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. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Street would cross under Aurora and two new bridges would be constructed over Aurora Avenue N. at ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Streets for a total of three crossings. The Partially Lowered Aurora Option would only slightly reduce access to and from the Uptown (Lower ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇) 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, ▇▇▇▇, and Aloha Streets) where they intersect Aurora ...
View Source

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 Funder has consented, in writing, to its inclusion pursuant to the process set out in section 6.3(b).

  • Investment Analysis and Implementation In carrying out its obligations under Section 1 hereof, the Advisor shall: (a) supervise all aspects of the operations of the Funds; (b) obtain and evaluate pertinent information about significant developments and economic, statistical and financial data, domestic, foreign or otherwise, whether affecting the economy generally or the Funds, and whether concerning the individual issuers whose securities are included in the assets of the Funds or the activities in which such issuers engage, or with respect to securities which the Advisor considers desirable for inclusion in the Funds' assets; (c) determine which issuers and securities shall be represented in the Funds' investment portfolios and regularly report thereon to the Board of Trustees; (d) formulate and implement continuing programs for the purchases and sales of the securities of such issuers and regularly report thereon to the Board of Trustees; and (e) take, on behalf of the Trust and the Funds, all actions which appear to the Trust and the Funds necessary to carry into effect such purchase and sale programs and supervisory functions as aforesaid, including but not limited to the placing of orders for the purchase and sale of securities for the Funds.

  • MINOR CHANGES IN THE WORK If permitted in the agreement between Owner and Architect, the Architect has 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.

  • 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.

  • 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: