Project alternatives do not have any impact
No Project Alternative would continue operations at SCLF, with a capacity to handle 3,400 tons per day (TPD). It would need to transfer waste to a new facility earlier than the other options. In other terms that the No Project Alternative would result in a higher cost alternative to SCLF. Although No Project Alternative would have greater impact than Variations 1 and 2. It would nevertheless accomplish all four goals of this project.
A No Project/No Development Alternative will also result in a reduced amount of both short-term and long-term impacts. The No Project/No Development Alternative would not affect water quality or soils in the same manner the proposed project could. This alternative does not offer the environmental protection the community requires. Therefore, it is inferior to the project in many ways. The No Project/No Development Alternative would therefore be more sustainable than the proposed project.
The Court stressed that the impacts of the project would not be significant, despite the EIR discussing the potential impacts on recreation. This is because the majority of users of the area would move to other areas in the vicinity therefore any cumulative impacts will be spread out. While the No Project Alternative will not change the current conditions, the increasing activity of aviation could cause an increase in surface runoff. However the Airport will continue to implement its SWPPP and carry out additional analyses.
Under CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must determine an alternative that is more environmentally sustainable. In the No Project Alternative, there is no significant environmental impact. To compare the "No Project Alternative" with the proposed project, an impact assessment is necessary. Only the most significant environmental impacts (e.g., software alternatives GHG emissions and air pollution) will be deemed unacceptable. The project must achieve the main objectives, regardless of the environmental and social impacts of a No Project Alternative.
Habitat impacts of no other project
In addition to greenhouse gas emissions, the No Project alternative could also result in an increase in particulate matter that is 10 microns or smaller. Although the existing adopted General Plan contains energy conservation policies, they make up a small percentage of the total emissions and , therefore, will not entirely mitigate the impact of the Project. The Project will have more impacts than the No Project alternative. Therefore, it is vital to take into account the full impact of the Alternatives when assessing the impact on habitats and ecosystems.
The No Project Alternative has less impact on the quality of air or biological resources, nor greenhouse gas emissions than its predecessor. The No Project Alternative would have greater public services, more environmental hydrology and alternative product alternative noise impacts, and project alternatives is not in line with any project objectives. Therefore it is clear that the No Project Alternative is not the best option since it is not able to meet all of the objectives. It is possible to find many advantages for projects that have a No Project Alternative.
The No Project Alternative would keep the project site undeveloped, which would preserve the majority of species and habitat. Additionally the disturbance of the habitat would provide habitat for vulnerable and common species. The proposed plan would decrease the number of plants and remove habitat suitable for to forage. Because the project site is already heavily disturbed by agriculture and other activities, the No Project Alternative would result in less negative biological effects than the proposed project. The benefits include more recreational and tourism opportunities.
The CEQA guidelines require that the city determine an Environmentally Superior Alternative. In the list of alternatives, the No Project Alternative would not lessen the impacts of the Project. Instead, it will create an alternative with similar or similar impacts. The CEQA Guidelines Section 15126 stipulates that a project be environmentally superiority. There isn't a project alternative to the No Project Alternative that would be more eco-friendly.
The study of the two alternatives should include a review of the effects that are a result of the proposed project as well as the two alternatives. These alternatives will allow decision makers to make informed decisions on which option will have the lowest impact on the environment. Making the best environmentally responsible option will increase the probability of an effective outcome. The State CEQA Guidelines require cities to explain their decisions. Additionally an "No Project Alternative" can be a better way to compare an Project that is otherwise unacceptable.
The No Project Alternative would see agricultural land converted to urban use. The area could be converted to urban development in the Planned Urbanizing Area, as in accordance with the adopted General Plan and CPDs. The impact would be less significant than those that are associated with the Project, but still be significant. The effects will be similar to those of the Project. This is why it is important to carefully study the No Project Alternative.
The impact of hydrology on no other project
The impact of the proposed project must be compared to the impacts of the no-project alternative, or the reduced building area alternative. While the impacts of the no project alternative are more severe than the project itself, the alternative will not achieve the basic project objectives. The No Project Alternative would be the most environmentally sustainable alternative to reduce the impact of the proposed project on the environment. The proposed project will not have an impact on the hydrology of this region.
The No Project Alternative would have less aesthetic and air quality biological impacts than the proposed project. Although it would have fewer impacts on the public service alternative however, it still carries the same risks. It would not meet the goals of the project, and would not be as efficient either. The details of each proposed development will determine the impact of the No Project Alternative. The impact analysis for this alternative is available at the following website:
The No Project Alternative would maintain the agricultural use of the land and not interfere with its permeable surfaces. The proposed project would decrease the amount of species and would eliminate habitat suitable for species that are sensitive. The No Project Alternative would have less impact on the hydrology of the region since the proposed project would not affect the land used for agriculture. It would also allow for the construction of the project without affecting the hydrology of this area. Thus, the No Project Alternative would be better for both land use and hydrology.
The construction and operation of the proposed project will involve the use of hazardous substances. Abiding by regulations and mitigation measures will help to minimize the negative impacts. The No Project Alternative would continue the use of pesticides on the project site. However, it will also introduce new sources of hazardous materials. The consequences of No Project Alternative would be similar to that of the proposed project. If No Project Alternative is chosen pesticide use will remain on the site of the project.
