Page 904 - tesoro_sdeir0218

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

TABLE 6-7
ALTERNATIVES IMPACT COMPARISON

Alternative 3:
Alternative 1: Reduced Alternative 4:
Environmental Proposed No Project/No Alternative 2: Development Modified 2012
Topic Project Development 1999 Tract Map Area SCVAP
Lesser Lesser Lesser
Less Than Lesser Impact/No
Land Use Impact/Less than Impact/Less than Impact/Less than
Significant Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Similar Impact/No Similar Impact/No Similar Impact/No Similar Impact/No
Mineral Resources No Impact
Impact Impact Impact Impact
Lesser Impact/ Lesser Impact/ Lesser Impact/
Mitigated to Less Lesser Impact/No
Noise Mitigated to Less Mitigated to Less Mitigated to Less
Than Significant Impact
than Significant than Significant than Significant
Lesser Impact/No Similar Lesser Similar
Population and Less Than
Housing Significant Impact Impact/Less than Impact/Less than Impact/Less than
Significant Significant Significant
Lesser Impact/No Lesser Impact/ Lesser Impact/ Lesser Impact/
Mitigated to Less
Public Services Impact Mitigated to Less Mitigated to Less Mitigated to Less
Than Significant
than Significant than Significant than Significant
Lesser Impact/No Similar Lesser Lesser
Less Than
Recreation Impact Impact/Less than Impact/Less than Impact/Less than
Significant
Significant Significant Significant
Lesser Impact/No Lesser Lesser Greater Impact/
Traffic, Access Significant and Impact Impact/Significant Impact/Less than New Significant
and Circulation Unavoidable
and Unavoidable Significant and Unavoidable
Lesser Impact/No Greater Impact/ Lesser Impact/ Lesser Impact/
Tribal Cultural Mitigated to Less Impact Mitigated to Less Mitigated to Less Mitigated to Less
Resources Than Significant
than Significant than Significant than Significant
Lesser Impact/ Lesser Impact/ Lesser Impact/
Mitigated to Less Lesser Impact/No
Utilities Mitigated to Less Mitigated to Less Mitigated to Less
Than Significant Impact
than Significant than Significant than Significant

The No Project/No Development Alternative has the least impact to the environment because it
would not involve any construction activities and would not introduce development of any uses
that would generate potential operational impacts. Specifically, there would be no impacts
associated with aesthetics or traffic, each of which are considered significant and unavoidable
impacts for the proposed Project. The No Project/No Development Alternative would not require
the provision of additional public services and facilities and would not result in an increased
demand for utilities or service systems. Additionally, no impacts associated with development
would occur, including impacts related to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources,
geology and soils, and hydrology and water quality. While this alternative would avoid the
significant and unavoidable effects of the proposed Project, it would also eliminate housing that
satisfies current and future housing demands in the community and none of the Project objectives
would be met.

In compliance with Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Reduced
Development Area Alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative. Due to the
reduction in development area footprint as well as the reduction in proposed dwelling units,
significant and unavoidable aesthetics and traffic impacts associated with the proposed Project
would be avoided. The Reduced Development Area Alternative would also result in reduced
impacts related to long-term air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils,
GHG emissions, hydrology and water quality, public services, recreation, and utilities.

R:\Projects\BLC\3BLC000100\Draft EIR\6.0 Alternatives.docx 6-47 Alternatives to the Proposed Project