Public Benefit. It is Raghuvir’s understanding that the commitments it has agreed to herein, and actions to be taken by Xxxxxxxx under this Settlement Agreement, would confer a significant benefit to the general public, as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and Cal. Admin. Code tit. 11, § 3201. As such, it is the intent of Xxxxxxxx that to the extent any other private party initiates an action alleging a violation of Proposition 65 with respect to Xxxxxxxx failure to provide a warning concerning exposure to DEHP prior to use of the Products it has manufactured, distributed, sold, or offered for sale in California, or will manufacture, distribute, sell, or offer for sale in California, such private party action would not confer a significant benefit on the general public as to those Products addressed in this Settlement Agreement, provided that Xxxxxxxx is in material compliance with this Settlement Agreement.
Public Benefit. It is the Parties’ belief that the terms of this Settlement Agreement confer a significant benefit to the general public as set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 and California Administrative Code title 11, section 3201. As such, it is the intent of the Parties that to the extent any other private party initiates an action alleging that the Covered Products are somehow in violation of Proposition 65, such private party action would not confer a significant benefit on the general public, so long as POP is in material compliance with the terms of this Settlement Agreement.
Public Benefit. It is Tune Belt’s understanding that the commitments it has agreed to herein, and actions to be taken by Tune Belt under this Settlement Agreement, would confer a significant benefit to the general public, as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and Cal. Admin. Code tit. 11, § 3201. As such, it is the intent of Tune Belt that to the extent any other private party initiates an action alleging a violation of Proposition 65 with respect to Tune Belt failure to provide a warning concerning exposure to DINP prior to use of the Products it has manufactured, distributed, sold, or offered for sale in California, or will manufacture, distribute, sell, or offer for sale in California, such private party action would not confer a significant benefit on the general public as to those Products addressed in this Settlement Agreement, provided that Tune Belt is in material compliance with this Settlement Agreement.
Public Benefit. The degree to which NGO sponsorship of the proposed project would be more beneficial to the public-at-large or more advantageous to NYSDOT/State than would governmental sponsorship.
Public Benefit. The Parties acknowledge that their contributions to the Project are meant to accrue to the public benefit.
Public Benefit. It is the Parties’ understanding that the commitments Xxxxxx has agreed to herein, and the actions to be taken by Xxxxxx under this Settlement Agreement, including payment of a civil penalty, would confer a significant benefit to the general public, as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and Cal. Admin. Code tit. 11, § 3201. As such, it is the intent of the Parties that, to the extent any other private party initiates an action alleging a violation of Proposition 65 with respect to Xxxxxx’x failure to provide a warning concerning exposure to DEA prior to use of the Products it has manufactured, distributed, sold, or offered for sale in California, or will manufacture, distribute, sell, or offer for sale in California, such private party action would not confer a significant benefit on the general public as to those Products addressed in this Settlement Agreement, provided that Xxxxxx is in material compliance with this Settlement Agreement.
Public Benefit. It is Nantong’s understanding that the commitments it has agreed to herein, and actions to be taken by Nantong under this Settlement Agreement, would confer a significant benefit to the general public, as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and Cal. Admin. Code tit. 11, § 3201. As such, it is the intent of Nantong that to the extent any other private party initiates an action alleging a violation of Proposition 65 with respect to Nantong failure to provide a warning concerning exposure to DEHP prior to use of the Products it has manufactured, distributed, sold, or offered for sale in California, or will manufacture, distribute, sell, or offer for sale in California, such private party action would not confer a significant benefit on the general public as to those Products addressed in this Settlement Agreement, provided that Nantong is in material compliance with this Settlement Agreement.
Public Benefit. The Project is proposed to consist of rent- and income- restricted affordable multi-family housing. In accordance with LMC 21.29.200.C, to balance the deviations from City code requirements stated in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 above, the Developer shall restrict the Project to multi-family housing units that are rent- and income restricted to households earning up to 60% of the Snohomish County Area Median Income. The Developer shall maintain this rent and income restriction for a minimum of 35 years. This rent and income restriction shall be evidenced by a restrictive covenant (the “Restrictive Covenant”) in a form acceptable to and approved by the City’s Director of Development and Building Services, and recorded against the Property prior to issuance of any building permit for the Project; provided, however, the Restrictive Covenant shall provide that during any period that the Project is subject to one or more Regulatory Agreements in favor of the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, compliance with such Regulatory Agreement(s) shall be deemed compliance with the Restrictive Covenant.
Public Benefit. It is Yogi’s understanding that the commitments it has agreed to herein, and actions to be taken by Yogi under this Settlement Agreement, would confer a significant benefit to the general public, as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and Cal. Admin. Code tit. 11, § 3201. As such, it is the intent of Yogi that to the extent any other private party initiates an action alleging a violation of Proposition 65 with respect to Yogi failure to provide a warning concerning exposure to DEHP prior to use of the Products it has manufactured, distributed, sold, or offered for sale in California, or will manufacture, distribute, sell, or offer for sale in California, such private party action would not confer a significant benefit on the general public as to those Products addressed in this Settlement Agreement, provided that Yogi is in material compliance with this Settlement Agreement.
Public Benefit. The parties acknowledge and agree that this Agreement confers private benefits on the Developer that should be balanced by commensurate public benefits. Accordingly, the parties intend to provide consideration to the public to balance the private benefits conferred on the Developer by imposition of the Development Agreement Fee set forth in Section 3.2 hereof. City acknowledges, as partial consideration for this Agreement, the Development Agreement Fee will be payable by Developer as provided in Section 3.2 hereof which fee will be utilized to further mitigate the impact of the Project and provide community benefits, as determined by the City Council. The provisions of this Section 3 are material terms of this Agreement, and failure by Developer to fulfill any of its obligations in this Section 3 shall be a material breach of this Agreement.
