Primary Changes in the Analysis Since the Draft EIS Sample Clauses

Primary Changes in the Analysis Since the Draft EIS. The following is a short list of key differences in the effects of the updated Tunnel and Elevated Structure Alternatives compared to the effects of the Tunnel and Rebuild Alternatives, respectively, evaluated in the Draft EIS. • The project corridor is about three blocks longer than evaluated in the Draft EIS, with some additional residential uses affected by construction and operation impacts. • The additional data and analysis related to property acquisitions have shown that new impacts would occur, especially along the south waterfront. In particular, the U.S. Coast Guard office building as well as the Museum of the Northwest would be displaced from Pier 36. • The elimination of the Pine Street ramps from the Tunnel Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIS has substantially reduced potential adverse effects on social resources in the north waterfront section of the project corridor during both construction and operation. Traffic would no longer enter and exit the waterfront tunnel at this location, and the associated traffic congestion, air, and noise adverse effects have been eliminated along Alaskan Way surface street north of Pine Street. • The design of the Rebuild Alternative in the Draft EIS did not include any improvements to either the Battery Street Tunnel or Aurora Avenue N. The design of the Elevated Structure Alternative expands the area and number of social resources affected. • Despite the slightly longer project corridor and the change in design for the updated Tunnel and Elevated Structure Alternatives, the overall number of social resources affected by full property acquisitions has decreased. • There are two options for improvements north of the Battery Street Tunnel. The Lowered Aurora Option is similar to the improvements proposed under the Aerial Alternative in the Draft EIS, which included five crossings. The Partially Lowered Aurora Option would provided three street crossings. Xxxxxx Street would cross under Aurora and two new bridges would be constructed over Aurora Avenue N. at Xxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx Streets for a total of three crossings. The Partially Lowered Aurora Option would only slightly reduce access to and from the Uptown (Lower Xxxxx Xxxx) and South Lake Union neighborhoods compared to the Draft EIS, although it is still an improvement compared to current conditions. • With the Partially Lowered Aurora Option, the addition of cul‐de‐sacs on three local streets (Valley, Xxxx, and Aloha Streets) where they intersect Aurora ...
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Primary Changes in the Analysis Since the Draft EIS

  • Proposing Integration Activities in the Planning Submission No integration activity described in section 6.3 may be proposed in a CAPS unless the LHIN has consented, in writing, to its inclusion pursuant to the process set out in section 6.3(b).

  • Selection of projects and financial parameters 4.1 Open calls and availability of funds (including number of calls, duration of calls, and estimated size):

  • MINOR CHANGES IN THE WORK 7.4.1 The Architect will have authority to order minor changes in the Work not involving adjustment in the Contract Sum or extension of the Contract Time and not inconsistent with the intent of the Contract Documents. Such changes shall be effected by written order and shall be binding on the Owner and Contractor. The Contractor shall carry out such written orders without delay.

  • Finalization of Evaluation A Written Report 1 Before the evaluation cycle is final, and not later than May 10, a copy of the formal written evaluation report shall be given to the teacher and a conference shall be held between the teacher and the evaluator.

  • Termination for Changes in Budget or Law The JBE’s payment obligations under this Agreement are subject to annual appropriation and the availability of funds. Expected or actual funding may be withdrawn, reduced, or limited prior to the expiration or other termination of this Agreement. Funding beyond the current appropriation year is conditioned upon appropriation of sufficient funds to support the activities described in this Agreement. The JBE may terminate this Agreement or limit Contractor’s Services (and reduce proportionately Contractor’s fees) upon Notice to Contractor without prejudice to any right or remedy of the JBE if: (i) expected or actual funding to compensate Contractor is withdrawn, reduced or limited; or (ii) the JBE determines that Contractor’s performance under this Agreement has become infeasible due to changes in applicable laws.

  • Technical Standards Applicable to a Wind Generating Plant i. Low Voltage Ride-Through (LVRT) Capability A wind generating plant shall be able to remain online during voltage disturbances up to the time periods and associated voltage levels set forth in the standard below. The LVRT standard provides for a transition period standard and a post-transition period standard.

  • Background and Narrative of Budget Reductions 2. Assumptions Used in the Deficit Reduction Plan: - EBF and Estimated New Tier Funding: - Equal Assessed Valuation and Tax Rates: - Employee Salaries and Benefits: - Short and Long Term Borrowing: - Educational Impact: - Other Assumptions: - Has the district considered shared services or outsourcing (Ex: Transportation, Insurance) If yes please explain: ESTIMATED LIMITATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS (School Districts Only) (For Local Use Only)

  • Implementation of the Report 1. The Panel report shall be final and binding on the disputing Parties. 2. If the report issued by the Panel determines that a Party has not conformed with its obligations under this Agreement, the Party complained against shall eliminate the non- conformity. 3. The Party complained against shall comply with the recommendation of the Panel promptly or, if not practicable, within a reasonable period of time. The Parties shall agree on reasonable period of time within 30 days of the notification of the report of the Panel. In any case, such reasonable period of time shall not exceed 300 calendar days after the release of the report.

  • CERTIFICATION REGARDING CERTAIN FOREIGN-OWNED COMPANIES IN CONNECTION WITH CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE (Texas law as of September 1, 2021) By submitting a proposal to this Solicitation, you certify that you agree to the following required by Texas law as of September 1, 2021: Proposing Company is prohibited from entering into a contract or other agreement relating to critical infrastructure that would grant to the company direct or remote access to or control of critical infrastructure in this state, excluding access specifically allowed by the Proposing Company for product warranty and support purposes. Company, certifies that neither it nor its parent company nor any affiliate of company or its parent company, is (1) owned by or the majority of stock or other ownership interest of the company is held or controlled by individuals who are citizens of China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, or a designated country; (2) a company or other entity, including governmental entity, that is owned or controlled by citizens of or is directly controlled by the government of China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, or a designated country; or (3) headquartered in China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, or a designated country. For purposes of this contract, “critical infrastructure” means “a communication infrastructure system, cybersecurity system, electric grid, hazardous waste treatment system, or water treatment facility.” See Tex. Gov’t Code § 2274.0101(2) of SB 1226 (87th leg.). The company verifies and certifies that company will not grant direct or remote access to or control of critical infrastructure, except for product warranty and support purposes, to prohibited individuals, companies, or entities, including governmental entities, owned, controlled, or headquartered in China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, or a designated country, as determined by the Governor.

  • Program Evaluation The School District and the College will develop a plan for the evaluation of the Dual Credit program to be completed each year. The evaluation will include, but is not limited to, disaggregated attendance and retention rates, GPA of high-school-credit-only courses and college courses, satisfactory progress in college courses, state assessment results, SAT/ACT, as applicable, TSIA readiness by grade level, and adequate progress toward the college-readiness of the students in the program. The School District commits to collecting longitudinal data as specified by the College, and making data and performance outcomes available to the College upon request. HB 1638 and SACSCOC require the collection of data points to be longitudinally captured by the School District, in collaboration with the College, will include, at minimum: student enrollment, GPA, retention, persistence, completion, transfer and scholarships. School District will provide parent contact and demographic information to the College upon request for targeted marketing of degree completion or workforce development information to parents of Students. School District agrees to obtain valid FERPA releases drafted to support the supply of such data if deemed required by counsel to either School District or the College. The College conducts and reports regular and ongoing evaluations of the Dual Credit program effectiveness and uses the results for continuous improvement.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.