Additional Findings. When new information or new areas are introduced consistent with part E of this stipulation, DoD will provide its findings in writing to the appropriate SHPO, who will have 45 days after receipt of DoD’s findings to determine whether supplemental identification measures are warranted. If DoD and SHPO agree, or if SHPO does not comment within 45 days, DoD will proceed consistent with its findings. If the parties do not agree within 45 days from the date DoD provides its findings, DoD and SHPO will consult for an additional period not to exceed 15 days from the date SHPO provides DoD with notice of its objection. If consensus cannot be reached within 15 days, DoD will provide written notice to the Signatories, Invited Signatories, and Concurring Parties of DoD’s decision, and further disagreement, if any, will be addressed in accordance with Stipulation XIII.B. The party referring the matter for resolution under Stipulation XIII.B must provide DoD with written notification of the referral within 10 days of DoD’s notice of decision
Additional Findings. During fieldwork for this follow-up, FCMAT observed that staff members regularly duplicated and filed most financial transactions, resulting in large amounts of manually copied information. The charter high school is not required to keep permanent records of all transactions. It would benefit the charter high school to adopt and use the most recent edition of the California Association of School Business Officials’ (CASBO’s)
Additional Findings. The Commission, effective upon execution and recordation of this Agreement, makes the following additional findings:
a. The parties have a good faith and bona fide dispute as to their respective interests within the NAS Property. The Agreement is a compromise of the contested issues of law and evidence upon which the dispute is based, and is in lieu of the costs, delay, and uncertainties of title litigation, and is consistent with and authorized by the requirements of law.
b. This Agreement is in settlement of a title dispute and is therefore exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.11, the Subdivision Map Act pursuant to Government Code section 66412(e), and the California Coastal Act pursuant to Public Resources Code section 30416(c).
Additional Findings. Several of the SAIPs reported additional impacts that they could attribute to the implementation of the GRB tool: Several cases of harassment of women and girls were highlighted in the water and education sectors. In almost all cases where the school environment was improved the SAIPs reported that fence repairs were high on the priority list as a way of protecting students from harassment. When the Ethiopian Women Lawyers Association discussed gender equality in the education sector, several women disclosed harassment issues, which the organisation promptly followed up on. In one case highlighted in elsewhere in this paper, drinking houses were removed from the school compound after Woreda officials became aware of their negative impact during GRB-related discussions. In the water sector, women and girls’ exposure to the risk of harassment was often cited as a reason for bringing water points closer to communities and to clear water point from vegetation that obscured it from view. Gender awareness has clearly led to a greater awareness of need to prevent gender based violence. ADV reported: “The Mirab Azerenet Woreda and Kebele-level SACs developed an understanding of GRB and revised their committee members to include more women and maintain gender balance.” ADV’s report also included this reflection from a man who participated in the SA intervention in Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx: “In my case, I used to think that my wife should not go to community meetings but now I am happy that she is participating. The fact that she comes to these meetings enabled us to implement some of our learning such as the use of improved agricultural practices at home more easily. I now understand that it is important to have a balanced division of labour for girls and boys, for example to support girls during water fetching.”
Additional Findings. The Commission, effective upon execution and recordation of this Agreement, makes the following additional findings:
a. There is a good faith and bona fide dispute as to the State’s interests within the TIDA Property. This Agreement is a compromise of the contested issues of law and evidence upon which the dispute is based, and is in lieu of the costs, delay, and uncertainties of title and boundary litigation, and is consistent with and authorized by the requirements of law.
b. This Agreement is in settlement of a title and boundary dispute and is therefore exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.11 and the Subdivision Map Act pursuant to Government Code section 66412(e).
Additional Findings. The City, as lead agency for the Project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), determined that the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA as a Class 32 project (infill development projects). The Commission hereby finds that this Agreement is in settlement of title and boundary problems and therefore any exchange or lease in connection with this settlement is exempt from CEQA under Public Resources Code section 21080.11.
Additional Findings. It is necessary in the public interest to make this order amending the order effective not later than May 1,1967. Any delay beyond that date would tend to disrupt the orderly marketing of milk in the marketing area. The provisions of the said order are known to handlers. The recommended decision of the Deputy Administrator, Regulatory Programs, was issued Jan uary 13, 1967, and the decision of the Assistant Secretary containing all amendment provisions of this order was issued April 12, 1967. 'The changes ef fected by this order will not require ex tensive preparation or substantial altera
Additional Findings. Subject is one of several buildings within a medical office complex of similar construction style. Three sales were presented. The County's two sales supported County's value and closed during the base period. Petitioner's sale
Additional Findings. I hereby find that, upon consideration of the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the Project has potential growth inducing impacts, even though approval of this project would require an amendment to the LRDP to incorporate the precise design of the proposed rock revetment. The project is consistent with, and in support of, academic uses on campus. The proposed project would not be considered a precedent-setting project since the need to protect the Lagoon Barrier and seawater system infrastructure is discussed in the 1990 LRDP. The LRDP Amendment is a minor modification to the text of the 1990 LRDP, which implements the campus policies for protecting coastal-dependent uses including the seawater system and Campus Lagoon, and does not change the planned use of the site. Therefore, the project would not be considered growth-inducing.
