No Project Alternative Sample Clauses

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.
View SourceView Similar (3)
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 ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇. 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 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 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 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Channel contrary to goals of the City's adopted land use plans.
View Source
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 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 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...
View Source
No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative analyzes what would be expected to occur if the proposed project were not approved. Pursuant to Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the No Project Alternative shall: …discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time the environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. Under the No Project Alternative, the Agreement between the SRSC and Reclamation would not be signed, and water would continue to be managed based on current allocations and management plans. Neither of the objectives of the proposed project, to facilitate surface water reductions during specified drought years and to implement drought-resiliency projects to address potential water loss and strengthen the resilience of the SRSC’s water system and long-term water delivery capabilities, would be achieved. As part of the No Project Alternative, SRSC members would continue to receive contracted water per the existing agreements (shown in Table 26 of the Draft EIR). Contractors would continue to manage water on an individual basis and may elect to implement certain water reduction activities (e.g., canal lining) and/or shift agriculture practices (e.g., crops shifting or idling) based on drought and/or economic conditions similar to the individual practices occurring under baseline conditions. Such activities would not be completed in any coordinated way and are too speculative to define in terms of timing and location.
View Source
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 ▇▇▇▇▇ 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.
View Source

Related to No Project Alternative

  • Improvement Plan A detailed, written plan initiated by the evaluator. The teacher may provide input at the meeting to review the plan. Improvement plans are utilized when a teacher receives an Evaluation Rating of Ineffective or when an administrator utilizes discretion to place any teacher on an improvement plan at any time based on any individual deficiency in the evaluation system. The approved form for the Improvement Plan is attached to this agreement as Appendix A-9.

  • Capital Improvements From and after Final Completion, Tenant shall not replace or materially alter the Project, or any part thereof (except as provided to the contrary with respect to Fixtures in Article 13), or make any addition thereto, whether voluntarily or in connection with repairs required by this Lease (collectively, “Capital Improvements”), unless Tenant shall comply with the following requirements and, if applicable, with the additional requirements set forth in Section 11.10: (a) No Capital Improvements shall be undertaken, as applicable, until Tenant shall have procured from all Governmental Authorities and paid for all permits, consents, certificates and approvals for the proposed Capital Improvements which are required to be obtained prior to the commencement of the proposed Capital Improvements (collectively, “Improvement Approvals”). The FCRHA shall not unreasonably refuse to join or otherwise unreasonably refuse to cooperate in the application for any such Improvement Approvals, provided such application is made without cost, expense or liability (contingent or otherwise) to the FCRHA. True copies of all such Improvement Approvals shall be delivered by Tenant to the FCRHA prior to commencement of the proposed Capital Improvements. (b) The Premises after completion of such Capital Improvements, shall have a value at least equal to the value of the Premises immediately before construction of such Capital Improvements. In addition, the Project shall at all times remain in substantial conformity with the original Plans and Specifications therefor (except to the extent specifically consented to by the FCRHA, in its sole but reasonable discretion). (c) All Capital Improvements shall be made with reasonable diligence and continuity (subject to Unavoidable Delays) and in a good and workmanlike manner and in compliance with (i) all Improvement Approvals, (ii) if required pursuant to Section 11.10(a) or (b), in substantial accordance with the plans and specifications for such Capital Improvements as approved by the FCRHA, and (iii) all Applicable Laws. (d) No construction of any Capital Improvement shall be commenced until Tenant shall have delivered to the FCRHA certificates of insurance and copies of the declaration page(s) for the insurance required by Exhibit D. Such insurance policies shall comply with the terms of Section 7.02 above.