Laserfiche WebLink
0~~~-ICE OF THc C:-'rr ATTC1RV~Y <br />OPINION NJ. 73-53 <br />August 16~ 1973 <br />r~,lBJECT : Appl i cabi i i ty o'r` Ca 1 i forni a Environmental <br />Quality Act of 1970 as Amended by AB 889 <br />to Applir.ations Presented and Approved by <br />Planning Commission Prior to the Effective <br />Date of AB 889, December 5, 197%', but Finally <br />Approved by the City Council After the <br />Effective Date of AB 889 <br />REQUESTED BY: Planning Director and Assistant Planner <br />OPINION BY: James A. Withers, City Attorney <br />By Charles J. !.iberto, Assistant City <br />Attorney <br />QUESTION 1: "Is an environmental impact report for <br />Variance 72-81 legally required under <br />the provisions of the California <br />Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as <br />_ amended by AB 889?" <br />ANSWER 1: No <br />QUESTION 2: "If ari environmental impact report is <br />required, shouid the environmental impac~ <br />report be set for public hearing to adopt <br />the City's final environmental impact report <br />for Variance 72-81?" <br />ANSWER 2: This question is inapplicable since an <br />environmental impact report is not required. <br />QUESTION 3: "If an environmental impact report i; not: <br />required, would it be advisable to submit t~~ <br />the Planning Commission fur information, <br />and request Planniny Commission to receive <br />and file the report?" <br />ANSWER 3: Whether or riot an environmental impact report <br />should be prepared and submitted to the <br />Planning Commission is an administrative <br />determination that should be made by the <br />Planniny Department. Legally speaking, <br />however, i f the E IR i s set for put, 9 i z~ <br />hearing or even received and '+~i ied by the <br />Planniny Commission, such action ~~iyl~+~ <br />105 <br />