Source: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0c47c605-4b9f-4fc8-835b-e7a2ef97af78
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:22:19+00:00

Document:
The Fourth District Court of Appeal (Div. 1) held in a published opinion filed October 24, 2018, that CEQA Guidelines § 15164 validly establishes an addendum process that is consistent with the CEQA statute, implementing and filling gaps in Public Resources Code § 21166. The Court also held that new findings under Public Resources Code § 21081 addressing a project’s significant impacts are not required when a lead agency approves an addendum to an EIR. Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego (The Plaza de Panama Committee, Real Party in Interest) (2018) ____ Cal.App.5th ____.
In upholding the validity of EIR addendums generally under CEQA – as well as affirming the trial court’s judgment denying petitioner Save Our Heritage Organisation’s (SOHO) mandamus petition challenging the City of San Deigo’s (City) Addendum for revisions to the Plaza de Panama project (project) at Balboa Park – the Court answered an important question expressly left unaddressed by the California Supreme Court in Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937 (my post on which can be found here). Its resolution of the issue preserves a useful tool for lead agencies to document compliance in the subsequent review context where CEQA’s high standards for requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR are not met.
In 2016, the City adopted an addendum to the project EIR addressing several project modifications including: Centennial Bridge modifications addressing current CalTrans requirements; adding and redesigning storm water basins to meet current standards; adding parking lot ventilation; making energy efficiency upgrades; increasing the elevation of the landfill where excavated soils were disposed of; and refining construction design. Ultimately, the modified project will result in 353 added parking spaces, 93 more than called for by the original project.
The addendum reviewed the modified project’s potential impacts in the areas of land use, historical resources, aesthetics, transportation, air quality, biological resources, energy, geologic conditions, GHG emissions, health and safety/hazardous materials, and numerous other areas. It concluded (and the City found) that there were: (1) no substantial changes to the project requiring major revisions to the EIR because of new or substantially increased significant environmental effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances requiring major revisions to the EIR because of new or substantially increased significant environmental effects; and (3) no new, previously unknown or unknowable, information of substantial importance showing: (a) new or substantially more severe significant efforts than were discussed or shown in the EIR; (b) that previously infeasible mitigation measures/alternatives are now feasible and would substantially reduce significant efforts; or (c) that considerably different mitigation measures than analyzed in the EIR would substantially reduce significant effects.
Under established case law, Guidelines § 15164, like any agency action, carries a presumption of validity, and SOHO as the challenging party has the burden of demonstrating its invalidity. In reviewing its validity, the court considers “whether… [it] is (1) consistent with and not in conflict with CEQA, and (2) reasonably necessary to effectuate the purpose of CEQA. [citations]” “The analysis of these questions depends on whether the Guideline is a quasi-legislative rule or an interpretive rule.” In essence, quasi-legislative rules result from legislatively-delegated law making authority and “have the dignity of statutes,” while interpretive rules “represent the agency’s understanding of a statute’s meaning and effect.” A quasi-legislative rule is upheld if it is within the delegated lawmaking authority and reasonably necessary to implement the statute’s purpose, whereas a court must also find an interpretive rule to be “a proper construction of the statute” to uphold it. Some rules are not readily categorized, and the Supreme Court has not decided whether the CEQA Guidelines are generally quasi-legislative or interpretive in nature; the Court found that it need not decide that issue to resolve this case, and that even were Guidelines § 15164 to be treated as purely interpretive, SOHO has not established its invalidity.
As a final basis supporting its holding that Guideline § 15164’s addendum process is valid under CEQA, the Court noted that that section was first promulgated in 1983 and the Legislature has never modified CEQA to eliminate it, thus strongly indicating its consistency with legislative intent.

References: § 15164
 § 21166
 § 21081
 v. 
 v. 
 § 15164
 § 15164
 § 15164