HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-04-07 - AGENDA REPORTS - NEWHALL RANCH DEV PROJ (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval://
Item to be presented byfJeffrev Lambert
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
DATE: April 7, 1998
SUBJECT: A REVIEW AND DIRECTED COURSE OF ACTION REGARDING
THE CITY'S CONCERNS PERTAINING TO THE NEWHALL
RANCH DEVELOPMENT PROJECT LOCATED IN
UNINCORPORATED LOS ANGELES COUNTY WEST OF
INTERSTATE 5.
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Building Services
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) adopt EIR alternative 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 as
the City's preferred alternative to the proposed Newhall Ranch project; 2) review
and accept the proposed new strategy; and 3) direct staff to draft a letter for Mayor
Heidt's signature to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors regarding the City
Council's position.
BACKGROUND
On March 24, 1998, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors held a public
hearing to receive testimony on the Newhall Ranch development project. The
mayor, who presented a letter to the Board outlining the City's concerns regarding
the project, represented the City. There were also 22 residents who rode the City
bus to the meeting and testified before the Board. At the conclusion of the hearing,
the Board continued the matter to their May 26' hearing and requested that any
further written comments to the Board be submitted no later than April W.
The City has presented the County with numerous letters outlining its many
concerns. Since the Board is prepared to take final action on the project within the
next few months, it would be appropriate for the City to modify its strategy to
negotiate the City's top concerns with the County. Staff has identified the following
issues:
Request that the County reduce the project density as proposed in the EIR
alternatives. A summary of the EIR alternatives is attached for the Council to
choose the most appropriate density reduction (See Attachments "A" and `B").
r,nnda Item:
• Direct staff to invite Supervisor Antonovich to a meeting regarding this project
in the Santa Clarita Valley and request that the Los Angeles County Regional
Planning Commission hold meetings on all subsequent projects within Newhall
Ranch in the Santa Clarita Valley.
• Request that the County provide a guarantee that revenues generated by the
Newhall Ranch project will be used in the Santa Clarita Valley for infrastructure
and providing needed services such as parks programming and transit.
• Request that the County adhere to the Joint City -County Planning Program
adopted by the City of Santa Clarita and County of Los Angeles in 1992 that
provided for City review and comment on County development projects to insure
consistency with City goals and policies.
• Request that the County address the list of issues that the City has raised in its
previous correspondence.
Staff is also in the process of coordinating a meeting with Ventura County and the
Cities of Fillmore and Santa Paula to discuss areas of mutual concern prior to the
May 26' Board meeting.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
See Attachments "A" and `B."
FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact analysis has been conducted.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachments "A" and "B" - Summary of EIR alternatives
Letter sent to the Los Angles County Board of Supervisors dated March 20, 1998
JJL:VPB:Iep
s:\pbs\council\nwlrneh
Attachment "A"
Newhall Ranch EIR Alternatives
Alternative 1— The "No Project" alternative: This option would leave the site in
its current state, with no development proposed. This alternative is required by
CEQA to be included as an alternative in environmental impact reports.
Alternative 2 — Site Build -out under the Santa Clartia Valley Area Plan and
Zoning Code: This alternative follows the current Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan
as adopted by the County in 1990. This alternative would result in the construction
of 2,070 residential units, 27,770 square feet of commercial use, 19,602 square feet of
industrial use, and -the creation of approximately 128 permanent jobs. This
alternative would be built out over the same footprint as the proposed project.
Alternative 3 — Clustered Alternative (Same amount of development,
Smaller Footprint): This alternative would result in the same amount of
development, but would reduce the biological impacts of the project due to the
reduction in the project's footprint. This alternative would reduce development
along the southern banks of the Santa Clara River, and would reduce the
development area from 6,108 acres to 3,744 acres. This ultimately results in an
increase in open area from approximately 5,852 acres to 8,189 acres, and reduces the
on-site population of the project from 68,524 to 63,261 (due to the replacement of
residential uses with open area and the exclusion of estate and low residential
housing). .
Alternative 4 — 19,750 Unit Alternative (20 percent reduction in
development, same footprint): This alternative would result in a total of 19,750
dwelling units and a 20% reduction in non-residential uses, for a total of 2,689,600
square feet of mixed use, 711,200 square feet of typical commercial/retail use,
1,036,000 square feet of industrial use, and 139,200 square feet of Visitor -Serving
area. This alternative results in a less intense project for the site that would result
in a general reduction in on-site environmental impacts, while still maintaining
most of the objectives of the Specific Plan.
Alternative 5 — 15,000 Unit Alternative (39 percent reduction in residential,
28 percent reduction in non-residential, smaller footprint): This alternative
results in 15,000 residential units, 2,634,000 square feet of mixed use area, 383,000
square feet of commercial use, and 1,095,000 square feet of industrial area. This
alternative would: eliminate development within the Santa Clara River SEA and the
Santa Susana Mountains SEA; would increase the setback to the Salt Creek corridor
by 500 feet; would reduce the development area from 6,112 acres to 5,083 acres.(thus
increasing the open area from 5,852 acres to 6,880 acres); and would reduce the on-
site population of the project from 68,524 to 44,216. However, this alternative would
also eliminate the reservation of the Metrolink rail right-of-way through the site,
would eliminate the park-and-ride/Metrolink station site along State Route 126,
eliminate the construction of a fire station at Chiquito Canyon Road, and would
eliminate restrictions on the use of the river corridor.
Alternative 6 — The 8,000-unit. alternative - (68 percent reduction in
development, smaller footprint): This alternative would result in 8,000 units,
and 540,000 square feet of mixed use. This alternative is represented as the
"Environmentally Superior" project alternative. Significant changes in the
development footprint on the site include the elimination of grading on the High
Country ridge and within the 50-year Capital Flood Plain of the Santa Clara River,
and setback of development from River bluffs. Ultimately, this alternative results in
a reduction in development area from approximately 6,108 acres to 4,365 acres, with
a resulting increase in open area from approximately 5,852 to 7,328 acres. In
addition, this alternative would reduce residential intensities, limiting the Specific
Plan to approximately 3,019 acres of Estate Residential and 1,505 acres of Low
Residential housing. However, it impedes the reservation of the Metrolink rail
right-of-way and park and ride lot, would eliminate the construction of trails on the
Specific Plan site, would not preserve the Asistencia (San Fernando Mission Annex),
would eliminate the preservation River Corridor and High Country areas for public
use, and would eliminate restrictions placed on the use of the river corridor.
s:pbs/council/6alts
Attachment `B"
NEWHALL RANCH EIR ALTERNATIVES
KEY (Level of Impact In Comparison to Project Sffe)
0 Aaemali" Produces Greater Level of Impact
C Ahemative Produces Equal Leval of Impact
U Aaemetive Produces Lasser Level of Impact
NIA Not Applicable to AMemative
I
ENVIRONMENTAL
WW
<
6
W
J
m
W I
I <
Z I
J
ul
F
�
f
a
W
4
C
J !
al
W
<
6
J
I m
W
F
~
TOPIC
GEOTECHNICAL AND SOIL RESOURCES
(gmding re4rnremrnq
V
�
`J
s -•
�/
`
GEOTECHNICAL AND SOIL RESOURCES
(eryosmrmsruWc ocmiry!
n
I'
O
("
0
� :
FLOOD
O
FLOOD
(.Wr quNiy)
U`
G
G
t
O
_�
"
Cl
"
P
TRAFFICJCIRCULATION
Pxlude n il,J ry w
TRAFFICICIROULATION
(di., ..,nq inJrmmrcovdacasraraitaaiL71
WA
"'�
N/A
A`
A
NOISE
�^�
O
Li
fl„.... "af°
C;��
AIRCUALITY
fWk'clr nilea movrlled!
O '0173
'v
V
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
O
O
9'
O
O
u.'
VISUALOUALITIES
CULTURALIPALEONTOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
WASTEWATER DISPOSAL
O
.:�::
G
o,
O
WATER RESOURCES
°
0
1
111
0-111,
EDUCATION
O
w
0,.,
O
NATURAL GASELECTRICff1'
O
0
M
O
FIRETOUCE SERVICES
O
°u..
O
me
0
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
O
EQ
Cj
jQ'
LIBRARIES
O
”'
�
`/
,.
PARKS, RECREATION ANDTRAILS
0
NO,
C
u;
0
POPULATION AND HOUSING
0
C
C
EMPLOYMENT
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL.
)
PRIME AGRICULTURAL LANDS
O
G
O
AGRICULTURAL PERPETUITY
KEY (Level of Impact In Comparison to Project Sffe)
0 Aaemali" Produces Greater Level of Impact
C Ahemative Produces Equal Leval of Impact
U Aaemetive Produces Lasser Level of Impact
NIA Not Applicable to AMemative
City of
Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Phone
Suite 300
(805) 259-2489
Santa Clarita
Fax
Califomia 91355-2196
(805) 259-8125
March 20, 1998
Honorable Members, Board of Supervisors
c/o Ms. Joanne Sturges, Executive Officer
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Room 383, Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration
500 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
SUBJECT: NEWHALL RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AND EIR
General Plan and Sub -Plan Amendments Nos. 94-087 - (5)
Zone Change No. 94-087-(5)
Conditional Use permit No. 94-087-(5)
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 24500
Dear Honorable Members, Board of Supervisors:
The City of Santa Clarita appreciates the opportunity to comment on the
Newhall Ranch proposal. The City.has serious concerns regarding the size and
scope of this project, its impacts on the City of Santa Clarita, and its impacts
on the entire Santa Clarita Valley. The project, with nearly 25,000 residences
and a population of almost 70,000 will substantially alter the quality of life for
City residents. The Santa Clarita Valley currently has a shortage of
infrastructure, such as adequate sewers, roads, mass transit, schools, fire,
Sheriff facilities, libraries, parks, recreational programs, and youth and adult
services. This project, without appropriate mitigation, will worsen our current
infrastructure shortages. Given the enormous impacts of this project, the City
requests that the Board of Supervisors holds a meeting regarding this project
in the Santa Clarita Valley so that local residents would have an opportunity
to comment on the project.
While the developer has stated that the incorporation of Newhall Ranch into
the City is unlikely, one can never predict what the future may hold. Fifty
years from now, we may have incorporated the Valencia Commerce Center, the
Marketplace, and/or the Magic Mountain Theme Parka We also feel that the
possibility exists that future residents of Newhall Ranch may wish to become
part of the City.. As such, we have also looked at the project as if future
annexation of the community of Newhall Ranch is a possibility.
If the project is developed, the City, suggests that the County of Los Angeles
and the developer continue to include the City of Santa Clarita in the planning
process. The Joint City -County Planning Program Background Report
(prepared jointly by the County of Los Angeles Regional Planning Department
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Newhall Ranch Specific Plan and EIR
March 20, 1998
Page 2
and.the City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department) was
accepted as a policy document in December of 1992. The Planning Program
states that "while the City of Santa Clarita was formed so that planning from
a local perspective could take place, the City share the Santa Clarita Valley.
with land governed by Los Angeles County. As the City has grown, so has its
awareness of the need to work together with the County. Ultimately, the
quality of life in the Santa Clarita Valley will depend heavily on how this
happens." The Planning Program specifies goals which lead to this higher
quality of life, including:
• The promotion of compatible and sound planning and the enhancement of
the quality of life in both the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the
Santa Clarita Valley;
• The promotion of compatible land use policy and development standards in
the Santa Clarita Valley;
• The enhancement of infrastructure planning, design, andinstallationin
incorporated and unincorporated areas;
• The coordination of development fees for infrastructure and other public
facilities;
• The utilization of locally generated fees locally, both in the City and in the
unincorporated areas;
• The maximization of opportunities for review and input on discretionary
project; and,
• The opportunity to provide fair and equitable means for public
representation and participation.
In light of these goals, it is imperative that the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan
provide for development that is consistent comprehensive and compatible with
the Santa Clarita Valley. In addition, the City requests that the following
changes be incorporated into the Specific Plan.
• Development Intensity: The proposed development of nearly 25,000
dwelling units along with the proposed commercial and industrial uses is
too intense for this area. This concern is amplified given the cumulative
impacts of the build -out west of Interstate 5 which will add an additional
8,000 dwelling units to the 25,000 units proposed at Newhall Ranch.
• Water Supply: The City is concerned that an adequate water supply has
not been secured for the entire project. The developer indicates that the
water supply will be secured for each phase of the development, but there
Newhall Ranch Specific Plan and EIR
March 20, 1998
Page 3
is no guarantee in the Specific Plan that this will occur.
Air Quality: The project does not include adequate mitigation measures for
the air quality impacts that would be created by this project. Specifically,
the future developers should provide for non -motorized modes of
transportation at future subdivision stages: The City is very aware that
technology changes rapidly, and is not asking that the developer be
specifically tied down to requiring Electric Vehicle charging stations at each
future subdivision stage. What the City is asking is that, for an.innovative .
project of this size, alternative fuel vehicles, EV charging stations and other
future technologies be encouraged by the Newhall Ranch Company in order
to help reduce the project's air quality impacts. This should also include
payment of the project's pro -rata share for transit service to and from the
project site.
Affordable Housing . Although the project provides for a variety of housing
types, it does not contain an inclusionary housing program. Because
Newhall Ranch is designed as a self-contained community, it is important.
that it provide its fair share of affordable housing so that the adjacent
jurisdictions are not left with the responsibility of providing Newhall
Ranch's share. Therefore, the City requests that the Specific Plan contain
an affordable housing program consistent with state housing law.
School Facilities: The project does not guarantee that adequate school
facilities will be provided. The impact of the project on the local school
districts is considered to be unavoidably significant by the William S. Hart
Union School District and the Castaic Union School District. The draft
environmental impact report does not discuss the timing for development
of the five elementary schools, junior high, and high school, therefore it is
anticipated that the City will be negatively affected by the build -out of the
project in the short-term, or until the . facilities are developed and
operational, however long that may be. Therefore, the Cityrequests that
an agreement be secured with the William S. Hart and Castaic Union
School Districts.
Santa Clara River and High Country Dedication: A conservation and
recreation easement is proposed to be granted to the County of Los Angeles
which will maintain public oversight. However, the City does not agree
with the proposed management of these areas. The Newhall Ranch
Company proposes that the Center for Natural Lands Management manage
these areas. The City requests that these areas be maintained by either
the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy or the Santa Clarita Watershed
Recreation and Conservation Authority.
The City is also opposed to the proposed timing of the dedication. The
Newhall Ranch Company has proposed dedicating the High Country at
Newhall Ranch Specific Plan and EIR
March 20, 1998
Page 4
mid -point in the development of Newhall Ranch or sooner if Portrero Valley
Village development has reached the 3,000th residential building permit.
The City requests that the lands be dedicated within three years of
approval by the Board of Supervisors of the Specific Plan and related
applications or immediately upon adoption of the development agreement,
whichever occurs first.
Santa Clara River Significant Ecological Area: Significant riparian habitat
would be removed from the River Corridor SEA with insufficient.mitigation
for this impact. This SEA is the largest in the Santa Clarita Valley and
supports a variety of natural habitats including freshwater marsh, coastal
sage scrub, oak woodland, and riparian woodlands. The City requests that
these impacts be minimized.
Flood Plain: Allowing development along the 100 year flood plain of the
Santa Clara River would create a hazard that would have to be corrected
at a later date. Therefore, the City requests that all development be
removed from the 100 year flood plain.
Bank Stabilization Alternatives: Even though the Newhall Ranch
Company has agreed to add Specific Plan language that would allow the
use of alternatives such as buried bank stabilization, they have not made
a commitment to utilize this method. The Newhall Ranch Company has
only agreed to allow this method as an option. The City requests that
there be a commitment to utilize these bank stabilization alternatives.
• Metrolink Line Restoration: The City requests that the Newhall Ranch
Company assist the MTA in seeking funding to build the portion .of the
proposed Metrolink line from Santa Clarita to Ventura that is within the
Newhall Ranch project.
Future Transit Needs Financing: Gasoline and Proposition A and C sales
taxes generated by the project will provide surplus revenues; however,
there is no guarantee that these revenues will return to the Santa Clarita
Valley. The City requests that there be a method to insure that these
revenues are returned to the Santa Clarita Valley to provide the needed
transit services.
State Highways: The City is concerned about the cumulative impacts on
State Route 126, Interstate 5, and State Route 14. The Draft
Environmental Impact Report states that because the project is self-
contained, 50 percent of the traffic generated by the project will stay within
the boundaries of the project, 37 percent of the traffic will stay within the
Santa Clarita Valley, and 11 percent of the traffic will travel outside of the
Santa Clarita Valley. The City believes that the short term impacts will
be significant during the phasing of the project and that the Specific Plan
Newhall Ranch Specific Plan and EIR
March 20, 1998
Page 5
guarantee that these impacts are mitigated.
Financing. Maintenance and Staffing of Public Parks: The fiscal impact
analysis indicates that there would be surplus tax revenues available for
park recreation funding; however, there is no. guarantee that these
revenues will return to the Santa Clarita. Valley nor does the County agree
that it will provide park recreation programs. The City requests that there
is. a method to guarantee the return of these funds to the Santa Clarita
Valley to pay for the parks and recreation services.
Santa Clara River. The developer has stated that an equestrian connection
between the High Country and the River trail is problematic, as the horses
would need to traverse the Santa Clara River bottom Newhall Ranch has
not included public recreation within the River bottom due to the presence
of endangered species and sensitive habitats, and has- stated that the
Project Biologist is opposed to encouraging access within the river. The
City is not suggesting that an equestrian trail traverse the River bottom.
The proposed equestrian trail along the Santa Clara River and the
proposed equestrian trails in the Santa Susana Mountains High Country
(which the developer agrees to tie into the Pico Canyon Trail) should be
connected in order to provide a usable, logical regional trail system.
Build Newhall Ranch according to the City's development standards: Even
though the Specific Plan's Hillside/Ridgeline standards are similar to the
City's standards; they are not as extensive. nor do they provide the same
amount of protection from excessive grading and landform alteration as the
City's provide. Additionally, even though bicycle trails are provided
adjacent to all highways, the Specific Plan does not meet the City's bicycle
trail standards. The City requests that the project conform with the City's
Hillside/Ridgeline and bicycle trail standards.
- Project compliance with all applicable NPDES Permit requirements.
- Traffic performance evaluations at each subdivision stage.
- Proper phasing and financing for transit service to the site.
- Environmental review and public notification for any construction near
the Salt Creek corridor.
- Proper landform grading techniques.
- Project compliance with, and incorporation of, Best Management
Practices.
- Minimization of non -point source pollutants throughout the Newhall
Ranch site.
- Individual Stormwater Pollution Prevention Programs for subdivisions,
Newhall Ranch Specific Plan and EIR
March 20, 1998
Page 6
where appropriate.
- Designs accommodating transit service to all future development sites.
- The development of a major sports center for community
tournaments/league play.
- Teen programs and anti -gang programs for the residents of Newhall
Ranch.
- The inclusion of air quality mitigation measures at all stages of
development.
It is unclear whether the project complies with the remaining City
property development standards (i.e. setbacks, height, lot coverage, etc.)
because the Newhall Ranch Company has not proposed any
subdivisions at this'time.
Thank you for your consideration of these very important concerns.
Sincerely,
anice H. Heidt
Mayor
JHH:GAC:VPB:Iep
s:\pbs\cound1\nrch4tr.vpb
8.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
I. PURPOSE
According to the CEQA Guidelines Section I5126 (d)(I), the purpose of the Project Alternatives section
is to assess a range of reasonable alternatives to the Specific Plan, or to the location of the Specific
Plan, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Specific Plan, but which would
avoid or substantially lessen any of the previously -identified significant effects of the Specific Plan.
Specific Plan objectives are presented in Section 1.0, Project Description, of this Elft.
The purpose of this section is also to evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. According to
the CEQA Guidelinesdiscussion of each alternative should be sufficient "to allow meaningful
evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project." Therefore, the significant effects of
each alternative will be discussed in less detail than those of the Specific Plan, but in enough detail to
provide decision -makers perspective and a reasoned choice between alternatives.
2. BACKGROUND
In order to completely understand the framework under which Specific Plan altematives were defined
and analyzed, it is helpful to understand the conditions under which the Specific Plan has been
designed. This is especially important because CEQA asks that proper site planning be done at the
beginning of a project's design when a greater amount of flexibility is available rather than at the end
of the environmental review process when an. appllcant may be committed to a certain design without
fully understanding its consequences.
a. Relationship of the Project to the Region
Newhall Ranch lies within,the fast growing North Los Angeles County region, which added nearly
70,000 people and 18A00 jabs. between 1990 and 1994, despite the severe recession.) The Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG) projects that North Los Angeles County will grow by
nearly one million people by the year 2020, necessitating annual construction of over 12AW homes. The
Newhall Ranch Specific Plan, with its planned 24,680 dwelling units plus an additional 538 Second
units, would provide just under a two-year housing supply for the North Los Angeles County region.
1 Growth estimates are based on Department of finance statistics for 1994 compared to 1990 Census.
Z Draft projections by SCAG for the North Las Angeles County region.
8-1 Newhaa Ranch sped* FIM Drgh EIR
July I996
6'
8.0 Project Alternatives
2 aackgmvne
Among the potential alternative sites for a major new community, Newhall Ranch is geographically
among the nearest to the Los Angeles Metropolitan area. The site is traversed by State Route 126 (SR -
126) and has access to Interstate 5 (I-5), California's major north -south freeway. These routes provide
connections to five metropolitan area freeways (I-210, SR -118, I-405, SR -14, and SR -170) within a ten to
fifteen minute driving time, as well as to more distant coastal and desert locations. A route for a future
Metrolink rail connection between Ventura and the Santa Clarita Valley is being preserved through
the property, adding to the site's accessibility and ability to accommodate.regional growth.
The site's location immediately adjacent to existing and planned development in the Santa Clarita
Valley Planning Area permits more efficient extension of infrastructure, as well as easier access to
existing regional shopping, and governmental and medical services, than "leapfrog development. The
site is also adjacent to the Santa Clarita Valley's major employment concentrations, including the
Valencia Corporate, Industrial and Commerce Centers. Employment centers in Valencia will offer
approximately 60,000 jobs when completed.
b. Suitability of the Newhall Ranch Site
At nearly 12,000 acres, the Newhall Ranch site is among the largest bf the land holdings in the region
which have a single owner or a small number of owners. The size and single ownership of the site
provide opportunities to develop a comprehensive master -planned community in which land uses are
properly sited, and infrastructure and service systems are planned in advance and coordinated with
regional systems.
The Newhall Ranch site has diverse topography and natural resources. Major features, such as the
Santa Susana Mountains, Santa Clara River and River bluffs, Sawtooth Ridge and Ayres Rock, are
constraints to development, but provide rare opportunities to integrate an urban community into a
natural setting. The Santa Clara River Valley, Potrero Canyon, the mesas along the River and, to a
lesser extent, Ung Canyon, provide large areas of more even topography which is suitable for
development. In general, these portions of the property have historically been used for agriculture,
grazing, and oil' and natural gas operations and, therefore, have retained only limited biological
significance.
A significant portion of the site is within County Significant Ecological Area Nos. 20 (Santa Susana
Mountains) and 23.(Santa Clara River). These SEAS pose major constraints to development, but also
provide biotic and scenic resources, the preservation of which add to the environmental, aesthetic, and
recreational quality of the ultimate community.
8-2 NeWW Ranch specific Plan DmJt EDL
- July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
2. Background
a Community Planning Process
The Specific Plan for Newhall Ranch was prepared in a series of iterations over an approximately two
year period. Incorporated into the Specific Plan effort were extensive studies of the site and its
environmental resources, as well as the constraints and opportunities briefly described above. A market
analysis was conducted to determine the range of home types, commercial retail and office, and
employment -generating land uses which would be warranted based on demographic and economic trends
in southern California. Nationwide and local -surveys were used to determine the community character
and amenities that people would find desirable in a planned community. In addition, public input to
the Plan was obtained through Community Task Force meetings and other public outreach efforts.
Finally, the goals and policies of the County of Los Angeles General Plan and Santa Clarita Valley
Area Plan were fundamental in shaping the community.
Early in the planning process, a comprehensive set of Specific Plan objectives was established. These
are contained in Chapter 2 of the Specific Plan and Section 1.0 of this EIR.
d. Project Design Features
The Newhall Ranch Specific Plan has been refined over the course of its development in order to avoid
environmental impacts or to minimize impacts where avoidance is not feasible. These improvements
are now part of the Specific Plan and are termed project design features. They include the following:
1. Approximately 4,763 acres, or 40 percent of the site, are being retained as a regionally significant
natural open area. system composed of the Santa Clara River and High Country Special
Management Areas, or SMAS. This system preserves the biological resources found in County SEAS
20 and 23 on the property, as well as Salt Canyon, a major wildlife habitat and movement corridor.
2. Total major open area within the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan site, including the SMAS and
additional Open Area, is approximately 5,852 acres, or 49 percent of the site. This total does not
include open area, which will be delineated in the, future for uses, such as neighborhood parks,
local trails, and recreation centers.`
3. A River Corridor has been designed which retains the River's significant riparian vegetation and
habitat while providing flood protection to Los Angeles County standards.
8.0-3 Xmhall Fanch *Park Plan Draft E1R
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
2. Background
4. Highway crossings over the Santa Clara River have been restricted to three locations,
significantly less than the number of agricultural crossings which already exist and which are
permitted to continue under Federal law. Bridge crossings of the River are elevated, rather than at
ground level, further lessening biological impacts.
5. The visually dominant River bluffs and steep, oak woodland -filled canyons along the southern side
of the River are being preserved as Open Area.
6. The Specific Plan preserves oak woodlands and savannas both within the SEAS and in the
development area of the community. While planning has emphasized conservation of oak resources
rather than individual trees, of the estimated " 16,314 oak trees within the property,
approximately 648 (approximately 4 percent) would potentially be impacted by development.
7. Major drainages throughout the property will be soft bottom. The Specific Plan will meet the
requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for protecting the
quality of water entering the Santa Clara River.
8. Prominent physical features, such as Sawtooth Ridge and Ayers Rock, have been preserved within
Open Area as landmarks for the community.
9. Cultural sites, including the Asistencia (the site of the historical annex to the San Fernando
Mission) and archeological sites, are being preserved and are contained within Open Area.
The refinement of the Specific Plan through the project design features resulted in a reduction in site
disturbance shown in the conceptual grading plan from its initial 7,500 acre impact size to
approximately 5,132 acres, a reduction of 1,500 acres, or 20 percent. The Open Area within the Specific
Plan was enlarged by the same amount
The remainder of this EIR section is devoted to an analysis of on- and off-site alternatives to the
Specific Plan which minimize or avoid the significant impacts generated by the Specific Plan.
8.0-4 N=W R=ah Spmfic Plan Draft EM
July 2996
&0 ProjectAlternatiaeS
3. On -Site Specific Plan Alternatives
3. ON-SITE SPECIFIC PLAN ALTERNATIVES
a. Methodology
In response to the significant impacts created by the Specific Plan, the comments received in response to
the Notice of Preparation, discussions with County staff and its Significant Ecological Area Technical
Advisory Committee, discussions at. 26 Community Task Force meetings, and many discussions with
members of the community and community groups, six on-site alternatives to the Specific Plan have
been defined:
• Alternative 1, The No Project Alternative. This alternative is required by the CEQA Guidelines.
and it compares the impacts which might occur if the site is left in its present condition with
those that would be generated by the Specific Plan as proposed;
• Alternative 2, Site buildout under the Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan. The purpose of this
alternative is to describe the impacts of developing the site as allowed by the Santa Clarita
Valley Area Plan and to compare such impacts with those generated by the Specific Plan;
• Alternative 3, The Clustered Alternative (Same Amount of Development as Specific Plan,
Smaller Footprint). The primary purpose of this alternative is to minirnin+ or avoid potentially.
significant biological impacts by reducing the development footprint of the Specific Plan. In
doing so, many other impacts which could occur as a result of land surface disturbance (e.g.,
impacts to cultural resources, geotechnical resources, fugitive dust impacts generated by grading,
etc.) might also be reduced in magnitude by a reduction in the development footprint of the
Specific Plan;
• Alternative 4, The 19,750 unit Alternative (20 Percent Reduction in Development, Same
Footprint). The primary purpose of this alternative is to minimize or avoid potentially
significant traffic, air quality, noise, indirect biological, utility (e.g., water demand, wastewater
generation), and public service (e.g., fire department, sheriff department) impacts by generally
decreasing the amount of development on the site;
8-5 Naohatt Manch Specific Plan waft EM
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Site Specific Plan Alternatives -Alternative 1
• Alternative 5, The 15,000 unit Alternative (39 Percent Reduction in Development, Smaller -
Footprint). The primary purpose of this alternative is to avoid or minimize the potentially
significant direct and indirect biological impacts created by the Specific Plan by reducing the
amount of development and by reducing the footprint upon which such development would occur.
In doing so, many other impacts which could occur as a result of site development might also be
reduced in magnitude; and
• Alternative 6, The 8,000 unit Alternative (68 Percent Reduction in Development, Smaller
Footprint). The primary purpose of this alternative is to avoid or minimize the potentially
significant visual and biological impacts created by the Specific Plan. In doing so, many other
impacts which could occur as a result of site development might also be reduced in magnitude
b. On -Site Alternative Analysis
(1) Alternative 1- No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative is required by the CEQA Guidelinesand it compares the impacts which
might occur if the site is left in its present condition with those that would be generated by the Specific
Plan as proposed. The Specific Plan site is partially in a disturbed state as a result of existing oil and
natural gas operations, grazing, and farming activities (refer to Section 2.0, Environmental and
Regulatory Setting, for a detailed discussion of existing site conditions). Under the No Project
Alternative, the Specific Plan site would remain as vacant land with on-going oil and natural gas
operations; agricultural activities would remain along the Santa Clara River Corridor, cn the mesas
overlooking the River, and in the wider canyon bottoms; and cattle grazing would remain in Potrero
Canyon, along the River, and in other upland and mountainous portions of the site. In addition,
Southern California Edison Company and Southern California Gas Company would retain their on-site
facilities and the site would continue to be used for motion picture filming.
Although nothing would change within the Specific Plan boundaries under this scenario, the
disturbance associated with retaining existing uses on the site would continue. For instance, grazing and
farming activities on the site would continue to disturb the soil surface and on-site vegetation. While
such disturbances would continue with the No Project Alternative, they would be of lesser magnitude in
total than the Specific Plan, although some areas which would be protected under the Specific Plan
would continue to be disturbed under the No Project Alternative. Consequently, and based solely on
environmental criteria, the No Project Alternative would be considered the environmentally superior
alternative to the Specific Plan because the potential Specific Plan -related impacts described in
Section 4.0 of this EIR would not occur. However, by retaining the site under existing conditions; most of
8-6 Newhall Ranch Spec fir Pian Drat} EIR
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Site SPeafc Plan Alternatives-AILn tive2
the applicant's Specific Plan objectives would not be met and, if development does not occur on the
Specific Plan site, the anticipated future demand for housing3 and commercial services would likely
stimulate development elsewhere in the Santa Clarita Valley, including development in less
accessible areas of the Valley with environmental resources that may be comparable to or of greater
value than those found on the Specific Plan site.
The applicant has also indicated that, if the Specific Plan is not implemented as proposed and this
alternative is implemented instead, the following would result:
• neither the River Corridor (813 acres) nor the High Country (3,949.9 acres) would be preserved as
Special Management Areas available for public use;
• cattle grazing would continue in both the River Corridor and High Country; no trails would be
constructed on the Specific Plan site, including the County -proposed River trail and the trail
network proposed by the applicant as part of the Specific Plan;
• no additional restrictions would be placed on the public use of the River Corridor; the County
Master Plan of Highways alignment of Commerce Center Drive would not be extended south to link
with Magic Mountain Parkway by the applicant;
• conservation of the Asistenda (San Fernando Mission Annex) site would not occur;
• no Metrolink rail right-of-way would be reserved through the site;
• no park-and-ride lot/Metrolink station site along SR -126 would be available on the site;
• no fire station would be constructed off Chiquito Canyon Road near the community of Val Verde;
• no golf course would be available;
• no recreational lake would be available for public use; and
• no additional tax revenue would be generated from the site.
Because implementation of Alternative 1 would not meet the .Applicant's objectives for the site and
would likely just divert urban development from this site to another, Alternative 1 is not considered an
acceptable alternative.
(2) Alternative 2 - Site Buildout Under the.Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan and Zoning Code
The purpose of Alternative 2 is to describe the impacts of developing the site as allowed by the Santa
Clarita Valley Area Plan and to compare such impacts with those generated by the Specific Plan.
Under Alternative 2, the Specific Plan site would build out consistent with the Santa Clarita Valle
Area Plan (adopted 12/6/90), which designates the site as Non -Urban 1 (0.5 and 0.05 dwelling
3 See Southern California Association of Government population projections for project census tracts, EIR Section
421, Population, Housing and Employment.
8-7 N=MU Ranch Spwfie Plan Draft EM
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Site Alternatives - Alternative 2
units/acre), Non -Urban 2 (1.0 dwelling units/acre), Commercial, Industry, Hillside Management,
Hillside Management/Significant Ecological Area, Floodway/Floodplain, and
Floodway/Floodplain/Significant Ecological Area (see Figure 8.0-1, Existing Area Plan Land Use
Designations). Approximately 256 acres along the northern and southern banks of the Santa Clara
River are designated Non -Urban 1, and 1,517 acres along Potrero Canyon, Long Canyon, and along
Chiquito Canyon Road are designated Non -Urban 2. Approximately .1,518 acres are designated as
floodway/floodplain (including 1,290 acres of Significant Ecological Area 23), approximately 3.4 acres
at the northernmost boundary of the site along Chiquito Canyon Road are designated Commercial,
approximately 1.5 acres along SR -126 are designated as Industry, and approximately 8,667.1 acres
within the Specific Plan boundaries are designated Hillside Management (including 4,013 acres of
Significant Ecological Area 20).
Site build out consistent with the Area Plan could result in the development potential identified in
Table 8.0-1, Site Buildout Potential Under the Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan.
Table 8.0-1
Alternative 2
Site Buildout Potential
Under the Santa Clarita Vallev Area Plan
-Designation, -
'
Acreage
Permitted:
`. intensiiy�t
- (unitslaere)
;.-
Buildout Potentiaf'
Non -Urban 1 (<50% Slope)
236.5
0.50
118 du's
Non -Urban 1(>50% Slope)
19.5
0.05
1 du
Non -Urban 2
1,517
1.00
1,517 du's
Hillside Management
4,653.7
0.05
233 du's
HillsideMgmt/SEA
4,013.4
0.05
201 du's
Commercial
3.4
0.1875 FARr
27,770 sf
69 emplovees2
Industry
1.5
0.3 FAR
19,6-02 sf
59 employees2
Floodway/Floodplain
228.6
—
Floodway/Floodplain/
1,289.8
—
SEA
Totals 11,963.4 2,070 du's
47,372 sf
128 employees
Source. FORMA (January 1996).
FAR =floor -area ratio, du = dwelling unit, sf = square feet
rFAR is an average derived from the Department of Public Works.
2Employment is based on 2.5 employees per 1,000 square feet for Commercial and 3
employees per 1,000 square feet for Industry.
8.0-8 Nemhali Ranch Speofic Plan Draft EIR
July 1996
i
t
IHM
HM -S
SOURCE. LAND USE POLICY MAP
\ SANTA CLARITA AREA PLAN
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
\ I DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL PLANNING
NOTE: INCLUDES AMENDMENTS THROUGH
MARCH 23, 1992
CNE"ALL %NCH.
Newhall lunch Company
L E G E N D
aNONURBAN 1 (as AND om Du/Ac)
NONURBAN 2 (1-0 DD/Ac)
COMNOICIAL
INDUSTRY -
a BU LSME MANAGE 4E r
SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL
AREAS
FLOODWAY/FLOODPLAIN
® FPACT eCBC»NC
uaY. rr��
W 4dt6 MO AIFES W1rY � �
EXISTING AREA PIAN FIGURE 8.0-1
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
ALTpRMTWE
2 .
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Site Alternatives - Altematim 2
The applicant has indicated that, if the Specific Plan is not implemented as proposed and this
alternative is implemented instead, the following would result:
• neither the River Corridor (813 acres) nor the High Country (3,949.9 acres) would be preserved as
Special Management Areas available for public use;
• cattle grazing would continue in both the River Corridor and High Country;
• no trails would be constructed on the Specific Plan site, including the County -proposed River trail
and the trail network proposed by the applicant as part of the Specific Plan;
• no. additional restrictions would be placed on the public use of the River Corridor;
• the County Master Plan of Highways alignment of Commerce a Center Drive would not be extended
south to link with Magic Mountain Parkway by the applicant;
• conservation of the Asistencia (San Fernando Mission Annex) site would not occur;
• no Metrolink rail right-of-way would be reserved through the site;
• no park-and-ride lot/Metrolink station site along SR -126 would be available on the site;
• no Community Parks would be constructed (only local parks would be constructed);
• no fire station would be constructed off Chiquito Canyon Road near the community of Val Verde;
• no golf course would be available for public use;
• no recreational lake would be available for public use; and
• less tax revenue would be generated.on the site than under the Specific Plan.
Under Alternative 2, the on-site population would be reduced from 68,524 to 6562.
According to the Planning and Zoning Code: Title 22 of the Los Aneeles County Code (1986 edition), the
majority of the site is zoned for Heavy Agriculture (A-2), with a 2.0 -acre minimum lot size north of SR -
126 (A-2-2) and a minimum lot size of 5.0 acres south of SR -126 (A-2-5). A small portion of the site is
zoned for Manufacturing (M -1S). According to Chapter 22.24 of the Code. the uses identified in Table
8.0-2, Permitted Uses in the Heavy Agricultural (A-2) Zone, are permitted under the A-2 Heavy
Agricultural zone (refer to Appendix 8.0 for additional detail regarding permitted and accessory uses in
the A-2 and M-1.5 zones). Consequently, each of the uses shown could be constructed and operated in
this zone independent of the Specific Plan. According to Chapter 22.32 of the Co& uses permittedon
the small portion of the site zoned M-1.5, Restricted Heavy Manufacturing Zone, indude adult day care
facilities, adult residential facilities, dwelling units, family day care homes, mobile homes, motels,
schools, etc. (refer to Appendix 8.0 for a complete list of permitted and accessory uses in this zone).
8.0-10 Nemhap Rauh SPenfic Plan Deaf! EIR
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Site Alternatives - Altcrnative 2
Table 8.0-2
Permitted Uses in the Heavy Agricultural (A-2) Zone
Single Family Residences
Adult Residential Facilities
Foster Family Homes
Small Family Day Care Homes
Animal Hospitals
Aquaria
Dog Kennels
Feed Mills
Hogs
tock Sales Yards
Mushroom Farms
Youth Hostels
Ridingand Hiking Trails
Fairgrounds of a Public Character
Linseed, Cottonseed, & Coconut Oil Processing
Plants
Youth Camps
Oil Wells
Schools
I Yards
Cattle, Sheep, and Goats
and Stables
Fruit and Vegetable Packing Plants
Campgrounds, Picnic Areas, Trails
Lo Operations
Pa g,n laygrounds,and Beaches
Raising of Poultry, Fowl, Birds, Rabbits, Chinchilla, Nutria, Mice, Frogs Fish, Bees, Earthworms, and
other similar animals, including hatching, fattening, marketing, sale, slaughtering, dressing, processing and
Packing, and including eggs, honey, or similar products
Source. Los Angeles County, Planning and Zoning Code; Title 22 of the Los Angeles County Code, (Los
Angeles, California: 1986 Edition), Part 3 - Chapter 22.2 .
As shown in this table, a wide range of activities are legally permitted on. the Specific Plan site
ranging from family homes to facilities for breeding, raising, and butchering livestock. The following
discussion compares the potential environmental impact of Alterative 2 to those associated with
implementation of the Specific Plan.
(a) Geotechnical and Soil Resources
Although development activity subjected to the forces of ground movement during seismic events could
occur under Alterative 2, site development under Alterative 2 would require less grading in hilly
areas than the Specific Plan, and would result in less earth movement. Consequently, from a
geotechnical standpoint, Alterative 2 would be environmentally superior to the Specific Plan.
(b) Flood
Urban runoff generated under Alterative 2 would be conveyed and discharged into the Santa Clara
River. The Flood section of this EIR (Section 4.2) indicates that the volume of water that nus off the
Specific Plan site is greater in its undeveloped condition than it would be in a developed condition
because, in the undeveloped condition, runoff contains debris (soil and materials, such as dead branches,
leaves, etc.) while, in the developed condition, debris is removed from the water. Like the Specific
8.0-11 NmhaR Ranch Spenfic Plan Draft EIR
July I996
8.0 ProjectAltematiaes
3. On -Site Alternatives - Alternative 2
Plan, the amount of clear runoff from developed portions of the site in this Alternative would be greater
than under current conditions due to an increase in the amount of impervious surfaces, while the amount
of debris would be reduced as undeveloped areas are replaced with the more non-erosive urban
landscape. However, because the Specific Plan would cover more of the site with non-erosive surfaces
than Alternative 2, thereby reducing debris, the amount of runoff (water plus debris) from the site
would be less with the Specific Plan than under Alternative 2 Therefore, the Specific Plan would be
the environmentally superior alternative with respect to runoff quantities.
Stormwater runoff under Alternative 2 would be required to meet the same Regional Water Quality
Control Board water quality standards as the Specific Plan, so stone runoff under either alternative
would not significantly impact surface or ground waters. Therefore, neither Alternative 2 nor the
Specific Plan is environmentally superior to the other with respect to runoff quality.
(c) Traffic/Access
Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in a decrease in Specific Plan -generated traffic.
Specifically, average daily trip generation on the Specific Plan site would decrease from 387,000 trips
to 24,800 trips (a 93.6 percent decrease). Because Alternative .2 would decrease traffic impacts on local
roadways and would, therefore, require fewer roadway improvements off the Specific Plan site than
the Specific Plan, it would be environmentally superior to the Specific Plan with respect to traffic and
circulation impacts.
(d) Noise
With a reduction in amount of development on the site and associated trip reduction, there would be a
reduction in noise impacts on and in the vicinity of the site. The analysis presented in this EIR
determined that only one off-site location within the vicinity of the Specific Plan site - the Travel
Village RV Park - would be significantly impacted by Specific Plan -generated noise. A reduction in
Specific Plan traffic volumes of approximately 93.6 percent would substantially reduce the Specific
Plan's noise level increases to the point that noise levels at the Travel Village RV Park would not
exceed the off-site mobile source thresholds of significance. Therefore, Alternative 2 would be
environmentally superior to the Specific Plan with respect to noise impacts.
8.0-12 Newhall Ranch Spec0c Plan Drat! VII
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Site Altematiaes - Artemanve 2
(e) Air Quality
Because less on-site grading would occur under Alternative 2, the total amount of grading and
construction -related air quality impacts would be less than those of the Specific Plan. In addition,
Alternative 2 would include less developed uses and generate less traffic than the Specific Plan. The
effect of this reduction in development and vehicle trips on air emissions is provided below.
Emissions m Pounds per Day
Emissions Source. CO VOC
Specific Plan
Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan
Alternative
Recommended SCAQMD Thresholds
Source., Impact Sciences, Inc.
17,575.7
835.6
3,015.6
315.9
43,185.6
1,512.8
68.4
219.7
22.4
3,321.6
550.0
55.0
55.0
150.0
150.0
As shown, Alternative 2 would generate fewer air emissions than the Specific Plan. Therefore, it
would be environmentally superior to the Specific Plan with respect to air quality. With the exception
of SO, emissions, the emissions generated by Alternative 2 would, however, exceed the thresholds
recommended by the SCAQMD and, as with the Specific Plan, would also be considered significant.
SO, emissions would be in quantities that are less than significant under Alternative 2.
(f) Biota
Given that a substantially lesser amount of grading and its associated ground and habitat disturbance
would occur with Alternative 2, and given that there would be a substantial reduction in site
population with Alternative 2, the direct and indirect biological impact of Alternative 2 would be less
than that of the Specific Plan Development under Alternative 2 could occur within designated SEAS
20 and 23, but to a lesser degree and intensity than with the Specific Plan However, grazing activities
would continue with Alternative 2 in both SEAS. Also, the applicant has indicated that the Open
Areas of the Specific Plan site, including the High Country and the River. Corridor Special
Management Areas, would not be dedicated to the public in perpetuity,. but would remain in private
ownership with no provision for public access. From a biological standpoint, the reduction in grading,
on-site population, and overall habitat disturbance would be considered more beneficial than the loss
to the public of the High Country and River Corridor Special Management Areas and continued cattle
grazing therein. Consequently, Alternative 2 is biologically superior to the Specific Plan.
8.0-13 Nemhal! Ranch Specific Plan Draft EIR
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Sia Alft atives - Alun tive 2
(g) Visual Qualities
Development of Alternative 2 would, like the Specific Plan, change the visual character of the
Specific Plan site. Because less development would occur along the Santa Clara River and throughout
the Specific Plan site under Alternative 2, there would be significantly less visual impact than would
occur if the site were developed as proposed. The following visual impact analysis of Alternative 2 is
based on the viewing location information provided in Section 4.7, Visual Qualities.
1. Viewing Location 1(west of the site in Ventura County, along SR -126 looking east)
Non -Urban 2 development along the northern leg of Potrero Valley Road and on Potrero Mesa south of
the Santa Clara River would be visible from Viewing Location 1, but at a great distance. Land between
Viewing Location 1 and Potrero Valley Road would remain undeveloped under Alternative 2 because i t
is off the Specific Plan site.
2. Viewing Location 2 (on site, along SR -126 west of San Martinez Grande looking south)
Non -Urban 2 development along the northern leg of Potrero Valley Road and on Potrero Mesa south of
the Santa Clara River would be visible across the River from this viewing location. No other
development would occur elsewhere in this viewshed.
3. Viewing Location 3 (on site, near the SR-126/Chiquito Canyon Road intersection
looking south)
Development across the River from this viewing location would be visible; intervening topography
would preclude views of development along Potrero Valley Road. No other development would oma
elsewhere within the viewshed of this viewing location.
4. Viewing Location 4 (at the northern site boundary on Chiquito Canyon Road looking
south)
Non -Urban 2 development along Chiquito Canyon Road would be visible from Viewing Location 4. In
addition, a small amount of Non -Urban 2 development would be visible in the distance at the mouth of
Long Canyon south of the River. Intervening topography would preclude views of Non -Urban 2
development along Potrero Canyon from this viewing location.
8.0-14 - V mhan Ranch 9palfic Phm Draft M
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. Ort -Site Alternatives - Alternative 2
S. Viewing Location 5 (on site, along SR -126 on the west side of Castaic Creek looking
south)
Non -Urban 2 development on Exxon and Grapevine Mesas south of Santa Clara River and SR -126 would
be visible from Viewing Location 5. No other development would occur within.this viewshed.
6. Viewing Locations 6, 7, 8, and 9 (off site, generally from Interstate 5 and points east,
looking west and southwest toward site)
Non -Urban 1 development in the northeastern comer of the Specific Plan site would be visible from
Viewing Locations 6, 7, 8, and 9. No other development would cans within the viewsheds of Viewing
Locations 6 and 7. No Non -Urban 1 development on the Airport Mesa would be visible from Viewing
Locations 8 and 9.
7. Viewing Location 10 (off site, from the Rim of the Valley Trail, looking north toward
site)
Because Non -Urban 1 development in the northeastern comer of the Specific Plan site would barely be
visible from Viewing Location 10 given the distance between the Rim of the Valley trail and the very
low intensity of Non -Urban 1 development, Alternative 2 would be less visible than the Specific Plan
from this location. No other development would occur within the viewshed of Viewing Location 10 due
to the view blocking effects of intervening topography.
In conclusion, development under Alternative 2 would result in substantially less physical alteration of
the Specific Plan site than would occur if the site were to be developed as proposed. In addition, less
development would be visible from each of the ten viewing locations. Therefore, with respect to visual
qualities, Alternative 2 is environmentally superior to the Specific Plan.
(h) Cultural/Paleontological Resources
Because less ground disturbance would ocas under Alternative 2, potential direct impacts to cultural
and paleontological resources on the Specific Plan site would be less under Alternative 2 than if the
Specific Plan were to develop as proposed. However, under Alternative 2 the conservation of the
Asistencia (San Fernando Mission Annex) would not occur. Therefore, neither the Specific Plan or this
Alternative is considered to be environmentally superior with regard to impacts on cultural and
paleontological resources.
8.0-15 Newha@ Ranch Spec* Plan Draft EIR
July I996
8.0 Project Altematiaes
3. On -Site Alternatives - Alternative 2
(f) Wastewater Disposal
Wastewater generated under Alternative 2 would.be treated by individual septic systems, which
would result in effluent being leached through the ground without the opportunity of reclaiming any of
it for reuse. Wastewater generation for Alternative 2 would be 0.59 mgd compared to the 5.8 to 7.7 mgd
that the Specific Plan would generate. Although 0.59 mgd of wastewater is substantially less than 5.8
to 7.7mgd, the Specific Plan includes a water reclamation plant to treat all of its wastewater on site
with the reclaimed water being used to irrigate Open Areas an the site rather than disposing of
untreated wastewater into the ground, where it can come into contact with ground water supplies.
Because the Specific Plan would have its own, on-site water reclamation plant to treat all Specific
Plan wastewater rather than disposing of untreated wastewater into the ground, the Specific Plan is
environmentally superior to Alternative 2.
(j) Water Resources
Water consumption for this alternative would be 1,414 acre-feet per year compared to 12,082 to 13,320
acre-feet per year of water that the proposed Specific Plan would require from potable water supplies
(i.e., 19,345 acre-feet minus 6,025 to 7,263 acre-feet of reclaimed water). Because this alternative would
consti a less water from potable water resources than the Specific Plan, it would be environmentally
superior to the Specific Plan with respect to impacts on water resources.
(k) Education
Alternative 2 would generate 1,277 students compared to the 10,074 students that would be generated by
the Specific Plan. Therefore, Alternative 2 is environmentally superior to the Specific Plan with
respect to school impacts.
(1) Natural Gas/Electricity
Implementation of both the Specific Plan and Alternative 2 would require the use and expenditure of
nonrenewable petroleum resources. Alternative 2 would consume substantially less petroleum-based
resources than the Specific Plan; a comparison of annual energy consumption between the Specific Plan
and Alternative 2 is provided in Table 8.0-3, Alternative 2 Electricity and Natural Gas Demand.
8.0-16 NMhaQ Ranch Spedfic Plan Draft EIR
July I996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Site Alternatives - Alternative 2
Although these energy resources are commercially available, Alternative 2 would consume
substantially less petroleum-based energy resources than the Specific Plan and would be
environmentally superior to the Specific Plan-
(m)
lan
(m) Police Services
Because less development would occur on the site under Alternative 2 and a smaller on-site population
would result, it is expected that Alternative 2 would have less of an impact m the Sheriff's
Department than the Specific Plan. For the same reasons, Alternative 2 would also have smaller
demands for CHP and emergency services in the area of the Specific Plan site. As a result, Alternative
2 would be environmentally superior to the Specific Plan with respect to police services.
(n) Fire Services and Hazards
Because, Alternative 2 would result in less development and a smaller population on the. Specific Plan
site than would occur under the Specific Plan, there would be fewer Fire Department calls to the site
than under the Specific Plan. Therefore, with respect to providing fire services to the Specific Plan
site, Alternative 2 is environmentally superior to the Specific Plan.
8.0-17 N=hdl Ranch Spenfic Pian Dmft FIR
jury 2996
Table 8.0-3
Alternative 2
Electricity
and Natural Gas Demand
Specific
Plan Demand Alternative' Demand ,
Electricity Demand
(kWh/ ar)
233.2 million 13.1 million
Natural Gaffs Demand
(cubic feet/year)
1,747.3 million 1695 million
Source. Impact Sciences, Inc. (November 1995).
See Appendix 8.0 for detailed energy
consumption calculations for Alternative 2.
Although these energy resources are commercially available, Alternative 2 would consume
substantially less petroleum-based energy resources than the Specific Plan and would be
environmentally superior to the Specific Plan-
(m)
lan
(m) Police Services
Because less development would occur on the site under Alternative 2 and a smaller on-site population
would result, it is expected that Alternative 2 would have less of an impact m the Sheriff's
Department than the Specific Plan. For the same reasons, Alternative 2 would also have smaller
demands for CHP and emergency services in the area of the Specific Plan site. As a result, Alternative
2 would be environmentally superior to the Specific Plan with respect to police services.
(n) Fire Services and Hazards
Because, Alternative 2 would result in less development and a smaller population on the. Specific Plan
site than would occur under the Specific Plan, there would be fewer Fire Department calls to the site
than under the Specific Plan. Therefore, with respect to providing fire services to the Specific Plan
site, Alternative 2 is environmentally superior to the Specific Plan.
8.0-17 N=hdl Ranch Spenfic Pian Dmft FIR
jury 2996
8.0 ProjectAltematiaes
3. On -Sits Alternatives - Altemative 2
(o) Environmental Safety
As discussed in Section 4.5, Environmental Safety, potential impacts may result on the Specific Plan
site if development occurs in the following locations:
• adjacent to historic and continuing oil and natural gas operations,
• in dose proximity to the Southern California Edison electrical transmission lines,
• in dose proximity to the Southern California Gas Company high pressure gas lines,
• adjacent to State Route 126, upon which hazardous wastes are transported,
• in dose proximity to Chiquita Canyon Landfill,
• within the Castaic Lake dam inundation area, and
• adjacent to on-going agricultural operations.
The safety conditions under which Alternative 2 would be developed would be similar to those with
development of the Specific Plan. The primary difference between development of the Specific Plan
and Alternative 2 would be a substantial reduction in site population, which would result in
substantially less exposure to potential hazards, as unlikely as their oonurence might be. Tor this
reason, Alternative 2 is superior environmentally to the Specific Plan with respect to environmental
safety.
(p) Libraries
Based on County Library planning standards of 0.35 square feet of library facilities per capita and 2.0
books per capita, the Specific Plan would require a total of 23,983 square feet of library facilities with
137,084 additional volumes for the library system's collection.. In comparison, development under
Alternative 2 would, according to County Library standards, require 2,297 square feet of library
facilities and 13,124 volumes. Development under Alternative 2 would have less of an impact on
County Library facilities than would the Specific Plan, and would be environmentally superior to the
Specific Plan.
(q) Parks, Recreation and Trails -
Under County (and Quimby Act) requirements, development of the Specific Plan would require the
applicant to provide 206 dedicated acres of local parkland; the Specific Plan as proposed would exceed
this requirement by providing a total of 6,175 acres for parks, recreation, and Open Area, including
Neighborhood and Community Parks, a 15 -acre lake, an 18 -hole golf course, trails, the River Corridor
and High Country SMAS, and other Open Area. (see Section 4.20, Parks, Recreation and Trails for a full
8.0-18 Newhall Retch 9pedfic Plan Draft E1R
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Site Alternatives - Alternative 2
discussion ori this topic). Per County requirements, development under Alternative 2 would require
dedication of a total of 19.7 acres for parkland. The applicant has indicated that neither SMAS or
Open Area would be dedicated to public use as part of Alternative 2. Consequently, because the Specific
Plan would provide recreational land in excess of what would be required under the County requirement
and Alternative 2 would not, the Specific Plan would be environmentally superior to Alternative 2.
(r) Population, Housing and Employment
1. Population
The Newhall Ranch Specific Plan would introduce a resident population of 68,524 onto the Specific
Plan site at buildout. This population is within the Southern California Association of Government's
(SCAG) 1994 growth projection for the area, but is not within the County s 1990 projection (see Section
4.21, Population, Housing and Employment for further discussion). Buildout of the site consistent with
the 1990 Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan would result in 6,562 persons residing on the site (assuming
3.17 persons per household). This population is within both the County's 1990 and SCAG's 1994 growth
projections for the region and an amendment to the County growth projections would not be required as i t
would with the Specific Plan
2. Housing
The proposed Newhall Ranch community would include approximately 24,680 dwelling units plus an
additional 538 second units, including a wide range of Residential designations designed to allow for a
variety of product types. These housing units are consistent with SCAG's recently adopted (1994)
projections for the region, but not the County's 1990 projections (see Section 4.21 for further discussion).
Residential development under Alternative 2 would provide for 2,070 single family Residential units
(no multi -family units would be permitted). This development is well within the County's 1990 and
SCAG's 1994 growth projections for the area.
3. Employment
Development of the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan would result in an employment population of 19,323,
which is almost 2,000 more employees than forecast by SCAG for 2015 in the census tracts that overlie
the Specific Plan site. Development consistent with the Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan would
generate 128 on-site employment opportunities an 3.4 Commercial acres and 1-5 industrial acres. The
8.0-19 Newhall Ranch Spedfic Plan Dmft EIR
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Site Alternatives - Altematire 2
Santa Clarita Valley has been identified by SCAG as an area in need of additional employment
opportunities. Under Alternative 2, the jobs to housing ratio for the developed site would be reduced
from 0.75 to 0.05, which is indicative of more homes and fewer jobs than the Specific Plan.
Consequently, from an employment standpoint, the Specific Plan is superior to Alternative 2.
The population, housing and employment generated by Alternative 2 fall within the County's 1990
projections. However, SCAG's 1994 projections for growth in this area are greater than the County's
1990 projections. In fact, the Housing Chapter of the SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide
contains goals which call for additional housing opportunities along with employment in order to
reduce vehicle miles traveled and the associated air impacts. Nevertheless, as Alternative 2 is
consistent with the growth forecasts for the site, and would not require a General Plan Amendment, it is
considered environmentally superior to the Specific Plan from a population and housing standpoint.
From an employment standpoint, the Specific Plan is environmentally superior to Alternative 2.
(s) Solid Waste Disposal
At buildout, the Specific Plan would generate approximately 53,524 tons of solid waste per year. In
comparison, Alternative 2 would generate 4,387 tons of solid waste annually. Given the substantially
smaller solid waste generation totals associated with Alternative 2, it would be environmentally
superior to the Specific Plan.
(t) Agricultural Resources
There are 547 acres of prime farmland and 48 acres of unique farmland on the Specific Plan site (see
Section 4.4, Agricultural Resources, for a complete discussion of Farmlands of Importance).
Development of the site consistent with the Specific Plan would result fn the loss of this land to urban
uses. Development of the site under Alternative 2 would also permit residential development in areas
of the site that are designated as prime farmland and unique farmland (specifically, development
would occur on prime farmland at the mouth of Potrero Canyon and an Enron Mesa, and on unique
farmland located east of the prime farmland at the mouth of Potrero Canyon); however, development
would o= On fewer acres of farmlands of importance under Alternative 2 than the Specific Plan.
Therefore, with respect to the loss of prime agricultural land, Alternative 2 is environmentally
superior to the Specific Plan. In light of the continuing trend in the County of Los Angeles to convert
cultivated lands to urban uses to accommodate growth, and in light of the fact that the prime
agricultural land on the Specific Plan site is already impaired (i.e., relatively difficult and less
8.0-20 NmhaU Ranch Sponfic Plan Dmf! EIR
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. Ors -Site Alternatives-Alternatim 2
economical to farm) and is, therefore, generally of lower value than larger and better situated parcels
found to the west, the loss of agricultural productivity m prime agricultural land m the Specific Plan
site is not considered a significant impact. Therefore, with respect to loss of agricultural productivity
on the Specific Plan site, there is no environmentally superior alternative.
c. Conclusion
Because many of the environmental impacts of the Specific Plan would be avoided or minimized with
Alternative 2, it is environmentally superior to the Specific Plan (See Table 8.0-4, On -Site
Alternatives Impact Comparison Matrix, for a presentation of an Alternative . impact comparison
matrix). However, Alternative 2 has been rejected in favor of the Specific Plan because the applicant
believes that Alternative 2 too narrowly limits the range of housing opportunities provided and does
not reflect the market conditions under which the Specific Plan would be developed, and because many
of the objectives of the Specific Plan identified in the Project Description of this EIR (Section 1.0) would
not be achieved. Specific objectives not fully met or impeded to some extent with Alternative 2 are
listed below:
• Create a major new community with inter -related Villages that allows for residential,
commercial and industrial development, while preserving significant natural resources,
important land forms and open area.
• Provide a complementary and supportive array of land uses which will enable development of
a community with homes, shopping, employment, schools, recreation, cultural and worship
facilities, public services, and open space.
• Organize development into Villages to create,a unique identity and sense of community for
each.
• Design Villages in which a variety of higher intensity residential and non-residential land
uses are located in proximity to each other and to major road corridors and transit stops.
• Establish land uses and development regulations which permit a wide range of housing
densities, types, styles, prices, and tenancy (for sale and rental).
• Designate sites for needed public facilities such as schools, fire stations, library, water
reclamation, and parks.
• Allow for the development of community services and amenities by the public and private
sectors, such as medical facilities, child care, colleges, worship facilities, cultural facilities,
and commercial recreation.
• Adopt development regulations which provide flexibility to respond to and adjust to changing
economic and market conditions over a long period of time.
• Provide a tax base to support public services.
• Adopt development regulations and guidelines which allow site, parking, and facility sharing
and other innovations which reduce the costs of providing public services.
8.0-21 N=W1 Ranch Syeafic Plan Dmft EIR
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Site AltemaNpes - Alternative 3
On -Site Alternatives Impact Comparison Matrix
ON—SITE ALTERNATIVES OFA -SITE'
ALTERN TLVES
KEY (Level of Impact in Caopanaon m Project Sib)
0 Aaamglw PMdxes Graebr Lawlollmpw
O Altam * Pro&u E" UvW cg lmpr!
Q Alen1dw Produces Ussx Lawl of k*aa
N/A Not Applicealab A6emellw
8.0-22 Newhall Ranch Specific Man Draji EIR
July 1996
i
i
t
eye
Q
q
F
W
W
W
� W
-
'-y^• j
- ENVIRONMENTAL
s
TOPIC
�
I
GEOTECHNICAL AND$OIL RESOURCES
(8md'M
V
^
us
iww�i
F
rrquirsnvnr)
,.r.�.
GEOTECHNICAL AND SOIL RESOURCES
)
x.sN
r
Ll
(erpanaY a,rbNrarrviryl
e«.
FLOOD
O
f
` 1
�5 e'
t
FLOOD
Ireattrgadigl
t
��^�`
C V
�/
a,
CI.:;.�'�
TRAFFICCIRCULATION
(vrlaJk marl mTYI1JQ)
TRAFFIcr;IRcuunoN
(ditronce alri,nne iywr�rnNatten xadablLryl_
WAJ_
WAS
...
NOISE
O
C
,,`
O
AIR GUALRY
O
Y'
"*�.
0
T
sac
(wWCkWf,, M,d)
�J
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
k. ;
U
U
«..
; ....
VISUALQUALITIES/'-
1
tts ,
CLILTURAUPALEONTOLCGICAL°'
O O
O
RESOURCES
Q°
WASTEWATER DISPOSAL
WATER RESOURCES
O t, L'
0
EDUCATION
O
Li
NATURAL GAS(ELECTRICITY0.
....
FIREIPOUCE SERVICES
0
O
,,
�)
.,
0
�� 21
0
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
.
._
0
.,.a
�'...
LIBRARIES
O
°_ -.
0.."
O
.
J(
Q
'r I,
4,. _.
PARKS. RECREATION AND TRAILS
•
#
O
,,
•
PORILATON AND HOUSING
�)
Ch
EMPLOYMENT
•
¥`
...
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
PRIME AGRICULTURALLANDS
O
AGRICULTURAL PERPETUITY
KEY (Level of Impact in Caopanaon m Project Sib)
0 Aaamglw PMdxes Graebr Lawlollmpw
O Altam * Pro&u E" UvW cg lmpr!
Q Alen1dw Produces Ussx Lawl of k*aa
N/A Not Applicealab A6emellw
8.0-22 Newhall Ranch Specific Man Draji EIR
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Site Specific Plan Alternatives - Alternative 3
• Earn a reasonable return on investment.
• Design a mobility system which includes alternatives to automobile use.
• Facilitate public transit by reserving right-of-way for Metrolink line, space for a park and ride
and/or Metrolink station, and by providing bus pull -ins along highways.
• Establish a diverse system of pedestrian and bicycle trails, segregated from vehicle traffic, to
serve as an alternative to the automobile.
• Retain a major open space area which could act as a regional recreational park and an
ecological preserve.
• Provide for the recreational use of open space that is compatible with protection of significant
natural resources.
• Provide neighborhood and community parks and improvements which satisfy park dedication
requirements and meet the recreational needs of local residents.
• Locate neighborhood parks adjacent to schools and establish joint -use agreements between park
and school districts.
• Provide a range of recreational opportunities including passive and active parks, an 18 -hole
golf course, and a recreational lake.
• Provide an extensive system of pedestrian, bicycle, and hiking trails within the Villages and
hiking trails in the High Country and other open areas.
• Preserve the Santa Clara River corridor and adjacent uplands containing significant natural
resources for their resource value, open space, and recreational use.
• Retain a major open space area and its natural vegetation as a wildlife or ecological preserve.
Preserve the site of the historical Asistencia (San Fernando Mission Annex).
! Provide a wastewater treatment plant and supplementary distribution systems to use reclaimed
water.
• Promote water conservation through design guidelines that encourage use of drought -tolerant
and native plants.
(3) Alternative 3 — Clustered Altemative (Same Amount of Development, Smaller Footprint)
The primary purpose of Alternative 3 is to, minimize or avoid potentially significant biological impacts
by reducing the footprint of the Specific Plan. In doing so, many other impacts which could occur as a
result of land surface disturbance (e.g., impacts to cultural resources, geotechnical resources, fugitive
dust impacts generated by grading, etc.) might also be reduced in magnitude by a reduction in the
footprint of the Specific Plan. Under Alternative 3, a clustered, mixed use development approach
would result in 24,680 dwelling units and 4.4 million square feet of Commercial development clustered in
six areas of the site (see Figure 8.0-2, Alternative 3, Clustered Alternative). Two development areas
8-23 Nmhdl Ranch Specifie Plan Dmft ER
July 1996
04
I
i
I
.• "�'s .rix
CNEWHALL
Newhall Ranch Company
L E G E N
LAAO USE OVERLAYS iPOTET/114L L.00ATXWS6
® WATER RECL.AMA77ON PLANT .
® �rrere�c®eac
Ey.; `
100 ♦CR6 .W MAES Y.trk Rl��J m
01 ��
W4
Lill
FIGURE 8.0-2
ALTERNATIVE 3
\
04
I
i
I
.• "�'s .rix
CNEWHALL
Newhall Ranch Company
L E G E N
LAAO USE OVERLAYS iPOTET/114L L.00ATXWS6
® WATER RECL.AMA77ON PLANT .
® �rrere�c®eac
Ey.; `
100 ♦CR6 .W MAES Y.trk Rl��J m
01 ��
W4
Lill
FIGURE 8.0-2
ALTERNATIVE 3
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Sib Attcmativn - Alternative 3
would occur along SR -126 at crossroads created by Chiquito Canyon Road and San Martinez Grande
Canyon Road. Two additional areas of development would occur in Lower. and Upper Potrero Canyon,
south of the Santa Clara River along the extension of San Martinez Grande Canyon Road. The
extension of Magic Mountain Parkway linking the I-5 corridor to the Potrero Canyon will create the last
two development cluster areas: one in the center of the mesas and the other at the intersection of Magic
Mountain Parkway and an extended Commerce Center Drive.
Alternative 3.clusters the 24,680 Residential units north of the Santa Clara River, on the mesas, and in
Potrero Canyon Residential development in this clustered scenario would necessarily be of higher
intensity than that of the Specific Plan as less land would be developed. This results in land use
designations ranging from Low -Medium to High Residential and would preclude the development of
Estate and Low Residential land use designations. Alternative 3 alsoplaces mixed and Commercial
uses along SR -126 at Chiquita Canyon Road and along Potrero Valley Road. A water reclamation plant
is located along the Santa Clara River toward the western end of the. site, and a golf course is located
south of Potrero Valley Road (see Figure 8.0-2, Alternative 3, Clustered Alternative).
The most significant differences between Alternative 3 and the Specific Plan include:
• reduced development along the southern banks of the Santa Clara River,
• higher housing concentrations in the Low -Medium to High Residential land use designations,
• the exclusion of Estate and Low Residential housing,
• replacement of the Residential uses located west of Chiquito Canyon Road with Open Area,
• replacement of the Business Park site in Chiquito Canyon with Low -Medium Residential housing,
• replacement of the Estate and Low Residential uses along the northern boundary of the High
Country with Open Areas,
• a reduction in development area from approximately 6,108 acres to 3,774 acres, with a resulting
increase in Open Area from approximately 5,852 acres to 8,189 acres, and
• a reduction in on-site population from 68,524 to 63,261.
If the Specific Plan is not implemented as proposed and Alternative 3 is implemented instead, the
following would also result:
• both the River Corridor and the High Country would be preserved as Special Management Areas
available for public use;
• cattle grazing would no longer occur in both the River Corridor and High Country; trails would be
constructed on the Specific Plan site, including the County -proposed River trail and the trail
network proposed by the applicant as part of the Specific Plan,
8.0-25 - Newhaa Ranch Specific Plan Draft Ent
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Site Alternatives - Alteraativt 3
• the County Master Plan of Highways alignment of Commerce Center Drive would be extended south
to link with Magic Mountain Parkway;
• potential for the possible conservation of the Asistencia (San Fernando Mission Annex) site would
exist;
• a Metrolink rail right-of-way would be reserved through the site;
• a park-and-ride lot/Metrolink station site along SR -126 would be available on the site;
• a fire station would likely be constructed off Chiquito Canyon Road near the community of Val
Verde; and
• slightly less tax revenue would be generated on the site due to the reduction in tax -generating
development.
A breakdown of the uses proposed in Alternative 3 are identified below in Table 8.0-5, Alternative 3,
Clustered Alternative Statistical Summary. As shown, Alternative 3 reflects the same number of
Residential units as the Specific Plan, but has a 16 percent reduction in non-residential (e.g.,
Commercial) uses compared to the Specific Plan.
Table 8.0.5
Land Uses -, Gross: Dwelling Square` -
Residential:
Estates
0
0
0
Low
0
0
0
Low-Medium/Golf Course
1,247
5,231
0
Low -Medium
295
494
0
Medium
1,170
10,542
0
High
.381
4,929
0
Subtotal
3,090
21,196
0
Mixed -Use and
Non -Residential:
Mixed -User
602
3,484
3,714,000
Commercial
68
0
711,000
Business Park
0
0
0
Water Reclamation Plant
11
0
Subtotal
681
3,484
4,425,000
Major Open Areas:
8,189
0
0
Totals
11,963
24,680
4,425,000
Source: FORMA (November 1995).
1Mixed uses may include Commercial and Residential uses.
It is assumed, for the sake of this impact analysis, that units under the Low -Medium Residential
designation would be single family detached units, and that units under the Medium and High
designations would be multi -family attached units. The following discussion compares the
environmental impacts of Alternative 3 with those of the Specific Plan.
8.0-26 Nemhau Ranch Sgec;ffe Ptah Draft Eat
July I996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. OmSite Alternatives -Alternative 3
(a) Geotechnical and Soil Resources
Although development activity subject to the forces of ground movement during seismic events could
occur under Alternative 3, site development under Alternative 3 would require less grading in hilly
areas than the Specific Plan and would require slightly less earth movement. Consequently, from a
geotechnical standpoint, Alternative 3 would be environmentally superior to the Specific Plan.
(b) Flood
Urban runoff generated under Alternative .3 would be conveyed and discharged into the Santa Clara
River. The Flood section of this EIR (Section 4.2) indicates that the volume of water that runs off the
Specific Plan site is greater in the undeveloped condition than in the developed condition because, in
the undeveloped condition, the nuwff also contains debris (soil and materials, such as dead branches,
leaves, etc.), while, in the developed condition, debris is removed from the water. Like the Specific
Plan, the amount of runoff. from developed portions of the site would be greater than under current
conditions due to an increase in the amount of impervious surfaces. At the same time the amount of
debris found in the runoff would be reduced as undeveloped areas are replaced with the more non-
erosive urban landscape. However, because the Specific Plan would cover more of the site with non-
erosive surfaces than Alternative 3, the amount of runoff (water plus debris) from the Specific Plan site
would be less with the Specific Plan than under Alternative 3. Therefore, the Specific Plan would be
the environmentally superior alternative with respect to runoff quantities.
Stormwater runoff under Alternative 3 would be required to meet the same Regional Water Quality
Control Board water quality standards as the Specific Plan, so storm runoff under either alternative
would not significantly impact surface or ground waters. Therefore,. neither Alternative 3 nor the
Specific Plan is environmentally superior to the other with respect to runoff quality.
(c) Traffic/Access
Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in a decrease in trips. Specifically, average daily trip
generation an the Specific Plan site would decrease from 387,000 trips to 338,100 trips (a 12.6 percent
decrease). Based solely on the reduction in traffic trip generation and the impacts (and additional
roadway capacity demands) which directly result from such trips, Alternative 3 would be superior to
the Specific Plan.
8.0-27 Nemhdi Ranch Specific Plan Dmf M
July 1996
8.0 Project Altematives
3. On -Site Aftematioes - Alternative 3
(d) Noise
With a reduction in the 'amount of development on the site and associated trip reduction would be a
reduction in noise impacts on and in the vicinity of the site. The analysis presented in this EIR
determined that only one off-site location within the vicinity of the Specific Plan site - the Travel
Village RV. Park - would be significantly impacted by Specific Plan -generated noise. A reduction in
Specific Plan traffic volumes of approximately 12.6 percent would reduce the Specific Plan's noise level
increases. However, the increase in noise levels at the Travel Village RV Park would still exceed the
off-site mobile source thresholds of significance. In summary, while Alternative 3 would reduce overall
noise levels, the significant noise impact to the Travel Village RV Park would remain. Thus, neither
the Specific Plan nor Alternative 3 is considered environmentally superior with respect to noise
impacts.
(e) Air Quality
Because, less on-site grading would occur under Alternative 3, the total amount of grading and
construction -related air quality impacts would be less than those of the. Specific Plan. In addition,
Alternative 3 would generate fewer traffic trips than the Specific Plan. The relatively balanced
proportion of Residential and non-residential land uses in the Specific Plan lead to an on-site internal
trip percentage of 52 percent and an external trip percentage of 48 percent. Alternative 3 is less
balanced in that regard and, hence, has higher proportions of external trips (70 percent) compared to
the Specific Plan (48 percent), which leads to greater vehicle miles traveled than the Specific Plan.
The combined. effect of this reduction in vehicle trips and increase in vehicle miles traveled on air
emissions is provided below.
Specific Plan 17,575.7 835.6 3,015.6 315.9 43,185.6
Clustered Alternative 18,034.1 841.1 2,980.9 312.9 42,285.7
Recommended SCAQMD Thresholds 550.0 5510 55.0 150.0 150.0
Source: Impact Sciences, Inc.
8.0-28 Newhall Ranch Specht Plan Dmft ElR
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. Ors -Si# Altmatiaes-Altemative 3
As shown, Alternative 3 would generate more emissions of CO and VOC, and fewer air emissions of
NO„ SO„ and PM,, than the. Specific Plan. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not necessarily be
environmentally superior to the Specific Plan with respect to air quality. The emissions generated by
Alternative 3 would also exceed the thresholds recommended by the SCAQMD and, as with the
Specific Plan, would be considered significant.
(f) Biota
Development under Alternative 3 would occur within the present boundaries of the Santa Clara River
SEA 23, although to a lesser extent than with the Specific Plan, and would not occur within the Santa
Susana Mountains SEA 20. Table 8.0-6 compares the acreage of habitats impacted by Alternative 3
with that impacted by the Specific Plan for both SEAS. As shown, approximately 41.7 fewer acres of
sensitive habitats are impacted by Alternative 3 in the Santa Clara River SEA 23 (which is 3.5 percent
of the site's land area within SEA 23). Approximately 139.3 fewer acres of sensitive habitats are
impacted by Alternative 3 in the Santa Susana Mountains SEA 20 (which is 3.5 percent of the site's
land area within SEA 20). Given that a lesser amount of grading and its associated gcrnmd and habitat
disturbance would occur, and given that there would be a reduction in site'population with Alternative
3, the biological impact of Alternative -3 would be less than that of the Specific Plan.
Table 8.0-6
Comparison of Imppact on Sensitive Habitats
SEAS 20 and 23
Grading in SEA 23
• Sensitive Habitats
• Non -Sensitive Habitats
Subtotal
Grading In SEA 20
• Sensitive Habitats
• Non -Sensitive Habitats
Subtotal
5.6
139.3 0.0
Total Sensitive Habitats Graded 186.6 5.6 (181.0)
Consequently, Alternative 3 is biologically superior to the Specific Plan. -However, the biological
impacts of Alternative 3 would still be significant.
8.0.29 Nemhall Ranch Spmf c Plan Draft E1R
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Site Alternatives - Alternative 3
(g) Visual Qualities
Alternative 3 was analyzed as follows based on the viewing location information provided in Section
4.7, Visual Qualities:
1. Viewing Location 1(west of the site in Ventura County, along SR -126 looking east)
The proposed WRP and Low -Medium Residential housing south of the Santa Clara River would be
visible from View Location 1, while development along the northern leg of Potrero Valley Road and on
Potrero Mesa south of the Santa Clara River would only be visible in the distance. This is not a major
change from the Specific Plan.
2. Viewing Location 2 (on site, along SR -126 west of San Martinez Grande looking south)
Low -Medium and Medium -Residential housing and.Mixed-Uses along the northern leg of Potrero
Valley Road and on Potrero Mesa south of the Santa Clara River would be visible from Viewing
Location 2. Near and middle ground views of Alternative 3 would not be a major change from the
Specific Plan. Residential development that is proposed by the Specific Plan south of the SCE
easement located in Potrero Canyon would not occur under Alternative 3; therefore, distant views of the
site from this viewing location would change when compared with the Specific Plan (i.e., the Specific
Plan is more visible).
3. Viewing Location 3 (on site, near the SR-126/Chiquito Canyon Road intersection
looking south)
Development would be visible from Viewing Location 3 as would the Low -Medium and Medium -
Residential housing located immediately south of the River. Intervening topography would impede
views of development south of Long Canyon from this location. No other development would occur
elsewhere within the viewshed of this viewing location. From a visual perspective, less development
would be visible with Alternative 3 when compared with the Specific Plan.
4. Viewing Location 4 (at the northern site boundary on Chiquito Canyon Road looking
south)
Low -Medium Residential housing along Chiquito Canyon Road would be visible from Viewing Location
4. No Business Park uses would be visible in Chiquito Canyon because they have been removed under
Alternative 3. In addition, a small amount of Residential development would be visible in the distance
8.0-30 N=&U Rmch SPenfic Plan Dmjt EIR
July I996
8.0 ProjectAltematiaes
3. Ort -Site Alternatives - Aitsmatim 3
at the mouth of Long Canyon south of the River. Intervening topography would preclude views of
development along Potrero Canyon from this viewing location. While less development would be
visible under Alternative 3, this reduction would be so minor that it would likely not be perceptible to
viewers.
5. Viewing Location 5 (on site, along SR -126 on the west side of Castaic Creek looking
south)
Residential development on Exxon and Grapevine Mesas south of Santa Clara River and SR -126 would
be visible from Viewing Location 5. Alternative 3 would appear visually the same as the Specific
Plan.
6. Viewing Locations 6, 7, 8, and 9 (off site, generally from Interstate 5 and points east,
looking west and southwest toward site)
Views from Viewing Locations 6, 7, 8, and 9 would be visually the same under Alternative 3 as they
would be under the Specific Plan, as any reductions in development would be so slight as to be visually
imperceptible.
7. Viewing Location 10 (off site, from the Rim of the Valley Trail, looking north toward
site)
Views from the Rim of the Valley trail would be visually the same under Alternative 3 as they would
be under the Specific Plan, as any reductions in development would be so slight as to be visually
imperceptible.
In conclusion, because less development would be visible in two of the nine viewsheds evaluated in the
EIR, Alternative 3 is environmentally superior to the Specific Plan. However, such superiority would
only be slight due to the fact that only minor changes would occur to the visual landscape when
compared to the Specific Plan.
(h) Cultural/PaleontologicalResources
Because less ground disturbance would occur under Alternative 3, potential impacts to cultural and
paleontological resources on the Specific Plan site would be less under Alternative 3 than if the Specific
Plan were to develop as proposed. Therefore, Alternative 3 is environmentally superior with respect to
cultural resources.
8.0-31 Newhall Ranch Specific Plan Dr* EIR
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. Ort -Site Alternatives -Altrm tire 3
(f) Wastewater Disposal
The Specific Plan would generate .5.8 to 7.7 mgd of wastewater, while wastewater generation for
Alternative 3 would be 5.43 million gallons per day (mgd), all of which would be treated at an on-site
water reclamation plant. Assuming that the on-site plant would be sized to treat all wastewater from
Alternative 3, neither the Specific Plan nor Alternative 3 would have a significant impact relative to
the treatment infrastructure. However, because Alternative 3 would result in less solid material being
disposed of at approved landfills, Alternative 3 would be environmentally superior to the Specific
Plan with respect to wastewater disposal.
The Specific Plan would reclaim 84 to 92 percent of its wastewater, resulting in an annual reclamation of
6,025 to 7,263 acre-feet of wastewater. Assuming that 84 to 92 percent of the wastewater generated
under Alternative 3 would be reclaimed, 5,109 to 5,595 acre-feet of reclaimed water would be available
for on-site irrigation.
(j) Water Resources
Water demand for Alternative 3 would be 13,845 acre-feet per year for both potable and irrigation uses
Since reclaimed water could be used to meet 5,109 to 5,595 acre-feet of Alternative 3's irrigation needs,
8,250 to 8,736 acre-feet (13,845 acre-feet minus 5,109 to 5,595 acre-feet) of water would be required from
potable water supplies compared to the 12,082 to 13,320 acre-feet per of water (19,345 acre-feet minus
6,025 to 7,263 acre-feet of reclaimed water) that the Specific Plan would require from potable water
supplies. Because this alternative would consume less water from potable water resources than the
Specific Plan, it would be environmentally superior to the Specific Plan with respect to impacts on
potable water resources.
i
(lc) Education
Alternative 3 would generate 7,504 students as compared to the 10,074.students that would be generated
by the Specific Plan (although there is the same number of housing units in Alternative 3 as the
Specific Plan, the student generation rates for higher intensity housing are less than they are for low
intensity housing, thereby yielding fewer students). Given this reduction in student generation,
Alternative 3 is environmentally superior to the Specific Plan with respect to school impacts.
8.0-32 N=&U Ranch Specific Plan Dr* EM
July I996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. Ort -Site Alte a fives-Alternative3
(1) Natural Gas/Electricity
Implementation of both the Specific Plan and Alternative 3 would require the use and expenditure of
nonrenewable petroleum resources. Alternative 3 would consume more petroleum resources than the
Specific Plan, a comparison of annual energy consumption between the Specific Plan and Alternative 3
is provided below in Table 8.0.7, Alternative 3, Electricity and Natural Gas Demand (see Appendix 8.0
for detailed energy consumption calculations). Note that, due to the fact that non-residential square
footage under Alternative 3 is allocated for Commercial uses rather than low-energy demand Business
Park uses (e.g., distribution centers and warehouses), Alternative 3 has a higher natural gas and
electricity demand than the Specific Plan.
Table 8.0-7
Alternative 3
Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. (November 1995).
See Appendix 8.0 for detailed energy consumption calculations for Alternative 3.
Overall, the Specific Plan would consume less energy than Alternative 3, and is, therefore, considered
to be environmentally superior with respect to energy consumption
(m) Police Services
Because less development would occur on the site under Alternative 3 and a smaller on-site population
would result, it is expected that Alternative '3 would have less of an impact on the Sheriff's
Department than the Specific Plan For the same reasons,'Altemative 3 wouldalso have smaller
demands for CHP and emergency services in the area of the Specific Plan site. As a result, Alternative
3 would be environmentally superior to the Specific Planwith respect to police services.
(n) Fire Services and Hazards
Because Alternative 3 would result in less development and.a smaller population on the Specific Plan
site than would occur under the Specific -Plan, there would be fewer Fire Department calls to the site
than under the Specific Plan: Therefore, with respect to providing fire services to the Specific Plan
site, Alternative 3 is environmentally superior to the Specific Plan
8.0-33 Nmhdi Ranch Spenfu Place or* EIR
July 1996
Pro pposed:Specific
' -
Plan Demand --:.;"Alternative Demand '-�
Electricity Demand
yral Demand
2332 million 263.4 million
NatuGas
(cubic feet/year)
1,747.3 million 1,834.5 million
Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. (November 1995).
See Appendix 8.0 for detailed energy consumption calculations for Alternative 3.
Overall, the Specific Plan would consume less energy than Alternative 3, and is, therefore, considered
to be environmentally superior with respect to energy consumption
(m) Police Services
Because less development would occur on the site under Alternative 3 and a smaller on-site population
would result, it is expected that Alternative '3 would have less of an impact on the Sheriff's
Department than the Specific Plan For the same reasons,'Altemative 3 wouldalso have smaller
demands for CHP and emergency services in the area of the Specific Plan site. As a result, Alternative
3 would be environmentally superior to the Specific Planwith respect to police services.
(n) Fire Services and Hazards
Because Alternative 3 would result in less development and.a smaller population on the Specific Plan
site than would occur under the Specific -Plan, there would be fewer Fire Department calls to the site
than under the Specific Plan: Therefore, with respect to providing fire services to the Specific Plan
site, Alternative 3 is environmentally superior to the Specific Plan
8.0-33 Nmhdi Ranch Spenfu Place or* EIR
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Site Alternatives - Aftematice 3
(o) Environmental Safety
As discussed in Section 4.5, Environmental Safety, potential impacts may result on the Specific Plan
site if development occurs in the following locations:
• adjacent to historic and continuing oil and natural gas operations,
• in close proximity to the Southern California Edison electrical transmission lines,
• in close proximity to the Southern California Gas Company high pressure gas lines,
• adjacent to State Route 126, upon which hazardous wastes are transported,
• in close proximity to Chiquito Canyon Landfill,
• within the Castaic Lake dam inundation area, and
• adjacent to on-going agricultural operations.
The safety conditions under which Alternative 3 would be developed would be similar to those with
development of the Specific Plan. The primary difference with development of Alternative 3 would be
a slight reduction in site population, which results in slightly less exposure to potential hazards, as
unlikely as their occurrence might be. For this reason; Alternative 3 is superior environmentally to the
Specific Plan with respect to environmental safety.
(p) Libraries
Based on County Library planning standards of 0.35 square feet of library facilities per capita and 2.0
books per capita, the Specific Plan would require a total of 23,983 square feet of library facilities with
137,084 additional volumes for the library system's collection. In comparison, development under
Alternative 3 would, according to County Library standards, require 22,141 square feet of library
facilities and 126,522 volumes. Development under Alternative 3 would have only a slightly less
impact on County Library facilities than would the Specific Plan and would be only marginally
environmentally superior to the Specific Plan.
8.0-34 Newhall Ranch Specht Plan Draft ElR
July 1996
9.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Site Alternatives-Altemative 3
(q) Parks, Recreation and Trails
Under County (and Quimby Act) requirements, development of the Specific Plan would require the
applicant to provide 206 dedicated acres of local parkland; the Specific Plan as proposed would exceed
this requirement, by providing a total of 6,175 acres for parks, recreation, and Open Area, including
Neighborhood and Community Parks, a 15 -acre lake, an 18 -hole golf course, trails, the River Corridor
and High Country SMAS, and other Open Area.(see Section 4.20, Parks, Recreation and Trails for a full
discussion on this topic).
Per County requirements, development under Alternative 3 would require dedication of a total of 189.8
acres for parkland. The applicant has indicated that both the River Corridor and the High, Country
SMAS would still be dedicated for public use under Alternative 3. Because both the Specific Plan and
Alternative 3 would provide on-site recreational land in excess of what would be required under County
requirements, no environmentally superior alternative has been identified.
(r) Population, Housing and Employment
1. Population
Development of the proposed Newhall Ranch Specific Plan would result in a resident population of
68,524 at buildout, which is within SCAG's 1994 projections for the area, but not the County's 1990
projections (see Section 411, Population, Housing and Employment for further discussion). Alternative 3
would introduce 63,261 persons an the Specific Plan site (see Appendix 8.0 for population calculations
for Alternative 3). This population is well within SCAG's 1994 projections for the region, but not the
County's 1990 projections.
2. Housing
The proposed Newhall Ranch community would include 24,680 dwelling units, plus an additional 538
second units, including a wide range of Residential designations designed to allow for a variety of
product types. These housing units are consistent with SCAG's recently adopted (1994) projections for
the region, but not the County's 1990 projections (see Section 4.21 for further discussion). Therefore, the
proposed units are part of SCAG's planned growth of the area, but not the County's. As previously
mentioned, it is assumed that units under the. Low -Medium Residential designation would be single-
family detached units and that units under the Medium and High Residential designations would be
multi -family attached units. Therefore, Residential development under Alternative 3 would provide
for 5,725 detached/single family Residential units and 18,955 attached/multi-family units (also
8.0-35 Nemhall Rack Syedfic Plan Vm t ER
July 2996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Site Aitematiaes • Alternative 3
totaling 24,680 dwelling units) with concentrations ranging from Low -Medium to High. Although these
housing quantities are within SCAG's 1994 growth projections for the area, Alternative 3 would not
provide for as wide a range of housing concentrations as the Specific. Nor is this amount of housing
within the County's 1990 growth projections for the Valley. Also, by providing a greater amount of
higher intensity housing, Alternative 3 would increase the affordability of housing on the site by
virtue of the units' smaller sizes and prices. However, it is the opinion of the applicant that the
provision of a higher number of high intensity units does not reflect the market forces under which the
Newhall Ranch Specific Plan will be developed, nor would it meet the applicant's objectives to permit
a wide range of housing densities and types.
3. Employment
Development of the proposed Newhall Ranch Specific Plan would result in an employment population
of 19,323, or almost 2,000 more employees than forecast by SCAG for the omsus tracts that overlie the
Specific Plan site. Development of Alternative 3 would result in 14,483 on-site employees (see
Appendix 8.0 for employment calculations). The Santa Clarita Valley has been identified by SCAG as
an area in need of additional employment opportunities. Under Alternative 3, the jobs to housing ratio
would still be 0.78, but it would provide 4,840 fewer jobs than the Specific Plan Consequently, from an
employment standpoint, the Specific Plan is considered to be environmentally superior to Alternative 3.
As with the Specific Plan, the population, housing and employment generated by Alternative 3 do not
fall within the County's 1990 projections. However, SCAG's 1994 projections show much more growth in
this area than does the County in its 1990 projections. As would the Specific Plan, Alternative 3 would
require a General Plan Amendment Given the differences between County projections and SCAG
projections, the dates of those projections, and the different implications an population. and housing
resulting from each, no environmental preference with respect to population and housing can necessarily
be concluded.
(s) Solid Waste Disposal
At buildout, the Specific Plan would generate approximately 53,524 tons of solid waste per year. In
comparison; Alternative 3 would generate 52,568 tons of solid waste annually, as shown in Table 8.0-8,
Alternative 3 Daily Solid Waste Generation (No Recycling). Given the smaller solid waste generation
totals associated with Alternative 3, it would be environmentally superior to the Specific Plan with
respect to impacts on solid waste disposal facilities.
8.0-36 Newhall Ranch Speafic Plan Dmf! EIR
July I996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. Ors -Site Attemalives-Altemativs 3
Table 8.0-8
Alternative 3
Daily Solid Waste Generation (No Recvcline)
. _ , - , •._. Total -Waste ='r .
Generation Factor - Generation
Land Use- Unitst' (rounds/dav)2 (poundstday) _'
Multi-Family/Attached
General Retail3
Eat' &Drinking Establ.
Food &Drug Stores
Auto Dealer &Service Station
Hotel & Motel
Office
Trans., Comm., Utillties4
Golf Courses
Developed Parks
5,725 do's
11.18
63,995
18,955 do's
6.41
121,520
642,000 sq.ft.
0.01
8,443
385,200 sq.ft.
0.06
22,795
1,027,200 sq.ft.
0.04
40,525
256,800 sq.ft.
0.03
7,176
256,800 sq.ft.
0.03
7,458
1,857,000 sq.ft.
0.01
14,245
35,000 sq.ft.
0.04
1,515
150 acres
1.10
164
189.78 acres
1.10
208
Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. (January 1996).
tdu = dwelling unit; sq.ft. = square feet; TPY = tons per year.
IThe solid waste generation rates are derived from the Ventura Coun I Solid Waste Management Department's
Guidelines for the Preparation of Environmental Assessments for Solid Was a Impacts. These factors do not reflect any
recycling activities on the part Of the generator.
3Assumes a 50/50 split of Mixed -Use between retail and office uses. Retail uses are assumed to be 25%eneral retail,
10% auto dealer and service stations, I0% hotel/mate1,15% eating and drinking establishments, and 40% food.and drug
stores. Industrial uses are assumed to be 50% Business Park and 50% manufacturing.
4Assumes a 150 -acre golf course.
SAssunm 35,000 square feet of utilities facilities (same as Specific Plan).
sAssumes alternative will meet County requirements of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 population.
(t) Agricultural Resources
There are 547 -acres of prime farmland and 48 acres of unique farmland on the Specific Plan site.
Development of the site consistent with the Specific Plan would result in the loss of this land to urban
uses. Development of the site under Alternative 3 would permit development in areas of the site that
are designated as prime farmland and unique farmland (specifically, development would occur on prime
farmland and unique farmland located along SR -126, south of the River, and along Potrero Canyon).. A
small portion of the site designated as prime farmland and located north of SR -126 and east of Chiquito
Canyon Road would not be developed- under Alternative 3. Overall, development would occur cn
slightly fewer acres of farmlands of importance under Alternative 3 than would the Specific Plan.
Therefore, with respect to the loss of prime agricultural land, Alternative 3 is environmentally
superior to the Specific Plan.
8.0-37 Nmhdl Ranch Specoc Ptah D,ajt EIR
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Sita Altematices - Alternatict 3
In light of the continuing trend in the County of Los Angeles to convert cultivated lands to urban uses to
accommodate growth, and the fact that the prime agricultural land on the Specific Plan site is already
impaired (i.e., relatively difficult and less economical to farm) and is, therefore, generally of lower
value than larger and better situated parcels found to the west, the loss of agricultural productivity an
prime agricultural land under such circumstances is not considered a significant impact Therefore, with
respect to loss of agricultural productivity on the Specific Plan site, there is no environmentally
superior alternative.
d. Conclusion
Because some of the environmental impacts of the Specific Plan would be avoided or minimized with
Alternative 3, it is considered environmentally superior to the Specific Plan. However, Alternative 3
has been rejected in favor of the Specific Plan because the applicant believes that Alternative 3 too
narrowly limits the range of housing opportunities provided and does not reflect the market conditions
under which the Specific Plan would be developed, and because many of the objectives of the Specific
Plan identified in the Project Description of this EIR (Section 1.0) would not be. achieved. Specific
objectives not fully met or impeded to some extent with Alternative 3 are listed below.
Create a major new community with inter -related Villages that allows for residential,
commercial and industrial development, .while preserving significant natural resources,
important land forms and open space.
• Provide a complementary and supportive array of land uses which will enable development of
a community with homes, shopping, employment, schools, recreation, cultural and worship
facilities, public services, and open space.
• Establish land uses and development regulations which permit a wide range of housing
densities, types, styles, prices, and tenancy (for sale and rental).
• Adopt development regulations which provide flexibility to respond to and adjust to changing
economic and market conditions over a long period of time.
• Earn a reasonable return on investment
8.0-38 NmhaU Ranch Specific Plan Dmji ELR
July 2996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Site Specific Plan Alternative -Alternative 4
(4) Alternative 4 — 19,750 Unit Alternative (20 Percent Reduction in -Development, Same
Footprint)
The primary purpose of Alternative 4 is to minimize or avoid potentially significant traffic, air
quality, noise, indirect. biological, utility (e.g., water demand, wastewater generation), and public
service (e.g., fire department, sheriff department) impacts by generally decreasing the amount of
development (e.g., the number of dwelling units) on the site. Alternative 4 is similar in design and
character to the Specific Plan and has a development footprint the same as that of the Specific Plan.
The major difference between Alternative 4 and the Specific Plan is that less intensive development
would occur on the Specific Plan site under Alternative 4 than would occur under the Specific Plan. For
example, the total number of residential dwelling units would decrease by 20 percent and the total non-
residential square footage would also decrease by 20 percent, while at the same time the land area
devoted to development would remain approximately the same. The overall effect of the reduction in
development on generally the same development footprint is a decrease in on-site intensities within
each land use designation - both numerically and visually. In addition to the Residential and
Commercial development, Alternative 4 also, includes a water reclamation plant; Community and
neighborhood parks; agolf course with a lake; and four elementary schools, one junior high school, and
one high school. The purpose of Alternative 4 is to evaluate a less intense: project for the site that
would result in a general reduction in on-site environmental impacts (see Table 8.0-9, Alternative 4,
19,750 Unit Alternative Statistical Summary).
Table 8.OA
Residential:
Estates
Low
Low Medium
Medium
WAI
Mixed -Use and
Nott -Residential:
Mixed Usel
Couunercial
Business Park/
Water Reclamation Plant
1,229
430.
0
881
1,535
0
2,011
5,563
0
866
6,449
0
140
2,178
0
Subtotal 5,124
16,155
0
595 .3,595 2,689,600
90 0 711,200
256 0 1,036,000
Visitor -Serving 37 0 139,200
Subtotal 31595
Major Open Areas: 5,858 0 0
Totals 11,963 19,750 4,576,000
Source: FORMA (November 1995).
lMixed uses may include Commercial and Residential uses.
8.0-39 Newhall Ranch Speafic Plan Dre t E1R
)vly 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Site Specific Plan Alternative -Alternative 4
If the Specific Pian is not implemented as proposed and Alternative 4 is implemented instead, the
following would also result:
• both the River Corridor and the High Country would be preserved as Special Management Areas
available for public use;
• cattle grazing would no longer occur in both the River Corridor and High Country;
• trails would be constructed on the Specific Plan site, including the County -proposed River trail and
the trail network proposed by the applicant as part of the Specific Plan;
• the County Master Plan of Hi ghways alignment of Commerce Center Drive would be extended south
to link with Magic Mountain Parkway;
• potential for the possible conservation of the Asistencia (San Fernando Mission Annex) site would
exist;
• a Metrolink rail right-of-way would be reserved through the site;
• a park-and-ride lot/Metrolink station site along SR -126 would be available on the site;
• a fire station would likely be constructed off Chiquito Canyon Road near. the community of V a 1
Verde;
• less tax revenue would be generated on the site due to the reduction in tax -generating development;
and
• the on-site population would be reduced from 68,524 to 55,492
It is assumed, for the sake of this impact analysis, that units under the Estate, Low, and Low -Medium
Residential designation would be single family detached units, and that units under the Mixed Use,
Medium and High designations would be multi -family attached units. The following discussion
compares the environmental impacts of Alternative 4 to those of the. Specific Plan.
(a) Geotechnical and Soil Resources
Because the arrangement of land uses and the development footprint for Alternative 4 is the same as
that for the Specific Plan, geotechnical impacts for Alternative 4 are the same as for the Specific Plan.
Therefore, no environmentally superior alternative can be identified with respect to geotechnical and
soil resources.
8.0-40 Newhall Ranch Specific Plan Draft E1R
July I996
8.0 Project Alternatives
I On -Site Specific Plan Alternative - Alternative 4
(b) Flood
Urban runoff that would be generated under Alternative 4 would be conveyed and discharged into the
Santa Clara River. Because site grading for Alternative 4 is expected to be identical to that of the
Specific Plan and because site coverage with impervious surfaces is expected to be approximately 20
percent less than the Specific Plan, it is also expected that Alternative 4 would reduce runoff quantities
from the Specific Plan site in approximately the same quantities as the Specific Plan. As a result, m
environmentally superior alternative relative to flood impacts is identifiable.
With respect to runoff quality, development under Alternative 4 would be required to comply with the
same Regional Water Quality Control Board. standards as the Specific Plan and no environmentally
superior alternative with respect to runoff quality can be identified.
(c) Traffic/Circulation
Implementation of Alternative 4.would result in a decrease in trips. Specifically, average daily trip
generation on the Specific Plan site would decrease from 387,000 trips to 288,550 trips (a 25.4 percent
decrease). Alternative 4 would decrease traffic. impacts on local roadways, would require fewer
roadway improvements off the Specific Plan site than the Specific Plan, and would be environmentally
superior to the Specific Plan with respect to traffic/access impacts.
(d) Noise
With a reduction in the amount of development m the site and associated trip reduction would be a
reduction in noise impacts an and in the vicinity of the site. The analysis presented in this EIR
determined that only ane off-site location within the vicinity of the Specific Plan site - the Travel
Village RV Park - would be significantly impacted by Specific Plan -generated noise. A reduction in
Specific Plan traffic volumes of approximately 25.4 percent would reduce the Specific Plan's noise level
increase to the point that noise levels at the Travel Village RV Park would not exceed the off-site
mobile source thresholds of significance. Therefore, Alternative 4 would be environmentally superior to
the Specific Plan with respect to noise impacts due to the overall reduction in noise levels generated by
the Specific Plan.
8.0-41 - JV=hdl Ranch Speafc Plan Draft EIA
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Site Sperific Plan Alternative -Alternative 4
(e) Air Quality
Because on-site grading would be identical to the Specific Plan under Alternative 4, the total amount
of grading and construction -related air quality impacts would be the same as those of the Specific Plan.
However, Alternative 4 would generate less traffic than the Specific Plan. The effect of this reduction
in building space and vehicle trips on air emissions is provided below.
Emissions Source
CO .
Emissionsin Pounds
VOC N0
per Dery
Proposed Specific Plan
17,575.7
835.6
3,015.6
315.9
43,185.6
19,750 Unit Alternative
14,880.5
694.9
2,554.8
271.2
35,159.9
RecommendedSCAQMDThresholds
550.0
55.0
55.0
150.0
150.0
ourc7 mpa clences, Inc.
As shown, Alternative 4 would generate fewer air emissions than the Specific Plan. Therefore, it
would be environmentally superior to the Specific Plan with respect ,to'air quality. The emissions
generated by Alternative 4 would, however, exceed the thresholds recommended by the SCAQMD and,
as with the Specific Plan, would be considered significant.
(f) Biota
Development under Alternative 4 would cover approximately the same footprint as the Specific Plan.
The open areas of the Specific Plan site, including the High Coumtry.and the River Corridor Special
Management Areas, would still be designated as Open Area. Consequently, the biological impacts of
grading with Alternative 4 would be similar to that of the Specific Plan. However, due to the
reduction in site, population that would occur under Alternative 4, the possible indirect impacts (by
people and domestic animals) to sensitive habitats (including those found in SEAs 20 and 23) would be
incrementally less. Consequently, Alternative 4 is slightly environmentally superior to the Specific
Plan However, the biological impacts of Alternative 4 would still be significant.
(g) Visual Qualities
Because 20 percent less development would occur on the Specific Plan site under Alternative 4 than
under the Specific Plan, there would fewer visual impacts than would o= if the site develops as
proposed. For example, development would occur over the same geographic area under Alternative 4 as
under the Specific Plan, but development intensities would be less. Therefore, site development would
8.0-42 Newhall Retch Spenfic Plan Draft E1R.
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Site Specific Plan Alternative - Alternative 4
still be as visible from each viewing location as would the Specific Plan (see Section 4.7, Visual
Qualities), but it would be slightly be less intensive in appearance. As a result, Alternative 4 would
have incrementally less of a visual impact than the Specific Plan (although still significant) and
would; therefore, be environmentally superior.
(h) Cultural/PaleontologicalResources
Because the development footprint for Alternative 4 would be the same as for the Specific Plan,
Alternative 4 would have the same impacts on cultural/paleontological resources as the Specific Plan.
Consequently, there is no identifiable environmentally superior alternative with respect to
cultural/paleontological resources.
(f) Wastewater Disposal
The Specific Plan would generate 5.8 to 7.7 mgd of wastewater, while wastewater generation for
Alternative 4 would be 4.83 million gallons per day (mgd), all of which would be treated at an on-site
water reclamation plant. Assuming that the on-site plant would be sized to treat all wastewater from
Alternative 4, neither the Specific Plan nor Alternative 4 would have a significant impact relative to
the treatment infrastructure. However, because Alternative 4 would result in less solid material being
disposed of at approved landfills, Alternative 4 would be environmentally superior to the Specific
Plan with respect to wastewater disposal.
The Specific Plan would reclaim 84 to 92 percent of its wastewater, resulting in an annual reclamation of
6,025 to 7,263 acre-feet of wastewater. Assuming that 84 to 92 percent of the wastewater generated
under Alternative 4 would be reclaimed, 4,544 to 4,977 acre-feet of reclaimed water would be available
for irrigation.
(j) Water Resources
Water demand for Alternative 4 would be 14,634 acre-feet per year for both potable and irrigation uses.
Since reclaimed water could be used to meet 4,544 to 4,977 acre-feet of Alternative 4es irrigation needs,
9,657 to 10,090 acre-feet (14,634 acre-feet minus 4,544 to 4,977 acre-feet) of water would be required from
potable water supplies compared to the 12,082 to 13,320 acre-feet per of water (19,345 acre-feet minus
6,025 to 7,263 acre-feet of reclaimed water) that the Specific Plan would require from potable water
supplies. Because this alternative would consume less water from potable water resources than the
Specific Plan, it would be environmentally superior to the Specific Plan with respect to impacts on
potable water resources.
8.0-43 NmhaII Ranch Specific Plan Draft FIR
Ny 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
I On -Sita Specific Plan Alternative - Alternative 4
(lc) Education
Alternative 4 would generate 7,429 students as compared to the 10,074 students that would be generated
by the Specific Plan. Therefore, Alternative 4 is environmentally superior to the Specific Plan with
respect to school impacts.
(1) Natural GaslElectricity
Implementation of both the Specific Plan and Alternative 4 would require the use and expenditure of
nonrenewable petroleum resources. Alternative 4 would consume slightly less petroleum resources than
the - Specific Plan; a comparison of annual energy consumption between the Specific Plan and
Alternative 4 is provided below in Table 8.0-10, Alternative 4, Electricity and Natural Gas Demand:
Table 8.0-10
Electricity
and Natural Gas Demand
Proposed Specific
Plan Demand Alternative Demand •"
Electricity Demand
r
233.2 million 255.3 million
Natural Gas Demand
(cubic feet/year)
1,747.3 million 1,3724 million
Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. (November I995).
See Appendix
8.0 for detailed
energy consumption calculations for Alternative 4.
Although these energy resources are commercially available, Alternative 4 would consume less natural
gas and more electricity than the Specific Plan and it is not possible to identify an environmentally
superior alternative.
(m) Police Services
Because less development would occur on the site under Alternative 4 and a smaller on-site population
would result, it is expected that Alternative 4 would have less of an impact on the Sheriff's
Department than the Specific Plana For the same reasons, Alternative 4 would also have smaller
demands for CHP and emergency services in the area of the Specific Plan site.. As a result, Alternative
4 would be environmentally superior to the Specific Plan with respect to police services.
8.0-44 NmhaA Ranch Spmfic Plan Draft EIR
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
I On -Site Specific Pian Alternative - Alternative 4
(n) Fire Services and Hazards
Because, Alternative 4 would result in less development and a smaller population on the Specific Plan
site than would occur under the Specific Plan, there would be fewer Fire Department calls to the site
than under the Specific Plan. Therefore, with respect to providing fire services to the Specific Plan
site, Alternative 4 is environmentally superior to the Specific Plan
(o) Environmental Safety
As discussed in Section 4.5, Environmental Safety, potential impacts may result m the Specific Plan
site if development occurs in the following locations:
• adjacent to historic and continuing oil and natural gas operations,
• in close proximity to the Southern California Edison electrical transmission lines,
• in close proximity to the Southern California Gas Company high pressure gas lines,
• adjacent to State Route 126, upon which hazardous wastes are transported,
• in close proximity to Chiquito Canyon Landfill,
• within the Castaic Lake dam inundation area, and
• adjacent to on-going agricultural operations.
The safety conditions under which Alternative 4 would be developed would be similar to those with
development of the Specific Plan. The primary difference between development of Alternative 4 would
be a reduction in site population, which results in less exposure to potential hazards, as unlikely as
their occurrence might be. For this reason, Alternative 4 is superior environmentally to the Specific
Plan with respect to environmental safety.
(p) Libraries
Based on County Library planning standards of 0.35 square feet of library facilities per capita. and 2.0
books per capita, the Specific Plan would require a total of 23,983 square feet of library facilities with
137,084 additional volumes for the library system's collection In comparison, development under
Alternative 4 would require 19,422 square feet of library facilities and 110,984 volumes. Development
under Alternative 4 would have less of an impact on County Library facilities than would the Specific
Plan and would be environmentally superior to the Specific Plan.
8.045 Newhall Ranh Specific Plan DMft M
July I996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Site Specific Plan Alterative -Alternative 4
(q) Parks, Recreation and Trails
Under County (and Quimby Act) requirements, development of the Specific Plan would require the
applicant to provide 206 dedicated acres of local parkland; the Specific Plan as proposed would exceed
this requirement, by a total of 6,175 acres for parks, recreation, and Open Area, including Neighborhood
and Community Parks, a 15 -acre lake, an 18 -hole golf course, trails, the River Corridor and High
Country SMRs, and other Open Area (see Section 4.20, Parks, Recreation and Trails for a full discussion
on this topic). Per County requirements, development under Alternative 4 would require dedication of a
total of 166.5 acres for parkland. The applicant has indicated that both the River Corridor and the
High Country would still be dedicated for public use under Alternative 4. Because both the Specific
Plan and Alternative 4 would provide on-site recreational land in excess of what would be required
under County requirements, no environmentally superior alternative has been identified.
(r) Population, Housing and Employment
1. Population
Development of the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan would result in a resident population of 68,524 at
buildout, which is within SCAG's 1994 growth projections for the area, but not the County's 1990
projection. Alternative 4 would result in 55,492 residents on the Specific Plan site, which is also within
SCAG's 1994 growth projection for the region, but not the County's 1990 projection.
2. Housing
The Newhall Ranch community would include approximately 24,680 dwelling units plus an additional
538 Second units, including a wide range of Residential designations designed to allow for a variety of
product types to serve a broad array of socio-economic groups. These housing units are consistent with
SCAG's recently adopted projections for the region, but not the County s 1990 projections (see Section 4.21
for further discussion).
Residential development under Alternative 4 would provide for 19,750 Residential units, also in a
broad range of product types. This housing is also well within SCAG's 1994 growth projections for the
area, but not the County's 1990 projections.
8.0-46 NeuW Ranch Specific Plan Draft EIA
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Site Specific Plan Alternative-Alhmative 4
3. Employment
Development of the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan would result in an employment population of 19,323. ,
Development consistent with Alternative 4 would generate 14,547 on-site employment opportunities.
SCAG forecasts 17,500 jobs for 2015 in the census tracts that overlie the Specific Plan site; the Specific
Plan would exceed SCAG's forecast while this Alternative 4 would not. Both Alternative 4 and the
Specific Plan would exceed County employment projections. The Santa Clarita Valley has been
identified by SCAG as an area in need of additionalemployment opportunities. Under Alternative 4,
the jobs to housing ratio would be reduced from 0.78 to 0.73, which is indicative of more housing than
jobs. Consequently, from an employment standpoint, the Specific Plan is superior to Alternative 4.
As with the Specific Plan, the population, housing and employment generated by Alternative 4 do not
fall within the County's 1990 projections. However, SCAG projects much more growth in this area than
does the County inits1990 projections. As would the Specific Plan, Alternative 4 would require a
General Plan Amendment. Given the differences between County projections and SCAG projections, the
dates of those projections (1990 and 1994, respectively), and the different population and housing
implications resulting from each, no environmental preference with respect to population and housing
can necessarily be concluded.
(s) Solid Waste Disposal
At buildout, the Specific Plan would generate approximately 53,524 tons of solid waste per year. In
comparison, Alternative 4 would generate 48,920 tons of solid waste annually, as shown in Table 8.0-11,
Alternative 4, Daily Solid Waste Generation (No Recycling). Given the smaller solid waste
generation totals associated with Alternative 4, implementation of. Alternative 4 would be
environmentally superior to the Specific Plan with respect to solid waste disposal.
(t) Agricultural Resources
There are 547 acres of prime farmland and 48 acres of unique farmland on the Specific Plan site.
Development of the site consistent with -the Specific Plan would result in the loss of this land to urban
uses. The development footprint of Alternative 4 is the same as that for the Specific Plan and
development would'also occur in areas of the site that are designated as prime farmland and unique
farmland. Therefore, with respect to the loss of prime agricultural land and the loss of agricultural
productivity, there is no environmentally superior alternative.
8.0-47 Navhaa Ranch SWOC Plme Dntft M
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Site Specific Plan Alternative - Alternative 4
Table 8.0-11
Alternative 4
Daily Solid Waste Generation (No Recycling)
Total Waste 1:
Generation Factor.. "'Generation .':(',<
Land Use Unitst I(pounds/dav)x (pounds/day)
Residential
Single Family/Detached
10,752 DU
11.18
120,187
Multi-Family/Attached
8,995 DU
-6.41
57,667
General Retail3
514,000 sq.ft.
0.01
6,759
Eating &Drinking Establ.
Food&Drug Stores
308,400 Sq.&
82.2,400
0.06
18,251
sq.ft.
0.04
32,445
Auto Dealer &Service Stations
205,600 sq.ft.
0.03
5,746
Hotel & Motel
205,600 sq.ft.
0.03
5,971
Business Park4
1,036,000 sq.ft.
0.01
7,947
Office
1,344,800 sq.ft.
0.01
10,316
Trans., Comm., Utilities
35,000 sq.ft.
0.04
1,515
Developed Parks
166.48 acres
1.10
182
Visitor-Serving4
139,200 sq.ft.
0.01
1,068
Schools?
529,128 sq.ft.
0.01
5,291
42,642
Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. (January I996).
IDU = dwelling unit; sq.ft. - square feet; TPY = tons per year.
IThe solid waste ggeneration rates are derived from the Ventura- County Solid Wade Management Department's
Guidelines for the Preparation o�Enmronmentai Assessments for Solid Waste Impacts. These factors do not reflect any
3Assumes a 50/50 split of Mixed Use between retail and office uses. Retail uses are assumed to be 25% general retail, 10%
auto dealer and service stations, 10% hotel/motel,15% eatingg and drinking establishments, and 40% food and drug stores.
Industrial uses are assumed to be 50% Business Park and 50% manufacturing.
4Assumes the same daily generation rate as for commercial offices.
sAssumis 35,000 square feet of utilities facilities (same as Specific Plan).
6Assumes alternative will meet Quimby Act requirements of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 population.
?Square footage for educational facilities is based upon the: ve elementary schools with 50 sta per school and 13.4
vehleIe trips yer staf� (reference Section 4.8, Traffu) divided by 10.72 trips per thousand square eet;
- one junior high sill with 50 staff and I3.4 vehicle trips per staff (reference Section 4.8, Traffic) divided by 10.72
trips per sta�j;
one high school with 100 staff and 16.8 vehicle trips per staff (reference Section 4.8, Traffic) divided by 10.90 trips per
staff.
e. Conclusion
Because some of the environmental impacts of the Specific Plan would be avoided or mimni;zed with
Alternative 4, it is environmentally superior to the Specific Plan. Alternative 4 meets most of the basic
objectives of the Specific Plan identified in the Project Description of this EIR (Section 1.0), with lesser
environmental impacts than those identified for the Specific Plan. However, Altemative 4 has been
rejected in favor of the Specific Plan because the applicant believes that Alternative 4, too narrowly
limits the range of housing opportunities provided and does not reflect the market conditions under
which the Specific Plan would be developed.
8.0-48 Newhall Ranch SpecIfic Plan Draft EIR
July I996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. OroSite Specifie Plan Alternative -Alternative 5
Specific objectives not fully met or impeded to some extent include:
• Establish. land uses and development regulations which permit a wide range of housing densities,
types, styles, prices, and tenancy (for sale and rental).
• Adopt development regulations which provide flexibility to respond to and adjust to changing
economic and market conditions over a long period of time.
• Earn a reasonable return on investment
Most of the other objectives of the Specific Plan could be met by Alternative 4, but not to the same
degree as the Specific Plan.
(5) Alternative 5 — 15,000 Unit Alternative (39 Percent Reduction in Residential, 28 Percent
Reduction in Non -Residential Development, Smaller Footprint)
The primary purpose of Alternative 5 is to avoid or minimize the potentially significant direct and
indirect biological impacts created by the Specific Plan by reducing the amount of development and by
reducing the footprint upon which such development would otter. In doing so, many other impacts
which could oocur as a result of site development might also be reduced in magnitude. Alternative 5
proposes 15,000 Residential units, 4,112,000 square feet of Commercial uses, a water reclamation plant,
and a golf course (see Figure 8.0.3, Alternative 5, 15,000 Unit Alternative). The total number of
Residential units under Alternative 5 is 39 percent less than under the Specific Plan and the total non-
residential square footage is 28 percent less. Like Alternative 4, Alternative 5 is also similar in design
and character to the Specific Plan with the following exceptions:
• with the exception of. the water reclamation plant, development would not occur within either
Santa Clara River SEA 23 (generally between SR -126 and the base of the bluffs south of the River),
or in Santa Susana Mountains SEA 20 (generally the foothills of the Santa Susana Mountains south
of Salt Canyon),
• development would be set back an additional 500 feet from the Salt Canyon wildlife corridor,
• a reduction in development area from approximately 6,112 acres to 5,083 acres, resulting in an
increase of Open Area from approximately 5,852 acres to 6,880 acres, and
• on-site population would decrease from 68,524 to 44,216.
8.049 NemhaD Ranch Specific Plan Draft MR.
July I996
i
S1
JW CNEWHALL TZNCH.
Newhall Ranch Company
L E G E N D
ESTATE RESIDENTIAL
L LOW RESIDEMIAL
FLWI LOW-MEDNAf RESVEMnAL
aAfMXMRESMENFAL
ax MGN RESIDENTIAL
�� UfXED-USE
- u COMAEApAL -
OPEN AREA
ROADS
LARD USE OVERLAYS 070TENTIAL LOCATIONS),
w�R WATER RECLAMATION PLIM
O GOLF COURSE
0M
15.000 UNIT ALTERNATIVE FIGURE 8.0.3
ALTEMATIVE 5
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. Onsite Specific Plan Altematioe-Alum,tim 5
The applicant has also indicated that, if the Specific Plan is not implemented as proposed and
Alternative 5 is implemented instead, the following would result:
• the High Country (3,949.9 acres) would not be designated as a Special Management Area,
• the River Corridor (813 acres) would still be dedicated;
• cattle grazing would continue in the High Country;
• the only features relating to trails would be the provision of pedestrian and bicycle trails an major
roadways only;
• no restrictions would be placed on the use of the River Corridor;
• no Metrolink rail right-of-way would be reserved through the site;
• no park-and-ride lot/Metrolink station site along SR -126 would be available on the site;
• no fire station would be constructed off Chiquito Canyon Road near the community of Val Verde;
and
• no recreational lake would be available for public use; and less tax revenue would be generated m
the site.
Table 8.0.12, Alternative 5;15,000 Unit Alternative Statistical Summary provides a breakdown of the
land uses and intensities proposed for Alternative S.
Table 8.0-12
Alternative 5
Residential:
Estates
985
448
0
Low
1,483
3,500
0
Low Medium/Golf Course
278
494
0
Low Medium
1,316
5,138
0
Medium
250
1,200
0
High
0
0
0
Subtotal
4,309
10,780
0
Mixed -Use and
Non -Residential:
Mixed Usel
518
4,220
2,634,000
Commercial
45
0
383,000
Business Park
197
0
1,095,000
Water Reclamation Plant
11
0
Subtotal
771
4,220
4,112,000
Major Open Areas:
6,880
0
0
Totals
11,963
15,000
4,112,000
Source: FORMA (November 1995).
'Mixed uses may include Commercial and Residential uses.
8.0.51 Nemhatt Ranch-Spedfu Ptah Ora/t Elft
July I996
8.0 Project Aftematives
3. Ort -Sim Specific Plan Alternative - Altc five S
It is assumed, for the sake of this impact analysis, that units under the Estate, Low, and Low -Medium
Residential designation would be single family detached units, and that units under the Mixed Use and
Medium designations would be multi -family attached units. The following discussion compares the
environmental impacts of Alternative 5 to those of. the Specific Plan.
(a) Geotechnical and Sail Resources
Alternative 5 would have a smaller development footprint than the. Specific Plan; grading along the
River, in the High Country, and near the Ventura County line that would have occurred under the
Specific.Plan would not occur under Alternative 5. Development activity subject to the effects of seismic
events would occur under Alternative 5. However, because site development under Alternative 5 would
require less ground disturbance than the Specific Plan and would require slightly less earth movement,
from a geotechnical standpoint Alternative 5 would be environmentally superior to the Specific Plan.
(b) Flood
Urban runoff that would be generated under Alternative 5 would be conveyed and discharged into the
Santa Clara River. Like the Specific Plan, it is expected that implementation of Alternative 5 would
also reduce runoff quantities from the Specific Plan site from current runoff conditions by reducing the
amount of debris in the runoff. However, because the Specific Plan would have more developed area
than Alternative 5, the amount of debris in the runoff from the Specific Plan site would be more under
Alternative 5 than under the Specific Plan and, therefore, so would total runoff quantities. The benefit
of Alternative 5 over the Specific Plan, however, is that no grading and m development would occur
within the 50 -year Capital Flood Plain of the Santa Clara River. Because River hydraulics through
the site would be minimally altered, the level of impact of Alternative 5 an the River would be less
than under the Specific Plan. Consequently, Alternative 5 is superior to the Specific Plan.
With respect to runoff quality, development under Alternative 5 would be required to comply with the
same Regional Water Quality Control Board standards as the Specific Plan and no environmentally
superior alternative can be identified.
8.0-52 Navhaq Ranch Spwfiic Plan Draft EM
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Sit, SpeeifiC Plan Altematioe - Alternative 5
(c) Traffic/Access
Implementation of Alternative 5 would result in a decrease in trips. Specifically, average daily trip
generation on the Specific Plan site would decrease from 387,000 trips to 227,129 trips (a 41.3 percent
decrease). Alternative 5 would decrease traffic impacts on local roadways, would require fewer
roadway improvements off the Specific Plan site than the Specific Plan, and would be environmentally
superior to the Specific Plan with respect to traffic/access impacts.
(d) Noise
With a reduction in the amount of development an the site and associated trip reduction would be a
reduction in noise impacts an and in the vicinity of the site. The analysis presented in this EIR
determined that only one off-site location within the vicinity of the Specific Plan site - the Travel
Village RV Park - would be significantly impacted by Specific Plan -generated noise. A reduction in
the Newhall Ranch traffic volumes of approximately 41.3 percent would reduce the noise level
increase to the point that noise levels at the Travel Village RV Park would not exceed the off-site
mobile source thresholds of significance. Therefore, Alternative 5 would be environmentally superior to
the Specific Plan with respect to noise impacts due to the overall reduction in noise levels generated by
the Specific Plan.
(e) Air Quality
Because less on-site grading would oo= under Alternative 5, the total amount of grading and
construction -related air quality impacts would be less than those of the Specific Plan. In addition,
Alternative 5 would generate less traffic than the Specific Plan. The effect of this reduction in building
space and vehicle trips on air emissions is provided below.
Proposed Specific plan
17,575.7
835.6
3,015.6
315.9
43,185.6
15,000 Unit Alternative
-_ 11,518.1
540.9
2,056.8
214.8
27,258.4
Recommended SCAQMD Thresholds
550.0
55.0
55.0
150.0
150.0
Source., Impact Sciences, Inc.
8.0.53 NewhO Ranch Specoc Plan Dmfs EIR
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
J. On -Site Specifie Pian Alternative -Alternative S
As shown, Alternative 5 would generate fewer air emissions than the Specific Plan. Therefore, it
would be environmentally superior to the Specific Plan with respect to. air quality. The emissions
generated by Alternative 5 would, however, exceed the thresholds recommended by the SCAQMD and,
as with the Specific Plan, would be considered significant.
(f) Biological Resources
With the exception of the water reclamation plant, development under Alternative 5 would not occur
within designated SEAS 20 and 23. Table 8.0-13 compares the acreage of habitats impacted by
Alternative 5 with that impacted by the Specific Plan for both SEAS. As shown, approximately 41.3
fewer acres of sensitive habitats are impacted by Alternative 5 in the Santa Clara River SEA 23
(which is 3.2 percent of the site's land area within SEA 23). Approximately 139.3 fewer acres of
sensitive habitats are impacted by Alternative 5 in the Santa Susana Mountains SEA 20 (which is 3.5
percent of the site's land area within SEA 20). Given that a lesser amount of grading and its associated
ground and habitat disturbance would occur, and given that there would be a substantial reduction in
site population with Alternative 5, the biological impact of Alternative 5 would be less than that of
the Specific Plan.
Table 8.0-13
Comparison of Imppact on Sensitive Habitats
- SEAs 20 and 23
f, Flan`Flan
W/Altematsve.5
Net: Change
(acres) ,;; ..;.
(acres)..., ; ;
(acres)
Grading in SEA 23
• Sensitive Habitats
47.3
6.0
(41.3)
• Non -Sensitive Habitats
402.3
13.4
(388.9)
Subtotal
449.6
19.4
(430.2)
Grading in SEA 20
• Sensitive Habitats
139.3
0.0
(139.3)
• Non -Sensitive Habitats
100.4
0.0
(100.4)
Subtotal
239.7
0.00
(239.7)
Total Sensitive Habitats Graded
186.6
6.0
(180.6)
However, grazing activities would continue with Alternative 5 in the High Country SMA. Also, the
applicant has indicated that the Open Areas of the High Country Special Management Area would not
be dedicated for public use, but would remain in private ownership with no provision for public access.
From a biological standpoint, the reduction in grading and on-site population under Alternative 5
environmentally outweighs (is better than) the loss to the public of the High Country Special
Management Area. Consequently, Alternative 5 is biologically superior to the Specific Plan. However,
the biological impacts of Alternative 5 would still be significant.
8.0-54 Newhall Ranch Spathe Plan Draft EfR
July 1996
8.0 ProjectAtternatives
I Ort -Site Speclfrc Plan Alternative - Alternative 5
(g) Visual Qualities
Development intensities in the northeastern corner of the Specific Plan site along SR -126 and Commerce
Center Drive would remain comparable to that of the Specific Plan, and visual impacts of this part of
the site would .remain essentially unchanged from that of the. Specific Plan. However, because
development would be set back from the River Corridor to a greater extent than under the Specific Plan,
less development would be visible to travelers along SR -126. Alternative 5 was analyzed as follows
based on the viewing location information provided in Section 47, Visual Qualities:
1. Viewing Location 1(west of the site in Ventura County, along SR -126 looking east)
Under Alternative 5, development would be set back further from the Ventura County line than under
the Specific Plan and the natural land forms in the foreground and mid -ground of the viewshed for
Viewing Location 1 would be left intact. In addition, the Medium Residential uses south of SR -126 in
the western portion of the site that would occur under the Specific Plan would not occur under
Alternative 5. A water reclamation plant would also be constructed under Alternative 5 in the same
location as under the Specific Plan and would have a visual impact comparable to that of the. proposed
plant. Because less site development would be visible from this viewing location under Alternative 5
than under the Specific Plan, Alternative 5 would have fewer visual impacts than the Specific Plan,
and would be the environmentally superior alternative with respect to visual impacts from Viewing
Location 1.
2. Viewing Location 2 (on site, along SR -126 west of San Martinez Grande looking south)
Visual impacts from Viewing Location 2 would be less under Alternative 5 than under the Specific Plan.
Although the visible development footprint under the Specific Plan and Alternative 5 would be the
same from Viewing Location 2, less intensive development would. occur within this viewshed under
Alternative S. For instance, Medium Residential development that is currently proposed along Potrero
Valley Road would be Low -Medium Residential under Alternative S. Therefore, Alternative 5 is
incrementally environmentally superior to the Specific Plan with respect to visual impacts from
Viewing Location 2.
S.Q$$ Newhall Ranch Spec Plan Draft EIR
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives -
3. Onsite Specific Plan Alternative -Alterative 5
3. Viewing Location 3 (on site, near the SR-126/Chiquito Canyon Road intersection
looking south)
Under Alternative 5, Viewing Location 3 would be located in open area instead of the Mixed -Use
development that is proposed in the Specific Plan. Under the Specific Plan, Low -Medium and Medium
Residential development is proposed south of the River and at Long Canyon and would be visible in the
foreground of this viewshed. However, this development is not present in this development
alternative and would, therefore, not occur in the foreground of this viewshed. Mid -ground
development under Alternative 5 would be visible to the same extent that it would be visible under the
Specific Plan. Therefore, because no foreground development would occur under Alternative 5, it would
have less of a visual impact than the Specific Plan and would be environmentally superior to the
Specific Plan with respect to visual impacts from Viewing Location 3.
4. Viewing Location 4 (at the northern site boundary on Chiquito Canyon Road looking
south)
Under the Specific Plan, the proposed Business Park, Medium Residential development along Chiquito
Canyon Road, and Low -Medium and Low Residential development south of the River would be visible
from Viewing Location 4. The Business Park, Residential development along Chiquito Canyon Road,
and Low Residential development south of the River would also be visible from this viewing location
under Alternative 5. The Low -Medium Residential development proposed south of the River at Long
Canyon would not occur under this development scheme, and less Residential development south of th e
River would be visible in the distance under Alternative 5 than under the Specific Plan. Due to the
extent of development still visible from this location, no noticeable visible change would occur under
Alternative 5.
5. Viewing Location 5 (on site, along SR -126 on the west side of Castaic Creek looking
south)
Although development would oocur within this viewshed under Alternative 5, it would be less
intensive than under the Specific Plan For instance, the Low -Medium Residential development
Proposed in this viewshed would be Low Residential under Alternative 5, the Medium Residential
would be Low -Medium Residential, and the Low Residential would be Estate Residential (see Figure
8.0-3, Alternative 5, 15,000 Unit Alternative). In addition, the Low -Medium Residential uses proposed
8.0-56 New II Ranch Spenfic Plan Dm/t EIR
Idy I996
8.0 Project Alternatives
I On -Site Specific Plan Alternative -Alternative 5
north of the River and which would be partially visible from this viewing location would not occur
under this alternative. Because development intensities visible from Viewing Location 5 would be less
under Alternative 5 than under the Specific Plan, visual impacts would be less, making Alternative 5
environmentally superior to the Specific Plan with respect to visual impacts from Viewing Location 5.
6. Viewing Location 6 (off site, generally from the SR -126/I-5 Interchange looking west
and southwest toward site)
Mixed use development south of the Santa Clara River would be visible from Viewing Location 6 under
the Specific Plan and under Alternative 5, with no difference in the level of impact between either the
Specific Plan or Alternative 5. However, the Low -Medium Residential uses proposed to the west. of
this viewing location and north of the Santa Clara River that would be visible from Viewing Location
6 would not occur under Alternative 5. Therefore, the degree of visual impact under Alternative 5 would
be slightly less than under the Specific Plan, making Alternative 5 marginally environmentally
superior to the Specific Plan with respect to visual impacts from this viewing location.
7. Viewing Locations 7, 8, and 9 (off site, generally from Interstate 5 and points east,
looking west and southwest toward site)
The Mixed -Use development footprint and intensity in the viewshed of Viewing Locations 7, 8, and 9
would be the same under Alternative 5 as the Specific Plan, and no environmental preference can be
identified relative to visual impact from this viewing location.
8. Viewing Location 10 (Off Site, from the Rim of the Valley Trail, looking north toward
site)
Views from the Rim of the Valley trail would be visually the same under Alternative 5 as they would
be under the Specific Plan, because any reductions in development would be so slight in appearance
(given the distance between the trail and the development area) as to be visually imperceptible.
(h) Cultural/Paleontological Resources
Because less ground disturbance would omff under Alternative 5, potential impacts to cultural and
paleontological resources on the Specific Plan site would be less under Alternative 5 than if the Specific
Plan were to develop as proposed. Therefore, Alternative 5 is environmentally superior with respect to
cultural resources.
8.0-57 NemW1 Ranch Specific Plan Dmft EIR
luty 1996
8.0 ProjectAlterttatiaes
3. On -Site Specific Plan AltM4tive - Alternative 5
(f) Wastewater Disposal
The Specific Plan would generate 5.8 to 7.7 mgd of wastewater, while wastewater generation for
Alternative 5 would be 4.15 million gallons per day (mgd), all of which would be treated at an on-site
water reclamation plant Assuming that the on-site plant would be sized to treat all wastewater from
Alternative 5, neither the Specific Plan nor Alternative 5 would have a significant impact relative to
the treatment infrastructure. However, because Alternative 5 would result in less solid material being
disposed of at approved landfills, Alternative 5 would be environmentally superior to the Specific
Plan with respect to wastewater disposal.
The Specific Plan would reclaim 84 to 92 percent of its wastewater, resulting in an annual reclamation of
6,025 to 7,263 acre-feet of wastewater. Assuming that 84 to 92 percent of the wastewater generated
under Alternative 5 would be reclaimed, 3,904 to 4,276 acre-feet of reclaimed water would be available
for irrigation.
Q) Water Resources
Water demand for Alternative 5 would be 13,285 acre-feet per year for both potable and irrigation uses.
Since reclaimed water could be used to meet 3,904 to 4,276 acre-feet of Alternative 5's irrigation needs,
9,001 to 9,381 acre-feet (13,285 acre-feet minus 3,904 to 4,276 acre-feet) of water would be required from
potable water supplies compared to the 12,082 to 13,320 acre-feet per of water (19,345 acre-feet minus
6,025 to 7,263 acre-feet of reclaimed water) that the Specific Plan would require` from potable water
supplies. Because this alternative .would cmw=e less water from potable water resources than the
Specific Plan, it would be environmentally superior to the Specific Plan with respect to impacts an
potable water resources.
(lc) Education
Alternative 5 would generate 7,582 students as compared to the 10,074 students that would be generated
by the Specific Plan. Therefore, Alternative 5 is environmentally superior to the Specific Plan'with
respect to school impacts.
8.0-58 Newhall Ranch Spect6c Plan Draft E1R
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Site Specific Plan Alternative - Alternative S
(1) Natural Gas/Electricity
Implementation of both the Specific Plan and Alternative 5 would require the use and expenditure of
nonrenewable petroleum resources. Alternative 5 would consumie less petroleum resources than the
Specific Plan; a comparison of annual energy consumption between the Specific Plan and Alternative 5
is provided below in Table 8.0-14, Alternative 5 Electricity and Natural Gas:
Table 8.0-14
Proposed:Specific
Plan Demand" Alternative Demand
Electricity Demand
(kWTear) 2332 million 211.4 million
Natural Gas Demand
(cubic feet/year) 1,747.3 million 1,218.0 million
Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. (November 1995).
See Appendix 8.0 for detailed energy consumption calculations for Alternative 5.
Although these energy resources are commercially available, Alternative 5 would consume
substantially less petroleum-based energy resources than the Specific Plan and would be
environmentally superior to the Specific Plan
(m) Police Services
Because less development would occur on the site under Alternative 5 and a smaller on-site population
would result, it is expected that Alternative 5 would have less of an impact on the Sheriff's
Department than the. Specific Plan. For the same reasons, Alternative 5 would also have smaller
demands for CHP and emergency services in the area of the Specific Plan site. As a result, Alternative
5 would be environmentally superior to the Specific Plan with respect to police services.
(n) Fire Services and Hazards
Because, Alternative 5 would result in less development and a smaller population on the Specific Plan
site than would occur under the Specific Plan, there would be fewer Fire Department calls to the site
than under the Specific Plan. Therefore, with respect to providing fire services to the Specific Plan
site, Alternative 5 is environmentally superior to the Specific Plan
8.0-59 Nemhaa Ranch Speatic Plan Draji Ern
July 1.996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Site Speafie Plan Alternative - Alternative S
(o) Environmental Safety
As discussed in Section 4.5, Environmental Safety, potential impacts may result on the Specific Plan
site if development occurs in the following locations:
• adjacent to historic and continuing oil and natural gas operations,
• in close proximity to the Southern Califon -da Edison electrical transmission lines,
• in close proximity to the Southern California Gas Company high pressure gas lines,
• adjacent to State Route 126, upon which hazardous wastes are transported,
• in close proximity to Chiquito Canyon Landfill,
• within the Castaic Lake dam inundation area, and
• adjacent to on-going agricultural operations.
The safety conditions under which Alternative 5 would be developed would be similar to those with
development of the Specific Plan The primary difference between development of Alternative 5 would
be a reduction in site population, which results in less exposure to potential hazards, as unlikely as
their occurrence might be. For this reason, Alternative 5 is superior environmentally to the Specific
Plan with respect to environmental safety.
(p) Libraries
Based on County Library planning standards of 0.35 square feet of library facilities per capita and 2.0
books per capita, the Specific Plan would require a total of 23,983 square feet of library facilities with
137,084 additional volumes for the library system's collection In comparison, development under
Alternative 5 would, according to County Library standards, require 15,476 square feet of library
facilities and 88,432 volumes. Development under Alternative 5 would have less of an impact on
County Library facilities than would the Specific Plan and would be environmentally superior to the
Specific Plan.
(q) Parks, Recreation and Trails
Under County (and Quimby Act) requirements, development of the Specific Plan would require the
applicant to provide 206 dedicated acres of local parkland; the Specific Plan as proposed would exceed
this requirement, by a total of 6,175 acres for parks, recreation, and Open Area, including Neighborhood
and Community Parks, a 15 -acre lake, an 18 -hole golf course, trails, the River Corridor and High
Country SMAS, and other Open Area (see Section 4.20, Parks, Recreation and Trails for a full discussion
on this topic). Per County requirements, development under Alternative 5 would require dedication of a
8.0-60 NM&U Ranch Speafie Plan Dmft EIR
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Site Specific Plan Alte tive-Alte tive5
total of 132.6 acres for parkland. The applicant has indicated that just the River Corridor, and not the
High Country, would be preserved for public use under Alternative 5. Because the Specific Plan would
provide more on-site - recreational land than would Alternative 5, the Specific Plan would be
environmentally superior to Alternative 5.
(r) Population, Housing and Employment
1. Population
Development of the Newhall Ranch would result in a resident population of 68,524 at buildout. This
population is within SCAG's 1994 growth projections for the area, but not the County's 1990 projections
(see Section 4.21, Population, Housing and Employment for further discussion). Alternative 5 would
result in 44,216 persons on the Newhall Ranch site (see Appendix 8.0 for populationcalculations for
Alternative 5). This population is well within SCAG's 1994 growth projections for the region, but not
the County's 1990 projections.
2. Housing
Alternative 5 includes 15,000 dwelling units ranging in intensity from Estate to Medium Residential
(Alternative 5 includes no High Residential development). This housing is consistent with SCAG's
recently adopted forecasts for the region, but not the County's 1990 -forecast (see Section 4.21 for further
discussion). Therefore, these units are part of SCAG's planned growth of the area, but not the existing
County's projections.
However, because the Specific Plan would include High Residential units while Alternative 5 would
not, it would provide a wider range of housing units that would serve a broader range of socioeconomic
groups than Alternative S.
3. Employment
Development of the Newhall Ranch would result in an employment population of 19,323. Development
consistent with Alternative 5 would generate 13,185 on-site employment opportunities. SCAG forecasts
17,500 jobs for 2015 in the census tracts that overlie the Specific Plan site; therefore, the Specific Plan's
estimated employment exceeds SCAG's forecast. The Santa Clarita Valley has been identified by
8.0-61 XMW Ranch Specific Plan Dealt ELY
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. Ort -Site Specific Plan Alternative - Altemetive S
SCAG as an area in need of additional employment opportunities. Under Alternative 5, the jobs to
housing ratio would be increased from 0.78 to 0.88, which is more jobs rich than the Specific .Plan.
However, the Specific Plan provides 6,138 more jobs than does Alternative 5. Consequently, from an
employment standpoint, the Specific Plan is superior to Alternative 5.
As with the Specific Plan, the population, housing and employment generated by Alternative 5 do not
fall within the County's 1990 projections. However, SCAG projects much more growth in this area than
does the County. As would the Specific Plan, Alternative 5 would require a General Plan Amendment.
Given the differences between County projections and SCAG projections, the dates of those projections
(1990 and 1994, respectively), and the implications to population and housing forecasts resulting from
each, no environmental preference with respect to population and housing can necessarily be concluded.
(s) Solid Waste Disposal
At buildout, the Specific Plan would generate approximately 53,524 tons of solid waste per year. In
comparison, Alternative 5 would generate 41,076 tons of solid waste annually [see Table 8.0-15,
Alternative 5, Daily Solid Waste Generation (No Recycling)]. Given the smaller solid waste
generation totals associated with Alternative 5 implementation of Alternative 5 would be
environmentally superior to the Specific Plan with respect to solid waste disposal.
(t) Agricultural Resources
There are 547 acres of prime farmland and 48 acres of unique farmland on the Specific Plan site.
Development of the site consistent with the Specific Plan would result in the loss of this land to urban
uses. Development of the site under Alternative 5 would permit development in areas of the site that
are designated as prime farmland and unique farmland (specifically, development would occur on prime
farmland north of SR -126 and west of Chiquito Canyon Road, north of Potrero Canyon just south of the
River, and on the mesas, and would occur on unique farmlands of importance located north of Potrero
Canyon just south of the River). No development is proposed on prime farmlands located within the 50
Year Capital Flood Plain of the Santa Clara River. As a- result, development would oma to fewer
acres of prime farmland under Altemative 5 thanwould the Specific Plan. Therefore, Alternative 5 is
environmentally superior to the Specific Plan with respect to the loss of prime agricultural land.
In general, the conversion of prime agricultural land is irreversible and is, therefore, considered an
unavoidable significant impact. However, in light of the continuing trend by the County of Los Angeles
to convert cultivated lands to urban uses to accommodate growth, and the fact that the prime
agricultural land on the Specific Plan site is already impaired (i.e., relatively difficult and less
8.0-62 Newhall Ranch Specific Plan Dm/t EIR
July 1.996
8.0 ProjectAlternativeS
3. On -Site Specific Plan Alternative - Alternative 5
economical to farm) and is, therefore, generally of lower value than larger and better situated parcels
found to the west,. the loss of agricultural productivity on prime agricultural land under such
circumstances is not considered a significant impact. Thus, there is m environmentally superior
alternative with respect to loss. of agricultural productivity on the Specific Plan site.
Table 8.0-15
Alternative 5
Daily Solid Waste Generation (No Recycling)
Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. (January 1996).
Idu = dwelling unit; sgft. = square feet; TPY = tons per year.
ZThe solid .waste generation rates are derived from the Ventura County Solid Waste Management Department's
Guidelines r the Preparation o Environmental Assessments jor
Solid Waste Impacts. These factors do not reflect any
recycling activities on the part of the generator.
;Assumes a 50/50 split of Mixed Use between retail and office uses. Retail uses are assumed to be 25% general retail, 10%
auto dealer and service stations, 10% hotel/motel, 15% eating and drinking establishments, and 40% food and drug stores.
¢Assumes 35,000 square feet of utilities facilities (same as Specific Plan).
5Assumes a 150 -acre golf course.
6Assumes alternative will meet County requirements of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 population.
f. Conclusion
Because some of the environmental impacts of the Specific Plan would be avoided or minimized with
Alternative 5, it is environmentally superior to the Specific Plan. However, Alternative 5 has been
rejected in favor of the Specific Plan because the applicant believes that Alternative 5 too narrowly
limits .the range of housing opportunities provided and does not reflect the market conditions under
which the Specific Plan, would be developed, and because many of the basic objectives of the Specific
Plan identified in the Project Description of this EIR (Section 1.0) would not be achieved.
8.0-63 Nemhaa Ranch Specific Plan Draft EIR
Judy 1996
Total: Waste
Generation Factor
Generation" '
- Land Use
Unitsr
(pounds/dap)=
(pounds/day)
Residential
Sin le Family Detached
Miti-Family/Attached
10,780 DU
4,220 DU
11.18
6.41
120,500
27,054
General Retail;
425,000 sq.ft.
0.01
5,589
Eating & Drinking Establ.
255,000 sq.ft.
0.06
15,090
Food At Drug Stores
680,000 sq.ft.
0.04
26,827
Auto Dealer & Service Stations
170,000 sq.ft.
0.03
4,751
Hotel & Motel
170,000 sq.ft.
0.03
4,937
Business Park
1,095,000 sq.ft.
0.01
8,400
Office
1,317,000 sq.ft.
0.01
10,103
Trans., Comm., Uties¢
35,000 sq.ft.
0.04
1,515
Golf Courses
150 acres
1.10
164
Developed Park6
132.65 acres
1.10
145
Total
225,076
41,076 TPY
Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. (January 1996).
Idu = dwelling unit; sgft. = square feet; TPY = tons per year.
ZThe solid .waste generation rates are derived from the Ventura County Solid Waste Management Department's
Guidelines r the Preparation o Environmental Assessments jor
Solid Waste Impacts. These factors do not reflect any
recycling activities on the part of the generator.
;Assumes a 50/50 split of Mixed Use between retail and office uses. Retail uses are assumed to be 25% general retail, 10%
auto dealer and service stations, 10% hotel/motel, 15% eating and drinking establishments, and 40% food and drug stores.
¢Assumes 35,000 square feet of utilities facilities (same as Specific Plan).
5Assumes a 150 -acre golf course.
6Assumes alternative will meet County requirements of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 population.
f. Conclusion
Because some of the environmental impacts of the Specific Plan would be avoided or minimized with
Alternative 5, it is environmentally superior to the Specific Plan. However, Alternative 5 has been
rejected in favor of the Specific Plan because the applicant believes that Alternative 5 too narrowly
limits .the range of housing opportunities provided and does not reflect the market conditions under
which the Specific Plan, would be developed, and because many of the basic objectives of the Specific
Plan identified in the Project Description of this EIR (Section 1.0) would not be achieved.
8.0-63 Nemhaa Ranch Specific Plan Draft EIR
Judy 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Site Specific Plan Alte Live -Alternative 6
Specific objectives not met or impeded to some extent with Alternative 5 are listed below:
• Provide a complementary and supportive array of land uses which will enable development of a
community with homes, shopping, employment, schools, recreation, cultural and worship facilities,
public services, and open space.
• Establish land uses and development regulations which permit a wide range of housing densities,
types, styles, prices, and tenancy (for sale and rental).
• Adopt development regulations which provide flexibility to respond to and adjust to changing
economic and market conditions over a long period of time.
• Earn a reasonable return on investment.
• Retain a major open space area which could act as a regional recreational park and an ecological
preserve.
• Provide an extensive system of pedestrian, bicycle, and hiking trails within the Villages s and
hiking trails in the High Country and other open areas.
• Preserve the Santa Clara River corridor and adjacent uplands containing significant natural
resources for their resource value, open space, and recreational use.
• Retain a major open space area and its natural vegetation as a wildlife or ecological preserve.
(6) Alternative 6 — 8,000 unit Alternative (68 Percent Reduction in Development, Smaller
Footprint)
The primary purpose of Alternative 6 is to avoid or minimize the potentially significant visual and
biological impacts created by the Specific Plan. In doing so, many other impacts which could oma as a
result of site development might also be reduced in magnitude. Alternative 6 is a visually and
biologically sensitive alternative in which no development would occur between the Santa Clara River
Corridor and SR -126, and the development areas south of the River would be limited to the Upper and
Lower Potrero Canyon, Long Canyon, and reduced areas of the Grapevine and airport Mesa areas (see
Figure 8.0.4, Alternative 6, 8,000 Unit Alternative). Significant changes in the development footprint
an the site include the elimination of grading at the High Country ridge and within the 50 -Year
Capital Flood Plain of the Santa Clara River, and setback of development from River bluffs.
Consequently, a reduction in development area from approximately 6,108 acres to 4,635 acres would
occur, with a resulting increase in Open Area from approximately 5,852 acres to 7,328 acres.
In addition, Alternative 6 would reduce Residential intensities, limiting the Specific Plan to
approximately 3,019 acres of Estate Residential and 1,505 acres of Low Residential housing (see Table
8.0-16, Alternative 6, 8,000 unit Alternative Statistical Summary).
8.0-64 Newhall Ruch Spec* Plan heft E!R
July 1996
� •-� •ice._ ---� - ��
�NEW�IALL, NCH.
Newhall Ranch Company _
L E G E N D
aESTATE RESMMM
LOW RESVENnU
"xw-uSE
OPEN AREA
® ROADS
LAAO USE OVERLAYS L°OTEMTAL LOCATMSJ.
® WATER RECLAMATION FLAW
® GOLF COEMSE
►PACT BC81C8 NC
uyen d1�^�
100 •CRF$ \OO MA6 ��
UW. UNIT ALTF.RNATNE FIGURE 8.0.4
ALTERNATIVE 6
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Site Specific Plan Altemativa - Alternative 6
A Mixed -Use center in Potrero Canyon would allow for 600 dwelling units and approximately 0.5
million square feet of Commercial uses to serve the 8,000 -unit community. A golf course in lower Potrero
Canyon is also proposed as part of Alternative 6.
Table 8.0-16
Alternative 6
Gross Dwelling;,,, 1 Square
Land Uses Acrea. Unify .Fnn}ans
Residential:
Estates
Low/Golf Course
Low
Low Medium
Medium
Val
Mixed -Use and
Non -Residential:
Mixed Usel
Commercial
Business Park
Package wastewater Treatment
Plant
3,019
2,714
0
295
4,336
0
1,210
350
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Subtotal 4,535
7,400
0
100 600 540,000
0 0 0
0 0 0
11 0 0
Visitor -Serving 0 0 0
Subtotal 100 600 540,000
Major Open Areas: 71328 0 0
Totals 11,963 8,000 540,000
Source. FORMA (November 1995).
IMixed uses may include Commercial and Residential uses.
The applicant has indicated that, if the Specific Plan is not implemented as proposed and Alternative
6 is implemented instead, the following would result:
• neither the River Corridor (813 acres) nor the High Country (3,949.9 acres) would be preserved as
Special Management Areas available for public use;
• cattle grazing would continue in both the River Corridor and High Country;
• no trails would be constructed on the Specific Plan site;
• no restrictions would be placed on the use of the River Corridor;
• the conservation of the Asistencia (San Fernando Mission Annex) site would occur;
• no Metrolink rail right-of-way would be reserved through the site;
• no park-and-ride lot/Metrolink station site along SR -126 would be available on the site;
• no fire station would be constructed off Chiquito Canyon Road near the community of Val Verde,
• no recreational lake would be available for public use; and
• much less tax revenue would be generated on the site.
8.0-66 Netahall Ranch Spec f' is PW DtIft EIR
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On-SiteSpecific Plan Alte tiae-Alternative6
Furthermore, a package water reclamation plant would be constructed on the site, but no use of
reclaimed water would amu. Rather, treated wastewater would be disposed of in the Santa Clara
River. As a result of this alternative, on-site population would be reduced from 68,524 to 24,886.
The following discussion compares the environmental impacts of Alternative 6 to those of the Specific
Plan.
(a) Geotechnical and Soil Resources
The development footprint for Alternative 6 would be smaller than that of the Specific Plan, thereby
requiring less site grading. In addition, because a proportionately lesser amount of development would
spread out over the development footprint.under Alternative 6, less grading relative to the preparation
of individual parcels would be required. Consequently, from a geotechnical standpoint, Alternative 6
would be environmentally superior to the Specific Plan.
(b) Flood
Urban runoff.that would be generated under Alternative 6 would be conveyed and discharged into the
Santa Clara River. Like the Specific Plan, it is expected that implementation of Alternative 6 would
slightly reduce runoff quantities from the Specific. Plan site from current runoff conditions by reducing
the amount of debris materials in the runoff. However, because the Specific Plan would have more
developed area than Alternative 6, the amount of debris in the runoff from the Specific Plan site would
be greater under Alternative 6 than under the. Specific Plan and, therefore, so would total runoff
quantities. Thebenefitof Alternative 6 over the Specific Plan, however, is that no grading and no
development would oma within the 50 -year Capital Flood Plain of the Santa Clara River. Because
River hydraulics through the site. would be minimally altered, the level of impact of Alternative 6 on
the River would be less than under the Specific Plan. Consequently, Alternative .6 is superior to the
Specific Plan.
With respect to runoff quality, development under Alternative 6 would be required to comply with the
same Regional Water Quality Control Board standards as the Specific Plan and no environmentally
superior alternative with respect to runoff quality can be identified.
8.0-67 Newhall Ranch Spmfic Plan W E12Z
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Site Spedfie Plan Alte.natire - Alternative 6
(c) Traffic/Access
Implementation of Alternative 6 would result in a decrease in trips. Specifically, average daily trip
generation an the Specific Plan site would decrease from 387,000 trips to 98,457 trips (a 74.6 percent
decrease). Alternative 6 would decrease traffic impacts on local roadways, would require fewer
roadway improvements off site than the Specific Plan, and would be environmentally superior to the
Specific Plan with respect to traffic/access impacts.
(d) Noise
With a reduction in the amount of development on the site and associated trip reduction, there would be
a reduction in noise impacts on and in the vicinity of the site. The analysis presented in this EIR
determined that only one off-site location within the vicinity of the Specific Plan site - the Travel
Village RV Park - would be significantly impacted by Specific Plan -generated noise. A reduction in
Specific Plan traffic volumes of approximately 74.6 percent would reduce the . Specific Plan's noise
level increases to the point that the increase in noise levels at the Travel Village RV Park would not
exceed the off-site mobile source thresholds of significance. Therefore, Alternative 6 would reduce a 11
off-site noise impacts to -less than significant levels.and would be environmentally superior to the
Specific Plan with respect to noise impacts.
(e) Air Quality
Because less- on-site grading would occur under Alternative 6, the total amount of grading and
construction -related air quality impacts would be less than those of the Specific Plan. In addition,
Alternative 6 would generate less- traffic than the Specific Plan. The effect of this reduction in
building space and vehicle trips on air emissions is provided below.
-
Emissions
*s 'Emis9tons lltPounds Der D3V -
SO PM
Proposed Specific Plan
17575.7
, 835.6
3,015.6
315.9
43,185.6
8,000 Unit Alternative
6,133.3
278.0
916.4
95.2
13,530.1
Recommended SCAQMDntresholds
550.0
55.0
55.0
150.0
150.0
Source., Impact Sciences, Inc.
8.0-68 Newhall Ranch Specific Plan Dmf! EIR
July I996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Site Specific Plan Alternative - Alternative 6
As shown, Alternative 6 would generate fewer air emissions than the Specific Plan. Therefore, it
would be environmentally superior to the Specific Plan with respect to air quality. The emissions
generated by Alternative 6 would, however, exceed the thresholds recommended by the SCAQMD for
all pollutants except SO„, and, as with the Specific Plan, would be considered significant.
(f) Biota
With the exception of the water reclamation plant, development under Alternative 6 would not oma
within designated SEAS 20 and 23. Given that a substantially lesser amount of grading and its
associated ground and habitat disturbance would occur, and given that there would be a substantial
reduction in site population with Alternative 6, the biological impact of Alternative6 would be less
than that of the Specific Plan. However, grazing activities would continue with Alternative 6 both in
the High Country and in the River Corridor. Also, the applicant has indicated that the Open Areas of
the Specific Plan site, including the High Country and the River Corridor Special Management Areas,
would not be dedicated to the public but would remain in private ownership with no provision for public
access. From a biological standpoint, the reduction in grading and on-site population under Alternative
6 environmentally outweighs (is better than) the loss to the public of the High Country and River
Corridor Special Management Areas. Consequently, Alternative 6 is biologically superior to the
Specific Plan. However, the biological impacts of Alternative 6 would still be significant.
(g) Visual Qualities
Because the basis for Alternative 6 design is to be visually sensitive, no development would occur
between the Santa Mara River Corridor and SR -126, and development areas south of the River would
be limited to the Upper and Potrero Canyon Valley, Long Canyon, and reduced areas of the Grapevine
and Airport Mesa areas (see Figure 8.0-4, Alternative 6, 8,000 Unit Alternative).. As a result, there
would be significantly fewer visual impacts associated with Alternative 6 than there would be if the
site developed as proposed. Alternative 6 was analyzed as follows based on the viewing location
information provided in Section 4.7, Visual Qualities:
1. Viewing Location 1(west of the site in Ventura County, along SR -126 looking east)
A package water reclamation plant would be constructed under Alternative 6, and could, therefore, be
visible under this alternative. Some Low Residential housing located along Upper Potrero Canyon may
be visible in the mid -ground of this viewshed; however, due to the limited extent to which it may be
visible, the housing may not even be noticed by eastbound travelers along SR -126.
8.0-69 Nmhall Ranch Specafic Plan DnJt FIR
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Site Specific Plan Alternative - Alternative 6
2. Viewing Locations 2 and 3 (on site, along SR -126 looking south)
Due to intervening topography and because development would oars m higher elevations of the site
than the viewing location, much less development would be visible from Viewing Locations 2 and 3
than under the Specific Plan. Development occurring north of SR -126 would be reduced to Estate
Residential development, much more compatible with the visually rural character of the Santa Clara
River Valley. South of the; River, .any development that might be visible would also be Estate
Residential and would be well removed from a distance standpoint.
3. Viewing Location 4 (at the northern site boundary an Chiquito Canyon Road looking
south)
Estate Residential housing along Chiquito Canyon Road would be visible from this viewing location
compared to the Medium Residential housing and Business Park that would be visible. under the
Specific Plan In addition, the Estate and Low Residential housing m the mesas south of the River
would also be visible in the distance. The amount and intensity of development visible from this
viewing location would be considerably less than under the Specific Plan.
4. Viewing Location 5 (on site, along SR -126 on the west side of Castaic Creek looking
south)
Estate Residential development would ooas an the Mesas under Alternative 6 compared to the Low,
Low -Medium, and Medium Residential development that would occur under the Specific Plan The
Estate units would be visible in the distance from Viewing Location 5, however, because these units
would be constructed on the mesas on approximately one -acre parcels, the visual effect of these units an
the mesas from Viewing Location 5 would be significantly minimized.
5. Viewing Location 6 (off site, generally from the SR -12611-5 Interchange looking
southwest toward site)
Estate Residential development would occupy the northeastemmost comer of the Specific Plan site
that is currently for Mixed -Uses. Unlike the Mixed -Use development, the Estate Residential units
would be setback from the property boundary, making it unlikely that any of the units would be visible
from Viewing Location 6. If any units are visible from this location, they would be seen at an intensity
that would be substantially less than the Mixed -Use development would be seen under the Specific
Plan.
8A-70 Nemhali Ranch Spemfic Plan Dmft EM
July I996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Site Specific Pian Alt~ive - Altmative 6
6. Viewing Locations 7, 8, and 9 (off site, generally from Interstate 5 and points east,
looking west and southwest toward site)
There is a greater possibility for the Estate units in the northeasternmost comer of the Specific Plan
site to be seen from Viewing Locations 7, 8, and 9 simply because the viewing locations are either at the
same or at higher elevations than the units would be, or because the locations offer a more panoramic
view of the site, affording greater possibilities for observing development. However, the intensity of
development that would be seen from Viewing Locations 7, 8, and 9 would be considerably less than
what would be seen under the Specific Plan.
7. Viewing Location 10 (off site, from the Rim of the Valley Trail, looking north toward
the site)
Views from the Rim of the Valley trail would be generally the same visually under Alternative 6 as
they would be under the Specific Plan, because any reductions in development would be so slight in
appearance (given the distance between the trail and the development area) as to be visually
imperceptible.
In conclusion, development on the site under Alternative 6 would still be visible from most of the
Viewing Locations, but due to the substantially less intensive nature of the development and the fact
that it would be setback from the River bluffs, the visual impact of Alternative 6 would be
substantially less than that of the Specific Plan, making Alternative 6 superior with respect to visual
qualities.
(h) Cultural/Paleontological Resources
Because less ground disturbance would occur under Alternative 6, potential impacts to cultural and
paleontological resources on the Specific Plan site would be less under Alternative 6 than if the Specific
Plan were to develop as proposed. Therefore, Alternative 6 is environmentally superior with respect to
cultural resources.
(f) Wastewater Disposal
Wastewater generated under Alternative 6 would likely be treated by a package water reclamation
plant. Wastewater generation for Alternative 6 would be 2.25 million gallons per day (mgd), compared
to the 5.8 to 7.7 mgd that the Specific Plan would generate. Although 2.25 mgd of wastewater is
substantially less than 5.8 to 7.7 mgd, the Specific Plan includes a water reclamation plant to treat al l
8.0-71 Newhall Ranch Sprctfic Plan Daft rdR
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Site Specific Plan Alternative - Alternative 6
of its wastewater on site with the reclaimed water being used to irrigate Open Areas on the site.
Conversely, the package water reclamation plant under Alternative 6 would dispose of the treated
wastewater into the Santa Clara River. This precludes the use of the reclaimed wastewater for
irrigation. Because both the Specific Plan and Alternative 6 would to treat all wastewater generated
by the respective developments an site, the two are considered equal with respect to wastewater
treatment.
(j) Water Resources
Water demand for Alternative 6 would be 5,637 acre-feet per year for both potable and irrigation uses.
Since no reclaimed water would be available from on-site uses to meet Alternative 6's irrigation needs,
all 5,637 acre-feet of this water would have to come from potable water supplies. However, compared
to the 12,082 to 13,320 acre-feet per of water that the Specific Plan would require from potable water
supplies (19,345 acre-feet minus 6,025 to 7,263 acre-feet of reclaimed water), water demand for these
supplies under Alternative 6 would be substantially less. Because this alternative would consume less
water from potable water resources than the Specific Plan, it would be environmentally superior to the
Specific Plan with respect to impacts on potable water resources.
(k) Education
Alternative 6 would generate 4,773 students as compared to the 10,074 students that would be generated
by the -Specific Plan. Given this reduction in student generation, Alternative 6 is environmentally
superior to the Specific Plan with respect to school impacts.
(1) Natural Gas/Electricity
Implementation of both the Specific Plan and Alternative 6 would require the use and expenditure of
nonrenewable petroleum resources. Alternative 6 would oonsimte substantially less petroleum resources
than the Specific Plan, a comparison of annual energy consumption between the Specific Plan and
Alternative 6 is provided below in Table 8.0-17, Alternative 6, Electricity and Natural Gas Demand.
8.0-72 Newhall Ranch Sped fic Plan Drat! M
July 1996
8.0 ProjectAlternatiaes
I On-SiteSpeelfio Plan Altenmtive-Attemative 6
Table 8.0-17
Alternative 6
-"
Proposed Specific
Plan Demand Alternative Demand
Electricity Demand
(kWh/year)
Natural Gas Demand
233.2 million 64.7 million
(cubic feet/year)
1,747.3 million 635.9 million
Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. (November 1995).
See Appendix 8.0 for detailed energy consumption calculations for Alternative 6.
Although these energy resources are commercially available, Alternative 6 would consume
substantially less petroleum-based energy resources than the Specific Plan and would be
environmentally superior to the Specific Plan.
(m) Police Services
Because less development would occur on the site under Alternative 6 and a smaller on-site population
would result, it is expected that Alternative 6 would have less of an impact on the Sheriff's
Department than the Specific Plan. For the same reasons, Alternative 6 would also have smaller
demands for CHP and emergency services in the area of the Specific Plan site. As a result, Alternative
6 would be environmentally superior to the Specific Plan with respect to police services.
(n) Fire Services and Hazards
Because, Alternative 6 would result in less development and a smaller population on the Specific Plan
site than would ooaa under the Specific Plan, there would be fewer Fire Department calls to the site
than under the Specific Plan. Therefore, with respect to providing fire services to the Specific Plan
site, Alternative 6 is environmentally superior to the Specific Plan.
(o) Environmental Safety `
As discussed in Section 4S, Environmental Safety, potential impacts may result m the Specific Plan
site if development occurs in the following locations:
• adjacent to historic and continuing oil and natural gas operations,
• in close proximity to the Southern California Edison electrical transmission lines,
8.0-73 NmhrX Ranch Specific Plan Dm)i ETR
July I996
8.0 Project Alternatives
I Ort -Site Specific Plan Alternative - Alternative 6
• in close proximity to the Southern California Gas Company high pressure gas lines,
• adjacent to State Route 126, upon which hazardous wastes are transported,
• in close proximity to Chiquito Canyon Landfill,
• within the Castaic Lake dam inundation area, and
• adjacent to on-going agricultural operations.
The safety conditions under which Alternative 6 would be developed would be similar to those with
development of the Specific Plan. The primary difference between development of Alternative 6 would
be a substantial reduction in site population, which results in substantially less exposure to potential
hazards, as unlikely as their occurrence might be. For this reason, Alternative 6 is superior
environmentally to the Specific Plan with respect to environmental safety.
(p) Libraries
Based on County Library planning standards of 0.35 square feet of library facilities per capita and 2.0
books per capita, the Specific Plan would require a total of 23,983 square feet of library facilities with
137,084 additional volumes for the library system's collection. In comparison, development under
Alternative 6 would require 8,710 square feet of library facilities and 49,772 volumes. Development
under Alternative 6 would have less of an impact on County Library facilities than would the Specific
Plan and would be environmentally superior to the Specific Plan.
(q) Parks, Recreation and Trails
Under County (and Quimby Act) requirements, development of the Specific Plan would require the
applicant to provide 206 dedicated acres of local parkland; the Specific Plan as proposed would exceed
this requirement, by a total of 6,175 acres for parks, recreation, and Open Area, including Neighborhood
and Community Parks, a 15 -acre lake, an 18 -hole golf course, trails, the River Corridor and High
Country SMAS, and other Open Area (see Section 4.20, Parks, Recreation and Trails for a full discussion
on this topic). Per County requirements, development under Alternative 6 would require dedication of a
total of 74.7 acres for parkland. The applicant has indicated that neither the River Corridor nor the
High Country would be dedicated to public use as part of Alternative 6. Consequently, because the
Specific Plan would provide recreational land in excess of what would be required.under the County
requirement and Alternative 6 would not, the Specific Plan would be environmentally . superior to
Alternative 6.
8.0-74 Newhall Ranch Spec fic Plan Draft M
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Site Specific Plan Alternative -Altematice 6
fr) Population, Housing and Employment
1. Population
Development of Newhall Ranch wouldresult in a resident population of 68,542 at buildout. This
population is within SCAG's 1994 growth projections for the area, but not the County's 1990 projections
(see Section 4.21, Population, Housing and Employment for further discussion). Alternative 6 would
result in 24,886 persons on the Specific Plan site (see Appendix 8.0 for population calculations). This
population is also well within SCAG's 1994 growth projections for the site's census tracts, but exceeds
the County's 1990 projections for the site.
2. Housing
The Newhall Ranch community would include approximately 24,680 dwelling units plus an additional
538 second units, including a wide range of Residential designations designed to allow for a variety of
product types. These housing units are consistent with SCAG's recently adopted (1994) projections for
the region, but not the County's 1990 projections.
Residential development under Alternative 6 would provide for 7,400 single family Residential units
and 600 multi -family units. This development is well within SCAG's growth forecast for the site's
census tracts, but not the County's projections for the site. However, Alternative 6 would not provide
the wide range of housing types that the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan would provide.
3. Employment
Development of Newhall Ranch would result in an employment population of 19,323. Development
consistent with Alternative 6 would generate 1,824 on-site employment opportunities. The Specific
Plan's estimated employment exceeds SCAG's employment forecast for 2015 for the two census tracts
that overlie the Specific Plan site, as well as the County's projection for the site. The Santa Clarita
Valley has been identified by SCAG as an area in need of additional employment opportunities. Under
Alternative 6, the jobs to housing ratio would be reduced from 0.78 to 0.29, which is more housing rich
and jobs poor than the Specific Plan. Furthermore, the Specific Plan provides 17,499 more jabs than
Alternative 6. Consequently, from an employment standpoint, the Specific Plan is superior to
Alternative 6.
8.0-75 N=&U Ranch Specific Plan Dmft EIR
July I996
8.0 Project Alternatives
3. On -Site Specific Place Alternative-Altemative 6
As with the Specific Plan, the population, housing and employment generated by Alternative 6 do not
fall within the County's 1990 projections. However, SCAG projects much more growth in this area than
does the County. As does the Specific Plan, Alternative 6 requires a General Plan Amendment. Given
the differences between County projections and SCAG projections, the dates of those projections (1990
and 1994, respectively), and the different population and housing implications resulting from each, an
environmental preference with respect to population and housing can not necessarily be concluded.
(s) Solid Waste Disposal
At buildout, the Specific Plan would generate approximately 53,524 tons of solid waste per year. In
comparison, Alternative 6 would generate 18,155 tons of solid waste annually [see Table 8.0-18,
Alternative 6, Daily Solid Waste Generation (No Recycling)]. Given the smaller solid waste
generation totals associated with Alternative 6, implementation of Alternative 6 would be
environmentally superior to the Specific Plan with respect to solid waste disposaL
Table 8.0-18
Alternative 6
Dail, Solid Waste Generation (No RecvclinQ)
Land Use Y
Unitsl %
'Total Waste
Generation#Factor Generation
(vounds/ddv)Z --(pounds/day) � -`'
Residential
S' a Family Detached
7,400 DU
11,18
82,718
Mu ti-Family/Attached
600 DU
6.41
3,847
Commercial Retail3
67,500 sq.ft.
0.01
888
Eating & Drinking Establ.
Food & Drug Stores
40,500 sq ft.
108,000
0.06
2,397
sq.ft.
0.04
4,261
Auto Dealer & Service Station
27,000 sq.ft.
0.03
755
Hotel & Motel
27,000 sq.ft.
0.03
784
Office
2700= sq.ft.
0.01
2,071
Trans., Comm., Utilities,
35,000 sq.ft.
0.04
1,515
Golf Courses
150 acres
1.10
164
Developed Park6
74.66 acres
1.10
82
Source., Impact Sciences, Inc. (January 1996).
Idu = dwelling unit; sq.ft. _ - square feet; TPY = tons per year.
2The solid waste generation rates are derived from the Ventura County Solid Waste Management Department's
Guidelines or the Preparation o/Environmental Assessments for Solid Waste Impacts. These factors do not reflect any
recycling actimtses on the part o t generator.
3Assumes a 50/50 split of Mixed Use between retail and office uses. Retail uses are assumed to be 25% general retail, 10%
auto dealer and service stations, 10% hotel/nrotel, 15% eat/n�q and drinking establishments, and 40% food and drug stores.
Industrial uses are assumed to be 50% Business Park and 56% manufacturing.
,Assumes 35,000 square feet of utilities facilities (same as Specific Plan).
6Assumes a 150 -acre golf course.
6Assumes alternative will meet County requirements of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 population.
8.0-76 Nmhall Ranch Spccific Plan Draft ruc
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
I On -Site Specific Ptah Alte tive . Alternative 6
M Agricultural Resources
Development of the site under Alternative 6 would permit development in areas of the site that are
designated as prime farmland and unique farmland (specifically, development would occur on prime
farmland north of SR -126 and west of Chiquito Canyon Road, north of Potrero Canyon just south of the
River, and in the Grapevine area, and on unique farmland located north of Potrero Canyon just south of
the River). No development is proposed on prime farmlands located within the 50 -Year Capital Flood
Plain of the Santa Clara River. As a result, development would occur on fewer acres of farmlands of
importance under Alternative 6 than would the Specific Plan.
In general, the conversion of prime agricultural land is irreversible and is, therefore, considered an
unavoidable significant impact. However, in light of the continuing trend by the County of Los Angeles
to convert cultivated lands to urban uses to accommodate growth, and the fact that the prime
agricultural land on the Specific Plan site is already impaired (i.e., relatively difficult and less
economical to farm) and is, therefore, generally of lower value than larger and better situated parcels
found to the west, the loss of agricultural productivity an prime agricultural land under such
dreumstances is not.considered a significant impact. Therefore, with respect to the loss of prime
agricultural land, Alternative 6 is environmentally superior to the Specific Plan With respect to loss
of agricultural productivity on the Specific Plan site, there is no environmentally superior alternative.
g. Conclusion
Because some of the environmental impacts of the Specific Plan would be avoided or minimized with
Alternative 6, it is environmentally superior to the Specific Plan However, Alternative 6 has been
rejected in favor of the Specific Plan because the applicant believes that Alternative 6 too narrowly
limits the range of housing opportunities provided and does not reflect the market conditions under
which the Specific Plan would be developed, and because many of the basic objectives of the Specific
Plan identified in the Project Description of this EIR (Section 1.0) would not be achieved: Specific
objectives not fully met or -impeded to some extent with Alternative 6 are listed below:
• Create a major new community with inter -related Villages that allows for residential, commercial
and industrial development, while preserving significant natural resouroes, important land forms
and open space.
• Avoid leapfrog development and accommodate projected regional growth in a location which is
adjacent to existing and planned infrastructure, urban services, transportation corridors, and major
employment centers.
• Cluster development within the site to preserve regionally significant natural resource areas,
sensitive habitat, and major land forms.
8.0-77 Newhall Ranch Specific Plan Draft EIR
July 1996
8.0 ProjectAlterttatives
3. On -Site Specific Plan Alternative - Altemative 6
• Arrange land uses to reduce vehicle miles traveled and energy consumption.
• Provide a complementary and supportive array of land uses which will enable development of a
community with homes, shopping, employment, schools, recreation, cultural and worship facilities,
public services, and open space.
• Organize development into Villages to create a unique identity and sense of community for each.
• Design Villages in which a variety of higher intensity residential and non-residential land uses
are located in proximity to each other and to major road corridors and transit stops.
• Establish land uses and development regulations which permit a wide range of housing densities,
types,.styles, prices, and tenancy (for sale and rental).
• Allow for the development of community services and amenities by the public and private sectors,
such as medical facilities, child care, colleges, worship facilities, cultural facilities, and
commercial recreation.
• Adopt development regulations which provide flexibility to respond to and adjust to changing
economic and market conditions over a long period of time.
• Adopt development regulations and guidelines which allow site, parking, and facility sharing and
other innovations which reduce the costs of providing public services.
• Design a mobility system which includes alternatives to automobile use.
• Facilitate public transit by reserving right-of-way for Metrolink line, space for a park and ride
and/or Metrolink station, and by providing bus pull -ins along highways.
• Establish a diverse system of pedestrian and bicycle trails, segregated from vehicle traffic, to serve
as an alternative to the automobile.
• Retain a major open space area which could act as a regional recreational park and an ecological
preserve.
• Provide for the recreational use of open space that is compatible with protection of significant
natural resources.
• Provide an extensive system of pedestrian, bicycle, and hiking trails within the Villages and
hiking trails in the High Country and other open areas.
• Preserve the Santa Clara River corridor and adjacent uplands containing significant natural
resources for their resource value, open space, and recreational use.
• Retain a major open space area and its natural vegetation as a wildlife or ecological preserve.
• Promote water conservation through design guidelines that encourage use of drought -tolerant and
native plants.
8.0-78 NmhaO Ranch SpecificPhm Draft M
July 3996
8.0 Project Alternatives
4. Off -Sits Specific Plan Altematixs
4. OFF-SITE SPECIFIC PLAN ALTERNATIVES
a. Methodology
The Newhall Ranch Specific Plan is being proposed to meet the. expected demands for increased
housing and employment opportunities in northern Los Angeles County. While it is conceivable that
large individual alternative sites to Newhall Ranch could be found and developed in order to meet
expected demands for growth, it is just as conceivable that this demand could be met by developing
many, much smaller parcels of land that are spread out over the area. Consequently, there could
literally be hundreds, if not thousands, of land parcels that could be developed in place of Newhall
Ranch. In fact, given the State-wide growth that is expected to occur as a result of internal population
increases and as a result of immigration to southern California from other states and countries, it is
possible that a need exists to develop all available parcels suitable for housing, including Newhall
Ranch and all alternative sites. For this reason, alternative sites may actually not be "alternative"
sites at all, rather, an argument can be made that there will be a need in the future to develop them all.
However, the CEQA Guideline require that "[t]he range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed
by 'rule of reason' that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a
reasoned choice." Further, the CEQA Guideline sz require that "... (projects with a regionally
significant impact should consider the regional context)..." The Newhall Ranch Specific Plan
certainly is a regionally significant project and, in light of the requirement of CEQA to present and
analyze a "range of alternatives," it seems reasonable to include possible alternative sites, as remote
and speculative as their replacing Newhall Ranch might be. '
A recent court case (Citizens of Goleta Valley: v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal.3d 553 (1990)) suggests
that it is reasonable to compare the impacts of a project located on an alternative site(s) if an
alternative site offers substantial environmental advantages over the project site, if developing m the
alternative site may be feasibly accomplished in a successful manner, considering economic,
environmental, social and technological factors, or if the size of the alternative site can accommodate
the Specific Plan. It also suggests that it is not reasonable to compare the impacts that a project would
have on an alternative site if that site is under multiple ownerships, if it is outside the Lead Agency's
planning jurisdiction, if the site has land use designations which are inconsistent with the proposed
development, or if it has poor access to urban services. In an effort to consider the regional context and to
not too narrowly limit the area where alternative sites might be located, a region -wide search for
alternative sites was undertaken as part of this EIR. While the criteria which are suggested by the
1 California Administrative Code, Title 15, Chapter 3, Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act,
amended January 1, 1995, Section 15126.
2 California Administrative Code, Title 15, Chapter 3, Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act,
amended January 1, 1995, Section 15126.
8.0-79 Newhall Ranch Specific Plan haft EIR
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
4. OJf--Site Specific Plan Alternatives
Goleta case for determining the use of another site for alternative analysis could have been used in this
analysis, most of those criteria were not used in order to ensure that broad a list of possible sites were
considered. For example, our analysis did not reject an alternative site because it happened to be in a
planning jurisdiction other than Los Angeles County.
A land broker and title company3 were used in order to identify potential sites with the only
parameters being the following: the sites had to be reasonably available for purchase, and they had to
be located within the very broad geographic region of Ventura, southern Kern, and central to northern
Los Angeles Counties. This search identified a total of twenty-three sites, each of which are indicated
in Table 8.0-19 below and are illustrated on Figure 8.0-5, Alternative Site Locations.
-Size
Site - Site Name-,: _ ` lacresl
A
Ritter Ranch
B
Hathaway Ranch
C
Santa Fe Development
D
Stratheam Ranch
E
Sloan Ranches
F
Stephen Blanchard
G
RIfSmith
H
Canad Lar=T
RaRanch
J
Adams Canyon
K
George Herst
Subtotal (sites E through K)'
L
Mariano/Lloyd
M
Ahmanson/Oxford
N
Temescal Ranch
O
Big Sky Ranch
P
Runkle Ranch
Q
Rancho SanMiguelito
R
San Emido Ranch
S
Ft. Tejon Ranch
T
Keene Ranch
U
Newhall Land (Ventura)
V
California Springs
W
Ormond Beach
11,000
6,195
1,296
3,165
4,326
1,907
3,691
5,374
'Sites E through F are being considered together as one parcel due to their location and
size. Individually, none o the sites are large enough to accommodate a project the size of
the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. However, because they are all very near to one another,
it is conceivable that they could be developed in a coordtnatedfashion.
3 Land Broker. Chaparral Land Company -.Title Company: Chicago Title.
8.0-80 Nrahalt Ranch specific Plan Dm/t Eat
July I996
BAKERS IELD
99
S
R® au.w wino.
' SB
.T. L----- T
• � J �r
L L 1N
i1 't •\ 6 '°
i L' \ • V
MI
J sw (\ A
>y
B u
N. ... «.a
E F G w�
H�I�J�K M
C
,. u O
Q 1. �,M w,. D SPECIFIC PLAN SITE
M.a 0'
.
VENTLR / . uoow+�
• P
�% aazCx iffi • m fla 2
34
9's§cayg ate' 18 wwae� w...0 :
M 27
1101� , 18 2
gj—
MM
u
�$mmaaw �mmsz arse a ^tea
xu tis wag M ¢
�«`�€° 4 a wxggC'er:Yk�..
M KEY
-� A Ritter Ranch J Adams Canyon Ranch S Ft. Tejon Ranch, a 7i0
�, B Hathaway Ranch K George Herst T Keene Ranch
C Santa Fe Development L MatianoUoyd U Newhall Land (Ventura)
, z`"r DStratheam Ranch M Ahmanson/Oxford V California Springs % t
mm ;� E Sloan Ranches N Temescal Ranch WOrmond Beach s '
f F Stephen Blanchard O Big Sky Ranch + a
Jlfl
GRH Smith P Runkle Ranch '� }a
` - H Canada Iargo O Rancho San Kguelito VM,s 1°r
1 Hawmond Canyon R San Fmido Ranch t
�® za
g�s&.+�,gs$`u;a "¢r"
5`.g-
a
Ya, wq�� S NY'P
3 ,a4us .MIR{�SWHIM,
x'dp I � T�''.. 'a�anisaT"UMP a.A %GA P"MFI
avunet: Impact Sciences, Inc., Feb. 1996.
kCNEWHALL%NCH. FIGURE 8.0-5
"°W""t Ranch Company ALTERNATIVE SITE LOCATIONS
8.0 Project Alternatives
4. Off -Site Specijie Plan Alumatines
Not all of the twenty-three sites may be suitable for a comparative analysis. For example, it is
reasonable to believe that some of the sites (1) may be toosmall to accommodate the amount of
development proposed as part of the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan (i.e., a minimum of approximately
4,500 acres of flatter developable land would be required), -(2) they might be outside the same market
and planning area the Specific Plan is in, (3) they may be in a isolated location which could not be
efficiently connected with existing urban infrastructure, or (4) they may already have been recently
entitled for urban development and are being actively planned for development by the present owner or
are under construction. The Specific Plan site's market and planning area is bawd on the north by
Pyramid Lake, on the west by eastern Ventura County (including areas generally east of the Cities of
Fillmore, Moorpark, and Camarillo), on the south by the central and northern portions of the City of
Los Angeles, and on the east by the southwestern Antelope Valley. The applicant considers -this • to be
its competitive market area, which is under the economic influences of Los Angeles. In order to focus the
list of sites to a reasonable set, consideration was then given to the aforementioned criteria (in no
particular order). The information presented below explains why a site was or was not considered a
reasonable site for comparative analysis.
(1) Site A - Ritter Ranch
Jurisdiction: City of Palmdale, Los Angeles County
Site Description: This site is located in the Antelope Valley approximately 26 miles east of the
Newhall Ranch Specific Plan site, and is approximately 11,000 acres in size. ,
Why Selected or Rejected: This site was rejected from further consideration because it is already
entitled for urban development and it is currently under development by the present owner.
(2) Site B - Hathaway Ranch
Jurisdiction: Los Angeles County
Site Description: This site is generally- located between Lake Piru on the west and Interstate 5 on the
east, approximately 4 miles north of the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan site, and is approximately 6,195
acres in size.
Why Selected or Rejected: This site is considered a reasonable alternative site because it is within the
same market area as the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan.
8.0-82 Nemhau Ranch Spcdfic Plan Dmft eIR
July I996
8.0 Project Alternatives
4. Off --Site Specific Plan Altrm tires
(3) Site C - Santa Fe Development
Jurisdiction: City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County
Site Description: This site is located in the Santa Clarita Valley between Sand Canyon and Placerita
Canyon, approximately 10 miles east of the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan site, and is approximately
1,296 acres in size.
Why Selected or Rejected: This site was rejected from further consideration because it is not large
enough to accommodate a project the size of the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan.
(4) Site D - Stratheam Ranch
Jurisdiction: City of Moorpark, Ventura County
Site Description: This site is located in the City of Moorpark's sphere of influence approximately 10
miles southwest of the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan site, and is approximately 3,165 acres in size.
Why Selected or Rejected: This site was rejected fmm further consideration because approximately
1,500 acres of it is in terrain that is not developable due to steepness, leaving approximately 1,700 acres
available for development. Furthermore, as part of an ongoing environmental review being conducted
by the City of Moorpark, approximately 3,400 dwelling units are already being proposed for this site.
Because the developable portions of this site cannot accommodate a project the size of the Newhall
Ranch Specific Plan, and because this site is already proposed for urban development by its landowner,
it was rejected from further consideration.
(5) Site E - Sloan Ranches
Site F - Stephen Blanchard
Site G - RH Smith _
Site H - Canada Largo
Site I - Hammond Canyon
Site J - Adams Canyon Ranch
Site K - George Henst
8.0-83 Newhall Ranch Specific Plan Dmft P1R
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
4. Off -Site Specific Plan Alternatives
Jurisdiction: City of Santa Paula, Ventura County
Site Description: These sites are located within and near the City of Santa Paula approximately 30
miles west of the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan site, and are approximately 23,714 acres in size when
totaled together. These sites are being considered together due to their location and . size.
Individually, none of the sites are large enough to accommodate a project the size of the Newhall
Ranch Specific Plan. However, because they are all very near to one another, it is conceivable that
they could be developed in a coordinated fashion.
Why Selected or Rejected: This group of sites was rejected from further consideration for the following
reasons. While. large enough to accommodate a project the size of the -Newhall Ranch Specific Plan,
this group of sites is outside the Specific Plan's market and planning area. These sites are clearly
within the planning jurisdiction of Ventura County or the City of Santa Paula.
(6)Site L - Mariano/Lloyd
Jurisdiction: Ventura County
Site Description: This site is located west of the City of Santa Paula approximately 35 miles west of
the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan site, and is approximately 5,419 acres in size.
Why Selected or Rejected: This site was rejected from further consideration because it is outside the
Specific Plan's market and planning area. This site is clearly within the planning jurisdiction of
Ventura County.
(7) Site M - Ahmanson/oxford
jurisdiction: Ventura County
Site Description: This site is located north of the City of Calabasas approximately 10 miles south of
the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan site, and is approximately 5,495 acres in size.
Why Selected or Rejected: This site was rejected from further consideration because it is already
entitled for urban development, its owner is in the process of building out the site pursuant to the
Ahmanson Specific Plan
8.0-84 N=W1 Ranch Specific Plat Dmf! EM
July I996
8.0 ProjectAlternatiaes
4_Off-Site Specific Plan Alternatives
(8) Site N - Temescal Ranch
Jurisdiction: Ventura County
Site Description: This site is located north of the community of Piru approximately 4 miles northwest
of the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan site, and is approximately 10,300 acres in size.
Why Selected or Rejected: This site is considered a reasonable alternative site because it is in the same
market and planning area as the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan, and is large enough to accommodate a
project the size of the Specific Plan.
(9) Site O - Big Sky Ranch
Jurisdiction: City of Simi Valley, Ventura County
Site Description: This site is located north of State Route 118 (the Ronald Reagan Freeway) in the City
of Simi Valley approximately 6 miles southwest of the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan site, and is
approximately 5,200 acres in size.
Why Selected or Rejected: This site was rejected from further consideration because it is already
entitled for urban development and it is being actively planned for development by the present owner.
(10) Site P - Runkle Ranch
Jurisdiction: Ventura County
Site Description: This site is located east of the City of Simi Valley approximately 5 miles south of
the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan site, and is approximately 3,580 acres in size.
Why Selected or Rejected: This site was rejected from further consideration because a portion of it is
constrained by steep topography which renders that portion of the site undevelopable. Consequently,
this site is not large enough to accommodate a project the size of the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan.
8.0-85 N=&U Ranch Sprnfic Phan Drat EIA
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
4. Off -Site Specific Ptan Altematives
(11) Site Q - Rancho San Miguelito
Jurisdiction: Ventura County
Site Description: This site is located south of Lake Casitas and west of State Route 33, approximately
40 miles west of the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan site, and is approximately 8,030 acres in size.
Why Selected or Rejected: This site was rejected from further consideration because it is outside the
Specific Plan's market and planning area. This site is dearly within the planning jurisdiction of
Ventura County.
(12) Site R - San Emido Ranch
Jurisdiction: Kern County
Site Description: This site is located south of the City of Bakersfield near Wheeler Ridge,
approximately 50 miles_ northwest of the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan site, and is approximately
119,000 acres in size.
Why .Selected or Rejected: This site was rejected from further consideration because it is already
entitled for urban development and is outside the Specific Plan's market and planning area. This site
is dearly within the planning jurisdiction of Kern County. I
(13) SiteS - Ft. Tejon Ranch
Jurisdiction: Kem and Los Angeles Counties
Site Description: This site is located north of the community of Gorman, approximately 30 miles north
of the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan site, and is approximately 250,000 acres in size.
Why Selected or Rejected:. This site was rejected from further consideration because it is outside the
Specific Plan site's market and planning area. (it is located in an isolated area, which is at least 35
miles from the nearest urban land).
8.0-86 NemhaO Manch Spedfic Plan Draft EIR
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
4. Off -Site Spectfie Pian Alternatives
(14) Site T - Keene Ranch
Jurisdiction: Kern County
Site Description: This site is located in the Tehachepi Mountains, approximately 80 miles northeast of
the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan site, and is approximately 6,000 acres in size.
Why Selected or Rejected: This site was rejected from further consideration because it is outside the
Specific Plan site's market and planning area. This site is clearly within the planning jurisdiction of
Kern County.
(15) Site U- Newhall Land and Farming Company (Ventura County site)
jurisdiction: Ventura County
Site Description: This site is located .directly adjacent to the western edge of the Newhall Ranch
Specific Plan site, and is approximately 15,000 acres in size.
Why Selected or Rejected: This site is a reasonable alternative site and it is already owned by The
Newhall Land and Farming Company.
(16) Site V - California Springs
jurisdiction: Los Angeles County
Site Description: This site is located in northern Los Angeles County approximately 25 miles northeast
of the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan site, and is approximately 8,000 acres in size.
Why Selected or Rejected: This site was rejected from further consideration because it is outside the
Specific Plan site's market and planning area (it is located in an isolated area, which at least 25 miles
from the nearest urban land).
8.0-87 NemhaR Rq ch Sperfm Plan Daft EiR
July 7996
8.0 Project Alternatives
4. Off -Site Specific Plan Altcm Ores
(17) Site W- Ormond Beach
Jurisdiction: City of Oxnard, Ventura County
Site Description: This site is located in the City of Oxnard approximately 35 miles southwest of the
Newhall Ranch Specific Plan site, and is approximately 1,200 acres in size.
Why Selected or Rejected: This site was rejected from further consideration because it is not large
enough to accommodate a project the size of the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan and it is outside the
Specific Plan site's market and planning area. This site is clearly within the planning jurisdiction of
the City of Oxnard.
Of the twenty-three sites considered, three were found to be reasonably comparable to the Newhall
Ranch Specific Pian site in terms of size, topography, and location in relation to the Los Angeles
planning and market area. The three sites are the Hathaway Ranch, the Temescal Ranch, and The
Newhall Land and Farming Company's Ventura County holdings, the locations . of, which are
illustrated on Figure 8.0-5, Alternative Site Locations. Provided below is an evaluation of the
environmental impacts of developing these alternative sites compared to developing the Newhall
Ranch Specific Plan site. For each of the alternative sites, it is presumed that each is large enough to
accommodate a project the size of the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan, and that it is physically possible
to create the same Village concept in approximately the same spatial arrangement being proposed for
the Newhall Ranch site.
b. Site 1- Hathaway Ranch
Hathaway Ranch is approximately 6,195 acres in size, and is located in unincorporated Los Angeles
County, generally between the Ventura County line on the west and Interstate 5 on the east, and Hasley
Canyon on the south and the Angeles National Forest on the north. The Hathaway Ranch is
approximately 5 miles. north of Newhall Ranch. Topography on the site is highly variable, with
elevations ranging from approximately 1,100 feet above mean sea level to in excess of 2,500 above mean
sea level, very little flat land exists on this site. Historic uses of the site include cattle grazing, oil and
natural gas operations and mineral resource mining. As the site is undeveloped, m vehicular access is
available to this site via improved roadways and no water or wastewater lines serve the site. The
eastern portion of the site is within the Castaic Lake Water Agency service area.
8.0-88 Nmhall Ranch Specific Man Dmft E1R
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
4. Off -Site Specific Plan Alternatives
The impact of developing the land uses proposed by the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan on the
Hathaway Ranch Alternative site versus the Newhall Ranch site is described below. Table 8.0-20,
Off -Site Alternative Site Impact Comparison Matrix, provides a matrix which compares, from an
impact standpoint, development on the Specific Plan site with a similar level of development on the
three alternative sites.
(1) Geological Resources
From an exposure to seismic events standpoint, the impact of developing the Hathaway Ranch
Alternative site would be similar to the Specific Plan site. Both sites are affected by faulting and both
must mitigate potential landslide hazards. However, from a grading standpoint, impacts on the
Hathaway Ranch Alternative site would be greater than on the Specific Plan site; more earthwork
would be required to create land level enough to accommodate urban development. This is because the
terrain on the Hathaway Ranch is steeper and more varied than on the portions of the Specific Plan
site that are proposed for development. Thus, it is concluded that the Specific Plan is environmentally
superior to the Hathaway Ranch Alternative with respect to geologic issues.
(2) Flood
The Hathaway Ranch Alternative site is not located on the Santa Clara River. Consequently, the
same degree of River improvements needed as a result of the Specific Plan would not be needed if the
Specific Plan were moved to the Hathaway Ranch Alternative site. However, both alternatives
would convert open land to an urban condition with surfaces impervious to water. It is expected that
development of the Hathaway Ranch. Alternative site would necessitate similar types of drainage
improvements in upland areas in order to preclude downstream impacts. Thus, it is concluded that the
Hathaway Ranch Alternative is environmentally superior to the Specific Plan with respect to flood
issues.
(3) Biota
Because the Hathaway Ranch Alternative site does contain habitat types considered sensitive,
biological impacts related to development would be less than those associated with developing the
Specific Plan site. This is due to the fact that the Hathaway Ranch Alternative site is not within a
Significant Ecological Area (SEA), is not within the critical habitat of the endangered least Bell's
vireo, and does not have habitat suitable for the unarmored threespine stickleback fish, which is also
8.0-89 Nemhall Punch Spccific Plen Draft EiR
July 1996
8.0 ProjectAltematiaes
4. Off -Site Specific Plan Altematines
Table 8.0 -20, Off -Site Alternative Impact Comparison Matrix
ON ... SITE ALTERNATIVES OFF-SITE
ALTERNATIVES
KEY (Laval of impact in Compadaon In Peo)ea Sde)
• Aaamaaw PmdxN Graeter L" oI Imp&a
C Allemeaw PMdwaa Equal Laval a Impaa
C• Akema4w PraducM Lesser Leval a Impact
N/A Na App5raMeb Aaama9w
8.0-90 Newhall Ranch SpeafC Plan Draft FIR
July 1.996
x
U
� x
Z
f
ENVIRONMENTAL
TOPIC
GEOTECHNICAL AND SOIL RESOURCES
(frvdind
;'`---::
'"
"
:r
s z
•
nquvemrnrl
+�
k
GEOTECHNICAL AND SOIL RESOURCES
[npstuu roleianie
ataviry)
Mbp
y ..
FLOOD
+^ ?�
an �)
' €
FLOOD
J..g
t.
}$
• " .
(wmerquaaryl
,!i
"P.,
C)
'
+
'�
_
<-•.
TRAFFlGCIRCULATION
(.hkk1N([f elr<a
( +
`� 4
M.. i;2�
a
•
e
•
.�}
M"
a$•�� :
THAFFlCJCIRCULA710N
(Eitmnremmnnns leJramvenWaenuavai(sDiaryJ
NIA$ A{ 4 NIA WA-
j
4
CI
s
•
NOISE
4I i e" a'�,
AIR QUALITY
*d a
xv °°se
xm3
� &aA�
Waea"-
� °3
•
"
.w
•
(reAif4 mi4f trmefkdl
a�I%'.�;
� ;s
.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
V&
-
!
C)
VISUAL DUALITIES
Ii
6&
='"
C )
CULTURNIPALEONTOLOGICAL
y
y
RESOURCES
ry ';
;'3
.
WASTE ATEi DISPOSAL
a
g
•
fr
G
WATER RESOURCES
T
*.t§
g
r
�">«:....
s
•
C.
EDUCATION
4 ,+'°
a rffj{
A
€�
•
W�..
O
NATURALGASELECiPoCrTV
a a
ga vel
.ae
•
-
m
•
FIREROLICE SERVICES
�s��
_
�' %�:,�¢
�'xes��'°
•
�. '
•
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
oll,
�* �.e
�
g'..
C
r
LIBRARIES
' PARNS, RECREATION ANOTHAILS
�
�
a y
� �` �
•
�`
C)
POPULATION AND HOUSING
s.
EMPLOYMENT
= $
r
SOLID WASTE »sPosa
�m
�'la
}
PRIME AGRICULTURAL LANDS
ytE3
CI
•
AGRICULTURAL PERPETUITY
ra
KEY (Laval of impact in Compadaon In Peo)ea Sde)
• Aaamaaw PmdxN Graeter L" oI Imp&a
C Allemeaw PMdwaa Equal Laval a Impaa
C• Akema4w PraducM Lesser Leval a Impact
N/A Na App5raMeb Aaama9w
8.0-90 Newhall Ranch SpeafC Plan Draft FIR
July 1.996
8.0 Project Alternatives
4. off --Site Specific Plan Alternatives
an endangered species. Biological impacts related to the general loss of habitat would be similar to
those associated with developing the Specific Plan site, but impacts to County -designated SEAS would
be less with the Hathaway Ranch Alternative site. Given this, it is concluded that the Hathaway
Ranch site is environmentally superior to the Specific Plan.
(4) Cultural/Paleontological Resources
The impact potential relating to cultural/paleontological resources would likely be greater on the
Hathaway Ranch Alternative site than on the Specific Plan site. This site, and upland sites like it,
have many middle period cultural resource sites (pre 500 AD). As discussed in Section 4.3, the Specific
Plan site has relatively few identified cultural/paleontological sites due to its historically dry
conditions. The Hathaway Ranch Alternative site also has the potential to yield paleontological
resources to a similar extent as the Specific Plan site. Given this, .the Specific Plan represents the
environmentally superior alternative with respect to cultural resources.
(5) Agricultural Resources
Due mainly to its distance from the Santa Clara River Valley, agriculturally, the Hathaway Ranch
Alternative site does not maintain the same quality of soil conditions as the Specific Plan site.
Specifically, this site contains no prime farmlands, no farmland of statewide or local importance, and
no unique farmlands (all soils are suited only to the grazing of livestock). Consequently, the impact on
agricultural resources would not be as great as would occur with development on the Specific Plan site.
Thus, this alternative is environmentally superior to the Specific Plan with respect to impacts upon
agricultural resources.
(6) Environmental Safety
Past and present uses of the Hathaway Ranch Alternative site (namely oil production, grazing and
some agriculture) are similar in nature to those of the Specific Plan site. Consequently, potential
environmental safety impacts relating to these uses would be similar to those of the Specific Plan site.
However, given its more remote location, it is expected that the Hathaway Ranch Alternative site
would not be as impacted by natural gas lines and electrical transmission lines, nor is it within the
inundation area of the Castaic Dam. For these reasons, environmental safety impacts would
potentially be less on the Hathaway Ranch Alternative site than on the Specific Plan site.
8.0-91 - NMMU Ranch Specific Punt DMft M
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
4. Off -Site Specific Plan Alternatives
(7) Traffic/Access
It is assumed that internal traffic patterns on the Hathaway Ranch Alternative site, and on each
alternative site for that matter, would operate the same as on the Specific Plan site. This presumes
that it is possible to create the same Village concept inapproximately the same spatial arrangement
being proposed for the Newhall Ranch site. Given this overall assumption, the primary difference
between developing on the Hathaway Ranch Alternative site and developing on. the Specific Plan site
is how vehicular traffic would move off the sites. In the case of the Hathaway Ranch Alternative
site, it is located at a greater distance from existing traffic infrastructure than is the Specific Plan site
and, therefore, suffers from a lack of vehicular access; the Hathaway Ranch Alternative site is not
served directly by a major State highway, and is much further removed from one of the State's major
north -south freeway corridors (I-5) than the Specific Plan site. Consequently,- the amount of
transportation infrastructure required to serve the Hathaway Ranch Alternative site would be
substantially greater than that needed to serve Newhall Ranch. If a connection with I-5 were to occur
with the Hathaway Ranch Alternative, it would occur north of SR -126. Consequently, potential
impacts to the I-5 interchanges at Magic Mountain Parkway and Valencia Boulevard could be avoided
by being transferred to northern locations. Furthermore, the Hathaway Ranch Alternative site would
not offer the future potential of direct commuter rail service that developing the Specific Plan site can
offer. Travel distances and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) between the Hathaway Ranch Alternative
site and the surrounding employment centers found in the Santa Clarita Valley would also be greater
with development on the Hathaway Ranch Alternative site. In conclusion, significant traffic impacts
would be of a greater magnitude when developing the Hathaway Ranch Alternative site.
(8) Air Quality
From an air quality impact perspective, because the amount of air emissions generated by a project is
directly linked to the amount of VMT a project creates, this would mean that the amount of vehicular -
related air emissions generated by developing the Hathaway Ranch Alternative site would be greater
than would occur with developing the Specific Plan site. In the end, the significant air quality impacts
generated by developing the Specific Plan site would,be greater when developing the Hathaway
Ranch Alternative site. In conclusion, significant air quality impacts would be of a greater magnitude
when developing the Hathaway Ranch Alternative site. Based on the above, the Specific Plan
representstheenvironmentally superior alternative with regard to air quality impacts.
8.0-92 NnuhaR Ranch specfic Plan DmJt EIR
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
d. Off -Sits Specific Plan Alt~iaes
(9) Noise
Vehicular noise emissions would be felt over a wider area at this alternative site due to the greater
distances traveled. The significant noise, impact generated at the Travel Village RV Park by
developing on the Specific Plan site would likely, however, be avoided. This is due to the fact that
traffic generated on the Hathaway Ranch would likely not travel past Travel Village RV Park (on
SR -126 west of Commerce Center Drive) to nearly the same degree as it would should the Specific Plan
site develop as proposed; it is expected that most of the traffic would travel more directly to I-5. As a
result though, significant noise impacts could be created in other noise sensitive areas located to the
north where connections to I-5 might occur with the Hathaway Ranch Alternative (e.g., in Hasley
Canyon and in the residential areas located in Castaic). In conclusion, while the significant noise
impact generated at Travel Village RV Park by developing the Specific Plan site would be avoided by
the Hathaway. Ranch Alternative, it is likely that other significant noise impacts would be created in
the noise sensitive residential areas located to the north. Thus, there is no environmentally superior
alternative with respect to noise impacts.
(10) Wastewater Disposal
For each alternative site, it is assumed that, if development were to occur on it, each would need to
construct its own water reclamation plant. It is also assumed that each site would create a reclaimed
water system, where reclaimed water would be used on the sites to reduce their potable water demands.
Based on the above, the amount of wastewater generated by development on the alternative site would
be the same as that generated by development on the Specific Plan site and, therefore, impacts would
be the same. As such, neither the Specific Plan nor this alternative is considered to be environmentally
superior.
(11) Water Availability
The potable water demands -of developing the Hathaway Ranch Alternative site would be the same.
This site is only partially within the service area boundary of the Castaic Lake Water Agency ( a
water wholesaler) and is not served by a water retailer. Groundwater supplies are likely not of
sufficient quantity or quality to serve a development the size of Newhall Ranch. Consequently, the
Hathaway Ranch Alternative site would need to annex all of its land area into the Castaic Lake
Water Agency (CLWA) service area, and would also have to either annex to the nearest water retailer
service area (likely either Newhall County Water District or Los Angeles Water District 36) or create
a new water retailing entity. CLWA has the present policy of allowing annexations into its service
8.0-93 Nmhdl Ranch Specifu Plan Dmf! EIIt
July I996
8.0 Project Alternatives
4. Off -Site Spec& PbrtA#emalivn
area only if enough water is simultaneously brought into the district to serve the development proposed
on the annexed land. It is not known whether or not the Hathaway Ranch has access to outside water
sources, but it is likely that development on the Hathaway Ranch in any case would be much more
heavily dependent on imported water than would development on Newhall Ranch. This would be
compounded by the fact that Hathaway Ranch does not have the rights to Castaic Creek flows as does
The Newhall Land and Farming Company. Due to the steeper topography, the Hathaway Ranch
Alternative site would require an increased amount of water pumping infrastructure. Due to the
problematic prospects of delivering enough potable water to the Hathaway Ranch, water impacts
would likely be greater with the Hathaway Ranch Alternative than with the Specific Plan. Given
the above, it is concluded that the Specific Plan is environmentally superior to the Hathaway Ranch
Alternative with respect to impacts upon potable water sources and providers.
(12) Energy Use and Solid Waste Disposal
The same amount of energy (natural gas and electricity) would be required on the Hathaway Ranch
Alternative site, and the same amount of solid waste generation would omu as an Newhall Ranch.
Access to energy (electricity and natural gas) sources and to solid waste disposal sites is approximately
the same with development on the Hathaway Ranch Alternative site as it would be with development
on the Specific Plan site. Therefore, these impacts would also.be similar. However, because the
Hathaway Ranch Alternative would generate a larger amount of vehicle miles traveled, its demand
for petroleum products would be greater than the Specific Plan. Consequently, the Specific Plan would
be superior to the Hathaway Ranch Alternative with respect to the consumption of petroleum products.
(13) Education and Libraries
From an education and library standpoint, it is assumed that each of the alternative sites would need to
meet similar requirements for funding in order to provide education and library services for the
residents of the sites. Based on the above information, impacts to schools and libraries under the
Hathaway Ranch Alternative would be similar to those under the Specific Plan. Thus, neither the
Specific Plan nor this Alternative would be considered environmentally superior with respect to
impacts upon schools and libraries.
(14) Parks and Recreation
Each site would be required to meet local Quimby Act requirements for the provision of park space.
However, at only 6,195 acres, it would not be possible to develop a project the size of Newhall Ranch an
this site and still preserve in perpetuity anywhere near the amount of land that would be dedicated to
8.0-94 Newhall Ranch Speat Plan Dmfr r.1R
Joy 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
4. Off -Site Specific PlanAltersatius
Open Area and public use as part of the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Based on the above information,
development of the Hathaway Ranch alternative site, rather than the Specific Plan site would not as
beneficially impact parks and recreation as would the Specific Plan and, therefore, would be worse
from a park and recreation standpoint. As such, the Specific Plan represents the environmentally
superior alternative with respect to impacts upon parks and recreation.
(15) Fire and Police Services
It is assumed that each of the alternative sites would be required to fund an adequate level of service of
both the Fire .Department and Sheriff Department in order to ensure adequate on-site protection.
However, this site is farther, from a response time standpoint, from existing fire and police stations
found within the Santa Clarita Valley and, therefore, would not be as well served as the Specific Plan
site in the event of -a major emergency. Consequently, impacts relative to fire and police protection
would be incrementally worse with development on the Hathaway Ranch Alternative site compared to
development an the Specific Plan site. Thus, it is concluded that the Specific Plan represents the
environmentally superior alternative with respect to impacts upon fire and police service.
(16) Visual Qualities
Due to intervening topography, the fact that a State highway (SR -126) does not nm through this site,
and the greater distance from potential viewers, development on the Hathaway Ranch would be less
visible from either I-5 or SR -126 and the existing population center in the Santa Clarita Valley. Due to
these factors,.the significant visual impacts to the. rural appearance of the. Santa Clara River Valley
and Chiquito Canyon that would occur on Newhall Ranch would not oa-ur under the Hathaway Ranch
Alternative. However, the Hathaway Ranch Alternative would still be converting an open area into
urban uses which would be considered visually significant. For these reasons, impacts to visual
resources would be less with this Alternative. Therefore, this Alternative is considered
environmentally superior to the Specific Plan with respect to visual impacts.
(17) Population, Housing, and Employment
Los Angeles County population, housing and employment projections for the Hathaway Ranch site do
not call for the urban level of development that would result if the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan were
relocated to the Hathaway Ranch Consequently, such development on this site would also not be
consistent with the County's 1990 growth projections. This site is within Census Tract 9201.02. The
Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG) in its 1994 Regional Comprehensive Plan and
Guide projects that this census tract will, by the year 2015, have a population of 63,163 persons, which
8.0-95 Newhall Ranch Specffic Plan DMft E1R
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
4. Off -Site Specific Plan Altematiaes
is 52,460 more than was reported in the 1990 census. If the Newhall Ranch development were placed on
the Hathaway Ranch site, approximately 16,040 of the 68,500 persons who would occupy this site
would not be accounted for in SCAG's 1994 growth projection (68,500 persons projected - 52,460 persons
accounted for = 16,040 persons). Because planning for some of the infrastructure requirements of the
region is based on the SCAG projections, this census tract would have more people within it than is
planned for, which is considered to be a significant population impact (if this same development were
to ccau on the Newhall Ranch site, the population would be accounted for in SCAG regional
projections).
SCAG projects that this census tract will have 16,695 housing units by the year 2015, which is 13,171
more units than existed in 1990. Adding the 24,680 housing units added by the Specific Plan, this census
tract would have 11,509 more units than accounted for by SCAG in its regional plans. By comparison, all
of the units proposed on the Newhall Ranch site are accounted for in SCAG's regional plans.
Regarding employment SCAG projects that this census tract . will have 4,547 jobs by the year .2015,
which is 4,473 more than existed in 1990. Adding the 19,323 jobs created by the Specific Plan, this
census tract would have more jobs available than accounted for by SCAG in its regional pians.
From a population/housing/employment standpoint, developing the Hathaway Ranch Alternative
site with the Specific Plan rather than Newhall Ranch would not be consistent with the regional
population, housing, and employment condition that is planned for by SCAG in its 1994 Regional
Comprehensive Plan and Guide nor would it be consistent with the County's 1990 projections for the
Valley. However, both the Specific Plan and the Hathaway Ranch Alternative would require
General Plan Amendments. Consequently, neither the Specific Plan nor -the Hathaway Ranch
Alternative is environmentally superior with respect to population, housing, and employment issues.
(18) Meeting of Specific Plan Objectives
Many of the objectives of the Specific Plan identified in the Project Description of this EIR (Section 1.0)
would not be achieved with implementation of this alternative. Specific objectives not fully met or
impeded to some extent with the Hathaway Ranch Alternative are listed below:
• Avoid leapfrog development and accommodate projected regional growth in a location which is
adjacent to existing and planned infrastructure, urban services, transportation corridors, and major
employment centers.
• Arrange land uses to reduce vehicle miles traveled and energy consumption
• Earn a reasonable return on investment.
8.0-96 - NMW Ranch Specific Plan Dmft EM
July I996
8.0 Project Alternatives
t Off -Sits Specific Plan Altematites
• Provide a safe, efficient, and aesthetically attractive street system with convenient connections to
adjoining regional transportation routes.
• Facilitate public transit by reserving right-of-way for future Metrolink line, -space for a park and
ride and/or Metrolink station, and by providing bus pull -ins along highways.
• Establish a diverse system of pedestrian and bicycle trails, segregated from vehicle traffic, to serve
as an alternative to the automobile.
• Retain a major open area which could act as a regional recreational park and an ecological
preserve.
• Preserve the site of the historical Asistencia (San Fernando Mission Annex).
• Preserve or minimally impact the most significant ridgelines and other major topographical land
forms.
C. Site 2 - Temescal Ranch
Temescal Ranch is approximately 7,580 acres in size, and is located in unincorporated Ventura County,
northeast of the community of Piru. Lake Piru, owned by the United Water Conservation District,
extends through the northern third of the property. , The Piru recreational area with lake access is
located on the western side of the lake. The Santa Felicia Dam extends across the southern extent of
the lake. Piru Canyon and Piru Creek traverse the central portion of the property, extending from the
dam to the property's southern boundary. The valley floor predominantly consists of rangeland. The
Temescal Ranch is approximately 2 miles northwest of Newhall Ranch. Topography m the site is
highly variable, with elevations ranging from approximately 780 feet above mean sea level to
approximately 3,000 above mean sea level. Lands along the eastern side of the canyon consist of steep,
hilly terrain, while the western side offers gentler slopes and features plateaus overlooking the
canyon. Historic uses of the site include cattle grazing, agriculture, and oil production. Other than
Lake Piru, the site is undeveloped. Vehicular access is available to this site from SR -126, via Piru
Canyon Road, and no water or wastewater lines serve the site. A portion of the site is within the
United Water Conservation District service area.
The impact of developing the land uses proposed by the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan m the Temescal
Ranch Alternative site versus the Newhall Ranch site is described below.
8.0-97 N=hdl Ranch Specific Plan Oft Ent
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
4. Off -Sits Spenfic Plan Alhmatives
(1) Geological Resources
From both an exposure to seismic events standpoint and from a grading impact standpoint, the impact of
developing the Temescal Ranch Alternative site would be similar to the Specific Plan site. Both sites
are affected by faulting and both must mitigate potential landslide hazards. Also, given that the
terrain found an the Temescal Ranch Alternative site is similar to that found in the proposed
development area of the Specific Plan site, a similar amount of earthwork would be required to create
land level enough to accommodate urban development.
(2) Flood
The Temescal Ranch Alternative site is not located on the Santa Clara River. Consequently, the same
degree of River improvements needed as a result of the Specific Plan would not be needed if the Specific
Plan were moved to the Temescal Ranch Alternative site. However, both alternatives would convert
open land to an urban condition with surfaces impervious to water. It is expected that development of
the Temescal Ranch Alternative site would necessitate similar types of drainage improvements in
upland areas in order to preclude downstream impacts. Thus, it is concluded that the Temescal Ranch
Alternative is environmentally superior to the Specific Plan with respect to flood issues.
(3) Biota
While the Temescal Ranch Alternative site does contain habitat types considered sensitive (including
wetlands within and near such locations as Piru Creek), biological impacts related to development
would be less than those associated with developing the Specific Plan site. This is due to the fact that
the Temescal Ranch Alternative site is not within a Significant Ecological Area (SEA), is not within
the critical habitat of the endangered least Bell's vireo, and does not have habitat suitable for the
unarmored threespine stickleback fish, which is also an endangered species. Biological impacts
related to the general loss of habitat would be similar to those associated with developing the Specific
Plan site.
8.0.98 NmhaU Ranch Spmfic Pan Dmft EIR
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
4. Off -Site Specific Plan Alternatives
(4) Cultural/Paleontological Resources
The impact potential related to cultural/paleontological resources would likely be greater am the
Temescal Ranch Alternative site than on the Specific Plan site. This site was historically wetter than
the Specific Plan site and more attractive to Native. Americans for this reason (the Specific Plan site
has relatively few sites containing cultural resources due to its historically dry conditions). Also, the
Temescal Ranch Alternative site has the potential to yield paleontological resources to a similar
extent as the Specific Plan site.
(5) Agricultural Resources
Agriculturally, the Temescal Ranch Alternative site maintains similar types of soil conditions as the
lowland portions of the Specific Plan site. Many portions of the Temescal Ranch Alternative site are in
uplands, where the agricultural productivity is diminished due to poorer soil types. This is a condition
shared by the Specific Plan site. Specifically, this site corttains prime farmlands, unique farmland,
and farmland of local importance. Consequently, the impact on agricultural resources would likely be
similar on the Temescal Ranch Alternative site as that which would occur with development on the
Specific Plan site. Thus, there is no environmentally superior alternative with respect to impacts upon
biological resources.
(6) Environmental Safety
Past and present uses of the Temescal Ranch Alternative site (namely oil production, grazing and some
agriculture) are similar in nature to those of the Specific Plan site. Given its location, it is expected
that the Temescal Ranch Alternative site would not be as impacted by natural gas lines and electric
transmission lines as the Specific Plan site. However, a portion of the Temescal Ranch Alternative site
is within the inundation area of the Santa. Felicia Dam. For these reasons, potential environmental
safety impacts would be similar to those of the Specific Plan site. Given this, it can be concluded that
neither the Specific Plan nor this Alternative are environmentally superior.
(7) Traffic/Access
It is assumed that internal traffic patterns an the Temescal Ranch Alternative site would operate the
same as on the Specific Plan site. This presumes that it is possible to create the same Village concept
in approximately the same spatial arrangement being proposed for the Newhall Ranch site. Given
this overall assumption, the primary difference between developing on the . Temescal Ranch
Alternative site and developing on the Specific Plan site is how vehicular traffic would move off the
8.0-99 Ncmhall Punch Specific Plan Dmft E!R
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
4. Off -Site Specific Plan Alternatives
sites. In the case of the Temescal Ranch Alternative site, it is located at a greater distance from
existing traffic infrastructure than is the Specific Plan site; the Temescal Ranch Alternative site is not
served directly by a major State highway (SR -126), and is much further removed from one of the State's
major north -south freeway corridors (I-5). Consequently,the amount of transportation infrastructure
needed to reach the Temescal Ranch Alternative site would be substantially greater than that needed
to reach Newhall Ranch.
Because SR -126 would serve as the primary means of connection between the Temescal Ranch
Alternative site and the employment centers in the Santa Clarita Valley, SR -126 and its interchange
at I-5 would be much more impacted with the Temescal Ranch Alternative. However, it would also be
true that traffic generated on the Temescal Ranch Alternative site would only access I-5 at SR -126,
potential impacts to the I-5 interchanges at Magic Mountain Parkway and Valencia Boulevard could be
avoided. Furthermore, the Temescal Ranch Alternative site would not offer the future potential of
direct commuter rail service that developing the Specific Plan site can offer. Travel distances and
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) between the Temescal Ranch Alternative- site and the surrounding
employment centers found in the Santa Clarita Valley would be greater with development m the
Temescal Ranch Alternative site. In conclusion, significant traffic impacts would be of a greater
magnitude when developing the Temescal Ranch Alternative site. In conclusion, the Specific Plan is
considered to be environmentally superior to this Alternative with regard to traffic/access impacts.
(8) Air Quality
From an air quality impact perspective, because the amount of air emissions generated by a project is
directly linked to the amount of VMT a project creates, the amount of vehicular -related air emissions
generated by developing the Temescal Ranch Alternative site would be greater than the amount that
would oma with developing the Specific Plan site. In the end, the significant air quality impacts
would be greater when developing the Temescal Ranch Alternative site. Consequently, the Specific
Plan is considered to be environmentally superior to this Alternative with respect to impacts upon local
and regional air quality.
8.0-100 Newhall Ranch Specific Plan Daft EIR
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
4. Off --Site Specific PLen Alternative:
(9) Noise
Vehicular noise emissions would be felt over a wider area due to the greater distances traveled. The
significant noise impact generated at the Travel Village RV Park by developing the Specific Plan site
would likely be worsened because more traffic would travel past this location. In conclusion, significant
noise impacts would be of a greater magnitude when developing the Temescal Ranch Alternative site.
Given this, it is concluded that the Specific Plan is environmentally superior to this Alternative with
respect to noise.
(10) Wastewater Disposal
For each alternative site, it is assumed that, if development were to occur an it, each would need to
construct its own water reclamation plant. It is also assumed that each site would create a reclaimed
water system, where reclaimed water would be used on the sites to reduce their potable water demands.
Based on the above, the amount of wastewater generated by development on the alternative site would
be the same as that generated by development on the Specific Plan site and,, therefore, impacts would
be the same. Thus, neither the Specific Plan nor this Alternative is considered to be environmentally
superior with respect to the treatment and disposal of wastewater.
(11) Water Availability
The potable water demands of developing the Temescal Ranch Alternative site would be the same as
for the Specific Plan. This site is only partially within the service area boundary of the United Water
Conservation District (a water wholesaler) and is not served by a water retailer. Also, ground water
supplies are likely not of sufficient quantity or quality to serve a development the size of Newhall
Ranch. Consequently, the Temescal Ranch Alternative site would need to annex all of its land area into
the United Water Conservation District (UWCD) service area, and would also have to either annex to
the nearest water retailer service area (in the community of Piru) or create a new water retailing
entity. Like CLWA, UWCD_has the present policy of allowing annexations into its service area only if
enough water is concurrently brought into the district to serve the development proposed on the annexed
land. It is not known whether or not the Temescal Ranch has access to outside water sources, but it is
likely that development on the Temescal Ranch in any case would be much more heavily dependent
imported water .than is development on Newhall Ranch. Due to the problematic prospects of
delivering enough potable water to the Temescal Ranch, water impacts would likely be greater with
the Temescal Ranch Alternative than with the Specific Plan. As such, it is concluded that the Specific
Plan is environmentally superior to this Alternative.
8.0-101 Newhall Ranch Speofic Plan Dgft E1R
,. July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
4. Off -Site Specific Plan Alt n tires
(12) Energy Use and Solid Waste Disposal
Regarding energy use and solid waste disposal, the same amount of energy (natural gas and electricity)
would be required an the Temescal Ranch Alternative site, and the same amount of solid waste
generation would occur. Access to energy (electricity and natural gas) sources and to solid waste
disposal sites is approximately the same with development on the Temescal Ranch Alternative site as
it would be with development on the Specific Plan site. Therefore, these impacts would also be
similar. However, because the Temescal Ranch Alternative would generate a larger amount of vehicle
miles traveled, its demand for petroleum products would be. greater than the Specific Plan.
Consequently, the Specific Plan would be superior to the Temescal Ranch Alternative with respect to
the impact on petroleum products. Based m the above, it is concluded that the Specific Plan is
environmentally superior to this Alternative with regards to the consumption of petroleum products,
while neither is considered environmentally superior with respect to solid waste disposal issues.
(13) Education and Libraries
From an education and library standpoint, it is assumed that each of the alternative sites would need to
meet similar requirements for funding in order to.educate and provide library services for the residents
of the sites. At the time of this writing, Ventura County is suffering from a decrease in the amount of
funds available to operate its library system. Based on the above information, impacts to schools and
libraries under the Temescal Ranch Alternative would be similar to those under the Specific Plan.
Thus, neither the Specific Plan nor this alternative is considered to be environmentally superior with
respect to impacts upon education or libraries.
(14) Parks and Recreation
Each site would be required to meet local Quimby Act requirements for the provision of park space.
However, at only 7,580 acres, it would not be possible to develop a project the size of Newhall Ranch on
this site and still preserve the amount of land that would be dedicated to public use as part of the
Newhall Ranch Specific Plan Furthermore, because this site is located within Ventura County, the
residents of Los Angeles County (the jurisdiction of the lead Agency) would not reap the full benefits of
any land dedication Based on the above information, development of the Temescal Ranch alternative
site rather than the Specific Plan site would not as beneficially impact parks and recreation as would
the Specific Plan and, therefore, would be worse from a park and recreation standpoint. Consequently,
the Specific Plan is considered environmentally superior with regard to impacts to parks and
recreation.
8.0-102 NmhaU Ranch Specific Plan Draft FJR
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
4. Off -Site Specific Plan Altematixs
(15) Fire and Police Services
It is assumed that each of the alternative sites would be required to fund, to an adequate level of
service, both the Fire Department and Sheriff Department in order to ensure adequate on-site
protection. However, this site is located in eastern Ventura County, an area that is not urbanizing to
any substantial degree. As a result, in the event of a major emergency, outside assistance from Ventura
County agencies would need to travel much further distances to this site than would Los Angeles County
agencies if development of the Specific Plan site were to occur. In the event of a major emergency, it is
much more likely that Los Angeles County would need to assist Ventura County agencies if the Temescal
Ranch Alternative site is developed instead of the Specific Plan site. The Specific Plan site is much
closer to an existing urban area, which is much more able to handle large scale emergencies.
Consequently, impacts relative to fire and police protection would be worse with development on the
Temescal Ranch Alternative site versus development on the Specific Plan site. Consequently, the
Specific Plan is considered environmentally superior with regard to impacts to fire and police service.
(16) Visual Qualities
Due to intervening topography, the fact that a major State highway (SR -126) does not run through this
site, and the much greater distance from potential viewers, development an the Temescal Ranch would
be less visible from either I-5 or SR -126 and the existing population center in the Santa Clarita Valley
than the Specific Plan. Due to these factors, the significant visual impacts to the rural appearance of
the Santa Clara River Valley and Odquito Canyon caused by development on the Specific Plan site
would be lessened, if not avoided with the .Temescal Ranch Alternative. However, the Temescal
Ranch Alternative would still be converting an open area into urban uses which would be considered
visually significant. For these reasons, impacts to visual resources would be less with the Temescal
Ranch Alternative. Consequently, this Alternative is considered environmentally superior with regard
to visual impacts.
(17) Population Housing, and Employment
The Temescal Ranch_ Alternative site is in a Waal location, one that is not projected for urban
development in any regional planning horizon. Therefore, because this area is not planned for this
level of development, development of this site rather than the Newhall Ranch site would result in
significant population, housing, and employment impacts. The Newhall Ranch Specific Plan is within
SCAG'.s1994 growth projections for the site and region, but is not within the County's 1990 projections for
the site or region. Consequently, the Specific Plan would be superior to this alternative with respect to
population, housing and employment.
8.0-103 NMhatt Ranch Spmfic Plm Dmft FIR
Juty I996
8.0 Project Altema fives
4. Off -Site Specific Ptah Alternatives
(18) Meeting of Specific Plan Objectives
Many of the objectives of the Specific Plan identified in the Project Description of this EIR (Section 1.0)
would not be achieved with implementation of this alternative: , Specific objectives not fully met or
impeded to some extent with the Temescal Ranch Alternative are listed below:
• Avoid leapfrog development and accommodate projected regional growth in a location which is
adjacent to existing and planned infrastructure, urban services, transportation corridors, and major
employment centers.
• Provide development and transitional land use patterns which do not conflict with su*ronding
communities and land uses.
• Arrange land uses to reduce vehicle miles traveled and energy consumption.
• Earn a reasonable return on investment.
• Provide a safe, efficient, and aesthetically attractive street system with convenient connections to
adjoining regional transportation routes.
• Facilitate public transit by reserving right-of-way for future Metrolink line, space for a park and
ride and/or Metrolink station, and by providing bus pull -ins along highways.
• Retain a major open area which could act as a regional recreational park and an ecological
preserve.
• Preserve or minimally impact the most significant ridgelines and other major topographical land
forms.
d. Site 3 - The Newhall Land and Farming Company, Ventura County
The Newhall -Ventura Alternative site is adjacent to the western boundary of the Newhall Ranch
Specific Plan site, and is approximately 15,000 acres in size; as its title indicates, it is located in
unincorporated Ventura County. This irregularly shaped site is generally bound by SR -126 on the north,
the Santa Susana Mountains on the south, Los Angeles County on the east, and extends approximately 2
miles west of the community of Piru. Topography anthe site is highly variable, with elevations
ranging from approximately 630 feet above ,mean sea level in the Santa Clara River Valley to
approximately of 3,000 above mean sea level in the Santa Susana Mountains. Lands in the River
Valley are generally level, with elevations rising to the south in the mountains. Historic uses of the
site include cattle grazing, agriculture and oil production. The site is heavily developed with
8.0-104 NMW Ranch Specific PLm Dmf! EIA
. July I996
8.0 Project Alternatives
4 Off -Site Specific Plan AltemaHaes
agricultural uses (row crops, citrus, etc.) and also maintains a dumber of rural -type residences and
structures. Vehicular access is available to this site from SR -126, and no wastewater lines serve the
site. The site is within both the United Water Conservation District and Castaic Lake Water Agency
service areas.
The impact of developing the land uses proposed by the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan on the Newhall
Ventura Alternative site versus the Newhall Ranch site is described below.
(1) Geological Resources
From an exposure to .seismic events standpoint, the impact of developing the Newhall -Ventura
Alternative site would be similar to that on the Specific Plan site. Both sites are affected by faulting
and both must mitigate potential landslide hazards. However, from a grading standpoint, impacts cn
the Newhall -Ventura Alternative site would be greater than those an the SpecificPlan site; more
earthwork would be required to create land level enough to accommodate the same amount of urban
development. This is because the terrain on the Newhall -Ventura Alternative site is steeper and more
varied than on the portions of the Specific Plan site that are proposed for development. Consequently,
the Specific Plan is considered environmentally superior with regard to geologic resources.
(2) Flood
The potential impacts of flooding due to development on the Newhall -Ventura Alternative site would
be similar to those on the Specific Plan site. The Santa Clara River rims through both sites and both
would convert open land to an urban condition with surfaces impervious to water. It is expected that
development of the Newhall -Ventura Alternative site would necessitate similar types of drainage
improvements in order to preclude downstream impacts. Given this, it is concluded that neither this
alternative nor the Specific Plan is considered to be environmentally superior with regard to flood
issues.
(3) Biota
Biological impacts related to development would be similar to those associated with developing the
Specific Plan site. This is due to the fact that the Newhall -Ventura Alternative site is within the
critical habitat of the endangered least Bell's vireo, and does have habitat suitable for. the unarmored
8.0-10$ Nemhdl Ranch Specific Plan Chaff EIR
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
4. off -Site Specific Plan Altem fires
threespine stickleback fish, which is also an endangered species. Potential biological impacts related
to the general loss of habitat would be similar to those associated with developing the Specific Plan
site. Given the above, it is concluded that neither this Alternative nor the Specific Plan is considered
environmentally superior with regard to impacts upon biological resources.
(4) Cultural/Paleontological Resources
The impact potential relating to cultural/paleontological resources would likely be greater on the
Newhall -Ventura Alternative site than on the Specific Plan site. This site was historically wetter
than the Specific Plan site and more attractive to Native Americans for this reason (the Specific Plan
site has relatively few sites containing cultural resources due to its historically dryer conditions).. Also,
the Newhall -Ventura Alternative site has the potential to yield paleontological resources to an extent
similar to the Specific Plan site. Consequently, the Specific Plan is considered environmentally
superior with regard to impacts to cultural resources.
(5) Agricultural Resources
For agricultural purposes, the Newhall -Ventura Alternative site has better soil than the Specific Plan
site. Not only is there a greater amount of prime agricultural soil on the alternative site, the blocks of
agricultural land are greater in size and, therefore, more viably farmed than the land found on the
Specific Plan site. Specifically, this site contains prime farmlands, farmland of statewide and local
importance, and unique farmlands. The Newhall -Ventura Alternative Site has a greater amount of
soils conducive to citrus production than does the Specific Plan site. Consequently, the impact an
agricultural resources would be greater on the Newhall -Ventura Alternative site than with
development on the Specific Plan site. Based on the above, it is concluded that the Specific Plan is
environmentally superior with regard to impacts upon agricultural resources.
(6) Environmental Safety
Past and present uses of the Newhall -Ventura Alternative site (namely oil and natural gas operations,
grazing and some agriculture) are similar in nature to those of the Specific Plan site. The Newhall -
Ventura Alternative site also has some of the same natural gas and electrical transmission lines
traversing it as are found on the Specific Plan site, and it is also within the inundation area of the
Castaic Dam. Consequently, potential environmental safety impacts relating. to these uses would be
similar to those of the Specific Plan site. Given. the above, neither the Specific Plan nor this
alternative is considered environmentally superior with respect to environmental safety issues.
8.0-106 l mW[ Ranch spec fie Plan Draft elR
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
4. Off -Site Specific Plan Alternatives
(7) Traffic/Access
It is assumed that internal traffic patterns on the Newhall -Ventura Alternative site would. operate
the same as an the Specific Plan site. This presumes that it is possible to create the same Village
concept in approximately the same spatial arrangement being proposed for the Newhall Ranch site.
Given this overall assumption, the primary difference between developing on the Newhall -Ventura
Alternative site and developing on the Specific Plan site is how vehicular traffic would move off the
sites. In the case of the Newhall -Ventura Alternative site, it is located at a greater distance from
existing traffic infrastructure than is the Specific Plan site; the Newhall -Ventura Alternativesite is
much further removed from one of the State's major north -south freeway corridors (I-5). Consequently,
the amount of transportation infrastructure required to serve the Newhall -Ventura Alternative site
would be substantially greater than that needed to serve Newhall Ranch. No secondary connection
with I-5 would be possible with the Newhall -Ventura Alternative; consequently SR -126 would serve
as the primary means of connection with the employment centers in the Santa Clarita Valley. Under
this condition, SR -126 and its interchange at. 1-5 would be much more impacted with the Newhall -
Ventura Alternative. However, it would also be true that, because no connection with I-5 at Magic
Mountain Parkway and Valencia Boulevard would occur, potential impacts to the I-5 interchanges at
Magic Mountain Parkway and Valencia Boulevard could be reduced. Travel distances and vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) between the Newhall -Ventura Alternative site and the surrounding employment
centers found in the Santa Clarita Valley would be greater with development on the Newhall -Ventura
Alternative site. In conclusion, significant traffic impacts would be of a greater magnitude when
developing the Newhall -Ventura Alternative site. Consequently, the Specific Plan is considered
environmentally superior with regard to traffic and circulation impacts.
(8) Air Quality
From an air quality impact perspective, because -the amount of air emissions generated by a project is
directly linked to the amount of VMT a project creates, this would mean that the amount of vehicular -
related air emissions generated by developing the Newhall -Ventura Alternative site would be greater
than would occur with developing the Specific Plan site. In the end, the significant air quality impacts
generated by developing the Specific Plan .site would be greater when developing the Newhall -
Ventura Alternative site. Consequently, the Specific Plan is considered environmentally superior with
regard to air quality impacts.
8.0-107 Newhall Ram_ rh Specht Plan Dmf! £IR
July 2996
- 8.0 Project Alternatives
4. Dff�Site SPecijicP/an Aikrn tiros
(9) Noise
Vehicular noise emissions would be felt over a wider area due to the greater distances traveled. Also,
the significant noise impact generated at the Travel Village RV Park by developing on the Specific
Plan site would likely be worsened because more traffic would travel past this location. In conclusion,
significant noise impacts would be of a greater magnitude when developing the Newhall -Ventura
Alternative site. Consequently, the Specific Plan is considered environmentally superior with regard
to impacts associated with noise.
(30) Wastewater Disposal
For each alternative site, it is assumed that, if development were to oma on it, each would need to
construct its own water reclamation plant. It is also assumed that each site would create a reclaimed
water system, where reclaimed water would be used on the sites to reduce their potable water demands.
Based on the above, the amount of wastewater generated by development on the alternative site would
be the same as that generated by development on the Specific Plan site and, therefore, impacts would
be the same. Given this, neither the Specific Plan nor this Alternative is considered environmentally
superior with regard to wastewater disposal
(11) Water Availability
The potable water demands of developing the Newhall -Ventura Alternative site would be the same..
This site is partially within the service area boundaries of the CLWA and UWCD (water
wholesalers) and is not served by a water retailer. By virtue of this site's location within the Santa
Clara River Valley, ground water supplies an the site are likely comparable to those an the Specific
Plan site. The Newhall -Ventura Alternative site would not need to annex any additional land area
into CLWA's or UWCD's service area, but would have to either annex to an existing water retailer
service area or create anew water retailing entity. Aside from the political issues of water district
annexations or creations (which are by no means assured), and because The Newhall Land and Fanning
Company also owns the Newhall -Ventura Alternative site, it is likely that .the conditions of water
availability are similar for this site as: they are for the Specific Plan site. Therefore, the impacts an
water supply are similar. Given this, neither the Specific Plan nor this Alternative is considered
environmentally superior with regard to water availability.
$.0-308 N=MU Ranch SWffic Plan W EM
July I995
8.0 Project Alternatives
Z Off -Site Spenfia Plan Afamatinee
(12) Energy Use and Solid Waste Disposal
Regarding energy use and solid waste disposal, the same amount of energy (natural gas and electricity)
would be required on the Newhall -Ventura Alternative site, and the same amount of solid waste
generation would occur. Access to energy (electricity and natural gas) sources and to solid waste
disposal sites is approximately the same with development on the Newhall -Ventura Alternative site
as it is with development on the Specific Plan site. Therefore, these impacts would also be similar.
However, because the Newhall -Ventura Alternative would generate a larger amount of vehicle miles
traveled, its demand for petroleum products would be greater than the Specific Plan. Consequently, the
Specific Pian would be superior to the Newhall -Ventura Alternative with respect to the impact on
petroleum products.
(13) Education and Libraries
From an education and library standpoint, it is assumed that each of the alternative sites would need to
meet similar requirements for funding in order to educate and provide library services for the residents
of the sites. Based on the above information, impacts to schools and libraries would be similar to the
Specific Plan. Consequently, neither the Specific Plan nor this. Alternative is considered
environmentally superior with regard to impacts upon education and libraries.
(14) Parks and Recreation
Each site would be required to meet local Quimby. Act requirements for the provision of park space.
Also, at 15,000 acres, it is likely possible to develop a project the size of Newhall Ranch an this site
and still preserve in perpetuity a similar amount of land that would be dedicated to the public as part
of the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. However, because this site in located within Ventura County, the
residents of Los Angeles County (the jurisdiction of the Lead Agency for the Newhall Ranch Specific
Plan site in Los Angeles County) would not reap the full benefits of any land dedication. Based on the
above information, impacts to parks and recreation would be similar to the Specific Plan. Given this,
neither the Specific Plan nor this Alternative is considered environmentally superior with regard to
impacts upon parks and recreation.
(15) Fire and Police Services
It is assumed that each of the alternative sites would be required to fund, to an adequate level of
service, both the Fire Department and' Sheriff Department in order to ensure adequate on-site
protection. However, this site is located in eastern Ventura County, an area that is not urbanizing to
8.0-109 Kmhall Ranch SM* Plan Draft EM
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatives
4. OJf--Site Specific Plan Altemutives
any substantive degree. As a result, in the event that a major emergency occurs on the site, outside
assistance from Ventura County agencies would need to travel much further distances to this site than
would Los Angeles County agencies if development of the Specific Plan site were to occur. In the event
of a major emergency, it is much more likely that Los Angeles County would need to assist Ventura
County agencies if the Newhall -Ventura Alternative site is developed instead of the Specific Plan
site. The Specific Plan site is much closer to an existing urban area which is much more able to handle
large scale emergencies. Consequently, impacts relative to fire and police protection would be worse
with development on the Newhall -Ventura Alternative site versus development on the Specific Plan
site. Thus, it is concluded that the Specific Plan is environmentally superior to this Alternative with
regard to impacts on fire and police services.
(16) Visual Resources
Amajor State highway (SR -126) runs through the Newhall -Ventura Alternative site; therefore, the
site is visible to a large mobile viewing audience. With the Newhall -Ventura Alternative, the rural
appearance of the site would be converted to urban. Portions of the Specific Plan site are hidden from
view due to intervening topography. The Newhall -Ventura Alternative site is not nearly as hidden
from view. Topographic conditions indicate that most, if not all, development on the Newhall -
Ventura Alternative site would be visible to travelers on SR -126 and would significantly impact the
visually rural character of the Santa Clara River Valley (probably more so than the Specific Plan due
to its greater visibility). Therefore, the significant impact that the Specific Plan would have an this
same Valley would be transferred to the west out of Los Angeles County into Ventura County, and would
be intensified. It is also true that the Newhall -Ventura Alternative site is not visible to existing
residents in Chiquito Canyon. Consequently, the significant impact created by the Specific Plan at this
location would be avoided. Due to this environmental trade-off of impact (i.e., greater impact in
Ventura County but less impact in Chiquito Canyon), the visual impact of developing the Newhall -
Ventura Alternative site is more or less similar to the impact created by developing the Specific Plan
site. Given this,. neither the Specific Plan nor this Alternative is considered environmentally superior
with regard to visual impacts.
8.0-110 NemhaU ranch Specific plan Dmfs. EZR
July 1996
8.0 Project Alternatfaes
4. Off -Site Specific Plan Alternatives
(17) Population, Housing, and Employment
The Newhall -Ventura Alternative site is in a rural location, one that is not projected for urban
development in any regional planning horizon. Therefore, because this area is not planned for this
level of development, development of this site rather than the Newhall Ranch site would result in
significant population, housing, and employment impacts. Development of the Specific Plan site would
not As such, the Specific Plan is considered to be environmentally superior to the Specific Plan with
regard to population, housing, and employment impacts.
(18) Meeting of Specific Plan Objectives
Many of the objectives of the Specific Plan identified in the Project Description of this EIR (Section 1.0)
would not be achieved with implementation of this alternative. Specific objectives not fully met or
impeded to some extent with the Hathaway Ranch Alternative are listed below:
• Avoid leapfrog development and accommodate projected regional growth in a location which is
adjacent to existing and planned infrastructure, urban services, transportation corridors, and major
employment centers.
• Arrange land uses to reduce vehicle miles traveled and energy consumption.
• Provide a safe, efficient, and aesthetically attractive street system with convenient connections to
adjoining regional transportation routes.
• Preserve the site of the historical Asistencia (San Fernando Mission Annex).
• Preserve or minimally impact the most significant ridgelines and other major, topographical land
forms.
e. Conclusion
As illustrated and described in Table 8.0 -20, Alternative Site Impact Comparison Matrix, development
on the Hathaway Ranch site (Site 1) would create greater impacts in nine environmental categories and
less impact created in four categories when compared with the Specific Plan site. In eight
environmental categories, impacts would be approximately' the same. With the Temescal Ranch site
(Site 2), greater impacts would be created in nine environmental categories and less impact created in
two categories when compared with the Specific Plan site. In ten environmental categories, impacts
would be approximately the same. With The Newhall Land and Farming Company - Ventura County
site (Site 3), greater impacts would be created in nine environmental categories and less impact created
in none of the categories when compared with the Specific Plan site. In twelve environmental
categories, impacts would be approximately the same. Based on the above analysis, nor& of the
alternative sites are clearly superior from an environmental standpoint over the Newhall Ranch site.
8.0-111 Newhall Ranch Specific Plan Draft EIR
July I996
8.0 Project Alternatiaes
5. Enaromnentatly Superior Specific Plan Aifnnatioe
S. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR SPECIFIC PLAN ALTERNATIVE
Section 15326(d)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that, if the no project alternative is the
"environmentally superior" alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior
alternative among the other alternatives. In this case, Alternative 6, the 8,000 Unit Alternative,
would be superior, from an environmental perspective, to the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan.
6. WATER RECLAMATION PLANT ALTERNATIVES
a. Introduction
It is most efficient if wastewater is allowed to flow under gravity from its source directly to the facility
that will treat it. Pumps are required to force the wastewater uphill at those locations where the
wastewater cannot gravity flow. Whenever pumps are required, the cost of the treatment system
increases and the efficiency of the system decreases. The Newhall Ranch water reclamation plant
(WRP) is proposed very near the lowest point on the Specific Plan site in terms of glrnmd elevation.
Consequently, this location allows the maximum amount of gravity flow to the site and the fewest
number of pumps, and is, therefore, considered the'mostefficient -on-site location for the WRP from an
engineering and cost standpoint Alternatives to the location of the WRP and to the type of treatment
system are presented below.
h On -Site WRP Alternatives
(1) No WRY Alternative
The proposed WRP would only be constructed if the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan is approved. The No
WRP Alternative for the Specific Plan is addressed above in Subsection 6.b.(1). Under the No WRP
Alternative for the WRP, the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan would be approved and generating
wastewater, but the WRP would not be constructed on the Specific Plan site and, presumably,
wastewater generated would be discharged to the Santa"Clara River untreated. Under Federal Clean
Water Act and State and County Health standards, this alternative scenario could not occur by law due
to the substantial water quality and biological impacts that would occur. Consequently, the No WRP
Alternative for the WRP under this scenario would not be environmentally superior to the proposed
WRP. It is likely that wastegenerated under this Alternative would need to go the nearest WRP,
which is the Valencia WRP (District No. 32). Such an alternative is addressed below under "Off -Site
WRP Alternatives."
8.0-112 Newhart Ranch Spedjic Plan Draft EIA
July I996
8.0 Project Alternatives
6. Water Reclamation PlantAiternatiaes
(2) Upstream Location Alternative
The WRP could be constructed at another location on the Specific Plan site, upstream of its present
location. However, to do so would require wastewater generated downstream of the plant to be pumped
uphill to the plant, thereby increasing the construction, operation and maintenance costs of the system
and the amount of energy needed to operate the system. In addition, an alternative on-site location
would require slightly more land since land will be required for both the plant, connecting lines, and the
pumps. Excess wastewater not used for on-site irrigation purposes would still be discharged to the
River. All other environmental impacts associated with this alternative (such as traffic, solid waste
disposal, air quality, etc.) are considered similar to those created by the proposed WRP and would
merely be relocated to another site as a result of this alternative. Based an the above information, an
alternative .on-site upstream location for the WRP would not be environmentally superior to the
proposed WRP site and would be more costly to construct, operate and maintain, and would use more
energy.
(3) Non -River Location Alternative
This alternative would entail constructing the WRP at a location more removed from the Santa Clara
River than the proposed location. It is expected that the same amount of land would be required for the
plant, but that excess wastewater not used for on-site irrigation purposes would still be discharged to
the River, and additional pipelines would be needed to carry the treated wastewater to the River for
discharge. This WRP would be at a slightly higher elevation, and therefore,'would require some
pumping resulting in higher costs for construction, operation and maintenance, and higher energy costs.
All other environmental impacts associated with this alternative (such as traffic, air quality, etc) are
considered similar to those created by the proposed WRP and would merely be relocated to another site
as a result of this alternative. While this alternative would not necessarily be dramatically more
costly, it would not result in a superior environmental condition compared to the proposed WRP site and
would not be as efficient from an engineering standpoint
(4) Septic System Alternative
Disposing of wastewater generated by the proposed Specific Plan in a series of septic systems would not
be feasible from a treatment quality standpoint State and County health regulations would preclude
this alternative, as too much wastewater would be generated on the site to allow for wastewater
disposal in a way that would address health and safety considerations. Consequently, the septic
system alternative would not be environmentally superior to the proposed WRP.
8.0-113 Newhall Ranch Specht Plan Draft M
July I996
8.0 Project Alternatives
6. Water Reclamation Plant Alternatives
c. Off -Site WRP Alternatives
(1) Expand an Existing WRP (Valencia WRP)
Under this alternative, the existing Valencia WRP site would be expanded from its existing permitted
capacity of 12.6 mgd to meet the needs of the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan rather than constructing a
WRP on the Newhall Ranch Specific- Plan site. This alternative assumes that the additional land
needed to expand this plant to meet the needs of the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan beyond that
already needed to serve other cumulative development could be purchased by the County Sanitation
Districts of Los Angeles County (CSDLAC).
As is the case for the upstream on-site alternative discussed above, implementation of the expanded
Valencia WRP would require wastewater generated downstream of the existing plant to be pumped
uphill to the plant over great distances, thereby dramatically increasing the construction, operation
and maintenance costs of the system in comparison to the proposed WRP, and the amount of energy
needed to nm the system. In addition, an expanded Valencia WRP would require slightly more land
since there are additional land requirements for the plant, the pumps, and the pipes needed to connect
the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area to the Valencia WRP. Excess reclaimed water not used for on-
site irrigation purposes would still be discharged to the River. Distribution of reclaimed water would
require additional off-site pipelines from the Valencia WRP to the Specific Plan site. Most other
environmental impacts associated with this alternative (such as traffic, solid waste, air quality, etc.)
are considered similar to those created by the proposed WRP and would merely be -relocated to another
site as a result of this alternative. From a visual perspective, it would be less impacting to add on to
the existing plant than to construct the proposed WRP; however, implementation of this Alternative
would not preclude the overall significant visual impact of the Specific Plan. Based on the above
information and after considering both the negative and positive impact implications of the
alternative, an alternative off-site upstream location for the WRP would not be environmentally
superior overall to the proposed WRP site and would be more costly to construct, operate and maintain.
(2) New WRP Site Upstream of Specific Plan Site ,
The WRP could be constructed at another Iocation off the Specific Plan site, upstream of its present
location. However, to do so would require wastewater generated downstream on the Newhall Ranch
Specific Plan site to be pumped uphill to the off-site plant over great distances, thereby dramatically
increasing the construction, operation and maintenance costs of the system in comparison to the WRP as
proposed, and the amount of energy needed to run She system. In addition, a new plant would require
slightly more land due to the land requirements of the plant, the pumps, and the lines needed to connect
8.0-114 Newhall Ranch $peoflc Plan Draft EfR
July 2996
8.0 Project Alter?14H es
6. Water Reclamation Plant Altematiaes
the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area to a new off-site WRP. This alternative assumes that the
additional land needed to expand this plant to meet the needs of the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan
beyond that already needed to serve other cumulative development could be purchased by the County
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (CSDLAC). Excess reclaimed water not used for on-site
irrigation purposes would still be discharged to the River or one of its tributaries. All other
environmental impacts associated with this alternative (such as traffic, solid waste, air quality, etc.)
are considered similar to those created by the proposed WRP and would merely be relocated to another
site as a result of this alternative. Consequently, an alternative off-site upstream location for the WRP
would not be environmentally superior to the proposed WRP site and would be more costly to construct,
operate and maintain.
(3) New WRP Site Downstream of Specific Plan Site in Ventura County
The proposed WRP would be operated and maintained by the CSDLAC. Because the alternative
Ventura County WRP would not be in Los Angeles County and, therefore, could not be operated by the
CSDLAC, this alternative is not feasible from an operations standpoint. However, overlooking this
fact, and assuming the WRP is constructed downstream of the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan site in
Ventura County, it would require a greater amount of wastewater infrastructure in terms of the piping
needed to extend the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan system into Ventura County. Furthermore, a greater
amount of infrastructure would be required in order to pump the treated wastewater upstream for
irrigation uses to the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan site. Such an alternative would also be more
growth inducing than the proposed WRP site because wastewater infrastructure would be extended from
the Specific Plan site to the Ventura County WRP site through an existing undeveloped area, thereby
removing an impediment to growth in that intervening area of undeveloped land. Environmental
impacts would also be greater in that additional undeveloped land would be used for the WRP, while
the proposed WRP would be part of the Business Park uses under the Specific Plan. All other
environmental impacts associated with this alternative (such as traffic, air quality, etc.) are
considered similar to those created by the proposed WRP and would merely be relocated to another site
as a result of this alternative. For the reasons indicated above, this alternative would not be
environmentally superior to the proposed WRP.
d. Environmentally Superior WRP Alternative
None of the alternatives analyzed, including the No Project WRP Alternative, are environmentally
superior to the proposed WRP.
8.0-115 MMhali Ranch Specific Plan Dmf! ERR
July I996