STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION Sample Clauses

STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION. Authority: Public Resources Code sections 6005, 6216, 6301, and 6505.5; California Code of Regulations, Title 2, section 2000, subdivision (b). Public Trust and State’s Best Interests Analysis: The subject facilities are for the mooring of boats. Recreational boating is a water-dependent activity and is generally consistent with the common law Public Trust Doctrine. The subject buoy is privately owned and maintained. The California Legislature has identified private recreational boating facilities as an authorized use of public trust lands (Pub. Resources Code, § 6503.5). The subject facilities have existed in Tomales Bay for many years and do not significantly alter the land. The proposed lease is consistent with the TBMP and includes certain provisions protecting the public use of the proposed lease area, including a limited lease term of 10 years, and a non-exclusive use provision. The proposed lease also requires the Lessee to indemnify the State for any liability incurred as a result of the Lessee’s activities thereon. The lease requires the payment of annual rent to compensate the people of the State for the occupation of the sovereign land involved. The lease does not alienate the State’s fee simple interest or permanently impair public rights. Upon termination of the lease, the Lessee may be required to remove any improvements and restore the lease premises to their original condition. For all the reasons above, Commission staff believes the issuance of this lease is consistent with the common law Public Trust Doctrine, will not substantially interfere with public trust needs at this location, at this time, and for the foreseeable term of the proposed lease, and is in the best interests of the State.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION. Authority: Public Resources Code sections 6005, 6216, 6301, and 6503.5; California Code of Regulations, Title 2, section 2000, subdivision (b). Public Trust and State’s Best Interests Analysis: The two buoys are for the mooring of boats. Recreational boating is a water-dependent use that is generally consistent with the common law Public Trust Doctrine. The California Legislature has identified private recreational boating facilities as an authorized use of public trust lands (Pub. Resources Code, § 6503.5). The proposed lease includes certain provisions protecting the public use of the proposed lease area, including a lease term limited to 10 years and a non-exclusive use provision. There is a pier in the public trust easement at this location that does not extend lakeward of the low water mark onto the state’s fee-owned land and is therefore not an improvement subject to this lease. However, the lease does prohibit storage of items or construction of improvements within the public trust easement that would impair public use and access within the easement area. The two buoys have existed for many years at this location. The subject facilities do not significantly alter the land and the lease does not alienate the state’s fee simple interest or permanently impair public rights. Upon termination of the lease, the Lessee may be required to remove all improvements and restore the lease premises to their original condition. Additionally, the two buoys occupy a relatively small area of the lake. Based on the foregoing, Commission staff believes that the two mooring buoys will not substantially interfere with public trust needs at this location, at this time, or for the foreseeable term of the proposed lease. The proposed lease requires the Lessee to insure the lease premises and indemnify the state for any liability incurred as a result of the Lessee’s activities thereon. The lease also requires the payment of annual rent to compensate the people of the state for the occupation of the public land involved. For all the reasons above, Commission staff believes the issuance of this lease is consistent with the common law Public Trust Doctrine and in the best interests of the state. CALENDAR ITEM NO. C13 (CONT’D) OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION:
Sample 1
STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION. Based upon information and belief, the current fee title owner of 000 Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxx Xxxx, xx xxx xxxx of Santa Xxxxxx is Xxxxx Xxxxx Xxxx, as Trustee of the C&L Levy 2012 Irrevocable Trust dated December 27, 2012. Xxxxxxx X. Xxxx and Xxxxx X. Xxxx’x only interest in the property is as beneficiaries of the C&L Levy 2012 Irrevocable Trust, as they conveyed all remaining interest to Xxxxx Xxxxx Xxxx as Trustee by xxxxx deed on December 27, 2012. Xxxxx Xxxxx Xxxx has provided Commission staff with a declaration attesting under penalty of perjury that he has never had an interest in the Levy parcel other than in his capacity as Trustee of the C&L Levy 2012 Irrevocable Trust. All parties of the proposed BLA are hereinafter collectively referred to as “upland parties.” Upland parties own the private upland parcel adjoining the subject property. To date, all homeowners along Santa Xxxxxx State Beach – except for seven remaining homeowners, including the Levys – have applied for and received Encroachment Permits from the City authorizing certain pre-existing private improvements upon the payment of an annual permit fee and back rent. The City, as trustee of the subject tidelands and manager of Santa Xxxxxx State Beach, made numerous attempts to contact the remaining homeowners prior to filing suit. On May 6, 2015, the City, Parks and the Commission filed their Complaint in City of Santa Xxxxxx, et al. v. Xxxxxxx X. Xxxx, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. SC124125 (“the Litigation”) for quiet title and ejectment. In light of both the history and complexity of matters at issue in the Litigation, Commission staff believes it is necessary to reaffirm and to redescribe with greater specificity the physical location of the 1921 MHTL of the Pacific Ocean as fixed and determined originally by Ordinance No. 188 (Commissioners’ Series) and as resurveyed by the Commission pursuant to the 1921 MHTL Retraced 1978. If the controversy cannot be resolved by agreement, a judicial resolution of the parties’ rights, titles and interests in the subject property could require costly, protracted, and vigorously disputed litigation. The Parties consider it expedient and necessary and in the best interests of the State, the public, and the upland parties, to resolve this title dispute by an agreement to identify, describe and permanently fix the true and correct fee boundary line between the public tidelands and adjacent private uplands, thereby avoiding any further costs and ...
Sample 1
STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION. Based upon information and belief, the current fee title owner of 000 Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxx Xxxx, xx xxx xxxx of Santa Xxxxxx is Xxxxxx Xxxxxx and Xxxxx Xxxxxx, Trustees of the Xxxxxx Family Revocable Trust UAD July 24, 1998. All parties of the proposed BLA are hereinafter collectively referred to as “upland parties.” Upland parties own the private upland parcel adjoining the subject property. To date, all homeowners along Santa Xxxxxx State Beach – except for seven remaining homeowners, including the Greenes – have applied for and received Encroachment Permits from the City authorizing certain pre-existing private improvements upon the payment of an annual permit fee and back rent. The City, as trustee of the subject tidelands and manager of Santa Xxxxxx State Beach,
Sample 1
STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION. Based upon information and belief, the current fee title owner of 000 Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxx Xxxx, xx xxx xxxx of Santa Xxxxxx is Xxxxxxxx X. Xxxxxxxx, Trustee of the Xxxxxxxx Family Trust dated April 6, 2005. All parties of the proposed BLA are hereinafter collectively referred to as “upland parties.” Upland parties own the private upland parcel adjoining the subject property.
Sample 1
STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION. Based upon information and belief, the current fee title owner of 000 Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxx Xxxx, in the City of Santa Xxxxxx is Xxxxx Xxx Xxxxxxx, as Trustee of the Xxxxx Xxx Xxxxxxx Trust dated December 7, 1995. In addition to his capacity as Trustee of the Xxxxx Xxx Xxxxxxx Trust, some record documents in the chain of title suggest that Xxxxx Xxx Xxxxxxx may also have an individual interest in the upland parcel. All parties of the proposed BLA are hereinafter collectively referred to as “upland parties.” Upland parties own the private upland parcel adjoining the subject property.
Sample 1
STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION. Authority: Public Resources Code sections 6005, 6216, 6301, 6501.1 and 6503; California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 2000, subdivision (b). Public Trust and State’s Best Interests Analysis: The Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (Applicant) submitted an application for a General Lease – Public Agency Use, for the construction, use, and maintenance of an 18-inch-diameter segment of the Xxxxxx Drain Diversion Pipeline (Pipeline) which crosses under the Xxxxxxx River (River). The Pipeline is part of the Applicant’s larger proposed Pure Water Monterey Ground Water Replenishment Project (GWR Project), which proposes to inject recycled water into the groundwater aquifer to mitigate seawater intrusion of the municipal aquifers, and replenish groundwater supplies used for drinking and the irrigation of crops. The GWR Project would also reduce urban storm water “first flush” pollutant loads to the River and Monterey Bay, and reduce discharges of treated wastewater into Monterey Bay. Additionally, the GWR Project would facilitate a reduction in withdrawals of water from the Carmel River Alluvial Aquifer, increasing Carmel River flows, thereby reducing impacts to sensitive species, such as steelhead trout, California red-legged frog, and other aquatic species. Only the segment of the Pipeline that crosses under the River is subject to lease by the Commission. The Applicant proposes to install the Pipeline to convey treated recycled water under the River. The Applicant proposes to use Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD), a trenchless method, to install the Pipeline. Trenchless construction will require work areas of approximately 40-feet by 60-feet on each side of the River to excavate the sending and receiving pits (pipeline excavation entrance and exit sites) needed to complete the connection under the River. The GWR Project Applicant’s technical consultants and engineers have designed the location of these pits, and all other HDD construction and staging activities that might result in physical impacts, to avoid riparian habitat and vegetation associated with the River. The River is leveed at the proposed Project location; however, the GWR Project will not affect the leveed area along the River because the HDD excavation pits will be placed outside the leveed area in order to avoid changes in topography and riparian vegetation. The area immediately adjacent to the drilling site is riparian, agricultural land that spreads out from the ripari...
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION

  • Conclusion and Recommendations D. Evaluations for Offenders without a sex offense conviction shall answer the following additional referral questions in the evaluations:

  • Manufacturer's Recommendations All work or materials shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations and requirements. The Contractor shall obtain the manufacturer’s recommendations and requirements, for its use at the Site in executing the Work, copies of bulletins, circulars, catalogues, or other publications bearing the manufacturer’s titles, numbers, editions, dates, etc. If the manufacturer’s recommendations and requirements are not available, the Contractor shall request installation instructions from the Design Professional.

  • Conclusions and Recommendations The demonstration and evaluation process provided an opportunity to test community specific tools with a range of end users from the memory institution domain and to gain greater insight into both the current and future evolution of the SHAMAN prototypes for preservation, access and re-use. Xxxx et al. (2000) in their user evaluation study of the Alexandria Digital Library which incorporated the evaluation of a Web prototype by earth scientists, information specialists and educators raised four key questions in relation to their findings that SHAMAN may be well advised to consider, they are paraphrased here with our conclusions from the investigations. What have we learned about our target organizations and potential users?  Memory institutions are most definitely not a homogenised group; their needs and requirements differ greatly across the domain.  Representatives of the archives community are agreed on the benefits of SHAMAN‟s authenticity validation function.  The representatives of government information services remained unconvinced as to the need or benefit of grid technologies or distributed ingest while librarians saw the value of grid access as an asset of the framework. What have we learned about the evaluation approach for digital preservation?  Within the limits of the exercise, in terms of time-frame and resources, the approach adopted has generated useful information for the further development of demonstrators and for the development of the SHAMAN framework overall. What have we learned about the SHAMAN ISP1 demonstrator?  Respondents to the evaluation questionnaires and the focus groups indicate that, overall, the presentation of the demonstrator worked effectively and that, in general, participants in the demonstration and evaluation events were able to understand the intentions of the demonstration and to apply the ideas presented to their own context. What have we learned about the applicability of the SHAMAN framework to memory institutions?  Respondents to the questionnaires and participants in the focus groups readily identified the value of the SHAMAN framework to their own operations. The majority had not yet established a long-term digital preservation policy, but recognized the need. Generally, the concepts of distributed ingest and grid operations found favour.  Virtually all practitioners in the focus groups, however, drew attention to need of a lower level demonstration that would be closer to their everyday preservation troubles, especially for digital preservation to be applied to non-textual materials, such as film, photographs and sound archives. In addition to the criteria suggested by Xxxx et al., we can add a further project-related question: What have we learned that has implications for the training and dissemination phase of the Project?  It was not part of the remit of the demonstration and evaluation specifically to discover information of relevance to the training and dissemination function. However, a number of factors will affect the efficacy of any training programme in particular. o First, no common understanding of digital preservation can be assumed of the potential target audiences for training. Consequently, it is likely that self-paced learning materials will be most effective in presenting the SHAMAN framework. o Secondly, the aims of SHAMAN as a project must be conveyed clearly: specifically, that it is a kind of „proof-of-concept‟ project and is not intended to deliver a package of programs capable of being implemented by institutions. o Thirdly, it needs to be emphasised that the SHAMAN framework is not limited to text documents; it can be applied to materials of all kinds. However, the demonstrations relate to bodies of material that were actually available for use. o Fourthly, the existing presentation materials are capable of being adapted for use in training activities. o Finally, the target audiences will appreciate the possibility of online access to the demonstrator, which will need to have very great ease of access in order that people with diverse backgrounds are able to use it with equal facility. We believe that, overall, WP14 has met its aims and objectives in this demonstration and evaluation of ISP1. Valuable lessons have been learnt by all parties involved, which will be transferred to the evaluation of ISP2 in the coming months.

  • REGULATORY FILINGS AND CAISO TARIFF COMPLIANCE 3.1 Filing

  • Representations and Recommendations Unless otherwise stated in writing, neither Xxxxxxxx Realty Inc, nor its brokers or licensees have made, on their own behalf, any representations or warranties, express or implied, with respect to any element of the Property including but not limited to, the legal sufficiency, legal effect, or tax consequences of this transaction. Any information furnished by either party should be independently verified before that party relies on such information. Xxxxxxxx Realty Inc. recommends that Buyer consult its attorneys and accountants before signing this Agreement regarding the terms and conditions herein and that Seller satisfy itself as to the financial ability of Buyer to perform.

  • Financial Viability and Regulatory Compliance 4.6.1 The Contractor warrants and represents that its corporate entity is in good standing with all applicable federal, state, and local licensing authorities and that it possesses all requisite licenses to perform the services required by this contract. The Contractor further warrants and represents that it owes no outstanding delinquent federal, state, or local taxes or business assessments.

  • Regulatory Filing In the event that this Interconnection Construction Service Agreement contains any terms that deviate materially from the form included in Attachment P or from the standard terms and conditions in this Appendix 2, the Transmission Provider shall file the executed Interconnection Construction Service Agreement on behalf of itself and the Interconnected Transmission Owner with FERC as a service schedule under the Tariff. Interconnection Customer may request that any information so provided be subject to the confidentiality provisions of Section 17 of this Appendix

  • Regulatory Compliance a. Monitor compliance with the 1940 Act requirements, including:

  • JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION 2. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of By-law No. 1.

  • Proposal of Corrective Action Plan In addition to the processes set forth in the Contract (e.g., service level agreements), if the Department or Customer determines that there is a performance deficiency that requires correction by the Contractor, then the Department or Customer will notify the Contractor. The correction must be made within a time-frame specified by the Department or Customer. The Contractor must provide the Department or Customer with a corrective action plan describing how the Contractor will address all performance deficiencies identified by the Department or Customer.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.