No Project Alternative. The No Project Option in respect to the proposed Project implies that the status quo is maintained. This option is the most suitable alternative from an extreme environmental perspective as it ensures non-interference with the existing conditions. Therefore if the Project is not implemented, the following issues are most likely to continue affecting residents of Limuru town. There will be no improved Health and Sanitation within the target beneficiaries There will be no improved living standard/well-being, employment and local economy in the target beneficiaries There will be no creation of employment during both construction and operation phases of the projects From the above analysis, it becomes apparent that the No Project alternative is no alternative to the community.
No Project Alternative. This alternative was not selected because the objectives of the FCD mission of providing protection from flood, would not be accomplished and the Goleta Slough salt xxxxx would be converted to upland habitat, thus reducing the size of the Slough. Without the proposed project the area would be subject to continued siltation, reduction in the size of the Goleta Slough and increased flood hazard. However, no impacts associated with the proposed project would occur.
No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative is rejected as infeasible because it is not satisfactory at achieving the basic project objectives. The No Project Alternative would not meet the primary objective of providing a corporate campus of multiple office buildings and an amenities center at the 000 Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx Xxxx. The No Project Alternative would not include construction of buildings; therefore, office/life science and amenity uses would not be able to function at the Site. In addition, the No Project Alternative would not allow for the realignment of Airport Boulevard through the Site, which is intended to provide traffic-calming and safety in the area. Further, Bay waterfront access would not be improved, construction of an improved Bay Trail segment along the shoreline would not be accomplished, and public access to the eastern shoreline of Xxxxxxx Channel would continue to be limited. As such, the No Project Alternative does not meet the specified project objectives. In addition, the No Project Alternative is rejected as infeasible because the present state of the land, a vacant site with paving from a former drive-in theater and car parking operation, is underutilized and fails to capture potential economic and social value from its designation as a development parcel under the City's adopted land use plans for the Bayfront area, and limits public use of the adjacent San Francisco Bay shoreline at Xxxxxxx Channel contrary to goals of the City's adopted land use plans.
No Project Alternative. Under CEQA, a “No-Project Alternative” compares the impacts of proceeding with a proposed project with the impacts of not proceeding with the proposed project. A No-Project Alternative describes the environmental conditions in existence at the time the Notice of Preparation was published, along with a discussion of what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. Here, the No Project Alternative would not include construction of any of the Project components, which in turn would eliminate all construction and operational impacts at all of the Project component sites, avoiding all significant impacts identified for the Project. However, the beneficial impacts of the project with respect to the restoration of flows in the Carmel River would potentially be delayed or would not occur if the No Project Alternative was implemented. Benefits of the Project related to additional irrigation water for CSIP (and related to offset of groundwater pumping by delivering additional recycled water for crop irrigation) and potential improvements in seawater intrusion conditions would also not occur. Under the No Project Alternative, none of the objectives of the Project would be met, and the benefits of the Project would not occur. The No Project Alternative would not enable CalAm to reduce its diversions from the Carmel River system by up to 3,500 AFY by injecting the same amount of purified recycled water into the Seaside Basin. This alternative also would not meet the project objective of providing additional water to the Regional Treatment Plant to be used for crop irrigation through the Xxxxxxx Valley Reclamation Plant and CSIP system, and there would be no drought reserve for crop irrigation within the CSIP area during dry years. On balance, the environmental benefits that might be achieved with this alternative are outweighed by its failure to provide the environmental benefits of the Project or to achieve the project objectives, and the Board rejects this alternative. A commenter on the Draft EIR suggested that the larger desalination plant proposed by CalAm for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPSWP) would result from disapproval of the Proposed GWR Project. The MPSWP is an independent project undergoing its own CEQA process, and that project is not an approved plan, nor is it consistent with available infrastructure. Nevertheless, the EIR de...
