Page 881 - tesoro_sdeir0218

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

Energy

With respect to energy resources, because the development footprint would be reduced, the
Reduced Development Area Alternative would require less construction activity which would
result in less energy used during the short-term. However, as with the proposed Project, this
alternative would be required to comply with the County’s Construction and Demolition Debris
Recycling and Reuse Ordinance which requires the recycling/reuse of at least 50 percent of non-
hazardous construction/demolition debris by weight or volume. Additionally, in response to
California’s 75 Percent Initiative, at least 75 percent of all solid waste will be recycled or reused
by 2020. This would indirectly reduce energy use from the production of building materials.
Therefore, similar to the proposed Project, impacts to energy resources would be less than
significant and no mitigation is required.

The long-term operational energy impacts would also be less compared to the proposed Project
due to the reduction in dwelling units and amenities, resulting in fewer new residents and
associated annual vehicle miles travelled and long-term electricity and natural gas demands.
However, consistent with the proposed Project, these impacts would be less than significant and
no mitigation is required. Therefore, impacts associated with the Reduced Development Area
Alternative would be the less than the proposed Project; however, the less than significant impact
conclusion would be the same.

Geology and Soils

The Reduced Development Area Alternative would involve development of the Project site;
however, this alternative would result in a reduced development footprint when compared to the
proposed Project. There would be less earth disturbance with this alternative; however, as with
the proposed Project, development of the Reduced Traffic Impact Alternative would expose
people and structures to seismic ground shaking and the project site would be subject to soil
erosion and loss of topsoil. Further, the presence of unsuitable soils and potentially expansive
soils within the area identified for development under this alternative would result in a potentially
significant impact. As with the proposed Project, the impacts under this alternative would be
mitigated to a less than significant level.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The Reduced Development Area Alternative would result in a reduction in construction-related
GHG emissions generated by on-site uses due to a reduced development footprint. Additionally,
because the alternative would include 575 fewer dwelling units (245 versus 820 dwelling units)
than the proposed Project, there would be a reduction in daily operational area and mobile source
GHG emissions. Therefore, impacts associated with the Reduced Development Area Alternative
would be less than the proposed Project; however, the less than significant with mitigation impact
conclusion would be the same.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Although the amount of grading associated with this alternative would be reduced compared to
the proposed project, this alternative would continue to propose a similar type of residential
development and parkland uses. This alternative would continue to provide for the proposed
helispot as requested by Los Angeles County Fire Department; however, it is anticipated that the
helispot may be located in an alternate location within the identified development footprint (refer
to Exhibit 6-3). Because two access points are proposed with this alternative, no impacts related
to emergency access and evacuation routes would occur. Therefore, impacts related to hazards
and hazardous materials would be similar to what would occur with the proposed Project.

R:\Projects\BLC\3BLC000100\Draft EIR\6.0 Alternatives.docx 6-28 Alternatives to the Proposed Project