SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CENTRAL MINUTE ORDER DATE: 08/08/2017 ‘TIME: 08:20:00 AM DEPT: C-71 JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Gregory W Pollack CLERK: Terry Ri REPORTER/ERM: Not Reported BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: L. Wilks CASE NO: 37-2016-00045022-CU-TT-CTL CASE INIT.DATE: 12/21/2016 CASE TITLE: Save Our Heritage Organisation vs City of San Diego IE-FILE] CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Toxic Tort/Environmental EVENT TYPE: Ex Parte APPEARANCES There are no appearances by any party. The Court, having taken the above-entitied matter under submission on 8/7/17 and having fully considered the arguments of all parties, both written and oral, as well as the evidence presented, now rules as follows: RULING AFTER ORAL ARGUMENT: The Court rules on petitioner Save Our Heritage Organisation's (Petitioner) petition for writ of mandate as follows: The Court's ruling will serve as the Court's Statement of Decision pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1590. Petitioner is represented by Susan Brandt-Hawley of the Brandt-Hawley Law Group. Respondents City of San Diego, City Council of the City of San Diego, and City of San Diego Public Works Department (collectively City) is represented by Mara W. Elliott, George Schaefer, and Jana Michova Will of the Office of the City Attorney. Real Party in Interest Plaza de Panama Committee (RPI) is represented by G., Scott Williams of Selzer Caplan McMahon Vitek. Petitioner challenges the City’s decision, on November 14, 2016, to approve an Addendum rather than opting to prepare a comprehensive new or supplemental EIR. The Court has reviewed the record in light of the parties’ briefs, oral arguments and the applicable law and concludes the petition for writ of mandate should be denied for the reasons stated below. ‘DATE: 08/08/2017 MINUTE ORDER Frageyt DEPT: C-74 Calendar No.CASE TITLE: Save Our Heritage Organisation vs City of CASE NO: 37-2016-00045022-CU-TT-CTL San Diego [E-FILE] Standard of Review. In deciding whether to issue a peremptory writ of mandamus, the Court determine whether the city committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion, established if the city did not proceed in the manner required by law or if its findings are not supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. (Code Civ. Proc., §1094.5; Pub. Res. Code, §21168,) In reviewing the Addendum procedure the City used to revise the 2012 EIR, courts consider "whether the administrative record demonstrates any legal eror by the [agency] and [then] whether it contains substantial evidence to support the [agency's] factual determinations." (Vineyard Area Citizens v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 417.) As to the issue of whether a supplemental EIR is required under Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162, the standard is whether substantial evidence supports the city's decision. (E.g., Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. College Dist. (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 596, 607.) The first issue is whether or not the addendum process set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15164 (section 15164) is valid Petitioner argues that there is no statutory CEQA procedure allowing reliance on an addendum for project changes following a certified EIR. The Court disagrees and finds that section 15164 is consistent with the statutory scheme. CEQA Guidelines, section 15162 subd. (a)(1)-(3) provides that a SEIR is not required unless project changes, changed circumstances or new information cause or reveal new significant impacts or more severe significant impacts than were previously identified. If none of these factors exist, Public Resources Code section 21766 prohibits further environmental review via a SEIR. Thus, it is clear that a clear distinction exists between what is required when an initial EIR is being prepared versus what is considered for purposes of determining what is required to proceed via a SEIR. Petitioner, in particular, takes issue with the fact that public review and comments are not part of section 15164. However, the City correctly points out that this kind of review is also not required with respect to exemptions. (San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Ed. V. San Lorenzo Valley Unified Schoo! Dist. (2006) 139 Cal App.4th 1356, 1385.) Finally, even Petitioner concedes that numerous other courts have upheld the use of addenda by public agencies. (See,e.0., Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Dave, v. Cy of San Diego (2011) 186 Cal.App.4th 515 (hereafter CREED); River Valley Preservation Project v. Metropolitan Transit Development Board (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 154; Fund for Environmental Defense v. County of Orange (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1538.) Petitioner's position is further weakened by the fact that several courts have even upheld informal determinations that a SEIR is not required even without an addendum. (See Abatti v. imperial Irrig. Dist. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 650, 656, 683; Citizens for a Megaplex-Free Alameda-Free Alameda v. City of Alameda (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 91, 99, 114 (hereafter Megaplex); Save San Francisco Bay Assn. v. San Francisco Bay Conservation Comm. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 908, 934, In addition, the Court holding in A Local & Regional Monitor v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 12 Cal.App.4" 1773, 1804 that public comments are not required before a determination regarding whether a SEIR is required further undercuts Petitioner's contention As a result, the Court sees no basis for finding that section 15164 is invalid, The second issue is whether substantial evidence exists in the administrative record to support the City's determination that it was not necessary to prepare a SEIR. As a preliminary matter, the Court agrees with the City that Petitioner failed to fairly describe the DATE: 08/08/2017 MINUTE ORDER Page 2 DEPT: C-74 Calendar No.CASE TITLE: Save Our Heritage Organisation vs City of CASE NO: 37-2016-00045022-CU-TT-CTL San Diego [E-FILE] evidence in the administrative record. (Megaplex, supra, 149 Cal.App.4t) at p. 112.) This alone is a sufficient basis for denying the wrt ‘on this ground. (Defend the Bay v. City of irvine (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1261, 1266; CREED, supra, 196 Cal.App.4t" at p. 529.) Nevertheless, the Court finds that there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the City's decision not to proceed with a SEIR. More specifically, the Addendum described minor project modifications (2 AR 1441-1446) and reviewed how those modifications would not cause any new or more severe Significant impacts compared to the original EIR (2 AR 1450-1467). It also described physical changes to the environmental setting since the 2012 EIR was certified (.e., changed Circumstances), such as the removal of parking from the Plaza de Panama, shifts in traffic patterns, new locations for and an increase in the number of accessible parking spaces, the reconfiguration of the Alcazar parking lot, completed maintenance to the Palm Canyon pedestrian bridge, and the opening of the zoo's employee parking structure. (2 AR 1447-1448.) As a result, the City concluded that the changed circumstances would not cause or reveal new or more severe significant impacts (2 AR 1449) and that there was no new information of substantial importance not known at the time the original 2012 EIR was certified. (2 AR 1449, 1467.) Notably, these conclusions were incorporated into the City Council resolution approving the Addendum. (2 AR 21-23.) Based on the foregoing, the Court denies the writ. The City is directed to prepare the Judgment. IT IS SO ORDERED. Attlede Judge Gregory W Pollack DATE: 08/08/2017 MINUTE ORDER Page 3 DEPT: C-71 Calendar No.