The Board’s Findings Relating to Alternatives Sample Clauses

The Board’s Findings Relating to Alternatives. In making these findings, the Board certifies that it has independently reviewed and considered the information on alternatives provided in the Final EIR, including the information provided in comments on the Draft EIR and the responses to those comments in the Final EIR. The Final EIR’s discussion and analysis of these alternatives is not repeated in these findings, but the discussion and analysis of the alternatives in the Final EIR is incorporated in these findings by reference. The Final EIR describes and evaluates in detail several alternatives to the Project. As set forth in section B above, the Board has adopted mitigation measures that mitigate the significant environmental effects of the Project. As explained in section D of these findings, while these mitigation measures will not mitigate all Project impacts to a less than significant level, they will mitigate those impacts to a level that the Board finds is acceptable. The Board finds that only the Project would satisfy all of the Project Objectives. The Board finds that the remaining alternatives are unable to satisfy the project objectives to the same degree as the Project. The Board further finds that, on balance, none of the remaining alternatives has environmental advantages over the Project that are sufficiently great to justify approval of such an alternative instead of the Project, in light of each such alternative’s inability to satisfy the project objectives to the same degree as the Project. Accordingly, the Board has determined to approve the Project instead of approving one of the remaining alternatives. In making this determination, the Board finds that when compared to the other alternatives described and evaluated in the Final EIR, the Project, as mitigated, provides a reasonable balance between fully satisfying the project objectives and reducing potential environmental impacts to an acceptable level. The Board further finds and determines that the Project should be approved, rather than one of the other alternatives, for the reasons set forth below.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to The Board’s Findings Relating to Alternatives

  • METHOD OF AWARD AND PROCEDURE FOR AWARDING A SOW AGREEMENT 5.1. Contractor selection, or the determination to terminate the SOW-RFP without award, shall be done in the best interest of the State.

  • File Management and Record Retention relating to CRF Eligible Persons or Households Grantee must maintain a separate file for every applicant, Eligible Person, or Household, regardless of whether the request was approved or denied.

  • Technical Objections to Grievances It is the intent of both Parties of this Agreement that no grievance shall be defeated merely because of a technical error, other than time limitations in processing the grievance through the grievance procedure. To this end, an arbitration board shall have the power to allow all necessary amendments to the grievance and the power to waive formal procedural irregularities in the processing of a grievance, in order to determine the real matter in dispute and to render a decision according to equitable principles and the justice of the case.

  • Staffing Levels to deal with Potential Violence The Employer agrees that, where there is a risk of violence, an adequate level of trained employees should be present. The Employer recognizes that workloads can lead to fatigue and a diminished ability both to identify and to subsequently deal with potentially violent situations.

  • Technical Objections to Grievance No grievance will be defeated or denied by any minor technical objection.

  • System for Award Management (XXX) Requirement Alongside a signed copy of this Agreement, Grantee will provide Florida Housing with a XXX.xxx proof of registration and Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) number. Grantee will continue to maintain an active XXX registration with current information at all times during which it has an active award under this Agreement.

  • CAISO and Participating TO Obligations The CAISO and Participating TO shall cause the Participating TO’s Transmission System to be operated and controlled in a safe and reliable manner and in accordance with this LGIA. The Participating TO at the Interconnection Customer’s expense shall cause the Participating TO’s Interconnection Facilities to be operated, maintained and controlled in a safe and reliable manner and in accordance with this LGIA. The CAISO and Participating TO may provide operating instructions to the Interconnection Customer consistent with this LGIA and Participating TO and CAISO operating protocols and procedures as they may change from time to time. The Participating TO and CAISO will consider changes to their operating protocols and procedures proposed by the Interconnection Customer.

  • System for Award Management (XXX) XXX.gov)

  • Particular Methods of Procurement of Consultants’ Services 1. Quality- and Cost-based Selection. Except as otherwise provided in paragraph 2 below, consultants’ services shall be procured under contracts awarded on the basis of Quality and Cost-based Selection.

  • GEOGRAPHIC AREA AND SECTOR SPECIFIC ALLOWANCES, CONDITIONS AND EXCEPTIONS The following allowances and conditions shall apply where relevant: Where the company does work which falls under the following headings, the company agrees to pay and observe the relevant respective conditions and/or exceptions set out below in each case.

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