Evaluation of Alternatives. Provide a summary of principal findings and conclusions from the evaluation of alternatives, based on specific cost and non-cost criteria.
Evaluation of Alternatives. The Consultant will evaluate the study area transportation system to determine the level of transportation benefit realized from each alternative. Cost-effectiveness of each alternative will be determined based upon FTA guidelines.
Evaluation of Alternatives. Alternatives identified in Task 6.1 will undergo evaluation against a range of criteria that include: • Operational Factors and Performance • FAA Airport Design criteria as outlined in Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A Airport Design and other FAA guidance referenced therein. • Best Planning Tenets • Environmental Factors, including noise, archaeological impacts, and wetland impacts • Financial Factors The evaluation process will combine qualitative and subjective techniques based on a combination of good planning judgment, relatively simple to use models, and simplified calculations with more rigorous analysis based on FAA design criteria. This scope of work assumes that alternatives will be developed for three airport components and that a maximum of three alternatives will be developed for each.
Evaluation of Alternatives. CEQA requires a comparative evaluation of a proposed project and alternatives to the project, including the “No Project” alternative. This Addendum relies on the FEIS/EIR for the evaluation of alternatives. The FEIS/EIR addressed a reasonable range of alternatives for the project. The City of Tustin is implementing Alternative 1 of the FEIS/EIR, and there is no information indicating that the City should implement a different Alternative or that a different Alternative is feasible. Consistent with Section 15183 of the State CEQA Guidelines that identifies which environmental evaluation is required for projects that are consistent with a community plan or zoning, there is no need to address new alternatives in this Addendum. Additionally, there are no circumstances cited in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which require preparation of a subsequent EIR relative to alternatives.
Evaluation of Alternatives. The No-Project Alternative (fully discussed at pages 5-4 through 5-5 of the Draft EIR) would result in the Project not being constructed. The No Project Alternative would involve maintaining the existing seawater system as a source of seawater for research and conducting emergency shoreline protection activities, such as sand bagging, on a seasonal and as-needed basis. Any structural damage or functional failures of the existing seawater system would be repaired on a case-by-case basis. No upgrades in the system reliability or shoreline protection methods would be implemented. The No Project Alternative would result in significant erosion impacts to, and possible destruction of, the Lagoon Barrier and seawater system improvements due to continued storm damage associated with a retreating coastal environment. Project impacts to land use, terrestrial biology, marine biology, visual quality, and noise would be avoided by not constructing the proposed project. Potential breach of the Lagoon Barrier would adversely impact species that are currently dependent on the open water habitat of the lagoon. Potential impacts on visual character CALENDAR PAGUS 116.2 ICTHE PAGE 002761 would be expected if the Campus Lagoon water drains and eliminates the highly scenic water feature. Although many of the significant project impacts would be reduced or eliminated, the No Project Alternative does not meet any of the basic project objectives and could jeopardize valuable research projects should the seawater system fail. For these reasons, the No Project Alternative is infeasible. Under the No Shoreline Protection Alternative (fully discussed at pages 5-5 through 5-12 of the Draft EIR) the Seawater System Renewal Project would be constructed; however, the rock revetment would not be installed. The No Shoreline Protection Alternative would temporarily increase the reliability of the seawater system on campus by constructing new and upgraded facilities. However, without shoreline protection incorporated into the project design, the Lagoon Barrier would not be stabilized and all seaward improvements would eventually be exposed to erosion caused by wave action and storm surges. Damage to the beach pumphouse, wet well and underground utilities could jeopardize the seawater system and research projects that depend on fresh seawater. In the event of system failure caused by erosion damage, none of the marine research and instruction involving seawater could be accomplished. Access t...
