Authority Review - Initial Sample Clauses

Authority Review - Initial. The Authority Staff shall review the Streetscape Master Plan, Conceptual Parks and Open Space Master Plan or Signage Master Plan Applications (each, a “Master Plan Application”) for completeness and advise Developer in writing of any deficiencies within thirty (30) days after the receipt of the applicable Master Plan Application. In the event the Authority Staff does not so advise Developer, the Master Plan Application shall be deemed Complete and all time periods for Authority and City review shall run from the date of such deemed Completeness. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a determination that a Master Plan Application is deemed Complete shall not prevent the Authority Staff from requesting such additional materials as deemed reasonably necessary to complete the review by the Authority and City.
Sample 1Sample 2
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Authority Review - Initial. Authority Staff shall review as expeditiously as reasonably possible each Sub-Phase Application using the same procedures described for Major Phase Applications in Section 4.2.1. A Sub-Phase Application shall not be deemed a Complete Application for purposes of the review periods set forth below until (1) the Executive Director notifies Developer that it is a Complete Application, in which case the review periods shall commence on the date of such notification; or (2) the Executive Director fails to notify Developer that the Sub-Phase Application is either Complete or deficient within the time periods specified in Section 4.2.1 in which case the review periods shall commence on the date that the Sub-Phase Application is deemed Complete pursuant to Section 4.2.1.
Sample 1Sample 2
Authority Review - Initial. Authority Staff shall review each Major Phase Application as expeditiously as reasonably possible for conformance with the Development Requirements. Within thirty (30) days following receipt of a Major Phase Application, Authority Staff shall notify Developer of any deficiencies and make any requests for additional information or materials that are reasonably necessary in order to process the Major Phase Application under this DRDAP and are consistent with the type of documents listed in Exhibit 2 for Major Phase Applications. Developer shall promptly correct any such deficiencies and provide any such requested information and materials. The Executive Director shall make a determination of whether a Major Phase Application is a Complete Application no later than thirty (30) days following receipt of such Major Phase Application, as such time period may be extended in accordance with Section 4.1, or, if applicable, no later than fifteen (15) days following receipt of any additional information and materials requested under this Section 4.2.1, and notify Developer of the same. If the Executive Director does not so advise the applicant within such thirty (30) or fifteen (15) day period, as applicable, the Major Phase Application shall be deemed Complete and all time periods for Authority and City review shall run from the date of such deemed Completeness. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a determination that a Major Phase Application is deemed Complete shall not prevent the Executive Director from requesting such additional materials as deemed reasonably necessary for the Authority's and City's review of the Application in accordance with this DRDAP.
Sample 1
Authority Review - Initial. Authority Staff shall review each Schematic Design Document Application as expeditiously as reasonably possible using the same procedures described for Major Phase Applications in Section 4.2.1. A Schematic Design Document Application shall not be deemed a Complete Application for purposes of the review periods set forth below until (1) the Executive Director notifies Developer that it is a Complete Application and the review periods shall commence on the date of such notification; or (2) the Executive Director fails to notify Developer that the Schematic Design Document Application is either Complete or deficient within the time periods specified in Section 4.2.1 in which case the review periods shall commence on the date that the Schematic Design Document Application is deemed Complete pursuant to Section 4.2.1.
Sample 1
Authority Review - Initial. Authority Staff shall review as expeditiously as reasonably possible each Design Development Application using the same procedures described for Major Phase Applications in Section 4.2.1. A Design Development Application shall not be deemed a Complete Application for purposes of the review periods set forth below until (1) the Executive Director notifies Developer that it is a Complete Application or (2) the Executive Director fails to notify Developer that the Design Development Application is either Complete or deficient within the time periods specified in Section 4.2.1 in which case the review periods shall commence on the date that the Design Development Application is deemed Complete pursuant to Section 4.2.1.
Sample 1

Related to Authority Review - Initial

  • Program Review The State ECEAP Office will conduct a review of each contractor’s compliance with the ECEAP Contract and ECEAP Performance Standards every four years. The review will involve ECEAP staff and parents. After the Program Review, the State ECEAP Office will provide the contractor with a Program Review report. The contractor must submit an ECEAP Corrective Action Plan for non-compliance with ECEAP Performance Standards. The Plan must be approved by the State ECEAP Office.

  • Statewide HUB Program Statewide Procurement Division Note: In order for State agencies and institutions of higher education (universities) to be credited for utilizing this business as a HUB, they must award payment under the Certificate/VID Number identified above. Agencies, universities and prime contractors are encouraged to verify the company’s HUB certification prior to issuing a notice of award by accessing the Internet (xxxxx://xxxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xx.xx/tpasscmblsearch/index.jsp) or by contacting

  • ADB’s Review of Procurement Decisions 11. All contracts procured under international competitive bidding procedures and contracts for consulting services shall be subject to prior review by ADB, unless otherwise agreed between the Borrower and ADB and set forth in the Procurement Plan.

  • Log Reviews All systems processing and/or storing PHI COUNTY discloses to 11 CONTRACTOR or CONTRACTOR creates, receives, maintains, or transmits on behalf of COUNTY 12 must have a routine procedure in place to review system logs for unauthorized access.

  • Constructability Review Prepare detailed interdisciplinary constructability review within Fourteen (14) days of receipt of the plans from the District that: 10.1.2.1.6.1 Ensures construction documents are well coordinated and reviewed for errors; 10.1.2.1.6.2 Identifies to the extent known, construction deficiencies and areas of concern; 10.1.2.1.6.3 Back-checks design drawings for inclusion of modifications; and 10.1.2.1.6.4 Provides the District with written confirmation that: 10.1.2.1.6.4.1 Requirements noted in the design documents prepared for the Project are consistent with and conform to the District's Project requirements and design standards. 10.1.2.1.6.4.2 Various components have been coordinated and are consistent with each other so as to minimize conflicts within or between components of the design documents.

  • System Security Review All systems processing and/or storing County PHI or PI must have at least an annual system risk assessment/security review which provides assurance that administrative, physical, and technical controls are functioning effectively and providing adequate levels of protection. Reviews should include vulnerability scanning tools.

  • Review Scope The parties confirm that the Asset Representations Review is not responsible for (a) reviewing the Receivables for compliance with the representations and warranties under the Transaction Documents, except as described in this Agreement or (b) determining whether noncompliance with the representations and warranties constitutes a breach of the Eligibility Representations. For the avoidance of doubt, the parties confirm that the review is not designed to determine why an Obligor is delinquent or the creditworthiness of the Obligor, either at the time of any Asset Review or at the time of origination of the related Receivable. Further, the Asset Review is not designed to establish cause, materiality or recourse for any Test Fail (as defined in Section 3.05).

  • Midterm Review The Recipient shall: (a) carry out jointly with the Association, no later than 24 months after the Effective Date, a midterm review to assess the status of Project implementation, as measured against the performance indicators referred to in Section II.A.1 (a) of Schedule 2 to this Agreement. Such review shall include an assessment of the following: (i) overall progress in Project implementation; (ii) results of monitoring and evaluation activities; (iii) annual work plans and budgets;

  • Completion of Review for Certain Review Receivables Following the delivery of the list of the Review Receivables and before the delivery of the Review Report by the Asset Representations Reviewer, the Servicer may notify the Asset Representations Reviewer if a Review Receivable is paid in full by the Obligor or purchased from the Issuer in accordance with the terms of the Basic Documents. On receipt of such notice, the Asset Representations Reviewer will immediately terminate all Tests of the related Review Receivable, and the Review of such Review Receivables will be considered complete (a “Test Complete”). In this case, the related Review Report will indicate a Test Complete for such Review Receivable and the related reason.

  • Review Protocol A narrative description of how the Claims Review was conducted and what was evaluated.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!