Page 857 - tesoro_sdeir0218

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

The alternatives considered in this Draft Supplemental EIR include the following:

 Alternative 1 – No Project/No Development

 Alternative 2 – 1999 Tract Map
 Alternative 3 – Reduced Development Area

 Alternative 4 – Modified 2012 Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan

6.6.1 NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE

The purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decision makers to
compare the impacts of Project development with the potential impacts of not approving the
Project. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B), the No Project/No
Development Alternative is the circumstance under which the project does not proceed.

Description of the Alternative

The No Project/No Development Alternative assumes the retention of the site in its existing
undeveloped condition. As described in Section 3, Environmental Setting, the project site exists
as undeveloped, naturally vegetated land. On-site vegetation types include alluvial scrub,
chamise chaparral–sage scrub, coast live oak woodland, coast live oak woodland/blue elderberry
scrub, coast live oak woodland–holly-leaf cherry woodland, Fremont cottonwood woodland, holly-
leaf cherry woodland, mixed chaparral–alluvial scrub/annual grassland, sage scrub, sage
scrub/annual grassland, and southern riparian scrub. The site consists of moderately steep to
steep terrain in the central and western portions of the property, leveling off toward the east along
the broad alluvial bottom of San Francisquito Creek. Therefore, the project development footprint,
including an unrecorded portion of Phase A, would remain in the existing, undeveloped condition.

Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impacts

Aesthetics

The No Project/No Development Alternative would not involve any development or change in the
current condition of the project site. There would be no change to the visual quality or character
of the project site or surrounding areas. Aesthetic changes associated with development of the
project site would not occur with this alternative. The No Project/No Development Alternative
would avoid any grading or development of the project site; therefore, this alternative would avoid
the significant and unavoidable impact related to alterations to the ridgeline that would occur with
implementation of the Project.

Agriculture/Forest

The No Project/No Development Alternative would not involve any development or change in the
current condition of the project site. There are no areas on the Project site that are currently being
used for agricultural purposes. Therefore, consistent with the proposed Project, the No Project/No
Development Alternative would not result in a significant impact related to agriculture and forest
lands.

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