Page 855 - tesoro_sdeir0218

Tesoro del Valle (Phases A, B, C)
Draft Supplemental EIR

o Rye Canyon Road/Copper Hill Drive and Newhall Ranch Road. Future
Cumulative With Project (PM peak hour).

6.5 ALTERNATIVES DETERMINED TO NOT BE FEASIBLE

6.5.1 ALTERNATIVE SITE

Section 15126.6(f)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an analysis of alternative locations to
the project site and notes that “only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the
significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR.” CEQA further states
that “an EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and
whose implementation is remote and speculative” (State CEQA Guidelines 15126.6[f][3]).

The proposed project involves the build-out of Phases B, C, and an unrecorded portion of Phase A
of the previously approved Tesoro development. The most important factor in the consideration of
an alternative site for the proposed project is that Phase A of the Tesoro development has been
constructed. Construction of Phases B and C, either as originally approved or as proposed, includes
components that would ultimately serve the entire project site, including parks and trail amenities.
Although the Phase A development has been constructed to exist regardless of the development
of Phases B and C, many of the amenities would serve both the residents of Phase A as well as
future residents of Phases B, C, and an unrecorded portion of Phase A. For example, the proposed
parkland in Phases B and C would assist in meeting the Tesoro del Valle development's conditions
of approval related to County of Los Angeles (County) parkland obligation requirements.

The use of an alternative site for development of the Project would lead to the same development
intensity and type of land uses as the proposed Project but on a different site within or near the
Santa Clarita Valley. In order to accommodate development, the alternative site would need to be
the same approximate size (393.6 acres). Much of the land in the immediate Project vicinity is
currently under conservation or public ownership and is not available for development, it is already
developed, or it has a development application pending for the property, limiting the options for
an alternative site. Those sites that might be available are not located proximate to an existing
access point and would require considerable connections to existing circulation facilities and
utilities.

Additionally, on a larger regional scale, the 2012 SCVAP modified the land use designations for the
project site to be consistent with the proposed Project. Alternative sites are not currently zoned for
the types and densities/intensities of development proposed by the Project. Therefore, the Tesoro
del Valle development, as a whole, would be most effective if constructed on the current Project site
because the development is already partially complete and features of the Phases B and C project
would assist in meeting all development conditions of approval.

As such, an alternative location is not a feasible alternative and does not warrant further analysis
pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines.

R:\Projects\BLC\3BLC000100\Draft EIR\6.0 Alternatives.docx 6-4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project