of Dist. Line Ext. and Non-Res Svcs. installed by Applicant Less Distribution Substructures by Applicant
Net Non-Refundable Discount Option Amount
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$240,459.00
$240,459.01
$0.00
$0.00
$120,229.50
$0.00
Allowance
X 0
Lots / Units
= $0.00
plus ITCC @ Residential Allowances 24% (+) $0.00
SUB TOTAL Residential Allowances (=) $0.00
Non-Residential: $84.84
Net Annual Revenue
/ 0.1476
Cost-of-Service-Factor
= $574.79
plus ITCC @ Non-Residential Allowances 24% (+) $137.95
SUB TOTAL Non-Residential Allowances (=) $712.74
less Residential Service Allowance:
( 0
Lots/Units
X $0.00
Ave. Cost / Unit
) + 24%
ITCC
= $0.00
Total Distribution Line Extension Allowance (=) $712.74 less Discount $240,459.00
Balance
X 0.50
Discount Rate
= (-) $120,229.50
Value of Distribution Substructures (+) $0.00
Including Net Joint Pole Credit Value of $0.00
ATTACHMENT B 214
Non-Refundable Payments
Rule 16 Non-Refundable Payments

(+) $0.00
$0.00
Service Costs Beyond Preferred Service Location
Excess Service Costs
Service Riser (+) $7,711.67
Value of Service Trench, Conduits & Substructures in the Franchise Area or on 3rd Party Property
(+) $1,810.22
Value of Rule 16 Land Rights Costs (+) $0.00
(+) $0.00
Cost of Additional Rule 16 Applicant Design Plan Checks (+) $0.00 Other Taxable Charges: N/A
(+) $1,700.00
(+) $1,899.51
Rule 16 Trench Permits Obtained by PG&E
Inspection Fees
(+) $92.00 Plus Service Trench, Conduits, & Substructures installed by PG&E on Private Property
Inspection Fees (not subject to ITCC) (+) $0.00
Non-Residential Per Meter Charge 4 unit(s) (+) $500.00
Residential Per Meter Charge = 0 unit(s) (+) $0.00
Other Non-taxable Charges: (+) $0.00
Plus ITCC @ 24% (+) $3,149.13
Total Rule 16 Non-Refundable Amount (=) $15,402.84
Less Service Trench in the Franchise Area or
on & 3rd Party Property installed by Applicant
Less Rule 16 Applicant Design Work Associated with Excess (-) $0.00 Rule 15 Non-Refundable Payments
SUB TOTAL (=) $13,121.40
Inspection Fees $0.00
Re-estimating/Composite Preparation (+) $0.00
Cost of Additional Applicant Design Plan Checks (+) $0.00 Value of Distribution Conduits (+) $0.00
Distribution Risers Installed by PG&E (+) $0.00
Value of Distribution Trench (+) $0.00
PG&E Land Rights Costs (+) $0.00
Rule 15 Trench Permits Obtained by PG&E (+) $0.00
Other (+) $0.00
SUB TOTAL (=) $0.00
Plus ITCC @ 24% (+) $0.00
Other Non-taxable Charges (+) $0.00
SUB TOTAL (=) $0.00
Less Distribution Conduits Installed by Applicant (-) $0.00 Less Distribution Trench Provided by Applicant (-) $0.00 Total Non-Refundable Electric Rule 15 Amount (=) $0.00
(-) $1,459.70
Less Service Costs Beyond Preferred Location by Applicant (-) $0.00 Less Excess Service Facilities Installed by Applicant (-) $0.00 SUB TOTAL (=) $16,862.54
ATTACHMENT B 215
Relocation/Rearrangement Inspection Fees
Relocation/Rearrangement Trench Permits Obtained by PG&E Value of Relocation Applicant Design Work
Tie-in/Meter of Relocation/Rearrangement by PG&E
Relocation/Rearrangement Land Rights

Less Relocation/Rearrangement Facilities Installed by Applicant Plus Relocation/Rearrangement - Non Taxable

SUB TOTAL

SUB TOTAL
Relocation / Rearrangement of PG&E Facilities
(+) $0.00
(+) $0.00
(+) $0.00
(+) $0.00
(-) $0.00
(+) $0.00
(=) $0.00
Plus ITCC @ 0% (+) $0.00
(=) $0.00
(+) $0.00
Re-engineering/Comp Prep/Add'l AD Plan Checks (+) $0.00 Value of Relocation/Rearrangement Facilities $0.00
Value of Relocation/Rearrangement Conduits & Substructures (+) $0.00 Value of Relocation/Rearrangement Trench & Excavation (+) $0.00 Engineering & Administrative Costs (+) $0.00
Note: This supplemental detailed cost sheet is for reference only and is not intended for use in place of the actual contract for the project listed. (1) Total Service Allowance not to exceed the Cost of Service (2) 10 Year Refundable and Discount Option credit amounts will be paid upon acceptance of facilities. Credit amounts are subject to future deficiency billing in accordance with the tariff. (3) 10 Year Refundable and Discount Option credit amounts do not offset Other Non-Refundable or Relocation Fees. See Reimbursement Summary for a total of Reimbursements and Credits to be paid upon acceptance of facilities. (4) Inspection Fees (Only Refundable if Applicant's Actual Cost is Used. Applicant's Actual Cost + Inspection Cannot Exceed PG&E's Estimate)
(5) The lower of PG&E's estimated costs or the Applicant's Contract Anticipated Costs (as documented on Form 79-1003 "Statement of Contract Anticipated Costs") will be used to establish the cost of Service and Distribution Line Extension subject to Allowance Total Relocation / Rearrangement of PG&E Facilities Amount (=) $0.00 Less Relocation/Rearrangement Salvage (-) $0.00
Including Net Joint Pole Credit Value of $0.00
Less Value of Relocation Applicant Design Work (-) $0.00 Less Trench & Excavation Provided by Applicant (-) $0.00 Less Conduits & Substructures Installed by Applicant (-) $0.00 D.0405055 Line Extension Costs - Residential $0.00
D.0405055 Line Extension Costs - Non-Residential $0.00
ATTACHMENT B 216

June 02, 2023
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Detailed Cost Sheet – Outdoor Lighting Costs
References
Notification # 124090369
Contract # 50082238 V1
E16-PM # 35372280
EOL1-PM # 35372280
Customer # 3533580
Cost Breakdown
LOCATION: 424 E 9TH ST, STOCKTON
DESCRIPTION OF WORK: Outdoor Lighting
Work Provided by Rate Payers
Engineering & Administrative Costs $201.48
Outdoor Lighting – Overhead Service & Connection (+) $0.00 Outdoor Lighting - Standard Luminaire(s) & Arm(s) (+) $284.97 Total Amount Provide by Rate Payers (-) $486.45
Non-Refundable Costs
Re-Engineering, Inspection, Land Rights, Permits (+) $0.00 Outdoor Lighting Excavation, Conduit, Substructures (+) $0.00 Other Costs (+) $0.00
Subtotal (=) $0.00
plus ITCC @ 24% (+) $0.00
Outdoor Lighting Customer Poles/Posts, Foundation (+) $0.00 Outdoor Lighting Internal Wire (+) $0.00
Credits for Applicant Provided Work:

Outdoor Lighting Excavation, Conduit, Substructures by Applicant (-) $0.00 Total Outdoor Lighting Non-Refundable Payment (=) $0.00 Note: This supplemental detailed cost sheet is for reference only and is not intended for use in place of the actual contract for the project listed.

ATTACHMENT B 217
City of Stockton
Legislation Text
File #: 23-0731, Version: 1

COMMUNITY WELL-BEING CRISIS INTERVENTION PROJECT UPDATE

RECOMMENDATION
Informational only; no action to be taken.

Summary
This will be a semi-annual informational update on the Care Link Mobile Community Response pilot project, funded by the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and presented by Community Medical Centers and City staff.

City of Stockton Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/20/2023
powered by Legistar™
218

MOBILE COMMUNITY RESPONSE DATA
June 2023- August 2023
City Council Meeting
September 26, 2023
Agenda Item 15.1
219
AGENDA
 Monthly Call Totals
 Referral Sources: Who is calling us?
 Demographics of Persons in Need
 MCRT Response to Calls
 Clinical Resolutions and Outcomes
 Case Studies
220
Calls Over
Time  1,709 total calls April to
August  1,576 June - August  Incoming initial calls increased 75% between May and Aug  Follow-up calls increased 61% between July and August
May Jun Jul Aug
Initial 123 120 204 216
Follow Up 10 194 322 520
Total Calls 133 314 526 736
50 150
250
350
450
550
221
Who is calling
us?
Jun – Aug 2023
GCRM, 1%
Stockton Shelter, 1%
BHS, <1%
Unknown, <1%
222
Call Times
Jun – Aug 2023  428 out of 540 initial incoming calls
occurred from 8am-5pm (85%)  Very few calls came in after 8pm 29 23
34 42
47 69
51 45
51 37
25 22 54 21
13 8 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
6 PM
7 PM
8 PM
9 PM
10 PM
11 PM
After 12 AM
223
Demographics of
Persons in Need
Jun – Aug 2023
16%
30%
14% 14%
10%
16%
0 - 17 18 - 30 31 - 40 41 - 50 51 - 60 61+
Age of Person in Need
 A third of incoming calls
were for White patients
 30% of incoming calls
were for patients aged 18
to 30
8%
12%
14%
1% 27%
33%
4%
AI/AN Asian Black
Hispanic NH/PI White
Multiracial
Race/Ethnicity
224
MCRT Mobile
Responses by
Zip Code
Jun – Aug 2023
134 calls had a mobile
response by MCRT staff.
225
MCRT Mobile
Response by
Zip Code
Jun – Aug 2023
134 calls had a mobile
response by MCRT staff.

Zip Code Count Percent
95207 25 22.9%
95202 17 15.6%
95219 11 10.1%
95206 10 9.2%
95210 10 9.2%
95204 8 7.3%
95205 8 7.3%
95203 7 6.4%
95212 5 4.6%
95231 5 4.6%
95209 2 1.8%
95213 1 0.9%
226
MCRT Phone
De-Escalation
by Zip Code
Jun – Aug 2023
338 calls were deescalated
over the phone and did not
prompt a mobile response.
227
MCRT Phone
De-Escalation
by Zip Code
Jun – Aug 2023
336 calls were deescalated
over the phone.

Zip Code Count Percent
95207 29 18.6%
95205 25 16.0%
95202 22 14.1%
95206 15 9.6%
95203 12 7.7%
95204 12 7.7%
95210 9 5.8%
95209 6 3.8%
95240 6 3.8%
95219 5 3.2%
95376 4 2.6%
95212 3 1.9%
95231 3 1.9%
95215 2 1.3%
95201 1 0.6%
95350 1 0.6%
95687 1 0.6%
228
Clinical
Resolutions
Jun – Aug 2023
Clinical Resolution Number of Total Initial
Calls
Percent of Total Initial
Calls
R2 Linked Services for MH/BH/SUD/Pysch 67 15%
R1 Assessed for Suicide 49 11%
R10 Remain in Community 39 9%
R3 Linked to Community Resources 32 7%
R17 Validation of feelings/concerns 31 7%
R18 Engaged in open and supportive dialogue 29 7%
R7 Deescalated 26 6%
R21 Assess for Safety 21 5%
R8 Worked with Family Support System 18 4%
R15 Unable to locate for assess 18 4%
R19 Solution Focus planning 15 3%
R13 Referred to CareLink 10 2%
R6 Created Safety Plan 9 2%
R11 Walked away after brief encounter 7 2%
R4 Linked to medical service 4 1%
R16 Motivational Interviewing 4 1%
R5 Transport to Hospital 2 <1%
R12 Declined Transport agaisnt Medical Advice 2 <1%
R9 Peer Support 1 <1%
R20 Used Mindfulness and breathing
techniques 0 0%
229
Examples of
MCRT Making a
Difference
Case Study 1
 Patient’s family called due to them being in distress, had MCRT card from a police officer who was out a on a previous call and referred the family for situations like this  Patient had history of a suicide attempt, car crash, and at time of call, was high on Fentanyl  MCRT staff met with patient and family at hospital and remained in frequent contact for four days straight  Despite challenges with getting started, patient completed two week stay at CMC Respite
 Patient was discharged scared, but determined, with plans for support and recovery through CMC programs
230
Examples of
MCRT Making a
Difference
Case Study 2
 Police Officer felt that she was experiencing more
emotional trauma and referred community member to
MCRT.  MCRT responded to Dameron Hospital and was linked to a Behavioral Health appointment.  Community member was followed up with as a part of the 30-day case management services and was connected to a
housing case manager at CMC where she was approved for
low-income housing and is being relocated into a new
apartment.
231
Examples of
MCRT Making a
Difference
Case Study 3
 High school student home alone messaging other students about feeling suicidal.  Police department visited home, confirmed safety of youth but felt with parents working in the Bay Area and
circumstances in which the welfare check was prompted,
that calling MCRT was a better and faster option.  MCRT responded to home and spoke with youth (on the front porch) and later connected with parents as they arrived home. Subsequently a Behavioral Health Appt was
made available, and the youth got a therapy appt and
returned to school safely.
232
Thank you!
233
City of Stockton
Legislation Text
File #: 23-0853, Version: 1
ACCEPT THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 THIRD QUARTER BUDGET STATUS UPDATE AND

AUTHORIZE BUDGET AMENDMENTS

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution to:

1. Accept this budget status report on the financial results for the Third Quarter of Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23.

2. Authorize two budget amendments increasing appropriations in the Workers’ Compensation Internal Service Fund (ISF) and in the Storm Drain Maintenance District Fund for additional claim and repair expenses.

3. Authorize the continuation of up to $9,060,939 in FY 2022-23 budget appropriations to FY 2023-24 for the completion of identified programs.

It is further recommended that the City Manager be authorized to take appropriate and necessary actions to carry out the purpose and intent of the resolution.

Summary
Staff's review of the financial results for the nine months ending March 31, 2023, indicates General Fund revenues are projected to exceed budgeted levels by 8.4% and expenditures are projected to be 6.8% under budget. The updated projection of net annual activity for FY 2022-23 is $6.5 million more than the Second Quarter Budget Update.

Through the third quarter, General Fund revenues totaled $188.5 million, and expenses totaled $186.5 million. If current trends continue, overall General Fund expenditures will end the year at approximately $326.6 million, coming in under the Approved Budget by $23.9 million (6.8%).

Revenue collections are currently projected to end the year approximately $24.1 million (8.4%) higher than budgeted. Staff will continue to monitor revenues and expenditures and return to Council with a year-end report in a couple of months.

Staff reviewed all other City funds to determine significant budget variances and identified two budget amendments needed for FY 2022-23. It is recommended that approximately $9.1 million in FY 2022- 23 expenditure appropriations be carried forward to the new fiscal year enabling departments to continue projects planned and funded but not completed by June 30, 2023.

City of Stockton Page 1 of 9 Printed on 9/20/2023
powered by Legistar™
234
File #: 23-0853, Version: 1

DISCUSSION
Background
The Council remains committed to transparency and financial responsibility with the continuation of Fiscal Sustainability as one of its strategic targets. This budget status update is provided in support of that objective.

Council adopted the FY 2022-23 annual city-wide budget of $898.7 million on June 21, 2022. The adopted General Fund expenditure budget was $282.9 million of the total City budget. Administrative and Council-approved amendments to the adopted budget increased total General Fund expenditure appropriations to $350.5 million.

Present Situation
General Fund Budget Status Update
General Fund expenditures and revenues for the first nine months of the FY 2022-23 are shown in Attachments A and B. Attachment A summarizes the City's General Fund revenues, expenditures, and available balance by Approved Budget, Year to Date Activity as of March 31, 2023, Third Quarter Projection, and variance amounts. The Second Quarter Report included revenue projections of $19.5 million over the budget and expenditures of $22.0 million under budget. The revised projections indicate revenues will end the year above the budgeted level by $24.1 million, and expenditures will be approximately $23.9 million less than budget for a net increase of $6.5 million.

The City does not receive General Fund tax revenues in a regular monthly pattern, so third-quarter actual revenues are less than 75% of budgeted revenues. The timing of expenses is more consistent than revenues. However, the General Fund does include some budgeted items that will be paid in large lump sums and cause variances when reviewed quarterly. The information below indicates our best analysis of the trends evident from available data and projections for year-end performance compared to the budget based on this review.

Budget Adjustments
Throughout the fiscal year, the Council may adjust the budget. The Approved Budget column on Attachment A includes all adjustments made through the third quarter, including various adjustments approved in the Second Quarter Budget Report and other subsequent Council agenda items. The General Fund approved expenditure budget is $350.5 million, an increase of about $508,000 since the Second Quarter Budget Report because of Council approved and technical budget adjustments.

Revenues
Attachment B displays staff's analysis of revenue collections and projections through the third quarter of the year. Actual revenues received as of March 31, 2023, were $188.5 million, and projected yearend revenues are $309.8 million. The most significant variances compared to the budget are in sales tax, business licenses, utility users’ tax and franchise tax. Compared to the Second Quarter Budget Report, projected year-end revenues increased by $4.9 million.

City of Stockton Page 2 of 9 Printed on 9/20/2023
powered by Legistar™
235
File #: 23-0853, Version: 1
Sales Tax receipts make up nearly 39% of the total annual General Fund revenue. Remittances received from the State in the third quarter represent sales through January 2023, due to the lag time involved in obtaining the tax collected. Year-end sales tax collections are projected to be $125.8 million, exceeding the budget by $13.8 million. While year-end projections exceed FY 2021- 22 sales tax receipts by $4.2 million (3.4%), receipts in the last two quarters of FY 2022-23 were down compared to the same quarters in the previous year. It is still too early to say if this indicates a long-term trend of an economic downturn.

Property Taxes are 25% of the City's total annual General Fund revenues and are remitted to the City each year by San Joaquin County in January and April. Receipts for the first nine months were

53.7% of the budget as of March 31, 2023, with San Joaquin County remitting approximately half of the annual property tax revenues in January 2023. FY 2022-23 property tax revenues are expected to be $71.9 million by year end, a 5.2% increase compared to prior year revenues. Property tax revenue growth is attributable to increasing home values and new construction. As shown in Attachment B, the anticipated variance is 1.8% of the $70.7 million budget.

The City collects Utility Users Tax (UUT) revenues for four utility categories: Water, Electric and Gas, Cable TV, and Telecommunications. UUT is 14% of total annual General Fund revenue and is a tax imposed on the users of various utilities. Overall, the FY 2022-23 projections for the Utility Users Tax category are 6.3% more than budget estimates and 7.4% greater than prior year revenues.

Electricity and gas are the primary areas generating additional revenues at 9.6% over the $27.1 million budget. UUT is subject to a certain degree of volatility as consumer use of utilities can be dependent on weather conditions, conservation efforts, and the availability of substitutes. Cable and Telecommunications UUT are expected to be at or slightly below the budgeted amount.

The City receives Franchise Tax receipts in three categories: PG&E, Cable/Video, and Waste Haulers. Franchise fees are charged to companies as a percentage of income. Because they are based on the revenue generated by a service provider, these fees tend to track parallel with UUT.

Franchise revenues are projected to be 8.2% greater than the $17.1 million budget with PG&E and waste hauler fees coming in over budget estimates. Cable/video revenues are projected to decline to $2.0 million compared to FY 2021-22 receipts of $2.5 million.

Business License Taxes make up 5% of General Fund revenues. Business license tax revenue is projected to be $16.2 million, a 15.4% increase compared to prior year revenues. Actual receipts in this category were at 72.9% through the third quarter.

Other Taxes combined are 2.5% of the General Fund revenue. Hotel/Motel Taxes are showing projected receipts of $3.3 million compared to $3.6 million in the previous fiscal year.

Investment Proceeds line item includes proceeds from investments as well as interest on cash holdings. The City's investments are limited to secure/conservative instruments that are not expected to be hit as hard as other investment options. The revenue projection of $3.4 million assumes conservative earnings in the fiscal year and is $910,541 more than the annual budget.

Program Revenues consist primarily of revenues from fines, licenses, service contracts with other agencies, and code enforcement fees, and are just under six percent of total General Fund revenue.

City of Stockton Page 3 of 9 Printed on 9/20/2023
powered by Legistar™
236
File #: 23-0853, Version: 1
Year-end estimates for this category are $1.9 million (11.7%) greater than budget. Revenues from Other Agencies is projected to be higher than budget by $1.6 million. The other large variance in this category is Fire Contracts which is expected to exceed the budget by $456,169. Most other program revenues are projected to be close to the annual budget.

Interfund reimbursements consist of cost recovery to the General Fund from other funds and other agencies for administrative services and facility space. This category constitutes 3% of General Fund revenues. These reimbursements are projected to be $495,790 or 5.5% higher than the budget of $9 million primarily due to use of an updated Cost Allocation Plan.

Expenditures
Staff reviewed the first nine months of General Fund expenditure data as reported in Attachment A.

Expenditure trends in most departments are in line with budget. Projected expenditures decreased by $1.4 million compared to the Second Quarter Budget Report projection. The significant variances from budget are explained in detail in the following sections of the report.

Figure1 below summarizes the spending levels of all departments and programs as a percent of their respective budget.

Figure 1
As shown above, most operating budgets are running below the 75% expenditure level anticipated at the end of the third quarter. Most of the lower spending levels are a result of programs that City of Stockton Page 4 of 9 Printed on 9/20/2023
powered by Legistar™
237
File #: 23-0853, Version: 1
spend more in the last half of the year for items like debt, labor negotiations, election, tax collection, and audit contract costs. In addition, several departments experienced higher than budgeted staff vacancies during the year.

As shown below, the FY 2022-23 Adopted Budget included a total of $10.4 million in budgeted salary savings. Through the third quarter of the fiscal year, actual General Fund savings from vacancies were at 11%. Total salary expenditures were approximately $7.4 million less than estimated in the budget.

Figure 2 summary of salary savings results for the three quarters of the fiscal year.

Figure 2
Third Quarter % Realized
Department Annual 3 Quarters Savings Vacancies
General Fund
Other Departments 404,972 303,729 504,878 7%
Administrative Services 192,559 144,419 563,543 15%
Human Resources 65,286 48,964 104,613 9%
Police 6,182,180 4,636,635 10,317,353 14%
Fire 1,535,411 1,151,558 880,757 3%
Public Works 308,520 231,390 171,989 3%
8,688,928 6,516,696 12,543,132 10%
Marshall Plan
Office of Violence Prevention - - 103,560 15%
Police 1,696,203 1,272,152 2,547,358 12%
1,696,203 1,272,152 2,650,918 12%
Total 10,385,131 7,788,848 15,194,050 11%
Total Savings above/(below) Budget 7,405,202 7.7%
Budgeted Vacancy
Savings
Department Expenditures
The Police Department is afforded 45% of the General Fund budget. The hiring of six new officers was offset by the attrition of 14 officers (three retired, three resigned or were released during probation, one did not complete the academy, and six left to other agencies), resulting in 366 of the 485 authorized sworn positions being filled at end of the third quarter. Police Department expenses were at 66% of the budget as of March 31, 2023. Overall, the Department estimates it will end the year approximately $16.9 million under budget primarily due to vacant positions and new employees starting at lower pay than departing employees.

The Fire Department accounts for 16% of the General Fund annual budget. The department’s overall actual expenditures amount to $39.3 million or 68% of the budget as of March 31, 2023.

The second Fire Academy began on February 1st with 13 Firefighter candidates that were City of Stockton Page 5 of 9 Printed on 9/20/2023
powered by Legistar™
238
File #: 23-0853, Version: 1
successfully recruited to fill 70% of sworn personnel vacancies. There were six remaining vacant sworn positions at the end of the third quarter. The department continues to generate additional payroll savings from personnel attrition and is expected to end the fiscal year at approximately 6% below the budget.

The Public Works Department accounts for 6% of the General Fund annual budget.

Approximately 63% of the department budget was expended as of March 31, 2023, and is expected to end the year 3.3% under budget due to the heavy rain season which lowered water expenses and various other materials and services coming under budget.

The Economic Development Department is trending under budget by approximately $485,000.

Year to date actuals are at 23% of budget because of unspent one-time discretionary funds for special projects such as:
· Allocation to Downtown Infill Infrastructure Program. · One-time discretionary funding to Real Property for the preparation and implementation of site -specific environmental activities that will directly aid in accomplishing economic development goals.
· One-time discretionary funding for activities related to the Implementation of the Economic Development Strategic Plan.

The Office of Violence Prevention is estimated to end the year 13.2% below budgeted expenditures with approximately $103,560 from salary savings. Staffing turnover and the availability of other funding sources have also resulted in underspending the client support services budget.

Program Support for Other Funds includes appropriations for City libraries, recreation activities, grants, entertainment venues, marina and golf course operations, and development services. Operating transfers occur in regular monthly intervals, whereas capital and grant match transfers are recorded when expended. Grant match funds are not anticipated to be needed by year-end.

In Administration, departments are projected to end the year within budget, except for the Other Administration line. This category, which contains a variety of citywide costs that are not attributable to an individual department or specific group of programs, includes a negative budget for indirect cost charges and vacancy savings. The year-end projection currently shows an overage of $213,885, which will be resolved by redistributing budgeted vacancy savings at yearend to other departments experiencing vacant positions.

Debt Service payments by the City are not expended in any regular pattern but instead by the scheduled due dates to bondholders. The budget has been adjusted to reflect the FY 2021-22 true up and FY 2022-23 estimated contingency payments to Assured Guaranty. Payment of $4,031,000 was made in May 2023 and the full appropriated amount of $8.4 million will be paid out by year-end.

Other City Funds
In addition to the detailed review of General Fund expenditures and revenues described above, all City funds were reviewed as part of this report. Year-end projections for all funds were included in City of Stockton Page 6 of 9 Printed on 9/20/2023
powered by Legistar™
239
File #: 23-0853, Version: 1
the FY 2023-24 Annual Budget released on May 15, 2023. Since that time, additional expenditures in the Workers’ Compensation Fund are expected to push the fund over budget and additional funding is needed for storm basin repairs in the Maintenance District Fund. No other significant variances from the projections contained in the FY 2022-23 Annual Budget were noted. Year-to-date activity shown on Attachment C is similar to the General Fund in that revenues and expenses can be seasonal and subject to irregular schedules. The Emergency Communication Fund, for example, looks out of balance with a negative balance of $73,865. This is a result of quarterly billings processed after the close of each quarter. All expenses incurred will be fully covered through revenues and fund balance by year-end.

Two City funds are in need of a budget amendment that was identified during staff's review of the Third Quarter results. The corrective action is described below. All other funds were under the authorized budget appropriation.

1. The Workers’ Compensation Internal Service Fund (551) exceeded budget by approximately $2,500,000 due to three significant settelment payments. While the cost will be offset by reimbursements from the City’s excess insurance carrier, a budget amendment is being submitted to increase revenues and expenditures to account for these variances. The reimbursement amouts will be greater than the projected budget overage.

2. There has been continuous erosion at the retention basin at the Army Court storm station, which is part of the Charter Way industrial storm drainage maintenance district. Staff have been using bags of concrete to lessen further erosion, but the site needs proper repair. The basin requires levee repairs before the wet season starts. Requests for bids were received and additional funding of $18,000 is needed from fund balance (270 Fund) to award this work.

Continuation of FY 2022-23 Appropriations
Pursuant to Section 1908 of the City Charter, operating budget appropriations lapse at the end of each fiscal year if not expended or encumbered. With this requirement in place, programs lose funding at year end unless Council takes action to continue the appropriation into the following fiscal year. Following a review of budgets and activities in FY 2022-23, departments have identified funded programs that could not be encumbered or completed prior to the end of the fiscal year on June 30, 2023. To complete these programs, it is recommended that the FY 2022-23 budgets identified in the table below be continued to FY 2023-24 to complete the specific programs listed in the following table. Budget balances for each program will be reviewed and only available balances will be continued to FY 2023-24. Of the total $9.1 million, $2.9 million are for Council Priority projects approved in May 2023.

Description Department Fund Not to Exceed
Amount
Implementation of Strategic Plan Economic
Development
General Fund 19,327
From Open Windows and
authorized to stay in EDD, for
Downtown Infill Infrastructure
Program
Economic
Development
General Fund 1,940,000
Environmental Work at four sites Economic
Development
General Fund 150,000
Dignity Alcove - Council priority
project
Economic
Development
General Fund 50,000
City of Stockton Page 7 of 9 Printed on 9/20/2023
powered by Legistar™
240
File #: 23-0853, Version: 1
Development
From Open Windows and
authorized to stay in EDD, for
Downtown Infill Infrastructure
Program
Economic
Development
General Fund 1,940,000
Environmental Work at four sites Economic
Development
General Fund 150,000
Dignity Alcove - Council priority
project
Economic
Development
General Fund 50,000
Broken Window Program -
Council priority project
Economic
Development
General Fund 250,000
Sister City Association - Council
priority project
Economic
Development
General Fund 15,500
GIS Migration to hosted
Environment
Information
Technology
Technology ISF 100,000
Cisco Traffic Signal Infrastructure Information
Technology
Technology ISF 300,000
Cisco Traffic Core Replacement Information
Technology
Technology ISF 400,000
Anti-illegal dumping reward
program - Council priority project
Police General Fund 225,000
Pilot Gun Buy back programCouncil priority projectPolice General Fund 225,000 Northeast Library - One time start
-up costs
Community
Services
Measure M 302,000
Northeast Recreation - One time
start-up costs
Community
Services
Measure M 26,250
Library Refresh - Weston Ranch Community
Services
Library Fund 30,000
Library Refresh - Manteca Community
Services
Library Fund
(County funded)
117,886
Bookmobile & Self Check - City Community
Services
Measure M 225,000
Bookmobile & Self Check -
County
Community
Services
Library Fund
(County funded)
225,000
Painting - Arnold Rue Community
Services
Measure M 31,000
Passenger Van Community
Services
Recreation Fund55,000
Sports Office Setup Community
Services
Measure M 10,200
Aquatics Repairs Community
Services
Measure M 120,000
Stockton Arts - Artist Grants Community
Services
Recreation Fund50,000
Enhanced community events -
Special Events
Community
Services
Recreation Fund50,000
Enhanced community events -
Special Events
Community
Services
Measure M 24,000
California Library Connect - Erate serviceCommunity
Services
Measure M 34,468
California Library Connect - ECommunityLibrary Fund19,308 City of Stockton Page 8 of 9 Printed on 9/20/2023
powered by Legistar™
241
File #: 23-0853, Version: 1
Services
Stockton Arts - Artist Grants Community
Services
Recreation Fund50,000
Enhanced community events -
Special Events
Community
Services
Recreation Fund50,000
Enhanced community events -
Special Events
Community
Services
Measure M 24,000
California Library Connect - Erate serviceCommunity
Services
Measure M 34,468
California Library Connect - Erate serviceCommunity
Services
Library Fund
(County funded)
19,308
Youth Services Programs -
Council priority project
Community
Services
General Fund 2,086,000
One-time cleanup experiment for
the Mormon Slough
Public Works General Fund 750,000
Fire Station No.1 Equipment
Project
Fire General Fund 102,000
City Council Discretionary Funds City Council General Fund 86,000 Mayor Discretionary Funds City Council General Fund 42,000 Retention and Recruitment Human
Resources
General Fund 1,000,000
Total 9,060,939

FINANCIAL SUMMARY
This report provides an analysis of the FY 2022-23 General Fund third-quarter results update. The review indicates that revenues are on track to exceed budget projections, while expenditures are likely to be less than budgeted targets. Staff will continue to monitor trends and potential budget variances and will return to the Council with year-end results and recommendations in a couple of months.

Staff also reviewed other City funds and recommends the following budget amendment:

1. Increase both revenue and expenditure appropriations by $2,500,000 in the Workers’ Compensation ISF due to significant settlement payments covered by excess insurance reimbursements.

2. Authorize funding and appropriations of $18,000 from Municipal Utilities Storm Drainage Maintenance District Fund (270) Balance.

Attachment A - FY 2022-23 Third Quarter Budget Update - General Fund Attachment B - FY 2022-23 Third Quarter Revenues - General Fund Attachment C - FY 2022-23 Third Quarter Report for Other Major Funds City of Stockton Page 9 of 9 Printed on 9/20/2023
powered by Legistar™
242
City of Stockton ATTACHMENT A
FY 2022-23 Budget Update - Third Quarter
General Fund - 100 by Program (Budgetary Basis)
Year to Date Projection Variance
Approved Activity % of 3rd Quarter vs. Approved from
Budget As of 03/31/23 Budget Projection Budget Budget
Beginning Available Balance $ 47,735,042 $ 47,735,042 $ 47,735,042 Release of Funds* 58,254,597 58,254,597 58,254,597
105,989,639 105,989,639 105,989,639
Revenues
General Tax Revenues 217,851,365 140,920,959 65% 231,911,723 14,060,358 6.5% Measure A/B Sales Tax 42,080,000 30,383,558 72% 49,703,488 7,623,488 18.1% Program Revenues 16,695,254 12,034,251 72% 18,647,041 1,951,787 11.7% Interfund Reimbursements 9,017,873 5,182,916 57% 9,513,663 495,790 5.5% 285,644,492 188,521,684 66% 309,775,915 24,131,423 8.4% Expenditures
Programs
Police 156,542,480 103,164,647 66% 139,599,808 16,942,671 10.8% Fire 57,578,388 39,267,394 68% 54,096,473 3,481,915 6.0% Public Works 19,854,657 12,563,947 63% 19,199,261 655,396 3.3% Economic Development 4,305,517 986,879 23% 3,820,757 484,760 11.3% Office of Violence Prevention 2,244,915 1,385,214 62% 1,949,424 295,492 13.2% 240,525,957 157,368,081 65% 218,665,723 21,860,234 9.1% Program Support for Other Funds
Library 4,109,000 3,081,750 75% 4,109,000 - 0.0%
Recreation 5,628,000 2,656,500 47% 5,628,000 - 0.0%
Entertainment Venues 3,318,000 2,488,500 75% 3,318,000 - 0.0% Downtown Marina 262,000 196,500 75% 262,000 - 0.0%
Capital Improvement 48,105,292 9,075,000 19% 48,105,292 - 0.0% Golf Course 110,000 82,500 75% 110,000 - 0.0%
Grant Match 100,000 - 0% - 100,000 100.0%
Development Services 800,000 600,000 75% 800,000 - 0.0% Retirement Trust 10,000,000 - 0% 10,000,000 - 0.0%
Fire Emergency Communications 720,000 0% - 715,632 4,368 0.6% Radio ISF 5,134,542 - 0% 5,134,542 - 0.0%
78,286,834 18,180,750 23% 78,182,466 104,368 0.1%
Administration
City Council 1,124,328 694,351 62% 1,104,304 20,024 1.8% City Manager 2,873,738 1,853,429 64% 2,490,586 383,152 13.3% City Attorney 1,352,865 724,445 54% 1,073,761 279,104 20.6% City Clerk 1,214,561 817,322 67% 1,096,785 117,776 9.7% City Auditor 821,828 396,177 48% 821,828 - 0.0%
Administrative Services 6,448,485 4,187,189 65% 5,693,066 755,419 11.7% Human Resources 4,223,219 1,787,262 42% 3,794,539 428,680 10.2% Tax Collection 2,595,756 1,282,331 49% 2,634,479 (38,723) -1.5% Elections 650,000 (315,230) -48% 650,000 - 0.0%
Other Administration (533,252) (647,019) 121% (319,367) (213,885) 40.1% General Legal 500,000 158,571 32% 309,760 190,240 38.0% 21,271,528 10,938,829 51% 19,349,740 1,921,787 9.0%
Debt Service 8,422,050 - 0% 8,422,050 - 0.0%
Contingency 2,000,000 - 0% 2,000,000 - 0.0%
Total Expenditures 350,506,369 186,487,660 53% 326,619,979 23,886,390 6.8% Net Annual Activity 2,034,024 (64,861,877) (16,844,064) 48,017,812 Proj. Ending Available Balance 41,127,762 $ 89,145,575 $ 48,017,812 $ Fund Balance as % of Expenses 12% 27%
243
City of Stockton
FY 2022-23 Thrid Quarter Revenues
General Fund - 100
Approved 3rd Quarter % of 3rd Quarter Projection % Variance Budget Actual Budget Projection vs. Budget vs. Budget
General Tax Revenues
Sales Tax
Point of Sale $ 66,824,000 $ 46,713,326 69.9% 72,699,495 $ $ 5,875,495 8.8% Measure A Transaction Tax 42,080,000 30,383,558 72.2% 49,703,488 7,623,488 18.1% Proposition 172 3,109,000 2,405,802 77.4% 3,427,403 318,403 10.2% 112,013,000 79,502,687 71.0% 125,830,385 13,817,385 12.3% Property Taxes
Property Taxes 41,490,000 23,239,212 56.0% 42,577,881 1,087,881 2.6% In-Lieu of Motor Vehicle Fees 29,165,000 14,671,734 50.3% 29,343,468 178,468 0.6% 70,655,000 37,910,946 53.7% 71,921,349 1,266,349 1.8%
Utility Users Tax
Water 5,172,176 2,458,275 47.5% 4,995,711 (176,465) -3.4% Electric & Gas 27,075,000 22,685,489 83.8% 29,672,403 2,597,403 9.6% Cable 2,427,000 1,654,214 68.2% 2,462,666 35,666 1.5%
Telecommunications 4,057,000 2,747,413 67.7% 4,026,213 (30,787) -0.8% 38,731,176 29,545,391 76.3% 41,156,993 2,425,817 6.3%
Franchise Tax
Electric & Gas 2,558,000 0.0% 2,980,414 - 422,414 16.5% Cable/Video 2,009,000 1,012,867 50.4% 1,983,706 (25,294) -1.3% Waste Haulers 12,556,000 9,611,243 76.5% 13,568,464 1,012,464 8.1% Other 1,630 106.1% 1,730 1,730 6.1% 100
17,124,630 10,625,841 62.1% 18,534,315 1,409,685 8.2%
Business License Tax 14,350,000 10,467,708 72.9% 16,182,206 1,832,206 12.8% Hotel/Motel Tax 3,211,540 1,697,535 52.9% 3,273,374 61,834 1.9% Document Transfer Tax 1,200,000 715,673 59.6% 1,028,481 (171,519) -14.3% Motor Vehicle License 200,000 331,550 165.8% 331,550 131,550 65.8% Investment Proceeds 2,446,019 507,186 20.7% 3,356,560 910,541 37.2% 21,407,559 13,719,653 64.1% 24,172,169 2,764,610 12.9%
Program Revenues
Fire Contracts 4,932,287 4,067,723 82.5% 5,388,456 456,169 9.2% Code Enforcement 4,009,457 2,893,538 72.2% 3,938,104 (71,353) -1.8% Charges for Services 2,981,472 1,440,803 48.3% 2,619,056 (362,416) -12.2% Fines & Forfeitures 548,863 285,642 52.0% 400,955 (147,908) -26.9% Revenues from Other Agencies 3,984,115 2,809,291 70.5% 5,542,250 1,558,135 39.1% Licenses & Permits 351,331 453,359 129.0% 622,319 270,988 77.1% Sale of Fixed Assets 60,000 0.0% - 240,704 180,704 301.2% Contributed Capital - 61,876 61,876 61,876
Misc. Other Revenues (172,271) -12.8% (166,679) 22,019 5,592 -3.2% 16,695,254 12,034,251 72.1% 18,647,041 1,951,787 11.7%
Interfund Reimbursements
Indirect Cost Allocation 4,956,141 4,107,866 82.9% 5,312,930 356,789 7.2% Refunds & Reimbursements 943,350 351,086 37.2% 1,216,477 273,127 29.0% Rents/Leases/Concessions 3,118,382 723,964 23.2% 2,984,256 (134,126) -4.3% 9,017,873 5,182,916 57.5% 9,513,663 495,790 5.5%
Total Revenues $ 285,644,492 $ 188,521,684 66.0% $ 309,775,915 $ 24,131,423 8.4% % Change from Prior Year -3.9% 4.2%

ATTACHMENT B
FY 2022-23
244

ATTACHMENT C
City of Stockton
FY 2022-23 Third Quarter
Financial Report for Other Major Funds
Measure A (Breakout of General Fund) Year to % of
Budget Date Actual Budget
Revenues 42,080,000 30,383,558 72%
Marshall Plan Expenditures
Office of Violence Prevention 1,311,445 773,514 59%
Police 32,282,081 22,674,155 70%
Capital Projects 277,254 - 0%
Total Expenses 33,870,780 23,447,669 69%
Funds Combined with General Fund in ACFR
Library 100-120 Fund Year to % of Emergency Dispatch 100-130 Fund Year to % of Budget Date Actual Budget Budget Date Actual Budget
Beginning Balance 3,493,650 3,493,650 Beginning Balance 24,893 24,893 Revenues 8,457,640 6,260,076 74% Revenues 5,277,132 3,120,413 59% General Fund Transfer 4,109,000 3,081,750 75% Expenditures 5,224,795 3,219,171 62% 12,566,640 9,341,826 74%
Expenditures Ending Balance 77,231 (73,865)
Administration 1,672,962 1,209,188 72%
Operations 1,846,211 1,246,434 68% Recreation 100-125 Fund Year to % of County Branches 7,237,843 4,066,381 56% Budget Date Actual Budget City Branches 3,572,083 2,517,646 70% Beginning Balance 1,095,521 1,095,521 Total Expenses 14,329,099 9,039,649 63%
Revenues 1,273,634 690,046 54%
Ending Balance 1,731,191 3,795,827 General Fund Transfer 3,542,000 2,656,500 75% 4,815,634 3,346,546 69%
Entertainment Venues 100-145 Fund Year to % of Expenditures Budget Date Actual Budget Administration 1,416,269 673,819 48% Beginning Balance 1,999,301 1,999,301 Recreation Programs 3,961,558 2,365,648 60% Total Expenses 5,377,827 3,039,467 57%
Revenues 3,435,339 3,278,681 95%
General Fund Transfer 3,318,000 2,488,500 75% Ending Balance 533,328 1,402,600 Other Fund Transfer 2,300,000 -
9,053,339 5,767,181 64% Boat Launch 100-140 Fund Year to % of Expenditures Budget Date Actual Budget
Administration 430,171 133,864 31% Beginning Balance 973,009 973,009 Venue Operations 10,194,371 5,613,932 55%
Maintenance & Equip./Capital 100,000 - 0% Revenues 297,432 123,298 41% Total Expenses 10,724,542 5,747,796 54% Expenditures
Operations & Maintenance 203,541 110,127 54%
Ending Balance 328,098 2,018,686 Capital Projects 500,000 0% - Total Expenses 703,541 110,127
Ending Balance 1,270,441 1,096,307
245
Attachment C
City of Stockton
FY 2022-23 Third Quarter
Financial Report for Other Major Funds
Special Revenue Funds
Measure W 200 Fund Year to % of
Budget Date Actual Budget Development Services 220 Fund Year to % of Beginning Balance 9,973,679 9,973,679 Budget Date Actual Budget Beginning Balance 32,699,463 32,699,463
Revenues 14,000,000 9,532,769 68%
Expenditures Revenues 19,128,661 16,471,503 86%
Police 7,119,540 5,135,647 72% General Fund Transfer 800,000 600,000 75% Fire 6,906,270 4,898,398 71% 19,928,661 17,071,503 0%
Total Expenses 14,025,810 10,034,045 72% Expenditures
Community Development 15,818,946 9,037,699 0%
Ending Balance 9,947,869 9,472,404 Fire 3,889,102 2,664,527 69% Capital 5,700,000                      ‐ 0%
Strong Communities (Measure M) 210 Fund Year to % of Total Expenses 25,408,048 11,702,226 46% Budget Date Actual Budget
Beginning Balance 19,139,903 19,139,903 Ending Balance 27,220,076 38,068,740 Revenues 14,027,000 9,462,128 67%
Expenditures
Library Programs 4,424,191 2,020,740 46%
Recreation Programs 5,615,409 2,591,001 46%
Administration 1,152,362 782,547 68%
Capital Projects 8,515,000 - 0%
Total Expenses 19,706,962 5,394,288 27%
Ending Balance 13,459,941 23,207,743
Enterprise Funds
Water Utility 600 Fund Year to % of Parking Authority 630 Fund Year to % of Working Capital Budget Date Actual Budget Working Capital Budget Date Actual Budget Revenues 62,884,196 41,144,074 65% Revenues 6,979,215 4,665,976 67% Expenditures Expenditures
Administration 6,035,125 3,142,254 52% Administration 1,718,846 345,942 20% Operations & Maintenance 37,359,641 23,314,518 62% Parking Operations 2,744,118 2,057,084 75% Debt Service 14,308,450 4,128,791 29% Parking Enforcement 699,629 496,868 71% Capital 19,492,619 1,041,231 5% Debt Service 2,320,724 1,092,901 47% Total Expenses 77,195,835 31,626,794 41% Facility Improvements 3,417,663 894,316 26% Total Expenses 10,900,980 4,887,111 45%
Wastewater Utility 610 Funds Year to % of
Working Capital Budget Date Actual Budget Downtown Marina 640 Fund Year to % of Revenues 127,957,495 65,062,489 51% Working Capital Budget Date Actual Budget Expenditures Revenues 382,275 295,106 0%
Administration 9,088,284 4,934,162 54% General Fund Transfer 262,000 196,500 75% Operations & Maintenance 60,250,015 33,098,866 55% 644,275 491,606 90% Debt Service 7,792,000 3,380,850 43% Expenditures
Capital 74,576,105 37% Administration 17,800 27,762,081 4,072 55% Total Expenses 151,706,404 69,175,959 46% Operations 642,598 457,121 71% Capital - - 0%
Stormwater Utility 620 Funds Year to % of Total Expenses 660,398 461,193 70% Working Capital Budget Date Actual Budget
Revenues 5,705,680 4,564,872 80% Golf 650 Fund Year to % of Expenditures Working Capital Budget Date Actual Budget
Administration 2,961,958 1,203,179 41% Revenues - 16,911 0% Operations & Maintenance 3,997,766 2,730,139 68% General Fund Transfer 110,000 82,500 75% Capital 523,867 100,485 19% 110,000 99,411 90%
Total Expenses 7,483,591 4,033,803 54% Expenditures
Administration 51,980 28,787 55%
Swenson Golf Course 62,500 0% -
Van Buskirk Golf Course 67,517 35,673 53%
Total Expenses 181,997 64,460 35%
246
Resolution No.

STOCKTON CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 THIRD QUARTER BUDGET

STATUS UPDATE REPORT, AND AUTHORIZE A BUDGET AMENDMENT
Fiscal Sustainability is one of the City Council’s goals; and City Council adopted the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23 Annual Budget on June 21, 2022, following a duly noticed budget study session and a public hearing, and By the staff report accompanying this Resolution, incorporated into this Resolution by this reference (Staff Report), the Council has been provided with additional information upon which the actions set forth in this Resolution are based; now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON, AS FOLLOWS:
1) Accept this budget status report on the results of the Third quarter of Fiscal Year 2022-23.
2) Authorize appropriation of $18,000 from Municipal Utilities Storm Drainage Maintenance District Fund (270) Balance.
3) Authorize increase in both revenue and expenditure appropriations by $2,500,000 in the Workers’ Compensation Internal Service Fund (530). 4) Authorize the continuation of up to $9,060,939 in FY 2022-23 budget appropriations to FY 2023-24 for the completion of identified programs. 5) Authorize the City Manager to take whatever actions are necessary and appropriate to carry out the purpose and intent of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED September 26, 2023 .

KEVIN J. LINCOLN II
Mayor of the City of Stockton
ATTEST:

ELIZA R. GARZA, CMC
City Clerk of the City of Stockton
247
FY 2022-23
Third Quarter
Budget
Update
September 26, 2023
Item 15.2
248
3rd Quarter FY 2022-23
General Fund Revenues
As of March 31, 2023:
• Year to Date = $188.5 million
• 66% of the $285.6 million budget
Year-end Projection:
•$309.8 million
• $24.1 million, 8.4 % over the budget
• Largest variances:
• Sales Tax +$13.8 million
• Utility User Tax +$2.4 million
• Business License Tax +$1.8 million
• Franchise Tax +$1.4 million
249
3rd Quarter Revenues
250
3rd Quarter FY 2022-23
General Fund Expenditures
As of March 31, 2023:
• Expenditures = $186.5 million
• 53% of the $350.5 million budget
Year-end Projection:
• $ 326.6 million
• $ 23.9 million, 6.8 % under budget
• Police Department $ 16.9 million
• Fire Department $ 3.5 million
251
3rd Quarter FY 2022-23
General Fund Budget
252
3rd Quarter FY 2022-23
Recommendation
• Accept 3rd Quarter Budget Status
Update report.
• Approve two budget amendments.

1. Authorize funding and appropriations
of $18,000 from Municipal Utilities
Storm Drainage Maintenance District
fund balance.

2. Authorize increase in both revenue
and expenditure appropriations by
$2,500,000 in the Workers’
Compensation Internal Service Fund.
253
City of Stockton
Legislation Text
File #: 23-0886, Version: 1

DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION REGARDING THE PLACEMENT OF A CHARTER AMENDMENT FOR ARTICLES XI AND XI-A, ON THE NOVEMBER 5, 2024, GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council consider, discuss, and provide direction via motion on whether to draft an amendment to the Charter, granting authority over the City’s Public Information Office to the City Manager, for submission to the voters on the November 5, 2024, election ballot.

If Council directs staff to draft the amendment and move forward with the process for submission to the voters, there will be two required public hearings and a final meeting at which Council will adopt a resolution to place the Charter Amendment on the 2024 election ballot.

Summary
At the June 13, 2023, Council meeting, during Council Comments, Councilmember Blower raised the issue of charter authority over the City’s Public Information Office (PIO). Specifically, he noted that the current version of Charter Article XI-A, despite being in place since 2000, had never been implemented.

At the end of his comment, he asked that the matter be agendized for Council discussion and called for concurrence. Councilmember Wright provided concurrence consistent with Council Policy

4.02.010(6). The direction to staff was to agendize a discussion regarding the potential amendment of Charter Article XI-A, to align the Charter language with current practice.

If a majority of Council votes to amend the Charter, this matter will be brought back at future Council meetings for consideration and adoption, consistent with applicable law.

DISCUSSION
Background
City of Stockton Charter Article XI-A, Public Information Office, was incorporated into the Charter via the March 7, 2000, special election. Specifically, the provision was included in “Measure U.” On November 23, 1999, the City Council via Resolution 99-0545 directed the City Clerk to place the following on the ballot for the March special election:
“Approval of City of Stockton Charter Amendments relating to redefining the role and responsibilities of the position of Mayor of the City of Stockton, effective January 1, 2001” (Attachment A).

One of the questions posed to voters was redefining the role and responsibilities of the position of City of Stockton Page 1 of 3 Printed on 9/20/2023
powered by Legistar™
254
File #: 23-0886, Version: 1
One of the questions posed to voters was redefining the role and responsibilities of the position of Mayor of the City of Stockton as it relates to the Council/ Manager form of government by giving the Mayor the authority to direct the City's Public Information Office. The results of the election were declared on April 11, 2000, via Resolution 00-0122 (Attachment B). Measure U, “Mayor Redefined,” was approved by Stockton voters 56.4% Yes to 43.6% No. Following its adoption, the Charter Articles addressed by Measure U were revised several times, but the PIO authority remained consistent.

Notwithstanding the Measure U changes from 2000, the City Manager’s office has consistently retained oversight and direction over the City’s PIO. Separately, the Mayor’s Office has utilized its own public information officer to disseminate mayoral information.

As mentioned above, Councilmember Blower raised this issue in his Council Comments during the June 13, 2023, Council Meeting. Specifically, he noted the inconsistency between existing practice and the Charter language. Following his comments, he asked for the matter to be agendized for Council discussion and received concurrence from Councilmember Wright.

Present Situation
Article XI, Section 3 of the California Constitution governs both Charter Adoption and Amendment and states that the same process is to be used for either adoption or amendment. Accordingly, amendment of the Charter requires approval by a majority of voters.

The California legislature adopted additional statutes to address the specific procedures. California Government Code section 34458 provides the following process:
· Council may, on its own motion, propose an amendment to the Charter. · An amendment may only be submitted for voter approval at the next established statewide general election, which is November 5, 2024.
· Prior to placing the charter amendment on the ballot, the Council must hold 2 public hearings with appropriate notice.
· A separate meeting is required after both public hearings have taken place to adopt a resolution placing the measure on the ballot.

To align the Charter language with existing practice, including the utilization of the Mayor’s separate public information officer, Council would need to amend Charter Articles XI and XI-A. As shown in Attachment C, Proposed Redline Amendments to the Charter Articles, the amendments will correct internal references, preserve the Office of the Mayor’s ability to utilize its own public information officer, and align Charter language with existing practice by transferring authority over the City’s PIO to the City Manager.

If the Council votes to amend these Charter Articles, state law requires two public hearings with appropriate notice. Following the conclusion of the last public hearing, but no sooner than 21 days after, the Council will hold a final meeting to adopt a resolution to submit the measure for placement on the November 2024 ballot.

FINANCIAL SUMMARY
City of Stockton Page 2 of 3 Printed on 9/20/2023
powered by Legistar™
255
File #: 23-0886, Version: 1
There is no financial impact to the City of Stockton if Council votes to amend these Charter Articles, as the change will align Charter language with existing practice, which is already incorporated into the City’s budget.

Attachment A- Resolution 99-0545
Attachment B- Resolution 00-0122
Attachment C- Proposed Redline Amendments to the Charter Articles City of Stockton Page 3 of 3 Printed on 9/20/2023
powered by Legistar™
256
ATTACHMENT A 257
ATTACHMENT A 258
ATTACHMENT A 259
ATTACHMENT B 260
ATTACHMENT B 261
ATTACHMENT B 262
ATTACHMENT B 263
ATTACHMENT B 264
ATTACHMENT B 265
ATTACHMENT B 266
ATTACHMENT B 267
ATTACHMENT B 268
ATTACHMENT B 269
ATTACHMENT B 270

ATTACHMENT C

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF STOCKTON CHARTER
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON DO ORDAIN, AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION I. AMENDMENT OF CODE
Article XI, Section 1102 of the City of Stockton Charter shall be amended to read as follows:

SECTION 1102. Powers and Duties.

The Mayor shall have the following powers and duties:
(a) To review with the City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk prior to each Council meeting the items on the Council’s agenda and to add matters thereto; (b) To make recommendations to the Council on matters of policy and programs which require Council decision;
(c) To make recommendations to the City Manager on matters of policy and programs;
(d) To direct those officials appointed by the Council to prepare and provide information to the Council on matters of policy and programs which require Council decision;
(e) To request budgetary and any other information from those officials appointed by the Council that the Mayor determines is necessary for the conduct of the Mayor’s duties;
(f) To appoint, with the advice and consent of the Council, a Chairman, a ViceChairman, one regular member and one alternate member to each standing, special and ad hoc committee of the Council;
(g) To appoint, with the advice and consent of the Council, such advisory boards, commissions and ad hoc committees as may be necessary or desirable to advise and assist in the work of the City Council. All members of the Council, including the Mayor and Vice-Mayor, may be so appointed;
(h) To appoint such other advisory boards and ad hoc committees as may be necessary or desirable to advise and assist in the work of the Mayor; provided, however, that the members of such advisory boards or ad hoc committees shall not receive any compensation;
271

ATTACHMENT C
(i) To address, not less than annually, the citizens of the City concerning the current status of City affairs and articulating the policy plans which the Mayor proposes for the City during the ensuing year;
(j) To inform the citizens, at other times during the year, of any matters of policy or programs which the Mayor believes are for the welfare of the community; (k) To recommend adjustments to the City Budget and to propose the modification or curtailment of any city service. If the Mayor recommends any increases in the City budget, the Mayor shall recommend the method of financing such expenditures. If the Mayor proposes the modification or curtailment of any city service, the Mayor shall provide specific recommendations and the reasons for such proposal; (l) To preside at meetings of the Council and to vote as a member of the Council without power of veto;
(m) To preserve order at all Council meetings, to remove or cause the removal of any person from any meeting of the Council for disorderly conduct, to enforce the rules of the Council and to determine the order of business under the rules of the Council;
(n) To select and appoint, with the advice and consent of the Council, such professional, technical and clerical employees to the office of Mayor as may be necessary or desirable to advise and assist in the work of the Mayor; provided, however, that the Mayor shall not appoint to any position any business associate or any person related to him or her or to the City Manager or to any member of the Council by blood and marriage within the third degree, except that the foregoing prohibition against nepotism may be waived by a vote of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the Council if the Council finds that the proposed appointment is in the interest of the City.

All such appointees shall serve at the pleasure of the Mayor in the unclassified service; and shall serve under such terms and conditions, salaries and benefits as are similar to other unclassified employees. The Council shall provide in the annual budget funding for no less than three positions in the office of the Mayor, including the a pPublic iInformation oOfficer appointed by the Mayor pursuant to Section 1151 of Article XI; (o) To exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be prescribed by the Council, provided the same are not inconsistent with this Charter.

Nothing in this Section shall be construed in any way as an infringement or limitation on the powers and duties of the City Manager as Chief Administrative Officer and head of the administrative branch of the City government as prescribed in other sections of this Charter.
272

ATTACHMENT C
Except as otherwise provided in this Charter, the Mayor shall possess only such authority over the City Manager and the administrative branch as he or she possesses as one member of the Council.
(Amended Election 11/8/16 effective 12/3/16; Repealed and added election 03/07/2000 effective 001/01/2001; Amended Election 11/8/94 effective 5/22/95; Amended Election 5/31/32 effective 1/24/33)
SECTION II. AMENDMENT
Article XI-A of the City of Stockton Charter shall be amended to read as follows:

ARTICLE XI-A PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
SECTION 1150. Public Information Office.

A Public Information Office is hereby established.

SECTION 1151. Public Information Officer.

The Public Information Office shall be administered by a Public Information Officer appointed by the Mayor City Manager who shall serve at his or her pleasure. The Public Information Officer shall be under the direction and supervision of the MayorCity Manager.

SECTION 1152. Functions and Duties.

The Public Information Officer shall gather and disseminate to the public and to the news media, in a timely manner, accurate and complete information concerning the policies of the Council and other information regarding the City and the general region in which it is located.
(Added Election 03/07/2000, Effective 01/01/2001)
273
City of Stockton
Legislation Text
File #: 23-0777, Version: 1

ADOPT A RESOLUTIONS CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, INCLUDING A

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, FINDINGS OF FACT, A MITIGATION AND

MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM, AND AN ERRATA TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTING A MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN; ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, FOR THE PROPOSED ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER OF STOCKTON HOSPITAL EXPANSION PROJECT AT 1800 NORTH CALIFORNIA STREET (APPLICATION NO. P21-0958)

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Adopt a Resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2021120439), including a Statement of Overriding Considerations, Findings of Fact, Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program, and Errata to the Final Environmental Impact Report;

2. Adopt a Resolution approving a Master Development Plan, with Conditions of Approval;

3. Adopt an Ordinance approving a Development Agreement; and

4. Authorize the City Manager to take any and all necessary and appropriate actions to carry out the purpose and intent of these actions.

Summary
Port City Operating Company, LLC, (PCOC) doing business as Dignity Health St. Joseph’s Medical Center of Stockton (“St. Joseph’s”), proposes an expansion of the main campus of the Dignity Health St. Joseph’s Medical Center (“Medical Center,” “Medical Center campus” or “Project”) located at 1800 North California Street, on an approximate 18.7-acre site.

The Project includes a request for a Master Development Plan (MDP) and a Development Agreement (DA) as the foundation for an expansion of the Medical Center campus that will occur over many years and several phases. The MDP is intended to provide a single, unified concept for future growth that will be implemented at the Medical Center, and provides a Site Master Plan, development and design guidelines (including identified deviations from the Municipal Code) for proposed and potential future structures, landscaping and signage guidelines, traffic improvements and circulation, and provisions for all infrastructure (sewer, water, dry utilities, and fire suppression).

The proposed expansion will include removal of existing buildings, construction of a new Acute Care Hospital Tower of up to 331,000 square feet, construction of a new parking structure to replace existing surface-level parking, and modernization of other facilities on the Medical Center campus.

City of Stockton Page 1 of 9 Printed on 9/20/2023
powered by Legistar™
274
File #: 23-0777, Version: 1
The expansion is planned in a manner to minimize disruption in existing patient services. At full build -out of the Initial Expansion, it is anticipated that there will be an additional 24 intensive care patient beds, an additional 120 general acute care patient beds, a new 70-station Emergency Department, a new surgical area with ten (10) general Operating Rooms and a new Central Sterile Processing Department. Access for regular and emergency patients will be enhanced by adding a new entrance for ambulances and creating a new entry lobby, with a covered drop-off and admitting department along North California Street.

The expansion also includes up to two (2) new heliport landing areas and one (1) additional heliport parking area. The new heliport(s) will be located on the new parking structure and will be close to the new Emergency Department. The location is designed to complement the existing heliport that is located in close proximity to existing Neonatal Intensive Care Facilities, which will remain in place.

The project and site are consistent with the 2040 General Plan Land Use Map designation of Commercial and furthers policies aimed at
· Attracting and retaining companies that offer high-quality jobs with wages that are competitive with the region and state (Goal LU-4)
· Attracting employment and tax -generating businesses in the city (Policy LU-4.2) · prioritizing development and redevelopment of vacant, underutilized, and blighted infill areas (Policy LU-6.2)
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Draft EIR was prepared and circulated for a 45-day public review period. All potentially significant effects are identified and paired with feasible mitigation measures to reduce them to less than significant levels, with the exception of two (2) potential impacts (Aesthetics and Greenhouse Gas Emissions) that remain significant and unavoidable even with provided mitigation measures, which require approval of a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

On September 14, 2023, the Planning Commission approved a motion to continue consideration of the Project to a Special Planning Commission meeting date of September 21, 2023, due to lack of a quorum of the Planning Commission to take any action. Resulting action from the Special Meeting will be presented during staff’s presentation.

The Medical Center expansion will bring significant economic and community benefits to Stockton and the surrounding region, both in the short term (during construction) and long term (as the Medical Center operates through expanded facilities). According to the Applicant, the Medical Center presently contributes $1.1 billion in economic activity to San Joaquin County, and this number is expected to increase by over $500 million after completion of the expansion. Approximately 780 new annual jobs will be created in the community, including approximately 471 new jobs on the Medical Center campus, both professional (medical, nursing, and related positions), as well as support and administrative jobs. Finally, the expansion will allow for increases in the current Graduate Medical Training Program, which is anticipated to include 238 medical residencies, an increase of 142 from 2021.

City of Stockton Page 2 of 9 Printed on 9/20/2023
powered by Legistar™
275
File #: 23-0777, Version: 1
St. Joseph’s has been a contributor to health-related programs in the region for over 120 years, and the organization’s mission focuses on providing health care to underserved populations. St. Joseph’s continually invests millions for unreimbursed care, community benefit programs, and community amenities related to healthy lifestyles.

DISCUSSION
Background
The Medical Center campus consists of approximately 18.7 acres and spans 19 parcels. Eleven (11) additional parcels that are within the boundaries of the Master Development Plan are located within the near vicinity (Attachment A - Location Map & Aerial Photo). The Assessor Parcel Numbers are:

APNs:
125-360-15
127-140-16
127-150-23; -24; -25; -28; -29; -30; -31; -32; -33; -48; -49 127-164-06; -07; -08; -15; -16; -22
127-172-11; -12; -16
127-173-28
127-174-30
127-180-16; -44
127-190-08; -09-; -10; -32
Project and Surrounding Area
Property Land Use Zone GP Land Use
Subject Site St. Joseph’s Hospital Campus CO/CG AP/MDR
North of Site Medical Clinics/Offices CO AP
South of Site Medical Clinics/Offices, A
Behavioral Health Center, & A
City Fire Station
CN C
East of Site San Joaquin Catholic Cemetery PF I
West of Site Medical Clinics/Offices, &
Residential/Commercial Uses

CO/CG/RM AP/MDR
City of Stockton Page 3 of 9 Printed on 9/20/2023
powered by Legistar™
276
File #: 23-0777, Version: 1
*APN 125-360-15 is located three blocks north of the main campus site at 2510 North California Street, at the intersection of North California Street and East Geary Street and is not shown on this map.

The current General Plan Land Use designations for the parcels that are within the boundaries of the Master Development Plan are:

1. On-Campus Parcels - Administrative Professional (AP) and Commercial (C); and,

2. Off-Campus Parcels - Administrative Professional and Medium Density Residential (MDR).

The zoning designations for the on-campus parcels are Office Commercial (CO) and General Commercial (CG). The Zoning Map designations for the off-campus parcels are CO and Medium Density Residential (RM). Each of the parcels referenced as part of the Master Development Plan are identified in Attachment B - General Plan Land Use Map and Attachment C - Zoning Map Project Description
The Project will be adopting a Master Development Plan which will create the procedural framework by which the properties included within the MDP can develop over time. St. Joseph’s has applied for all required entitlements to permit an expansion of the Medical Center pursuant to the development standards and design guidelines detailed in the proposed MDP. Development of the Medical Center expansion will occur after approval of the proposed MDP. This section below will describe the components of the MDP and additional related entitlements that will implement the Project.

City of Stockton Page 4 of 9 Printed on 9/20/2023
powered by Legistar™
277
File #: 23-0777, Version: 1

STAFF ANALYSIS
To develop the Project, the City Council is asked to: 1) adopt a resolution certifying the EIR, 2) adopt an ordinance approving a DA, and 3) adopt a resolution approving an MDP.

Each request and staff’s analysis are provided below.

Environmental Clearance
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064, the City Council must consider the prepared EIR prior to acting on the Project. As reflected in the proposed Resolution, certification of the EIR is presented, including adoption of a corresponding Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).

In accordance with the CEQA, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was published for agency and public review during a 30-day period starting on December 17, 2022, and ending January 17, 2023. A virtual public scoping meeting was held on January 10, 2023. Written comments were received from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Native American Heritage Commission, and the Sierra Club Delta-Sierra Group. There were no comments received from the public during the NOP period.

Comments received were considered in the preparation of a Draft EIR, which was circulated for a 45- day public review period beginning on April 17, 2023, and ending June 1, 2023 (Attachment D - Draft EIR). By the conclusion of the Draft EIR review period, five (5) comment letters were received by the City. The nature of the comments related to the potential environmental effects of the project on the community as well as incorporation of solar power for electrical use of the hospital, electric vehicle charging stalls, and bicycle parking. In coordination with the City’s CEQA consultant and the applicant, mitigation measures were adjusted and incorporated into both the FEIR (Attachment E) and Development Agreement (Exhibit 1 to the DA Ordinance). These modifications did not require reevaluation of the existing technical studies prepared.

Before taking action on the project, the City must first certify that the EIR is adequate under CEQA.

Then, the City must make specific findings regarding each of the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. Guidelines for the certification of a FEIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15090) require that the Lead Agency certify that the FEIR:

1. Has been completed in compliance with CEQA

2. Was presented to the decision-making body of the Lead Agency, and the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to a decision on the project

3. Reflects the Lead Agency’s independent judgment and analysis The EIR is intended by CEQA to be an informational document. Decision-making on the project in relation to its environmental impacts is reserved to the Lead Agency which must address each significant effect identified in the EIR in written findings before they approve the project, or portions of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091). These findings are contained in a separate document (CEQA Findings and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program (MMRP)) that accompanies the Final EIR and must also be adopted by the City Council.

City of Stockton Page 5 of 9 Printed on 9/20/2023
powered by Legistar™
278
File #: 23-0777, Version: 1
The MMRP is required to ensure that the mitigation measures and project revisions identified in the EIR are implemented. The measures and revisions described in the FEIR are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. The MMRP for this project is a separate document that accompanies the Final EIR, and addresses items such as: Aesthetics and Visual Resources; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resource; and Geology and Soils.

In the event that the City wishes to approve a project without providing substantial mitigation for all its significant impacts of the project, then CEQA allows the decision-makers to balance the project’s benefits against its unavoidable environmental risks. This decision must be documented in a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) and then adopted. The project includes an SOC, which address the following topics: Aesthetics and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions.

Pursuant to CEQA, all substantive comments are responded to in the Final EIR (Exhibit 1 to the FEIR Resolution). Pursuant to CEQA, the City Council must consider the FEIR prior to acting on the project. As reflected in the attached proposed Resolution (recommending approval of the EIR), certification of the EIR is presented with an Errata to the FEIR, including adoption of a corresponding Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Findings, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which are included as Exhibit 2 to the FEIR Resolution.

Master Development Plan
A Master Development Plan, included as Exhibit 1 to the MDP Resolution, is intended “to provide flexibility in the planning review process so that land use requirements are identified in a master development plan and there is minimal review of subsequent approvals if they are consistent with the adopted plan…” and “to provide a process for reviewing, processing, and approving master development plan applications which are intended to provide a comprehensive framework for the development of property which has a mixed use or university designation in the General Plan or for a specified geographical area that will be developed as a single concept.” (Stockton Municipal Code “SMC” sections 16.140.010A and B). In this instance, the St. Joseph’s Medical Center Expansion Project provides for a single-concept, comprehensive development approach for 30 parcels under common ownership and under similar uses.

A Master Development Plan is required to identify the following (per SMC section 16.140.050):
· Proposed land uses, including density and intensity of uses. · Infrastructure components.
· Land Use and Development standards.
· Implementation measures, including environmental mitigation measures. · Discussion of the relationship to the General Plan.

The adoption of the Master Development Plan requires that certain findings of fact listed in SMC

16.140.080 be addressed. These findings include:

1. Consistency with the objectives, policies, general land uses, programs, and actions of all applicable elements of the General Plan

2. Adequately addresses the physical development characteristics of the subject site(s)

3. Development standards identified in the master development plan serve to protect the public convenience, health, safety, and general welfare
City of Stockton Page 6 of 9 Printed on 9/20/2023
powered by Legistar™
279
File #: 23-0777, Version: 1

4. Development of the subject site(s) covered by the St. Joseph’s MDP ensure a compatible land use relationship with the surrounding neighborhood

5. Compliance with all applicable requirements of the Development Code, local ordinances, and State law

6. Compliance with the provisions of CEQA and the City’s CEQA Guidelines Staff affirms that all findings can be met, as expanded upon in the proposed resolution to adopt the Master Development Plan.

Pursuant to SMC Section 16.140.060(E), the City Council is the Review Authority for Master Development Plans upon recommendation from the Development Review Committee (DRC). On August 30, 2023, the DRC provided a verbal approval recommendation to staff for the Master Development Plan.

Development Agreement
A Development Agreement to implement the Master Development Plan is required to be processed concurrently with Master Development Plan in accordance with SMC 16.140.060(C). The proposed DA identifies a range of developer and City obligations and responsibilities for how the Project’s development may occur. The DA addresses issues such as infrastructure requirements, utility relocation, payment of applicable fees, and ongoing city approval processes.

The proposed ordinance includes the following required findings pursuant to SMC 16.128.080:

1. Is in the best interests of the City;

2. Complies with the City Development Code and other applicable ordinances and regulations, particularly the regulations of Chapter 16.128 pertaining to development agreements;

3. Is consistent with the general land uses, objectives, policies, and programs of the General Plan, any applicable specific plan or master development plan;

4. Will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare;

5. Complies with the conditions, requirements, restrictions, and terms of Section 16.128.060(B) (Preparation and Content - Proposed Development Agreement); and,

6. Complies with the provisions of CEQA and the City’s CEQA Guidelines Staff affirms that all findings can be met, as expanded upon in the proposed resolution to adopt the Development Agreement.

Subsequent Development Permits
As of the writing of this staff report, there have been no applications made for physical development of the site beyond the conceptual site plan evaluated in the EIR and shown in the MDP. Should an application be submitted to develop the site, it would be required to adhere to the conditions of approval, MDP, DA, and MMRP adopted by the City Council, as well as a comprehensive review and approval through Site Plan Review and Design Review.

City of Stockton Page 7 of 9 Printed on 9/20/2023
powered by Legistar™
280
File #: 23-0777, Version: 1

PUBLIC COMMENT
As the Project was required to prepare an EIR, there have been significant public outreach efforts required during the CEQA process. The Final EIR has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, which concludes the public review process of the environmental document. The FEIR includes all correspondence received during the public review process for the DEIR. Additionally, a Notice of Availability was posted at the San Joaquin County Clerk’s office.

Cultural Heritage Board
Prior to the Planning Commission hearing, on August 2, 2023, the Cultural Heritage Board (CHB) reviewed the historical merits of the five (5) structures to be demolished that are older than 50 years of age. Seeing as none of the structures qualified as a historic resource, the CHB issued a Certificate of Appropriateness (Attachment F - Cultural Heritage Board Resolution) for their demolition and forwarded their recommendation to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission agreed with the recommendation and approved the demolition of the five (5) structures.

Planning Commission
On September 14, 2023, due to lack of a quorum, the Planning Commission approved a motion to continue the project consideration to a Special Planning Commission meeting date of September 21, 2023, to keep the project on schedule. An additional public hearing notice and mailed noticing of the Special Planning Commission meeting was not required because the Planning Commission’s action to continue this item informed the public.

Due to agenda publication deadlines, the Planning Commission’s action will be reported to the Council by staff. Public comments received is included as Attachment G.

Public Notice, Public Comments, and Community Outreach
As the Project was required to prepare an EIR and MDP, there have been significant public outreach efforts throughout the process.

St. Joseph’s conducted broad, multi-lingual, and diverse outreach to inform the community, neighbors, and stakeholders about the proposed project expansion. Six (6) community workshops were held for all interested members of the public, with translation in Spanish and Tagalog at four (4) of the workshops. St. Joseph’s also presented to local leaders and organizations during the monthly meeting for the San Joaquin Partnership on March 23, 2023. Outreach by social media, e-mail, and direct mail was also extensive (Attachment H - Community Outreach Summary). * St. Joseph’s provided regular updates on its own web page, including a link to the draft Master Development Plan and Draft EIR.

Publication
On September 15, 2023, in preparation for the September 26, 2023 City Council public hearing, a notice for this request was published in The Record and mailed notice was sent to all property owners within a 1,000-foot radius, interested parties, and local agencies, at least ten (10) days prior.

City of Stockton Page 8 of 9 Printed on 9/20/2023
powered by Legistar™
281
File #: 23-0777, Version: 1

FINANCIAL SUMMARY
All required application fees were paid for processing the requested actions. Plan check and permit fees will be applied at the construction stage.

Attachment A - Location Map & Aerial Photo
Attachment B - General Plan Land Use Map
Attachment C - Zoning Map
Attachment D - Draft EIR
Attachment E - Final EIR
Attachment F - Cultural Heritage Board Resolutions
Attachment G - Public Comment Received
Attachment H - Community Outreach Summary
City of Stockton Page 9 of 9 Printed on 9/20/2023
powered by Legistar™
282
City of Stockton, CA July 12, 2023 Locati on and Aerial Photo Property Information
Property ID 12717430-9999999
Location -no addresses on propertyOwner PORT CITY OPERATING COMPANY LLC

MAP FOR REFERENCE ONLY

NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT
City of Stockton, CA makes no claims and no warranties, expressed or implied, concerning the validity or accuracy of the GIS data presented on this map.

Geometry updated 05/03/2023
Data updated 05/01/2023
Print map scale is approximate.

Critical layout or measurement
activities should not be done using
this resource.
1" = 525.8678272131191 ft
ATTACHMENT A 283
City of Stockton, CA July 12, 2023 Genera l Plan Land Use Map Property Information
Property ID 12717430-9999999
Location -no addresses on propertyOwner PORT CITY OPERATING COMPANY LLC

MAP FOR REFERENCE ONLY

NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT
City of Stockton, CA makes no claims and no warranties, expressed or implied, concerning the validity or accuracy of the GIS data presented on this map.

Geometry updated 05/03/2023
Data updated 05/01/2023
Print map scale is approximate.

Critical layout or measurement
activities should not be done using
this resource.
1" = 525.8678272131191 ft
ATTACHMENT B 284
Map Theme Legends
General Plan Map
City of Stockton GIS data

ECONOMIC AND EDUCATION ENTERPRISE

RESIDENTIAL ESTATE

LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL

MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL

HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL

ADMINISTRATIVE-PROFESSIONAL

COMMERCIAL

INDUSTRIAL

INSTITUTIONAL

OPEN SPACE/ AGRICULTURE

PARKS AND RECREATION

MIXED USE

RIGHT OF WAY
ATTACHMENT B 285
City of Stockton, CA July 12, 2023 Zoning Map
Property Information
Property ID 12717430-9999999
Location -no addresses on propertyOwner PORT CITY OPERATING COMPANY LLC

MAP FOR REFERENCE ONLY

NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT
City of Stockton, CA makes no claims and no warranties, expressed or implied, concerning the validity or accuracy of the GIS data presented on this map.

Geometry updated 05/03/2023
Data updated 05/01/2023
Print map scale is approximate.

Critical layout or measurement
activities should not be done using
this resource.
1" = 525.8678272131191 ft
ATTACHMENT C 286
Map Theme Legends
Zoning
City of Stockton, CA Zoning Data

COMMERCIAL AUTO DISTRICT (CA)

DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL (CD)

GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CG)

LARGE SCALE COMMERCIAL (CL)

NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (CN)

OFFICE COMMERCIAL(CO)

GENERAL INDUSTRIAL(IG)

LIMITED INDUSTRIAL (IL)

PORT (PT)

LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL/P)

MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RM/P)

HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RH/P)

MIXED USE (MX)

OPEN SPACE (OS)

PUBLIC FACILITIES (PF)

UNIVERSITY/COLLEGE (UC)

RIGHT OF WAY (ROW)
ATTACHMENT C 287
Prepared by:

SACRAMENTO OFFICE
1810 13th Street, Ste. 110
Sacramento, California 95811
Prepared for:
345 N. El Dorado Street
Stockton, California 95202
CONTACT: Nicole Moore

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER

HOSPITAL EXPANSION PROJECT
SCH# 2021120439
April 2023
Due to the size of this document, please cut and
paste this link into your browser for the full
version: http://www.stocktonca.gov/files/
DEIR_SJMC_Hospital_Expansion_Project.pdf
ATTACHMENT D 288
Prepared by:

SACRAMENTO OFFICE
1810 13th Street, Ste. 110
Sacramento, California 95811
Prepared for:
345 N. El Dorado Street
Stockton, California 95202
CONTACT: Nicole Moore

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER

HOSPITAL EXPANSION PROJECT
SCH# 2021120439
September 2023
Due to the size of this document, cut and paste the following link into your browser to view full document: http://
www.stocktonca.gov/files/SJMC_Final_EIR_092023.pdf

ATTACHMENT E
289
ATTACHMENT F 290
ATTACHMENT F 291
ATTACHMENT F 292
Name Company Page #s
Lofgren, Martha Brewer Lofgren (Sierra Club)ͲCorrespondence #2 1 Lofgren, Martha Brewer Lofgren (Sierra Club)ͲCorrespondence #1 2Ͳ25 Gill, Ricky Gill Medical CenterͲCorrespondence #2 26
Gill, Jasbir Gill Medical CenterͲCorrespondence #1 27Ͳ164 Acosta, James St. Joseph's Foundation Board of SJ 165Ͳ166 Bajwa, Randeep Dignity Health 167
Balestracci, Paul Neumiller & Beardslee 168Ͳ169
Bechtel, Timothy Dignity Health 170
Bott, Anthony St. Joseph's Foundation Board of SJ 171Ͳ172 Buhari, Shiraz Dignity Health 173
Clifford, Alex SJ Regional Transit District (RTD) 174Ͳ175 Funghi, Cristina Dignity Health 176
Grupe, Fritz The Grupe Company 177Ͳ178
Hamilton, Katherine St Joseph Foundation of SJ 179
Jensen, David Dignity Health 180
Johnston, Ann The Balloonery 181
Kawaguchi, Alan Alpine Orthopaedic Medical Group 182Ͳ183 Khanna, Pavan Dignity Health 184
Linden, Petra St. Mary's Dining Room 185Ͳ188
Morales, Steve 189
Patmon, Charles Patmon Company, Inc 190Ͳ193
Quinn, Timm Greater Stockton Chamber of Commerce 194Ͳ196 Rishwain, Mark Rishwain & Rishwain 197Ͳ198
Rodriguez, Jose El Concilio 199
Russo, Christopher Dignity Health 200
Sabino, Alan Dignity Health 201
(San Joaquin Partnership) San Joaquin Partnership 202Ͳ203 Seawood, Lueathel African American Chamber of Comm & Chamber Fdtn 204 Shalvey, Sue 205Ͳ206
Silva, Dave Silva Trucking 207
Spaugh, Gary 208Ͳ209
Stephens, Annette St. Joseph's Foundation Board of SJ 210Ͳ211 Suen, Denise St. Joseph's Foundation Board of SJ 212Ͳ213 Talamantes Eggman, Susan CA State Senate 214Ͳ215
Vela, Lisa San Joaquin County Hispanic Chamber of Comm 216Ͳ217 Velasquez, Patrick Chase Chevrolet 218Ͳ219
Waters, Richard Dignity Health 220
Wilson, Betty Business Council of San Joaquin County 221Ͳ223 Wong, Cindy St. Joseph's Foundation Board of SJ 224Ͳ225

ATTACHMENT G
293
1 From: Martha Lofgren <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 3:17 PM
To: Stephanie Ocasio <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Lori Asuncion <[email protected]>; Michael McDowell <[email protected]>; Bradley Wall <[email protected]>; Nicole Moore.Ctr <[email protected]>; Heather M. Minner <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Martha Lofgren <[email protected]>
Subject: St. Joseph's Expansion ProjectͲPlanning Commission Agenda Item 5.1 (September 14, 2023 Agenda), City Project No. 23Ͳ0685
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Stockton.Do not click any links or open aƩachments if this is unsolicited email.

Dear Stephanie,
I am wriƟng to advise you of a seƩlement between the Sierra Club and Paul Plathe that was concluded today regarding comments made by each enƟty on the DraŌEnvironmental Impact Report for the St. Joseph’s Expansion Project.St.

Joseph’s has agreed to certain modiĮcaƟons in the project descripƟon related to the parking structure and also to addiƟonal enhanced miƟgaƟon measures.I would appreciate it if you would include noƟĮcaƟon of the seƩlement in the staī’s Planning Commission report tomorrow evening, and also forward this correspondence along with all aƩachments to each of the Planning Commission Members as soon as possible.I will be prepared to review the speciĮc terms of the seƩlement in the applicant’s presentaƟon.

I am copying legal counsel to the Sierra Club, Heather Minner, and also Mr. Plathe on this communicaƟon to you.

Please let me know if you have any quesƟons.
Thank you and best regards,
Martha Lofgren
Martha Clark Lofgren
Brewer Lofgren LLP
[email protected]
(916) 221Ͳ8621 mobile

ATTACHMENT G
294

ATTACHMENT G
295

ATTACHMENT G
296
Attachment: St. Joseph’s Expansion Project Enhanced Mitigation Measures

ATTACHMENT G
297
ST. JOSEPH’S EXPANSION PROJECT ENHANCED MITIGATION MEASURES AND OTHER EDITS TO

EIR AND MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PARKING:

The Project Description in the EIR and the Master Development Plan shall each be revised to provide an Option B Parking Structure, which shall not exceed six tiers above ground; approximately 1,368-1,400 parking spaces, not to exceed 1,400 parking spaces (including EV capable and EVCS spaces). SJMC’s acceptance of Option B is premised on the execution by all Parties of the Agreement. Upon confirmation of execution of the Agreement by all Parties, SJMC shall notify the City in writing and shall verbally notify the Planning Commission and City Council at public hearings on the Project Approvals, and will also then amend the MDP to specify that it no longer seeks to construct the originally proposed nine-story parking structure, and that any approval of the MDP by the City will be for the specified Parking Option B instead of the originally proposed parking structure.

SOLAR PANELS:

Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 shall be amended to include the following:

Structural support for and the installation of rooftop solar panels shall be included in the Request for Proposal for the design and construction of the Parking Structure. If proposals indicated that installation of a PV solar energy system is feasible, as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15364, SJMC shall contract for their installation. SJMC shall then ensure that all equipment is timely ordered and that the system is installed when the City has approved building permits and the necessary equipment has arrived. SJMC shall ensure that PV solar energy system commences operation when it has received permission to operate from the utility. SJMC shall ensure that the system is maintained at not less than 80 percent of the rated power for 20 years and at the end of the 20-year period it shall install a new PV solar energy system, or continue to maintain the existing system, at the same standards, for the life of the parking structure. Nothing in this measure is intended to discourage or limit the efforts of SJMC to explore serving SJMC power needs through PV solar energy systems or other renewable energy sources in other locations.

ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS (EVCS)
Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 shall be amended to include the following:

The Parking Structure shall meet the minimum requirements of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (“State CalGreen”) 5.106.5.3 (Electric vehicle (EV) charging), i.e., 20% of parking structure spaces EV capable; 25% of preceding number EVCS with charging equipment (EVSE) actually installed, with the installation of EVSE, but not the installation of required EV capable equipment, subject to the exceptions stated in Cal Green section 5.106.5.3(1)(a)-(c); or unless otherwise authorized by CalGreen Section 5.106.5.3.2 as to both EV capable and EVSE.

ATTACHMENT G
298
Mitigation Measure Related to Transportation Demand Management Program (“TDM Plan”) to be added, as follows:

The following programs are proposed in the context of St. Joseph’s Hospital, only, and within the context of reasonably available programs for a not-for-profit medical center with a high percentage of lower income patients. St. Joseph will request acknowledgement by Sierra Club that transportation demand management programs must be tailored to a particular medical facility, and also to different types of employers (e.g., programs are different for profit and notfor-profit commercial uses).

Expand upon existing alternative transportation programs through the following:
a. increase prime spaces for carpool parking based on current demand (i.e., 8) to projected future demand (i.e, 16). Review annually and increase as necessary to ensure sufficient spaces for carpools;
b. evaluate use of electrical vehicle charging stations (for bicycles and vehicles) prior to the certificate of occupancy for each phase to determine if demand has exceeded supply and identify in the TDM Plan the timeline for phased increases to electric charging stations when needed with the goal that supply remains slightly larger than demand to help incentivize electric vehicle purchases;
c. establish an incentives-based commuter program to encourage employees to carpool and take alternative modes of travel to the hospital (see, e.g., subparagraphs a, e, and f) d. increase availability and access to bicycle parking facilities; review annually and increase as necessary to ensure sufficient spaces for bicycles;
e. provide a free or low-cost ride home in cases of emergency for employees who use alternative transportation, such as carpooling, vanpooling, public transit, bicycling, and walking; f. provide a transit bus pass to participating employees who agree to commute by transit rather than by single occupancy vehicle;
g. engage with Regional Transit to enhance bus schedules and “VanGo” (i.e., dial-a-ride) services to the Medical Center and support these enhanced services to Regional Transit staff and/or Board of Directors;
h. through the wayfinding and signage program, include directions for employees, patients, and visitors to identify locations for carpool, bicycles, shuttles, and bus stops; i. provide shuttle service during construction to transport employees or visitors from off-site parking locations to the Medical Center;
j. rotate existing Medical Center fleet (consisting of automobiles and service vans) with electric vehicles on a standardized replacement schedule with details specified in the TDM Plan (e.g., the earlier of a need for a repair that is not cost effective given the age of a vehicle or, alternatively, a mileage threshold), and which includes consideration of commercial availability, cost, the general driving range for a vehicle, and the availability of EV charging stations for vehicles with longer driving ranges, as well as other reasonable limitations as set forth in the TDM Plan;

ATTACHMENT G
299
k. add TDM Plan information to both visitor and patient portions of the St. Joseph’s public webpage, with focus on improving content to better publicize alternative transportation options to the public;
l. provide information to employees about TDM Plan programs through (1) internal newsletter and (2) communication boards in employee gathering rooms (e.g., cafeteria, break rooms); and m. set a reasonable goal for reduced single occupancy employee vehicle trips to and from the Medical Center and report progress towards that goal as part of the Development Agreement reports based on results of good faith surveys of employees.

SJMC will provide public notice via the St. Joseph’s web page of the availability of a draft TDM Plan, a link on that web page to the draft TDM Plan, and reasonable period of time for an opportunity for interested members of the public to comment on the draft TDM Plan before it is finalized.
1680830.2

ATTACHMENT G
300
ATTACHMENT – MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN CHANGE PAGES RELATED PARKING STRUCTURE

ATTACHMENT G
301
same parcel.8
Accessory uses are allowed if (a) identified in Table 2-2 of the Municipal Code as an allowed use if it were a “primary use” or (b) if the accessory use meets other specified criteria in the Municipal Code.9
These are described below.

3.2.3 Parking
The Medical Center includes both surface and underground parking. There are approximately 1,354 surface parking spaces distributed throughout the campus. Underground parking is located at the corner of E. Maple Street and Cemetery Lane and houses 266 stalls. Existing parking areas are shown on Figure 3.2.3-1 and an existing parking count summary is provided in Table 3.2.3-1.

The current parking was approved by the City through a series of Commission Use Permits. (See Table 3.2.6-1, Item Nos. 12, 13, 18, 19, 23, and 25.)
Table 3.2.3-1 Existing Parking Summary
Parking Lot Parking Stalls
Sanger 74
ED Lot 21
Underground Garage 266
North Lot 606
Administration Lot 7
Administration Overflow Lot 9
McCloud Avenue 24
HCCL North 29
HCCL South 21
Vendor/Maintenance 7
Other Parking 290
Total 1,354
All available lots, as well as curbside parking at surrounding streets, are fully used on a daily basis.

The Plan proposes flexibility to allow per patient parking ratios from the code minimum of 2.0 stalls per licensed bed. Parking Option A includes up to 5.6 stalls per licensed bed as medical care may require to accommodate for seasonal surges, such as respiratory illnesses, and pandemics such as with the 2020 Pandemic.

In response to comments on the Draft EIR received from stakeholders, St. Joseph’s has also prepared an alternative parking option; i.e. Parking Option B, which reduces the size of the Parking Structure. St. Joseph’s has agreed to update the Master Development Plan to select Parking Option B, and Chapters 4 and 6 of the Master Development Plan, as well as the attached Parking Plan, reflect Option B as the applicant’s parking structure option for approval. The Master Development Plan does not, however, reduce the stated maximum parking ratio, and 8 Municipal Code Section 16.240.020.
9 Municipal Code Section 16.80.020(C) governs Accessory Uses and subsection (1)(b) details criteria for accessory uses that are not an allowed use.

ATTACHMENT G
302
acknowledges that additional, yet to be identified, off-site parking may be required if the smaller Parking Structure is insufficient. Under Parking Option B, “Other Parking” is reduced by 110 stalls due to the longer-term placement of modular structures at the site located at E. Harding Way and Maple Street. Tables 4.2.5-1 and 4.2.5-2 include the parking counts under each parking option.

3.2.4 Physical Plant
The Medical Center campus includes a Plant Maintenance building, a utility plant, emergency generators, fuel tanks, water well, bulk oxygen tank, hazardous materials storage, and loading docks.

3.2.5 Heliport
The Medical Center presently includes one heliport located on top of the Southeast Wing of the Main Hospital. The heliport was approved through a conditional use permit (see Section 3.2.6) and is also permitted by the California Department of Transportation Aviation Division. A hospital heliport is defined as a restricted use airfield by the Municipal Code.10 The heliport currently receives approximately 15 unscheduled flights per month for emergency medical transport.

3.2.6 Emergency and Supplemental Services on a Temporary Basis During the 2020 Pandemic and as needed during other health care surges, the Medical Center has conducted certain temporary activities in the exterior portions of the Medical Center campus.

This primarily occurs over parking areas. Mobile imaging equipment and tents used for testing or vaccinations are common examples of such temporary uses.

3.2.7 Existing Use Permits
As discussed above, the primary land use for the Medical Center is an acute care hospital, which is an allowed use with approval of a Commission Use Permit (formerly a Conditional Use Permit; the Commission Use Permits and Conditional Use Permits are referred to collectively as “Use Permits.”). As the medical services expanded over the 120-year history of the Medical Center, the City issued a series of Use Permits dating back to 1953. The Use Permits attached to buildings that will not be demolished to accommodate the Medical Center expansion will remain in place.

The City records reflect Use Permits on buildings either never constructed or that have been demolished prior to approval of the Plan. In addition, the Plan contemplates removal of some buildings with existing, valid Use Permits. The Plan is intended to consolidate the remaining Use Permits for reference in one document and update City records regarding Use Permits that are no longer necessary and which will be terminated with Master Development Plan approval via a condition of approval. New or modified hospital uses and ancillary uses will be permitted under the plans, policies and standards of the Plan.

Table 3.2.7-1 describes Use Permits that will remain in place with the reference numbers corresponding to the labels on Figures 3.1-1 and 3.1-2. Table 3.2.7-2 identifies the Use Permits no longer necessary (facilities not constructed, previously demolished, or identified for removal under this Plan).
10 Municipal Code Section 16.240.020 (Definitions).

ATTACHMENT G
303
Table 4.1-2 Expansion Building Summary
Initial Expansion1 (Phases 1-4)
# Building Name Approx. Building
Area3
Approx.

Building
Footprint4
Use Maximum
Building Height2
A New Acute
Care Hospital
Tower
281,000 SF – 331,000
SF
78,730 SF Medical
Services
115ft
excluding
mech. screen
B New Parking
Structure4
Up to 1,980 1,400
parking stalls
Up to 800,000
600,000 SF
90,000 SF Parking and
Heliports
115ft 80ft top
of parking
deck parapet
C New Central
Utility Plant
25,000 SF – 30,000
SF
15,100 SF Support 60ft
D New Fuel Tank
Yard
2,500 SF – 3,500 SF 2,000 SF Support 55ft
E New Generator
Building
Addition
2,000 SF – 3,500 SF 2,000 SF Support 55ft
F New Plant
Maintenance
Building
15,000 SF – 18,000
SF
10,500 SF Support 55ft
Phase 5 Expansion
G Acute Care
Hospital Tower
Potential expansion
up to 150,000 SF
35,000 SF Medical
Services
115ft
excluding
mech. screen
H Parking
Structure
(location to be
determined)
Stall count to be
determined per Plan
standards
To be
determined
Parking To be
determined
1 All buildings are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Health Care Access and Information (HCAI) – formerly OSHPD.
2 Roof mounted structures are not included in building heights. See section 6.3.5. 3 Site coverage and FAR limits indicated in section 6.3.2 and 6.3.3 are based on calculations using these ranges and areas. Building area and building footprint of individual buildings shall be allowed flexibility to meet compliance with the Plan within the overall stated parameters for Site Coverage and FAR calculations. 4 In response to comments on the Draft EIR received from stakeholders, St. Joseph’s also prepared a agreed to Parking Option B that would reduce the size of the Parking Structure as identified in the table. Parking Option B is below the maximum areas and height laid out in table 4.1-2. Parking Option B shows approximately 1,368 parking stalls, a total area of approximately 512,395 sf, and a maximum height of 80ft to the top of the parking deck parapet, excluding roof mounted structures and heliport. To accommodate design flexibility, Parking Option B is presented as a range of 1,368 to 1,400 spaces.

ATTACHMENT G
304
• If two towers, roof top naturally landscaped area for patient viewing may be located in the courtyard of towers

4.2.5 Parking Structure and Surface Level Parking
The Medical Center presently utilizes both below surface level and street level parking, with approximately 1,354 parking spaces devoted to surface and underground parking distributed on and around the Medical Center. Parking presently available on the Medical Center campus is fully used under the existing operational setting and off-campus parking is necessary and used by current staff even prior to any planned expansions.

To maximize the available land within the Medical Center and to centralize parking in a location more convenient to all buildings on the Medical Center, a new Parking Structure with a maximum of nine (9) elevated tiers (excluding roof trauma elevator over-run and heliport areas) will be constructed to accommodate a maximum of 1,980 new parking spaces.

Parking Option A for the new Parking Structure, (the initial application) was is designed as a four (4) bay, nine (9)-elevated tier structure. The four (4) bays include two (2) flat bays and two (2) internal ramp bays. This affords the circulation to move in a rotating pattern independently of each other. This in turn decreases vehicular parking and exiting times. The structure includes up to 1,980 stalls of which approximately 10% are accessible stalls. Those stalls are located on the same bay on every floor. The primary vertical circulation is located on the south bay of the structure (closer to the Acute Care Hospital Tower), and it encompasses five (5) elevators in two (2) banks. There are four (4) pedestrian exit stairs primarily located toward each corner to facilitate code required exiting. The floor-to-floor heights are 12ft and include ample room to meet the required 8’-2” clear height required for accessible stalls. The uppermost parking deck of the structure was is at approximately 108ft above grade with perimeter parapet at approximately 115ft. The elevator over-runs and heliport exceed these heights (but are excluded from building height per section 6.3.4). A potential photovoltaic array is proposed to be installed on rooftop or the side of the Parking Structure for energy generation and is also excluded from the overall building height. This maximum structure size was evaluated in the DEIR.

In response to comments on the Draft EIR received from stakeholders, St. Joseph’s also prepared a Parking Option B that would agreed to reduce the size of the Parking Structure. Parking Option B for the new Parking Structure is designed as a six (6)-elevated tier structure. The structure includes a range of between 1,368 and no more than 1,400 stalls, of which approximately 10% are accessible stalls. The uppermost parking deck of the structure is at approximately 72ft above grade with perimeter parapet at approximately 80ft (excluding roof mounted structures and heliport). All design criteria regarding bays, ramps, elevators, and vehicle circulation are the same as outlined for Parking Option A.

The heliport structure will accommodate multiple helicopters and is designed so that vehicles can circulate below the heliport platform. Closely positioned with the heliports are a dual bank of dedicated elevators that are a two (2) stop design (top and bottom floor only).

The parking structure can accommodate bicycle parking and electric vehicle charging stations as required by the most recent code requirements and as described in Chapter 6.

ATTACHMENT G
305
The number of tiers and building height of the Parking Structure is intended to support design flexibility, including pre-fabrication opportunities, as the overall Medical Center planning process continues through each phase. The final number of parking spaces (not to exceed 1,400) will be determined through the entitlement process and refined as part of the design of buildings, considering Municipal Code minimum parking requirements, hospital experiences with greater demand for parking spaces, as well as physical design to minimize building massing on adjacent streets. St. Joseph’s decades of operations experience, both with this Medical Center and with other facilities, indicates that patients and visitors benefit from extra parking above Municipal Code requirements. Patrons with mobility challenges and who do not have access to disabled parking placards require both closer short-term parking and wider parking spaces than may be required under minimum parking requirements. The number of parking spaces in the parking structure will not exceed 1,980 1,400 parking spaces. without analysis of additional environmental impacts under the procedures in Chapter 8, and particularly Section 8.3.1 (Subsequent Environmental Review).

The Project also includes new surface parking for the Emergency Department for approximately 70 spaces. This surface parking is located between the Acute Care Hospital Tower and the Parking Structure. A smaller surface lot north of the Parking Structure will hold approximately 16 stalls.

At final buildout of Phases 1-4, total maximum parking including underground, surface level, and Parking Structure is identified and summarized in Table 4.2.5-1 and 4.2.5-2.

Table 4.2.5-1 Parking Summary (Parking Option A)
Total Existing Parking
(Excluding Public right-of-way)
1,354
Existing Parking to be Removed by Area
North Lot -606
Administration Lot -7
Administration Overflow Lot -9
McCloud Avenue -24
HCCL North -6
HCCL South -21
Vendor/Maintenance -7
Total Parking Removed -680
New Parking Stalls Provided
New Parking Structure Stalls 1,980
North Surface Lot 16
ED Parking Lot 70
Parking Total
Phase 1-4 Buildout 2,740

ATTACHMENT G
306
Table 4.2.5-2 Parking Summary (Parking Option B)
Total Existing Parking
(Excluding Public right-of-way)
1,354
Existing Parking to be Removed by Area
North Lot -606
Administration Lot -7
Administration Overflow Lot -9
McCloud Avenue -24
HCCL North -6
HCCL South -21
Vendor/Maintenance -7
Total Parking Removed -680
New Parking Stalls Provided
New Parking Structure Stalls 1,400
North Surface Lot 16
ED Parking Lot 70
Parking Total
Phase 1-4 Buildout 2,160
The Parking Plan is included as Appendix, Attachment 15. The technical analysis supporting the Plan is included as Appendix, Attachment 16.

4.2.6 Heliports.

The existing heliport on the roof of the main hospital building at 1800 N. California will remain and is licensed to accommodate maximum weight capacity of 7,000 pounds. This existing heliport will be proximate to the surgery center and the Use Permit for this heliport will remain in place.

This existing heliport is located close to the newborn intensive care unit and provides vital aerial transport for some of the most vulnerable patients. The existing heliport is also anticipated to be used to provide back-up to the new heliport(s), or for transport of supplies or patients to or from the surgery center. As noted in Section 3.2.5, current heliport usage is approximately 15 unscheduled flights per month.

The existing heliport is a valuable resource. Retention of this landing area will provide operational flexibility and, at times, will limit community impacts from helicopter operations. Single heliport hospitals and surrounding areas sometimes experience impacts when helicopters hover waiting for a helicopter to depart a landing area. Having both heliports available will mitigate this condition. Further, there are instances when helicopters are dispatched to medical facilities with dispatch officers unaware that a heliport is occupied. The second heliport will minimize any disruption in medical service.

ATTACHMENT G
307
Plan. If hook-ups are used, there will still be a minimum of one (1) tank with at least 5,000 gallon capacity.15

4.6.6 Future Safety Retrofit Requirements
As building requirements and seismic and other safety standards evolve over time, additional retrofits (whether to achieve seismic protections or for other health/safety reasons) may be necessary and would be included within the scope of the development policies and design standards of the Plan. Safety retrofits may be presented for approval under the administrative procedures set forth in Chapter 8 and will include, but not be limited to, interior and exterior modifications, replacement of windows, and adjustments to building fenestrations. The Development Policies and Design Standards of the Plan will be applied to future building retrofits and those retrofits will also be subject to approval as “Minor Changes to the Plan” as authorized by Municipal Code Section 16.140.110B and in “substantial conformity” with the Plan if the criteria of Section 8.4.1 of the Plan are met.

4.7 Emergency Public Health Services, Disaster Management and Emergency Services Medical facilities are a central location for emergency public health services, as well as a crucial resource for disaster management and emergency preparedness for a community. St. Joseph’s has provided these services in the past and has identified the continuation of such services as a key objective for the expansion program.

Figure 4.7 identifies logical locations for emergency service facilities, which can range from tented treatment areas that may include testing or vaccination services (similar to what was in place at many medical facility locations during the 2020 Pandemic), to mobile technology treatment locations. Emergency public health service facilities will be located in close proximity to critical services provided within the buildings; i.e., radiology and emergency department.

Due to the available locations, emergency service facilities may temporarily impact available parking stalls which would reduce the current parking ratio of 3.7 stalls per licensed bed, and the maximum ratio of up to 5.6 stalls per licensed bed. (As noted in Section 4.2.5, Option B for the Parking Structure is the applicant’s request an alternative size of the Parking Structure is included in the Plan, which would result in an actual lower ratio per bed, with the potential for increased off-site parking, if necessary.) When these emergency services are being provided the parking ratio shall be allowed to be reduced temporarily for the duration of the services provided.

The Municipal Code provides an exemption to the requirement for a temporary use permit for “[e]mergency public health and safety needs and use activities.” Municipal Code section

16.164.030(A)(5). In light of this exemption and the intended nature of proposed temporary facilities for emergency public health services, disaster management and emergency preparedness, no additional City approval is anticipated to be required. Hospital management will continue to work closely with City staff, as it has in the past, to provide information on available resources in times of emergency needs.
15California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Section 615.4.1.

ATTACHMENT G
308
flow will be applied and submitted to the Fire Marshal for approval. If structures are reduced in size from the maximum allowed under the Plan, fire flow requirements will decrease.

Table 5.9.2-1 Proposed Building Fire Flow Summary
Building1 Total Building Area,
square feet
Fire Flow,
gpm3
Reduced 75% Fire
Flow, gpm4
Acute Care Hospital Tower 331,000 4,7505 1,500
Parking Structure 800,0008 3,2506 1,5009
Central Utility Plant 30,000 1,750 1,500
Generator Building Addition 3,500 1,500 1,500
Plant Maintenance Building 18,000 1,500 1,500
Phase 5 Acute Care Hospital
Tower
150,000 3,2507
1,500
Phase 5 Parking Structure 200,000 2,2508 1,500

1.All proposed buildings are assumed to be fully sprinklered and of Type IA type of construction. Each of the fire flow calculations is based on maximum building size and would be reduced if square footage is reduced during the design process

2. Fire Flow per CFC Table B105.1

3. 75% reduction for sprinklered building per CFC Table B105.2

4. Per CFC Section B104.3, for Type IA construction, building area shall be the area of the three largest successive floors. Assuming the Hospital Tower is five (5) stories, that equals 66,200 sf per floor, or 198,600 sf for three successive floors.

5. Per CFC Section B104.3, for Type IA construction, fire flow for parking garages shall be determined by the area of the largest floor. Assuming the Parking Structure is ten (10) levels (ground and nine (9) elevated levels). The approximate footprint of the parking garage is 90,000 sf, which is the size of the assumed largest floor.

6. Per CFC Section B104.3, for Type IA construction, building area shall be the area of the three largest successive floors. Assuming the Phase 5 Hospital Tower is five (5) stories,(see section 4.4) that equals 30,000 sf per floor, or 90,000 sf for three successive floors.

7. Per CFC Section B104.3, for Type IA construction, fire flow for parking garages shall be determined by the area of the largest floor. For purposes of the fire flow analysis, the 200,000 sf Phase 5 Parking Structure is assumed to be five (5) stories, and the largest floor would be 40,000 sf.

8.Option A for the Parking structure will be up to 800,000sf. Option B will be up to 512,395sf 600,000sf.

9. Fire Flow demands for the reduced size parking structure will be updated for City review prior to submittal of improvement plans, but will not increase because of the smaller size of the building.

A fire flow demand of 1,500-gpm was applied at an existing fire hydrant located at the northwest corner of McCloud Avenue and Cemetery Lane. Flowing this fire hydrant was found to give the lowest residual pressure results (worst case condition). The following table summarizes the fire flow demand and residual pressure at the flowing fire hydrant.

ATTACHMENT G
309

6.2.5 Medical Related
Allowed medical related uses include facilities for activities associated with medical treatment.

This includes acupuncture; offices of dentists, doctors, psychiatrists/psychologists, and other medical professionals; medical-related counseling services; pharmacies; and physical therapy.

Temporary medical-related uses shall be allowed, including mobile trailers, vaccination tents, and drive through vaccination and testing. (See also Section 4.7 of the Plan.)

6.2.6 Medical Administration
Medical administration facilities, including offices of doctors and medical professionals, are an allowed use.

Current administration buildings include the Main Hospital Wing, the Administration Wing, and the McCloud Building. Medical Administration facilities and business services may also be located in temporary (modular) structures.

6.2.7 Medical Education
Medical education is an allowed use and is integrated into the regular functions of the hospital.

Part of the hospital’s mission is to serve as a Graduate Medical Educational facility. This educational function (located in the HCCL Building) is integrated into the hospital facilities and provides resident physicians with training in a variety of specialties. Medical education also includes training for nurses and medical technicians.

6.2.8 Parking
Parking lots and structures are provided for in the Master Development Plan to support the primary land uses, as further described in Section 6.3.7 and 6.4.7. The Master Development Plan includes up to a Parking Structure with up to nine (9) six (6) tiers above ground to serve hospital employees and visitors. Off-campus parking may also be implemented to complement, as needed, on-campus parking spaces. Parking adjacent to modular structures will be allowed through the Temporary Activity Permit process (Municipal Code Section 16.164.030).

6.2.9 Physical Plant
The physical plant is an allowed ancillary use to support the overall Master Development Plan area. Physical plant uses may include utility plant (boiler/chiller), emergency generators, water wells, Plant Maintenance building, bulk oxygen tank storage, hazardous materials storage, fuel storage, loading docks, and similar elements required to support the Medical Center functions.

6.2.10 Heliport
Heliports associated with the hospital shall be an allowed use. A hospital heliport is defined as a restricted use airfield by the Municipal Code.28 The California Department of Transportation, Aviation Division, will also provide a heliport license upon approval of the land use authorities (i.e., the City) and, prior to activation of a heliport, receipt of a letter from the Federal Aviation 28 Municipal Code Section 16.240.020.

ATTACHMENT G
310
Table 6.9-1 Design Deviations
Setbacks
(Deviation from 16.24.200 Table 2-3)
Descriptor
Municipal Code Requirement
CO Zone CG Zone MDP Guidelines
Setbacks
Front 10 ft 10 ft 0 ft1
Side 5 ft 0 ft1 0 ft1
Side, Street 10 ft 10 ft 0 ft1
Rear 10 ft 0 ft1 0 ft1
Building Heights
(Deviation from 16.24.200 Table 2-3 and 16.36.090-B4)
Height 45 ft 45 ft 115 ft2 – hospital
115 ft2
– Parking
Structure Option A
or 80 ft2 – Parking
Structure Option B
75 ft2
– support
buildings
Roof-Mounting Screening
(Deviation from 16.36.090-B1)
Height As required to screen roof-mounted HVAC equipment Site Coverage and Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
(Deviation from 16.24.200 Table 2-3)
Max. Lot Coverage 60% 60% 95%
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.3 0.3 Current Medical Center
has a FAR of 0.84.

Proposed deviation of

3.0 Bicycle Parking
(Deviation from 16.64.100-B)
Bike Racks 10% of
off-street
stalls
10% of
off-street
stalls
1% of off-street parking
stalls
Bike Lockers (Longterm)
10% of bike racks shall be for long-term bike parking

ATTACHMENT G
311
Attachment 15
St. Joseph’s Medical Center, Hospital Expansion Project Parking Plan, September 2023

ATTACHMENT G
312
ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER OF STOCKTON

HOSPITAL EXPANSION PROJECT

MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
ATTACHMENT 15

PARKING PLAN

ATTACHMENT G
313

PARKING PLAN

1. Purpose of the Parking Plan
This Parking Plan for the St. Joseph’s Medical Center of Stockton – Hospital Expansion Project (the “Project”) is approved as part of the Master Development Plan (the “Plan”) for the Project. This Parking Plan identifies the initial anticipated parking demands both during construction (i.e., the Temporary Parking) and the parking that will be provided to serve the expanded facilities after completion of the Project (i.e., the Permanent Parking).

Through the approval of the Parking Plan as part of the Project, St. Joseph’s1 will be afforded flexibility should the need arise for modification of this Parking Plan, whether due to unanticipated circumstances during construction or as the Project is developed. This Parking Plan may be amended as part of the Administrative Procedures in Chapter 8 of the Plan. Revisions to this Parking Plan will not require an amendment of the Master Development Plan.

2. Parking Demand Requirements
Parking demand requirements are estimated based upon maximum Project buildout and are set forth in Sections 4.2.5 and 6.3.7 of the Plan. The Parking Summary (both existing and maximum anticipated) is listed in Table 4.2.5-1 of the Plan, copied below. 1 Capitalized terms that are not defined in this Parking Plan will have the meaning used in the Master Development Plan.

ATTACHMENT G
314
Total Existing Parking
(Excluding Public right-of-way)
1,354
Existing Parking to be Removed by Area
North Lot -606
Administration Lot -7
Administration Overflow Lot -9
McCloud Avenue -24
HCCL North -6
HCCL South -21
Vendor/Maintenance -7
Total Parking Removed -680
New Parking Stalls Provided
New Parking Structure Stalls 1,980 1,4001
North Surface Lot 16
ED Parking Lot 70
Parking Total
Phase 1-4 Buildout 2,740
1 Option A will provide up to 1,980 parking stalls, Option B includes a range of between 1,368 and 1,400 parking stalls.

This Parking Summary provides a reference to existing and anticipated additional parking spaces at various lots on the Medical Center Campus (the “Campus”) and also within the new parking structure that will provide permanent parking once the expansion is complete. The anticipated total parking for Option A upon completion of Phases 1-4 is approximately 2,740 spaces within the boundaries of the Campus (both within parking structures and on surface lots).

The parking yield information included in Table 4.2.5-1 and the demand requirements in Section

6.3.7 of the Plan were used as the basis for environmental analysis of the Project. If a revision to this Parking Plan results in a change to the parking yield analysis, the City will evaluate whether additional environmental analysis is necessary pursuant to Section 8.3 of the Plan.

3. Permanent Parking
The Master Development Plan identifies a requirement of a minimum of two (2) stalls per licensed bed consistent with Municipal Code section 16.64.040, Table 3.9. (See Master Development Plan,

ATTACHMENT G
315
Section 6.3.7) St. Joseph’s requested and the Plan incorporates flexibility to include up to 5.6 parking stalls per licensed bed. The locations for new parking stalls to meet the anticipated demand for Permanent Parking are set forth in Section 4.2.5 of the Plan, and include existing and new surface parking lots, an existing parking structure adjacent to the Women and Children’s Pavilion, and the new parking structure immediately north of the new Acute Care Hospital Tower. Street parking is not included in the analysis of available parking to serve the expanded Campus services.

The design standards for the new parking structure are set forth in Sections 4.2.5, 6.3.7, and 6.4.7 of the Plan. Except for the modifications noted below relative to capacity of the new parking structure and location of surface level parking, the design standards of the Master Development Plan shall be applied to Permanent Parking in this Parking Plan, unless an amendment is approved pursuant to the administrative procedures of Chapter 8 of the Plan.

Parking Option A as outlined in the Master Development Plan, includes a new parking structure of up to nine (9) six (6) elevated tiers (excluding roof trauma elevator over-run and heliport areas) that will accommodate a maximum of 1,980 1,400 new parking spaces. During the design of the new Acute Care Hospital Tower, if St. Joseph’s determines that a smaller structure meets service requirements (for patients, visitors and staff), the new parking structure may, at the election of St.

Joseph’s, be reduced in size so long as the alternative size meets the minimum parking requirements for a hospital as stated in Municipal Code section 16.64.040, Table 3.9. In other words, if St.

Joseph’s determines that the estimated 5.6 parking stalls per bed is not necessary due to changes in driving patterns, particularly of families and friends of patients, St. Joseph’s may construct a smaller parking structure so long as the minimum Code requirement of two (2) stalls per bed is satisfied.

Final size of the parking structure shall be identified on the Site Plan, submitted for review as provided for in Section 8.2.2 of the Plan. In response to comments on the Draft EIR received from stakeholders, St. Joseph’s agreed to implement also prepared a Parking Option B that would reduce the size of the Parking Structure. The Master Development Plan does not, however, reduce the stated maximum parking ratio, and acknowledges that additional, yet to be identified, off-site parking may be required if the smaller Parking Structure is insufficient.

While the location of the new parking structure is not likely to change during the buildout of Phases 1-4, the construction of Phase 5 as outlined in the Plan (see Section 4.4 of the Master Development Plan) is likely to impact on-site surface level parking that is included in the calculation of Permanent Parking in Table 4.2.5-1. St. Joseph’s will provide to the City an analysis of parking capacity and parking demand with the submittal of building plans for Phase 5 to allow for complete analysis (including environmental review, if necessary) to determine if additional parking is required to service Phase 5. If it is determined that the new parking structure has sufficient capacity for Phase 5 building(s), no additional parking may be required.

4. Temporary Parking
Construction of the expansion of the Medical Center will span multiple years and will occur in phases. (See Master Development Plan, Section 4.3, for a description of the anticipated phasing of the Project construction.) As each phase occurs, existing parking will be displaced, and temporary parking must be provided in a safe location that adequately serves patients, visitors, and staff. In addition, temporary parking will be needed to accommodate construction workers. Although street parking was not counted as part of the allocation of new parking spaces, street parking that is

ATTACHMENT G
316
currently in use (i.e., on Cemetery Lane and McCloud Avenue) is counted in the total number of displaced parking spaces.

At the start of each new phase of construction, temporary parking demands will be updated to identify adequate parking during each phase of construction. Under the current construction plan, the new parking structure will be built during Phase 2, which is anticipated to alleviate any parking shortages by the time the construction of the new Acute Care Hospital Tower begins as part of Phase 3.

Figure A depicts graphically the displacement of parking during construction.

The summary of spaces that will be displaced during construction by location is as follows:

Existing Parking to be Removed by Area
North Lot -606
Administration Lot -7
Administration Overflow Lot -9
McCloud Avenue -24
HCCL North -6
HCCL South -21
Vendor/Maintenance -7
Total Parking Removed -680
An estimated total of 680 parking spaces will be displaced, although the disruption will vary by phase. The anticipated parking needs by phase, which also includes anticipated needs for parking for construction workers, are identified in Figure B “Conceptual Project Parking Schedule.” The Conceptual Parking Schedule is based on current known data at the time of approval of the Project. The exact numbers of displaced parking stalls and employees who need off-site parking will vary as the final building designs are developed. Required temporary parking stalls may decrease in number. Alternatively, if the construction schedule requires an adjustment in the phased schedule or if additional parking becomes necessary either to accommodate construction workers or improve access to medical facilities, the Project Parking Schedule will be revised and provided to the City as a revision to this Parking Plan.

The Project Parking Schedule identifies shortages of on-site parking during Phases 1 and 2. The onsite parking shortages will be satisfied by off-site parking, whether on property owned by St.

Joseph’s or an affiliated entity or through lease of parking through third parties.

ATTACHMENT G
317
The environmental impact report evaluated potential sites for temporary parking that would be within a short shuttle ride to the St. Joseph’s Medical Center. Several sites are possible locations that would be within approximately 0.7 to 0.9 miles to the closest drop off points at the Campus.

Drop off points and frequency of shuttle services to and from the off-site temporary parking areas will be determined and adjusted as needed to accommodate employee shifts, construction worker shifts, and parking for family and friends of patients.

St. Joseph’s will continue to identify temporary parking opportunities, along with suitable transport by shuttle, to meet each level of parking demand by phase as set forth in Figure B. This Parking Plan will be revised to include additional off-site parking as those locations are secured by St. Joseph’s.

The construction of all temporary off-site parking lots will meet all local ordinances, including the materials used, installation, striping and other surface markings, and lighting. If a temporary parking area identified in the future is unimproved, the surface of this temporary parking area shall be improved per the Municipal Code requirements.

This process also will be used for temporary parking for construction personnel. Potential sites that are located within a mile of the Medical Center Campus were identified for purposes of the evaluation of environmental impacts. When actual sites are secured for construction personnel, those parking areas will meet City requirements for temporary construction paring. Temporary lighting also shall be provided and meet safety standards under the Municipal Code.

5. Phase 5 Parking
Figure B identifies anticipated parking shortage for Phase 5. The analysis for Phase 5 assumes full build out of Phases 1 – 4 at the maximum capacities identified in the Master Development Plan. The Project Parking Schedule will be updated prior to issuance of a building permit for any Phase 5 building(s) to ensure that (a) actual parking demands are incorporated into the analysis for Temporary and Permanent Parking related to Phase 5 and (b) that adequate parking during and after construction of Phase 5 is available at the time the parking is needed. The estimates for Phase 5 are presented as estimates, only, and the actual demands for Temporary and Permanent Parking will be reviewed under the Administrative Procedures of Chapter 8 of the Plan.

ATTACHMENT G
318
1 From: Ricky Gill <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 11:13 AM
To: CCͲCity Clerk <[email protected]>; Stephanie Ocasio <[email protected]>; Michael McDowell <[email protected]>; Waqar Rizvi <[email protected]>; Rajan Nathaniel <[email protected]>; Gurneel Boparai <[email protected]>; Brenda Jones <[email protected]>; Greg Thompson <[email protected]>; Terry Hull <[email protected]>; Anne Mallett <[email protected]>; Harry Black <[email protected]>; William Crew <[email protected]> Cc: John Conger <[email protected]>; Colin Hunter <[email protected]>; Brett S. S. Jolley <[email protected]>; Chaman Gill <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Ricky Gill <[email protected]> Subject: Gill Medical Center / St. Joseph's Hospital Expansion: Withdrawal of Objections CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Stockton.Do not click any links or open attachments if this is unsolicited email.

Dear Planning Commissioners and City leadership:

I wanted to inform you that Gill Medical Center, LLC (GMC) and Dignity Health/St. Joseph’s Medical Center (SJMC) have resolved all concerns GMC and the Gill family have previously raised with regard to the SJMC expansion on the California Street corridor, including those concerns I raised in my email of September 11, 2023, the enclosed August 15 letter addressed to Stockton Planning Commissioners, and any related communications with City staff or officials. GMC and the Gill family hereby withdraw all such objections.
Our counsel, Brett Jolley, will appear at the Planning Commission meeting this evening to confirm that GMC has withdrawn all objections to the SJMC expansion.

Thank you for your consideration.

All the best,
Ricky Gill

ATTACHMENT G
319
1 From: Ricky Gill <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:15 PM
To: CC - City Clerk; Stephanie Ocasio; Michael McDowell Cc: Harry Black; William Crew; Waqar Rizvi; Rajan Nathaniel; Terry Hull; Anne Mallett; Gurneel Boparai; Brenda Jones; Greg Thompson
Subject: Official Communication for the Record / 9-14-23 Planning Commission Meeting Attachments: GMC PC Ltr RE SJMC Expansion.pdf; Attachment A - GMC Comment Letter on SJMC EIR (Final with Exhibits) (GMC Comment Letter on SJMC EIR (Final with Exhibits).pdf_1).pdf; Attachment B - 1707 N California St. Aerial.jpg; Attachment C - St. Joseph's Expansion.pptx; Attachment D - 23.03.01 Site Plan.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Stockton.Do not click any links or open attachments if this is unsolicited email.

Dear City Clerk and Planning Commission Staff: Attached, you will find official communication from Gill Medical Center (GMC) regarding the proposed St. Joseph's Medical Center expansion, which will be considered by the City of Stockton Planning Commission on Thursday, September 14th, 2023. GMC notes this communication was omitted from attachment J of the upcoming 9/14 Planning Commission Agenda / meeting packet. This correspondence and all relevant enclosures were conveyed to Stockton Planning Commissioners via their official email addresses on August 15th, and this material was additionally transmitted to the City Manager through official email on August 16th. Please enter the attached into the record in advance of this Thursday's session and print for the Commissioners' review.

Thank you,
Ricky Gill

ATTACHMENT G
320
1 Gill Medical Center, LLC P.O. Box 1450
Lodi, CA 95241
Phone (209) 334-6583
Fax (209) 334-5007
[email protected]
Stockton Planning Commission
425 N. El Dorado St.

Stockton, CA 95202
August 15, 2023
Dear Planning Commissioners:

I’m writing to address the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) relating to the expansion of St. Joseph’s Medical Center (SJMC), which I understand the Planning Commission intends to consider at one of its upcoming meetings.

In considering the proposed expansion of SJMC described in its EIR, my family and I believe the Planning Commission has a unique opportunity to support our growing community’s needs for clinical healthcare expansion and more housing, while also meeting the City’s legal obligation to mitigate the significant associated serious environmental impacts it presents.

I note at the outset that my family and I have been longstanding partners and supporters of SJMC.1 We continue to support and partner with SJMC today, and—to be clear—we believe its expansion has the potential to greatly improve the availability of certain clinical healthcare services in our community. Nonetheless, we believe the hospital’s EIR suffers from serious deficiencies that will, if left unaddressed, have a significant negative impact on the California Street corridor that will persist for decades and expose the City to undue legal risk. Many of these issues were first raised in the draft EIR comment letter Gill Medical Center, LLC (GMC) submitted on June 1, 2023.2 First, SJMC (and its parent, Dignity Health) systematically failed to consider the possibility of including the nearly 3-acre property that GMC owns at 1707 N. California St.3—which GMC purchased from SJMC in 2006—as part of its expansion. As early as 2017, GMC specifically discussed the possibility of using its property to the west of N. California St.—including the parcel at 1707 N. California St.—as part of the hospital’s eventual expansion.4
GMC believed then, and we continue to believe now, that integrating our property into the hospital campus would render unnecessary the enormous 2,000- stall, roughly 12-story garage that SJMC is proposing to construct east of California Street. SJMC’s failure to analyze this alternative—namely, expanding SJMC to the west, onto property that GMC specifically offered to make available for that purpose—is a glaring omission in this EIR. GMC also believes that SJMC’s expansion will put an enormous strain on utilities, including by placing the sewer system on N. California St. at or near its capacity, a matter that is not adequately addressed in the EIR.
1 I initiated the hospital’s laparoscopic surgery program for women in the early 1990s, and I later served as a board member for the hospital foundation. My wife, Dr. Param Gill, is proud to have served as one of the first female chiefs of staff at SJMC.
2 Attachment A: GMC comment letter on the SJMC DEIR, dated June 1, 2023. 3 Attachment B: Aerial image of the GMC property (1707 N. California St.) and SJMC. 4 Attachment C: Hospital expansion plan involving 1707 N. California St. as presented by GMC to SJMC leadership in 2017.

ATTACHMENT G
321
2 In addition, SJMC remains untenably opposed to GMC’s proposal to construct workforce housing on the 1707 N. California St. property, even though incorporating housing would serve as an environmental mitigation for its massive project, including by allowing SJMC employees to sustainably walk to work. SJMC irrationally contends that any multi-family residential component on the GMC property would be detrimental to the community, which is contradicted by the City’s designation of this parcel as a Housing Action Plan top-ten priority site. Dignity has invoked obsolete deed restrictions and withheld required site plan approval for GMC’s mixed-use building5 because it
incorporates multi-family residential, a position that runs counter to California’s environmental laws requiring project applicants to take reasonable measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

As a community, we have one chance to make a generational change on the California Street corridor. Patients, visitors, and employees of SJMC, along with our fellow community members, are depending on the Planning Commission to exercise its authority responsibly to shape this project for the betterment of Stockton. Rather than embracing this opportunity for positive change, the current version of SJMC’s proposed expansion—including its 12-story parking garage—would saddle the community with an unworkable, inefficient development for decades to come. Therefore, I urge you to pause consideration of the SJMC expansion unless and until the hospital lifts its inexplicable objections to housing on the GMC property and fully considers GMC’s longstanding offer to collaborate on better solutions using its property at 1707 N. California St. This includes the possibility of constructing a second garage at 1707 N. California St.—an option that hospital leadership solicited from GMC as recently as late July 2023 to avoid constructing a single, enormous garage east of California St., which would deposit everyone exiting the garage onto a single lane of a street that will soon be reduced to two lanes.6

Since purchasing the 1707 N. California St. property in 2006, GMC has attempted to partner with SJMC on at least five projects over 16 years that would provide medical office and clinical space, but ultimately the hospital’s non-participation and opposition rendered each project nonviable. Given the hospital’s lack of interest in those projects, GMC in the 2021-22 timeframe instead proposed a mixed-use development, including multi-family residential, that it believes would be in the best interest of the property, California Street and the City of Stockton. GMC’s property could accommodate both a mixed-use building on the eastern edge and a secondary garage for SJMC on the western portion, simultaneously fulfilling the need for housing and additional hospital parking on the California St. corridor.

GMC also has a track record of enhancing the neighborhood around the hospital, and it would be pleased to work with SJMC to continue doing so. GMC has worked diligently to consolidate and improve the property at 1707 N. California St. over the past decade, including by purchasing two homes at 415 and 417 E. Walnut Ave. from third party sellers, to allow for the consolidation of the 3- acre block between Walnut and Chestnut Streets under a single owner for the first time. (In the years since then, GMC has leased much of that block to SJMC for its employees’ parking.) GMC’s principals also developed a multi-tenant, Starbucks-anchored retail center known as “Gill Grove” directly to the south of 1707 N. California St., which has greatly enriched the surrounding area, addressed the prevailing food desert around the hospital and improved the patient and employee experience at SJMC.

We continue to believe that the development of multi-family residential on the 1707 N. California St. property, which would primarily be occupied by SJMC staff and physician residents living within 5 Attachment D: Mixed-use site plan, submitted by GMC to Dignity Health, on March 1, 2023. 6 https://siegfriedeng.com/portfolio/city-of-stockton-california-street-road-diet-phase-i/

ATTACHMENT G
322
3 walking distance of the hospital, is a feasible environmental mitigation that would naturally reduce greenhouse gas emissions from a hospital expansion involving the addition of hundreds of new employees. As SJMC’s development documents point out, the hospital is attracting over 200 new physician residents to the hospital as part of its graduate medical education programs; market-rate housing made available to these residents on the GMC property would certainly assist with recruitment and retention of these doctors, helping alleviate the provider shortages in our community. But for Dignity’s arbitrary refusal to provide site plan approval, GMC would be eligible for an over the counter, ministerial permit for this mixed-use project under the City’s zoning code. In fact, the City Council voted in the summer of 2022 to zone the entirety of the GMC property Commercial Office (“CO”), paving the way for a modern, mixed-use development to proceed on site.

Unfortunately, this has not prevented Dignity from making erroneous statements about the GMC property, including in an April 13, 2023, public workshop where SJMC land-use counsel stated incorrectly that multi-family residential is prohibited in the “CO” zone. Moreover, the City initiative to label the GMC property as a top-ten Housing Action Plan priority site, where infill residential should be encouraged, highlights the mixed-use project’s consistency with the Stockton General Plan goals.

The most problematic aspect of the SJMC expansion was and remains avoidable: the mammoth 12- story, 2000-stall parking garage that will aggravate traffic on California St., itself in the process of a road diet approved by the City in 2017. SJMC leadership not only willfully failed to explore the prospect of long-term parking on the GMC property; they even misled the public on this point. In that same April 13, 2023, public workshop, SJMC representatives said that the GMC property was never made available to the hospital for its expansion. In fact, GMC principals and hospital leadership had discussed incorporating the GMC property into the medical campus as early as 2017, including discussing proposals for a garage that would roughly halve the size of the proposed parking structure east of California St.

Under CEQA guidelines, the threshold for including a site among the EIR alternatives is whether it will feasibly attain most of the project objectives and would avert or substantially lessen environmental impacts, a standard that was certainly met and exceeded when GMC and SJMC discussed integrating this parcel into the medical campus. We continue to believe there is no legally valid basis for its exclusion from the EIR alternatives analysis. GMC continues to believe that locating a significant portion of SJMC’s parking needs on the 1707 N. California St. property will mitigate environmental impacts and benefit the hospital’s patients, employees, and visitors tremendously - including by allowing easier parking and expedited patient transport to points on the southern end of the SJMC campus where important clinical services exist, such as the Cancer Center, Heart Center, Outpatient Surgery, NICU and Women & Children’s Pavilion.

It is worth noting that SJMC currently leases roughly 145 parking stalls from GMC on the western portion of the 1707 N. California St. property, meaning the hospital has already deemed its location suitable for employee parking. It also stands to reason that the accumulation of traffic from a single parking structure east of California St. will negatively impact the ability of ambulances to access the medical center, when minutes count to save lives. Adding a secondary garage on the GMC property would not only address those operational inefficiencies, but also would allow patients, employees, and visitors to exit much more smoothly onto both sides of N. California St. – which is particularly significant, again, because the City is presently reducing California St. to one lane in each direction.

We believe the Planning Commission has a responsibility to address the numerous deficiencies with the SJMC EIR, ensuring that the California Street corridor gets the properly integrated medical

ATTACHMENT G
323
4 campus and workforce housing that Stockton deserves and the City’s Housing Action Plan endorses.

To be clear, GMC is not asking you to reject the SJMC expansion, but rather to pause its consideration so the hospital and City can further examine the serious traffic impacts posed by the 2,000-stall garage on an imminently narrowed California Street and evaluate the alternative of longterm parking on the GMC property. Doing so will not only contribute to the health and well-being of our community, but it will also protect the City by ensuring its approval of the SJMC expansion will withstand any legal challenges that may be brought.

Sincerely,
Jasbir S. Gill, MD Diplomate of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology

ATTACHMENT G
324

GILL MEDICAL CENTER, LLC
P.O. BOX 1450
LODI, CA95241
June 1, 2023
Via Email
Nicole D. Moore, LEED-AP
Current Planning Manager
Community Development Department
345 N. El Dorado Street
Stockton CA 95202
nicole.moore[email protected]
Christine Kronenberg, AICP
Senior Project Manager
Dudek
1810 13th Street, Ste. 110
Sacramento, California 95811
[email protected]
Re: Comments of Gill Medical Center, LLC on Draft Environmental Impact Report for St. Joseph’s Medical Center Hospital Expansion Project (SCH No. 2021120439) Dear Planning Manager Moore and Senior Project Manager Kronenberg:

Gill Medical Center, LLC (“GMC”) respectfully submits these comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) prepared for the proposed St. Joseph’s Medical Center Hospital Expansion Project (“Project”). GMC owns real property located directly across California Street from the Project, commonly known as 1707 N. California Street (hereafter the “GMC Property”; see aerial image attached as Exhibit A).

While GMC supports the development of further hospital services at this location, GMC also believes it is in all parties’ interests to ensure such development is consistent with the City’s General Plan, zoning ordinance, and Housing Action Plan; that the public and decisionmakers fully understand the Project’s impacts to housing availability and the Applicant’s role in affecting such availability; and that significant environmental impacts from the Project are fully considered through proposed mitigation measures and project alternatives as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. C. §§21000 et seq. and Tit. 14 Cal. Code of Regs. §§15000, et seq., hereafter “CEQA”).

The DEIR Must Consider the Project’s Impacts to Housing Availability in the City of Stockton
The DEIR notes that “[a]t full project build-out, the Medical Center would include approximately 3,230 employees, including doctors, nurses, and administrative staff; this represents an increase of 365 employees from the current total of 2,865.” (DEIR at 4.7- 29). But the EIR never addresses the environmental setting of housing under-supply and how this Project will impact that supply. Nor does it address mitigating significant

ATTACHMENT G
325
Nicole D. Moore
Christine Kronenberg
June 1, 2023

{00196817.}
environmental impacts from the project by including housing development as part of the Project’s master plan.

1. Environmental Setting – undersupply of housing.
“An EIR must describe existing environmental conditions in the vicinity of the proposed project, which is referred to as the ‘environmental setting’ for the project...

This description of existing environmental conditions ordinarily serves as the ‘baseline’ for measuring the changes to the environment that will result from the project and for determining whether those environmental effects are significant.” (Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act, §12.16; see also CEQA Guidelines §15125(a).) The California Supreme Court explains the EIR “must delineate environmental conditions prevailing absent the project, defining a ‘baseline’ against which predicted effects can be described and quantified.” (Neighbors for Smart Rail v.

Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2013) 57 Cal.4th 439,447.) Stockton suffers from a severe housing shortage, and the City is currently updating the General Plan Housing Element and preparing a Housing Action Plan (“HAP”) to “increase housing production by serving as a toolkit for residents, housing developers, and nonprofits identifying future potential housing locations.”1 The DEIR does not address what impact the Project will have on available housing stock in the City.

Though not disclosed, presumably a substantial portion of the 365 new employees will be skilled workers/physicians-in-training/medical professionals who will come from outside the area and require housing. The DEIR acknowledges this increase in employees will lead to significant physical impacts, such as exceeding GHG emissions (DEIR 4.7-29 to 30) but does not address how this substantial increase in employees in the City will affect housing availability. At the same time, Section 5.6, (growth inducing impacts) provides, “As described above, the proposed project would result in approximately 365 new employees, medical residents, and students. This represents a moderate number of people that would likely be hired from the regional workforce.” (DEIR 5-5).

Importantly, the City’s update to the General Plan Housing Element acknowledges that the City needs thousands of additional housing units, and the HAP includes a focus on identifying parcels in the City for higher density and affordable housing development.2
1 www.stocktongov.com/government/departments/communityDevelop/Shape/actionPlan.html 2 The Background Report for the current (2015-2023) City of Stockton General Plan Housing Element states that “Countywide, the total housing need is 40,360 new units, of which the City received 11,824 units (29.3 percent).” www.stocktonca.gov/files/HousingElementBackgroundReport.pdf at p. 4BR-56 to 57. The Background Report also notes the “need to be satisfied during the Housing Element planning period is 4,343 lower income units. This remaining RHNA for lower-income units must be accommodated by vacant and underutilized sites.” (Id. at 4BR-61)

ATTACHMENT G
326
Nicole D. Moore
Christine Kronenberg
June 1, 2023

{00196817.}
GMC respectfully suggests that, as part of the Project Setting and impacts analysis, the EIR should identify the extent to which these housing obligations have been satisfied and, if there remains a shortage of housing stock under the RHNA or other standards, explain what impact the development of this Project will have on that environmental setting.

2. Project mitigation or alternatives should incorporate housing In addition, GMC believes the Project should incorporate housing into the master development plan as a means of not only reducing impacts to housing supply through construction of the Project, but also as a means of mitigating significant environmental effects. Such a concept is fully consistent with Stockton General Plan Policy TR-2.2., which provides that new development should “Connect housing and employment development in areas with good transit access.” (DEIR 4.11-14) In a 2019 white paper published by the American Hospital Association (“AHA”) titled, “Making the Case for Hospitals to Invest in Housing” (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B), the AHA notes:

While hospitals and health systems have a long history of contributing crucial services in communities, innovative approaches are needed to address systemic barriers to creating truly thriving communities. Applying tactics from across sectors, such as community development and investing, may activate systemic change that health care driven strategies have not yet been able to accomplish. Housing is one upstream determinant of health that hospitals and health systems are focused on more and more.

Access to safe, affordable and stable housing is key for good health.” (Id. at p. 2)
Thus, AHA argues hospitals should utilize their role in communities to stimulate economic, social, and political will to increase availability of affordable housing.

The DEIR and Master Plan are, of course, silent on this point. In addition, GMC is concerned that the Applicant incorrectly believes—and has represented to the community—that zoning designations in the Project area do not allow for housing, when in fact they do. Specifically, during the April 13, 2023 Public Workshop hosted by the Applicant, representatives of St. Joseph’s parent company Dignity Health were asked about incorporating housing into the Master Development Plan. In response, a Dignity representative stated that much of the property on the Project site and surrounding area is zoned “CO” (commercial office) zoning, then incorrectly stated that this zoning designation does not allow for multifamily residential uses. In fact, it does.3 3 In this same April 13, 2023, public workshop, Dignity representatives also inaccurately stated that the GMC Property was never made available to St. Joseph’s for its expansion purposes. In fact, GMC has previously offered

ATTACHMENT G
327
Nicole D. Moore
Christine Kronenberg
June 1, 2023

{00196817.}
As the City is aware, the CO designation expressly permits multifamily residential development in that zoning district – either as part of a mixed-use project or as a standalone residential project. Indeed, last year GMC worked with the City to rezone the entirety of the GMC Property to CO (the western portion was previously zoned for lowdensity residential) for purposes of developing that property as a mixed-use project that would incorporate commercial office space and multi-family residential uses.

Hospital representatives are certainly aware that the current “CO” zoning of the GMC Property supports multi-family residential, as GMC and Dignity are currently involved in litigation arising out of Dignity’s attempt to prevent construction of any type of multi-family residential uses at the GMC Property by invoking obsolete deed restrictions. A copy of the complaint filed and served in Gill Medical Center, LLC v.

Dignity Health, San Joaquin County Superior Court Case No. STK-CV-UCC-2022-0010368, is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

As background, in 2006 GMC purchased from Dignity’s predecessor several separate parcels that now form a substantial portion of the GMC Property. As part of that sale, Dignity’s predecessor recorded various restrictions purporting to require that the property be developed with a 30,000 sq. ft. medical office building and that Dignity shall have the authority to review and approve any site plan for development of those particular parcels.

In 2022, following several years of discussing various development options for that property with Dignity executives, GMC presented a site plan to Dignity for review and approval that proposed the development of 30,000 sq. ft. of medical office space along California Street (as Dignity claims the deed restrictions require) and which also included 10,000 sq. ft of commercial/administrative space, a 10,000 sq. ft. daycare, and 75 residential apartment units. The site plan also includes parking, which could be made available to Dignity.4 GMC proposed to Dignity that the residential units be designed to cater to Dignity physician residents, nurses, and other staff who would benefit from living adjacent to the St. Joseph’s hospital and forming a truly integrated hospital campus.

Dignity representatives rejected this site plan on the basis that mixed-use residential was detrimental to the community—a suggestion flatly contradicted by City staff’s designation of this property as a top-ten Housing Action Plan Priority Site. In response to Dignity’s refusal to approve its proposed development, GMC was forced to bring suit to request a declaration that Dignity’s deed restrictions are unreasonable and unenforceable and to allow a mixed-use project with a multi-family residential component to proceed. That litigation is ongoing at this time. to make that property available for St. Joseph’s expansion. Indeed, in 2016, St. Joseph’s leadership explicitly requested architectural renderings from GMC depicting a 250-bed hospital expansion on the property, only for the Hospital to pursue its expansion entirely to the east of California St., while refusing to participate in any project or to approve any site plan proposed by GMC since.)
4 Dignity currently leases the GMC Property for parking for its employees.

ATTACHMENT G
328
Nicole D. Moore
Christine Kronenberg
June 1, 2023

{00196817.}
These facts are relevant to the City’s consideration of the Project because not only are the DEIR and Master Development Plan devoid of any efforts to address housing impacts from the Project, but Dignity is actively and arbitrarily preventing development of a multi-family housing project adjacent to the Project site. GMC’s effort to construct multi-family housing could not only serve many of the hospital’s hundreds of new employees, but would also serve to mitigate other environmental impacts from the Project. And Dignity can easily implement this mitigation by simply working with GMC to withdraw its opposition to development of multi-family housing adjacent to the Project Site. Indeed, approval of multi-family residential on the GMC Property reinforces Stockton General Plan Policy LU-6.1, which prioritizes the development of vacant, underutilized infill parcels, such as the Gill Property. (DEIR 3-6) For example, even with all identified mitigation measures incorporated and all Project alternatives considered, the Project’s greenhouse gas emissions (“GHG”) impacts, as well as aesthetic impacts, will remain significant and unavoidable. Under CEQA, an EIR must propose and describe mitigation measures to minimize the significant environmental effects identified in that EIR. (King & Gardnier Farms, LLC v.

County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814, 852) Likewise, the California Supreme Court has described the discussion of mitigation measures and alternatives as “the core of an EIR.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d. 553, 564). In addition to a no-project alternative, an EIR must discuss a reasonable range of Project alternatives, that would feasibly attain most of the project’s basic objectives while reducing or avoiding any of its significant effects and evaluate the comparative merits of those alternatives. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6). Decisionmakers can approve an alternative to a project because they possess “the flexibility to implement that portion of a project which satisfies their environmental concerns.” (South of Market Community Action Network v. City & County of San Francisco (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 321, 336) In this instance, doing something as simple as identifying the GMC Property as future multi-family housing development, and withdrawing its opposition to GMC’s proposed mixed-use development on that property, is a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure within Dignity’s control that would not only attain all of the Project’s basic objectives, but also would work to reduce potentially significant impacts to traffic (Impact 4.11-1) and GHG-based significant and unavoidable impacts from the Project (Impacts 4.7-1, 4.7-2, and 4.7-3) resulting from 365 new employees, including those traveling to work at the hospital.

While the DEIR unsuccessfully attempts to mitigate these significant impacts by including additional bicycle storage and e-bike charging facilities, preparing a future transportation demand management plan that encourages ridesharing and alternative transportation, and installing dedicated electric charging stations in the parking structure, the DEIR fails to discuss any mitigation measures or alternatives that would reduce the number of employees commuting to the Project in the first place.

Integrated and/or adjacent housing catering to hospital employees would do just that and could provide a feasible project change, mitigation measure, or alternative that

ATTACHMENT G
329
Nicole D. Moore
Christine Kronenberg
June 1, 2023

{00196817.}
would reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels consistent with CEQA. (see Mitigation Measures 4.7-1 and 4.7-2)
Moreover, the proposed 115-foot tall parking structure contributes to significant and unavoidable aesthetic impacts from the Project. (DEIR 4.2-12) Alternative 3 proposed a “Reduced Parking Alternative” that would limit the parking tower to “ground plus 5 tiers” and a height of 65 feet (vs. 115 feet). The DEIR notes that this this alternative would attain all project objectives, but would be less effective than the proposed Project at attaining the objectives to “improve quantity, quality, and proximity of parking for patients, visitors, and staff” as well the objective of creating employment opportunities due to the reduced parking structure size and capacity (780 fewer spaces for a total of 1,200 spaces vs. 1,980 spaces). Of interest, if the Project included a residential component like that discussed above, the need for employee parking in the tower would be substantially reduced – leaving more parking available for visitors and patients.

Accordingly, GMC respectfully suggests that the EIR should include an alternative that incorporates a residential component as part of the master plan. The GMC Property, as a Housing Action Plan top-ten Priority Site in the City of Stockton, is ideally suited to mitigate the environmental, traffic and growth inducing effects that stem from this hospital expansion project.

Very truly yours,

RICKY GILL

GILL MEDICAL CENTER, LLC
Attachments:

EXHIBIT A: Aerial Image of 1707 N. California St. (the Gill Property) EXHIBIT B: “Making the Case for Hospitals to Invest in Housing”, AHA, 2019 EXHIBIT C: Complaint filed in Gill Medical Center, LLC v. Dignity Health (San Joaquin County Superior Court Case No. STK-CV-UCC-2022-0010368)

ATTACHMENT G
330

EXHIBIT A

ATTACHMENT G
331

ATTACHMENT G
332

EXHIBIT B

ATTACHMENT G
333

Making the Case for Hospitals
to Invest in Housing
Improving the health of individuals—and their neighborhoods and communities as a whole—is one of the most complex and pressing challenges today in the United States. As anchor organizations, or place-based economic engines in our communities, hospitals and health systems have the opportunity to meet this challenge by making meaningful upstream investments to improve community health.

Many hospitals already are providing more than stand-alone acute care services and transforming to provide care across the continuum to promote health and well-being in their communities. Given the inextricable link between affordable, quality housing and good health, housing is one area that hospitals and health systems are starting to focus on more and more.

The American Hospital Association (AHA), in collaboration with NORC at the University of Chicago, is serving as the evaluation partner for a new initiative, Accelerating Investments for Healthy Communities (AIHC). This issue brief, the first in a series, discusses how hospitals are addressing social determinants through investments in affordable housing. It also outlines an innovative framework, the capital absorption framework, which the Center for Community Investment (CCI) developed and is now using to help health care organizations assess their local community investment system.

Accelerating Investments
for Healthy Communities
The Center for Community Investment (CCI) is leading
Accelerating Investments for Healthy Communities
(AIHC), an initiative designed to increase health system investments in upstream determinants of health, with an emphasis on affordable housing. Launched in January
2018 and funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation,
the initiative is providing intensive training to a cohort of hospitals and health systems on how to refine investment strategies around affordable housing in order to leverage existing resources with community partners—and make the greatest impact on the health of the community.

During phase one (January 2018–December 2018), eight nonprofit health organizations that already were investing outside their walls were chosen to participate in an intensive series of learning labs and receive individualized consultation and support to formulate and refine strategies for affordable housing investment. Six hospitals and health systems moved on to phase two (January 2019–December 2020) and will work with CCI and local partners to expand the availability of affordable housing in their communities. (See Table 2 on page 7 for a list of the participating hospitals and health systems.) The American Hospital Association (AHA), in collaboration with NORC at the University of Chicago, is serving as the evaluation partner to learn about investments by hospitals and health systems in their communities to improve the health of the population. The work is guided by the overarching question, “What will it take for leading health organizations to devote more and different assets to investments in affordable housing and other upstream factors that improve community health?” The AHA and NORC will conduct a mixed-methods evaluation and synthesize findings in a series of issue briefs throughout the project as well as a final report.

ATTACHMENT G
334

AIHC, led by CCI, is helping hospitals refine their community investment strategies around affordable housing. By collaborating with community partners and leveraging assets such as financial resources, land and expertise, health care organizations can make the greatest impact on the health of their communities.

During the initial phase of the project, the AHA and NORC identified two emerging themes for getting buy-in and making the case for investing in affordable housing:
• Mission-driven commitment to address health equity and social determinants • Strategic alignment with care and payment models
The AHA and NORC, with funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, will continue to follow participating hospitals and health systems during the next two years, learning more and sharing observations about what drives hospitals to invest in affordable housing and what makes such initiatives successful.

Focusing on innovation as hospitals and health systems invest in affordable housing creates an opportunity to catalyze community revitalization efforts. The ongoing work of the AIHC initiative can inform and encourage other hospitals and health systems to invest in affordable housing and advance the health and well-being of their communities.

Addressing Social Determinants by Investing in Affordable Housing Improving the health of communities is one of the most complex and important challenges in the United States today. Given the myriad social, environmental and economic factors that contribute to health, making meaningful and sustainable improvements in the health and well-being of individuals and creating healthy communities cannot be accomplished by one organization or sector alone.

Hospitals and health systems—as anchor organizations, or placed-based economic engines in their communities—have the opportunity to make meaningful upstream investments to improve community health. (See Addressing Social Determinants of Health sidebar on page 3.) While hospitals and health systems have a long history of contributing crucial services in communities, innovative approaches are needed to address systemic barriers to creating truly thriving communities. Applying tactics from across sectors, such as community development and investing, may activate systemic change that health care-driven strategies have not yet been able to accomplish.

Housing is one upstream determinant of health that hospitals and health systems are focused on more and more. Access to safe, affordable and stable housing is key for good health. “Housing instability” is an umbrella term for the continuum between homelessness and stable, secure housing. (See Figure 1, Range of Housing Types, on page 4.) It can take many forms, such as substandard physical conditions—e.g., leaky roof, poor heating and cooling, exposure to allergens or pests—severe rent burden, or homelessness. Studies have associated housing instability with poor health and increased health care utilization. (See Table 1, Housing Instability and Health, on page 4.)

ATTACHMENT G
335

Research shows approximately 80
percent of health outcomes are
attributed to factors outside of
medical care, including socioeconomic factors, the physical environment and health behaviors.1 Social
determinants of health include
factors such as access to healthy
food, access to transportation,
housing status, social isolation and
community safety.

Efforts to address these nonmedical needs are crucial to individual health and well-being and community health. As the health care field transforms from providing more than
stand-alone acute care services to
promoting health and well-being,
hospitals and health systems are
adapting their models of care to
partner with communities and
address the conditions in which
people are born, grow, live, work
and age.

Adopting population health
strategies, often supported by
alternative payment models, creates
new opportunities for hospitals
and health systems to proactively
align social determinants of health
initiatives, address health disparities and advance their mission.

In 2009, health inequities cost the
health care system $82 billion, and
costs are projected to reach $126
billion by 2020.2
Understanding that a person’s ability
to reach their highest potential for
health is tied to more than access
to and the quality of health care
they receive is important. However,
addressing the social needs of individual patients does not address the structural and systemic root causes
of poor health. Advancing health
in America will require a systemic
transformation in our health care
system and communities, where
health organizations are active
participants in helping their communities thrive.
10%
30%
20 %
40%
Addressing Social Determinants of Health
Source: University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute, County Health Rankings and Roadmaps, 2019. www.countyhealthrankings.org

ATTACHMENT G
336

Emergency
Shelter
Home
Ownership
Market
Rental
Housing
Supportive
Housing
Transitional
Housing
Homeless to Housing Stability Strategy
Affordable Housing Strategy
Market
Affordable
Housing
(rental &
ownership)
Public
Housing
Subsidized and
unsubsidized
Target Populations:

Workforce
Low-income adults and families
Low-income seniors
People with disabilities, behavioral health issues
FIGURE 1: Range of Housing Types
Source: Center for Community Investment, 2019. Adapted from Housing continuum by SixEightFour, 2009. http://sixeightfour.blogspot.com/2009/03/housing-continuum.html?m=1 TABLE 1
Housing Instability and Health
Forms of housing instability include: Are associated with:
• Homelessness
• High housing costs
relative to income
• Overcrowding
• Poor housing quality
• Multiple moves
Health risks for children:
• General poor health
• Asthma
• Low weight
• Development delays
• Increased lifetime risk of depression
Health risks for adults:
• Reduced access to care
• Postponing needed health care
• Postponing needed medications
• Mental distress
• Difficulty sleeping
• Incidents of depression
Source: Enterprise Community Partners, Inc., 2019. Adapted from Impact of affordable housing on communities: A review of the evidence base, 2014. https://homeforallsmc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Impact-of-Affordable-Housing-on-Families-and-Communities.pdf

ATTACHMENT G
337

Challenges for affordable housing initiatives
Supporting affordable housing is an emerging strategy for many hospitals and health systems, though some already are doing it through housing preservation, development and advocacy efforts.3 Existing and emerging
affordable housing initiatives are designed to address the growing mismatch between people’s income levels and housing costs by preserving or building homes that are not being produced by traditional market dynamics. As such, many of these initiatives focus on disadvantaged communities where the need is great but the conventional market is not able to meet that need. However, funding streams that hospitals have historically used to address affordable housing, such as community or philanthropic grants, may be neither sustainable nor adequate for scaling the project or truly revitalizing the community.

Opportunities for upstream investment
This is where upstream investment comes into play. Investing—paying for goods and services that will have value over time, with the expectation of some form of return—as compared to spending is an emerging tactic for addressing social determinants of health. An overall system of community investment has developed to help overcome market failures and transform disadvantaged communities. Hospital-driven investment in affordable housing initiatives can contribute to this system. To be effective, upstream investment to improve community health requires action by health care organizations as well as the existence or creation of threshold conditions in communities.

The Center for Community Investment
at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy has
developed the capital absorption framework4
to help improve a community’s ability
to attract needed resources. By working
through three core functions – establishing
shared priorities, creating a pipeline of
investable projects, and strengthening the
enabling environment of policies and practices that facilitate successful investment – communities can engage new stakeholders, attract new capital, and increase the speed and scale of investments. (See
Figure 2, What Is the Capital Absorption
Framework? on page 6.) This framework
can help hospitals and health systems
assess their local community investment
system. In turn they can explore potential
roles to play in bringing new ideas, assets,
and partnerships to help strengthen the
system and accelerate efforts to address
the social determinants of health.

ATTACHMENT G
338

Accelerating Investments for Healthy Communities
CCI launched the AIHC initiative with support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to help a group of hospitals and health systems already investing in affordable housing expand the scale and impact of their work, using the capital absorption framework. AIHC aims to help participating organizations:
• think strategically and systematically about how to deploy financial resources, land and expertise; • advance affordable housing as a platform for creating more equitable, healthier communities; and • adopt sustainable financing mechanisms.

The focus is on leading hospitals and health systems to better understand what it takes to get started on this work and any barriers to implementation. This knowledge will light the path for other hospitals and health systems to invest in affordable housing and advance the health and well-being of their communities.

Since 2011, the founders of CCI have been testing and refining a framework for better organizing and deploying community investment. The center designed the capital absorption framework to encourage a more systemic approach to this work and better direct investment capital to areas of need.

The capital absorption framework consists of three key components:

1. Establishing shared priorities across stakeholders. Participants identify the community’s highest priorities, define their targeted results and agree on a strategy to achieve them.

2. Creating a pipeline of deals and projects. By examining deals in progress, analyzing whether they support the priorities and considering where there may be gaps, participants build a pipeline of deals and develop a strategy for moving them forward together to achieve greater impact and efficiency.

3. Strengthening the enabling environment. Armed with a clear sense of shared priorities and a pipeline of deals and projects, participants determine whether the necessary policies, practices and capacities exist to facilitate those deals and then strategize ways to address missing components.

FIGURE 2:What Is the Capital Absorption Framework?4
Source: Center for Community Investment, 2018.

Capital Absorption Framework
Shared Priorities Pipeline Enabling Environment

ATTACHMENT G
339

AIHC Phase One: Observations and Emerging Themes
Investing in affordable housing in the manner and scale described here is new work for many hospitals and health systems. During phase one of Accelerating Investments for Healthy Communities, participating hospitals and health systems were introduced to the capital absorption framework and began building crossdisciplinary core project teams.

As evaluation partners, the AHA and NORC followed the cohort of hospitals during this learning process and began preliminary analysis, through collection of baseline data and introductory interviews, to gain insight into what it takes for hospitals to do this work. Two major themes arose during this initial evaluation period, as demonstrated by hospitals and health systems in the cohort:
• Mission-driven commitment to address health equity and social determinants • Strategic alignment with payment and care models
Methodology
During the fall of 2018, AHA and NORC completed introductory interviews with the eight hospitals participating in phase one. Interviewees received a list of discussion topics in advance that included (1) motivating factors for investing in affordable housing, (2) the AIHC team and its structure, (3) developing an investment strategy and (4) challenges and lessons learned to date. A highlevel analysis of these interviews and supporting secondary data sources† provided the foundation for the emerging themes identified in this issue brief.

The project seeks to engage leading hospitals with the purpose of gleaning insights for the rest of the field. As such, certain characteristics are common across the cohort, including:

1. The participating hospitals and health systems all have some history in addressing social determinants of health—and in particular, housing—with several having extensive track records investing in affordable housing.

2. Participants were seeking to expand their strategies of supporting underinvested areas and vulnerable populations.

3. Project teams included individuals with diverse roles in the hospital or health system, such as vice president of mission, vice president of philanthropy, director of community health, strategy and chief operating officer, grants officer, and manager of community benefits.
† Secondary data sources included the AIHC phase one applications, phase one learning lab homework assignments, and community health needs assessments.

TABLE 2
AIHC Participants
• Bon Secours Mercy Health**
• Boston Medical Center
• Dignity Health**
• Henry Ford Health System*
• Kaiser Permanente
• Nationwide Children’s Hospital
• ProMedica*
• UPMC
*Participation in phase one only
**Recent and/or pending merger

ATTACHMENT G
340

Mission-driven commitment to address health equity and social determinants All of the participating hospitals and health systems demonstrated an underlying commitment and drive to address the social determinants of health, with an emphasis on housing. They expressed widespread acceptance that, if their goal was to advance equity and improve health, it was their responsibility to support their communities. This mission-driven commitment was linked to certain characteristics of the different types of organizations, including:

Anchor organizations. As place-based organizations that are physically rooted in their local communities, these hospitals and health
systems described a sense of responsibility
and commitment to their neighborhood or
community. This dedication manifests itself
through the desire to be an active participant
in community revitalization, partner with other
community stakeholders and invest in the wellbeing of the community.

Nonprofit. Addressing social determinants
of health connects to the core mission of
nonprofit hospitals and health systems. They
are required to conduct community health
needs assessments (CHNAs) and implement
strategies to address priority health needs
in their communities. This process necessitates a level of engagement and community health focus for the health care organization.

While not all of the participating hospitals
prioritized housing in their CHNAs, their status
as nonprofit hospitals provides a platform to
address community health needs.

Safety-net. As safety-net hospitals or health
systems caring for vulnerable populations,
these participants described a commitment to look upstream at the root causes of health and illness to address health equity issues for their patients and in the community at large.

Faith-based. These hospitals and health systems described their commitment to address equity and affordable housing in the context of their spiritual conviction and that of their founders.

The augmented focus on social determinants of health across the health care field is a component of the evolving concept of what it means to be a hospital or health system. Hospitals are providing more than standalone acute care services and are transforming to provide care across the continuum and promote health and well-being in their communities.

What AIHC Participants Are Saying
“Is the role of a safety net hospital…
charity or is it equity? Because if you have
an opportunity to go beyond filling a gap
for a person that quite frankly becomes
a gap again once the filler is removed, if
you can alter the life course of a person
so that you eliminate that gap and sort of
send that person toward independence
versus perpetual dependence, why
wouldn’t we do that?”
“We want to think of ourselves as
health care providers second, in service
to our main work of developing healthy
communities.”

ATTACHMENT G
341

All participating hospitals and health systems noted that their ability to do this work is an outgrowth of their long-standing organizational commitment to addressing social determinants of health. Some of the hospitals chose to join the AIHC initiative for the “acceleration effect” of being part of such a cohort: They were seeking new tools and strategies to elevate the impact of their work. All participants recognized they had room to grow in how their organizations address affordable housing.

Strategic alignment with care and payment models
While mission is a driving factor for hospitals and health systems investing in affordable housing, the old mantra, “no margin, no mission” also applies for many. New care delivery and payment models are creating the strategic
alignment to augment support for affordable housing.

Across participating hospitals, interviewees described the alignment of affordable housing with their organization’s strategy, particularly when they had a health insurance plan or accountable care organization (ACO). Hospitals that are part of an ACO or have their own health plan are charged with addressing the drivers of poor outcomes and high
costs, which link to social determinants of health.

The shift from providing care to also addressing social determinants can be challenging for hospitals and providers. By framing social determinants as part of the care redesign strategy, hospitals can start to conceptualize their core strategic mission to include social determinants. This strategic connection appears crucial for getting buy-in and making the case that investing in affordable housing is both sustainable and strategically important.

Next Steps
The AHA and NORC will spend the next two years learning what drives hospitals to invest in affordable housing and what makes initiatives successful. We will explore several areas, including how hospitals are building a culture that makes addressing social determinants of health an organizational priority. We will continue to explore the evolution of the work around the following areas:
• Building the will. Participants described various ways in which they are generating the “will” to advance affordable housing efforts within their hospital or health system. We will further explore how hospitals are building the will in their organizations and communities. • Organizational structure and changes. Organizational characteristics, such as those identified in this brief around mission and payment and care models, will continue to be areas for exploration as we tease out how structure serves as a mechanism and facilitates the work and also can serve as a lever for community investment. In addition, some of the participating health systems are going through major organizational changes, such as mergers, which we anticipate will influence their work. We will track how these mergers impact the implementation of work on affordable housing at the hospital and system levels.

ATTACHMENT G
342

• Community alignment. Several hospitals cited project alignment with existing citywide or neighborhood revitalization and civic activity. We will explore how local will and momentum impact affordable housing initiatives.
• Team structure and engagement.The teams draw on the expertise of a variety of stakeholders from across the hospitals (e.g., community benefit manager, treasurer, health plan director, etc.) and community. We will continue to monitor which roles are most beneficial for advancing affordable housing work.
• Identifying roles. The roles that the hospital or health system play in affordable housing vary and include investor, developer, convener and manager. We will continue to explore the extent to which these labels capture the role played by hospitals and health systems, and how the participants determine what role to play in their community.

Focusing on innovation as hospitals and health systems invest in affordable housing creates an opportunity to demonstrate their value as anchor organizations in their communities and offers tremendous potential to catalyze community revitalization efforts. Over the next two years, AIHC project partners hope that learnings from the Accelerating Investments for Healthy Communities program can serve as a path forward for other hospitals looking to invest in addressing the social determinants of health.

ATTACHMENT G
343

Read More About AIHC
Project Press Release
Center for Community Investment. (2019, February 20). Announcing AIHC participants: Six hospitals and health systems step up efforts to increase affordable housing in their regions [Blog post].

Retrieved from https://centerforcommunityinvestment.org/blog/announcing-aihc-participants-sixhospitals-and-health-systems-step-efforts-increase-affordable Project Write-ups and Relevant Articles
Abrams, A. (2019, February 25). Putting health care dollars to work. Retrieved from https:// shelterforce.org/2019/02/25/putting-health-care-dollars-to-work/ Gaskins, A. (2018, May 16). AIHC on site: Learning from Bon Secours in West Baltimore [Blog post]. Cambridge, MA: Center for Community Investment. Retrieved from https:// centerforcommunityinvestment.org/blog/aihc-site-learning-bon-secours-west-baltimore.

Gaskins, A. (2019, January 11). Hospital system helps housing partners unlock capital. Shelterforce.

Retrieved from https://shelterforce.org/2019/01/11/hospital-system-helps-housing-partners-unlockcapital/ Hacke, R. & Gaskins, A. (2019). How can clinicians catalyze investments to improve community health? AMA Journal of Ethics, 21(3), 262-268. doi:10.1001/amajethics.2019.262. Retrieved from https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/how-can-clinicians-catalyze-investments-improvecommunity-health/2019-03 Capital Absorption Framework
Center for Community Investment. (2019, January). Analyzing, building, and executing a pipeline: The capital absorption framework part 2. Retrieved from https://centerforcommunityinvestment.org/sites/ default/files/2019-01/Analyzing%2C%20Building%2C%20and%20Executing%20the%20Pipeline.pdf Center for Community Investment. (2019, January). Defining shared priorities: The capital absorption framework part 1. Retrieved from https://centerforcommunityinvestment.org/sites/default/ files/2019-01/Defining%20Shared%20Priorities_0.pdf
Center for Community Investment. (2019, January). Strengthening the enabling environment: The capital absorption framework part 2. Retrieved from https://centerforcommunityinvestment.org/sites/ default/files/2019-01/Strengthening%20the%20Enabling%20Environment.pdf Hacke, R., Wood, D., & Urquilla, M. (Revised 2018, March). Community investment: Focusing on the system, a working paper. Retrieved from https://centerforcommunityinvestment.org/sites/default/ files/2018-03/CIFocusingOnTheSystem.pdf

ATTACHMENT G
344

Endnotes
1 Artiga, S. & Hinton, E. (2018, May 10). Beyond health care: The role of social determinants in promoting health and health equity.

Retrieved from https://www.kff.org/disparities-policy/issue-brief/beyond-health-care-the-role-of-social-determinants-in-promotinghealth-and-health-equity/ 2 PwC Health Research Institute. (2015, June). Medical cost trend: Behind the numbers 2016. Retrieved from https://www.achp.org/ wp-content/uploads/pwc-hri-medical-cost-trend-2016.pdf
3 A number of guides and organizations have tracked hospitals and health systems work in affordable housing including:
• American Hospital Association. (2017, August). Social determinants of health series: Housing and the role of hospitals.

Retrieved from https://www.aha.org/ahahret-guides/2017-08-22-social-determinants-health-series-housing-and-role-hospitals • Hacke, R. & Deane, KG. (2017, March). Improving community health by strengthening community investment. Retrieved from https://www.rwjf.org/en/library/research/2017/03/improving-community-health-by-strengthening-community-investment.html • Healthcare Anchor Network coordinated by the Democracy Collaborative https://www.healthcareanchor.network/ • Build Healthy Places Network https://www.buildhealthyplaces.org/ • Urban Institute’s Emerging Strategies for Integrating Health and Housing https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/social-determinants-health/projects/emerging-strategies-integrating-health-and-housing 4 Hacke, R., Wood, D., & Urquilla, M. (Revised 2018, March). Community investment: Focusing on the system, a working paper.

Retrieved from https://centerforcommunityinvestment.org/sites/default/files/2018-03/CIFocusingOnTheSystem.pdf

ATTACHMENT G
345

EXHIBIT C

ATTACHMENT G
346

ATTACHMENT G
347

ATTACHMENT G
348

ATTACHMENT G
349

ATTACHMENT G
350

ATTACHMENT G
351

ATTACHMENT G
352

ATTACHMENT G
353

ATTACHMENT G
354

ATTACHMENT G
355

ATTACHMENT G
356

ATTACHMENT G
357

ATTACHMENT G
358

ATTACHMENT G
359

ATTACHMENT G
360

ATTACHMENT G
361

ATTACHMENT G
362

ATTACHMENT G
363

ATTACHMENT G
364

ATTACHMENT G
365

ATTACHMENT G
366

ATTACHMENT G
367

ATTACHMENT G
368

ATTACHMENT G
369

ATTACHMENT G
370

ATTACHMENT G
371

ATTACHMENT G
372

ATTACHMENT G
373

ATTACHMENT G
374

ATTACHMENT G
375

ATTACHMENT G
376

ATTACHMENT G
377

ATTACHMENT G
378

ATTACHMENT G
379

ATTACHMENT G
380

ATTACHMENT G
381

ATTACHMENT G
382

ATTACHMENT G
383

ATTACHMENT G
384

ATTACHMENT G
385

ATTACHMENT G
386

ATTACHMENT G
387

ATTACHMENT G
388

ATTACHMENT G
389

ATTACHMENT G
390

ATTACHMENT G
391

ATTACHMENT G
392

ATTACHMENT G
393

ATTACHMENT G
394

ATTACHMENT G
395

ATTACHMENT G
396

ATTACHMENT G
397

ATTACHMENT G
398

ATTACHMENT G
399

ATTACHMENT G
400

ATTACHMENT G
401

ATTACHMENT G
402

ATTACHMENT G
403

ATTACHMENT G
404

ATTACHMENT G
405

ATTACHMENT G
406

ATTACHMENT G
407

ATTACHMENT G
408

ATTACHMENT G
409

ATTACHMENT G
410

ATTACHMENT G
411

ATTACHMENT G
412

ATTACHMENT G
413

ATTACHMENT G
414

ATTACHMENT G
415

ATTACHMENT G
416

ATTACHMENT G
417

ATTACHMENT G
418

ATTACHMENT G
419

ATTACHMENT G
420

ATTACHMENT G
421

ATTACHMENT G
422

ATTACHMENT G
423

ATTACHMENT G
424

ATTACHMENT G
425

ATTACHMENT G
426

ATTACHMENT G
427

ATTACHMENT G
428

ATTACHMENT G
429

ATTACHMENT G
430

ATTACHMENT G
431

ATTACHMENT G
432

ATTACHMENT G
433

ATTACHMENT G
434

ATTACHMENT G
435

ATTACHMENT G
436

ATTACHMENT G
437

ATTACHMENT G
438

ATTACHMENT G
439

ATTACHMENT G
440

ATTACHMENT G
441

ATTACHMENT G
442

ATTACHMENT G
443

ATTACHMENT G
444
N California St.

E Harding Way
E Chestnut St
Walnut St
E Maple St Cemetery Ln

ATTACHMENT G
445
E Harding Way
E Chestnut St
Walnut St
E Maple St
California St.

ATTACHMENT G
446
St. Joseph’s
Hospital
Patient
Pavilion
E Harding Way
E Chestnut St
Walnut St
E Maple St
California St.

ATTACHMENT G
447
Pending Demolition:

E Harding Way
E Chestnut St
Walnut St
E Maple St
St. Joseph’s
Hospital
Patient
Pavilion
California St.
- Seismic deficiencies
- Remove from Acute Care
- January 1, 2030 deadline

ATTACHMENT G
448
Hospital Expansion:

E Harding Way
E Chestnut St
E Maple St
California St.

St. Joseph’s
Hospital
Patient
Pavilion
- 337 bed capacity
- 505,500 SF
- 4 stories
Hospital
337 beds
Retail
Parking
Garage
Retail Retail /
Parking
Drop-off

ATTACHMENT G
449
E Harding Way
E Chestnut St
E Maple St
St. Joseph’s
Hospital
Patient
Pavilion
California St.

Alternate Hospital Expansion:
- xxx bed capacity
- xxx,xxx SF
- 4 stories
Hospital
337 beds
MOB
Retail
Retail Retail /
Parking
Drop-off
Parking
Garage

ATTACHMENT G
450
visualization

ATTACHMENT G
451
- St. Joseph’s Hospital Expansion
337 beds
- Medical Office Building
Ground Floor Retail
- Patient Drop-off
- Pedestrian Bridges
- Parking Garage
Ground Floor Retail

ATTACHMENT G
452
- St. Joseph’s Hospital Expansion
337 beds
- Medical Office Building
Ground Floor Retail
- Garage
- Patient Drop-off
- Pedestrian Bridges
- Hospital Expansion
Ground Floor Retail

ATTACHMENT G
453

ATTACHMENT G
454
N California St.

E Harding Way
E Chestnut St
Walnut St
E Maple St Cemetery Ln

ATTACHMENT G
455

SITE PLAN
PROPOSED DE VELOPMENT AT 1707 N CALIFORNIA ST, STOCKTON 03.01.23 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

PARKING LOT

BUILDING
PLAZA

ROOFTOP DECK

WALNUT STREET

N CALIFORNIA STREET

E CHESTNUT STREET

ATTACHMENT G
456

AERIAL VIEW
PROPOSED DE VELOPMENT AT 1707 N CALIFORNIA ST, STOCKTON 03.01.23 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PARKING LOT = 180 STALLSMOB SPACE = 30,000 SFC O M M E R C I A L S PA C E = 1 0 , 0 0 0 S FD AY C A R E = 1 0 , 0 0 0 S FAPARTMENTS = 102 UNITSPARKING SUMMARYR E Q U I R E D PA R K I N G = 2 3 4 S TA L L SPA R K I N G P R O V I D E D = 2 6 0 S TA L L S

ATTACHMENT G
457

ATTACHMENT G
458

ATTACHMENT G
459

ATTACHMENT G
460

ATTACHMENT G
461

ATTACHMENT G
462

ATTACHMENT G
463

ATTACHMENT G
464

ATTACHMENT G
465

ATTACHMENT G
466

ATTACHMENT G
467

ATTACHMENT G
468

ATTACHMENT G
469

ATTACHMENT G
470

ATTACHMENT G
471

ATTACHMENT G
472

ATTACHMENT G
473
The Balloonery, Inc.
1346 E. Harding Way ƒ Stockton, CA 95205 ƒ (209) 466-3601 ballooneryinc.com
TO: Stockton Planning Commission
FROM: Ann Johnston, Former Mayor
RE: Support Proposed Expansion Project at St. Joseph’s Medical Center Date: September 5, 2023
As the former Mayor of Stockton, a local business owner, and community volunteer, I am writing to express my support for the much needed proposed expansion of St. Joseph’s Medical Center in Stockton which has been an anchor in our community for 125 years and is vital to the health of our city and region. We all have benefited from the health care received at St. Joseph’s Medical Center and the quality of care given to patients over the years.

The expansion will increase physical capacity and improve the patient experience by adding 144 new, private, acute care beds in a New Acute Care Tower. The expansion also includes a state-of-the-art Emergency Department which is sorely needed to meet current & future needs.

California’s 2030 seismic retrofits will be completed as part of the expansion project. The expansion will also allow for growth of the Graduate Medical Education Residency Program to address the well-documented physician shortage in the San Joaquin Valley.

This program will be training well over 200 residents each year in nine different specialties.

St. Joseph’s Medical Center is a significant economic driver of our local economy with over 6,000 jobs supported; and thousands of jobs will be created over the construction period. The economic impact of over $1.6 billion annually will benefit the local economy once the project is completed.

St. Joseph’s Medical Center is committed to health equity and has a strong history of caring for all people, especially historically marginalized and vulnerable communities. As San Joaquin County’s largest hospital provider for Medi-Cal patients, St. Joseph’s is focused on improving health outcomes for everyone who comes through its doors.

As our region continues to grow it is critical that our health care network grows to support our residents. The proposed expansion of St. Joseph’s Medical Center will ensure our population has access to world-class care and the hospital can continue its mission of improving community health. I respectfully request the Stockton Planning Commission support, without delay, the expansion plans put forth by St. Joseph’s Medical Center.

Sincerely,
Ann Johnston
Former Mayor
City of Stockton

ATTACHMENT G
474
From: CC - City Clerk
To: Adriana Guerrero; Azelia Fuentes; Michael McDowell; Stephanie Ocasio Cc: CC - City Clerk"s Office; Taryn Jones
Subject: Fwd: Support for Proposed Expansion Project at St. Joseph"s Medical Center Date: Saturday, September 9, 2023 11:19:01 AM
Attachments: SJ Expansion Support letter 9-2023.pdf
Commissioner Correspondence
From: Alan Kawaguchi <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 10:13:25 PM
To: CC - City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Support for Proposed Expansion Project at St. Joseph's Medical Center CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Stockton. Do not click any links or open attachments if this is unsolicited email.

To Whom It May Concern,
Please see attached letter in support of St. Joseph’s Medical Center’s plan for expansion.

Thank you,
Alan Kawaguchi, MD
Alpine Orthopaedic Medical Group
2488 N. California St.

Stockton, CA 95204
209-948-3333

ATTACHMENT G
475

ATTACHMENT G
476

ATTACHMENT G
477
From: CC - City Clerk
To: Adriana Guerrero; Azelia Fuentes; Stephanie Ocasio; Michael McDowell Cc: CC - City Clerk"s Office; Taryn Jones
Subject: Fwd: letter of support to the Planning Commission for St. Joseph"s Medical Center expansion Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 8:20:25 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.jpg
image004.png
image005.gif
Letter of Support for St. Joseph"s Medical Center - Planning Commission - St. Mary"s Dining Room.pdf FYI commissioners correspondence
From: Petra Linden <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 7:09:17 AM
To: CC - City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: letter of support to the Planning Commission for St. Joseph's Medical Center expansion CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Stockton. Do not click any links or open attachments if this is unsolicited email.

Dear Planning Commission,
I am pleased to submit the attached letter of support for St. Joseph’s Medical Center expansion.

Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information.

Thanks,
Petra
Petra Linden, MPH
Chief Executive Officer
545 W. Sonora Street, Stockton, CA 95203
O: (209) 467-0703 Ext: 3108
F: (209) 467-7795

OUR MISSION
St. Mary's Dining Room responds to poverty in San Joaquin County by feeding the hungry, caring for health issues and restoring human dignity to over 700 individuals each day.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
The information contained in this transmission is intended only for the person or entity to which it is

ATTACHMENT G
478
addressed and contains confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of this information, do not review, retransmit, disclose, disseminate, use, or take any action in reliance upon, this information. If you received this transmission in error, please contact the sender and destroy all printed copies and delete the material from all computers.

ATTACHMENT G
479

ATTACHMENT G
480

ATTACHMENT G
481
1 From: Steve Morales <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 4:56 PM
To: Nicole Moore.Ctr <[email protected]>; CCͲCity Clerk <[email protected]> Cc: Steve Morales <[email protected]>
Subject: Planning CommissionersͲSt. Joseph's Medical Center Hospital Expansion ProjectͲP21Ͳ0958Ͳpublic comment CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Stockton.Do not click any links or open aƩachments if this is unsolicited email.

Hello again Nicole.Hoping your Labor Day Weekend was an enjoyable one.

Not sure if you give this to the Commissioners in advance or if you read this at the Planning Commission meeƟng on Sept 14th.Please share:

Dear Planning Commissioners and City Staī,
Firstly, I extend my graƟtude for your dedicated service to our community.As a proud Stocktonian and devoted community volunteer, I am wriƟng to support the expansion project of St. Joseph’s Medical Center.

The proposed expansion will not only increase the capacity for paƟent rooms, surgical faciliƟes, and a more comprehensive Emergency Room, but it will also posiƟon our community as a leading medical hub by aƩracƟng topͲƟer doctors and specialists vital to our healthcare landscape.

St. Joseph’s Medical Center's proposed investment is a testament to its commitment to enhancing our community's healthcare services. It's noteworthy that St. Joseph’s is already naƟonally recognized for its exemplary cancer and cardiac treatments. Their unwavering dedicaƟon to healthcare excellence, combined with their comprehensive approach in considering community health,illustrates their sincere desire to provide the best possible medical care in our community.They’ve welcomed feedback/parƟcipaƟon from the neighborhood, employees (they are the County’s largest private employer), and environmental groups, and this makes it evident that their staīhad been very diligent in approaching this expansion project. Moreover, their awareness and incorporaƟon of the neighborhood impact and feedback, further underscores their role as a responsible and proacƟve community partner.

AddiƟonally, their longstanding support for numerous nonͲproĮt organizaƟons, ranging from Įnancial contribuƟons to educaƟonal programs and community health iniƟaƟves, stands as evidence of their dedicaƟon to the broader welfare of Stockton.

I urge the Planning Commission to recognize this rare and valuable opportunity for our community.Endorsing this expansion would undoubtedly lead to improved healthcare services and overall community wellͲbeing.I, along with countless others in our community, eagerly anƟcipate the myriad of beneĮts this expansion promises.

Thank you for your consideraƟon.

Steve
Steve Morales
Caution: This email is both proprietary and confidential, and not intended for transmission to (or receipt by) any unauthorized person(s). If you believe that you have received this email in error, do not read any attachments. Instead, kindly reply to the sender stating that you have received the message in error. Then destroy it and any attachments. Thank you.

ATTACHMENT G
482
logo.jpg
From: CC - City Clerk
To: Adriana Guerrero; Azelia Fuentes; Stephanie Ocasio; Michael McDowell Cc: CC - City Clerk"s Office; Taryn Jones
Subject: Fwd: Letter of Support for the Proposed Expansion of St. Joseph’s Medical Center Date: Saturday, September 9, 2023 2:57:04 PM
Attachments: image001.jpg
image003.jpg
Letter of Support for the Proposed Expansion of St. Joseph’s Medical Center.pdf From: Pat Patmon <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2023 11:52:15 AM
To: CC - City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Donald Wiley CA-Stockton <[email protected]>; Diane Bertilacchi CA-Stockton <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter of Support for the Proposed Expansion of St. Joseph’s Medical Center CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Stockton. Do not click any links or open attachments if this is unsolicited email.

Ladies and Gentlemen
Please find attached my urgent request for a unanimous speedy approval of Saint Joseph’s Medical Center’s proposed expansion project.

Thanks
Pat
Charles “Pat” Patmon III
Founding Director / Board Chair
4780 West Lane Suite A
Stockton, California 95210
E-mail: [email protected]
Direct: (209) 463-5561
Office: (209) 951-4391

REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION

ATTACHMENT G
483

ATTACHMENT G
484

ATTACHMENT G
485

ATTACHMENT G
486
From: CC - City Clerk
To: Adriana Guerrero; Azelia Fuentes; Stephanie Ocasio; Michael McDowell Cc: Taryn Jones; CC - City Clerk"s Office
Subject: FW: Letter of Support - Proposed Expansion of St. Joseph’s Medical Center (Planning Commission 9/14/23) Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 4:45:39 PM
Attachments: image004.png
image006.png
image010.png
St. Josephs Expansion September 2023 - letter of support Greater Stockton Chamber.pdf From: Timm Quinn <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 4:16 PM
To: CC - City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter of Support - Proposed Expansion of St. Joseph’s Medical Center (Planning Commission 9/14/23)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Stockton. Do not click any links or open attachments if this is unsolicited email.

Please see attached for a letter of support from the Greater Stockton Chamber of Commerce for the proposed expansion of St. Joseph’s Medical Center for the September 14, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting.

Any questions, or if there is another procedure I need to take to submit just let me know.

Sincerely,
Timm Quinn
CEO
Greater Stockton Chamber of Commerce
445 W. Weber Ave. #220, Stockton, CA 95203
[email protected] | 209.292.8423

ATTACHMENT G
487

ATTACHMENT G
488

ATTACHMENT G
489
From: CC - City Clerk
To: Adriana Guerrero; Azelia Fuentes; Stephanie Ocasio; Michael McDowell Cc: Taryn Jones; CC - City Clerk"s Office
Subject: Fwd: 5/14/23 City Planning Commission Agenda Item 5.1 Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 11:58:06 AM
Attachments: Ltr COS Planning Commission (09 11 23).pdf Commissioner Correspondence
From: Mark Rishwain <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 10:03:29 AM
To: CC - City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: 5/14/23 City Planning Commission Agenda Item 5.1 CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Stockton. Do not click any links or open attachments if this is unsolicited email.

Good morning,
Attached please find my letter of support for approval of City of Stockton Planning Commission agenda item 5.1. Please deliver a copy of the letter to the Planning Commission members prior to Thursday’s meeting.

Thank you,
Mark Rishwain
Mark B. Rishwain, Esq.

RISHWAIN & RISHWAIN, P.C.
2800 West March Lane, Suite 220
Stockton, California 95219
(209) 473-2800 ext. 1224
(209) 473-2885 (fax)
[email protected]
IRS Circular 230 Notice: As required by the IRS, we are informing you that any federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and that it cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter.

The information transmitted herein and/or herewith is intended only for the person or persons to whom it is addressed and may be non-public, confidential and/or attorney-client privileged. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, such information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this transmission in error, please contact the sender at the above address immediately and delete the material from any computer.

ATTACHMENT G
490

ATTACHMENT G
491


&15&.#&3


50$,50/

-"//*/(
0..*44*0/
06/$*-
)".#&3
*5:
"--


-
03"%0

53&&5

50$,50/






611035
03

30104&%
91"/4*0/

30+&$5
"5

5
04&1)?4
&%*$"-
&/5&3
0
!)0.
5
":
0/$&3/
4
5)&

3&4*%&/5
"/%

0'
-
0/$*-*0 "-*'03/*"
0/&
0'
5)&
-"3(&45
.6-5*4&37*$&
/0/130'*5
"(&/$*&4
4&37*/(
"--
-08*/$0.&
."3(*/"-*;&% "/%
"53*4, $0..6/*5*&4
*/
5)& &/53"-
"--&:
"/%
0/
#&)"-'
0'
5)&
"(&/$:?4
#0"3%
0'
%*3&$5034

".
%&-*()5&%
50
4611035
5)&
.6$)/&&%&%
130104&%
&91"/4*0/
0'
5)&

5
04&1)?4
&%*$"-
&/5&3


*/

50$,50/
>
"
7*5"- "/$)03
*/

063
$0..6/*5:
'03

:&"34
50
5)&
)&"-5)
&$0-0(:
0'
063
$*5:
"/%
3&(*0/
"/%
"
4*(/*'*$"/5
&$0/0.*$
%3*7&3
0'
063
-0$"-
&$0/0.:

03
07&3

:&"34
-
0/$*-*0 "-*'03/*" )"4
3&."*/&% $0..*55&%
50
1307*%*/(
"/%
4611035*/(
5)&
#&45
4&37*$&4
1044*#-&
50
5)&
&/53"-
"--&:
"/%

"/
0"26*/
"--&:?4
%*7&34& $0..6/*5*&4
"/%
*4

"$65&-:
"8"3& 5)&
/&&%
'03
5)&
130104&%

 &91"/4*0/
130+&$5 "/%
5)&
104*5*7&
*.1"$5
*5
8*--
)"7&
0/
5)&
3&(*0/
"/%
3&(*0/"-
)&"-5)
&26*5:
$0/$&3/4 "4
"
8)0-&
)&


&91"/4*0/
8*--
*/$3&"4&
1):4*$"-
$"1"$*5:
"/%
*.1307&
5)&
1"5*&/5
&91&3*&/$&
#:
"%%*/(


/&8
13*7"5&
"$65&
$"3&
#&%4
*/
"
&8
$65&
"3&
08&3
1307*%&
"
45"5&0'5)&"35
.&3(&/$:
&1"35.&/5 "/% &/)"/$&%
463(*$"-
'"$*-*5*&4
.&&5*/(
5)&
&70-7*/(
)&"-5)$"3&
/&&%4
0'
5)&
3&(*0/?4
%*7&34&
"/%
(308*/(
1016-"5*0/4
"/%
"--08 '03
(3085)
0'
5)&
3"%6"5& &%*$"-
%6$"5*0/

&4*%&/$:

30(3".
53"*/*/(
8&--
07&3

3&4*%&/54
&"$)
:&"3
*/
/*/&
%*''&3&/5
41&$*"-5*&4
)&3&
*4
"
8&--%0$6.&/5&%
1):4*$*"/
4)035"(&
*/
5)&
"/
0"26*/
"--&:
"/%
(3085)

0'
5)&
3&4*%&/$:
130(3".
*4
7*5"-
50
&91"/%
"$$&44
50
13*."3:
"/%
41&$*"-5:
$"3&
'03
1"5*&/54
8)0
806-%
05)&38*4&
)"7&
50
53"7&-
065
0'
5)&
"3&"
*7&/
5)"5
"-*'03/*"?4


4&*4.*$
3&530'*54
8*--
#&
$0.1-&5&%
"4
1"35
0'
5)& &91"/4*0/
130+&$5
5*.*/(
'03
$0/4536$5*0/ 0'
5)&
/&8
$65&
"3&
08&3
*4
$3*5*$"-
"4
#&%4
.645
#&
5",&/ 0''-*/&
%63*/(
5)&
3&530'*5
4
46$)
5)&
1)"4*/(
0'
5)&
130+&$5
*4
%&4*(/&%
50
-*.*5
5)&
*.1"$5
50
$"1"$*5:
"/% "$$&44
50
$"3&
#65
50
"$$0.1-*4)
5)*4
(0"-
5)*4
&91"/4*0/
$"//05
#&
%&-":&%
!*5)
"
4530/(
)*4503:
0' $0..*5.&/5 50
)&"-5)
&26*5:
"/%
$"3*/(
'03
"-- 1&01-&
&41&$*"--:
5)&
)*4503*$"--:
."3(*/"-*;&%
"53*4,
"/%
76-/&3"#-&
"4
8&--
"4
#&*/(
"/
0"26*/
06/5:?4
-"3(&45

)041*5"-
1307*%&3 '03
&%*"-
1"5*&/54

 *4
'0$64&%
0/
*.1307*/(
)&"-5)
065$0.&4
"/%

"%%3&44*/(
5)&
40$*"-
%&5&3.*/"/54
0'
)&"-5)
5)306()
*//07"5*7&
)&"-5)
130(3".4
$0..6/*5:
#&/&'*54
"/%
*/7&45.&/54 4
063
3&(*0/
$0/5*/6&4
50
(308
*5
*4
$3*5*$"-
5)"5
063
)&"-5)
$"3&
/&5803,
(3084
50 4611035
063
3&4*%&/54

)& 130104&%
&91"/4*0/
0'

 8*--
&/463& 063
1016-"5*0/
)"4
"$$&44
50
803-%$-"44
$"3&
"/%
5)&
)041*5"-
$"/
$0/5*/6&
*54
.*44*0/
0'
*.1307*/(
$0..6/*5:
)&"-5) 635)&3.03&
5)& &91"/4*0/
&.#0%*&4

50$,50/?4
7*4*0/
(3085)
"/%
%&7&-01.&/5
53"+&$503:
"/%
8*-- *.1307&
5)&
-0$"-
)&"-5)
$"3&
-"/%4$"1&
"/%
063
07&3"--
26"-*5:
0'
-*'&

3&41&$5'6--:
3&26&45
5)& 50$,50/

-"//*/(

0..*44*0/
4611035
8*5)065
%&-":
5)&
&91"/4*0/
1-"/4
165
'035)
#:


&41&$5'6--:

04<



0%3*(6&;

3&4*%&/5
"/%


&41&$5'6--:
04<

0%3*(6&;

3&4*%&/5
"/%


ATTACHMENT G
492

ATTACHMENT G
493

ATTACHMENT G
494
September 14, 2023
Planning Commission
City of Stockton
City Hall, 425 N. El Dorado St.

Stockton, CA 95202
Subject: Support for the Proposed Expansion Project at St. Joseph’s Medical Center Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
I am wriƟng to express my strong support for the proposed expansion project at St. Joseph’s Medical Center. This project, which aims to increase the number of beds and create significant job opportuniƟes for doctors, nurses, and medical support staff, is not only a much-needed boost to our healthcare infrastructure but also a vital investment in our local community.

St. Joseph’s Medical Center has been a pillar of healthcare excellence in our region for many years. Its commitment to delivering high-quality care and its dedicaƟon to the well-being of our community have earned it the trust and respect of countless residents. The proposed expansion project represents a responsible and forward-thinking approach to ensuring that this vital insƟtuƟon can conƟnue to meet the growing healthcare needs of our community.

The planned increase in the number of beds at St. Joseph’s Medical Center is parƟcularly significant. As our populaƟon conƟnues to grow, it is essenƟal that we have sufficient healthcare faciliƟes to accommodate the increasing demand for medical services. This expansion will not only improve access to care but also enhance the overall quality of healthcare services available in our area.

Furthermore, the expansion project promises to be a boon to job creaƟon. In addiƟon to providing employment opportuniƟes for skilled doctors, nurses, and medical support staff, the construcƟon phase of the project will generate jobs in the local construcƟon industry that will last for years. This means a posiƟve economic impact that extends beyond the healthcare sector, benefiƟng a wide range of workers and businesses in our community.

ATTACHMENT G
495
In conclusion, I urge you to wholeheartedly support the proposed expansion project at St.

Joseph’s Medical Center. It is an investment in our community's health and well-being, a catalyst for job creaƟon, and a model of responsible and sustainable development. The benefits of this project will be felt by all residents, and its posiƟve impact will be long-lasƟng.

The San Joaquin Partnership is the Economic Development CorporaƟon for the county at large and represents the ciƟes, county, and the business interest of communiƟes. As the promoter of our assets, job opportuniƟes, quality of life and pro-business approach to the recruitment and retenƟon of business in San Joaquin County, we are always looking at ways to aƩract new talent for the diverse industries we represent.

Thank you for your aƩenƟon to this important maƩer. I trust that you will make the right decision in favor of our community's health and prosperity.

Sincerely,

ATTACHMENT G
496








 


 


 
 



  !"#!##$
%


&
 
'

((

)


 


 
 

 
 
 



* ( 


+

,  - (  


 .

 .(

(

((


 
/

*0..


1  - ( +
' 



!(* 



 ( 



 



 
 


0

1 

&
, +    





((*

"#2 *
   3

 
 

'*


* 
'

% 
 +


 *
*  (

3   
 * ' "44 +,

3,  
    5+ .

 %
+
 % 
 


  6

66

(
'*

(   
'


 '
*'  
((( 
('  3

3'


 


3
  '

+' 


  
'





 #$ (


 +

 
(
  


 
 

 %('






 + .

 %
+
 

  (  &

 
' 


 %
'

 

  ' 

(  ( 
*   

,  

(

 '

 
 
  
*
% 


 
 

+

'

+

 7
 

 )* 

'
( %

  +

6
( * 

'  
 
/ 8

*  '

+


* 

'
(
 3

  

(
*  
* 


 +
+



+ 3 

3



 
 % 

'
( +

 
' +

3
#
  *
  


 


 
 


  '
 

( 
3






(* +
3
9, 





' 


 
 +

  '
 
  

( 3*  



 +

 

3
 


 

 %
'
' 

( (

3
:"9 


,


*, +


 




(*
  

  
(


 
 


 
(( 

 /*    

' 

*


'





, 

* 



* (
'
;  3


 
(( .
 
/

*<

'




3

6

,
 
 





 (

3' 



(  
'  


(


 

' 
33 
 

'
(,

((* 
,  3(
.


'
 
 
'

+   




 
 +

& '

+ 






% 


 


 
 


+







   

+

6
 
   

 
  (


(

3' 
((* 

% 


 
 (


&
 3
, '

+  3

( 


*  +

(

3 



 

 


3


/
*


 -



*
/ 


&
 
'

((
 

, +
 
*,  
 
 

 *
 








*,

  



+

, 

..



ATTACHMENT G
497
From: CC - City Clerk
To: Adriana Guerrero; Azelia Fuentes; Stephanie Ocasio; Michael McDowell Cc: CC - City Clerk"s Office; Taryn Jones
Subject: Fwd: Letter of Support for Proposed St. Joseph"s Expansion Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:16:49 PM
From: Sue Shalvey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:07:48 PM
To: CC - City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter of Support for Proposed St. Joseph's Expansion CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Stockton. Do not click any links or open attachments if this is unsolicited email.

Letter of Support for Proposed Expansion of St. Joseph’s Medical Center Date: September 9, 2023
To: Stockton Planning Commission
RE: Support Proposed Expansion Project at St. Joseph’s Medical Center My name is Sue Shalvey and I am a recent St. Joseph’s Foundation Board member. Along with my husband, Don Shalvey, we are proud to be donors and supporters of St. Joseph’s Medical Center and its Graduate Medical Education program. I am writing to express my support for the much needed proposed expansion of the St. Joseph’s Medical Center (SJMC), which has been an anchor in our community for 125 years and is vital to the health ecology of Stockton and our region. St. Joseph’s Medical Center has served our family for 100 of those years along with serving many other families in our community. We are counting on St.

Joseph’s continued capacity to meet our region’s growing health care needs as well as to provide specialized medical education for the future physicians who are needed to practice in our communities.

The expansion will increase physical capacity and improve the patient experience by adding 144 new, private, acute care beds in a New Acute Care Tower. The expansion also includes a state-of-the-art Emergency Department and enhanced surgical facilities signifying a commitment to meeting the evolving healthcare needs of our diverse and growing population in the region.

California’s 2030 seismic retrofits will be completed as part of the expansion project. Timing for construction of the new Acute Care Tower is critical as beds must be taken offline during the retrofit. The phasing of the project is designed to limit the impact to capacity and access to care, but to accomplish this goal this expansion cannot be delayed.

The proposed expansion allows for growth of the Graduate Medical Education Residency Program. There is a well-documented physician shortage in the San Joaquin Valley and growth of the residency program is vital to expand access to primary and specialty care for patients who would otherwise have to travel out of the area. This program will be training well over 200 residents each year in nine different specialties.

ATTACHMENT G
498
SJMC is a significant economic driver of our local economy with over 6,000 jobs supported.

During construction, economic activity will be generated and thousands of jobs will be created The ongoing economic impacts of over $1.6 billion, annually, will benefit the local economy once the project is completed.

The proposed expansion embodies Stockton’s vision, growth and development trajectory and will improve the local health care landscape and our overall quality of life. St. Joseph’s Medical Center’s strong history of caring for all people, especially historically marginalized and vulnerable communities, exemplifies its commitment to health equity. As our County’s largest hospital provider for Medi-Cal patients, SJMC is focused on improving health outcomes and addressing the social determinants of health for our community members. The proposed expansion of SJMC will ensure our population has access to world-class care and the hospital can continue its mission of improving community health.

I respectfully urge the Stockton Planning Commission to support, without delay, the expansion plans put forth by St. Joseph’s Medical Center.

Sincerely,
Sue Shalvey
5488 North Fine Road
Linden, CA 95236
e: [email protected]
c: 650-387-7168

ATTACHMENT G
499

ATTACHMENT G
500
1 From: GARY SPAUGH <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 8:03 AM
To: CCͲCity Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: St. Joseph's Acute Care Expansion Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Stockton.Do not click any links or open attachments if this is unsolicited email.

To: Stockton Planning Commission September 7,
2023
RE: Support for Proposed Expansion Project at St. Joseph’s Medical Center My name is Gary Spaugh and having lived in Stockton over the past 45 years, I am a longstanding member of the community concerned with the healthcare of our city and county. I also actively serve as a member of the St. Joseph’s Community Council, charged with representing the community with respect to how the needs of our people for healthcare services are met. For this reason, I am writing to express my support for the proposed expansion of St. Joseph’s Medical Center in Stockton, which has been an anchor in our community for 125 years and is vital to the health and well-being of all people in our city and region.

The expansion will increase physical capacity and improve the patient experience by adding 144 new, private, inpatient beds in a new acute care tower. The expansion also includes a state-of-the-art emergency department and enhanced surgical facilities signifying a commitment to meeting the evolving healthcare needs of our diverse and growing population in the region.

California’s 2030 required seismic retrofits will be completed as part of the expansion project.

Therefore, timing for construction of the new acute care tower is critical as beds must be taken offline during the retrofit. The phasing of the project is designed to limit the impact to capacity and access to care. Thus, this expansion must not be delayed.

The proposed expansion allows for growth of the Graduate Medical Education Residency Program.

There is a well-documented physician shortage in the San Joaquin Valley and growth of the residency program is vital to expand access to primary and specialty care for patients who would otherwise have to travel out of the area. This program will be training well over 200 residents each year in nine different specialties.
6W-RVHSK¶V0HGLFDO&HQWHUZLWKRYHUHPSOR\HHVLVDVLJQLILFDQWHFRQRPLFGULYHURIRXUORFDO HFRQRP\'XULQJFRQVWUXFWLRQWKHUHZLOOEHDVLJQLILFDQWLQFUHDVHLQHFRQRPLFDFWLYLW\DQGWKRXVDQGV RIDGGLWLRQDOMREVZLOOEHFUHDWHGRYHUWKHFRQVWUXFWLRQSHULRG2QFHWKHSURMHFWLVFRPSOHWHGWKH RQJRLQJDQQXDOHFRQRPLFLPSDFWRIRYHUELOOLRQZLOOJUHDWO\EHQHILWWKHORFDOHFRQRP\ 6W-RVHSK¶V0HGLFDO&HQWHULVFRPPLWWHGWRKHDOWKHTXLW\DQGKDVDVWURQJKLVWRU\RIFDULQJIRUDOO SHRSOHHVSHFLDOO\KLVWRULFDOO\PDUJLQDOL]HGDQGYXOQHUDEOHFRPPXQLWLHV$V6DQ-RDTXLQ&RXQWLHV ODUJHVWKRVSLWDOSURYLGHUIRU0HGL&DOSDWLHQWV6W-RVHSK¶V0HGLFDO&HQWHULVIRFXVHGRQLPSURYLQJ KHDOWKRXWFRPHVDQGDGGUHVVLQJWKHVRFLDOGHWHUPLQDQWVRIKHDOWKWKURXJKLQQRYDWLYHKHDOWK SURJUDPVFRPPXQLW\EHQHILWVDQGLQYHVWPHQWV

ATTACHMENT G
501
2 As our region continues to grow it is critical that our health care capacity grows to support our residents. The proposed expansion of St. Joseph’s Medical Center will ensure our population has access to world-class care and the hospital can continue its mission of improving community health.

The proposed expansion embodies Stockton’s vision, growth and development trajectory and will improve the local health care landscape and our overall quality of life. I respectfully request the Stockton Planning Commission support, without delay, the expansion plans put forth by St.

Joseph’s Medical Center.

Sincerely,
Gary L. Spaugh
109 W. Knoles Way
Stockton, Ca. 95204
(209) 464-5923
[email protected]

ATTACHMENT G
502

ATTACHMENT G
503

ATTACHMENT G
504

ATTACHMENT G
505

ATTACHMENT G
506

ATTACHMENT G
507

ATTACHMENT G
508
Executive Committee
Eddie Lira, President
BAC Community Bank
Luis Reyes, President-Elect
Wells Fargo
Angel Sepulveda, Secretary
State Farm
John Freeman, Past President
California Water Service
Board of Directors
Melissa Tong
Neumiller & Beardslee
Andrea Andrade
JP Morgan Chase
Tammy Shaff
Dignity Health St. Joseph's
Medical Center
Stephanie Riddle
Schwartz, Giannini, Lantsberger
& Adamson
Dylan George
Pacific Gas and Electric
Mark Apostolon
El Concilio CA
Ben Dominguez
Phoenix Roofing & Solar
Steve Morales
MAYACO Marketing & Internet
Mayra Cuevas
(Honorary Board Member)
Comerciantes Unidos
Chief Executive Officer
Lisa Vela
5637 N. Pershing Ave, Suite B-8, Stockton, CA 95207│Phone 209-943-6117│Fax 209-943-0114 www.sjchispanicchamber.com
September 14, 2023
To: Stockton Planning Commission
RE: Support Proposed Expansion Project at St. Joseph’s Medical Center My name is Lisa Vela, and I am Chief Executive Officer of the San Joaquin County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce (SJCHCC). I am writing to express our/my support for the much needed proposed expansion of the St.

Joseph’s Medical Center (SJMC) in Stockton, which has been an anchor in our community for 125 years and is vital to the health ecology of our city and region.

The expansion will increase physical capacity and improve the patient experience by adding 144 new, private, acute care beds in a New Acute Care Tower. The expansion also includes a state-of-the-art Emergency Department and enhanced surgical facilities signifying a commitment to meeting the evolving healthcare needs of our diverse and growing population in the region.

California’s 2030 seismic retrofits will be completed as part of the expansion project. Timing for construction of the new Acute Care Tower is critical as beds must be taken offline during the retrofit. The phasing of the project is designed to limit the impact to capacity and access to care, but to accomplish this goal this expansion cannot be delayed.

The proposed expansion allows for growth of the Graduate Medical Education Residency Program. There is a well-documented physician shortage in the San Joaquin Valley and growth of the residency program is vital to expand access to primary and specialty care for patients who would otherwise have to travel out of the area. This program will be training well over 200 residents each year in nine different specialties.

St. Joseph’s Medical Center is a significant economic driver of our local economy with over 6,000 jobs supported. During construction there will be a significant increase in economic activity and thousands of jobs will be created over the construction period. The ongoing economic impacts of over $1.6 billion, annually, will benefit the local economy once the project is completed.

Established in 1972, SJCHCC is a membership network of over 350 individuals, businesses, and professional associations working together to expand business opportunities for members and Hispanic businesses by encouraging mutually beneficial ties with the public and private sector. The mission of the San Joaquin County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce is to advocate on behalf of members and to encourage economic and business development throughout the region.

ATTACHMENT G
509
Executive Committee
Eddie Lira, President
BAC Community Bank
Luis Reyes, President-Elect
Wells Fargo
Angel Sepulveda, Secretary
State Farm
John Freeman, Past President
California Water Service
Board of Directors
Melissa Tong
Neumiller & Beardslee
Andrea Andrade
JP Morgan Chase
Tammy Shaff
Dignity Health St. Joseph's
Medical Center
Stephanie Riddle
Schwartz, Giannini, Lantsberger
& Adamson
Dylan George
Pacific Gas and Electric
Mark Apostolon
El Concilio CA
Ben Dominguez
Phoenix Roofing & Solar
Steve Morales
MAYACO Marketing & Internet
Mayra Cuevas
(Honorary Board Member)
Comerciantes Unidos
Chief Executive Officer
Lisa Vela
5637 N. Pershing Ave, Suite B-8, Stockton, CA 95207│Phone 209-943-6117│Fax 209-943-0114 www.sjchispanicchamber.com
St. Joseph’s Medical Center is committed to health equity and has a strong history of caring for all people, especially historically marginalized and vulnerable communities. As San Joaquin Counties largest hospital provider for Medi-Cal patients, St. Joseph’s Medical Center is focused on improving health outcomes and addressing the social determinants of health through innovative health programs, community benefits, and investments.

As our region continues to grow it is critical that our health care network grows to support our residents. The proposed expansion of St. Joseph’s Medical Center will ensure our population has access to world-class care and the hospital can continue its mission of improving community health.

The proposed expansion embodies Stockton’s vision, growth and development trajectory and will improve the local health care landscape and our overall quality of life. I respectfully request the Stockton Planning Commission support, without delay, the expansion plans put forth by St.

Joseph’s Medical Center.

Sincerely,
Lisa Vela, Chief Executive Officer
San Joaquin County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce

ATTACHMENT G
510
From: CC - City Clerk
To: Adriana Guerrero; Azelia Fuentes; Michael McDowell; Stephanie Ocasio Cc: CC - City Clerk"s Office; Taryn Jones
Subject: FW: Letter of Support
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 10:21:04 AM
Attachments: Letter of Support.pdf
Commissioner Correspondence
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 10:06 AM
To: CC - City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter of Support
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Stockton. Do not click any links or open attachments if this is unsolicited email.

Good morning,
Please see the attached.

Best regards,
Patrick Velasquez
Director & Corporate Secretary
Chase Chevrolet Co., Inc.
209-475-6663 Office
209-479-4229 Cell
209-476-6686 Fax

ATTACHMENT G
511

ATTACHMENT G
512

ATTACHMENT G
513
From: CC - City Clerk
To: Stephanie Ocasio; Michael McDowell; Adriana Guerrero; Azelia Fuentes Cc: CC - City Clerk"s Office; Taryn Jones
Subject: Fwd: Comment letter for St. Josephs.expansion. City.Planning.Meeting Date: Saturday, September 9, 2023 11:20:05 AM
Attachments: St.Josephs.expansion 2023.docx
Commissioner Correspondence
From: Betty Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 8:46 AM
To: CC - City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Comment letter for St. Josephs.expansion. City.Planning.Meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Stockton. Do not click any links or open attachments if this is unsolicited email.

Attached is our comment letter for the St. Joseph’s Expansion. Please confirm receipt.

Thank you.

Betty Wilson
Executive Director
Business Council of San Joaquin County
6731 Herndon Place
Stockton, CA 95219
209.956.3389 Office
209.487.3700 Direct Line
[email protected]
[email protected]
PLEASE NOTE: This communication and any accompanying documents are confidential and privileged. They are intended for the sole use of the addressee. If you receive this transmission in error, you are advised that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance upon this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact me at the above email address. Thank you.

ATTACHMENT G
514
Date: September 8, 2023
To: Stockton Planning Commission
RE: Support Proposed Expansion Project at St. Joseph’s Medical Center My name is Betty Wilson, and I am the Executive Director for the Business Council San Joaquin County. We are writing to express our support for the much-needed proposed expansion of the St. Joseph’s Medical Center (SJMC) in Stockton, which has been an anchor in our community for 125 years and is vital to the health ecology of our city and region.

The expansion will increase physical capacity and improve the patient’s experience by adding 144 new, private, acute care beds in the New Acute Care Tower. The expansion also includes a state-of-the-art Emergency Department and enhanced surgical facilities signifying a commitment to meeting the evolving healthcare needs of our diverse and growing population in the region.

California’s 2030 seismic retrofits will be completed as part of the expansion project. Timing for construction of the new Acute Care Tower is critical as beds must be taken offline during the retrofit. The phasing of the project is designed to limit the impact to capacity and access to care, but to accomplish this goal this expansion cannot be delayed.

The proposed expansion allows for growth of the Graduate Medical Education Residency Program. There is a well-documented physician shortage in the San Joaquin Valley and growth of the residency program is vital to expand access to primary and specialty care for patients who would otherwise have to travel out of the area. This program will be training well over 200 residents each year in nine different specialties.

St. Joseph’s Medical Center is a significant economic driver of our local economy with over 6,000 jobs supported. During construction there will be a significant increase in economic activity and thousands of jobs will be created over the construction period. The ongoing economic impacts of over $1.6 billion annually will benefit the local economy once the project is completed.

ATTACHMENT G
515
St. Joseph’s Medical Center is committed to health equity and has a strong history of caring for all people, especially historically marginalized and vulnerable communities. As San Joaquin Counties largest hospital provider for Medi-Cal patients, St. Joseph’s Medical Center is focused on improving health outcomes and addressing the social determinants of health through innovative health programs, community benefits, and investments.

As our region continues to grow it is critical that our health care network grows to support our residents. The proposed expansion of St. Joseph’s Medical Center will ensure our population has access to world-class care and the hospital can continue its mission of improving community health.

The proposed expansion embodies Stockton’s vision, growth and development trajectory and will improve the local health care landscape and our overall quality of life. We respectfully request the Stockton Planning Commission support, without delay, the expansion plans put forth by St. Joseph’s Medical Center.

Sincerely,
Betty Wilson
Betty Wilson

ATTACHMENT G
516

ATTACHMENT G
517

ATTACHMENT G
518
TO: Nicole Moore, City of Stockton
FROM: Randle Communications
DATE: July 12, 2023
RE: St. Joseph’s Medical Center Expansion Project Community Outreach Efforts ____________________________________________________________________________________ St. Joseph’s Medical Center (SJMC) conducted broad and diverse outreach to inform the community and stakeholders about the proposed project expansion. Below is a summary of our outreach efforts to date.

Community Workshops
SJMC held a total of six (6) Community Workshops that were open to the public between 2021-2023. • December 12, 2021 via Zoom. Workshop held in English with Spanish and Tagalog translators. • September 8, 2022 via Zoom. Workshop held in English. • October 11, 2022 via Zoom. Workshop held in English with Spanish and Tagalog translators. • October 18, 2022 at First Bap�st Community Church in Stockton. Workshop held in English with Spanish and Tagalog translators.
• October 20, 2022 via Zoom. Workshop held in English with Spanish and Tagalog translators. • April 13, 2023 via Zoom. Workshop held in English.

SJMC also presented to local leaders and organiza�ons during the monthly mee�ng for the San Joaquin Partnership on March 23, 2023.

Total Community Workshops and Public Presenta�ons: Seven (7) Social Media Outreach
Prior to Community Workshops, SJMC has used organic social media posts to promote each of the events.

Addi�onally, SJMC ran paid social media ads to increase awareness and atendance at our community town halls in October of 2022. We ran two sets of targeted ads in English, Spanish and Tagalog.

Ad set 1: Geofenced a one-mile radius around St. Joseph’s Medical Center.

Budget Daily Reach Total Reach
$500 2.3K - 6.6K 16.1K – 46.2K
Ad set 2: Geofenced the City of Stockton.

Budget Daily Reach Total Reach
$1000 3.1K – 9K 43.4K – 126K
ATTACHMENT H 519
Email Outreach
SJMC developed an external email outreach list comprised of over 250 individuals and organiza�ons in the local Stockton Community. Addi�onally, SJMC sent updates to internal staff and hospital affiliates via the weekly newsleter, as well as to members of the St. Joseph’s Medical Center Founda�on.

External Emails
• Two emails were sent prior to each workshop to drive turnout for a total of 12. • One follow up email was sent a�er each workshop with a link to the workshop recording for a total of 5 (no email sent following in person workshop). • One email was sent when the SJMC website was launched. • One email was sent when the Master Development Plan was added to the website. • Total: 19 External emails sent
Internal Emails
Eight newsleter ar�cles were shared with internal hospital staff and affiliates prior to and following Community Workshops, when the website was launched, and when the Master Development Plan was made available.
• Total: 8 Internal emails sent
Mail
SJMC sent a mailer to more than 15,000 households and businesses in the community surrounding the hospital. The mailer was developed in English, Spanish and Tagalog. The mailer was delivered in early April, 2023.

Website
A landing page for the proposed expansion project was created to house all of the outreach and informa�onal materials related to the project. The website includes informa�on in English, Spanish, and Tagalog.

Website: htps://www.dignityhealth.org/central-california/loca�ons/stjosephs-stockton/expansion The site is updated with key milestones such as the Master Development Plan and the release of the Dra� EIR. Viewers can also review and download a project Fact Sheet and FAQ in English, Spanish and Tagalog.

Key Metrics are included below:

July 1, 2022 - May 25, 2023:
2,620 visits to main landing page
February 1, 2023 - May 25, 2023:
• 507 visits to main landing page
• 1,094 visits to Updates and Announcements page
ATTACHMENT H 520
• 53 visits to Community Workshop Recordings page
o Addi�onally:
 Tagalog Workshop Recordings Page: 11 visits
 Spanish Workshop Recordings Page: 9 visits
• File Downloads:
o Fact Sheet (English): 46 downloads
o Fact Sheet (Spanish): 7 downloads
o Fact Sheet (Tagalog): 4 downloads
o FAQs: 49 downloads
• Workshop Recording Views
o 9/8/2022 Workshop: 71 views
o 10/11/2022 Workshop: 195 views
o 04/13/2023 Workshop: 24 views
###
ATTACHMENT H 521
Resolution No.

STOCKTON CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION TO CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2021120439), STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND ERRATA TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER OF STOCKTON HOSPITAL EXPANSION PROJECT (APPLICATION NO. P21-0958) On September 21, 2021, the applicant, Port City Operating Company, LLC, also known as Dignity Health St. Joseph’s Medical Center of Stockton, submitted a request for a Master Development Plan, Development Agreement, Use Permit, Use Permit Amendment, and historic demolition, for the expansion of their 18.7-acre campus at 1800 North California Street; and
On December 17, 2021, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed for public review and comment, to evaluate if an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required for the project, and what should be evaluated. The City’s NOP period closed on January 17, 2022; and
A Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and distributed locally and through the State Clearinghouse for agency and public comments between April 17, 2023, through June 1, 2023. The Draft EIR identified potentially significant environmental impacts which could occur from development of the Project, and where feasible, application of mitigation measures that would reduce the impacts to a level of less than significant; and
The Draft EIR addressed environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project that are known to the City, and that were raised during the NOP process, or that were raised during the preparation of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR discussed potentially significant impacts associated with; Air Quality, Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazard and Hazardous Materials, Noise, and Transportation and Circulation. After analysis, mitigation measures were applied to lessen any significant impacts that resulted from the Project request; and No new significant environmental impacts or issues, beyond those already covered in the DEIR, were raised during the 45-day comment period. Responses to comments received during the comment period do not involve any new significant impacts or add “significant[] new information” that would require recirculation of the DEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15088, all substantive comments are responded to in the Final EIR. Comments received were from; and
522
A total of five (5) written communications, were received during the review period, from:

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, received June 1, 2023; Shute, Mihaly, Weinberger, on behalf of the Sierra Club, Motherlode Chapter, received June 1, 2023;
Gill Medical Center, received on June 1, 2023;
Paul Plathe, resident, received May 22, 2023;
California Department of Transportation, received April 27, 2023; and Each of the comments has been responded to by the City’s environmental consultant as part of the Final EIR, and, where appropriate, modifications have been made to the Draft EIR. Most impact issue areas will be less than significant with mitigation.

For this, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has also been prepared; and
The Draft EIR also determined that there are two (2) potential environmental effects of the Project, that are potentially significant and unavoidable, or cannot be mitigated to a Less than Significant or substantially reduced by the available mitigation measures documented in the EIR, and that require a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC). The SOC describes the anticipated economic, legal, social, technological and/or other benefits or considerations that warrant the City Council’s decision to approve the project, even though all the environmental effects of the project are not fully mitigated; and
The significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the SOC relate to Aesthetics and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. As no other feasible mitigation measures are available for these items, the City Council must adopt a SOC with supportive findings; and In accordance with CEQA Guidelines sections 15092, 15093, and 15094, the City Council must consider the EIR before acting on the Project. An approval recommendation to certify the EIR and SOC is presented, including the adoption of a corresponding Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and Errata to the Final EIR. The City Council is requested to certify the EIR and adopt the SOC per the CEQA Findings; and
On September 15, 2023, a public notice for the subject application was published in the local newspaper in accordance with the Stockton Municipal Code (SMC) Section

16.88.030; and
On September 26, 2023, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the application, in compliance with SMC Section 16.88.040, at which point all persons wishing to be heard were provided such opportunity; and
At the September 26, 2023, public hearing, and prior to acting on this request, the 523
City Council considered certification of the Final EIR (SCH #2020120283) prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and On September 26, 2022, the City Council convened a public hearing regarding the Planning Commission’s decision. In such meeting, the City Council considered the recommendations of the Planning Commission based on the findings indicated in resolution ______________; now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON, AS FOLLOWS:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated by this reference.

2. Based on its review of the entire record herein, the City Council finds:
a. A Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the Project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). b. The Draft EIR identified potentially significant environmental impacts which could occur from development of the Project, and, where feasible, application of mitigation measures that would reduce the impacts to a level of less than significant.
c. Potentially significant environmental impacts identified where mitigation measures were not feasible, resulting in the creation of potentially significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. Most potentially significant effects were identified and paired with feasible mitigation measures to reduce them to less than significant levels.
d. A Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC), included as Exhibit 2, is needed to accommodate the two (2) significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the SOC relating to 1) Aesthetics, and 2) Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Because no other feasible mitigation measures are available for these items, the City Council must adopt an SOC with supportive findings.

3. Based on its review of the entire record herein, including the September 14, 2023 Planning Commission staff report, all supporting, referenced, and incorporated documents, and all comments received, the City Council finds that the Final EIR for the St. Joseph’s Medical Center Hospital Expansion Project (SCH #2021120439) has been completed in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and Stockton Municipal Code (SMC) Section 16.88.040 (Environmental Determination); and

4. The City Council finds that the Final EIR has been presented to it, that the Planning Commission has reviewed the Final EIR and has considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to recommending certification to the City Council on the proposed Project, and that the Final EIR reflects the City Council and Planning 524
Commission’s independent judgement and analysis; and

5. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, and in support of approval of the Project, the City Council certifies the Final EIR, attached as Exhibit 1, including its accompanying Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC), Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP), and Errata to the Final EIR, attached as Exhibit 2, and incorporated herein; and

6. The City Council hereby authorizes the Community Development Department, upon approval of the Project, to file a Notice of Determination (NOD) with the County Clerk of San Joaquin County and State Office of Planning and Research pursuant to CEQA section 21152; and

7. Pursuant to CEQA section 15091(e), the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council’s decision is based are located in and may be obtained from, the Office of the City Clerk at 425 N. El Dorado Street, 1st Floor, Stockton, CA 95202; the City Clerk is the custodian of records for all matters before the City Council.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED September 26, 2023 .

KEVIN J. LINCOLN II
Mayor of the City of Stockton
ATTEST:

ELIZA R. GARZA, CMC
City Clerk of the City of Stockton
525
Prepared by:

SACRAMENTO OFFICE
1810 13th Street, Ste. 110
Sacramento, California 95811
Prepared for:
345 N. El Dorado Street
Stockton, California 95202
CONTACT: Nicole Moore

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER

HOSPITAL EXPANSION PROJECT
SCH# 2021120439
September 2023
Due to the size of this document, please cut and paste this link into your browser to view the full document: http:// www.stocktonca.gov/files/SJMC_Final_EIR_092023.pdf
EXHIBIT 1 - FEIR
526
City of Stockton
CEQA Findings of Fact
and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the
St. Joseph’s Medical Center
Hospital Expansion Project
SCH# 2021120439
September, 2023
EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 527

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... 1 Acronyms and Abbreviations.............................................................................................................. 1 Project Description............................................................................................................................... 1 Project Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 5 City Approvals...................................................................................................................................... 6 Other Agency Actions or Approvals.................................................................................................... 7 Environmental Review Process........................................................................................................... 7 Consistency with Applicable Plans....................................................................................................10 Findings Required Under CEQA........................................................................................................11 Certifications ......................................................................................................................................14 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.................................................................................15 Findings Regarding Those Impacts Which are Less Than Significant or Less Than Cumulatively Considerable ...............................................................................................................................15 Findings Regarding Potentially Significant Impacts Which Are Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level..........................................................................................................................17 Findings Regarding Significant and Unavoidable Impacts..............................................................25 Project Alternatives............................................................................................................................32 Statement of Overriding Considerations ..........................................................................................47 Conclusion..........................................................................................................................................49 EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 528
3 Introduction
The City of Stockton (“City”), as lead agency, prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR” or “DEIR”) for the St. Joseph’s Medical Center Expansion Project (““Project”). In its entirety, the documents consist of the April 17, 2023 Draft EIR and all appendices thereto including the Notice of Preparation (“NOP”), and the ___ 2023 Final EIR (“FEIR”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2021120439). Where referenced in this document, the FEIR consists of both the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Reports (CEQA Guidelines, Sec. 15132, 15362, subd. (b)). As described in the FEIR, the applicants for the Project propose to construct a new acute care hospital tower, a new on-site parking structure, and either renovate or construct new hospital support buildings.

The Project is implemented by means of a Master Development Plan (“MDP”), which sets forth the Site Plan and standards for development, design, site improvements Including landscaping and lighting), heliports, circulation and traffic control, parking space allocation, drainage requirements, utility infrastructure, signage, demolition of buildings, and use of modular structures. Where standards deviate from the City’s Municipal Code, those deviations are identified. Otherwise, the Project is consistent with all applicable local, state, and federal requirements. These findings, as well as the accompanying statement of overriding considerations, have been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Pub. Resources Code, Sec. 21000 et seq) and its implementing guidelines (“CEQA Guidelines”) (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, Sec 15000 et seq).

Acronyms and Abbreviations
The acronyms and abbreviations included in these Findings are the same as are found on page ACR-1 et seq. in the DEIR.

Project Description
Location
The main project expansion site includes the existing 18.7-acre St. Joseph’s Medical Center of Stockton (“St. Joseph’s” or “Medical Center”) campus which is generally bounded by E. Cleveland Street to the north, E. Harding Way to the south, N. California Street to the west, and Cemetery Lane to the east in the City of Stockton. The campus is approximately 1.3 miles north of State Route 4, 2.3 miles west of State Route 99, and 2.6 miles east of Interstate 5. Adjacent land uses include commercial uses located to the west and south. The San Joaquin Catholic Cemetery borders the site to the east and County and City facilities (which include County medical clinics, a County behavioral health center, and City fire station) border the site to the south. Land uses to the west and north (across N. California Avenue and E. Cleveland Way) include residential and commercial uses. There are no residential uses immediately adjacent to the Medical Center campus. However, some residential uses are immediately adjacent to the additional off-campus properties that are within the scope of the MDP. The off-campus properties are within a 0.2-mile radius of the Medical Center campus.

Overview
Port City Operating Company, LLC, doing business as St. Joseph’s Medical Center of Stockton, is the applicant for this project, which includes preparation of the MDP that establishes the foundation for the hospital expansion and provides a single, unified concept for future growth of the Medical Center campus. The MDP will serve as the primary land use and regulatory document establishing the vision, standards, and strategies to guide development of the Medical Center.

EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 529
4 The MDP is intended to provide flexibility and simplify the City’s review of subsequent development and minor modifications by establishing a Site Master Plan, development standards, and design guidelines, to guide, manage, administer, and monitor future development accompanied by a Development Agreement (“DA”), as well as other related project approvals.

The City’s Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan (“General Plan”) designates the Medical Center campus as Administrative Professional and Commercial. Some of the off-campus properties have a General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential. A majority of the Medical Center campus properties are zoned Commercial, Office (CO); a portion of the Medical Center campus, located south of E. Maple Street is zoned Commercial, General (CG) and the parcels between Chestnut Street and McCloud Avenue are zoned CO and Residential, Medium (RM), and the parcel at 2510 N. California Street is zoned CO. The Medical Center, as a medical-related facility, is a permitted use within the CO and CG zoning designations with a Commission Use Permit.

The MDP includes a Site Master Plan which depicts a new hospital building (“Acute Care Hospital Tower”), a new multistory Parking Structure, construction of a new Central Utility Plant, expansion of the existing Generator building and other required support facilities within the Medical Center campus boundaries, as well removal of existing buildings to accommodate the project. Support facilities may include modular buildings on or proximate to the campus, medical offices, and temporary off-site parking facilities and a shuttle service for the benefit of employees, visitors and construction workers during the construction activities. Development of the proposed project would occur over a span of five (5) phases (“Initial Expansion” phase) with a Future Expansion phase likely to include lands in the project vicinity. A detailed overview of all aspects of the proposed project are presented in Chapter 2 of the DEIR.

Project Description
The MDP is described in the Overview section immediately above. To accommodate the Project, up to eight (8) existing buildings would be removed, along with a surface parking lot and possibly a portion of the North Wing building. Five of the buildings to be removed are over fifty (50) years of age and required a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Cultural Heritage Board for their removal, which approval was granted.

The MDP includes a near-term expansion of the Medical Center that would occur mostly within the existing campus boundaries, with some temporary and modular structures and temporary parking located off-campus, on adjacent or near- adjacent properties. Development of the proposed project would occur as follows:
• the “Initial Expansion” phase (phases 1-4, which would include building demolition and site preparation in Phase 1),
• a future “Phase 5 Expansion,” which is expected to occur on land within the Medical Center campus, and
• a “Future Expansion” phase that would likely require additional nearby lands.

The MDP also factors in administrative flexibility to allow St. Joseph’s the ability to accommodate, over the life of the Plan, changes to federal and state regulations (for example, seismic retrofit requirements), evolving medical services and technology, project budgets and schedules, and community and regional medical needs. Two (2) options (Option A and Option B) are presented in the MDP, involving the locations of the Central Utility Plant and Plant Maintenance building.

Option A includes placing the new Central Utility Plant building at the northeast corner of the Acute Care Hospital Tower and relocating the new Plant Maintenance building at the corner of E.

EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 530
5 Cleveland Street and Cemetery Lane. Option B places the new Central Utility Plant building at the corner of E. Cleveland Street and Cemetery Lane with no change to the existing Plant Maintenance building. In response to comments received on the DEIR, the applicant also included in the MDP two Parking Structure Options. Parking Structure Option A allows up to nine (9) elevated tiers and 1,980 spaces. Parking Structure Option B allows up to six (6) elevated tiers and 1,400 spaces.

The Initial Expansion, anticipated to be built over four (4) phases, would include removal of existing buildings and other site preparation work, construction of a new Acute Care Hospital Tower, along with a new multistory Parking Structure, Central Utility Plant, Plant Maintenance building, and other required support facilities on and off the existing Medical Center campus. New on-site water and sewer infrastructure is anticipated to serve the new buildings. Chapter 2 of the DEIR provides more details specific to the various project elements.

Project Objectives
Project objectives facilitate analysis of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project.

Reasonable alternatives must be analyzed in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines.

The applicant’s vision is to be known as the premier health care delivery network and teaching institution for the Northern San Joaquin Valley. The Project as proposed by the applicant would achieve the following objectives:
• Provide a broad range of healthcare services to Stockton and the surrounding Northern San Joaquin Valley to further establish St. Joseph’s Medical Center of Stockton as a regional provider of health care services.
• Expand and modernize existing medical facilities to meet current patient needs and the anticipated growth in the Northern San Joaquin Valley.
• Broaden the established medical learning environment that serves as a premier teaching institution for the Northern San Joaquin Valley that will support historical and anticipated shortages of medical professionals in the region.
• Address seismic requirements imposed by Senate Bill 1953.1 • Provide additional capacity for acute care treatment for patients of all income levels and all payer sources in Stockton and the surrounding northern San Joaquin valley. • Enhance building capacity for utilization of technology in the provision of health care services.
• Modernize and upgrade the existing Medical Center to meet seismic retrofit requirements as set forth in Senate Bill 1953 and do so without the temporary loss of use of patient beds.
• Improve flexibility of patient bed arrangements to meet surges in need for medical care such as was experienced with the COVID-19 Pandemic.
• Increase quantity and quality of space for graduate educational services with the goal of retaining physicians and other medical professional and technical staff trained at the Medical Center in Stockton and the surrounding northern San Joaquin valley. • Improve quantity, quality, and proximity of parking for patients, visitors, and staff. 1 Senate Bill 1953 was signed into law in September 1994. It amended the Alfred E. Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act of 1983 and was added to Section 130060 of the Health and Safety Code.

EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 531
6 • Locate new buildings within a reasonable proximity to the existing medical center facilities to facilitate easy access for patients, visitors, and staff. • Change internal site circulation to enhance emergency access for ambulances and patients transported by other third parties, focus non-patient access to the rear of the Medical Center, and complement City objectives of increasing reliance upon bicycle travel both around and into the site.
• Update existing utility connections to accommodate enhanced medical services and provide sufficient emergency back-up for expanded capacity. • Create both short-term construction jobs related to development, including grading, infrastructure and building construction, and permanent employment-generating uses, consistent with City objectives for creation of employment opportunities for residents. • Implement a Site Master Plan that maximizes the use and redevelopment of underutilized property to provide new opportunities for the construction of modernized, acute care facilities.
• Provide options for additional helicopter landing and parking to improve access for patients transported by helicopter to the expanded and relocated emergency facilities, and to accommodate a future trauma center designation should regional needs arise in the future. • Maximize the efficient use of existing and very limited available land and buildings while replacement and modernization of some buildings is underway.

City Approvals
The City has identified the following immediate discretionary approvals required for the Project:
• Certification of the Environmental Impact Report,
• Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Findings of Fact,
• Adoption of the Master Development Plan (for all aspects of the comprehensive application, including, deviations from the City Municipal Code), • Adoption by Ordinance of a Development Agreement,
• Commission Use Permit for the Medical Center Expansion, • Amendment to Use Permit No. S27-86 (dated June 16, 1986, and July 18, 1986) related to Heliports,
• Demolition Permits for Up to Eight Structures, including Five that are older than 50 years2 requiring a Certificate of Appropriateness; and
• Term of Temporary Activity Permits for Parking and Modular Structures.

Future discretionary approvals will include a Tentative Parcel Map to be processed by a separate application.

Future ministerial (administrative) approvals will include without limitation:
• Final Site Plan for permanent and modular structures, • Parcel mergers and lot line adjustments,
• Demolition Permits,
• Administrative Permit for removal of existing surface parking, 2 The City determined, based upon the environmental analysis in Section 4.4 of the EIR and Appendix E to the EIR, that there is no historical significance to any structures proposed for demolition. The Cultural Heritage Board, after consideration of information presented in a hearing held on August 2, 2023, issued a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of identified buildings.

EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 532
7 • Temporary Use Permits (for both modular structures and parking) and Building Permits, and
• Other administrative actions, as may be required.

Other Agency Actions or Approvals
The term “responsible agency” includes all state, regional, and local public agencies other than the lead agency that may have discretionary approvals associated with the implementation of some aspect of the Project (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15381). In order to carry out the Project, these responsible agencies may have review and approval roles related to the Project:
• California Water Service – approval of the Water Supply Assessment (approved October 26, 2022)
• California Department of Health Care Access and Information (HCAI) – approval of architectural, structural and design elements for all buildings and facilities • San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
• Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
Environmental Review Process
The proposed Project was reviewed in the DEIR in accordance with the significance criteria developed by the City based on questions presented in Appendix G, “Environmental Checklist Form,” of the CEQA Guidelines and the results of the Initial Study conducted for the project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15063 and 15365. The combination of significance criteria and the results of the Initial Study were used to determine whether the Project would have significant impacts in the absence of mitigation measures. The Initial Study is included in Appendix B of the DEIR.

Notice of Preparation
In accordance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City prepared and circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Project on December 17, 2021, for a 30-day review period ending on January 18, 2022. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15023, subdivision (c), and 15087, subdivision (f), the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research is responsible for distributing environmental documents to State agencies, departments, boards, and commissions for review and comment. The City followed required procedures with regard to distribution of the appropriate notices and environmental documents to the State Clearinghouse. The State Clearinghouse was obligated to make, and did make, that information available to interested agencies for review and comment. The NOP was received by the State Clearinghouse (SCH#2021120439) on December 17, 2021, and was made available for a 30-day public review period ending on January 18, 2022. The City also held a public scoping meeting on January 10, 2022, to receive comments on the NOP and discuss the scope of the DEIR. The NOP, the comments received on the NOP, and the full comments received at the scoping meeting are included in Appendix A of the DEIR.

Draft EIR
The following environmental issues were addressed in the EIR:
• Air Quality
• Aesthetics
• Biological Resources
EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 533
8 • Cultural and Tribal Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Noise
• Public Utilities
• Transportation and Circulation
The City distributed the DEIR for public and agency review on April 17, 2023. A public review period of 45 days was provided for the DEIR, ending on June 1, 2023 (DEIR Notice of Availability, p. 1).

This period satisfied the requirement of a 45-day review period as set forth in Section 15105(a) of the CEQA Guidelines.

Final EIR
The Final EIR was issued in September of 2023. The FEIR includes comments received related to the DEIR, responses to significant environmental issues raised in the comments, revisions to the text of the DEIR as necessary for clarification and to address changes to the Project, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”).

Certification of the Final EIR
On September 21, 2023, the Planning Commission for the City held a public hearing on the Project, the discretionary approvals identified above, and the FEIR. At the conclusion of the hearing the Planning Commission adopted resolutions recommending certification of the FEIR as adequate and complete and recommending approval of the Project and each of the other discretionary approvals. On September 26, 2023, the City Council for the City held a public hearing on the FEIR and the Project. At the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council adopted resolutions (1) certifying the FEIR as adequate and complete and (2) approving the Project and each of the other discretionary approvals. To support such approval, the City Council makes the following Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (collectively the "Findings"). These Findings contain the City Council's written analysis and conclusions regarding the Project's environmental effects, mitigation measures, and alternatives to the Project. These Findings are based upon the entire record of proceedings for the FEIR, as described below.

Record of Proceedings
In accordance with Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e), the record of proceedings for the City’s decision on the Project include the following documents:
• The Notice of Preparation dated December 17, 2021, and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the Project, including the Notices of Completion and Availability issued on April 17, 2023, providing notice that the DEIR had been completed and was available for public review and comment;
• All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the comment period on the NOP;
• The DEIR for the Project, including the technical appendices; • All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the comment period on the DEIR;
• All comments and correspondence submitted to the City with respect to the Project, in EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 534
9 addition to timely comments on the DEIR;
• The FEIR for the Project, including comments received on the DEIR, responses to those comments, revisions to the DEIR and appendices (September 2023); • All documents cited or referenced in the Draft and Final EIRs; • The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) for the Project; • All findings and resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the Project, and all documents cited or referred to therein;
• All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents in the City’s possession relating to the Project prepared by the City, consultants to the City, and responsible or trustee agencies with respect to the City’s compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the City’s actions on the Project; All documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the public in connection with the Project, through the close of the City Council public hearing on September 26, 2023; • Any minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public meetings and public hearings held by the City in connection with the Project; • Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the City at such information sessions, public meetings and public hearings;
• The City’s General Plan and all environmental documents prepared in connection with the adoption of the General Plan;
• Provisions of the City’s Zoning Code cited in materials prepared by or submitted to the City; • Any and all resolutions adopted by the City regarding the Project, and all staff reports, analyses and summaries related to the adoption of those resolutions; • Any documents expressly cited in these findings, in addition to those cited above; • Any other materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e) and any other applicable law.

The documents constituting the record of proceedings are available for review by responsible agencies and interested members of the public normal business hours at the City of Stockton Community Development Department, 345 N. El Dorado Street, Stockton, California, 95202. The custodian of these documents is the Community Development Director.

Preparation and Consideration of the FEIR and Independent Judgment Findings The City Council finds, with respect to the City's preparation, review and consideration of the FEIR, that:
• The City prepared the DEIR, with the assistance of various consultants, with input from the applicant, and under the supervision and at the direction of the City of Stockton Community Development Department.
• The City circulated the DEIR for review by responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and the public and submitted it to the State Clearinghouse for review and comment by state agencies.
• The City, with the assistance of various consultants, prepared the FEIR, and the FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA. The FEIR is adequate under CEQA to address the potential environmental impacts of the Project.
• The Project will have significant, unavoidable impacts as described and discussed in the FEIR.
• The FEIR has been presented to the City Council and separately to the Planning Commission. Both the City Council and the Planning Commission have independently reviewed and considered information contained in the FEIR. • The FEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City.

EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 535
10 By these Findings, the City ratifies, adopts and incorporates the analyses, explanations, findings, responses to comments, and conclusions of the FEIR, except as may be specifically described in these Findings.

Consistency with Applicable Plans
The DEIR evaluates the Project to determine whether it is consistent with applicable plans, policies, and regulations. In this case, the relevant plans, policies and regulations are the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code, including the Zoning Ordinance.

As noted in the DEIR and elsewhere in these Findings, the City’s General Plan designates the Medical Center campus as Administrative Professional and Commercial. Some of the off-campus properties have a General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential. A majority of the Medical Center campus properties are zoned Commercial, Office (CO); a portion of the Medical Center campus, located south of E. Maple Street is zoned Commercial, General (CG) and the parcels between Chestnut Street and McCloud Avenue are zoned CO and Residential, Medium (RM), and the parcel at 2510 N. California Street is zoned CO. The Medical Center is an allowed use within the CO and CG zoning designations.

The Project does not require any General Plan amendments or rezoning. The Project is consistent with the 2040 General Plan Land Use Map designations of Administrative Professional and Commercial and also existing zoning designations of Commercial Office (CO) and Commercial, General (CG). Off-campus properties within the Master Development Plan are designated by the General Plan as Administrative Professional and Medium Density Residential.

Proposed and continuing uses for the off-campus properties are consistent with the General Plan designations and also existing zoning designations of CO and RM.

As described in detail in the Master Development Plan, the proposed Medical Center expansion will also advance several policies in the General Plan, as follows:
• Policy LU-4.1 “Encourage large scale development proposals in appropriate locations that include significant numbers of higher-wage jobs and local revenue generation….” and Action LU-4.1B (specifically referencing businesses in health care); • Policy LU-4.2 “Attract employment- and tax-generating businesses that support the economic diversity of the city.”
• Policy LU-6.2 “Prioritize development and redevelopment of vacant, underutilized and blighted infill areas.”
• Goal CH (Community Health)-2: Restored Communities “Restore disadvantaged communities to help them become more vibrant and cohesive neighborhoods with highquality affordable housing, a range of employment options, enhanced social and health services, and active public spaces.”
• Action CH-2.1C: “Develop incentives to promote reuse of distressed areas, such as through re-zoning, permit streamlining, density bonuses, and other appropriate tools.” • Policy CH-2.2: “Stimulate investment through partnerships with private property owners, neighborhood groups, health and housing advocates, nongovernmental organizations, and other community supporters.”
• Action CH-2.2A: “….Encourage private investment in older neighborhoods. Cooperate in joint public-private partnerships to invest in older neighborhoods.” • Action CH-2.2D: “Collaborate with non-profit partners and San Joaquin Public Health Services to attract medical clinics, mental health facilities, and pharmacies in areas that EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 536
11 lack access to health care.”
• Policy CH-3.3: “Ensure that Stockton youth and adults have access to the services and resources they need to enhance and renew their vocational and professional skills for job readiness and retention.”
The EIR also evaluated whether the project as proposed would be consistent with the City of Stockton Bicycle Master Plan (2017), which incorporates N. California Street as a roadway that will implement additional bike lanes and a reduction of lanes devoted to vehicle travel. The traffic level of service analysis and circulation analysis concluded that the project as proposed is consistent with this Bicycle Master Plan.

Findings Required Under CEQA
Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” This statutory command is known as the “substantive mandate” of CEQA. (See Mountain Lion Foundation v.

Fish & Game Commission (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 134 (Mountain Lion Foundation).) Public Resource Code section 21002 also states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.”
The substantive mandate of CEQA is effectuated through the requirements (i) that EIRs include mitigation measures and alternatives that would substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental effects and (ii) that, at the time of project approval, agency decisionmakers adopt what are commonly called “CEQA Findings,” which describe the disposition of all significant effects identified in EIRs. The statutory provision that requires such findings is Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a). The parallel sections in the CEQA Guidelines include sections 15091, 15093, and 15043.

The DEIR and FEIR satisfy the first of these two (2) requirements. Detailed analyses of the potential significant environmental impacts and the proposed mitigation measures for the Project are set forth in Chapter 4 of the DEIR, with corrections and revisions as set forth in Chapter 3 of the FEIR. The DEIR also evaluated the Project's potential environmental impacts related to potential growth-inducing and cumulative impacts. Chapter 6 addresses alternatives that could reduce the severity of the significant environmental impacts that would occur under the Project.

In adopting the CEQA Findings set forth herein, in satisfaction of the second requirement, the City Council relies on the conclusions in the DEIR, as incorporated into the FEIR, in assessing and determining whether (i) changes or alterations can be required, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the DEIR and FEIR; and (ii) specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make it infeasible to substantially lessen or avoid the remaining significant impacts, as further described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations below. “[T]he purpose of the statutory requirement for findings is to ensure that the decision[-]making agency actually considers alternatives and mitigation measures.” (Resource Defense Fund v.

Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Cruz County (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 886, 896.) “The requirement ensures there is evidence of the public agency’s actual consideration of alternatives and mitigation measures, and reveals to citizens the analytical process by which the EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 537
12 public agency arrived at its decision.” (Mountain Lion Foundation, supra, 16 Cal. 4th at p. 134.) “Under CEQA, the public agency bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating that, notwithstanding a project’s impact on the environment, the agency’s approval of the proposed project followed meaningful consideration of alternatives and mitigation measures.” (Ibid.) CEQA Guidelines section 15091 provides as follows:
“(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.

Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.

Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.”
Accordingly, for each significant impact identified herein, a finding has been made as to one or more of the following, as appropriate, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15091:

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR; Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; and/or Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the FEIR.

A narrative of supporting facts follows the appropriate finding. The findings identify significant impacts that, even after the imposition of all feasible proposed mitigation measures, will remain significant and unavoidable. As explained in more detail below, an agency decision-making body (here, the City Council) may not approve a project with significant unavoidable environmental effects without adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, as required by sections 15092 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines.

As noted above, the substantive mandate of CEQA requires agencies to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental effects where feasible. CEQA Guidelines section 15364 defines “feasible” as “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.”. “‘Feasibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 538
13 (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417.) The concept of “feasibility” also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (Sierra Club v.

County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1506-1509 [upholding CEQA findings rejecting alternatives in reliance on applicant’s project objectives]; see also California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 957, 1001 (CNPS) [“an alternative ‘may be found infeasible on the ground it is inconsistent with the project objectives as long as the finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record’”], quoting Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the Cal. Environmental Quality Act [Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed. 2009] (Kostka), § 17.30, p. 825); Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 296, 314-315 [court upholds agency action where alternative selected “entirely fulfill” a particular project objective and “would be ‘substantially less effective’ in meeting” the lead agency’s “goals”]; In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1165, 1166 (BayDelta) [“a lead agency may structure its EIR alternative analysis around a reasonable definition of underlying purpose and need not study alternatives that cannot achieve that basic goal”]; and Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715 (Sequoyah Hills) [court upholds finding rejecting lower density housing alternative as infeasible, citing city council’s conclusion that the fact that “‘the houses would be necessarily more expensive than those of the proposed project’ and would defeat the project objective of providing the ‘the least expensive single-family housing for the vicinity’”].)
A proposed mitigation measure or alternative is not feasible if the mitigation measure or alternative is not legally permissible. (See Kenneth Mebane Ranches v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 276, 289-292 [flood control district lacked the statutory authority to purchase property outside its boundaries for rare plant mitigation]; City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2006) 39 Cal.4th 341, 356-360 [payment of fair share fees to mitigate off-site transportation impacts was not legally infeasible]; and Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn.v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal. App. 4th 704, 715 [city council “found that requiring a decrease in project density would be legally infeasible in that it would be prohibited by Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (j)”] (original italics).) The CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between "avoiding" a significant environmental effect and "substantially lessening" such an effect. The City must therefore glean the meaning of these terms from the other context in which the terms are used. Public Resources Code section 21081, on which CEQA Guidelines section 15091 is based, uses the term “mitigate” rather than "substantially lessen". The CEQA Guidelines therefore equate "mitigating'' with "substantially lessening". Such an understanding of the statutory term is consistent with the policies underlying CEQA, which include the policy that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects." (Pub. Resources Code section 21002.)
For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" refers to the effectiveness of one or more mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less-than-significant level. In contrast, the term "substantially lessen" refers to the effectiveness of such measure or measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce that effect to a lessthan-significant level. These interpretations appear to be mandated by the holding in Laurel Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 519-521 (Laurel Hills), in which the Court of Appeal held that an agency had satisfied its obligation to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects by adopting numerous mitigation measures, not all of which rendered the EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 539
14 significant impacts in question to less than significant.

Although CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify that a particular significant effect is "avoid(ed) or substantially lessen(ed)," these findings, for purposes of clarity, in each case will specify whether the effect in question has been reduced to a less-thansignificant level, or has simply been substantially lessened but remains significant.

Moreover, although section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely "potentially significant," these findings will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Draft and Final EIR.

With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency decision-maker, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency decision-maker found that the project's "benefits" outweigh its "unavoidable adverse environmental effects” and on that basis consider the adverse environmental effects acceptable'' under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines sections 15093 and 15043(d).

See also Pub. Resources Code section 21080(b).) The California Supreme Court has stated, "(t)he wisdom of approving [any] development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore, balanced." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 576.)
These findings constitute the City Council's best efforts to set forth the evidentiary and policy bases for its decision to approve the Project in a manner consistent with the requirements of CEQA. To the extent that these findings conclude that various proposed mitigation measures outlined in the FEIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City will implement these measures consistent with its decision to approve the Project.

Certifications
The City Council certifies that it has been presented with the Final EIR and that it has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to making the following certifications and findings.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15090, the City Council certifies that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council certifies the Final EIR for the actions described in these Findings and in the Final EIR.

The City Council further certifies that the Final EIR reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis.

These Findings constitute the City Council's best efforts to set forth the evidentiary and policy bases for its decision to approve the Project in a manner consistent with the requirements of CEQA. To the extent that these Findings conclude that various proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City Council hereby adopts the measures and binds the City and project applicants to implement these measures as conditions of Project approval.

In adopting these mitigation measures, the City Council intends to adopt each of the mitigation EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 540
15 measures proposed in the Final EIR, unless expressly noted otherwise. Accordingly, in the event a mitigation measure recommended in the Final EIR has inadvertently been omitted from these Findings, said mitigation measure is hereby adopted and incorporated in the Findings below by reference. The City Council's Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project is included herein below.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the Project and is being approved by the City Council by the same resolution that is adopting these Findings. The City will use the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to track compliance with Project mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will remain available for public review during the compliance period. The Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached to and incorporated into the FEIR document and is approved in conjunction with certification of the FEIR and adoption of these Findings.

Findings Regarding Those Impacts Which Are Less Than Significant or Less Than Cumulatively Considerable
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant (Pub.

Resources Code, Section 21002; CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.). The presentation of each potential impact is repeated herein verbatim from the Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures on pages ES-1 through ES-32 in the DEIR. Based on substantial evidence in the whole of the administrative record for the Project, including more specifically the FEIR, the City finds that implementation of the Project will not result in significant impacts in the following areas and that these potential impact areas, therefore, do not require mitigation:

Air Quality:

4.1-1 The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

4.1-2 The proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

4.1-4 The proposed project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

4.1-5 The proposed project would not result in increased emissions of criteria pollutants in the SJVAB.

Aesthetics:

4.2-2 The proposed project would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to aesthetics or visual resources.

Biological Resources:

4.3-2 The proposed project would not substantially interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.

4.3-3 The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.

EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 541
16 4.3-4 The proposed project would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species or cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels.

4.3-5 The proposed project would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to biological resources.

Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources:

4.4-1 The proposed project would not cause a substantial change in the significance of a historical resource.

4.4-5 The proposed project, in conjunction with, past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects would not have a cumulative impact on archeological resources, tribal cultural resources and human remains.

Energy:

4.5-1 The proposed project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation.

4.5-2 The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

4.5-3 Buildout of the proposed project and additional forecasted growth in the PG&E service area would not cumulatively increase the demand for electricity and natural gas supplies and infrastructure capacity.

Geology and Soils:

4.6-1 The proposed project would not expose people or structures to potentially substantial adverse events, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault.

4.6-2 The proposed project would not expose people or structures to potentially substantial adverse events, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking.

4.6-3 The proposed project would not expose people or structures to potentially substantial adverse events, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.

4.6-4 The proposed project would not expose people or structures to potentially substantial adverse events, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides.

4.6-5 The proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

4.6-6 The proposed project would be located on a geologic unit or soil that is made unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.

4.6-7 The proposed project would not be located on expansive soil that would create substantial risks to life or property.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials:

4.8-2 The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

4.8-3 The proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school.

4.8-4 The proposed project site is not included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 542
17 pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

4.8-5 The proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

4.8-6 The proposed project, when combined with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not contribute to a cumulative increase in the potential exposure of people to hazards associated with the use and transport of hazardous materials.

Noise:

4.9-2 The proposed project would not result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels during construction.

4.9-3 The proposed project would not contribute to an increase in cumulative traffic noise exposing project residents to increased noise and exceed City standards.

Public Utilities:

4.10-1 The proposed project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities resulting in environmental effects.

4.10-2 The proposed project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years.

4.10-3 The proposed project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to existing commitments.

4.10-4 The proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.

4.10-5 The proposed project would comply with all federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

4.10-6 The proposed project, when combined with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to utilities and service systems.

Transportation and Circulation:

4.11-2 The proposed project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b).

4.11-3 The proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).

4.11-4 The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access.

4.11-5 The proposed project would not result in a conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b) under cumulative conditions.

Findings Regarding Potentially Significant Impacts Which Are Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level
The DEIR identified the potentially significant environmental impacts (or effects) that the Project could cause and/or contribute toward. A detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures was set forth in Chapter 4 (Sections 4.1 through 4.11) of the DEIR, EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 543
18 and the applicable responses to comments on the DEIR was presented in the FEIR. The DEIR evaluated the Project's potential environmental impacts to all resource areas. The Project's potential growth-inducing and cumulative impacts were also evaluated, as well as alternatives to the Project. Some of the Project’s significant impacts can be fully avoided through adoption of feasible mitigation measures.

The City's findings with respect to the Project's significant impacts and mitigation measures are set forth in the FEIR and in these Findings. In making these Findings, the City Council ratifies, adopts and incorporates the analysis and explanation in the FEIR, and ratifies, adopts and incorporates into these Findings the determinations and conclusions of the FEIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, except to the extent any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these Findings.

The descriptions of potentially significant impacts are repeated herein verbatim from the Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures on pages ES-1 through ES-32 in the DEIR.

Air Quality:

4.1-3 The proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Mitigation
MM 4.1-1: Construction Health Effects
Prior to the commencement of construction activities, the applicant shall require its construction contractor to demonstrate that project-generated construction emissions do not exceed the applicable San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) cancer risk thresholds.

Compliance with this performance standard shall be achieved through the use of California Air Resources Board (CARB)- certified Tier 4 Final engines for all diesel-powered equipment pieces that are 50 horsepower or greater to the extent such Tier 4 engines are commercially available.

In the event of changed circumstances (e.g., changes in the availability of specific types of construction equipment), the applicant may submit a request to the Office of Statewide Planning and Development Facilities Development Division (“Facilities Division”) for approval of a different method of achieving project-generated construction emissions that fall below the applicable SJVAPCD cancer risk threshold. Documentation shall be provided to the Facilities Division demonstrating that project-generated construction emissions do not exceed the applicable SJVAPCD cancer risk threshold with the alternate construction methods.

This shall be demonstrated using industry-standard emission estimation methodologies. If the documentation successfully demonstrates that project-generated construction emissions remain below the applicable SJVAPCD cancer risk threshold, then the Facilities Division may approve the alternate construction methods, at the Director’s discretion.

Required construction equipment fleet and methodologies approved by the Facilities Division shall be included in the contract specifications for the applicant’s construction contractor.

Biological Resources:

4.3-1 The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status in local EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 544
19 or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, nor substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.

Mitigation: No mitigation required. Conditions of Approval (COA) are listed below.

COA-1: Preconstruction Nesting Bird Surveys
If vegetation removal and initial ground-disturbing activities would occur during the nesting season (March 1 – July 31) of common bird species potentially nesting on the project site, surveys for active nests shall be conducted as described below.

A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey for nesting birds no more than 14 days prior to vegetation or tree removal or ground-disturbing activities. The survey shall be conducted in suitable nesting habitat both within the limits of construction as well as within 250 feet of the limits of construction. If suitable nest habitat within 250 feet of the limits of construction occurs beyond the project boundary into adjacent privately held lands, then the survey shall only be conducted within habitat up to the project site boundary. This includes trees and shrubs adjacent to the site within that buffer distance. If vegetation removal or ground-disturbance activities are delayed, additional nest surveys shall be conducted such that no more than 14 days elapse between the survey and vegetation removal or ground-disturbance activities.

If any active nests are observed during the pre-construction surveys, a qualified biologist shall establish a suitable avoidance buffer from the active nest and construction activities. The buffer distance shall be determined based on factors such as the species of bird; the presence/absence of visual barriers between the disturbance and the nest; type, intensity and extent of the disturbance; timing relative to the nesting cycle; and anticipated construction schedule. Limits of construction to avoid active nests shall be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers and shall be maintained until the chicks have fledged and the nests are no longer active, as determined by the qualified biologist.

If an active nest is identified in or adjacent to the construction zone after construction has started, work in the vicinity of the nest shall be halted until the qualified biologist can provide appropriate avoidance and minimization measures to ensure that the nest is not disturbed by construction. Appropriate measures may include a no-disturbance buffer until the birds have fledged and/or full-time monitoring by a qualified biologist during construction activities conducted in close proximity to the nest. The buffer distance shall be determined based on the same factors set forth in paragraph b.

COA-2: Preconstruction Roosting Bat Surveys
To ensure compliance with California Fish and Game Code section 4150, if tree removal and building demolition will occur during peak bat activity periods (March 1–April 30 and August 1– October 31) when juvenile or overwintering bat species known to occur in the project region may be present, the following will be conducted to ensure protection of potentially occurring bats and their roosts on the project site. Additionally, and to the extent practicable, construction activities shall be restricted to daylight hours to reduce indirect and direct disturbance to roosting and foraging bat species.

A pre-construction bat survey shall be conducted within 30 days of the removal of any trees or buildings. The survey shall include a visual inspection of potential roosting features (bats need not be present) and presence of guano in the construction footprint and within 50 feet of the footprint. If bats are found within the vacant buildings, or if individual bats are located within tree bark or tree crevices of trees to be removed, the individuals shall be evicted under the direction of a qualified biologist to ensure their protection and to avoid unnecessary harm.

Cultural and Tribal Resources:

EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 545
20 4.4-2 The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource of an archaeological nature or a unique archaeological resource.

Mitigation
MM 4.4-2: Unknown Subsurface Resources
Prior to construction, construction personnel shall receive brief “tailgate” training by a qualified archaeologist in the identification of archaeological resources and protocol for notification should such resources be discovered during construction work. Such tailgate training shall include discussion of the criteria that cause archaeological resources to qualify as either unique archaeological resources under Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, subdivision (g), or a historical resource of an archaeological nature under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, subdivision (1)(a).

In the event archaeological resources (e.g., sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during construction activities, all construction work occurring within 50 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, can evaluate the significance of the find (i.e., determine whether the resources qualify as unique archaeological resources or historical resources of an archaeological nature) and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. Upon such a work stoppage, the City of Stockton’s Community Development Director (CDD) shall be notified immediately.

If it is determined that unique archaeological resources or historical resources of an archaeological nature are present, the qualified archaeologist shall develop mitigation or treatment measures for consideration and approval by the City’s CDD. Mitigation shall be developed and implemented in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 and Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, with a preference for preservation in place. Consistent with Section 15126.4(b)(3), preservation in place may be accomplished through planning construction to avoid the resource; incorporating the resource within open space; capping and covering the resource; or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. If approved by the City’s CDD, such measures shall be implemented and completed prior to commencing further work for which grading or building permits were issued, unless otherwise directed by the City’s CDD. Avoidance or preservation of unique archaeological resources or historical resources of an archaeological nature shall not be required where such avoidance or preservation in place would preclude the construction of important structures or infrastructure or require exorbitant expenditures, as determined by the City’s CDD. Where avoidance or preservation are not appropriate for these reasons, the professional archaeologist, in consultation with the City’s CDD, shall prepare a detailed recommended treatment plan for consideration and approval by the City’s CDD, which may include data recovery. If employed, data recovery strategies for unique archaeological resources that do not also qualify as historical resources of an archaeological nature shall follow the applicable requirements and limitations set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. Data recovery will normally consist of (but would not be limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim of recovering important scientific data contained within the unique archaeological resource or historical resource of an archaeological nature. The data recovery plan shall include provisions for analysis of data in a regional context, reporting of results within a timely manner, curation of artifacts and data at an approved facility, and dissemination of reports to local and state repositories, libraries, and interested professionals. If data recovery is determined by the City’s CDD to not be appropriate, then an equally effective treatment intended to address the specific themes or research questions of significance associated with the data of that cultural resource EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 546
21 shall be proposed, approved by the City’s CDD, and implemented. Work may not resume within the no-work radius until the City’s CDD, in consultation with the professional archaeologist, determines that the site either: (1) does not contain unique archaeological resources or historical resources of an archaeological nature; or (2) that the preservation and/or treatment measures have been completed to the satisfaction of the City’s CDD.

4.4-3 The proposed project could potentially damage human remains during construction activities.

Mitigation
MM 4.4-3: Treatment of Human Remains
If human remains are discovered at any project construction site(s) during any phase of construction, all ground-disturbing activity within 50 feet of the remains shall be halted immediately, and the City of Stockton (City), the San Joaquin County coroner, and a qualified professional archaeologist shall be notified immediately. This boundary may be adjusted to meet the demands of ongoing work, so long as the location of all potential remains are effectively protected. The coroner shall examine all discoveries of human remains within 48 hours of receiving notice of a discovery on private or state lands, in accordance with Section 7050(b) of the Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined by the County coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified by phone within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The Most Likely Descendent shall provide recommendations for management of these remains within 48 hours of being provided access to this site, or as otherwise agreed upon by the lando w n e r and the City.

The City shall be responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking into account the provisions of state law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 through Section 5097.994, as applicable. The applicant may choose to retain a Secretary of the Interior qualified archaeologist to review recommendations and to facilitate communication concerning human remains between the landowner and the Most Likely Descendant. If a find is archaeological in nature, Mitigation Measure 4.4-2 outlines required strategies for management.

4.4-4 The proposed project could cause an adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource.

Mitigation
MM 4.4-4: Tribal Cultural Resources
To minimize the potential for destruction of or damage to existing or previously undiscovered burials, archaeological and tribal cultural resources and to identify any such resources at the earliest possible time during project-related earthmoving activities, the project applicant and its construction contractor(s) will implement the following measures:

Paid Native American monitors, compensated by the project applicant, from culturally affiliated Native American Tribes shall be invited to monitor the vegetation grubbing, stripping, grading or other ground-disturbing activities in the project area to determine the presence or absence of any cultural resources. Native American representatives from cultural affiliated Native American Tribes act as a representative of their Tribal government and shall be consulted before any cultural studies or ground-disturbing activities begin.

EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 547
22 Consulting tribes and their designated Native American monitors and/or representatives shall have the authority to identify sites or objects of significance to Native Americans and to request that work be temporarily stopped, diverted or slowed if such sites or objects are identified within the direct impact area. Native American representatives shall be the primary consulted authority on Tribal Cultural Resources and shall recommend appropriate treatment of such sites or objects.

All management strategies shall be in compliance with regulatory conditions and be implemented in coordination with mitigation pertaining to cultural resources and human remains (see mitigation measures 4.4-2 and 4.4-3).

Geology and Soils:

4.6-8 The proposed project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

Mitigation
MM 4.6-8: Unanticipated Paleontological Discovery
Prior to construction, construction personnel shall receive brief “tailgate” training by a qualified archaeologist in the identification of paleontological resources and protocol for notification should such resources be discovered during construction work.

If buried paleontological resources are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work shall stop within 50 feet of the find. Work shall not continue at the discovery site until a qualified paleontologist can examine the find to determine whether it includes or constitutes a unique paleontological resource and, if it is, formulate mitigation recommendations for consideration and approval by the City’s Community Development Director (CDD). A unique paleontological resource means a paleontological resource about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets one of the two following criteria: (1) contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information; or (2) has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.

Mitigation options shall include preserving the resource in place or recovering data and creating documentation for transmission to the University of California Museum of Paleontology or another institution of higher education with an established paleontological department or program.

Avoidance or preservation in place of unique paleontological resources shall not be required where such avoidance or preservation would preclude the construction of important structures or infrastructure or require exorbitant expenditures, as determined by the City’s CDD.

4.6-9 The proposed project would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact related to loss of paleontological resources.

Mitigation: See MM 4.6-8.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials:

4.8-1 The proposed project could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 548
23 Mitigation
MM 4.8-1: Lead-based Paint Abatement
Prior to demolition permit issuance, the project applicant or their contractor shall retain a certified abatement contractor to prepare an abatement work plan in compliance with state and federal regulations for removal of lead-based paint identified on the outside doors of the McCloud and Main Hospital Wing buildings and include a monitoring plan to be conducted by a qualified consultant during abatement activities to ensure compliance with the work plan requirements and abatement contractor specifications. In addition, a certified contractor shall collect soil samples in the locations identified in the Phase 2 ESA to be tested to ensure any soil exported off-site or stockpiled soil onsite does not exceed 50 mg/kg. Demolition plans and contract specifications shall incorporate any necessary abatement measures for the removal of materials containing lead-based paint to the satisfaction of the City’s Community Development Department.

Noise:

4.9-1 The proposed project could result in generation of a temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project substantially above levels without the project or in excess of standards established in the City’s general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.

Mitigation
MM 4.9-1: Construction Noise
Construction operations performed between 6:30 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday, weekends and holidays shall comply with the following requirements:

Equipment shall be operated to minimize banging, clattering, buzzing, and other annoying types of noises, especially near residential and other noise sensitive areas prior to work commencing between 6:30 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday, weekends and holidays.

To the extent feasible, configure the construction site in a manner that keeps noisier equipment and activities as far as possible from noise sensitive locations and nearby buildings.

All auditory back-up alarms shall be disarmed and not reactivated until 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, weekends and holidays.

Signal persons and strobe lights must be used during periods when the back-up alarms are disarmed.

Schedule high noise-producing activities, such as demolition or grading operations/equipment, to only occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., weekdays, weekends and holidays, to minimize potential disruption to sensitive uses.

Minimize noise-intensive activities/operations between 6:30 a.m. and 7:00 a.m., weekdays, weekends and holidays by doing the following:

Plan noisier operations during times of highest ambient noise levels (i.e., daytime hours, 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.).

Keep noise levels relatively uniform; avoid excessive and impulsive noises.

Turn off idling equipment.

MM 4.9-2: Central Utility Plant Operational Noise
Central Utility Plant operational noise levels shall be minimized through project site design, including the construction of localized barriers, and the use of acoustical absorption materials, as outlined below.

All mechanical equipment with the potential to generate excessive noise levels shall be fitted with intake and exhaust silencers, or acoustical enclosures sufficient to reduce noise levels to comply EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 549
24 with City of Stockton noise standards.

Mechanical equipment with the potential to generate excessive noise levels shall be located within the Central Utility Plant building wherever possible. Building penetrations such as fresh air intakes shall be fitted with acoustical louvers.

Noise generating equipment not located within the Central Utility Plant building or within adjacent service yards shall be shielded from direct line-of-sight to nearby noise-sensitive uses (approximately 475 feet to the west and 1,000 feet to the east) through the use of localized noise barriers, rooftop parapets, sound rated mechanical screens or intervening structures.

The Central Utility Plant and other mechanical equipment shall be located a sufficient distance from nearby noise sensitive receptors (approximately 475 feet to the west and 1,000 feet to the east), so that mitigated noise levels do not exceed City of Stockton noise level performance standards.

MM 4.9-3: Parking Structure ADA Ingress and Egress Notification System The Parking Structure ADA ingress and egress notification system shall be minimized through project site design, including the selection of equipment capable of complying with the City of Stockton noise standards, equipment location, construction of localized acoustic screens, and providing documentation of compliance with the City of Stockton noise standards.

During equipment specification and selection processes, an auditory notification system capable of either being able to achieve compliance with City noise standards based on the equipment configuration; or,
Equipment selection shall place considerable deference to state-of-the-art equipment offering the best available acoustical performance (i.e., equipment configurable to produce the lowest acoustic energy as possible, while still achieving the necessary levels for appropriate notification).

For equipment specified or selected for inclusion in the Parking Structure ingress and egress notification system that is not capable of being configured and installed in a manner to inherently achieve compliance with the City of Stockton noise standards, documentation shall be provided to the City demonstrating compliance with the City of Stockton noise standards at the nearby noise-sensitive receptors.

Demonstration of compliance may be provided through substantial reference sound level data from the equipment supplier/manufacturer, or through consultation with a qualified acoustical consultant.

Should it be necessary to retain a qualified acoustical consultant to demonstrate compliance with the City noise standards, or if the manufacturer reference sound level data is deemed incomplete or insufficient, a qualified acoustical consultant shall be retained at the applicants expense to evaluate the manufacturer reference noise level data, demonstrate and provide documentation to the City that the sound levels produced by the notification system shall comply with City noise standards.

Should manufacturer sound level data not fully demonstrate compliance with the City noise standards, or if a supplemental analysis is performed post-construction, the sound level testing shall be performed by a qualified acoustical consultant or City Code Enforcement Officer familiar with and capable of documenting the notification system sound levels through the use of a precision integrating sound level meter or measurement platform that meets or exceeds the ANSI standards for type 1 or 2 sound level meters.

Transportation and Circulation:

4.11-1 The proposed project could conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Mitigation
EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 550
25 MM 4.11-1: Traffic Signal
Prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy, the project applicant shall coordinate with the City of Stockton on the design, construction, and implementation of a new traffic signal at the intersection of Cemetery Lane/E. Harding Way. The project applicant shall be fully responsible for the installation of the signal which would accommodate the expected future traffic demand, improve pedestrian safety, and improve emergency access via integrated traffic signal preemption for the adjacent Stockton Fire Station No. 9.

Based on the analysis presented in the DEIR and the FEIR, other substantial evidence in the whole of the record, and the standards of significance presented in the DEIR and the FEIR, the City Council finds that the Project’s potential impact in each of the topic areas described in this section of these Findings would be significant in the absence of feasible mitigation measures. The City Council finds that the mitigation measures presented in the DEIR, the FEIR and in this section of these Findings reduce the potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Findings Regarding Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
As noted elsewhere in these Findings, the DEIR identified the potentially significant environmental impacts (or effects) that the Project could cause and/or contribute toward. A detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures was set forth in Chapter 4 (Sections 4.1 through 4.11) of the DEIR, and the applicable responses to comments on the DEIR were presented in the FEIR. Although some of the Project’s potentially significant impacts can be fully avoided or reduced to a less-than-significant level through adoption of feasible mitigation measures, other impacts cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level even after adoption of feasible mitigation measures. These impacts are deemed to be significant and unavoidable.

Aesthetics

4.2-1 The proposed project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

Mitigation: None available.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

4.7-1 The proposed project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Mitigation
MM 4.7-1:
• The following GHG emission reduction measures shall be implemented: Structural support and the installation of solar panels shall be included in the Request for Proposal for the design and construction of the Parking Structure. If the proposals indicate that installation of a PV solar energy is feasible, as defined by CEQA Guidelines section 15364, St.

Joseph’s Medical Center (SJMC) shall contract for their installation. SJMC shall then ensure that all equipment is timely ordered and that the system is installed when the City has approved building permits and the necessary equipment has arrived. SJMC shall ensure that PV solar energy system commences operation when it has received EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 551
26 permission to operate the utility. SJMC shall ensure that the system is maintained at not less than 80 percent of the rated power for 20 years and at the end of the 20-year period it shall install a new PV solar system, or continue to maintain the existing system, at the same standards, for the life of the parking structure. Nothing in this measure is intended to discourage or limit the efforts of SJMC to explore serving SJMC power needs through PV solar energy systems or other renewable energy sources in other locations. • The Parking Structure shall meet the minimum requirements of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (“State CalGreen”) 5.106.5.3 (Electric vehicle (EV) charging), i.e., 20% of parking structure spaces EV capable; 25% of preceding number EVCS with charging equipment (EVSE) actually installed, with the installation of EVSE, but not the installation of required EV capable equipment, subject to the exceptions stated in Cal Green section 5.106.5.3(1)(a)-(c); or unless otherwise authorized by CalGreen Section

5.106.5.3.2 as to both EV capable and EVSE.
• Long-term bicycle storage facilities such as bicycle lockers, pedestal posts, and rental bicycle lockers shall be provided. Installation of bicycle charging stations shall be managed through the TDM Plan presented in Mitigation Measure 4.7-2, second bullet point. • Include the installation of both interior- and exterior-facing signs, including signs directed at all dock and delivery areas, identifying idling restrictions and contact information to report violations to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), and the building manager. • Run conduit to designated locations for future electric truck charging stations at delivery dock locations.
• Post signs at every truck exit driveway providing directional information to the nearest truck route.
• Include exterior outlets on all buildings to allow the use of electrically powered landscape equipment and the use of gas-powered landscape maintenance equipment shall be prohibited on site.
• Require the use of energy-efficient lighting LED for all street, parking, and building lighting.

This reduces the amount of electricity consumed for outdoor lighting. • Encourage telecommuting and alternative work schedules for those employees for whom remote work is acceptable.

MM 4.7-2:

The project applicant shall prepare a campus-wide Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. The TDM Plan shall include a variety of trip reduction strategies to increase opportunities for transit, bicycling and walking and to incentivize ridesharing and carpooling to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips. The TDM Plan shall have as a goal to achieve at least a five percent reduction in employee vehicle miles traveled (VMT) compared with baseline VMT as projected to exist without the TDM Plan. The TDM Plan shall be published on both visitor and patient portions of the St. Joseph’s public webpage, with focus on improving content to better publicize alternative transportation options to the public no later than the issuance of the demolition permit for the first phase of the project, and shall be updated prior to the approval of the certificates of occupancy for facilities included in each subsequent phase. The following programs are proposed in the context of St. Joseph’s Hospital, only, and within the context of reasonably available programs for a not-for-profit medical center with a high percentage of lower income patients. The TDM Plan shall include, at a minimum, the measures set forth below, even if they result in more than the goal of a five percent reduction in employee VMT.

Expand upon existing alternative transportation programs through the following:

EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 552
27 1. increase prime spaces for carpool parking based on current demand (i.e., 8) to projected future demand (i.e, 16). Review annually and increase as necessary to ensure sufficient spaces for carpools;

2. evaluate use of electrical vehicle charging stations (for bicycles and vehicles) prior to the certificate of occupancy for each phase to determine if demand has exceeded supply and identify in the TDM Plan the timeline for phased increases to electric charging stations when needed with the goal that supply remains slightly larger than demand to help incentivize electric vehicle purchases;

3. establish an incentives-based commuter program to encourage employees to carpool and take alternative modes of travel to the hospital (see, e.g., subparagraphs a, e, and f)

4. increase availability and access to bicycle parking facilities; review annually and increase as necessary to ensure sufficient spaces for bicycles;

5. provide a free or low-cost ride home in cases of emergency for employees who use alternative transportation, such as carpooling, vanpooling, public transit, bicycling, and walking;

6. provide a transit bus pass to participating employees who agree to commute by transit rather than by single occupancy vehicle;

7. engage with Regional Transit to enhance bus schedules and “VanGo” (i.e., dial-a-ride) services to the Medical Center and support these enhanced services to Regional Transit staff and/or Board of Directors;

8. through the wayfinding and signage program, include directions for employees, patients, and visitors to identify locations for carpool, bicycles, shuttles, and bus stops;

9. provide shuttle service during construction to transport employees or visitors from off-site parking locations to the Medical Center;

10. rotate existing Medical Center fleet (consisting of automobiles and service vans) with electric vehicles on a standardized replacement schedule with details specified in the TDM Plan (e.g., the earlier of a need for a repair that is not cost effective given the age of a vehicle or, alternatively, a mileage threshold), and which includes consideration of commercial availability, cost, the general driving range for a vehicle, and the availability of EV charging stations for vehicles with longer driving ranges, as well as other reasonable limitations as set forth in the TDM Plan;

11. add TDM Plan information to both visitor and patient portions of the St.

Joseph’s public webpage, with focus on improving content to better publicize alternative transportation options to the public;

12. provide information to employees about TDM Plan programs through (1) internal newsletter and (2) communication boards in employee gathering rooms (e.g., cafeteria, break rooms);
EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 553
28 13. set a reasonable goal for reduced single occupancy employee vehicle trips to and from the Medical Center and report progress towards that goal as part of the Development Agreement reports based on results of good faith surveys of employees.

SJMC will provide public notice via the St. Joseph’s web page of the availability of a draft TDM Plan, a link on that web page to the draft TDM Plan, and a reasonable period of time for interested members of the public to comment on the draft TDM Plan before it is finalized In the event that the measures set forth above are insufficient to achieve the goal of a five percent (5%) reduction in employee vehicle miles traveled (VMT) compared with baseline VMT as projected to exist without the TDM Plan, the applicant shall consider additional feasible measures sufficient to make up the shortfall or, in the alternative, shall find means of reducing GHG emissions in amounts commensurate with GHG emissions associated with the VMT shortfall.

MM 4.7-3:

In order to reduce the remaining greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 0.50 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e)/service population/per year, the applicant shall pursue feasible measures that contribute to an off-site GHG emissions reduction program or involve the payment of GHG offset fees. Such measures shall be included within a greenhouse gas emissions report (“emissions report”) prepared by the Applicant for each phase of the project resulting in an increase in operational GHG emissions over baseline levels. The measures or offsets required in such phase-specific emissions report shall be limited to what is necessary for that phase to achieve its proportional share of the emissions reductions needed to achieve the overall efficiency threshold for the project as a whole (0.50 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e)/service population/per year). Any GHG offsets or GHG- mitigation credits included within such emissions report must be real, quantifiable, permanent, verifiable, enforceable, and additional, consistent with the standards set forth in Health and Safety Code section 38562, subdivisions (d)(1) and (d)(2), which are defined for purposes of this mitigation measure as follows:
• Real—Represent reductions actually achieved (not based on maximum permit levels). • Additional/surplus—Not already planned or required by regulation or policy (i.e., not double counted).
• Quantifiable—Readily accounted for through process information and other reliable data. • Enforceable—Acquired through legally binding commitments/agreements. • Validated—Verified through accurate means by a reliable third party. • Permanent—Will remain as GHG reductions in perpetuity Such offsets, as included in a phase-specific emissions report as noted above, shall be based on protocols consistent with the criteria set forth Section 95972, subdivision (a) of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations, and shall not include offsets originating outside of California, except to the extent that the quality of the offsets, and their sufficiency under the standards set forth herein, can be verified by the City of Stockton in consultation with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (SJVAPCD). Offsets for GHG emissions originating from outside the United States shall not be permitted. Such GHG offsets or GHG mitigation credits must be purchased through one of the following:
• a CARB-approved registry, such as the Climate Action Reserve, the American Carbon Registry, and the Verified Carbon Standard;
EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 554
29 • any registry approved by CARB to act as a registry under the California Cap and Trade program;
• the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) GHG Rx program; or • any GHG offset or GHG mitigation program adopted the SJVAPCD.

For purposes of the preparation of such an emissions report, what is “feasible,” as that word is used in the phrase “feasible measures that contribute to an off-site GHG emissions reduction program or involve the payment of GHG offset fees,” is a function of the technical viability and overall cost of carbon offsets, and, specifically, whether such offsets (i) are reasonably commercially available, (ii) would be prohibitively expensive for the nonprofit applicant in light of the financial challenges of providing health care services, (iii) would materially increase the cost of the health care provided by the applicant, or (iv) would render the overall project or phase of the project economically infeasible within the meaning of CEQA case law such as Uphold Our Heritage v.

Town of Woodside (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 587, 598-601 [proposal may be infeasible if “the marginal costs … are so great that a reasonably prudent property owner would not proceed with” the proposal].)
The City may not issue a building permit for a project phase requiring an emissions report until the City’s Community Development Director has approved the emissions report for that phase.

The Community Development Director may utilize outside expertise in reviewing and approving the emissions report.

If the applicant submits a proposed phase-specific report that does not meet the performance standard of 0.50 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e)/service population/year for that phase because the applicant believes that obtaining all of the offsets required to meet that level of reduction is infeasible, the applicant shall so inform the City’s Community Development Director in a feasibility report submitted in connection with the proposed emissions report.

The feasibility report shall state in writing the applicant’s reasons for concluding that the acquisition of some or all of the ostensibly required carbon offsets is infeasible. The Community Development Director shall relieve the applicant of its ostensible obligation to provide such offsets if he or she finds that the applicant’s conclusions on the issue of feasibility are supported by substantial evidence and conform to the definition of “feasible” set forth above.

If the Community Development Director determines that the feasibility report is not supported by substantial evidence and the applicant cannot be relieved of its ostensible obligation to provide offsets, he or she may approve the emissions report with some or all of the contested offsets despite the applicant’s objections. The applicant may withdraw both its proposed emissions report and its request for a building permit for the phase rather than proceed with what the applicant considers to be an infeasible emissions report. Under such a circumstance, the applicant may choose to prepare a modified emissions report or a modified feasibility report, leading to subsequent consideration by the City’s Community Development Director of the modified emissions report or the same emissions report with an updated feasibility report.

Following Community Development Director approval of a phase-specific emissions report acceptable to the applicant, the document shall be posted in a prominent place on the City’s website, along with notice to the public that any interested party may file an Appeal pursuant to Stockton Municipal Code (SMC) Section 16.100. The emissions report approval and notice of the right to appeal shall be included within that portion of the City’s website devoted to activities of EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 555
30 the Community Development Department. Consistent with SMC 16.100.020, the Planning Commission’s decision may be appealed to the City Council. The decision of the City Council shall be final in accordance with SMC 16.100.040(J)(2). Council has the option of affirming, reversing, adding additional conditions to address an issue, or referring back to the Planning Commission or Director pursuant to SMC 16.100.040(G).

After the approval of a phase-specific emissions report but before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for that phase, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the emissions report through the submission of phase-specific reports to the Community Development Director that identify the offsite measures and/or carbon offsets that have been implemented or obtained. The Community Development Director may utilize outside expertise in reviewing and approving the phase-specific compliance report. The reports shall include: (i) the applicable protocol(s) associated with the carbon offsets, (ii) the third-party confirmation/verification reports affiliated with the carbon offset projects, (iii) the unique serial numbers assigned by the registry(ies) to the carbon offsets to be retired to ensure that the offsets cannot be further used in any manner, and (iv) the locational attributes of the carbon offsets.

4.7-2 The proposed project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Mitigation: See MMs 4.7-1 and 4.7-2.

4.7-3 The proposed project would result in cumulatively considerable impacts with regard to greenhouse gas emissions.

Mitigation: See MMs 4.7-1 and 4.7-2.

Findings Related to Mitigation of Significant and Unavoidable Impacts The City Council finds that the mitigation measures presented above, and related to Aesthetic impacts and Greenhouse Gas Emissions impacts, are required of the Project, but have significant and unavoidable impacts. The City Council further finds that the above measures are appropriate and feasible and would substantially reduce but not avoid the potentially significant adverse environmental effects of the Project. No additional feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level (Public Resources Code, Section 21002; CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15091, 15126.4 (a)(2)).

The City Council has been presented with no persuasive substantial evidence to contradict its conclusion in this regard. To the extent that these adverse impacts will not be avoided or eliminated, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project.

Findings Related to Project Alternatives
As required by CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6, the DEIR included an evaluation of a range of reasonable potentially feasible alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. The EIR also included the mandatory No EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 556
31 Project Alternative.

The City Council makes the findings set forth below to support its rejection of (i) an alternative that was considered and eliminated from further analysis and (ii) the two (2) alternatives that were fully analyzed in the DEIR, in addition to the No Project Alternative.

Section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines describes that one of the findings that a lead agency can make concerning significant project impacts is that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the EIR.

With respect to project alternatives, “[t]he issue of feasibility arises at two different junctures:
(1) in the assessment of alternatives in the EIR and (2) during the agency’s later consideration of whether to approve the project.” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 981, citing Mira Mar Mobile Community v. City of Oceanside (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 477, 489 (Mira Mar).) “But ‘differing factors come into play at each stage.’” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 981, citing Kostka, §

15.9, p. 740.) “For the first phase—inclusion in the EIR—the standard is whether the alternative is potentially feasible.” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 981, citing Mira Mar, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 489; CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6, subd. (a).) “By contrast, at the second phase— the final decision on project approval—the decision-making body evaluates whether the alternatives are actually feasible.” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 981, citing CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3).) “At that juncture, the decisionmakers may reject as infeasible alternatives that were identified in the EIR as potentially feasible.” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 981, citing Mira Mar, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 489.) “While it is up to the EIR preparer to identify alternatives as potentially feasible, the decision making body ‘may or may not reject those alternatives as being infeasible’ when it comes to project approval.” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 999, quoting Sierra Club v. County of Napa, supra, 121 Cal.App.4th at p. 1504.) “Rejection by the decision makers does not undermine the validity of the EIR's alternatives analysis.” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 999, citing Mira Mar, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 489.) “Like mitigation measures, potentially feasible alternatives ‘are suggestions which may or may not be adopted by the decisionmakers.’” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 999, quoting No Slo Transit, Inc. v. City of Long Beach (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 241, 256.)
“When it comes time to decide on project approval, the public agency’s decision making body evaluates whether the alternatives are actually feasible.” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 999, citing Mira Mar, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 489, and CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3).) “While staff may draft the necessary findings, the decision making body is responsible for the ultimate determination of feasibility, which cannot be delegated.” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 999, citing CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15025, subd. (b)(2), § 15091, subd. (a)(3).) “At this final stage of project approval, the agency considers whether “[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations ... make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 1000, citing Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a)(3).) “Broader considerations of policy thus come into play when the decision-making body is considering actual feasibility than when the EIR preparer is assessing potential feasibility of the alternatives.” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 1000.) Thus, “it does not subvert the CEQA environmental review process for the ultimate decision maker to reject as infeasible alternatives identified in the EIR.” (Ibid.) As explained earlier, at the decision-making stage “‘feasibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 557
32 economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at p. 417; CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 1001; San Diego Citizenry Group v. County of San Diego, supra, 219 Cal.App.4th at p. 17.) Relatedly, the concept of “feasibility” also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (Sierra Club v. County of Napa, supra, 121 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1506-1509; CNPS, supra, 177 Cal. App. 4th 957, 1001; Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi, supra, 296 Cal.App.4th at pp. 314-315; Sequoyah Hills, supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at p. 715; and Bay-Delta, supra, 43 Cal.4th at pp. 1165, 1166.) In addition, a proposed alternative may also be legally infeasible. (Sequoyah Hills, supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at p. 715.)
In preparing the EIR, City staff screened the alternatives for technical, logistical, and financial feasibility, but the alternatives were not evaluated for all economic, legal, social or other considerations that make up the broader definition of "feasibility" in Section 15091(a)(3).

Consistent with CEQA, moreover, staff gave primary consideration to alternatives that could reduce significant impacts while still meeting most of the basic project objectives. Any alternative that would have impacts identical to or more severe than the proposed project, or that would not meet any or most of the project objectives, were dismissed from further consideration.

For the reasons discussed above, the use of the term "infeasible" in the findings below concerning the alternatives is more expansive than references to “potentially feasible” or "feasible" in the EIR's discussion of alternatives, which was limited to technical, logistical and financial feasibility.

An alternative may have been determined to be technically, logistically, and financially "feasible" by City staff in the EIR and still ultimately be concluded by the City Council, as the ultimate decisionmaker on the Project, to meet the definition of "infeasibility" per Section 15091(a)(3) as interpreted in case law, when all considerations are taken into account, as discussed above.

Alternatives Considered and Rejected as Infeasible
The following alternatives were considered on pages 6-3 and 6-4 of the DEIR, but were not evaluated in detail for the reasons presented herein.

Section 15126.6(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires EIRs to identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible for detailed study and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. Furthermore, Section 15126(f)(1) states that “among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries…and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire or control or otherwise have access to the alternative site. No one of these factors established a fixed limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives.” An off-site alternative for a new hospital facility separate and distinct from St. Joseph’s was rejected as infeasible because the Project’s proposed MDP includes the existing Medical Center campus which provides various medical buildings that function as a unit. Development of new components such as the Parking Structure and new Acute Care Hospital Tower on off-site parcels would greatly affect accessibility and site connectivity. In addition, the applicant does not own any other offsite property large enough that would be feasible for this project and cannot “reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to [an] alternative site” (refer to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126[f][1]).

EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 558
33 Similarly, an alternative proposal to build a separate satellite campus rather than expanding the existing Medical Center campus was rejected as infeasible because of the lack of property under the ownership of the applicant; lack of connectivity to the existing medical center facilities and services; and environmental impacts and associated costs would likely be greater and more severe than the proposed project as discussed hereafter. Building a second campus would require new infrastructure and utility connections, and other public and private services that may not be available at another site in addition to the potential loss of biological or cultural resources.

It is likely that a second campus would require at least a partial duplication of services with those of the existing Medical Center campus for core and support functions, such as administrative staff.

As such, it can be reasonably assumed that this alternative would significantly increase staffing requirements and costs in order to provide healthcare services to the community at the level now provided. This alternative would also increase vehicle miles traveled from the travel of staff, residents, and patients between the two (2) campuses.

An alternative proposal to eliminate the multi-story Parking Structure from the project was rejected as infeasible because without additional parking, the Medical Center would not be able to accommodate the anticipated need for expanded medical services resulting in more visitors, patients, and staff. It is likely that off-site parcels would be required to accommodate parking needs, as well as a shuttle service to the main Medical Center campus. This alternative would also require the elimination or relocation of the proposed heliport(s), which would affect the Medical Center’s ability to provide timely emergency medical care.

Project Alternatives Selected for Analysis
CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(f)(2) describes conditions under which consideration of alternative project locations are appropriate. The key question to be considered is whether or not any of the significant effects of the Project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the Project in another location and whether the proposed Project, placed at an alternative location, is environmentally superior to the proposed Project. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project need be considered for inclusion in an EIR.

The City’s CEQA consultant considered alternative locations early in the Draft EIR preparation process. The City’s consultant’s key considerations in identifying an alternative location were as follows:

Is there an alternative location where significant effects of the Project would be avoided or substantially lessened?
Is there a site available within the City with the appropriate size, site configuration, and location characteristics such that it would meet the basic Project objectives? The consideration of alternative locations for the Project included a review of previous land use planning and environmental documents in Stockton, including the General Plan. The City found that there are no potential alternative locations within the City with the appropriate size and characteristics that would meet the Project objectives.

It is also noted that the Project site has been identified as a site for urban development in the General Plan. As noted previously, the City’s General Plan designates the Medical Center campus as Administrative Professional and Commercial, both of which allow medical uses. Offcampus properties within the MDP are designated in the General Plan as Administrative EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 559
34 Professional and Medium Density Residential, both of which allow the proposed and continuing uses. In addition, the applicant lacks ownership or control of any alternative sites. “Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are … whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site[.]” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6, subd. (f)(1).)
Project Alternatives
Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
Alternative 1 is discussed in further detail on pages 6-4 and 6-5 of the DEIR.

Description
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) requires that an EIR evaluate a “No Project Alternative,” which is intended to allow decision-makers the ability to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. The No Project Alternative considers the effects of forgoing the project entirely and leaving the project site in its current condition. Under this alternative, the existing Medical Center would not be expanded or upgraded in any way and a MDP would not be prepared for the campus. No new buildings would be constructed, no existing buildings would be demolished or modernized, and the Medical Center would continue to provide the same amount of healthcare services as current conditions without the ability to expand the delivery of those services to accommodate population growth.

Comparative Analysis of Environmental Effects
The No Project (No Development) Alternative would produce no changes on the project site because the site would remain in its current condition, effectively eliminating the project impacts discussed in chapter 4 of this Draft EIR and the Initial Study (see Appendix B). Under the No Project (No Development) Alternative, there would be no new project construction or operational activities and no new vehicle trips. No building demolition, construction, or ground disturbance would occur so there would be no changes to cultural resources, visual conditions, biological resources, ambient noise, or effects to other existing resources in the project area. There would be no air emissions or GHG emissions associated with construction and operation activities. No new utilities, or services would be needed to serve new buildings or land uses. All impacts that would occur from the proposed project would be avoided under this Alternative, including the significant impact resulting from conflict with regulations governing scenic quality and GHG emissions.

Relationship of Alternative 1 to Project Objectives
The No Project (No Development) Alternative would fail to achieve the proposed project objectives presented above and in the DEIR (Chapter 2, Project Description). Because no development to expand the medical center would occur, Alternative 1 would achieve none of the project objectives, including the provision of additional capacity for acute care treatment, meeting seismic retrofit requirements, improved ability to meet surges in need for medical care, and enhanced emergency access. A complete list of objectives that would not be achieved under this No Project (No Development) alternative includes:

EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 560
35 • Provide a broad range of healthcare services to Stockton and the surrounding Northern San Joaquin Valley to further establish St. Joseph’s Medical Center of Stockton as a regional provider of health care services.
• Expand and modernize existing medical facilities to meet current patient needs and the anticipated growth in the Northern San Joaquin Valley.
• Broaden the established medical learning environment that serves as a premier teaching institution for the Northern San Joaquin Valley that will support historical and anticipated shortages of medical professionals in the region.
• Address seismic requirements imposed by Senate Bill 1953. • Provide additional capacity for acute care treatment for patients of all income levels and all payer sources in Stockton and the surrounding northern San Joaquin valley. • Enhance building capacity for utilization of technology in the provision of health care services.
• Modernize and upgrade the existing Medical Center to meet seismic retrofit requirements as set forth in Senate Bill 1953 and do so without the temporary loss of use of patient beds.
• Improve flexibility of patient bed arrangements to meet surges in need for medical care such as was experienced with the COVID-19 Pandemic.
• Increase quantity and quality of space for graduate educational services with the goal of retaining physicians and other medical professional and technical staff trained at the Medical Center in Stockton and the surrounding northern San Joaquin valley. • Improve quantity, quality, and proximity of parking for patients, visitors, and staff. • Locate new buildings within a reasonable proximity to the existing medical center facilities to facilitate easy access for patients, visitors, and staff. • Change internal site circulation to enhance emergency access for ambulances and patients transported by other third parties, focus non-patient access to the rear of the Medical Center, and complement City objectives of increasing reliance upon bicycle travel both around and into the site.
• Update existing utility connections to accommodate enhanced medical services and provide sufficient emergency back-up for expanded capacity. • Create both short-term construction jobs related to development, including grading, infrastructure and building construction, and permanent employment-generating uses, consistent with City objectives for creation of employment opportunities for residents. • Implement a Site Master Plan that maximizes the use and redevelopment of underutilized property to provide new opportunities for the construction of modernized, acute care facilities.
• Provide options for additional helicopter landing and parking to improve access for patients transported by helicopter to the expanded and relocated emergency facilities, and to accommodate a future trauma center designation should regional needs arise in the future.
• Maximize the efficient use of existing and very limited available land and buildings while replacement and modernization of some buildings is underway.

For the foregoing reasons, the City Council concludes, in its discretion, that the No Project Alternative, by failing to meet any project objectives, would be inconsistent with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies within the City of Stockton’s General Plan. The Council therefore rejects the No Project Alternative as infeasible. (See City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at p. 417; CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 1001; San Diego Citizenry Group v.

County of San Diego, supra, 219 Cal.App.4th at p. 17; Sierra Club v. County of Napa, supra, 121 EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 561
36 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1506-1509; CNPS, supra, 177 Cal. App. 4th 957, 1001; Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi, supra, 296 Cal.App.4th at pp. 314-315; Sequoyah Hills, supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at p. 715; and Bay-Delta, supra, 43 Cal.4th at pp. 1165, 1166.) Stated another way, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the No Project Alternative identified in the Final EIR.

Alternative 2: Reduced Expansion
Alternative 2 is discussed in further detail on pages 6-5 through 6-10 of the DEIR.

Description
This alternative would reduce the scope of expansion of the Medical Center as compared to the proposed project. The Reduced Expansion Alternative (Alternative 2) would still include a new multistory Parking Structure, Acute Care Hospital Tower, replacement of the existing Central Utility Plant, and expansion of the existing Generator building and other required support facilities, including temporary uses and facilities (i.e., heliports), within the Medical Center campus.

However, the overall level of development would be less than the proposed project. The new Acute Care Hospital Tower would be reduced in height to approximately 80 feet (ft) as compared to 115 ft. under the proposed project and have an approximate building area of 215,000 square feet (sf), as compared to 331,000 sf under the proposed project. The new Parking Structure would be reduced in height to 75 feet tall, compared to 115 ft under the proposed project, and would have an approximate building area of approximately 525,000 sf, as compared to up to 800,000 sf under the proposed project. The Parking Structure would still be designed to accommodate new heliport options as described under the proposed project. The new Parking Structure would provide 580 fewer parking spaces than the proposed project for a total of 1,400 spaces. The new Central Utility Plant would be located at the corner of E. Cleveland Street and Cemetery Lane and would be reduced to 20,000 sf, compared to 30,000 sf under the proposed project. No replacement or changes to the existing Plant Maintenance building would occur.

Additionally, Alternative 2 would not include the future Phase 5 Expansion that would expand the new Acute Care Hospital Tower and provide for additional parking. Since there would be no further expansion of the Acute Care Hospital Tower, this alternative would provide 144 new inpatient beds, compared to 194 new beds under the proposed project. Table 6-1 summarizes the project components under Alternative 2 as compared to the proposed project. This alternative would still expand the Medical Center and its ability to deliver healthcare services to the community, albeit to a lesser extent as compared to the proposed project.

The Alternatives analysis assumes that all applicable mitigation measures proposed for the project would still apply to this alternative.

Comparative Analysis of Environmental Effects
Under the Reduced Expansion Alternative, there would be a smaller development footprint that would accommodate 50 fewer inpatient beds and 580 fewer parking spaces compared to the proposed project. This reduced scope of development would result in impacts that are somewhat less severe or similar to those of the proposed project. A comparison between the environmental effects of the proposed project and of the Reduced Scope Alternative is included below.

Impacts Identified as Being the Same as or Similar to the Proposed Project EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 562
37 This alternative would have the same or similar impacts as the proposed project regarding biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, and geology and soils (including paleontological resources). Because development in the project area would occur in the same area as the proposed project and would generally result in the same area or disturbance, there would be similar potential for impacts to biological resources during construction, as well cultural and tribal cultural resources or paleontological resources during ground-disturbing construction activities. To prevent impacts to biological resources, Alternative 2 would still require compliance with the project’s conditions of approval (COA) including COA-1 for preconstruction nesting bird surveys and COA-2 for preconstruction roosting bat surveys. Additionally, while there is low potential for encountering intact cultural deposits, tribal cultural resources, buried human remains, or paleontological resources, this alternative would be required to comply with Mitigation Measures 4.4-2, 4.4-3, 4.4-4, and 4.6-8, the same as the proposed Project.

The proposed Project determined that there would be a significant impact associated with the presence of lead- based paints on the outside doors of the Main Hospital Wing and McCloud Building, which would be demolished to accommodate the new Acute Care Hospital Tower.

Mitigation Measure 4.8-1 would require an abatement work plan and a monitoring plan for the leadbased paint during building demolition. The Reduced Expansion Alternative would still require demolition of these two buildings to accommodate the new Acute Care Hospital Tower and would require compliance with Mitigation Measure 4.8-1 to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. There would be no change to the severity of the impact as compared to the proposed Project.

Impacts Identified as Being Less Severe than the Proposed Project The Reduced Expansion Alternative would reduce the severity of impacts related to air quality, aesthetics, energy, GHG emissions, noise, public utilities, and transportation.

This Alternative 2 would reduce pollutant emissions and energy associated with construction and operation, since new buildings would be reduced in size; several components including the Phase 5 expansion would not be included; and fewer new patients, staff, and visitors would be accommodated at the Medical Center. As discussed in Sections 4.1 Air Quality and 4.5 Energy of the Draft EIR, proposed project impacts regarding the potential to conflict with air quality plans, increase criteria pollutants, increase exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutants (with Mitigation Measure 4.1-1), contribute to cumulative air quality impacts, increase in energy consumption, and conflict with energy plans would all be less than significant. Alternative 2 would not reduce these impacts such that there would be no impact but would lessen the intensity of these less-than-significant impacts because the scope of the project is reduced.

As discussed in Section 4.2, Aesthetics, the proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact regarding conflict with regulations governing scenic quality. This is because the approval of the project’s MDP would allow for buildings that are substantially taller than normally allowed by the zoning development standards provided in Title 16 of the City’s Development Code.

Specifically, this would allow for the Acute Care Hospital Tower and the Parking Structure to be up to 115 feet tall, greater than the height limit of 75 feet for hospitals within parcels zoned for Office Commercial/General Commercial. Under Alternative 2, the MDP would still allow for a deviation from the City’s established height limit, but this would be limited to the proposed 80-foot-tall Acute Care Hospital Tower, which would only be 5 feet taller than what is allowed under the Development Code. The Parking Structure would be 75 feet tall to the top of parking deck parapet, which would comply with the existing height limit. Therefore, while Alternative 2 would still require a variance to allow for a taller building because it would exceed the City’s building height limit adopted for the EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 563
38 purpose of protecting scenic quality, it would be to a lesser extent than the proposed project.

As discussed in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts regarding the generation of GHG emissions and conflict with applicable plans or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. These significant and unavoidable impacts are due to the estimated annual operational GHG emissions of 24 MT CO2e/service population/per year, which is greater than the project-specific efficiency threshold of 0.50 MT CO2e/service population/per year. The Reduced Scope Alternative would reduce operational GHG emissions due to the reduced size and scale of new components as well as a reduction in the overall number of new patients and staff. However, this alternative is not substantially less intense than the proposed project, such that operational GHG emissions would be significantly less than the proposed project and would meet the efficiency threshold of 0.50 MT CO2e/service population/per year. While there would be a reduction in the amount of GHG emissions produced from project operations, the alternative would still result in significant and unavoidable project-level and cumulative GHG impacts. Mitigation Measures 4.7-1 and 4.7-2 would still be required to implement GHG emissions reduction measures and to contribute to an off-site GHG emissions reduction program or the payment of GHG offset fees to help reduce the impact.

Under this Alternative 2, impacts related to noise would continue to be less than significant with mitigation, but these impacts would be less severe compared to the proposed project. Project construction activities are anticipated to start at 6:30 a.m. which would be outside the allowable hours of construction under the City’s Municipal Code which is 7:00 a.m., and nighttime operation of the proposed Central Utility Plant may exceed the City’s nighttime noise standard at nearby noise-sensitive receptors. While impacts under this alternative may be reduced from the proposed project because of a reduction in the amount of construction and potential for smaller noisegenerating equipment to be housed at the Central Utility Plant, this alternative is still anticipated to require compliance with Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 to address construction noise and Mitigation Measure 4.9-2 to minimize operational noise levels from the Central Utility Plant.

As discussed in Section 4.10, Public Utilities, the proposed project would increase operational water demand by 243.6 acre-feet per year (AFY) or 79,357,944 gallons per year (GPY). This water demand does not include water used for construction which would be needed for dust control and other construction needs, since this water demand would be relatively low compared to what full buildout operational demand would be and is considered negligible. Alternative 2 would reduce water and wastewater demand compared to the proposed project, primarily resulting from removal of Phase 5 from the project which would result in 50 fewer new inpatient beds. The Water Supply Assessment (WSA) prepared for the project (included under Appendix H) assumes that each new bed would demand 350 gallons of water per day (GPD). Therefore, with 50 fewer inpatient beds, there would be a reduction in water demand of 23,100 GPD or 8,316,000 gallons per year (GPY). Alternative 2 would also reduce the size of buildings, which would reduce water needed for construction, although this would be negligible compared to operational demand and is therefore not quantified. Alternative 2 would not reduce water demand such that there would be no impact but, would lessen the intensity of this less-than-significant impact.

Similarly, the reduction in 50 inpatient beds would also reduce wastewater demand compared to the proposed project. According to Appendix H, each new bed would generate an average of 500 GPD of wastewater. Therefore, 50 fewer inpatient beds would result in a reduction of 25,000 GPD of wastewater compared to the proposed project. Wastewater impacts would still be less than significant but would be less severe than the proposed project.

EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 564
39 The project’s increase in demand for solid waste disposal is also addressed in Section 4.10 of this Draft EIR. The amount of operational solid waste generated by the project is based on CalRecycle guidance for hospital land uses, which is 16 pounds per day per bed. Therefore, 50 fewer inpatient beds under Alternative 2 would result in 800 fewer pounds of solid waste per day.

For construction, the amount of waste and debris produced is estimated to be 3.89 pounds per sf of construction and 155 pounds per sf of demolition, based on guidance from the US Environmental Protection Agency. As shown in Table 6-1, Alternative 2 would result in approximately 767,000 sf of construction. Demolition would be the same with the exception of the 8,962 sf Plant Maintenance building, which would remain in place, for a total of 81,106 sf of demolition. This would result in 2,983,630 pounds (1,492 tons) of construction waste and 12,571,430 pounds (6,286 tons) of demolition waste, compared to 2,599 tons of construction waste and 6,980 tons of demolition waste for the proposed project. Solid waste impacts would still be less than significant but would be less severe than the proposed project.

As discussed in Section 4.11, Transportation and Circulation, the proposed project would warrant a new traffic signal at the Cemetery Lane/E. Harding Way intersection to ensure pedestrian safety and emergency access would not be affected. Under this alternative, the proposed project would accommodate 50 fewer inpatient beds which would reduce trip generation from the project. This reduction would help to reduce project traffic at the Cemetery Lane/E. Harding Way intersection by approximately 10 project trips. This reduction in traffic would result in the intersection not meeting the peak hour signal warrant, below the 100 vehicles per hour approach threshold for minor street approaches. The new traffic signal would not be warranted under this alternative and therefore this impact would be less than significant without requiring mitigation.

Impacts Identified as Being More Severe than the Proposed Project There would be no impacts identified as being more severe than the proposed Project.

Relationship of Alternative 2 to Project Objectives
The Reduced Expansion Alternative would fully achieve the following project objectives:
• Locate new buildings within a reasonable proximity to the existing medical center facilities to facilitate easy access for patients, visitors, and staff. • Modernize and upgrade the existing Medical Center to meet seismic retrofit requirements as set forth in Senate Bill 1953 and do so without the temporary loss of use of patient beds.
• Change internal site circulation to enhance emergency access for ambulances and patients transported by other third parties, focus non-patient access to the rear of the Medical Center, and complement City objectives of increasing reliance upon bicycle travel both around and into the site.
• Update existing utility connections to accommodate enhanced medical services and provide sufficient emergency back-up for expanded capacity. • Provide options for additional helicopter landing and parking to improve access for patients transported by helicopter to the expanded and relocated emergency facilities, and to accommodate a future trauma center designation should regional needs arise in the future. • Maximize the efficient use of existing and very limited available land and buildings while replacement and modernization of some buildings are underway.

The following project objectives would be achieved, but would be less effective than the proposed EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 565
40 project due to reduced capacity, parking, and staffing compared to the proposed project:
• Provide additional capacity for acute care treatment for patients of all income levels and all payer sources in Stockton and the surrounding northern San Joaquin valley. • Enhance building capacity for utilization of technology in the provision of health care services.
• Improve flexibility of patient bed arrangements to meet surges in need for medical care such as was experienced with the COVID-19 Pandemic.
• Increase quantity and quality of space for graduate educational services with the goal of retaining physicians and other medical professional and technical staff trained at the Medical Center in Stockton and the surrounding northern San Joaquin valley. • Improve quantity, quality, and proximity of parking for patients, visitors, and staff. • Create both short-term construction jobs related to development, including grading, infrastructure and building construction, and permanent employment-generating uses, consistent with City objectives for creation of employment opportunities for residents. • Implement a Site Master Plan that maximizes the use and redevelopment of underutilized property to provide new opportunities for the construction of modernized, acute care facilities.

There are no project objectives that Alternative 2 would fail to achieve. This alternative would meet all project objectives, although the reduction in capacity, parking, and overall scope of the project would result in this alternative being less effective in achieving seven (7) of these objectives. Building modernizations, seismic upgrades, heliport options, and the general location of new components would remain the same.

Table 6-1 of the Draft EIR provides a summary of the project components of Alternative 2 and is incorporated by this reference into these Findings.

As explained below, the City Council concludes, in its discretion, that the Reduced Expansion Alternative, by failing to meet key project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project, would represent an undesirable policy outcome. The Council therefore rejects the Reduced Expansion Alternative as infeasible. (See City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at p. 417; CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 1001; San Diego Citizenry Group v.

County of San Diego, supra, 219 Cal.App.4th at p. 17; Sierra Club v. County of Napa, supra, 121 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1506-1509; CNPS, supra, 177 Cal. App. 4th 957, 1001; Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi, supra, 296 Cal.App.4th at pp. 314-315 [court upholds agency action where alternative selected “entirely fulfill” a particular project objective and “would be ‘substantially less effective’ in meeting” the lead agency’s “goals”]; Sequoyah Hills, supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at p. 715; and Bay-Delta, supra, 43 Cal.4th at pp. 1165, 1166.) Here, it is important to the City Council, as policymaker for the City, that the project as approved provide the maximum commercially available level of health care services and teaching capacity.

It is also important to the Council that the modernized and expanded facility be able, to the maximum level commercially available, to respond to health care emergencies such as COVID19 and periods of increased health care demand. The reduction in scale and capacity associated with Alternative 2 would represent a reduced level of health care services available to the citizens of Stockton and San Joaquin County, including low-income patients for whom the applicant will provide subsidized services. The Council also desires to have the largest commercially available teaching facility as part of the project. Such a facility will enhance the local community and economy by attracting talented future physicians who may ultimately choose to reside and work permanently in Stockton and San Joaquin County. A smaller facility would translate into both EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 566
41 reduced health care services and a smaller teaching program.

The project as proposed by the applicant reflects the judgment of its financial and health care planners regarding the optimal size of a modernized facility at the subject property, accounting for consumer demand, local demographics, market considerations, and state and federal health care policies. The applicant operates within a challenging sector of the economy and must carefully balance numerous competing financial and policy considerations. The City Council does not lightly second-guess the balance struck by a sophisticated market participant such as the applicant. The City Council sees no persuasive reason to impose on the applicant a project configuration substantially smaller than what the applicant proposes. A local agency decisionmaking body “may approve a developer’s choice of a project once its significant adverse environmental effects have been reduced to an acceptable level that is, all avoidable significant damage to the environment has been eliminated and that which remains is otherwise acceptable.” (Laurel Hills, supra, 83 Cal.App.3d at p. 521.)
Stated another way, the foregoing specific economic, social, and other considerations make infeasible the Reduced Capacity Alternative identified in the Final EIR.

Alternative 3: Reduced Parking Alternative
Alternative 3 is discussed in further detail on pages 6-10 through 6-14 of the DEIR.

This alternative would reduce the scope of the proposed new Parking Structure compared to the proposed project. The Reduced Parking Alternative (Alternative 3) would include all elements under the proposed project but would reduce the size and capacity of the new Parking Structure.

The Parking Structure would be approximately 65 ft tall, compared to 115 ft under the proposed project, and would have an approximate building area of approximately 450,000 sf reduced from up to 800,000 sf. The Parking Structure would provide 780 fewer parking spaces than the proposed project for a total of approximately 1,200 spaces. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would still include options for new heliport facilities to be located on the roof of the Parking Structure. All other components would the same as the proposed project, including the Phase 5 Expansion which would further expand the Acute Care Hospital Tower and potentially add new parking in the future (for a parking ratio of up to 3.6 stalls per bed).

Table 6-2 of the Draft EIR summarizes the project components under the Reduced Parking Alternative and is incorporated by this reference into these Findings.

Comparative Analysis of Environmental Effects
The Reduced Parking Alternative would primarily address conflicts with regulations adopted for protecting scenic quality, as well as the concern raised during the NOP scoping period regarding the height and size of the Parking Structure. Less construction associated with the Parking Structure would also result in some reduction of air pollutants and GHG emissions compared to the proposed project. The alternatives analysis assumes that all applicable mitigation measures for the proposed project would also apply to this alternative.

Impacts Identified as Being the Same as or Similar to the Proposed Project This alternative would have the same or similar impacts as the proposed Project regarding EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 567
42 biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, and geology and soils (including paleontological resources), for the same reasons presented in the analysis for Alternative 2.

Building demolition and new development would occur in the same area of disturbance as the proposed project, and Alternative 3 would require the same ground-disturbing activities that may result in unanticipated discovery of buried resources or human remains. To prevent impacts to biological resources, the Reduced Parking Alternative would require compliance with COA-1 for preconstruction nesting bird surveys and COA-2 for preconstruction roosting bat surveys.

Additionally, the project would comply with Mitigation Measures 4.4-2, 4.4-3, 4.4-4, and 4.6-8 to address cultural and tribal cultural resources, human remains, and paleontological resources, the same as the proposed project.

Alternative 3 would also require demolition of the Main Hospital Wing and McCloud Building to accommodate the new Acute Care Hospital Tower, which may pose a risk of exposure to leadbased paints from the doors of those buildings. The same as the proposed project, Mitigation Measure 4.8-1 would require an abatement work plan and a monitoring plan for the lead-based paint during building demolition. There would be no change to impact severity under this alternative compared to the proposed project.

Because the Reduced Parking Alternative would not result in a reduction of inpatient beds, it is anticipated that public utilities and transportation impacts would remain the same as the proposed project. As discussed in Section 4.10, Public Utilities, the proposed project would be served by existing utilities and impacts would be less than significant. The majority of wastewater and water demand would come from operation of the Medical Center, which would remain the same under Alternative 3 as the proposed project, rather than from construction of the Parking Structure.

Water and wastewater demand from construction would be negligible compared to operational demand and is therefore not quantified. Impacts to storm drainage and telecommunications would remain less than significant, the same as the proposed project. Additionally, since Alternative 3 would not reduce the number of inpatient beds, it is expected that no significant reduction in traffic would occur that would reduce the need for the new traffic signal at Cemetery Lane/E. Harding Way as described under Mitigation Measure 4.11-1. This mitigation would still be required for transportation impacts to be less than significant, the same as the proposed project.

As discussed in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts regarding the generation of GHG emissions and would conflict with applicable plans or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions due to the estimated annual operational GHG emissions of 24 MT CO2e/service population/per year. These emissions would be greater than the project-specific efficiency threshold of 0.50 MT CO2e/service population/per year. As shown in Table 6-2, Alternative 3 would only reduce the Parking Structure by 350,000 sf; there would be little to no changes in the operation of the Parking Structure. The Reduced Parking Alternative would result in a slight reduction in construction emissions due to the smaller structure but would have a negligible reduction in operation emissions. Other project components would remain the same as the proposed project; therefore, there would still be significant and unavoidable project-level and cumulative GHG impacts under Alternative 3. Mitigation Measures 4.7-1 and 4.7-2 would still be required to implement GHG emissions reduction measures and to contribute to an off-site GHG emissions reduction program or the payment of GHG offset fees.

Impacts Identified as Being Less Severe than the Proposed Project The Reduced Parking Alternative would reduce the severity of impacts related to air quality, aesthetics, energy, and noise.

EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 568
43 This alternative would result in some reduction of air pollutant emissions and energy associated with construction of the Parking Structure, since it would be reduced in size to nearly half the size of the proposed project. As discussed in Sections 4.1 Air Quality and 4.5 Energy of this Draft EIR, proposed project impacts regarding conflicts with air quality plans, increase in criteria pollutants, exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutants (with Mitigation Measure 4.1-1), cumulative air quality impacts, consumption of energy, and conflict with energy plans would all be less than significant. Alternative 3 would not eliminate these impacts such that there would be no impact but would lessen the intensity of these less-than-significant impacts as compared to the proposed project.

As discussed in Section 4.2, Aesthetics, the proposed Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact regarding conflicts with regulations governing scenic quality because of the deviation from the City’s Development Code that establishes height limits for parcels zoned for Office Commercial/General Commercial. Under the Reduced Parking Alternative, the Parking Structure would be 65 feet in height, approximately 10 feet lower than the normally allowable maximum height of 75 feet. However, since the Acute Care Hospital Tower would remain 115 feet tall the same as under the proposed project, Alternative 3 would still result in a significant impact resulting from exceeding the City’s building height limit adopted for the purpose of protecting scenic quality, the same as the proposed project.

As previously described, the amount of waste and debris produced is estimated to be 3.89 pounds per sf of construction and 155 pounds per sf of demolition, based on guidance from the US Environmental Protection Agency. As shown in Table 6-2, Alternative 3 would result in approximately 986,000 sf of construction. This would result in 3,835,540 pounds (1,918 tons) of construction waste, compared to 2,599 tons of construction waste under the proposed project. Demolition waste would be the same as the proposed project (6,980 tons). Alternative 3 would not eliminate the solid waste impact such that there would be no impact but would lessen the intensity of this less-thansignificant impact compared to the proposed project.

Under Alternative 3, impacts related to noise would continue to be less than significant with mitigation, but these impacts would be less severe compared to the proposed project. Project construction activities are still anticipated to take place between 6:30 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. which would be outside the allowable hours of construction under the City’s Municipal Code, and nighttime operation of the proposed Central Utility Plant may exceed the City’s nighttime noise standard at nearby noise-sensitive receptors. Noise impacts from construction of the Parking Structure would be slightly reduced because construction activities would take less time compared to the project. However, this alternative would still require compliance with Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 to address construction noise outside of allowable hours and Mitigation Measure

4.9-2 to minimize operational noise levels from the Central Utility Plant, which would not change under this alternative.

Impacts Identified as Being More Severe than the Proposed Project There would be no impacts identified as being more severe than the proposed Project.

Relationship of Alternative 3 to Project Objectives
The Reduced Parking Alternative would fully achieve the following project objectives:
• Locate new buildings within a reasonable proximity to the existing medical center facilities EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 569
44 to facilitate easy access for patients, visitors, and staff. • Modernize and upgrade the existing Medical Center to meet seismic retrofit requirements as set forth in Senate Bill 1953 and do so without the temporary loss of use of patient beds.
• Change internal site circulation to enhance emergency access for ambulances and patients transported by other third parties, focus non-patient access to the rear of the Medical Center, and complement City objectives of increasing reliance upon bicycle travel both around and into the site.
• Update existing utility connections to accommodate enhanced medical services and provide sufficient emergency back-up for expanded capacity. • Provide options for additional helicopter landing and parking to improve access for patients transported by helicopter to the expanded and relocated emergency facilities, and to accommodate a future trauma center designation should regional needs arise in the future. • Maximize the efficient use of existing and very limited available land and buildings while replacement and modernization of some buildings are underway. • Provide additional capacity for acute care treatment for patients of all income levels and all payer sources in Stockton and the surrounding northern San Joaquin valley. • Enhance building capacity for utilization of technology in the provision of health care services.
• Increase quantity and quality of space for graduate educational services with the goal of retaining physicians and other medical professional and technical staff trained at the Medical Center in Stockton and the surrounding northern San Joaquin valley. • Implement a Site Master Plan that maximizes the use and redevelopment of underutilized property to provide new opportunities for the construction of modernized, acute care facilities.
• Improve flexibility of patient bed arrangements to meet surges in need for medical care such as was experienced with the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The following Project objectives would be achieved, but would be less effective than the proposed Project due to reduced parking and construction employees required to construct the Parking Structure compared to the proposed project:
• Improve quantity, quality, and proximity of parking for patients, visitors, and staff. • Create both short-term construction jobs related to development, including grading, infrastructure and building construction, and permanent employment-generating uses, consistent with City objectives for creation of employment opportunities for residents.

There are no project objectives that Alternative 3 would fail to achieve. This alternative would meet all of the project objectives, although the reduction of the Parking Structure would result in this alternative being less effective in achieving two (2) of these objectives. All other components, including building modernization, seismic upgrades, heliport options, and the general location of new components would remain the same as the proposed project.

As explained below, the City Council concludes, in its discretion, that the Reduced Parking Alternative, by failing to meet a key project objective to the same extent as the proposed project, would represent an undesirable policy outcome. The Council therefore rejects the Reduced Parking Alternative as infeasible. (See City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at p. 417; CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 1001; San Diego Citizenry Group v. County of San Diego, supra, 219 Cal.App.4th at p. 17; Sierra Club v. County of Napa, supra, 121 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1506-1509; CNPS, supra, 177 Cal. App. 4th 957, 1001; Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi, supra, 296 Cal.App.4th at pp. 314-315 [court upholds agency action where alternative EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 570
45 selected “entirely fulfill” a particular project objective and “would be ‘substantially less effective’ in meeting” the lead agency’s “goals”]; Sequoyah Hills, supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at p. 715; and BayDelta, supra, 43 Cal.4th at pp. 1165, 1166.) Here, it is important to the City Council, as policymaker for the City, that the project as approved provide for a sufficient amount of hospital visitors, including patients and their families, as reasonably determined by the applicant. The Council is aware that the Sierra Club, in its own correspondence, and correspondence from its legal counsel, has advocated Alternative 3. But the Council respectfully disagrees. While the City Council applauds the Sierra Club’s concerns about air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, the Council does not believe that it is realistic to expect a hospital to generate the kind of transit ridership, or pedestrian or bicycle travel, that might be expected of other types of land uses. Many visitors will be patients, who will be feeling ill and might be contagious, and might be in a hurry due to pain of other symptoms. Such persons ought not to be forced to use more time-consuming transit options, where they might infect others if their illness is contagious. Nor should such persons be required to park at more distant locations that would require walking greater distances to their appointments. The applicant is also interested in making parking convenient for family members and friends who may visit sick patients or drive them to and from the hospital facility.

The project as proposed by the applicant reflects the judgment of its financial and health care planners regarding the optimal amount and location of parking for its visitors. The applicant is an experienced hospital operator that knows its business and the kinds of people who will visit and work within its facility. A local agency decision-making body “may approve a developer’s choice of a project once its significant adverse environmental effects have been reduced to an acceptable level that is, all avoidable significant damage to the environment has been eliminated and that which remains is otherwise acceptable.” (Laurel Hills, supra, 83 Cal.App.3d at p. 521.) Stated another way, the foregoing specific economic, social, and other considerations make infeasible the Reduced Parking Alternative identified in the Final EIR.

Summary Matrix of Alternatives
A matrix displaying the major characteristics and significant environmental effects of each Alternative is provided in Table 6-3 of the DEIR to summarize the comparison of each Alternative with the proposed project. The summary is described on pages 6-14 through 6-16 in the DEIR. The environmental topics that had significant impacts (significant and unavoidable, or requiring mitigation to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level) include those specific impacts within the table, while the environmental topics with no significant impacts are summarized.

Table 6-3. Summary of Project and Alternatives Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact1
Proposed
Project
Alternative 1:

No
Project
Alternative 2:

Reduced
Scope
Alternative 3:

Reduced
Parking

4.1 Air Quality

4.1-3 The proposed project could expose
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations.

LTS with MM

4.1-1
NI▼ LTS with MM

4.1-1▼
LTS with MM

4.1-1▼

4.2 Aesthetics
EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 571
46 4.2-1 The proposed project would conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality.

SU NI▼ SU▼ SU▼

4.3 Biological Resources
Biological Resources (general) LTS NI▼ LTS (–) LTS (–)

4.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources

4.4-2 The proposed project could cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of an historical resource of an
archaeological nature or a unique
archaeological resource.

LTS with MM

4.4-2
NI▼ LTS with MM

4.4-2(–)
LTS with MM

4.4-2(–)

4.4-3 The proposed project could potentially
damage human remains during construction
activities.

LTS with MM

4.4-3
NI▼ LTS with MM

4.4-3(–)
LTS with MM

4.4-3(–)

4.4-4 The proposed project could cause an
adverse change in the significance of a tribal
cultural resource.

LTS with MM

4.4-3
NI▼ LTS with MM

4.4-3(–)
LTS with MM

4.4-3(–)

4.5 Energy
Energy (general) LTS NI▼ LTS▼ LTS▼

4.6 Geology and Soils

4.6-8 The proposed project could directly or
indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature.

LTS with MM

4.6-8
NI▼ LTS with MM

4.6-8(–)
LTS with MM

4.6-8(–)

4.6-9 The proposed project would not
contribute to a cumulatively significant
impact related to loss of paleontological
resources.

LTS with MM

4.6-8
NI▼ LTS with MM

4.6-8(–)
LTS with MM

4.6-8(–)

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

4.7-1 The proposed project would generate
greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact
on the environment.

SU with MM

4.7-1 and

4.7-2
NI▼ SU with MM

4.7-1 and 4.7-
2▼
SU with MM

4.7-1 and 4.7-
2(–)

4.7-2 The proposed project would conflict
with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases.

SU with MM

4.7-1 and

4.7-2
NI▼ SU with MM

4.7-1 and 4.7-
2▼
SU with MM

4.7-1 and 4.7-
2(–)

4.7-3 The proposed project would result in
cumulatively considerable impacts with
regard to greenhouse gas emissions.

SU with MM

4.7-1 and

4.7-2
NI▼ SU with MM

4.7-1 and 4.7-
2▼
SU with MM

4.7-1 and 4.7-
2(–)

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

4.8-1 The proposed project could create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

LTS with MM

4.8-1
NI▼ LTS with MM

4.8-1(–)
LTS with MM

4.8-1(–)

4.9 Noise
EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 572
47 4.9-1 The proposed project could result in
generation of a temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity
of the project substantially above levels
LTS with MM

4.9-1, 4.9-2
and 4.9-3
NI▼ LTS with MM

4.9-1, 4.9-2
and 4.9-3▼
LTS with MM

4.9-1, 4.9-2
and 4.9-3▼
without the project or in excess of standards
established in the City’s general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies.

4.10 Public Utilities
Public Utilities (general) LTS NI▼ LTS▼ LTS(–) / ▼2

4.11 Transportation and Circulation

4.11-1 The proposed project could conflict
with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities.

LTS with MM

4.11-1
NI▼ LTS▼ LTS with MM

4.11-1(–)
Notes:
▲ Alternative is likely to result in greater impacts to issue when compared to proposed project. (–) Alternative is likely to result in similar impacts to issue when compared to proposed project. ▼ Alternative is likely to result in reduced impacts to issue when compared to proposed project. NI = No impact LTS = Less-than-significant impact
SU = Significant and unavoidable impact MM = Mitigation Measure 1 The environmental topics that had significant impacts (significant and unavoidable, or requiring mitigation to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level) include those specific impacts within the table, while the environmental topics with no significant impacts are summarized.
2 Under Alternative 3, only the solid waste impact from the Public Utilities section would be reduced in severity. All other utilities impacts would remain the same or similar to the proposed project.

Environmentally Superior Alternative
As indicated in Table 6-3, the No Project Alternative would result in the least environmental impacts and would be the environmentally superior alternative because it would avoid all impacts associated with the proposed project for all resource areas. However, section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.

Based on the analysis provided, the environmentally superior alternative would be the Reduced Development Alternative, or Alternative 2 because it would reduce the transportation impact from the proposed project to a less- than-significant impact with no mitigation required and would reduce impact severity (but would not change impact determinations) in the topics of air quality, aesthetics, energy, GHG emissions, noise, and public utilities. Alternative 2 would reduce impacts regarding aesthetics and GHG emissions; however, it is important to note that these impacts would still remain significant and unavoidable under this alternative the same as the proposed project. Comparably, the Reduced Parking Alternative (Alternative 3) would not remove mitigation required to address the transportation impact and would result in fewer reductions to GHG emissions and demand for water, wastewater and solid waste disposal compared to Alternative

2. Statement of Overriding Considerations
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 573
48 City adopts and makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the significant unavoidable impacts of the Project, as discussed above, and the anticipated economic, social and other benefits of the Project.

The City finds and determines that: (i) the majority of the potentially significant impacts of the Project will be reduced to acceptable levels by the mitigation measures recommended in these Findings; (ii) the City's approval of the Project as proposed will result in certain significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures into the Project; and (iii) there are no other feasible mitigation measures or other feasible Project alternatives that would further mitigate or avoid the remaining significant environmental effects. As presented above, the significant effects that have not been mitigated to a less-than-significant level and are therefore considered significant and unavoidable are: 1) Aesthetics and 2) Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

In light of the environmental, social, economic, and other considerations set forth below related to this Project, the City Council chooses to approve the Project because, in its view, the economic, social, technological, and other benefits resulting from the Project substantially outweigh the Project's significant and unavoidable adverse environmental effects.

The following statements identify the reasons why, in the City Council's judgment, the benefits of the Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable effects. The substantial evidence supporting the enumerated benefits of the Project can be found in the preceding Findings, in the Project itself, and in the record of proceedings as defined herein, including the City's General Plan and pertinent sections of the City’s Municipal Code. Each of the overriding considerations set forth below constitutes a separate and independent ground for finding that the benefits of the Project outweigh its significant adverse environmental effects and is an overriding consideration warranting approval. Thus, if a court were to find that any particular benefit is not supported by substantial evidence, the City Council would rely on whatever benefit(s) that the court did find were supported by substantial evidence.

The City finds that the Project would have the following economic, social, technological, and environmental benefits:
• Continued Provision of Health Care Services to the Community.

The Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan acknowledges and expressly contemplates continued population growth within the City and the Sphere of Influence. The St. Joseph’s Medical Center is one of only two hospitals serving the community. The Project will expand the Medical Center’s ability to continue to provide health care services to the community’s growing population base. The Project will afford community residents the opportunity to avoid the time, personal energy, transportation energy, and expense of seeking health care services, including specialty surgeries and similar treatments, outside of the local community. • Continued Delivery of Health Care Services to Disadvantaged Communities and Residents without Health Insurance.

The Medical Center has provided health care services for many years to disadvantaged communities and those residents not having health insurance. The ability to continue that mission will be enhanced by the construction and staffing of the Project. • Expanded Capacity to Deliver Acute Care Treatment.

EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 574
49 The Medical Center expansion will add capacity to deliver acute care treatment to patients across all income levels and all payor sources in the Stockton community and the region. • Train and Retain Medical Professionals and Technical Staff in the Local Community.

The residency programs at the Medical Center for doctors, other skilled medical professionals and technical staff will be expanded to include additional specialties. The Project will improve the opportunities for graduate residents to stay in the local community and provide health care services here rather than moving away to other locales, helping to alleviate the historical and anticipated shortages of medical professionals in the Stockton community and the region. • Create Job Opportunities for Local Residents and Companies.

The Project will create opportunities for local construction trades to provide jobs for local residents, rather than defaulting to securing work elsewhere in the Central Valley and the Bay Area. Near-term construction jobs related to the expansion, including grading, infrastructure and building construction will be one result, as will permanent job generating uses, consistent with City objectives to create more jobs for residents. • Consistency with the General Plan.

The Project is consistent with many of the policies expressed in the General Plan as noted elsewhere in these Findings under “Consistency with Applicable Plans.” Of particular note, the Project is consistent with Policy LU-4.1, which states “Encourage large scale development proposals in appropriate locations that include significant numbers of higher-wage jobs and local revenue generation.” In addition, the Project is consistent with Policy LU-4.1B, which expressly references businesses in the health care sector. • Consistency with the Municipal Code.

The existing use of the Medical Center site is consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code, and the intended uses as described in the Project’s Master Development Plan are also consistent with the Municipal Code. No rezoning requests are included in the MDP or otherwise required for approval of the Project.
• Consistency with Smart Growth Principles.

Intensifying the use of the existing Medical Center site, rather than attempting to replicate the Medical Center in another location or build a satellite campus, is consistent with the Smart Growth principle of infill development. Expanding the medical center facilities within the existing site will also avoid the adverse environmental impacts associated with replicating the medical center in another location or building a satellite campus.

Conclusion
The City Council has balanced these benefits and considerations against the potentially significant unavoidable environmental effects of the Project and has concluded that the impacts are outweighed by these benefits, among others. After balancing environmental impacts against Project benefits, the City Council has concluded that the benefits the City will derive from the Project, as compared to existing and planned future conditions, outweigh the risks. The City EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 575
50 Council believes the Project benefits outlined above override the significant and unavoidable environmental costs associated with the Project.

In sum, the City Council adopts the mitigation measures in the FEIR, adopts the final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and approves the Project, after finding that any residual or remaining effects on the environment resulting from the Project, identified as significant and unavoidable in the preceding Findings of Fact, are acceptable due to the benefits articulated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in immediately preceding section.

EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 576

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Project: St. Joseph’s Medical Center Hospital Expansion Project (SCH #2021120439) Date: September 2023
1 Introduction
This document is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the St. Joseph’s Medical Center Hospital Expansion Project (“proposed project”). This MMRP has been prepared pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code, which requires public agencies to “adopt a reporting and monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” A MMRP is required for the proposed project because the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has identified significant adverse impacts, and measures have been identified to mitigate those impacts. The MMRP also incorporates revisions made to the mitigation measures in the Final EIR and Errata to the Final EIR.
2 Format of Mitigation Monitoring Matrix
The MMRP, as outlined in the following table, describes mitigation timing, monitoring responsibilities, and compliance verification responsibility for all mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and as amended by the Errata to the Final EIR. The City of Stockton will be the primary agency responsible for implementing the mitigation measures and will continue to monitor mitigation measures that are required to be implemented during the operation of the proposed project. The MMRP is presented in tabular form on the following pages. The components of the MMRP are described briefly below:
 Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures are taken from the Draft EIR in the same order that they appear in that document and incorporate revisions made in the Final EIR.  Monitoring Responsibility: Identifies the agency that is responsible for mitigation monitoring.  Mitigation Timing: Identifies at which stage of the project mitigation must be completed.  Compliance Verification: This is a space that is available for the monitor to date and initial when the monitoring or mitigation implementation took place.

EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 577

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL EXPANSION PROJECT
13355.02 1 SEPTEMBER 2023
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility Mitigation Timing
Verification
(Date/Initials)

4.1 Air Quality

4.1-3 The proposed project would
not expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations.

MM 4.1-1: Construction Health Effects
Prior to the commencement of construction
activities, the applicant shall require its construction contractor to demonstrate that project-generated
construction emissions do not exceed the applicable
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
(SJVAPCD) cancer risk thresholds.

Compliance with this performance standard shall be
achieved through the use of California Air Resources
Board (CARB)-certified Tier 4 Final engines for all
diesel-powered equipment pieces that are 50
horsepower or greater.

In the event of changed circumstances (e.g., changes
in the availability of specific types of construction
equipment), the applicant may submit a request to
the Office of Statewide Planning and Development
Facilities Development Division for approval of a
different method of achieving project-generated
construction emissions that fall below the applicable
SJVAPCD cancer risk threshold. Documentation shall
be provided to the Office of Statewide Planning and
Development Facilities Development Division
demonstrating that project-generated construction
emissions do not exceed the applicable SJVAPCD
cancer risk threshold with the alternate construction
methods. (This shall be demonstrated using industrystandard emission estimation methodologies.) If the documentation successfully demonstrates that
project-generated construction emissions remain
below the applicable SJVAPCD cancer risk threshold,
City of Stockton
Community
Development
Department,

SJVAPCD
Prior to commencement of
project construction
activities
EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 578

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL EXPANSION PROJECT
13355.02 2 SEPTEMBER 2023
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility Mitigation Timing
Verification
(Date/Initials)
then the Facilities Development Division may
approve the alternate construction methods, at the
Director’s discretion.

Required construction equipment fleet and
methodologies approved by the Office of Statewide
Planning and Development Facilities Development
Division shall be included in the contract
specifications for the applicant’s construction
contractor.

4.3 Biological Resources

4.3-1 The proposed project would
not have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status in local
or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, nor
substantially reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal.

No mitigation required. Conditions of Approval (COA)
are listed below.

COA-1: Preconstruction Nesting Bird Surveys
If vegetation removal and initial ground-disturbing
activities would occur during the nesting season
(March 1 – July 31) of common bird species
potentially nesting on the project site, surveys for
active nests shall be conducted as described below.

A qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for nesting birds no more than 14 days prior to vegetation or tree removal
or ground-disturbing activities. The survey shall
be conducted in suitable nesting habitat both
within the limits of construction as well as within
250 feet of the limits of construction. If suitable
nest habitat within 250 feet of the limits of
construction occurs beyond the project boundary
into adjacent privately held lands, then the
survey shall only be conducted within habitat up
to the project site boundary. This includes trees
City of Stockton
Community
Development
Department
Prior to vegetation or tree
removal and grounddisturbing activities
EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 579

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL EXPANSION PROJECT
13355.02 3 SEPTEMBER 2023
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility Mitigation Timing
Verification
(Date/Initials)
and shrubs adjacent to the site within that buffer
distance. If vegetation removal or grounddisturbance activities are delayed, additional nest surveys shall be conducted such that no
more than 14 days elapse between the survey
and vegetation removal or ground-disturbance
activities.

If any active nests are observed during the preconstruction surveys, a qualified biologist shall establish a suitable avoidance buffer from the
active nest and construction activities. The buffer
distance shall be determined based on factors
such as the species of bird; the
presence/absence of visual barriers between the
disturbance and the nest; type, intensity and
extent of the disturbance; timing relative to the
nesting cycle; and anticipated construction
schedule. Limits of construction to avoid active
nests shall be established in the field with
flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers
and shall be maintained until the chicks have
fledged and the nests are no longer active, as
determined by the qualified biologist.

If an active nest is identified in or adjacent to the
construction zone after construction has started,
work in the vicinity of the nest shall be halted
until the qualified biologist can provide
appropriate avoidance and minimization
measures to ensure that the nest is not
disturbed by construction. Appropriate measures
may include a no-disturbance buffer until the
birds have fledged and/or full-time monitoring by
a qualified biologist during construction activities
EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 580

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL EXPANSION PROJECT
13355.02 4 SEPTEMBER 2023
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility Mitigation Timing
Verification
(Date/Initials)
conducted in close proximity to the nest. The
buffer distance shall be determined based on
the same factors set forth in paragraph b.

COA-2: Preconstruction Roosting Bat Surveys
To ensure compliance with California Fish and
Game Code section 4150, if tree removal and
building demolition will occur during peak bat
activity periods (March 1–April 30 and August 1–
October 31) when juvenile or overwintering bat
species known to occur in the project region may
be present, the following will be conducted to
ensure protection of potentially occurring bats
and their roosts on the project site. Additionally,
and to the extent practicable, construction
activities shall be restricted to daylight hours to
reduce indirect and direct disturbance to
roosting and foraging bat species.

A pre-construction bat survey shall be conducted
within 30 days of the removal of any trees or
buildings. The survey shall include a visual
inspection of potential roosting features (bats
need not be present) and presence of guano in
the construction footprint and within 50 feet of
the footprint. If bats are found within the vacant
buildings, or if individual bats are located within
tree bark or tree crevices of trees to be removed,
the individuals shall be evicted under the
direction of a qualified biologist to ensure their
protection and to avoid unnecessary harm.

City of Stockton
Community
Development
Department
Prior to tree removal and
building demolition

4.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources

4.4-2 The proposed project could
cause a substantial adverse
MM 4.4-2: Unknown Subsurface Resources City of Stockton Community
Prior to commencement of
project construction and
EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 581

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL EXPANSION PROJECT
13355.02 5 SEPTEMBER 2023
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility Mitigation Timing
Verification
(Date/Initials)
change in the significance of an
historical resource of an
archaeological nature or a unique
archaeological resource.

Prior to construction, construction personnel shall
receive brief “tailgate” training by a qualified
archaeologist in the identification of archaeological
resources and protocol for notification should such
resources be discovered during construction work.

Such tailgate training shall include discussion of the
criteria that cause archaeological resources to
qualify as either unique archaeological resources
under Public Resources Code Section 21083.2,
subdivision (g), or a historical resource of an
archaeological nature under CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5, subdivision (1)(a).

In the event archaeological resources (e.g., sites,
features, or artifacts) are exposed during
construction activities, all construction work
occurring within 50 feet of the find shall immediately
stop until a qualified archaeologist, meeting the
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification
Standards, can evaluate the significance of the find
(i.e., determine whether the resources qualify as
unique archaeological resources or historical
resources of an archaeological nature) and
determine whether or not additional study is
warranted. Upon such a work stoppage, the City of
Stockton’s Community Development Director (CDD)
shall be notified immediately.
o If it is determined that unique archaeological
resources or historical resources of an
archaeological nature are present, the
qualified archaeologist shall develop
mitigation or treatment measures for
consideration and approval by the City’s
CDD. Mitigation shall be developed and
Development
Department,
Qualified
archaeologist
ground-disturbing
activities, and if
archaeological resources
are discovered during any
phase of construction
EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 582

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL EXPANSION PROJECT
13355.02 6 SEPTEMBER 2023
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility Mitigation Timing
Verification
(Date/Initials)
implemented in accordance with Public
Resources Code Section 21083.2 and
Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines,
with a preference for preservation in place.

Consistent with Section 15126.4(b)(3),
preservation in place may be accomplished
through planning construction to avoid the
resource; incorporating the resource within
open space; capping and covering the
resource; or deeding the site into a
permanent conservation easement. If
approved by the City’s CDD, such measures
shall be implemented and completed prior to
commencing further work for which grading
or building permits were issued, unless
otherwise directed by the City’s CDD.

Avoidance or preservation of unique
archaeological resources or historical
resources of an archaeological nature shall
not be required where such avoidance or
preservation in place would preclude the
construction of important structures or
infrastructure or require exorbitant
expenditures, as determined by the City’s
CDD. Where avoidance or preservation are
not appropriate for these reasons, the
professional archaeologist, in consultation
with the City’s CDD, shall prepare a detailed
recommended treatment plan for
consideration and approval by the City’s
CDD, which may include data recovery. If
employed, data recovery strategies for
unique archaeological resources that do not
EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 583

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL EXPANSION PROJECT
13355.02 7 SEPTEMBER 2023
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility Mitigation Timing
Verification
(Date/Initials)
also qualify as historical resources of an
archaeological nature shall follow the
applicable requirements and limitations set
forth in Public Resources Code Section
21083.2. Data recovery will normally consist
of (but would not be limited to) sample
excavation, artifact collection, site
documentation, and historical research, with
the aim of recovering important scientific
data contained within the unique
archaeological resource or historical
resource of an archaeological nature. The
data recovery plan shall include provisions
for analysis of data in a regional context,
reporting of results within a timely manner,
curation of artifacts and data at an approved
facility, and dissemination of reports to local
and state repositories, libraries, and
interested professionals. If data recovery is
determined by the City’s CDD to not be
appropriate, then an equally effective
treatment intended to address the specific
themes or research questions of significance
associated with the data of that cultural
resource shall be proposed, approved by the
City’s CDD, and implemented. Work may not
resume within the no-work radius until the
City’s CDD, in consultation with the
professional archaeologist, determines that
the site either: (1) does not contain unique
archaeological resources or historical
resources of an archaeological nature; or (2)
that the preservation and/or treatment
EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 584

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL EXPANSION PROJECT
13355.02 8 SEPTEMBER 2023
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility Mitigation Timing
Verification
(Date/Initials)
measures have been completed to the
satisfaction of the City’s CDD.

4.4-3 The proposed project could
potentially damage human
remains during construction
activities.

MM 4.4-3: Treatment of Human Remains
If human remains are discovered at any project
construction site(s) during any phase of construction,
all ground-disturbing activity within 50 feet of the
remains shall be halted immediately, and the City of
Stockton (City), the San Joaquin County coroner, and
a qualified professional archaeologist shall be
notified immediately. This boundary may be adjusted
to meet the demands of ongoing work, so long as the
location of all potential remains are effectively
protected. The coroner shall examine all discoveries
of human remains within 48 hours of receiving notice
of a discovery on private or state lands, in
accordance with Section 7050(b) of the Health and
Safety Code. If the remains are determined by the
County coroner to be Native American, the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be
notified by phone within 24 hours, and the guidelines
of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and
disposition of the remains. The Most Likely
Descendent shall provide recommendations for
management of these remains within 48 hours of
being provided access to this site, or as otherwise
agreed upon by the land owner and the City.

The City shall be responsible for approval of
recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate,
taking into account the provisions of state law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health
and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98 through
City of Stockton
Community
Development
Department; San
Joaquin County
Coroner
If human remains are
discovered during any
phase of construction
EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 585

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL EXPANSION PROJECT
13355.02 9 SEPTEMBER 2023
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility Mitigation Timing
Verification
(Date/Initials)
Section 5097.994, as applicable. The applicant may
choose to retain a Secretary of the Interior qualified
archaeologist to review recommendations and to
facilitate communication concerning human remains
between the landowner and the Most Likely
Descendant. If a find is archaeological in nature,
Mitigation Measure 4.4-2 outlines required strategies
for management.

4.4-4 The proposed project could
cause an adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural
resource.

MM 4.4-4: Tribal Cultural Resources
To minimize the potential for destruction of or
damage to existing or previously undiscovered
burials, archaeological and tribal cultural resources
and to identify any such resources at the earliest
possible time during project-related earthmoving
activities, the project applicant and its construction
contractor(s) will implement the following measures:
 Paid Native American monitors, compensated by
the project applicant, from culturally affiliated
Native American Tribes shall be invited to
monitor the vegetation grubbing, stripping,
grading or other ground-disturbing activities in
the project area to determine the presence or
absence of any cultural resources. Native
American representatives from cultural affiliated
Native American Tribes act as a representative of
their Tribal government and shall be consulted
before any cultural studies or ground-disturbing
activities begin.

Designated Native
American monitors
and/or
representatives
During project
construction and grounddisturbing activities
EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 586

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL EXPANSION PROJECT
13355.02 10 SEPTEMBER 2023
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility Mitigation Timing
Verification
(Date/Initials)
 Consulting tribes and their designated Native
American monitors and/or representatives shall
have the authority to identify sites or objects of
significance to Native Americans and to request
that work be temporarily stopped, diverted or
slowed if such sites or objects are identified
within the direct impact area. Native American
representatives shall be the primary consulted
authority on Tribal Cultural Resources and shall
recommend appropriate treatment of such sites
or objects. All management strategies shall be in
compliance with regulatory conditions and be
implemented in coordination with mitigation
pertaining to cultural resources and human
remains (see mitigation measures 4.4-2 and 4.4-
3).

4.6 Geology and Soils

4.6-8 The proposed project could
directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature.

MM 4.6-8: Unanticipated Paleontological Discovery
a) Prior to construction, construction personnel
shall receive brief “tailgate” training by a
qualified archaeologist in the identification of
paleontological resources and protocol for
notification should such resources be
discovered during construction work.
b) If buried paleontological resources are
inadvertently discovered during grounddisturbing activities, work shall stop within 50 feet of the find. Work shall not continue
at the discovery site until a qualified
paleontologist can examine the find to
determine whether it includes or constitutes
a unique paleontological resource and, if it
City of Stockton
Community
Development
Department,
Qualified
paleontologist
Prior to commencement of
construction activities, and
if any paleontological
resources are found during
any phase of construction
EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 587

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL EXPANSION PROJECT
13355.02 11 SEPTEMBER 2023
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility Mitigation Timing
Verification
(Date/Initials)
is, formulate mitigation recommendations for
consideration and approval by the City’s
Community Development Director (CDD). A
unique paleontological resource means a
paleontological resource about which it can
be clearly demonstrated that, without merely
adding to the current body of knowledge,
there is a high probability that it meets one
of the two following criteria: (1) contains
information needed to answer important
scientific research questions and that there
is a demonstrable public interest in that
information; or (2) has a special and
particular quality such as being the oldest of
its type or the best available example of its
type. Mitigation options shall include
preserving the resource in place or
recovering data and creating documentation
for transmission to the University of
California Museum of Paleontology or
another institution of higher education with
an established paleontological department
or program. Avoidance or preservation in
place of unique paleontological resources
shall not be required where such avoidance
or preservation would preclude the
construction of important structures or
infrastructure or require exorbitant
expenditures, as determined by the City’s
CDD.

4.6-9 The proposed project would
not contribute to a cumulatively
See MM 4.6-8. See MM 4.6-8. See MM 4.6-8.

EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 588

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL EXPANSION PROJECT
13355.02 12 SEPTEMBER 2023
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility Mitigation Timing
Verification
(Date/Initials)
significant impact related to loss
of paleontological resources.

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

4.7-1 The proposed project would
generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment, or conflict with an
applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases.

MM 4.7-1: GHG Emission Reduction Measures
The following GHG emission reduction measures
shall be implemented:
 Structural support for and the installation of
rooftop solar panels shall be included in the
Request for Proposal for the design and
construction of the Parking Structure. If
proposals indicated that installation of a PV solar
energy system is feasible, as defined in CEQA
Guidelines section 15364, SJMC shall contract
for their installation. SJMC shall then ensure that
all equipment is timely ordered and that the
system is installed when the City has approved
building permits and the necessary equipment
has arrived. SJMC shall ensure that PV solar
energy system commences operation when it
has received permission to operate from the
utility. SJMC shall ensure that the system is
maintained at not less than 80 percent of the
rated power for 20 years and at the end of the
20-year period it shall install a new PV solar
energy system, or continue to maintain the
existing system, at the same standards, for the
life of the parking structure. Nothing in this
measure is intended to discourage or limit the
efforts of SJMC to explore serving SJMC power
needs through PV solar energy systems or other
renewable energy sources in other locations.

City of Stockton
Community
Development
Department
Prior to approval of
individual phases of
development
EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 589

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL EXPANSION PROJECT
13355.02 13 SEPTEMBER 2023
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility Mitigation Timing
Verification
(Date/Initials)
 The Parking Structure shall meet the minimum
requirements of the 2022 California Green
Building Standards Code (“State CalGreen”)

5.106.5.3 (Electric vehicle (EV) charging), i.e.,
20% of parking structure spaces EV capable;
25% of preceding number EVCS with charging
equipment (EVSE) actually installed, with the
installation of EVSE, but not the installation of
required EV capable equipment, subject to the
exceptions stated in Cal Green section

5.106.5.3(1)(a)-(c); or unless otherwise
authorized by CalGreen Section 5.106.5.3.2 as
to both EV capable and EVSE.
 Long-term bicycle storage facilities such as
bicycle lockers, pedestal posts, and rental bicycle
lockers shall be provided. Installation of bicycle
charging stations shall be managed through the
TDM Plan presented in Mitigation Measure 4.7-2,
second bullet point.
 Include the installation of both interior- and
exterior-facing signs, including signs directed at
all dock and delivery areas, identifying idling
restrictions and contact information to report
violations to the California Air Resources Board
(CARB), San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control
District (SJVAPCD), and the building manager.
 Run conduit to designated locations for future
electric truck charging stations at delivery dock
locations.
 Post signs at every truck exit driveway providing
directional information to the nearest truck
route.

EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 590

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL EXPANSION PROJECT
13355.02 14 SEPTEMBER 2023
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility Mitigation Timing
Verification
(Date/Initials)
 Include exterior outlets on all buildings to allow
the use of electrically-powered landscape
equipment. The use of gas-powered landscape
maintenance equipment shall be prohibited on
site.
 Require the use of energy-efficient lighting LED
for all street, parking, and building lighting. This
reduces the amount of electricity consumed for
outdoor lighting.
 Encourage telecommuting and alternative work
schedules for those employees for whom remote
work is acceptable.
 Maximize the amount of drought tolerant
landscaping. Turf shall be limited to high visibility
areas. Low groundcover and native grasses shall
be used as an alternative to turf. Any turf used
shall be warm-season turf or shall have a plant
species factor of 0.6 or lower.

MM 4.7-2: Transportation Demand Management
Plan
The project applicant shall prepare a campus-wide
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan.

The TDM Plan shall include a variety of trip reduction
strategies to increase opportunities for transit,
bicycling and walking and to incentivize ridesharing
and carpooling to reduce single-occupancy vehicle
trips. The TDM Plan shall have as a goal to achieve at
least a five percent reduction in employee vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) compared with baseline VMT as
projected to exist without the TDM Plan. The TDM
Plan shall be published on both visitor and patient
portions of the St. Joseph’s public webpage, with
focus on improving content to better publicize
City of Stockton
Community
Development
Department
No later than the
issuance of the
demolition permit for the
first phase of the project,
and updated prior to the
approval of the
certificates of occupancy
for facilities included in
each subsequent phase
EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 591

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL EXPANSION PROJECT
13355.02 15 SEPTEMBER 2023
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility Mitigation Timing
Verification
(Date/Initials)
alternative transportation options to the public no
later than the issuance of the demolition permit for
the first phase of the project, and shall be updated
prior to the approval of the certificates of occupancy
for facilities included in each subsequent phase. The
TDM Plan shall include, at a minimum, the measures
set forth below, even if they result in more than the
goal of a five percent reduction in employee VMT:
 Expand upon existing alternative transportation
programs through the following:

1. increase prime spaces for carpool parking
based on current demand (i.e., 8) to
projected future demand (i.e, 16). Review
annually and increase as necessary to
ensure sufficient spaces for carpools;

2. evaluate use of electrical vehicle charging
stations (for bicycles and vehicles) prior to
the certificate of occupancy for each phase
to determine if demand has exceeded supply
and identify in the TDM Plan the timeline for
phased increases to electric charging
stations when needed with the goal that
supply remains slightly larger than demand
to help incentivize electric vehicle purchases;

3. establish an incentives-based commuter
program to encourage employees to carpool
and take alternative modes of travel to the
hospital;

4. increase availability and access to bicycle
parking facilities; review annually and
increase as necessary to ensure sufficient
spaces for bicycles;
EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 592

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL EXPANSION PROJECT
13355.02 16 SEPTEMBER 2023
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility Mitigation Timing
Verification
(Date/Initials)

5. provide a free or low-cost ride home in cases
of emergency for employees who use
alternative transportation, such as
carpooling, vanpooling, public transit,
bicycling, and walking;

6. provide a transit bus pass to participating
employees who agree to commute by transit
rather than by single occupancy vehicle;

7. engage with Regional Transit to enhance bus
schedules and “VanGo” (i.e., dial-a-ride)
services to the Medical Center and support
these enhanced services to Regional Transit
staff and/or Board of Directors;

8. through the wayfinding and signage program,
include directions for employees, patients,
and visitors to identify locations for carpool,
bicycles, shuttles, and bus stops;

9. provide shuttle service during construction to
transport employees or visitors from off-site
parking locations to the Medical Center;
EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 593

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL EXPANSION PROJECT
13355.02 17 SEPTEMBER 2023
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility Mitigation Timing
Verification
(Date/Initials)

10. rotate existing Medical Center fleet
(consisting of automobiles and service vans)
with electric vehicles on a standardized
replacement schedule with details specified
in the TDM Plan (e.g., the earlier of a need
for a repair that is not cost effective given
the age of a vehicle or, alternatively, a
mileage threshold), and which includes
consideration of commercial availability,
cost, the general driving range for a vehicle,
and the availability of EV charging stations
for vehicles with longer driving ranges, as
well as other reasonable limitations as set
forth in the TDM Plan;

11. add TDM Plan information to both visitor and
patient portions of the St. Joseph’s public
webpage, with focus on improving content to
better publicize alternative transportation
options to the public;

12. provide information to employees about TDM
Plan programs through (1) internal
newsletter and (2) communication boards in
employee gathering rooms (e.g., cafeteria,
break rooms);

13. set a reasonable goal for reduced single
occupancy employee vehicle trips to and
from the Medical Center and report progress
towards that goal as part of the Development
Agreement reports based on results of good
faith surveys of employees;
EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 594

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL EXPANSION PROJECT
13355.02 18 SEPTEMBER 2023
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility Mitigation Timing
Verification
(Date/Initials)

14. provide public notice via the St. Joseph’s
web page of the availability of a draft TDM
Plan, a link on that web page to the draft
TDM Plan, and a reasonable period of time
for interested members of the public to
comment on the draft TDM Plan before it is
finalized.

In the event that the measures set forth above are
insufficient to achieve the goal of a five percent
reduction in employee VMT compared with baseline
VMT as projected to exist without the TDM Plan, the
applicant shall consider additional feasible measures
sufficient to make up the shortfall or, in the
alternative, shall find means of reducing GHG
emissions in amounts commensurate with GHG
emissions associated with the VMT shortfall.

MM 4.7-3: GHG Emissions Reduction Program
In order to reduce the remaining greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions to 0.50 metric tons of carbon
dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e)/service population/per
year, the applicant shall pursue feasible measures
that contribute to an off-site GHG emissions
reduction program or involve the payment of GHG
offset fees. Such measures shall be included within a
greenhouse gas emissions report (“emissions
report”) prepared by the applicant and submitted to
the City as part of the building permit application for each phase of the project resulting in an increase in
operational GHG emissions over baseline levels. The
measures or offsets required in such phase-specific
emissions report shall be limited to what is
necessary for that phase to achieve its proportional
City of Stockton
Community
Development
Department
Prior to approval of
individual phases of
development and
issuance of building
permits
EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 595

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL EXPANSION PROJECT
13355.02 19 SEPTEMBER 2023
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility Mitigation Timing
Verification
(Date/Initials)
share of the emissions reductions needed to achieve
the overall efficiency threshold for the project as a
whole (0.50 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(MT CO2e)/service population/per year). Any GHG
offsets or GHG-mitigation credits included within
such an emissions report must be real, quantifiable,
permanent, verifiable, enforceable, and additional,
consistent with the standards set forth in Health and
Safety Code Section 38562, subdivisions (d)(1) and
(d)(2), which are defined for purposes of this
mitigation measure as follows:

I. Real—Represent reductions actually
achieved (not based on maximum permit
levels).

II. Additional/surplus—Not already planned or
required by regulation or policy (i.e., not
double counted).

III. Quantifiable—Readily accounted for through
process information and other reliable data.

IV. Enforceable—Acquired through legally
binding commitments/agreements.

V. Validated—Verified through accurate means
by a reliable third party.

VI. Permanent—Will remain as GHG reductions
in perpetuity.

Such offsets or credits, as included in a phasespecific emissions report as noted above, shall be based on protocols consistent with the criteria set
forth in Section 95972, subdivision (a) of Title 17 of
the California Code of Regulations, and shall not
EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 596

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL EXPANSION PROJECT
13355.02 20 SEPTEMBER 2023
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility Mitigation Timing
Verification
(Date/Initials)
include offsets originating outside of California,
except to the extent that the quality of any offsets
originating outside of California, and their sufficiency under the standards set forth herein, can be verified
by the City of Stockton in consultation with the San
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
(SJVAPCD). Offsets for GHG emissions originating
from outside the United States shall not be permitted
under any circumstances. All GHG offsets or GHG
mitigation credits must be purchased through one of
the following:

I. a CARB-approved registry, such as the
Climate Action Reserve, the American
Carbon Registry, and the Verified Carbon
Standard;
II. any registry approved by CARB to act as a
registry under the California Cap and Trade
program;
III. the California Air Pollution Control Officers
Association (CAPCOA) GHG Rx program; or
IV. any GHG offset or GHG mitigation program
adopted the SJVAPCD.

For purposes of preparation of such an emissions
report, what is “feasible,” as that word is used in the phrase “feasible measures that contribute to an offsite GHG emissions reduction program or involve the payment of GHG offset fees,” is a function of the
technical viability and overall cost of carbon offsets, and, specifically, whether such offsets (i) are
reasonably commercially available, (ii) would be
prohibitively expensive for the nonprofit applicant in
EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 597

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL EXPANSION PROJECT
13355.02 21 SEPTEMBER 2023
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility Mitigation Timing
Verification
(Date/Initials)
light of the financial challenges of providing health
care services, (iii) would materially increase the cost of the health care provided by the applicant, or (iv)
would render the overall project or phase of the
project economically infeasible within the meaning of
CEQA case law such as Uphold Our Heritage v. Town
of Woodside (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 587, 598-601
[proposal may be infeasible if “the marginal costs …
are so great that a reasonably prudent property
owner would not proceed with” the proposal].)
The City may not issue a building permit for a project
phase requiring an emissions report until the City’s
CDD has approved the emissions report for that
phase. The CDD may use outside expertise in
reviewing and approving the emissions report.

If the applicant submits a proposed phase-specific
emissions report that does not meet the
performance standard of 0.50 metric tons of carbon
dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e)/service
population/year for that phase because the
applicant believes that obtaining all of the offsets
required to meet that level of reduction is infeasible, the applicant shall so inform the City’s CDD in a
separate feasibility report submitted in connection
with the proposed emissions report.

The feasibility report shall state in writing all of the applicant’s reasons for concluding that the
acquisition of some or all of the ostensibly required
carbon offsets is infeasible. The CDD shall relieve the applicant of its ostensible obligation to provide such
offsets only if he or she finds that the applicant’s
conclusions on the issue of feasibility are supported
EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 598

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL EXPANSION PROJECT
13355.02 22 SEPTEMBER 2023
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility Mitigation Timing
Verification
(Date/Initials)
by substantial evidence and conform to the definition
of “feasible” set forth above.

If the CDD determines that the feasibility report is not supported by substantial evidence and the applicant
cannot be relieved of its ostensible obligation to
provide offsets, he or she may approve the emissions
report with some or all of the contested offsets
despite the applicant’s objections. The applicant may
withdraw both its proposed emissions report and its
request for a building permit for the phase rather
than proceed with what the applicant considers to be
an infeasible emissions report. Under such a
circumstance, the applicant may choose to prepare a
modified emissions report or a modified feasibility
report, leading to subsequent consideration by the
City’s CDD of the modified emissions report or the
same emissions report with an updated feasibility
report.

Following CDD approval of a phase-specific
emissions report acceptable to the applicant, the
report shall be posted in a prominent place on the
City’s website, along with notice to the public that
any interested party may file an Appeal pursuant to
Stockton Municipal Code (SMC) Section 16.100. The
emissions report approval and notice of the right to
appeal shall be included within that portion of the
City’s website devoted to activities of the Community
Development Department. Consistent with SMC

16.100.020, the Planning Commission’s decision
may be appealed to the City Council. The decision of
the City Council shall be final in accordance with
SMC 16.100.040(J)(2). City Council has the option of
EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 599

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL EXPANSION PROJECT
13355.02 23 SEPTEMBER 2023
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility Mitigation Timing
Verification
(Date/Initials)
affirming, reversing, adding additional conditions to
address an issue, or referring back to the Planning
Commission or CDD pursuant to SMC

16.100.040(G).

After the approval of a phase-specific emissions
report but before the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for that phase, the applicant shall
demonstrate compliance with the emissions report
through the submission of phase-specific compliance
reports to the CDD that identify the offsite measures
and/or carbon offsets that have been implemented
or obtained. The reports shall include: (i) the
applicable protocol(s) associated with the carbon
offsets, (ii) the third-party confirmation/verification reports affiliated with the carbon offset projects, (iii) the unique serial numbers assigned by the
registry(ies) to the carbon offsets to be retired to
ensure that the offsets cannot be further used in any
manner, and (iv) the locational attributes of the
carbon offsets.

4.7-2 The proposed project would
conflict with an applicable plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases.

See MMs 4.7-1, 4.7-2, and 4.7-3. See MMs 4.7-1,

4.7-2, and 4.7-3.

See MMs 4.7-1, 4.7-2,
and 4.7-3.

4.7-3 The proposed project would
result in cumulatively considerable
impacts with regard to greenhouse
gas emissions.

See MMs 4.7-1, 4.7-2, and 4.7-3. See MMs 4.7-1,

4.7-2, and 4.7-3.

See MMs 4.7-1, 4.7-2,
and 4.7-3.

EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 600

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL EXPANSION PROJECT
13355.02 24 SEPTEMBER 2023
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility Mitigation Timing
Verification
(Date/Initials)

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

4.8-1 The proposed project could
create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials.

MM 4.8-1: Lead-based Paint Abatement
Prior to demolition permit issuance, the project
applicant or their contractor shall retain a certified
abatement contractor to prepare an abatement work
plan in compliance with state and federal regulations
for removal of lead-based paint identified on the
outside doors of the McCloud and Main Hospital Wing
buildings and include a monitoring plan to be
conducted by a qualified consultant during abatement
activities to ensure compliance with the work plan
requirements and abatement contractor specifications.

In addition, a certified contractor shall collect soil
samples in the locations identified in the Phase 2 ESA
to be tested to ensure any soil exported off-site or
stockpiled soil on-site does not exceed 50 mg/kg.

Demolition plans and contract specifications shall
incorporate any necessary abatement measures for the
removal of materials containing lead-based paint to the satisfaction of the City’s Community Development
Department.

City of Stockton
Community
Development
Department
Prior to demolition permit
issuance and during leadbased paint abatement
activities

4.9 Noise

4.9-1 The proposed project could
result in generation of a temporary
or permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the vicinity of the
project substantially above levels
without the project or in excess of
standards established in the City’s
general plan or noise ordinance, or
MM 4.9-1: Construction Noise
Construction operations performed between 6:30
a.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday,
weekends and holidays shall comply with the
following requirements:

City of Stockton
Community
Development
Department
During project
construction activities
EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 601

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL EXPANSION PROJECT
13355.02 25 SEPTEMBER 2023
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility Mitigation Timing
Verification
(Date/Initials)
applicable standards of other
agencies.
 Equipment shall be operated to minimize
banging, clattering, buzzing, and other annoying
types of noises, especially near residential and
other noise sensitive areas prior to work
commencing between 6:30 a.m. and 7:00 a.m.

Monday through Friday, weekends and holidays.
 To the extent feasible, configure the construction
site in a manner that keeps noisier equipment
and activities as far as possible from noise
sensitive locations and nearby buildings.
- All auditory back-up alarms shall be
disarmed and not reactivated until 7:00 a.m.
on weekdays, weekends and holidays.
- Signal persons and strobe lights must be
used during periods when the back-up
alarms are disarmed.
 Schedule high noise-producing activities, such
as demolition or grading operations/equipment,
to only occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m.
and 4:00 p.m., weekdays, weekends and
holidays, to minimize potential disruption to
sensitive uses.
 Minimize noise-intensive activities/operations
between 6:30 a.m. and 7:00 a.m., weekdays,
weekends and holidays by doing the following:
- Plan noisier operations during times of
highest ambient noise levels (i.e., daytime
hours, 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.).
- Keep noise levels relatively uniform; avoid
excessive and impulsive noises.
- Turn off idling equipment.

MM 4.9-2: Central Utility Plant Operational Noise City of Stockton Community
Prior to approval of site
plan
EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 602

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL EXPANSION PROJECT
13355.02 26 SEPTEMBER 2023
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility Mitigation Timing
Verification
(Date/Initials)
Central Utility Plant operational noise levels shall be minimized through project site design, including the
construction of localized barriers, and the use of
acoustical absorption materials, as outlined below.
 All mechanical equipment with the potential to
generate excessive noise levels shall be fitted
with intake and exhaust silencers, or acoustical
enclosures sufficient to reduce noise levels to
comply with City of Stockton noise standards.
 Mechanical equipment with the potential to
generate excessive noise levels shall be located
within the Central Utility Plant building wherever
possible. Building penetrations such as fresh air
intakes shall be fitted with acoustical louvers.
 Noise generating equipment not located within
the Central Utility Plant building or within
adjacent service yards shall be shielded from
direct line-of-sight to nearby noise-sensitive uses
(approximately 475 feet to the west and 1,000
feet to the east) through the use of localized
noise barriers, rooftop parapets, sound rated
mechanical screens or intervening structures.
 The Central Utility Plant and other mechanical
equipment shall be located a sufficient distance
from nearby noise sensitive receptors
(approximately 475 feet to the west and 1,000
feet to the east), so that mitigated noise levels
do not exceed City of Stockton noise level
performance standards.

Development
Department
MM 4.9-3: Parking Structure ADA Ingress and Egress
Notification System
City of Stockton
Community
Development
Department
Prior to approval of site
plan
EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 603

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL EXPANSION PROJECT
13355.02 27 SEPTEMBER 2023
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility Mitigation Timing
Verification
(Date/Initials)
The Parking Structure ADA ingress and egress
notification system shall be minimized through project
site design, including the selection of equipment
capable of complying with the City of Stockton noise
standards, equipment location, construction of
localized acoustic screens, and providing
documentation of compliance with the City of Stockton
noise standards.
 During equipment specification and selection
processes, an auditory notification system
capable of either being able to achieve
compliance with City noise standards based on
the equipment configuration; or,
- Equipment selection shall place considerable
deference to state-of-the-art equipment
offering the best available acoustical
performance (i.e., equipment configurable to
produce the lowest acoustic energy as
possible, while still achieving the necessary
levels for appropriate notification).
 For equipment specified or selected for inclusion
in the Parking Structure ingress and egress
notification system that is not capable of being
configured and installed in a manner to
inherently achieve compliance with the City of
Stockton noise standards, documentation shall
be provided to the City demonstrating
compliance with the City of Stockton noise
standards at the nearby noise-sensitive
receptors.

EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 604

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL EXPANSION PROJECT
13355.02 28 SEPTEMBER 2023
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility Mitigation Timing
Verification
(Date/Initials)
- Demonstration of compliance may be provided
through substantial reference sound level data
from the equipment supplier/manufacturer, or
through consultation with a qualified
acoustical consultant.
- Should it be necessary to retain a qualified
acoustical consultant to demonstrate
compliance with the City noise standards, or if
the manufacturer reference sound level data
is deemed incomplete or insufficient, a
qualified acoustical consultant shall be
retained at the applicants expense to evaluate
the manufacturer reference noise level data,
demonstrate and provide documentation to
the City that the sound levels produced by the
notification system shall comply with City noise
standards.
- Should manufacturer sound level data not fully
demonstrate compliance with the City noise
standards, or if a supplemental analysis is
performed post-construction, the sound level
testing shall be performed by a qualified
acoustical consultant or City Code
Enforcement Officer familiar with and capable
of documenting the notification system sound
levels through the use of a precision
integrating sound level meter or measurement
platform that meets or exceeds the ANSI
standards for type 1 or 2 sound level meters.

4.11 Transportation and Circulation

4.11-1 The proposed project could
conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
MM 4.11-1: Traffic Signal City of Stockton
Community
Prior to obtaining a
Certificate of Occupancy
EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 605

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL EXPANSION PROJECT
13355.02 29 SEPTEMBER 2023
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility Mitigation Timing
Verification
(Date/Initials)
circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities.

Prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy, the
project applicant shall coordinate with the City of
Stockton on the design, construction, and
implementation of a new traffic signal at the
intersection of Cemetery Lane/E. Harding Way. The
project applicant shall be fully responsible for the
installation of the signal which would accommodate
the expected future traffic demand, improve
pedestrian safety, and improve emergency access
via integrated traffic signal pre-emption for the
adjacent Stockton Fire Station No. 9.

Development
Department
EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 606

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL EXPANSION PROJECT
13355.02 30 SEPTEMBER 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 607

MEMORANDUM
To: Nicole Moore, Contract Planner, City of Stockton Community Development Department From: Christine Kronenberg, AICP
Subject: Errata to the St. Joseph’s Medical Center Expansion Project EIR Date: September 18, 2023
cc: Mike McDowell, Deputy Community Development Director Attachment(s): None
Following completion of the Final EIR for the St. Jospeh’s Medical Center Expansion Project, additional comments were received from the applicant team and the Sierra Club Mother Lode – Delta Sierra Group that resulted in changes to the Project’s Master Development Plan and text of the EIR. The following Errata has been prepared that addresses these additional revisions to the text. The changes are minor and would not result in any new significant impacts or increase in impact significance from what was identified in the EIR; therefore, recirculation of the St.

Joseph’s Medical Center Expansion Project EIR is not required.

Errata
The changes reflected in this errata are presented in strike-through and double-underline revisions to the St.

Joseph’s Medical Center Expansion Project EIR (see Chapter 3, Changes to the Draft EIR included in the Final EIR document). The revisions to the EIR reflected in this errata do not affect the adequacy of the previous environmental analysis contained in the EIR.

3.1 Updates to the Project Description
As explained in the Final EIR (see Chapter 3, p.3-1) since completion of the Draft EIR and the Master Development Plan (MDP) for the St. Joseph’s Medical Center of Stockton campus, the City discussed the merits of various concerns raised by the commenters as they pertain to the overall MDP concept, and the project applicant agreed to consider an option to reduce the size of the Parking Structure from 1,980 spaces ("Parking Option A”), as requested in the original MDP, to a range of between 1,368 and not to exceed 1,400 spaces (including EV parking spaces) (“Parking Option B”). Additionally, the height of Parking Option B would be reduced from 115 feet to 80 feet to the top of the parking deck parapet (excluding mechanical screen and heliport). The MDP does not, however, reduce the stated maximum parking ratio, and acknowledges that additional, yet to be identified, off-site parking may be required if the smaller parking structure is insufficient.

The project description included in the Draft EIR analyzes a larger Parking Structure, as noted above. Although Parking Option B is now under consideration the Parking Structure requested by the applicant, the environmental analysis contained in the Draft EIR sufficiently addresses both options, because analysis of the larger Parking Structure (Option A) would adequately encompass anticipated impacts under Parking Option B. … EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 608

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ERRATA – ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER EXPANSION PROJECT EIR 13355.02 2 SEPTERMBER 2023
Table 3-1. Parking Structure Options Comparison
Parking Option A (Proposed Project) Parking Option B
Number of Spaces 1,980 1,368 – not to exceed 1,400 (including EV parking stalls)
Height 115 feet (9 tiers elevated) 80 feet (6 tiers elevated) Building Area
(square feet [sf])
Up to 800,000 sf Up to 60590,000 sf
Executive Summary
The following revisions to MM 4.7-1 in Table ES-1, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, as revised in the Final EIR (see Chapter 3, p.3-3) is further amended as follows:

EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 609

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ERRATA – ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER EXPANSION PROJECT EIR 13355.02 3 SEPTERMBER 2023
Environmental Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

4.7-1 The proposed
project would generate
greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact
on the environment, or
conflict with an
applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing
the emissions of
greenhouse gases.

PS MM 4.7-1: GHG Emission Reduction Measures
The following GHG emission reduction measures shall be implemented:
 New buildings shall be constructed with either a cool roof or an Energy Star roof.  The parking structure shall be pre-plumbed and/or structurally engineered for the installation of complete solar energy systems as part of the parking structure and/or over surface parking.
 In the parking structure and surface parking areas, dedicated electric vehicle (EV) parking shall be installed in a minimum of 5% of the parking spaces (or 99 spaces in the parking structure and approximately 4 spaces in the surface lot).  Structural support for and the installation of rooftop solar panels shall be included in the Request for Proposal for the design and construction of the Expansion Project Parking Structure. If proposals indicated that installation of a PV solar energy system is feasible, as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15364, SJMC shall contract for their installation. SJMC shall then ensure that all equipment is timely ordered and that the system is installed when the City has approved building permits and the necessary equipment has arrived. SJMC shall ensure that PV solar energy system commences operation when it has received permission to operate from the utility. SJMC shall ensure that the system is maintained at not less than 80 percent of the rated power for 20 years and at the end of the 20-year period it shall install a new PV solar energy system, or continue to maintain the existing system, at the same standards, for the life of the parking structure. Nothing in this measure is intended to discourage or limit the efforts of SJMC to explore serving SJMC power needs through PV solar energy systems or other renewable energy sources in other locations.

SU
EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 610

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ERRATA – ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER EXPANSION PROJECT EIR 13355.02 4 SEPTERMBER 2023
 The Parking Structure shall meet the minimum requirements of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (“State CalGreen”) 5.106.5.3 (Electric vehicle (EV) charging), i.e., 20% of parking structure spaces EV capable; 25% of preceding number EVCS with charging equipment (EVSE) actually installed, with the installation of EVSE, but not the installation of required EV capable equipment, subject to the exceptions stated in Cal Green section

5.106.5.3(1)(a)-(c); or unless otherwise authorized by CalGreen Section 5.106.5.3.2 as to both EV capable and EVSE. include conduit for electric vehicle charging systems (EVCS) sufficient to meet the minimum requirements of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code 5.106.5.3 (“State CalGreen” i.e., 20% of parking structure spaces EV capable; 25% of preceding number EVCS actually installed), with the installation of EVCS subject to the exceptions stated in Cal Green section 5.106.5.3(1)(a)-(c). Dignity Health is not the provider of EV charging stations and relies upon third party contractors to provide proposals on and then install EV charging stations. If no acceptable proposals are received prior to opening of the parking structure, installation of EVCS may be phased consistent with occupancy of the acute care hospital tower. See also Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 regarding the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, second bullet point.  Long-term bicycle storage facilities such as bicycle lockers, pedestal posts, and rental bicycle lockers shall be provided and facilities included that allow for the installation. of conduit to install Installation of bicycle charging stations for electric bicycles. shall be managed through the TDM Plan presented in Mitigation Measure 4.7-2, second bullet point,  Include the installation of both interior- and exterior-facing signs, including signs directed at all dock and delivery areas, identifying idling restrictions and contact information to report violations to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), and the building manager.
 Run conduit to designated locations for future electric truck charging stations at delivery dock locations.
 Post signs at every truck exit driveway providing directional information to the nearest truck route.
 Include exterior outlets on all buildings to allow the use of electrically-powered landscape equipment. The use of gas-powered landscape maintenance equipment shall be prohibited on site.
 Require the use of energy-efficient lighting LED for all street, parking, and building lighting.

This reduces the amount of electricity consumed for outdoor lighting.

EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 611

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ERRATA – ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER EXPANSION PROJECT EIR 13355.02 5 SEPTERMBER 2023
 Prepare a campus-wide Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. The TDM Plan shall include a variety of trip reduction strategies such as expanding upon existing alternative transportation programs; establishing an incentives-based commuter program to encourage employees to carpool and take alternative modes of travel to the hospital; increase bicycle facilities; and prioritize carpool parking, etc.  Encourage telecommuting and alternative work schedules for those employees for whom remote work is acceptable.
 Maximize the amount of drought tolerant landscaping. Turf shall be limited to high visibility areas. Low groundcover and native grasses shall be used as an alternative to turf. Any turf used shall be warm-season turf or shall have a plant species factor of 0.6 or lower.

EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 612

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ERRATA – ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER EXPANSION PROJECT EIR 13355.02 6 SEPTERMBER 2023
Chapter 2, Project Description
The text, as revised in the Final EIR (see Chapter 3, p. 3-11) is further amended as follows:

The MDP also factors in flexibility to allow St. Joseph’s the ability to accommodate over the life of the plan any changing federal and state regulations (for example, seismic retrofit requirements), evolving medical services and technology, project budgets and schedules, and community and regional medical needs. Two (2) options are presented in the MDP, involving the locations of the Central Utility Plant and Plant Maintenance building.

Option A includes placing the new Central Utility Plant building at the northeast corner of the Acute Care Hospital Tower and relocating the new Plant Maintenance building at the corner of E. Cleveland Street and Cemetery Lane. Option B places the new Central Utility Plant building at the corner of E. Cleveland Street and Cemetery Lane with no change to the existing Plant Maintenance building. Additionally, two (2) options are presented in the MDP involving the size and height of the proposed Parking Structure. Parking Option A would be an 800,000-square-foot (sf), 115-foot (ft) tall building with up to 1,980 parking stalls (analyzed in this Draft EIR). Parking Option B would be an up to 60590,000-sf, 80-ft tall building with 1,368 to not to exceed 1,400 parking stalls (including EV parking stalls). The applicant has agreed to Parking Option B for the Parking Structure. Both parking options Parking Option B would be compatible with the two (2) options for the location of the Central Utility Plant and Plant Maintenance building. It should be noted that only Parking Option A is considered in the analysis of environmental impacts within this Draft EIR, because analysis of the larger Parking Structure would adequately encompass anticipated impacts under Parking Option B. There would be no change in the building footprint or area of disturbance and while some impacts may be reduced in severity (such as those related to aesthetics or air quality), all impact determinations would remain the same as under Parking Option A.

The following revisions to Table 2-2, as revised in the Final EIR (see Chapter 3, p.3-12) is further amended as follows:

Table 2-2. Expansion Building Summary1
Building Name
Approximate Building
Area (Square Feet [sf]) Use Building Height2
Initial Expansion (Phases 1-4)
New Acute Care
Hospital Tower
Up to 331,000 sf Medical
Services
Up to five (5) stories
(115 feet [ft] excluding
mechanical screen)3
New Multistory Parking
Structure
Option A: Up to 1,980
parking stalls
Up to 800,000 sf
Option B: 1,368 – not to
exceed 1,400 parking stalls
(including EV parking stalls)
Up to 60590,000 sf
Parking and
Heliports3
Option A: Nine (9) tiers
elevated4
115 ft to top of parking deck
parapet, excluding
mechanical screen and
heliports
Option B: Six (6) tiers
elevated4
80 ft to top of parking deck
parapet, excluding
mechanical screen and
heliports
EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 613

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ERRATA – ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER EXPANSION PROJECT EIR 13355.02 7 SEPTERMBER 2023
Table 2-2. Expansion Building Summary1
Building Name
Approximate Building
Area (Square Feet [sf]) Use Building Height2
New Central Utility
Plant
Up to 30,000 sf Support Up to two (2) stories (60 ft)
New Fuel Tank Yard Up to 3,500 sf Support 55 ft
New Generator
Building Addition
Up to 3,500 sf Support 55 ft
New Plant
Maintenance Building
Up to 18,000 sf Support Up to two (2) stories (55 ft)
Phase 5 Expansion
Acute Care Hospital
Tower II
Potential expansion up to
150,000 sf
Medical
Services
Up to five (5) stories
(80 ft excluding mechanical
screen)3
Parking Structure
(location to be determined)
To be determined
Parking ratio of up to 5.6
stalls per bed
Parking To be determined
Source: St. Joseph’s Medical Center 20223.

Notes:
1 Seismic and other safety retrofits for buildings and support utilities may occur at the same time as phases 1-5, or during a separate construction period as may be required to meet state requirements. 2 Building heights, exceptions and roof mounted structures for institutional buildings, expressly including hospitals, are addressed in Section 16.36.090 of the Municipal Code. 3 To accommodate design flexibility, St. Joseph’s is seeking a maximum height of 115 ft. 4 The existing heliport located on the roof of the Main Hospital building would remain and up to two (2) new heliports and/or helicopter or Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) parking areas may be added on the roof of the Parking Structure.

The following revisions to Table 2-4, as revised in the Final EIR (see Chapter 3, p.3-13) is further amended as follows:

Table 2-4. Parking Summary
Location No. of Parking Spaces
Existing Parking (excluding public ROW) 1,354
Parking to be Removed
North Lot 606
Administration Lot 7
Administration Overflow Lot 9
McCloud Avenue 24
HCCL (Laboratory) North 6
HCCL (Laboratory) South 21
Vendor/Maintenance 7
Total to be Removed 680
New Parking to be Provided
New Parking Structure 1,980 (Parking Option A) or 1,368 – 1,400 (Parking Option B)1
North Surface Lot 16
Emergency Department Parking Lot 70
EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 614

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ERRATA – ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER EXPANSION PROJECT EIR 13355.02 8 SEPTERMBER 2023
Table 2-4. Parking Summary
Location No. of Parking Spaces
Total New Parking Provided 2,066 (Parking Option A) or 1,454 – 1,486 (Parking Option B)1
Total Parking (Initial Expansion Phase) 2,740 (Parking Option A) or 2,128 – 2,160 (Parking Option B)
Source: St. Joseph’s Medical Center 20223.

Notes: ROW = right-of-way.

Total parking includes remaining spaces plus new spaces (ex. 1,354 – 680 + 2,066 = 2,740). 1 The applicant has agreed to Parking Option B for the Parking Structure.

Chapter 3, Land Use and Planning
The text, as revised in the Final EIR (see Chapter 3, p. 3-15) is further amended as follows:

Comments received in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) included a concern regarding the proposed parking garage, which is anticipated to be up to 115 feet in height. The comment raised concern that the 115-foot-tall Parking Structure would be out of scale with the existing neighborhood and contends that there are no parking garages in the City that are of a similar scale. Section 3.3, Land Use Consistency Analysis, analyzes the project’s compliance with the City’s Development Code and General Plan land use policies, which includes a review of proposed building heights and floor area ratio. Section 4.2, Aesthetics, also contains a discussion of the project’s consistency with regulations that address scenic quality and potential conflicts with zoning. The MDP also includes an option for a smaller scale, 80-foot-tall Parking Structure (“Parking Option B”), the analysis of which is adequately encompassed by the more conservative analysis of the Parking Structure evaluated in this Draft EIR. The applicant has agreed to Parking Option B for the Parking Structure.

4.7 Greenhouse Gases
Mitigation measure 4.7-1, as revised in the Final EIR (see Chapter 3, p. 3-16) is further amended as follows:

MM 4.7-1: The following GHG emission reduction measures shall be implemented:
 New buildings shall be constructed with either a cool roof or an Energy Star roof.  The parking structure shall be pre-plumbed and/or structurally engineered for the installation of complete solar energy systems as part of the parking structure and/or over surface parking.  In the parking structure and surface parking areas, dedicated electric vehicle (EV) parking shall be installed in a minimum of 5% of the parking spaces (or 99 spaces in the parking structure and approximately 4 spaces in the surface lot).  Structural support and the installation of solar panels shall be included in the Request for Proposal for the design and construction of the Expansion Project Parking Structure. If determined installation of solar panels (photo voltaic or PV system) is feasible, the applicant shall install the PV system and commence operation upon permission from the electrical provider. The applicant shall ensure the system is maintained at not less than 80% of the rated power for 20 years. At the end of 20 years the applicant shall install a new PV system or continue to maintain the existing system if it is still meeting 80% of the EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 615

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ERRATA – ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER EXPANSION PROJECT EIR 13355.02 9 SEPTERMBER 2023
rated power, for the life of the Parking Structure. Nothing in this Measure is intended to discourage or limit the efforts of SJMC to explore serving SJMC power needs through PV solar energy systems or other renewable energy sources in other locations.  The Parking Structure shall meet the minimum requirements of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (“State CalGreen”) 5.106.5.3 (Electric vehicle (EV) charging), i.e., 20% of parking structure spaces EV capable; 25% of preceding number EVCS with charging equipment (EVSE) actually installed, with the installation of EVSE, but not the installation of required EV capable equipment, subject to the exceptions stated in Cal Green section

5.106.5.3(1)(a)-(c); or unless otherwise authorized by CalGreen Section 5.106.5.3.2 as to both EV capable and EVSE. include conduit for electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS) sufficient to meet the minimum requirements of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code 5.106.5.3, i.e., 20% of parking structure spaces EV capable; 25% of preceding number EVCS actually installed), with the installation of EVCSE, subject to the exceptions stated in Cal Green section 5.106.5.3(1)(a)-(c). Dignity Health is not the provider of EV charging stations and relies upon third party contractors to provide proposals on and then install EV charging stations. If no acceptable proposals are received prior to opening of the parking structure, installation of EVCS may be phased consistent with occupancy of the acute care hospital tower. See also Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 regarding the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, second bullet point.  Long-term bicycle storage facilities such as bicycle lockers, pedestal posts, and rental bicycle lockers shall be provided and facilities included that allow for the installation. of conduit to install Installation of bicycle charging stations for electric bicycles. shall be managed through the TDM Plan presented in Mitigation Measure 4.7-2, second bullet point,
 Include the installation of both interior- and exterior-facing signs, including signs directed at all dock and delivery areas, identifying idling restrictions and contact information to report violations to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), and the building manager.  Run conduit to designated locations for future electric truck charging stations at delivery dock locations.
 Post signs at every truck exit driveway providing directional information to the nearest truck route.
 Include exterior outlets on all buildings to allow the use of electrically-powered landscape equipment.The use of gas-powered landscape maintenance equipment shall be prohibited on site.
 Require the use of energy-efficient lighting LED for all street, parking, and building lighting.

This reduces the amount of electricity consumed for outdoor lighting.  Prepare a campus-wide Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. The TDM Plan shall include a variety of trip reduction strategies such as expanding upon existing alternative transportation programs; establishing an incentives-based commuter program to encourage employees to carpool and take alternative modes of travel to the hospital; increase bicycle facilities; and prioritize carpool parking, etc.

EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 616

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ERRATA – ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER EXPANSION PROJECT EIR 13355.02 10 SEPTERMBER 2023
 Encourage telecommuting and alternative work schedules for those employees for whom remote work is acceptable.
 Maximize the amount of drought tolerant landscaping. Turf shall be limited to high visibility areas. Low groundcover and native grasses shall be used as an alternative to turf. Any turf used shall be warm-season turf or shall have a plant species factor of 0.6 or lower.

EXHIBIT 2 - Findings, SOC & MMRP EXHIBIT 2 - FINDINGS, SOC, MMRP, ERRATA 617 Resolution No.

STOCKTON CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON TO APPROVE A MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER OF STOCKTON HOSPITAL EXPANSION PROJECT AT 1800 NORTH CALIFORNIA STREET (P21-0958)
On October 19, 2020, the applicant, Port City Operating Company, LLC, also known as Dignity Health St. Joseph’s Medical Center of Stockton, submitted a request for a Master Development Plan, Development Agreement, Use Permit, Use Permit Amendment, and historic demolition, for the expansion of their 18.7-acre campus at 1800 North California Street; and
The Master Development Plan (MDP) is intended to provide flexibility in the planning review process so that land use requirements are identified in a master development plan and there is minimal review of subsequent approvals if they are consistent with the adopted plan; and
Additionally, the MDP provides a process for reviewing, processing, and approving master development plan applications which are intended to provide a comprehensive framework for the development of property which have a mixed use or university designation on the General Plan or for a specified geographical area that will be developed as a single concept; and
The MDP may include development standards, proposed land uses including density and intensity of uses, infrastructure components, implementation measures, and also discusses the relationship of the Project to the General Plan; and Approving the proposed Master Development Plan would support a wide range of General Plan goals and policies focused on economic development, creation of new jobs for Stockton residents, provision of housing, and removal of blighted and underutilized buildings;
On September 4, 2023, a public notice for the subject application was published in the local newspaper in accordance with the Stockton Municipal Code (SMC) Section

16.88.030; and
//
On September 14, 2023, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the application, in compliance with SMC Section 16.88.040, at which point all persons wishing to be heard were provided such opportunity; and 618
At the September 14, 2023, public hearing, and prior to acting on this request, the Planning Commission considered and recommended certification of an EIR (SCH #2020120283) prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and Master Development Plan among other considerations; On September 26, 2022, the City Council convened a public hearing regarding the Planning Commission’s decision. In such meeting, the City Council considered the requested recommendations of the Planning Commission based on the findings indicated in said resolution; now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON, AS FOLLOWS:

1. The City Council hereby approves the Master Development Plan for the St.

Joseph’s Medical Center of Stockton Hospital Expansion Project based on the following findings pursuant to SMC Section 16.140.080:
a. The proposed master development plan would be consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, programs, and actions of all applicable elements of the General Plan. The St. Joseph’s MDP lays the foundation for an expansion of the Medical Center campus that will occur over many years and several phases. The MDP is intended to provide a single, unified concept for future growth that will be implemented at the Medical Center, and provides a Site Master Plan, development parameters for new structures, design guidelines (including identified deviations from the Municipal Code) for proposed and potential future structures, landscaping guidelines, signage guidelines, traffic improvements and circulation, and provisions for all infrastructure (sewer, water, dry utilities, and fire suppression). The project and site are consistent with the 2040 General Plan Land Use Map designation of Commercial and further policies aimed at attracting and retaining companies that offer high-quality jobs with wages that are competitive with the region and state (Goal LU4), attracting employment and tax -generating businesses in the city (Policy LU-4.2), and prioritizing development and redevelopment of vacant, underutilized, and blighted infill areas (Policy LU-6.2). b. The master development plan would adequately address the physical development characteristics of the subject site(s). The St. Joseph’s MDP includes development standards and guidelines for comprehensive development of the medical center campus in its entirety. c. The development standards identified in the master development plan would serve to protect the public convenience, health, safety, and general welfare. The St. Joseph’s MDP will provide for safe and efficient site planning, building construction and regulation of land use. Additionally, the 619
project includes the Environmental Impact Report mitigation measures as part of the project, ensuring protection of the environment from significant environment effects of the project.
d. Development of the subject site(s) covered by the St. Joseph’s MDP would ensure a compatible land use relationship with the surrounding neighborhood. The St. Joseph’s Medical Center campus has been at this location for over 120 years, and the expansion of their campus, including additional heliport services, only strengthens their continuing commitment to the City and its residents.
e. The St. Joseph’s MDP would be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Development Code, local ordinances, and State law.

The St. Joseph’s MDP complies with provisions of the Stockton Municipal Code, Chapter 16.140, regarding establishment of a master development plan, as well as other applicable local ordinances and provisions of state law.
f. The proposed master development plan or amendment would be in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and the City’s CEQA Guidelines.

The environmental assessment for the St. Joseph’s project has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of CEQA, resulting in adoption of an Environmental Impact Report, Statement of Overriding Considerations, Findings, and Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program.

2. DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
Pursuant to SMC, Section 16.140.100, in approving or amending a master development plan, the City Council may impose specific development conditions relating to the construction (both on- and off-site improvements), establishment, location, maintenance, and operation of the proposed activities, as it finds are reasonable and necessary to ensure that the approval would be in compliance with the above-listed findings, and to carry out the purpose and requirements of the applicable General Plan designation and this Development Code. The following conditions are therefore imposed for the St. Joseph’s Medical Center of Stockton Hospital Expansion Project:
a. The Project shall be developed consistent with the provisions of the MDP except as noted in the conditions herein.
b. Mitigation Measures contained in the Final EIR for the St. Joseph’s Medical Center Hospital Expansion Project (SCH #2021120439) are hereby incorporated into the Project.
c. All development projects within the St. Joseph’s Medical Center of 620
Stockton Hospital Expansion Project shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department, consistent with operational provisions contained within the MDP. This shall include project site plan and design review, revisions, and attachment of project conditions of approval, as necessary to ensure MDP consistency, prior to permit issuance. Plan review shall include other City departments and agencies, as appropriate. The City may require development submittal of technical and related studies and information to assist in project plan review and permit issuances. d. All development projects shall be subject to obtaining all necessary local, regional, and state agency approvals and permits, as may be required.
e. The Director shall have the authority to interpret the precise language of the MDP to determine if a proposed use, while not specifically listed as an allowable use, would be consistent with and share the same or similar characteristics of an allowed use identified in the adopted MDP.

3. The City Manager is authorized to take any and all necessary and appropriate steps to carry out the purpose and intent of this resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED September 26, 2023 .

KEVIN J. LINCOLN II
Mayor of the City of Stockton
ATTEST:

ELIZA R. GARZA, CMC
City Clerk of the City of Stockton
621
Planning Commission Submittal September 2023 Revised 9.18.2023 i St. Joseph’s Medical Center of Stockton
Hospital Expansion Project
City of Stockton
Master Development Plan
September 2023