Garden Grove City Council
August 23, 2022

Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Paleontological Resources Mitigation Measure
G-1 In the event paleontological resources are found during construction, all attempts will be made to preserve in place or leave resources in an undisturbed state in compliance with applicable laws. In the event that fossil specimens are encountered on the site and cannot be preserved in place, a qualified paleontologist will be contacted and work in the vicinity of the discovery (15-meter radius) will halt until the appropriate assessment and treatment of the resource is determined by the paleontologist (work can continue elsewhere on the project site). If recommended by the project paleontologist, monitoring may be implemented, collection of specimens or appropriate sediment samples may be conducted, and remains may be curated at a reposit ory, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines.

Sources
AECOM. 2022. Site B-2 Hotel Project: Cultural, Paleontological and Tribal Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum. February. PDF.

UpCodes. 2019. California Building Code 2019 (Vol 1 & 2) – Chapter 16, Structural Design. Available at:
https://up.codes/viewer/california/ibc-2018/chapter/16/structural-design#16 (accessed April 2022).

California Department of Conservation. 2019. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. Available at:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/alquist-priolo (accessed April 2022).

City of Garden Grove. 2021. Chapter 11. Safety Element, City of Garden Grove General Plan. Public Review DRAFT – August 2021. Adopted November 9, 2021. Available at: https://ggcity.org/sites/default/files/2021- 09/Chapter11GG_SafetyElement_PublicReview_08-2021.pdf (accessed March 2022).

Geocon West, Inc. (Geocon). 2018. Geotechnical Investigation – Proposed Hotel Development Northwest Corner of Harbor Boulevard and Twintree Lane, Garden Grove, California. August. PDF. 1684163.1 Page 47 Page 252 of 480
Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the
project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have a X
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing X
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Discussion: The discussion below is based on the Garden Grove Hotel Site B-2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Study prepared by RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. (RK, 2022a) included as Appendix B. a) Generate greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant Impacts with Mitigation Incorporated. Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as greenhouse gases (GHG), play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. A portion of the solar radiation that enters earth’s atmosphere is absorbed by the earth’s surface, and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected back toward space. Infrared radiation is absorbed by GHGs; as a result, infrared radiation released from the earth that otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead “trapped,” resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the “greenhouse effect,” is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on Earth.

GHGs are present in the atmosphere naturally, are released by natural sources and anthropogenic sources, and are formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. The following are GHGs that are widely accepted as the principal contributors to human -induced global climate change that are relevant to the project:
• Carbon dioxide (CO2)
• Methane (CH4)
• Nitrous oxide (N2O)
Emissions of CO 2 are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. CH 4 is the main component of natural gas and is associated with agricultural practices and landfills. N 2O is a colorless GHG that results from industrial processes, vehicle emissions, and agricultural practices.

Global warming potential (GWP) is a concept developed to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to CO 2. The GWP of a GHG is based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared radiation and length of time (i.e., lifetime) that the gas remains in the atmosphere (“atmospheric lifetime”). The reference gas for GWP is CO2; therefore, CO2 has a GWP of 1. The other main GHGs that have been attributed to human activity include CH4, which has a GWP of 28, and N2O,

blank
blank
blank
blank
blank
blank
blank

Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration which has a GWP of 265. For example, 1 ton of CH 4 has the same contribution to the greenhouse effect as approximately 28 tons of CO 2. GHGs with lower emissions rates than CO 2 may still contribute to climate change because they are more effective at absorbing outgoing infrared radiation than CO 2 (i.e., high GWP).

The concept of CO2-equivalents (CO2e) is used to account for the different GWP potentials of GHGs to absorb infrared radiation.

According to the Garden Grove Hotel Site B -2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Study (RK, 2022a) (Appendix B), GHG emissions would be generated during construction (e.g., emissions from construction equipment and vehicles) and operation (e.g., emissions from vehicles, electricity, natural gas, waste, and water sources) of the proposed project. RK used t he California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2020.4.0 (CalEEMod) to calculate GHG emissions from the construction and operation of the proposed project. Because impacts from construction activities would occur over a relatively short -term period of time, they would contribute a relatively small portion of the overall lifetime project GHG emissions. Construction emissions were thus amortized over 30 years and added to the long -term operational emissions, pursuant to SCAQMD recommendations. In doing so, construction GHG emissions were included in the overall contribution of the proposed project.

The total estimated GHG emissions of the proposed project were 5,756.97 MTCO2 e per year (which assumed incorporation of PDF -1 through PDF -12, provided previously in Section 3.3 of this IS/MND). To assess potentially significant impacts, RK used SCAQMD’s Tier 3 threshold of significance of 3,000 MTCO 2e/year for all non-industrial projects per the latest recommended GHG thresholds provided by SCAQMD (aka, SCAQMD’s five-tiered approach3). The proposed project’s GHG emissions would exceed the SCAQMD’s Tier 3 threshold of 3,000 MTCO 2e and would thus result in a potentially significant impact. The project was thus analyzed under SCAQMD’s Tier 4 threshold which requires implementation of GHG mitigation measures that demonstrate a 30 percent reduction compared to business as usual (BAU) conditions. Per SCAQMD guidelines, BAU is based on current regulatory requirements, and is considered the level from which GHG reductions must occur. With implementation of Mitigation Measures G HG-1 through G HG-7 shown below, the total estimated GHG emissions generated by the proposed project would be 3,583.53 MTCO 2e/year, reflecting a 51 percent reduction. Thus, with Mitigation Measures G HG-1 through G HG-7, implementation of the proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

GHG Mitigation Measures
GHG-1 The number of large diesel trucks coming to the site (i.e., for deliveries, trash collection or other services) shall be limited to 20 trucks per day or less. This restriction is specifically applicable to trucks classified as medium -heavy duty and heavy -heavy duty with gross vehicle weight (GVW) greater than 19,500 pounds.

GHG-2 Onsite renewable energy sources (i.e., solar panels) shall be installed capable of generating up to 25% of the project’s total electricity demand.
3 SCAQMD’s objective in providing their five-tiered GHG guidelines is to establish a performance standard that will ultimately contribute to reducing GHG emissions below 1990 levels, and thus achieve the requirements of the California Global Warming Solutions Act (Assembly Bill 32). By complying with the SCAQMD’s five-tiered GHG thresholds of significance, a project would be considered to be in compliance with Assembly Bill 32 (RK, 2022a).
1684163.1 Page 49 Page 254 of 480
Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration GHG-3 Prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy, the proposed project shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Garden Grove Building and Safety Division that water conservation strategies have been implemented, including low flow fixtures and toilets, water efficient irrigation systems, drought tolerant/native landscaping, and pool water recycling systems.

GHG-4 Waste management, recycling and composting programs shall be implemented to divert up to 50% of waste away from a landfill.

GHG-5 Electric landscaping equipment, such as leaf blowers and pressure washers shall be used.

GHG-6 No onsite natural gas fireplaces or fire pits shall be installed.

GHG-7 Trip reduction measures and project design features shall be implemented to reduce the number of auto-based trips generated by the project and to encourage the use of transit, bicycling, and walking through the following measures.

1. Impro
ve the walkability and design of the project by providing pedestrian and bicycling connections within the project site and to adjacent off-site facilities (i.e., sidewalks, crosswalks, wayfinding signage, etc.).

2. Provide traffic calming measures (i.e., marked crosswalks, raised crosswalks, raised intersections, count-down signal timers, curb extensions, speed tables, median islands, tight corner radii, roundabouts or mini -circles, on -street parking, planter strips with street trees, chicanes/chokers, etc.)

3. Provide secure onsite bicycle racks and provide bicycle rentals for hotel guests.

4. Provide transit/shuttle service for guests to local area attractions. The shuttle service shall operate on a regular daily basis and be offered to all guests staying at the hotel.

5. Hotel management/concierge should provide information that promotes walking, bicycling and public transit options to nearby attractions. This should include information on local bus routes and schedules and wayfinding to the existing transit stops along Harbor Boulevard. b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant Impacts with Mitigation Incorporated. In 2006, California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill [AB] 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500, et seq.). AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and requires statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020 (CARB, 2017). In 2016, this goal was reinforced with the passage of Senate Bill (SB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act, which established a statewide GHG reduction goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

The 2030 target represents reductions needed to ensure California can achieve its longer-term 2050 target of a reduction of GHG gases 80 percent below 1990 levels per Executive Order B-30-15 (CARB, 2017).

Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration In 2008 and 2014, CARB appr oved the Scoping Plan and the first update to the Scoping Plan, respectively (CARB, 2008; CARB, 2014). In response to SB 32 and the companion legislation of AB 197, CARB approved the 2017 Scoping Plan Update in November 2017 (CARB, 2017). The 2017 Scoping Plan Update draws from the previous plans to present strategies to reaching California’s goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

As discussed in the Garden Grove Hotel Site B -2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Study (RK, 2022a) (Appendix B), SCAQMD’s objective in providing the five-tiered GHG thresholds of significance was to establish a performance standard that will ultimately contribute to reducing GHG emissions below 1990 levels, and thus achieve the requirements of AB 32. Thus, by complying with the SCAQMD’s five -tiered GHG thresholds of significance, a project would be in compliance with AB 32. In addition, a project must demonstrate it can achieve a 40 percent reduction in long-term operational GHG emissions compared to BAU conditions to be in compliance with CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan Update. As discussed above, with implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG- 1 through GHG -7, the total estimated GHG emissions generated by the proposed project would be 3,316.08 MTCO2 e/year, reflecting a 42 percent reduction compared to BAU conditions. Thus, with Mitigation Measures GHG-1 through GHG-7, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with AB 32 or CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan Update. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Sources
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan – The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf (accessed August 2021).
----. 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan – Building on the Framework, Pursuant to AB 32, The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_s coping_plan.pdf (accessed August 2021).
----. 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan - A Framework for Change, Pursuant to AB 32, The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf (accessed August 2021).

City of Garden Grove. 2021a. City of Garden Grove Focused General Plan Update and Zoning Amendments – Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2021060714). Available at: https://ggcity.org/sites/default/files/2021- 08/FGPUZA%20DEIR.pdf (accessed August 2021).
----. 2021b. Environmental Documents Webpage. Available at: https://ggcity.org/planning/environmental- documents (accessed August 2021).

RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. (RK). 2022a. Garden Grove Hotel Site B-2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Study. April. PDF.
1684163.1 Page 51 Page 256 of 480
Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous X
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions X
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile X
of sensitive land uses?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, X
as a result, would it create a significant hazard
to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan, or where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a X
safety hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of, or physically
interfere with, an adopted emergency X
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly
or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury X
or death involving wildland fires?
Discussion:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than Significant Impact (a-b ). Construction of the proposed project would involve transport, use, and disposal of limited quantities of hazardous materials such as paints, solvents, cleaning agents, oils, grease, and

Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration fuel for construction equipment. However, the proposed project would comply with all federal, state, and local requirements related to the transport, storage, use, and disposal of such materials.

In addition, operation and maintenance activities of the hotel and restaurant uses would also use limited quantities of non -acutely hazardous materials, such as paints, cleaning agents, and batteries, as well as generate small quantities of common household hazardous wastes (HHW); however, the use, storage, and disposal of such hazardous materials and HHW would be conducted in compliance with all applicable hazardous materials and waste federal, state, and local requirements. Thus, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Additionally, the proposed project would not require the use or storage of significant quantities of hazardous materials that could become a significant hazard to the public or the environment through an accidental release or upset condition. Though it is not reasonably foreseeable that significant quantities of hazardous materials would be used or stored on site, to the extent any such use or storage would occur, such use and storage would be conducted in compliance with all applicable federal, st ate, and local requirements. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of sensitive land uses?
Less than Significant Impact. The Walton Intermediate School is located approximately 0.2 mile northwest of the project site; Warren Elementary School is located approximately 0.25 mile northeast of the project site ; and Violette Elementary School is located approximately 0.25 mile southwest of the project site (Google Earth Pro, 2022). However, as discussed previously in Section III. Air Quality, in the environmental checklist of this IS/MND, the proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions. Also, as discussed above, while the proposed project would use, store, and dispose limited quantities of hazardous materials during construction and operation, such as paints, solvents, cleaning agents, etc., such materials would be used, stored, and disposed in compliance with all federal, state, and local requirements. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. The proposed project is not located on a site that has been included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and thus would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment (California Environmental Protection Agency[CalEPA], 2021; California Department of Toxic Substances Control [DTSC], 2021; State Water Resources Control Board [SWRCB], 2021).

No impact would occur.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The nearest public airport to the project site is the John Wayne Airport in the City of Santa Ana, approximately 8 miles southeast to the project site. The Joint Forces Training Base in the City of Los Alamitos is located approximately 7.6 miles west of the project site. As such, the proposed project is not located within 1684163.1 Page 53 Page 258 of 480
Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration an airport land use plan nor within two miles of a public airport or public use airport (Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County, 2008; Google Earth Pro, 2021) and thus, would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. No impact would occur. f) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would share access with adjacent Sheraton Hotel via the existing access on Harbor Boulevard. A restricted access to the project site along Twintree Avenue would be provided to emergency vehicles, maintenance, and trash/delivery trucks only. During construction, there may be minor disruptions in traffic patterns with a temporary lane closure on Harbor Boulevard during the utilities upgrade. As needed, a Traffic Control Plan would be prepared to demonstrate how the traffic around the project will be controlled to maintain public safety and emergency access. The design of the proposed project would not permanently close any streets or lanes; any improvements needed for the adequate access to the project site would be reviewed by the City to ensure that access and circulation are maintained during construction.

The City of Garden Grove adopted Emergency Operations Plan in 2004, which is a multi -hazard plan that addresses the City’s planned response to extraordinary emergency situations, which are typically considered large-scale disasters (City of Garden Grove, 20 21). In addition, in 2020, the City adopted a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) to guide hazard mitigation planning to better protect the people and property of the City from the effects of natural disasters and hazard events (City of Garden Grove, 2020). The LHMP documents the hazard mitigation planning process and identifies relevant hazards and vulnerabilities and strategies the City will use to decrease vulnerability and increase resiliency and sustainability in the community. As discussed previously in Section VII. Geology and Soils in the environmental checklist o f this IS/MND, the proposed project would be designed in compliance with the California Building Code seismic requirements and would implement the geotechnical investigation’s design recommendations which would ensure seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction, would not occur. Furthermore, as discussed previously, as a condition of approval, per Section 8.1.2 of the geotechnical investigation, prior to obtaining building permits from the City, additional site exploration and laboratory testing will be required to confirm the existing conditions throughout the project site and provide final design recommendations, which would be incorporated into a n updated geotechnical investigation and implemented as a condition of approval (Geocon, 2018). In addition, the proposed project would be designed to ensure adequate emergency access is provided . Given this, implementation of the proposed project would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, the City’s adopted Emergency Operation Plan or LHMP. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. The project site is located in urbanized area of the City and is not located adjacent to any wildlands or an area where residences are intermixed with wildlands. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE)’s Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) Viewer Map, the project site is also not within or near a state responsibility area or a very high fire severity zone (CAL FIRE, 2021). Therefore, implementation

Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration of the proposed project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No impact would occur.

Sources
Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County. 2008. Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County – Airport Planning Areas (Figure 1). Available at: https://files.ocair.com/media/2021- 02/airportlu_20200604.pdf?VersionId=cMd6uGpbgOWGd3jMOS6TPJF3y5nMyA7F (accessed June 2021).

California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2021. Cortese List Data Resources. Available at:
https://calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/ (accessed June 2021).

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2021. Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) Viewer Map. Available at: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/fhsz/ (accessed May 2021).

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2021. EnviroStor. Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=harbor+blvd+and+twintree+ave.%2C+garden+gro ve%2C+ca (accessed June 2021).

City of Garden Grove. 2021. Chapter 11. Safety Element, City of Garden Grove General Plan. Public Review DRAFT – August 2021. Adopted November 9, 2021. Available at: https://ggcity.org/sites/default/files/2021- 09/Chapter11GG_SafetyElement_PublicReview_08-2021.pdf (accessed March 2022). ----. 2020. City of Garden Grove Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available at:
https://ggcity.org/sites/default/files/City%20of%20Garden%20Grove%20LHMP%20Complete.pdf (accessed August 2021).

Geocon West, Inc. (Geocon). 2018. Geotechnical Investigation – Proposed Hotel Development Northwest Corner of Harbor Boulevard and Twintree Lane, Garden Grove, California. August. PDF.

Google Earth Pro. 2022.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2021. GeoTracker. Available at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=harbor+blvd+and+twintree+ave%2C +garden+grove%2C+ca# (accessed June 2021).
1684163.1 Page 55 Page 260 of 480
Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would
the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or groundwater X
quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede X
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river X
or through the addition of impervious surfaces,
in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on-
or off-site; X
ii) Substantially increase the rate, amount, or
depth of surface runoff in a manner which X
would result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or X
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project X
inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
a water quality control plan or sustainable X
groundwater management plan?
Discussion: The discussion below is based on the Preliminary Hydrology Report , Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (pWQMP), and Water Supply Assessment (WSA), prepared by Psomas (2022a, 2022b, & 2022c) included as Appendix F1 , Appendix F2, and Appendix G, respectively. The pWQMP is a site -specific post- construction water quality management program intended to comply with the requirements of the local NPDES Stormwater Program. It would address pollutants of concern of the proposed project through implementation of applicable BMPs. The WSA evaluates whether the City can supply the water demands from the development of the proposed project as well as the remainder of the demands within its water service area after the proposed project is completed and 20 years into the future.

Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Less than Significant Impact. Numerous federal and state regulations and programs are designed to protect and enhance water quality, such as the Clean Water Act, the Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the NPDES Program, the Municipal Stormwater Permitting Program, and the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin. The proposed project would be required to comply with these requirements, in addition to the water quality requirements of the City of Garden Grove Municipal Code, Garden Grove Sanitary District, and the Garden Grove Public Works Water Service Division.

Pursuant to the Clean Water Act, the discharge of pollutants to waters of the U.S. from any point source is unlawful, unless the discharge is in compliance with a NPDES permit. Municipal and industrial sto rmwater discharges are also regulated under the NPDES program. The California State Water Resources Board maintains the California NPDES program through the Regional Water Quality Control Boards.

Construction activities that disturb one acre of land or more must apply for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit. To obtain coverage, a SWPPP must be prepared describing BMPs for erosion and sediment controls (i.e., short repeat cycles of irrigatio n water timing, use of mulch in planter areas), runoff water quality monitoring, waste disposal requirements, post - construction control measures and non-stormwater management controls must be prepared. The proposed project, which consists of constructing a resort hotel on a 3.72-acre site, would be required to obtain coverage under the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit and a SWPPP would be required. Construction activities for the proposed project would include activities such as clearing and grading that would expose surface soils and could result in sediment and runoff in downstream receiving waters along with other miscellaneous waste. The control of construction-related pollutants, however, would be achieved through the implementation of BMPs identified in the SWPPP as required by the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit.

According to the Preliminary Hydrology Report (Psomas, 2022a) (Appendix F1) and the pWQMP (Psomas, 2022b) (Appendix F2), the project site consists of 28 percent of impervious area; it is predominantly flat and drainage surface flows to Thackery Drive, then west onto Twintree Avenue, and south onto Buaro Street where it flows into a curb opening catch basin and enters the public storm drain system. The drainage ultimately flows through city and county owned facilities to Anaheim Bay.

With implementation of the proposed project, the project site would consist of 68 percent of impervious area.

The post development drainage would be similar to the pre -development drainage. There is one drainage management area and runoff flows in the southern direction in both the pre- and post-development. All flows beyond the full design capture volume would follow the pre -development drainage pattern to leave the project site.

Existing drainage from the adjacent Sheraton Hotel currently surface flows through a culvert onto Thackery Drive and ultimately leaves the project site flowing west onto Twintree Avenue. With the proposed project, this offsite drainage would be routed to the new drive aisle along the west property line and continue to flow west onto Twintree Avenue to match the existing condition. These flows would not be mixed with the runoff of the proposed project.
1684163.1 Page 57 Page 262 of 480
Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Although impervious surfaces would be increased with implementation of the proposed project, no alteration of a course or stream would occur. Furthermore, the Preliminary Hydrology Report (Psomas, 2022a) (Appendix F1) and the pWQMP (Psomas, 2022b) (Appendix F2) prepared for the proposed project would ensure compliance with the NPDES Stormwater Program and include BMPs that would ensure no substantial alteration of the existing drainage pattern at the project site would occur. The pWQMP includes the use of bioretention as the site design BMP . Post-development, bioretention BMPs with no underdrains would be used to treat runoff and site drainage from the proposed project given the soils on the project site have been determined to have adequate infiltration capacity. Specifically, runoff from the proposed hotel would be collected using roof downspouts that would either flow directly into the top of the bioretention BMPs or outlet at grade and surface flow to the bioretention BMPs, where it would be filtered, then infiltrated onsite. The landscaping would include drought tolerant shrubs and trees in the interior and perimeter landscaping.

Retained flows would be treated and metered prior to direction to off-site storm drains and the public storm drain system. The proposed project would meet the requirements of the Statewide Trash Amendment through implementation of the bioretention BMPs. Per the trash amendment requirements, the proposed treatment must trap all particles that are 5 millimeter or greater and the proposed project’s bioretention BMPs would accomplish this task. Additionally, all onsite trash enclosures would be covered to reduce the amount of trash that could end up at the bioretention BMPs.

Also, the pWQMP incorporates non-structural and structural source control BMPs, as defined in the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). For example, the non-structural BMPs proposed for source control and reduction/elimination of pollutants include providing educational environmental awareness materials to all employees and contractors during the initial hiring and orientation process, and annually thereafter; providing restrictions to all employees, contractors, etc. on certain activities conducted on the project site, such as vehicle washing, maintenance or repair outside of designated areas, hosing down of paved areas, and keeping dumpster lids open; maintaining common area landscape with efficient landscape and irrigation practices; and implementing trash management and litter control procedures to reduce pollution of drainage water. The structural BMPs include providing storm drain system labeling and signage on grate and drain inlets to alert the public to the destination of pollutants discharged into storm water; and using efficient irrigation systems and landscape design to minimize the runoff of excess irrigation water into the storm drain system.

The incorporation of BMPs prescribed in the WQMP would minimize impervious areas in addition to reducing potential pollutants that enter the surface flows as a result of project implementation, to the maximum extent practicable, as required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Prior to the commencement of grading and construction activities, a final WQMP would be prepared. With implementation of the SWPPP, WQMP, and BMPs, the construction and operation of the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff or otherwise substantially degrade water quality, nor would it substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the project site or area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less than Significant Impact. The City’s sources of water supply consist of groundwater and imported surface water. In the recent past the City has received, on average, about 70 percent of its water supply from its groundwater wells that access the Orange County Groundwater Basin and 30 percent from imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan). The City’s groundwater and imported water supplies are anticipated to remain stable based on studies and reports from the Orange County Water District and Metropolitan (Psomas, 2022c).

Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings drilled to a maximum depth of 25 feet in the project site and no onsite groundwater resources would be used for the construction and operation of the proposed project. According to the WSA (Psomas, 2022c) (Appendix G), the total normal year water demand for the proposed project is 93.5 acre-feet per year (AFY) and this demand was included in the projections utilized in the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Given this, the City would meet water demand through FY 2045, including the water demand generated by the proposed project. Furthermore, reliability of future water supplies to the region would be ensured through continued implementation of the Orange County Water District (OCWD) Groundwater Management Plan, OCWD’s Long Term Facilities Plan, local agency programs, and the combined efforts and programs among member and cooperative agencies of Metropolitan. Thus, the WSA concluded a sufficient and reliable water supply for the City, now and into the future, including a sufficient water supply for the proposed project, during normal, dry and multiple dry years.

As mentioned above, the project site currently consists of 28 percent of impervious area; and with the construction of the proposed project, the impervious area would increase to 68 percent. However, the post development drainage would be similar to the pre -development drainage. With the proposed project, the offsite drainage would be routed to the new drive aisle along the west property line and continue to flow west onto Twintree Avenue to match the existing condition. These flows would not be mixed with the runoff of the proposed project. In addition, the Preliminary Hydrology Report (Psomas, 2022a) (Appendix F1) and the pWQMP (Psomas, 2022b) (Appendix F2) would ensure compliance with the NPDES Stormwater Program and include BMPs that would ensure no substantial alteration of the existing drainage pattern at the project site would occur. Given this, implementation of the proposed project would not subst antially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
(i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to result in erosion and siltation impacts during construction activities. However, as stated previously, the proposed project would maintain a similar drainage pattern compared to existing conditions, and there are no streams or rivers on the project site. As discussed in Response X. a) above, the proposed project would implement the erosion and sediment control BMPs from the SWPPP which would minimize erosion. 1684163.1 Page 59 Page 264 of 480
Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Compliance with applicable regulations for stormwater runoff would ensure that impacts related to erosion and siltation would be less than significant.
(ii) Substantially increase the rate, amount, or depth of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
Less than Significant Impact. Refer to Responses X. a) and X. c) (i), above. The proposed project would maintain a similar drainage pattern compared to existing conditions. According to the Preliminary Hydrology Report (Psomas, 2022a) (Appendix F1), the bioretention BMPs with no underdrain are required for the proposed project to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges. The proposed drainage would be collected using roof downspouts, and flow directly into the bioretention BMPs. These bioretention BMPs would consist of a layer of mulch, sandy loam, and gravel. Once the stormwater passes through the planting material, the water would infiltrate into the site soils. As such, runoff from the project site would be minimized by proposed large planting areas and detaining the runoff during storm events in filtration planters (Psomas, 2022b) (Appendix F2). Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase the rate, amount, or depth of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or offsite.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less than Significant Impact. Refer to Responses X. a), X. c) (i), and X. c) (ii), above. The post development drainage would be similar to the pre-development drainage. There is one drainage management area and runoff flows in the southern direction in both the pre - and post-development. All flows beyond the full design capture volume would follow the pre -development drainage pattern to leave the project site.

Existing drainage from the adjacent Sheraton Hotel currently surface flows through a culvert onto Thackery Drive and ultimately leaves the project site flowing west onto Twintree Avenue. With the proposed project, this offsite drainage would be routed to the new drive aisle along the west property line and continue to flow west onto Twintree Avenue to match the existing condition. These flows would not be mixed with the runoff of the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project’s BMPs would ensure that pollutants of concern are prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to being discharged from the project site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than Significant Impact. Refer to Responses X. a), X. c) (i), X. c) (ii), and X. c) (iii) above. As stated previously, all flows beyond the full design capture volume would follow the pre -development drainage pattern to leave the project site. Existing drainage from the adjacent Sheraton Hotel currently surface flows through a culvert onto Thackery Drive and ultimately leaves the project site flowing west onto Twintree Avenue. With the proposed project, this offsite drainage would be routed to the new drive aisle along the west property line and continue to flow west onto Twintree Avenue to match the existing condition. These flows would not be mixed with the runoff of the proposed project. The proposed project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, i mpacts would be less than significant.

Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Less than Significant Impact. According to the City’s LHMP (City of Garden Grove, 2020), tsunami and seiches hazards were excluded from the plan as the City is not on the coast or next to a large body of water. Thus, the proposed project is not located in a tsunami or seiche zone.

Regarding flood hazard, the proposed project is within Zone “X” according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (06059C0141J) (FIRM) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (FEMA, 2019). Zone “X” is comprised by areas with minimal flood hazard that are outside the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) (SFHA is an area that will be inundated by the flood event having a 1 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year) (FEMA, 2020). Thus, the proposed project would be within a minimal flood hazard zone.

However, the entire City falls within the Prado Dam inundation area (City of Garden Grove, 2021) and the proposed project would be subject to flows due to failure or overflow at Prado Dam. However, the LHMP concluded that it is unlikely a dam failure will occur in the future that would impact the City as there have been no recorded events of dam failure in or around the City and Prado Dam has not been at risk of failure in the past. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No Impact. As discussed above, with implementation of the SWPPP, WQMP, and BMPs, the construction and operation of the proposed project would comply with the NPDES Stormwater Program and Orange County DAMP. In addition, as discussed above, implementation of the proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Given this, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. No impact would occur.

Sources
City of Garden Grove. 2020. City of Garden Grove Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available at:
https://ggcity.org/sites/default/files/City%20of%20Garden%20Grove%20LHMP%20Complete.pdf (accessed August 2021).

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2020. Flood Zones. Available at:
https://www.fema.gov/glossary/flood-zones (accessed August 2021). ----. 2019. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Flood Map Number 06059C0251J, effective on 12/03/2009.

Available at: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search#searchresultsanchor (accessed August 2021).

Psomas. 2022a. Preliminary Hydrology Report – GG-Site B-2. February. PDF. ----. 2022b. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (pWQMP) – GG-Site B-2. February. PDF. ----. 2022c. Site B-2 Hotel Water Supply Assessment. March. PDF. 1684163.1 Page 61 Page 266 of 480
Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
project:
a) Physically divide an established community? X
b) Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy,
or regulation adopted for the purpose of X
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Discussion:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The project site was previously disturbed and occupied by former residential and commercial uses which were demolished between 2004 and 2013. The north/northeastern parcels of the project site are paved and used for parkin g by the adjacent Sheraton Hotel, and the remaining parcels are comprised of dirt pads with limited vegetation that are mostly vacant except for the southeastern parcels that are used for temporary construction storage . The easterly portion of Thackery Drive from the centerline of the street has been demolished recently; the westerly paved street portion of Thackery Drive continues to remain. As such, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community.

The project site is located directly south of Sheraton Hotel, to the south (across Twintree Avenue) are commercial and residential uses, to the west are residential uses, and to the east (across Harbor Boulevard) of vacant lots which has been approved for a hotel use. The proposed PUD zoning designation and subsequent intended development of the site would be compatible with the surrounding area in intensity and density .

The proposed project construction and operation would occur within the project site and would not include significant new infrastructure improvements, such as major roadways, that would disrupt the physical arrangement of any existing residential or commercial development in the area. During construction, there may be minor disruptions in traffic patterns with a lane closure on Harbor Boulevard during the utilities upgrade, but any such disruption would be for a short duration and would be subject to a Traffic Control Plan.

Thus, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to physical division of an established community. No impact would occur.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than Significant Impact. The primary land use plans, policies, and regulations applicable to the proposed project include the City’s General Plan and Garden Grove Municipal Code.

The project site has a General Plan land use designation of IW and is zoned PUD-141-01 and R-1-7. The parcels at 12241, 11261, 12271, 12291, 12311 and 12323 Harbor Boulevard; and 12246, 12252, 12262, 12282, 12292,

Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 12312, and 12322 Thackery Drive are zoned PUD -141-01, while the parcels at 12251, 12261, 12281, 12291, 12311, and 12321 Thackery Drive are zoned R-1-7.

The IW is a land use designation for the area along Harbor Corridor, north of Westminster Avenue to just north of Chapman Avenue, which includes the project site. The IW designation is intended to provide for a mix of uses, including resort, entertainment, retail, hotel, and some higher density residential that are appropriate for a major entertainment and tourism destination (City of Garden Grove, 2021a). The proposed project involves construction of a full-service high-rise resort hotel which would meet the inten t of the IW designation. The IW designation allows a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of up to 5.0 for hotel resorts and entertainment venues. FAR results from dividing the total gross floor area of all buildings on a lot by the total area of that lot. The proposed project would develop approximately 691,693 square feet of hotel uses on the

3.72-acre (162,043.20 square feet) site, which would result in a FAR of 4.27, and be within the allowable FAR.

Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with the IW designation.

The IW designation of the proposed project is implemented by the PUD zoning. Section 9.18.160.010 (Planned Unit Developments) of the Garden Grove Municipal Code states that planned unit developments may be permitted in any Mixed Use zone subject to the provisions of Section 9.16.030.020 (Planned Unit Development) of the Garden Grove Municipal Code. A PUD is a precise plan, adopted by ordinance that provides the means for the regulation of buildings, structures, and uses of land to facilitate the implementation of the General Plan. It is a way to create site-specific zoning requirements. The adopted PUD becomes the zoning classification of the property. As previously mentioned, the project site is currently zoned PUD-141-01 and R-1-7. As part of the proposed project, the entire project site would be rezoned to create a subzone, PUD-141-01(A), which would be consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation of IW and would facilitate the development of the proposed project. With this modification, no conflict with the property’s zoning would occur. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Additionally, the proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan nor within two miles of a public airport or public use airport (Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County, 2008; Google Earth Pro, 2021); the proposed project is also not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip (Google Earth Pro, 2021).

The nearest public airport, John Wayne Airport, is located approximately 8 miles southeast to the project site in the City Santa Ana. The Joint Forces Training Base is located approximately 7.6 miles west of the project site in the City of Los Alamitos. Thus, there would be no conflict with the airport land use plan.

There are no adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans in the City (City of Garden Grove, 2021b). Thus, the proposed project would not result in conflict with such plan.

As discussed previously, the proposed project would require the removal of two ornamental trees located along a si dewalk on Twintree Avenue within the public right -of-way. Chapter 11.32, Trees, of the City’s Municipal Code serves as the City’s Tree Ordinance, which provides strict guidelines regarding the removal or tampering of trees located within any public right-of-way. The Project Applicant would be required to comply with the standards identified in this chapter, which includes obtaining approval from the City Manager prior to removal of trees in the public right-of-way. Given this, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. 1684163.1 Page 63 Page 268 of 480
Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Source
Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County. 2008. Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County – Airport Planning Areas (Figure 1). Available at: https://files.ocair.com/media/2021- 02/airportlu_20200604.pdf?VersionId=cMd6uGpbgOWGd3jMOS6TPJF3y5nMyA7F (accessed June 2021).

City of Garden Grove. 2021a. Garden Grove General Plan, Chapter 2, Land Use Element. Public Review DRAFT – October 2021. Adopted November 9, 2021. Available at: https://ggcity.org/sites/default/files/2021- 10/LandUseElementoct2021.pdf (accessed March 2022).
----. 2021b. Focused General Plan Update and Zoning Amendments Draft Environmental Impact Report. August 18, 2021. Adopted November 9, 2021. Available at: https://ggcity.org/sites/default/files/2021- 08/FGPUZA%20DEIR.pdf (accessed March 2022).

Google Earth Pro. 2021.

Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the X
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan X
or other land use plan?
Discussion:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No Impact (a-b). According to the California Department of Conservation, the project site is located within an area designated as Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) -3, which is an area where the significance of mineral deposits has not been evaluated (California Department of Conservation, 1995). Also, as discussed previously, the project site is zoned as Planned Unit Development (PUD-141-01) and Single-Family Residential Zone (R-1- 7), neither of which allows for mining operations (City of Garden Grove , 2020 and 2021). In addition, there are no mining operations on the project site (California Department of Conservation, 2021) nor was project site previously used for mining operations (Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC [NETR], 2021) .

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state , nor result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. No impact would occur.

Sources
City of Garden Grove. 2021. Zoning-Land Use Map. Available at: https://ggcity.org/maps/zoning-land-use/ (accessed June 2021).
----. 2020. Garden Grove Municipal Code. Available at: http://qcode.us/codes/gardengrove/ (accessed June 2021).
1684163.1 Page 65 Page 270 of 480
Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Department of Conservation. 2021. Mines Online. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html (accessed June 2021). ----. 1995. Update of Mineral Land Classification of Portland Cement Concrete Aggregate in Ventura, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties, California Part III – Orange County (Open-File Report 94-15). Generalized Mineral Land Classification of Orange County, California – Aggregate Resources Only - Plate 1.

Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC (NETR). 2021. Historic Aerials (v. 0.5.40). Available at:
https://historicaerials.com/viewer (accessed June 2021).

Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Signi ficant Signi ficant
Impact with Impa
ct
Mitigation
Incorporated
XIII. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general plan X
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? X
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public X
use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Discussion: The discussion below is based on the Garden Grove Hotel Site B-2 Noise Impact Study prepared by RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. (RK) (2022b) included as Appendix H. a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in the Garden Grove Hotel Site B -2 Noise Impact Study prepared by RK (2022b) (Appendix H), noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or unwanted. Noise levels are measured as decibels (dB) on a logarithmic scale and weighted to frequencies audible by humans (“A -weighted”), expressed as dBA. The community noise equivalent level (CNEL) is the cumulative noise exposure in a community during a 24 -hour period. CNEL adds 5 dBA for noise levels during the evening (between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m.), and 10 dBA for noise levels during the nighttime (between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.). Similar to CNEL, the day/night average sound level (L dn) considers the evening
period as part of the daytime period (i.e., 7 AM to 10 PM). The time equivalent sound level (Leq) is a measure of sound energy that accounts for noise fluctuations from moment to moment by averaging the louder and quieter moments, and giving more weight to the louder moments; it represents the equivalent continuous sound pressure level over a given period of time (FHWA, n.d.). Noise levels decrease with distance at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance, assuming over an acoustically hard surface with no intervening topography or structures between source and receptor.

The proposed project is located within the City of Garden Grove and would thus be required to comply with the applicable noise standards and thresholds established in the City of Garden Grove’s General Plan (Noise Element) and Municipal Code. In addition, RK utilized the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2006) criteria for assessing construction noise impacts, and the Federal 1684163.1 Page 67 Page 272 of 480
Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Highway Administration (FHWA)’s Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance for assessing operational noise impacts. A summary of the applicable noise standards and thresholds used in the noise analysis for the proposed project is provided below, followed by a summary of the construction and operational noise impacts.

Construction Noise Standards and Thresholds
Construction of the proposed project would comply with the noise limitation provisions set forth in the City of Garden Grove's Noise Ordinance, Garden Grove Municipal Code Sections 8.47.040 to 8.47.060, except that permitted hours and days of construction and grading would be as follows:
• Monday through Saturday - not before 7:00 a.m. and not after 8:00 p.m. (of the same day). • Sunday and Federal Holidays – may work the same hours but be subject to the restrictions as s tipulated in Sections 8.47.040 to 8.47.060 of the Municipal Code.

As discussed in Section 3.2 of this IS/MND, construction of the proposed project would occur during the daytime between 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and thus would be exempt from the City’s construction noise standard noted above. However, potent ial noise impacts are disclosed for informational purposes. For purposes of this analysis, RK used the construction noise criteria from the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2006) which assesses construction noise impacts based on the po tential for adverse community reaction. For residential uses, the daytime noise threshold is 80 dBA L eq for an 8-hour period.

Operational Noise Standards and Thresholds
The City’s Noise Element establishes planning criteria for determining a development’s noise/land use compatibility based on CNEL. The appplicable noise/land use compatibility guidelines to the proposed project are the following:
• City’s Noise Element - Transient Lodging – Motel, Hotels Noise/Land Use Compatibility Guidelines: 50-65 CNEL (Normally Acceptable
4) and 60-70 CNEL (Conditionally Acceptable5)
The proposed project will be required to demonstrate compliance with the interior noise standards in order to be considered compatible with the proposed land use. Interior noise levels due to exterior sources must not exceed a CNEL or a day-night level (Ldn) of 45 dBA, in any habitable room.

In addition, the following operational noise standards from Chapter 8.47, Noise Control, of the City’s Municipal Code are applicable to the project site and surrounding noise sensitive uses:
4 “Normally Acceptable” means that the specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. 5 “Conditionally Acceptable” means that new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice.

Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration • City’s Municipal Code Exterior Noise Standards: 55 dBA from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. for residential use (daytime noise standard); 50 dBA from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. for residential use (nighttime noise standard); and 65 dBA for any time for hotel and motels use The City’s Municipal Code further states the following regarding operational noises:
“It shall be unlawful for any person at any location to create any noise, or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise controlled by such person, when the foregoing causes the noise level:

1. The noise standard for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour;

2. The noise standard plus 5 dB for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour;

3. The noise standard plus 10 dB for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour;

4. The noise standard plus 15 dB for a cumulative period of more than 1 minute in any hour;

5. The noise standard plus 20 dB for any period of time.” Also, RK utilized the following from the FHWA’s Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance related to operational ambient noise impacts:
• FHWA’s Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance – Ambient Noise Impact: A change in noise level of 3 dBA is considered barely perceptible and a change in noise level of 5 dBA is considered readily perceptible to the human ear. Typically, it takes a doubling of traffic volume along a roadway to cause a significant increase in ambient noise levels of more than 3 dBA. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, and consistent with common practice in the City of Garden Grove, an increase of 3 dBA or more above ambient conditions would be considered a substantial permanent increase i n ambient noise.

Construction Noise Impacts
As noted above, even though construction activity is exempt from the noise standards in the City’s Municipal Code, potential noise impacts are disclosed for informational purposes. Thus, RK analyzed potential construction noise impacts using the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2006) criteria, which specifies 80 dBA L
eq over an 8 -hour period as the daytime threshold for residential uses. A daytime threshold was determined appropriate as the proposed project’s construction would not occur during the noise-sensitive nighttime hours in compliance with the City’s Municipal Code. RK analyzed potential noise impacts during all phases of construction, including: site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating.

Noise levels were calculated based on an average distance of equipment over an 8-hour period to the nearest adjacent property. As discussed in the Garden Grove Hotel Site B -2 Noise Impact Study (RK, 2022b), t he construction of the proposed project would result in a worst case construction phase noise level of 81.6 dBA L
eq, which would exceed the FTA construction noise criteria of 80 dBA L eq. Given this, construction of the proposed project would generate temporary noise levels in exceedance of ambient conditions at the 1684163.1 Page 69 Page 274 of 480
Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration residential uses surrounding the project site, which would be considered a potentially significant impact.

However, implementation of the Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-3 shown below, in conjunction with PDF- 13 through PDF-26, would reduce the construction noise level to 75.9 dBA Leq, which would be below the FTA construction noise criteria of 80 dBA Leq. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Construction Noise Reduction Mitigation Measures
N-1 Prepare and submit a construction management plan to the City of Garden Grove prior to starting construction. The construction management plan shall ensure all contractors implement construction best management practices to reduce constructio n noise levels. Best management practices shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
• All construction equipment shall be equipped with muffles and other suitable noise attenuation devices (e.g., engine shields).
• Where feasible, electric hook -ups shall be provided to avoid the use of generators. If electric service is determined to be infeasible for the site, only whisper- quiet generators shall be used (i.e., inverter generators capable of providing variable load.) • Use electric air compressors and similar power tools rather than diesel equipment, where feasible.
• Locate staging area, generator areas, and stationary construction equipment as far from the adjacent residential homes, as feasible.
• Construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than 5 minutes. • Provide notifications and signage in readily visible locations along the perimeter of construction sites that indicate the dates and duration of construction activities, as well as provide a telephone number where neighbors can inquire about the construction process and register complaints to a designated construction noise disturbance coordinator.
• All construction activities shall take place during daytime hours, between 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., per the requirements of the City of Garden Grove conditions of approval. • No impact pile driving or blasting activities shall be permitted on the project site during construction.

N-2 Construct the eight (8) foot high masonry block noise barrier wall along the western and northwestern property lines during the first phase of construction, prior to performing any excavation or grading activities.

N-3 Install a temporary noise barrier wall along the northern and southern property lines of the project site to shield adjacent sensitive receptors from construction noise. The temporary barrier should be installed at the first phase of construction, prior to performing any excavation or gradin g activities

Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and shall remain till the construction is completed. The temporary noise barrier shall be a minimum of six (6) feet high and present a solid face area such as by installing sound absorptive material or blankets which can be installed in multiple layers for improved noise insulation.

Operational Noise Impacts
The daytime noise analysis considered all proposed project noise sources operating simultaneously during daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) hours at the nearest adjacent property lines, wh ereas the nighttime noise analysis considered all proposed project noise sources operating simultaneously during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) at the nearest adjacent property lines. Both the daytime and nighttime analyses took into account implementation of PDF-13 through PDF-26, which include, among other things, the prohibition of pool deck operations and loading/delivery activity during nighttime hours, installation of a dense vegetation barrier along the interior pool deck wall to provide some sound absorption and visual screening to further reduce noise levels impacting the adjacent residential homes, and the installation of a 8 -foot high masonry block noise barrier wall along the western and northwestern property line.

Daytime noise levels generated by the operation of the proposed project would range from 42.6 to 48.7 dBA L
eq at surrounding residential land uses and 40.1 dBA Leq at the adjacent hotel land use; nighttime noise levels generated by the operation of the proposed project would range from 41.8 to 47.6 dBA L eq at surrounding residential land uses and 39.4 dBA Leq at the adjacent hotel land use. Given this, the operation of the proposed project would not exceed the City’s daytime noise standards (i.e., 55 dBA Leq for surrounding residential land uses and 65 dBA L eq for adjacent hotel land use) or the City’s nighttime noise standards (i.e., 50 dBA L eq for surrounding residential land uses and 65 dBA L eq for adjacent hotel land use) at the adjacent property lines.

Furthermore, the change in existing ambient daytime and nighttime noise levels resulting from operation of the proposed project would not result in an increase of 3 dBA or more above ambient levels, thus not resulting in a significant permanent increase in ambient noise levels.

In addition, typically, it takes a doubling of traffic volumes along a roadway to cause a significant increase in ambient noise levels of more than 3 dBA. The proposed project is projected to generate approximately 5,122 average daily trips (ADT). The current ADT along Harbor Boulevard is approximately 27,585. Hence, the proposed project would not double the amount of traffic volume along Harbor Boulevard. Also, the proposed project would restrict access to the project site along Twintree Avenue to emergency vehicles, maintenance, and trash/delivery trucks. Daily truck deliveries are expected to be less than 20 trucks per day whereas existing ADT along Twintree Avenue, west of Harbor Boulevard, is approximately 2,000 vehicles per day. The proposed project would not cause a doubling of traffic along Twintree Avenue. Thus, operation of the proposed project’s would not cause a significant increase (i.e., an increase of 3 dBA or more) in roadway noise at Harbor Boulevard and Twintree Avenue.

Lastly, based on the City’s noise/land use compatibility per the City’s Noise Element, the project site is expected to experience future noise levels ranging from 60 dBA to 70 dBA CNEL, which would fall within normally acceptable to conditionally accepted noise and land use zone. Additionally, the proposed project would be designed to ensure compliance with the City’s interior noise standards (i.e., not exceed CNEL or L dn
of 45 dBA in any habitable room), which would further demonstrate noise/land use compatibility with t he proposed hotel land use.
1684163.1 Page 71 Page 276 of 480
Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration In summary, the operation of the proposed project would not generate a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site in excess of standards established in the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in the Garden Grove Hotel Site B-2 Noise Impact Study (RK, 2022b) (Appendix H), groundborne vibrations consist of rapidly fluctuating motions within the ground that have an average motion of zero, where they can be transient or continuous in nature. The effects of groundborne vibrations typically only cause a nuisance to people, but at extreme vibration levels, damage to buildings may occur. Although groundborne vibration can be felt outdoors, it is typically only an annoyance to people indoors where the associated effects of the shaking of a building can be notable. Groundborne noise is an effect of groundborne vibration and only exists indoors since it is produced from noise radiated from the motion of the walls and floors of a room and may also consist of the rattling of windows or dishes on shelves.

Operation of the proposed hotel would not result in any groundborne vibration as activity associated with hotel operation would not involve the use of any equipment or processes that would result in potentially significant levels of ground vibration. However, construction act ivities would result in varying degrees of temporary ground vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and operations involved.

Groundborne vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. The effects of ground vibration may be imperceptible at the lowest levels, with low rumbling sounds; detectable at moderate levels; and damaging to nearby structures at the highest levels. Groundborne vibrations from typical construction activities do not often reach levels that can damage structures in proximity to construction, but their effects may manifest and be noticeable in buildings that are within 25 feet of construction activities. One major concern with regard t o construction vibration is potential building damage, which is assessed in terms of peak particle velocity (ppv), typically in units of inches per second (in/sec). In addition to structural damage, the vibration of room surfaces affects people as human annoyance. Human and structural response to different vibration levels is influenced by a number of factors, including ground type, distance between source and receptor, duration, and the number of perceived vibration events.

To determine the vibratory impacts during project construction, RK used thresholds from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)’s Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (2020) related to potential vibration annoyance and potential vibration damage to structures, which are shown in Tables 5 and 6 below. Specifically, Table 5 provides thresholds for maximum vibration limits for when vibration becomes potentially annoying, whereas Table 6 provides thresholds for potential structural vibration damage resulting from vibratory impacts.

Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Table 5: Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria
Human Response Transient Sources
PPV (in/sec)
Continuous/Frequent Intermittent
Sources
PPV (in/sec)
Barely perceptible 0.04 0.01
Distinctly perceptible 0.25 0.01
Strongly perceptible 0.90 0.10
Severe 2.00 0.40
Source: RK, 2022b.

Notes: Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment. A “severe” human response would be considered a potentially significant impact.

Table 6: Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria
Structure and Condition Transient Sources
PPV (in/sec)
Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
PPV (in/sec)
Extremely fragile historic buildings ruin ancient
monuments 0.12 0.08
Fragile buildings 0.20 0.10
Historic and some old buildings 0.50 0.25
Older residential structures 0.50 0.30
New residential structures1 1.00 0.50
Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.00 0.50
Source: RK, 2022b.

Notes: All structures surrounding the project site are “new residential structures.” No historical or fragile buildings are known to be located within the vicinity of the site. Thus, the “new residential structure” threshold is applicable to the proposed project. A potentially significant impact would occur if transient sources are greater than or equal to 2.00 ppv or if continuous/frequent intermittent sources are greater than or equal to 0.50 ppv.

Also, for the vibration impact analysis, RK used typical construction vibration levels from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2006) and then extrapolated to the façade of the nearest adjacent structures within 25 feet. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site were the residential structures located adjacent to the western property line. The use of substantial vibration inducing equipment or activities, such as pile drivers or blasting, is prohibited.

The main source of vibration impacts during construction of the proposed project would be the operation of equipment such as bulldozer activity during site preparation, loading trucks during grading and excavation, vibratory rollers during paving, and caisson drilling. Table 7 below shows the proposed project’s construction- related vibration analysis at the nearest structures to the project construction area. Construction impacts are assessed from the closest area on the project site to the nearest adjacent structure. All structures surrounding the project site are “new residential structures”; no historical or fragile buil dings are known to be located within the vicinity of the project site. As shown in Table 7, project -related construction activity would not cause any potential damage to the nearest structures.
1684163.1 Page 73 Page 278 of 480
Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Table 7: Construction Vibration Impact Analysis
Construction
Activity
Distance to
Nearest
Structure
(ft)
Duration
Calculated
Project
Vibration
Level – PPV
(in/sec)
Damage
Potential
Level
Vibration
Annoyance
Threshold
(Severe) –
PPV (in/sec)
Vibration
Structural
Damage
Threshold –
PPV (in/sec)
Significant
Impact?
Large
Bulldozer 25 Continuous
/Frequent 0.089
Extremely
Fragile
Buildings,
Ruins
Ancient

0.40 0.50 No
Monuments
Vibratory
Roller 25 Continuous
/Frequent 0.210
Fragile
Buildings 0.40 0.50 No
Loaded
Trucks 25 Continuous
/Frequent 0.076 No Impacts 0.40 0.50 No
Caisson
Drilling 25 Continuous
/Frequent 0.089
Extremely
Fragile
Buildings,
Ruins
Ancient

0.40 0.50 No
Monuments
Source: RK, 2022b.

Project construction would thus result in calculated vibration levels that are under the vibration structural damage and vibration human annoyance thresholds and therefore would not result in any potential damage to the nearest structures nor result in severe human annoyance. Further, construction vibration impacts will be temporary and intermittent. Operation of the proposed project, a resort hotel, would not generate vibration impacts. Given this, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The nearest public airport, John Wayne Airport, is located approximately 8 miles southeast to the project site in the City of Santa Ana. The Joint Forces Training Base is located approximately 7.6 miles west of the project site in the City of Los Alamitos. As such, the proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan nor within two miles of a public airport or public use airport (Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County, 2008; Google Earth Pro, 2021); the proposed project is also not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip (Google Earth Pro, 2021). Given this, implementation of the proposed project would not expose people residing or working the project area to excessive noise levels. No impact would occur.

Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Sources
Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County. 2008. Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County – Airport Planning Areas (Figure 1). Available at: https://files.ocair.com/media/2021- 02/airportlu_20200604.pdf?VersionId=cMd6uGpbgOWGd3jMOS6TPJF3y5nMyA7F (accessed June 2021).

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). No date (n.d.). Sound Level Descriptors (FHWA-HEP-17-053). Available at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/noise/resources/fhwahep17053.pdf (accessed August 2021).

Google Earth Pro. 2021.

RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. (RK) 2022b. Garden Grove Hotel Site B-2 Noise Impact Study. April. PDF. 1684163.1 Page 75 Page 280 of 480
Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses) or X
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, especially affordable
housing, necessitating the construction of
X
replacement housing elsewhere?
Discussion:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves construction of a full -service high-rise resort hotel, which is a transient use that would not directly introduce new residents. As stated in Section 3.2 of this IS/MND, construction of the proposed project would provide up to 210 temporary jobs over approximately 30-month period. It is anticipated that construction workers would come from local labor pools and would not relocate to the City from other communities. It is also anticipated that the jobs generated from the project operation would be filled by the local labor pool. It is unlikely that the employees would relocate from other regions for the proposed project. Given this, implementation of the proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, especially affordable housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The project site was previously disturbed and occupied by former residential and commercial uses which were demolished between 2004 and 2013. The north/northeastern parcels of the project site are paved and used for parking by the adjacent Sheraton Hotel, and the rema ining parcels are comprised of dirt pads that are mostly vacant except of the southeastern parcels that are used for temporary construction storage.

The easterly portion of Thackery Drive from the centerline of the street has been demolished recently; the westerly paved street portion of Thackery Drive continues to remain. As such, the project site does not contain any housing and no people would be displaced as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not displace housing nor displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. No impact would occur.

Source
N/A

Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of
the public services:

Fire protection? X
Police protection? X
Schools? X
Parks? X
Other public facilities? X
Discussion:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?
Police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) has been responsible for fire protection services in the City of Garden Grove since 2019. There are seven fire stations in the City, which are part of OCFA Division 1 and make up OCFA’s Battalion 11 (OCFA , 2022a). The following fire stations would serve the project site:
1684163.1 Page 77 Page 282 of 480
Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration OCFA Fire Station Distance from Project Apparatus Daily Staffing ORC86
12232 West Street,
Garden Grove, CA 92840

0.5 miles Paramedic Engine –
E86
Fire Captain, Fire
Engineers, 2 x
Firefighters
ORC83
12132 Trask Avenue,
Garden Grove, CA 92843

1.2 miles Paramedic Engine –
E83
Fire Captain, Fire
Engineers, 2 x
Firefighters
ORC78
501 North Newhope Street,
Santa Ana, CA 92703

2.5 miles Paramedic Engine –
E78
Fire Captain, Fire
Engineers, 2 x
Firefighters
Source: OCFA, 2022b
There are currently no plans for additional facilities or manpower needed for the project site. The OCFA’s stated standard of service for urban areas is 7 minutes and 20 seconds total response time, 80 percent of the time. The estimated travel time from the first fire station to the project site is 5 minutes, which meets or exceeds OCFA standards (OCFA, 2022b).

The Garden Grove Police Department, located at 11301 Acacia Parkway in Garden Grove, prov ides police protection services. The Garden Grove Police Department is divided into an East and a West Division with 43 sworn officers assigned to each Division (86 total sworn officers). The average response time from February 6 through March 15, 2021, was 5 minutes and 57 seconds in the West Division and 4 minutes and 43 seconds in the East Division for a City-wide average of 5 minutes and 20 seconds (City of Garden Grove, 2021). The project site is located within the East Division.

The proposed project is a transient use that would not directly introduce any new residents that could impact fire or police protection services. Furthermore, the proposed project would not include the construction of new or physically altered fire or police facilities. In addition, as discussed in the Population and Housing Section of this IS/MND, the proposed project would generate jobs that would likely be filled by the local labor pool and would not indirectly generate new residents. Lastly, the proposed project would be in compliance with all standard conditions with regard to development, including water supply, built in fire protection systems, road grades and width, access, building materials, applicable local fire codes, ordinances, California Fire Code regulations, and California Building Code requirements. Additionally, an internal (onsite) fire water system would be constructed to provide adequate firefighting capability along with potable and irrigation water service laterals meters, and backflow devices (PSOMAS , 2022). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Schools?
No Impact. As discussed, above, the proposed project is a transient use that would not increase the number of children within the Garden Grove Unified School District. Also, the proposed project would not include or require the construction of new or physically altered school facilities. In addition, as discussed in the Population and Housing Section of this IS/MND, the proposed project would generate jobs that would likely be filled by the local labor pool and would not indirectly generate new residents or school -aged children.

Nonetheless, the proposed project would be subject to the applied mitigation school fees currently applied

Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration to new development in the City by the Garden Grove Unified School District (City of Garden Grove, 2021). The Project Applicant would provide the Community and Economic Development Department a proof of payment of appropriate school fees, adopted by the Garden Grove Unified School District, prior to the issuance of building permits in accordance with Section 65995(b) of the California Government Code . No impact would occur.

Parks?
No Impact. The proposed project includes themed pool experience providing recreation for guests staying at the hotel. The proposed project is a transient use and would not generate new residents that would increase demand for existing parks. Please refer to Response XVI. Recreation of this IS/MND. The proposed project would not require creation of additional parkland or increase the burden on existing parks and/or other recreational facilities. No impact would occur.

Other public facilities?
No Impact. Because the proposed project is a transient use, it is not reasonably foreseeable that it would increase demands on other public facilities (such as libraries). No impact would occur.

Source
City of Garden Grove. 2021. Section 4.12 Public Services, City of Garden Grove Focused General Plan Update and Zoning Amendments Draft EIR. August 18, 2021. Adopted November 9, 2021. Available at:
https://ggcity.org/sites/default/files/2021-08/FGPUZA%20DEIR.pdf (accessed March 2022).

Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). 2022a. E-mail correspondence with Tamera Rivers, Management Analyst.

April 7, 2022.
----. 2022b. OCFA Facilities and Services Questionnaire. April 7, 2022.

Psomas. 2022. Site B-2 Hotel Water Supply Assessment. March. PDF. 1684163.1 Page 79 Page 284 of 480
Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
XVI. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that X
subst
antial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of such facilities which might have X
an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Discussion:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. The proposed project is a transient use that would not directly introduce any new residents. While the proposed project would generate jobs during construction and operation, these jobs would likely be filled by the local labor pool and would not indirectly generate new residents. In addition, the pr oposed project includes themed pool experience and other recreational activities for guests staying at the hotel. Based on the proposed commercial/resort use of the proposed project, no increase in use of the existing parks within the immediate area is ant icipated that would substantially cause the deterioration of an existing park. No impact would occur.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of such facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The proposed project involves construction of a full-service high-rise resort hotel with 500 guest suites with balconies; themed pool experience with lazy river ; storage and loading areas; event space with a 600-person maximum occupancy theater; a grand ballroom; two meeting rooms; a variety of food and beverage opportunities throughout the hotel; themes amenities; an arcade; and a spa and fitness center for the proposed hotel guests. Construction and operation of these hotel amenities are analyzed in this IS/MND.

The proposed project does not call for new housing that would require the creation of open space or require the payment of park-in-lieu fees to assist in mitigating the impacts to the existing park system within the City.

No impact would occur.

Source
N/A

Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
XVII. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and X
pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses X
(e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
Discussion: The discussion below is based on the Site B-2 Hotel Traffic Impact Study (RK, 2022c) and Garden Grove Hotel Site B-2 ULI Shared Parking Study (RK, 2022d) prepared by RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. (RK) included as Appendix I and Appendix J, respectively.
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not significantly change or modify any of the existing public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities or make any modification that could conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs (i.e., Master Plan of Streets and Highways, Existing Transit Routes, Master Plan of Bikeway Facilities), or modify th e safety of such facilities. Additionally, the proposed project would encourage and support multi -modal transit by implementing trip reduction measures (refer to Mitigation Measure GHG-7) that would reduce the number of auto -based trips generated by the proposed project and encourage the use of transit, bicycling, and walking. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines, there are three types of screening that may be applied to effectively screen out land use projects from a project-level Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) assessment. The screening criteria are: Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening, Low VMT Area Screening, and Project Type Screening.

Per the City’s TIA Guidelines, land use projects located within a TPA may be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact absent substantial evidence to the con trary, if the project meets the following four conditions:
1684163.1 Page 81 Page 286 of 480
Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

1. Has a Floor Area Ratio of 0.75 or greater;

2. Does not include more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the City;

3. Is consistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by the lead agency, with input from the Southern California Association of Governments); and

4. Does not replace affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate - or high -income residential units.

A TPA is defined as a half -mile area around and existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high - quality transit corridor (Public Resources Code Section 21099(a)(7)). A major transit stop is defined as a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods (Public Resources Code Section 21064.3).

The proposed project is located within a half -mile of the Harbor Boulevard/Chapman Avenue intersection, which is a major transit stop. The following Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) bus routes serve the Harbor Boulevard/Chapman Avenue intersection with a morning and afternoon peak commute period frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less: OCTA Route 54 – Garden Grove to Orange (via Chapman Avenue) and OCTA Route 543 – Fullerton to Santa Ana (via Harbor Boulevard).

Additionally, the proposed project meets the four conditions listed above.

1. As stated in Section XI. Land Use and Planning, the proposed project has a FAR of 4.27 which is greater than the threshold of 0.75;

2. The proposed project would provide a total of 528 parking spaces, which is the same amount of parking spaces required by the City (528 parking spaces) as discussed in the Site B-2 ULI Shared Parking Study (RK, 2022d) (Appendix J);

3. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable Sustainable Community Strategy, as determined by the City; and

4. Since the project site is currently vacant and the proposed land use is not residential, the proposed project does not replace affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate - or high -income residential units.

The proposed project satisfies the TPA screening criteria . Therefore, impacts related to VMT would be less than significant.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated . The proposed project would share access with the adjacent Sheraton Hotel via the existing access on Harbor Boulevard. To ensure that the proposed project has a less than significant impact on potential safety and hazard issues, the following recommendations are provided, which are considered standard site plan review requirements:

Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration • Ensure adequate radius is provided for appropriate vehicles (i.e., fire trucks, buses, limousines, trash trucks, etc.) to navigate the project access and roundabout; • Provide adequate drive aisle and lane widths;
• Parking spaces should not be located near or within the roundabout. If absolutely necessary, the spaces near the roundabout should be valet -operated and used for long -term parking. In any case, adequate clearance and space should be provided for vehicles navigating the roundabout. • The entrance roundabout should be designed appropriately and per engineering standards for roundabouts, including geometric elements such as Center Island, travel lanes, deflections, and inscribed circles. Appropriate design needs to be considered and implemented for all appropriate modes of transportation including pedestrians and bicycles. • Provide appropriate and adequate wayfinding and signage for drivers to easily navigate the entrance and exit.
• During times of high activity for the proposed project and/or the adjacent Sheraton Hotel, p rovide adequate valet staff and means to ensure traffic does not spill back onto the roundabout or Harbor Boulevard and impede the flow of vehicles.
• Prior to final circulation design, provide a detailed plan including drive aisle dimensions and roundabout details for review by a registered traffic engineer.

Additionally, a queuing analysis was performed to determine if adequate capacity is currently available to accommodate the left -turn vehicular queues at the study intersections and found some of the lef t-turn movements at the following intersections would require additional left-turn capacity (Appendix I):
• Harbor Boulevard and Orangewood Avenue
• West Street and Chapman Avenue
• Harbor Boulevard and Lampson Avenue
• Haster Street and Lampson Avenue
• Harbor Boulevard and Trask Avenue
The queuing analysis found that, with implementation of Mitigation Measures TR -1 through TR-5, the study intersections listed above would not have substantial increase hazards due to a geometric design feature.

Left-Turn Queue Mitigation Measure
TR-1 Coordinate with the City of Anaheim to determine if the project is required to make a fair -share contribution to extend the left -turn capacity up to 266 feet at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Orangewood Avenue.

TR-2 Pay full cost to extend the left -turn capacity up to 169 feet at the intersection of West Street and Chapman Avenue.

TR-3 Pay full cost to extend the left -turn capacity up to 105 feet at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Lampson Avenue.
1684163.1 Page 83 Page 288 of 480
Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration TR-4 Pay full cost to extend the left -turn capacity up to 133 feet at the intersection of Haster Street and Lampson Avenue.

TR-5 Pay full cost to extend the left -turn capacity up to 381 feet at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Trask Avenue.

Lastly, the proposed project would not result in development of any new land uses that would be incompatible with existing and planned land uses in the surrounding areas.

Thus, with Mitigation Measures TR-1 through TR -5, implementation of the proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design or incompatible uses. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would share access with the adjacent Sheraton Hotel via the existing access (signalized) on Harbor Boulevard. Another access to the project site would be provided via one full access driveway (unsignalized) on Twintree Avenue. However, the proposed project is restricting access to the project site along Twintree Avenue to emergency vehicles, maintenance, and trash/delivery trucks only. All employee and guest access to the project site, including tourist buses and shuttles, will be via Harbor Boulevard. Thus, the project access on Twintree Avenue would not experience any vehicle trips associated with employees or outside guests/visitors to the proposed hotel. Additionally, as stated above, the existing access on Harbor Boulevard would follow the standard site plan review requirements to ensure that the proposed project would not have a significant impact on safety and hazard issues. As such, the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Source
RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. (RK) 2022c. Site B-2 Hotel Traffic Impact Study. April. PDF. ---. 2022d. Garden Grove Hotel Site B-2 ULI Shared Parking Study. April. PDF.

Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the
project cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code §21074 as
either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape
that is geographically defined in terms of the
size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in X
Public Resources Code § 5020.1(k), or
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth X
in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code §
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.

Discussion:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code § 5020.1(k), or b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less than Si gnificant with Mitigation Incorporated (a -b). According to the Site B-2 Hotel Project: Cultural, Paleontological and Tribal Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum prepared by AECOM (2022) (Appendix D), the sensitivity of the project site for tribal cultur al resources appears low. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) conducted a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search, which was negative indicating no resources in the NAHC SLF database were present at the project site . In addition, a Native American contact program was also conducted to solicit input from regional Native American individuals and organizations in compliance with Assembly Bill 52. No resources were identified as a result of outreach to Native American representatives and no tribes requested consultation under AB 52. No potential tribal cultural resources were identified during the archival research, and any prehistoric archaeological remains are likely to have been destroyed in the middle twentieth century when residential and commercial uses were constructed at the project site .

However, if any Native American cultural material is encountered within the project site, Mitigation Measure 1684163.1 Page 85 Page 290 of 480
Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration TCR-1 is provided to reduce potential impacts. With implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR-1, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource pursuant to Public Resources Code §21074. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure
TCR-1 I f any tribal cultural resources are encountered within the project site, interested Native American parties established in the contact program , in compliance with Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), will be notified. The City of Garden Grove will coordinate with interested Native American parties, as established during AB 52 consultation, to determine whether the resources constitute tribal cultural resources and solicit any comments the Native Ameri can parties may have regarding appropriate treatment and disposition of the resources. All attempts will be made to preserve tribal cultural resources in place or leave resources in an undisturbed state in compliance with all applicable laws.

Work in the vicinity of the discovery (15-meter radius) will halt until the appropriate assessment and treatment of the resource is determined in consultation with Native American parties (work can continue elsewhere on the project site).

Source
AECOM. 2022. Site B-2 Hotel Project: Cultural, Paleontological and Tribal Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum. March 2022. PDF.

Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would
the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment, storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or X
telecommunication facilities, the construction
or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and X
multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which serves
or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected X
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity of
local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the X
attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and X
regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located in a highly urbanized area where existing water, wastewater treatment, storm drainage, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities are in place. Specifically, there are existing water, sewer, natural gas, and electric/telecommunication lines that are located on the east side of the project site along Harbor Boulevard. Also, as discussed previously in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this IS/MND, existing drainage surface flows on the project site flow s to Thackery Drive, then west onto Twintree Avenue, and south onto Buaro Street where it flows into a curb opening catch basin and enters the public storm drain system. The proposed project would be served by the existing water, wastewater treatment, stor m drainage, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities and would not require the relocation of such facilities or construction of new or expansion of such facilities (OCSD, 2022).
1684163.1 Page 87 Page 292 of 480
Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Also, as discussed previously in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this IS/MND, the post development drainage would be similar to the pre -development drainage and would be designed in compliance with the North Orange County WQMP requirements, including installation of bioretention BMPs with no underdra in, where the proposed drainage would be collected using roof downspouts, and flow directly into the bioretention BMPs on the south side of the project site; all flows beyond the full design capture volume would then follow the pre-development drainage pattern to leave the project site and thus could be accommodated by the existing storm water drainage system.

Lastly, as discussed previously in Section VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this IS/MND, per PDF -11, the proposed project would be designed in compliance with the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and Garden Grove Municipal Code Section 18.04.0101, including the provisions for bicycle parking, electric vehicle charging stations, energy efficiency, material conservation, and water/waste reduction. To further ensure the operation of the proposed project would not result in inefficient or wasteful energy consumption or conflict with the City’s energy goals CON-4 and CON-5, the proposed project would implement Mitigation Measures GHG-2 through GHG-6, which would promote the use of renewable energy sources and increase energy efficiency, such as installing on-site renewable energy sources capable of generating up to 25 percent of the proposed project’s total electricity demand, implementing w ater conservation strategies, and prohibiting the use of onsite natural gas fire places or fire pits, thereby reducing the proposed project’s demand on the existing electrical, natural gas, and water/waste infrastructure system. Please see (b) below regarding the project’s water demand and related water facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less Than Significant Impact. A WSA was prepared for the proposed project pursuant to Senate Bill 610 (Appendix G), which evaluated whether the City could supply the water demands from development of the proposed project in conjunction with the remainder of the water demands within its water service area after the proposed project is completed, both now and 20 years into the future (Psomas, 2022). According to the WSA, the City’s sources of water supply consist of groundwater (from Orange County Groundwater Basin [Basin] managed by the OCWD) and imported surface water (from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California [Metropolitan] supplied by the City’s Metropolitan member agency, the Municipal Water District of Orange County [MWDOC]) . In addition, the City’s Water Services Division maintains eight emergency interconnections with adjacent water retailers that can be temporarily utilized on an as needed basis. As reported in the City’s 2020 UWMP, the City’s water demand in Fiscal Year ( FY) 2019/20 was 21,979 AFY (including water losses). The City’s water use for FY 2045 is projected to be approximately 22,792 AFY.

Analysis of water supply projections for the City demonstrated that projected supplies would meet demand through FY 2045. These projections considered water development programs and projects as well as water conservation, as described in the City’s 2020 UWMP, MWDOC’s 2020 UWMP, and Metropolitan’s 2020 UWMP. The City’s groundwater and imported water supplies are anticipated to remain stable based on studies and reports from OCWD and Metropolitan, respectively.

Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration According to the WSA, the total water demand for the proposed project would be 93.5 AFY without water losses or non-revenue water, and is projected to require a total supply of 99.4 AFY (which takes into account potential water losses at 5.95 percent of to tal production, consistent with the City’s most recently adopted UWMP). Non-revenue water occurs due to meter inaccuracies, fire suppression, fire flow testing, hydrant and pipe flushing, pipeline breaks, etc. The proposed project’s water demand was included in the projections utilized in the City’s 2020 UWMP (as it included future planned development of hotels within the International West Resort Area along Harbor Boulevard [Focus Area A] consistent with the City’s 2030 General Plan, which the project site is located within). Given this, as stated above, the City would meet water demand through FY 2045, including the water demand generated by the proposed project. Furthermore, reliability of future water supplies to the region would be ensured through continued implementation of the OCWD Groundwater Management Plan, OCWD’s Long Term Facilities Plan, local agency programs, and the combined efforts and programs among member and cooperative agencies of Metropolitan. Thus, the WSA concluded a sufficient and reliable water supply for the City, now and into the future, including a sufficient water supply for the proposed project, during normal, dry and multiple dry years. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less Than Significant Impact. All of the wastewater generated within the service area is collected by the City, discharged to OCSD interceptor sewers, then treated by OCSD and OCWD’s joint Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) project (Psomas, 2022). Per correspondence received from OCSD dated May 3, 2022, there is adequate wastewater treatment capacity to serve the proposed project’s projected demand in addition to OCSD’s existing commitments. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than Significant Impact (d -e). Solid waste collection and disposal service in the City is provided via the Garden Grove Sanitary District’s (GGSD) private contract with Republic Services (City of Garden Grove, 2021a).

As part of their contract, Republic Services implements the City’s recycling program (Recycle Garden Grove), which combines automated trash collection with a broad recycling and yard w aste collection operation to reduce the volume of waste dumped in local landfills and to conserve natural resources. The waste stream generated by the City is processed and sorted at the CVT Regional Material Facility and Transfer Station in the City of An aheim, which is permitted to handle 6,000 tons/day of solid waste (City of Garden Grove, 2021b; California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery [CalRecycle], 2021b). The non-recyclable waste is primarily disposed of at one of the three active Orange County Landfills - Frank R. Bowerman (FRB) Landfill, located at 11002 Bee Canyon Access Road in the City of Irvine, which is permitted to accept a maximum of 11,500 tons of waste per day with an operational end date of 2053; Olinda Alpha Landfill, located at 1942 N.

Valencia Avenue in the City of Brea, which is permitted to accept a maximum of 8,000 tons of waste per day with an operational end date of 2036; and, Prima Deshecha Landfill, located at 32250 Avenida La Pata in the 1684163.1 Page 89 Page 294 of 480
Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Juan Capistrano, which is permitted to accept a maximum of 4,000 tons of waste per day with an operational end date of 2102 (Orange County Waste & Recycling, 2021; CalRecycle, 2021c, 2021d, and 2021e).

The proposed project would generate approximately 1.4 tons of waste per day (RK, 2022).6 Republic Services would provide solid waste collection and disposal services to the proposed project, which would include participation in the City’s recycling program. The solid waste generated by the proposed project could be accommodated by the CVT Regional Material Facility and Transfer Station as well as any of these three Orange County Landfills. Furthermore, the proposed project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local management and reduction statues and regulations related to solid waste, including the CALGreen waste diversion requirements (International Code Council, 2019) and mandatory recycling requirements per the GGSD Code of Regulations (GGSD, 2010). Given this, the proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Sources
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2021a. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Available at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates (accessed August 2021).
----. 2021b. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details - CVT Regional Material Recovery and TS (30-AB-0335).

Available at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2762?siteID=2098 (accessed August 2021).
----. 2021c. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details - Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary LF (30-AB-0360). Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2767?siteID=2103 (accessed August 2021). ----. 2021d. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details - Olinda Alpha Landfill (30-AB-0035). Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2757?siteID=2093 (accessed August 2021). ----. 2021e. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details - Prima Deshecha Landfill (30-AB-0019). Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2750?siteID=2085 (accessed August 2021).

City of Garden Grove. 2021a. Trash and Recycling Webpage. Available at: https://ggcity.org/pw/trash- recycling (accessed August 2021).
----. 2021b. City of Garden Grove Focused General Plan Update and Zoning Amendments Draft EIR – Section

4.16, Utilities and Service Systems. Adopted November 9, 2021. Available at:
https://ggcity.org/sites/default/files/2021-08/FGPUZA%20DEIR.pdf (accessed March 2022).

Garden Grove Sanitary District (GGSD). 2010. Garden Grove Sanitary District Code of Regulations. Available at: https://ggcity.org/pdf/pw/ggsdcodeofregulations2010.pdf (accessed August 2021). 6 RK’s Garden Grove Hotel Site B-2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Study (2022) indicates that operation of the proposed project would generate a total of approximately 525.24 tons/year of waste. This total was divided by 365 to calculate the tons/day rate.

Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration International Code Council. 2019. 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). Available at:
https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAGBSC2019/cover (accessed August 2021).

Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). 2022. Sewer Capacity Verification Letter. May 3, 2022.

Orange County Waste & Recycling. 2021. Landfills Webpage. Available at:
https://www.oclandfills.com/landfills (accessed August 2021).

Psomas. 2022. Site B-2 Hotel Water Supply Assessment. March. PDF.

RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. (RK). 2022. Garden Grove Hotel Site B-2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Study. April. PDF.
1684163.1 Page 91 Page 296 of 480
Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
XX. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified as very
high fire hazard severity zones, would the
project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to pollutant X
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines
or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk X
or that may result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, X
post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Discussion:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Impact (a-d). The project site is not at risk of wildfire as there are no high fire severity zones or wildland- urban interface areas within the City (City of Garden Grove, 2021). As discussed previously, the project site is located in an urbanized area of the City and according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s (CAL FIRE) Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map, the project site and surrounding areas are classified as Local Responsibility Areas (CAL FIRE, 2021) . Refer to Response XVII. Transportation d) for discussion on emergency access and Response X. Hydrology and Water Quality for discussion on project site drainage.

Therefore, no impact would occur.

Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Source
CAL FIRE. 2021. FHSZ Viewer Map. Available at: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/fhsz/ (accessed May 2021).

City of Garden Grove. 2021. Garden Grove General Plan, Chapter 11, Safety Element. Public Review DRAFT – August 2021. Adopted November 9, 2021. Available at: https://ggcity.org/sites/default/files/2021- 09/Chapter11GG_SafetyElement_PublicReview_08-2021.pdf (accessed March 2022). 1684163.1 Page 93 Page 298 of 480
Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat
of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant X
or animal community, substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection X
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or X
indirectly?
Discussion:
a) Does t
he project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As stated previously, the California black rail is the only sensitive species (State Threatened) with the potential to be found on the project site. However, the project site is located in a highly urbanized area and was previously disturbed and occupied by former residential and commercial uses. As such, the project site does not provide suitable habitat for the California black rail.

Additionally, the California black rail was last sighted in December 1986 in the City of Orange. On this basis, it is unlikely that there would be an occurrence of this species at the project site. During construction, the proposed project would require removal of the non-native grass and the two (2) ornamental trees. While no sensitive plants or wildlife would be impacted by vegetation removal activities, there is a potential for impacts

Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration to occur to raptors and other nesting birds protected under the MBTA that could nest within these trees.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce the potential impacts to raptors and other nesting birds to less than significant.

As stated previously, no historical resources were identified on the project site. However, there is a potential for unknown or undiscovered archaeological resources to be encountered during construction activities.

Therefore, Mitigation Measure CR -1 would be implemented. If human remains are discovered during construction activities, Mitigation Measure CR -2 would be implemented. To address the low to moderate potential for encountering paleontological remains during construction activities, Mitigation Measure G -1 is proposed. Lastly, if tribal cultural resources are encountered during construction activities, Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would be implemented. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures, CR -1 and CR-2, G-1, and TCR-1, the impacts to archaeological resources, human remains, paleontological resources, and tribal cultural resources would be less than significant. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated . As described in the analysis within this IS/MND, the proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable significant impact since all potentially significant impacts would be less than significant based on compliance with regulatory requirements, implementations of BMPs, and mitigation measur es identified in this IS/MND. Impacts during construction would be short -term, temporary, and localized to the project site. All project construction and operational impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated . As described in the analysis within this IS/MND, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any impacts that are significant and unavoidable or cumulatively considerable. The implementation of the mitigation measures , BMPs, and regulatory requirements identified in this IS/MND would reduce all potentially significant impacts to a le ss than significant level. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 1684163.1 Page 95 Page 300 of 480
Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page intentionally left blank

Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

5.0 DOCUMENT PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
Lead Agency
City of Garden Grove
Community and Economic Development Department
11222 Acacia Parkway
Garden Grove, California 92840
Contact Person
Maria Parra, Senior Planner
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (714) 741-5316
CEQA Document Preparer
AECOM
Jerry Flores
Jane Chang
Hallie Fitzpatrick, AICP
Nathan Counts
Hannah Allington
Allison Hill, M.A., RPA
Praveen Yerra, P.E.

Paul Salter, PG, CHG, CEG
Julie Leiva
Sergio Duarte
Nicolas Rueda, EIT
Psomas
Robert J. Talafus, PE, QSD, ENV SP
Michael Swan, PE
Jaylee McDowell, PE, ENV SP
RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.

Rogier Goedecke
Bryan Estrada, AICP
Darshan Shivaiah
1684163.1 Page 97 Page 302 of 480
Site B-2 Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page intentionally left blank

1704485.1

FINAL

INITIAL STUDY/

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
SITE B-2 HOTEL
SCH No. 2022060174

Lead Agency
City of Garden Grove
Community and Economic Development Department
11222 Acacia Parkway
Garden Grove, CA 92840

Prepared by
AECOM
999 Town & Country Road
Orange, CA 92868

August 2022

GARDEN GROVE
1704485.1
Page intentionally left blank

1704485.1 Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 1 2 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ................................................................................................................................ 1 3 ERRATA .......................................................................................................................................................... 115 4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ............................................................................. 117

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A Exhibits A-C to Comment Letter 5 (Mitchell M. Tsai Attorney for the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, June 28, 2022)
Attachment B Exhibit A to Comment Letter 6 (Mitchell M. Tsai Attorney for the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, July 6, 2022)
Attachment C Updated Traffic Impact Study (Appendix I of the Draft IS/MND)

1704485.1 Page ii
Page intentionally left blank

1704485.1 Page 1
1 INTRODUCTION
This section provides responses to the written comments made on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Site B-2 Hotel Project (proposed project) in the City of Garden Grove (City). The Draft IS/MND was circulated for public review for 20 days, from June 9, 2022, to June 28, 2022. The Draft IS/MND and documents incorporated by reference were made available for public review at the City Community and Economic Development Department Planning Services Division and on the City’s website at https://ggcity.org/planning/environmental-documents.
2 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
The comment letters received on the Draft IS/MND are numbered, as listed below, and are included on the following pages along with the formal responses prepared to those comments. To assist in referencing comments and responses, each specific comment is numbered and refers to a statement or paragraph in the corresponding letter.

Letter
Number Agency/Organization Date received
1 Orange County Fire Authority June 20, 2022
2 City of Anaheim June 23, 2022
3 Orange County Sanitation District June 28, 2022
4 California Department of Transportation June 28, 2022 5 Mitchell M. Tsai Attorney for the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (SWRCC)
June 28, 2022
6 Mitchell M. Tsai Attorney for the SWRCC July 6, 2022
7 GK Law for the UNITE HERE Local 11 July 7, 2022
8 GK Law for the UNITE HERE Local 11 July 27, 2022

1704485.1 Page 2
Page intentionally left blank

1704485.1 Page 3

[BJ
CID
Comment Letter 1

ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY
P. 0. Box 57115, Irvine, CA 92619-7115 • I Fire Authority Road, Irvine, CA 92602-0125 Brian Fennessy, Fire Chief
June 20, 2022
Maria Parra, Senior Planner
City Garden Grove
Planning Services Division
11222 Acacia Parkway
Garden Grove, CA 92840
(714) 573-6000 www.ocfa.org
Subject: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Declaration for Site B2 Hotel Project Dear Maria Parra,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject document. The Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) provides fire protection and emergency medical services response to the project area. Services include: structural fire protection, emergency medical and rescue services, education and hazardous material response. OCF A also participates in disaster planning as it relates to emergency operations, which includes high occupant areas and schools sites and may participate in community disaster drills planned by others. Resources are deployed based upon a regional service delivery system, assigning personnel and equipment to emergency incidents without regard to jurisdictional boundaries.

The subject document contains our current fire station and emergency response infonnation.

The project is a high-rise resort hotel and parking structure, and is subject to the Fire and Building code requirements for High Rise construction and safety features. The project will have less than significant impact with al of our conditions in place.

We would like to point out that all standard conditions with regard to development, including water supply, built in fire protection systems, road grades and width, access, building materials, and the like will be applied to this project at the time of plan submittal. Thank you for providing us with this information. Please contact me at 714-573-6253 if you have any questions. ~ ?,
Sin~erel
R9- ert J Distaso PE
Fire Safety Engineer
Planning and Development Section
[email protected]
Serving the Cities of: Aliso Viejo• Buena Park• Cypress• Dana Point• Garden Grove• Irvine• Laguna Hills • Laguna Niguel • Laguna Woods Lake Forest• La Palma • Los Alamitos• Mission Viejo • Rancho Santa Margarita •San Clemente• San Juan Capistrano • Santa Ana Seal Beach· Stanton• Tustin• Villa Park• Westminster• Yorba Linda• and Unincorporated Areas of Orange County

RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS AND SMOKE ALARMS SAVE LIVES
1704485.1 Page 4
Comment Letter 1: Orange County Fire Authority

Response to Comment 1-1
Comment acknowledged.

Response to Comment 1-2
Comment acknowledged.

Response to Comment 1-3
Comment acknowledged.

1704485.1 Page 5

[ID
CID
CID
From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Chana lane
Chana lane
FW: Site B2 Hotel Project- MND G::imment
Thursday, June 23, 2022 2:59:33 PM
From: "Amanda Lauffer" < ALauffer@anahejm net >
To: "Maria Parra" < [email protected] >
Cc: "Heather R. Allen" < [email protected] >
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 1:54:19 PM
Subject: Site B2 Hotel Project- MND Comment
Hello Maria,
Comment Letter 2
Thank you for the opportunity to review the documents for the draft MND for the Sit e B2 Hotel Project in the City of Garden Grove. Anaheim City staff revie wed the documents and offers the following comment from the Public Works Department regarding t he left turn queue analysis:

For the intersection of Harbor Boulevard/Orangewood Avenue, please coord inate with the City of Anaheim to determine how best to address left-turn capacity at this inter section .

Should you have any additional questi ons regarding the comment from Public Works, you may contact Joseph Alcock, Principal Transportation Planner, at 714-765-4657 or at ja [email protected] .

Thank you,
Amanda Lauffer
Associate Planner I City of Anaheim
Planning and Building Department J Planning Services
200 S. Anahe im Boulevard, Suite 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
714. 765.4479
[email protected]
1704485.1 Page 6
Comment Letter 2: City of Anaheim

Response to Comment 2-1
Comment acknowledged.

Response to Comment 2-2
Comment acknowledged. As stated in the following mitigation measure of the Draft IS/MND, the City of Garden Grove will coordinate with the City of Anaheim about the left-turn capacity at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Orangewood Avenue.

Left-Turn Queue Mitigation Measure

TR-1 Coordinate with the City of Anaheim to determine if the project is required to make a fair-share contribution to extend the left-turn capacity up to 266 feet at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Orangewood Avenue.

Response to Comment 2-3
Comment acknowledged.

1704485.1 Page 7

OC~SAN
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
714 .962 .2411
www.ocsan.gov ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
~
June 28, 2022
Maria Parra, Senior Planner
City of Garden Grove
Planning Services Division
11222 Acacia Parkway
Garden Grove, CA 92840
Email: [email protected]
SUBJECT: Site B2 Hotel Project - Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
Thank you for providing the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration proposed project "Site B2 Hotel Project" located at 12241, 11261, 12271, 12291,12311, and 12323 Harbor Boulevard; and 12246, 12252, 12262, 12282,12292, 12312, 12322, 12251, 12261, 12281, 12291, 12311, and 12321 Thackery Drive in the City of Garden Grove, County of Orange ." Orange County Sanitation District (OC San) has reviewed it and would like to bring to your attention a requirement, as it applies to your project.

This project is proposing to build a five-level parking structure with four-levels above grade and one-level below grade. Please be advised that the OC San does not allow parking structure drains to be connected to the sewer. OC San realizes the connection would be made to a City of Garden Grove sewer.

However, City sewers eventually connect to OC San sewers , that lead to the OC San Reclamation Plant in Fountain Valley . If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Kevin Hadden at 714 593-7 462 or khadden@ocsan .gov.

Adam Nazaroff
Engineering Supervisor
Planning Division
714 593-7854
AN:KH:sa
https://ocsdgov .sharepoint.com/sites/Planning/CEQA Externally Generated/2022 Comment Letters/City of Garden Grove Response Ltr NOi Adopt a MND 20220628.docx
cc: Jason Daniel
Our Mission: To protect public health and the environment by providing effective wastewater collection, treatment, and recycling.

Comment Letter 3
Serving:

Anaheim
Brea
Buena Park
Cypress
Fountain Valley
Fullerton
Garden Grove
Huntington Beach
Irvine
La Habra
La Palma
Los Alamitos
Newport Beach
Orange
Placentia
Santa Ana
Seal Beach
Stanton
Tustin
Villa Park
County of Orange
Costa Mesa
Sanitary District
Midway City
Sanitary District
Irvine Ranch
Water District
Yorba Linda
Water District
1704485.1 Page 8
Comment Letter 3: Orange County Sanitation District

Response to Comment 3-1
Comment acknowledged.

Response to Comment 3-2
Comment acknowledged. The parking structure drains would be pumped to the proposed bioretention basins and be treated prior to outletting to the City storm drain system. The amount of drainage going to the parking structure drains is very minimal and therefore no changes would need to be made to the Preliminary Hydrology Report or Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan.

1704485.1 Page 9

Comment Letter 4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM Governor

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 12
1750 EAST 4TH STREET, SUITE 100
SANTAANA, CA 92705
Making Conservation
California Way of Life. PHONE (657) 328-6000
FAX (657) 328-6522
TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/districtl 2
~
June 28, 2022
Ms. Maria Parra
Planning Services Division
11222 Acacia Parkway
Garden Grove, California 92840
Dear Ms. Parra,
File: IGR/CEQA
SCH#: 2022060174
LDR LOG #2022-01990
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in review of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site B-2 Hotel Project. The proposed project involves construction of a full-service high-rise (maximum height of 350 feet) resort hotel with hotel program entertainment/pool deck (height of approximately 61 feet) on a 3.72-acre site. The proposed hotel would include 500 guest suites with balconies; themed pool experience with lazy river; storage and loading area at 8,600 square feet maximum; event space with a 600-person maximum occupancy theater; a grand ballroom at 9,490 square feet; two (2) meeting rooms at 4,194 square feet and 4,031 square feet, respectively; a variety of food and beverage opportunities to be placed throughout the hotel totaling in a maximum area of 22,296 square feet; themed amenities totaling 13,238 square feet; a 7,000-square foot arcade; and a spa and fitness center at 8,532 square feet. All hotel amenities, except for the ballroom, meeting rooms, and 11,148 square feet of restaurant, would be for the hotel guests use only. The proposed project would also include a five-level (approximately 61 feet) parking garage (four levels above grade and one level below grade) with a grand total of 528 spaces to serve the 500 guest suites, event space, commercial and retail uses, food and beverage needs, as well as other amenities such as spa and fitness center. The project site is located at the northwest corner of Harbor Boulevard and Twintree Avenue, along the west and east sides of Thackery Drive, east of Tamerlane Drive in the City of Garden Grove.

The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe and reliable transportation network that services all people and respects the environment.
"Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment" 1704485.1 Page 10

CID
CID
[ID
Ms. Maria Parra
June 28, 2022

Caltrans is a responsible agency on this project and has the following comments:

Traffic Operations
l. Appendix I, Traffic Impact Study, Page 16
"Int 20- SR-22 eastbound Ramps/ Trask Avenue Eastbound Left-Turn (deficient without and with the project): Existing Left-Turn Capacity: 520 feet Required Left-Turn Capacity without Project: 652 feet Required Left­ Turn Capacity with Project: 666 feet. No Improvements are recommended since the eastbound outside left-turn lane storage length is sufficient as it extends west toward Harbor Boulevard".

Any additional queuing on the outside left turn lane that may extend beyond the designated left turn lane could have adverse impact on vehicles exiting the driveway from the shopping center with the following building addresses: 13518, 13512 and 1357 6 Harbor Boulevard. Vehicles exiting the driveway to Trask Avenue will have difficulty switching from through lane to left turn lane. Therefore, it is recommended that the developer proposes improvement for Int 20-SR-22 EB Ramps/Trask Ave.

2. Appendix I, Table 6-l, 6-2,6-3 and 6-4 Shows:

ICU as the methodology used for intersections within State Right of Way.

All Intersection Analysis within State Right of way shall be based on HCM methodologies. Additionally, a queue analysis should be provided for Caltrans review and comment.

Transportation Planning

3. Caltrans supports the project's efforts to reduce auto-based trips through the inclusion of onsite bicycle racks, bicycle rentals for hotel guests, and information that promotes walking, bicycling, and public transit options to nearby attractions. In addition to CALGreen standards for bicycle parking, please refer to the attached Essentials of Bike Parking which provides examples of secure and functional bike parking that can accommodate a range of bicycle styles, sizes, and weights ( e.g. electric bikes, cargo/utility bikes, etc.).

Caltrans acknowledges the project's efforts in providing discussion regarding existing transit services within the project location. • Please consider taking the "Provide a safe and reliable transpor1ation network that serves all people and respects the environment" 1704485.1 Page 11

CID
Ms. Maria Parra
June 28, 2022

opportunity to include discussion about the multimodal regional connectivity relating to the use of nearby train stations such as the Anaheim Regional Transportation lntermodal Center (ARTIC) and Orange Metrolink Station.

4. Caltrans acknowledges the project's efforts in providing discussion regarding existing transit services within the project location . • Please consider taking the opportunity to include discussion about the multimodal regional connectivity relating to the use of nearby train stations such as the Anaheim Regional Transportation lntermodal Center (ARTIC) and Orange Metrolink Station.

Encroachment Permits

5. In the event of any activity in Caltrans right of way an Encroachment Permit will be required. All environmental concerns must be addressed. If the environmental documentation for the project does not meet Caltrans requirements, additional documentation would be required before approval of the Encroachment Permit. For application forms and specific details on Caltrans Encroachment Permits procedure, please refer to Encroachment Permits Manual. The latest edition of the Manual is available on : http://www.dot .ca.gov/trafficops/ep/apps.html.

Please continue to coordinate with Caltrans for any future developments that could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact at Maryam Molavi at Maryam. Mol avi@dot .ca. gov.

Sincerely,
~~~-for,
Scott Shelley
Branch Chief, Regional-lGR-Transit Planning
"Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment " 1704485.1 Page 12
Comment Letter 4: California Department of Transportation

Response to Comment 4-1
Comment acknowledged.

Response to Comment 4-2
Level of service is no longer considered a significant impact. Nonetheless, the requirement for additional eastbound left turn capacity at the intersection of SR-22 Eastbound Ramps at Trask Avenue was reviewed and it was determined that the proposed project would not significantly degrade level of service operations at this location, either within the Caltrans right-of-way or along the local road system, to necessitate additional improvements. Eastbound left turn traffic has capacity to queue within the #2 lane on Trask Avenue, which provides additional storage outside of the left turn pocket. Additionally, based on the latest Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) calculations described in response to comment 4-3 below, the future worst case “with project” HCM 95th percentile design queue is reported to be 195 feet, which is less than what was originally estimated at this location (663 feet). As a result, the expected queue would not exceed the existing left turn storage capacity.

Given that this intersection, and specifically the eastbound left turn movement, are forecast to continue to operate at acceptable level of service under all future “with” project scenarios, the proposed project is not expected to significantly impact access to the businesses at 13518, 13512 and 13576 Harbor Boulevard.

Therefore, no additional improvements to the intersection of SR-22 Eastbound Ramps at Trask Avenue are recommended.

Response to Comment 4-3
Please also see response to comment 4-2. The Traffic Impact Study has been updated to include HCM level of service and queue reports for intersections within the Caltrans right-of-way, including intersection #7, #8, #18, and #20. Tables 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, and 6-4 of the Traffic Impact Study (see pp. 67-70) have been updated with the summary LOS results and HCM calculation worksheets and queue reports are provided in Appendices C, D, F, and G.

Response to Comment 4-4
Comment acknowledged. The Traffic Impact Study, specifically Active Transportation Recommendation 5 on page 12-19; Draft IS/MND, specifically GHG Mitigation Measure GHG-7, List Number 5 on page 50 (refer to Section 3, Errata); and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program have been updated to specify that the hotel management/concierge provide information to guests about the multimodal regional transportation options such as the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) and the Orange Metrolink Station.

Response to Comment 4-5
Comment acknowledged. Please refer to response to comment 4-4.

Response to Comment 4-6
Comment acknowledged.

Response to Comment 4-7
The City and/or the developer will continue to coordinate with Caltrans regarding the proposed project.

1704485.1 Page 13

[BJ
P: (626) 381-9248
F: (626) 389-5414
E: [email protected]

VIA E-MAIL
June 28, 2022
Maria Parra, Senior Planner
Planning Services Division
City of Garden Grove
11222 Acacia Parkway
Garden Grove, CA 92840
Em: [email protected]
• Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorney At Law
Comment Letter 5
139 South Hudson Avenue
Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101
RE: Objections to Approval of Site B-2 Hotel Project and Its Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dear Maria Parra:

On behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters ("SWRCC" or "Southwest Carpenters"), my Office is submitting these comments on the Site B-2 Hotel project proposed at northwest corner of Harbor Boulevard and Twin tree Avenue, along the west and east sides of Thackery Drive, east of Tamerlane Drive in the City of Garden Grove ("Project"). The project site is located at 12241, 11261,12271, 12291, 12311 and 12323 Harbor Boulevard; and 12246, 12252, 12262, 12282, 12292, 12312, 12322, 12251, 12261, 12281, 12291, 12311,and 12321 Thackery Drive in the City of Garden Grove, County of Orange. The Project approval includes various approvals and actions from the City of Garden Grove ("City" or "Lead Agency"). The Project will be coming before the City's Planning Commission on July 7, 2022, at 7:00 pm, seeking various approvals, including the approval of a mitigated negative declaration ("MND").

The Southwest Carpenters is a labor union representing more than 50,000 union carpenters in six states, including California, and has a strong interest in well-ordered land use planning, addressing the environmental impacts of development projects and equitable economic development.

Individual members of the Southwest Carpenters live, work and recreate in the area and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project's environmental impacts.
1704485.1 Page 14

[8J
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel Project
June 28, 2022

SWRCC expressly reserve the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearings and proceedings related to this Project. (Cal. Gov't Code§ 65009(b); Cal. Pub. Res. Code§ 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1121.) SWRCC incorporate by reference all comments raising issues regarding the Project and its CEQA compliance, submitted prior to the Project approvals. (Citizens for Clean Enew v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 191 [finding that any party who has objected to the Project's environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties].)
Moreover, SWRCC request that the Lead Agency provide notice for any and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Cal. Public Resources Code ("PRC") § 21000 et seq, and the California Planning and Zoning Law ("Planning and Zoning Law''), Cal. Gov't Code §§ 65000-65010. California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(f) and Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency's governing body.

The City should require community benefits such as requiring local hire and use of a skilled and trained workforce to build the Project. The City should require the use of workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor Management apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California, or have at least as many hours of on-the­ job experience in the applicable craft which would be required to graduate from such a state approved apprenticeship training program or who are registered apprentices in an apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California.

Community benefits such as local hire and skilled and trained workforce requirements can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E.

Rosenfeld note:
[A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of 1704485.1 Page 15

City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel Project
June 28, 2022

construction-related GHG em1ss10ns, though the significance of the reduction would v ary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site.
(Exhibits A-C [l\1arch 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to j\,fitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling.]) Skilled and trained workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforc e Development Board and the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education conclud ed:
. . . labor should be considered an investment rather than a cost - and inve stments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California's workforce can positively affect returns on clim ate mitigation efforts . In other words, well trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and moving California clos er to its climat e targets.1
Recently , on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the "[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program or a skilled and trained workforce with a local hire component " can result in air pollutant reductions .2 Cities are increasingl y adopting local skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements into general plans and municipal codes. For example , the City of Hayward 2040 General Plan requires the City to "promote local hiring ... to help achieve a more positive jobs-housing balance , and reduce regional commuting , gas consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions." 3
In fact, the City of Hayward has gone as far as to adopt a Skilled Labor Force policy into its Downtown Specific Plan and municip al code , requiring developments in its 1 California Workfor ce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action Plan for 2030 at p . ii, available at htt~:,s:/ / laborcente r.berkeley.edu/ wp-content/ uploads /2020 / 09 /Pu tting:-Californ ia-on -the-High-Road.pdf. 1 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify r inal Environm ental Assessment and Adopt Proposed Rule 2305 - Warehouse Indirect Source Rule - Warehouse Actions and Investments to Redu ce Emissions Program, and Proposed Rule 316 - Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into t he SIP, and Approve Suppor ting Budget Actions , available at http: //www .aqmd.gov/docs/defa ult- source /Agendas/ Governing:-Board/2021 /2021 -May7-027 .pdf?sfvrsn= 10. 3 CiLy o[Haywan l (2014) Haywar<l 2040 General Plan Policy Documenl alp. 3-99, available at https: / /www.hayward -ca.gov/ sites/d efault/fi les/ documents/ General Plan FINAL.pdf. 1704485.1 Page 16

City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel Project
June 28, 2022

Downtown area to require that the City "[c]ontribute to the stabilization of regional construction markets by spurring applicants of housing and nonresidential developments to require contractors to utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint labor-management training programs, ... " 4 In addition, the City of Hayward requires all projects 30,000 square feet or larger to "utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint labor-management training programs." 5
Locating jobs clos er to residential areas can have significant environm ental benefits. As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008:

People who live and work in the sam e jurisdiction would b e more likely to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicl e hours traveled. 6
In addition, local hire mandates as well as skill training are critic al facets of a s trat egy to reduce vehicle miles traveled . As planning experts Robert Cervera and Mich ael Dunca n noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT reductions since the skill requirements of available local jobs must be matched to those held b y local residents. 7 Some municipalities have tied local hire and skilled and trained workforc e policies to local d evelopm ent p ermits to address transportation issues . As Cervera and Dun can note :

In nearly built-out Berkeley, CA, the appro ach to balancing job s and housing is to create local job s rather than to develop new housing. The city's First Source program encour ages businesses to hire local residents, especiall y for entry- and intermediate-le vel jobs, and sponsors vocational training to ensure residents are employm ent-ready. While the program is 4 City of Hayward (2019) Hayward Downtown Specific Plan at p . 5-24, available at htws://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites /default/fi les /Haywa rd%20Downtown% 20Specific%20P lan.pdf.
5 Cily ofHaywan l Municipal Co<le, Chapler 10, § 28.5.3.020(C). 6 Californ ia Planning Roundtab le (2008) DeconstructingJobs -Housing Balance at p. 6, available at https: / / cproundtable. org/static / media/uploads / publications /cpr -jobs­ housing.pdf.
7 Cervero, RoLerl an<l D uncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs ­ Housing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Journa l of the American Plann ing Assoc iation 72 (4), 4 75-490, 482, available at htw: / /reconn ectingamerica.org/ass ets /Up loads / UTCT - 825.pdf.
1704485.1 Page 17

[8J
[8J
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel Project
June 28, 2022

voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than 3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of approval for development permits.

The City should consider utilizing skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and mitigate greenhouse gas, air quality and transportation impacts.

Also, the City should require the Project to be built to standards exceeding the current 2019 California Green Building Code and 2020 County of Los Angeles Green Building Standards Code to mitigate the Project's environmental impacts and to advance progress towards the State of California's environmental goals.

I. THE PROJECT WOULD BE APPROVED IN VIOLATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.

A. Background Concerning the California Environmental Qualicy: Act CEQA has two basic purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. (CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(l).) "Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR 'protects not only the environment but also informed self­ government.' [Citation.]" (Citizens of Goleta Vallry v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.) The EIR has been described as "an environmental 'alarm bell' whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return." (Liurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents ofUniversi-ty of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392; Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497, 503 [same].) • EIR
Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. (CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2) and (3); see also, Berkelry Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Com'rs (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1354 ("Berkelry Jets"); Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553; Liurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of the Universi-ty of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400.) The EIR serves to provide public 1704485.1 Page 18

City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel Project
June 28, 2022

agencies and the pubhc in general with information about the effect that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to "identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced." (CEQA Guidelines§ 15002(a)(2).) If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only upon finding that it has "eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible" and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are "acceptable due to overriding concerns" specified in CEQA Pub. Res. Code§ 21081. (CEQA Guidelines§ 15092(b)(2)(A-B).) While the courts review an EIR using an "abuse of discretion" standard, "the reviewing court is not to 'uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position.' A 'clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference."' (Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1355 (emphasis added) (quoting L:zurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at 391,409 fn. 12).) Drawing this line and determining whether the EIR complies with CEQA's information disclosure requirements presents a question oflaw subject to independent review by the courts. (Sierra Club v. Cnty. of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 515; Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v.

County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal. App. 4th 48, 102, 131.) As the court stated in Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1355:

A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs "if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision-making and informed pubhc participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process. "The preparation and circulation of an EIR is more than a set of technical hurdles for agencies and developers to overcome. The EIR's function is to ensure that government officials who decide to build or approve a project do so with a full understanding of the environmental consequences and, equally important, that the pubhc is assured those consequences have been taken into account. [Citation.] For the EIR to serve these goals it must present information so that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing the project can be understood and weighed, and the pubhc must be given an adequate opportunity to comment on that presentation before the decision to go forward is made." ( Communities far a Better Environment v. Richmond (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 70, 80 ( quoting Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 412, 449-450).)
1704485.1 Page 19

City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel Project
June 28, 2022

• Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Third, CEQA and CEQA Guidelines are strict and unambiguous about when a Negative Declaration ("ND") or a Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") may be used. A public agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence supports a "fair argument" that a proposed project "may have a significant effect on the environment." (Pub. Res. Code§§ 21100, 21151; Guidelines §§ 15002(t)(l) & (2), 15063; No Oi~ Inc. v. City of Los Angeles ("No Oil') (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75; Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 111-112.) "Said another way, if a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may" - [not "will"] - "have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect." (Guidelines §§ 15064(t) (1) & (2) (emph. added); No Oi~ supra, 13 Cal.3d 68, 75.)
"Substantial evidence" means "enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached." (Guidelines § 15384(a).) "Substantial evidence is not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous .... " (Pub. Res. Code§ 21080(e)(2); see also Guidelines § 15384(a).)
The fair argument standard is a "low threshold" test for requiring the preparation of an EIR. (No Oil, supra, 13 Cal.3d at 84; County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 of Los Angeles County v.

County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1579 ("County Sanitation}) It "requires the preparation of an EIR where 'there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial .... "' (County Sanitation, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at 1580, quoting Guidelines § 15063(b)(l).) A lead agency may adopt an MND only if "there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment □." (Guidelines§ 15074(b) (emphasis added).)
Evidence supporting a fair argument of a significant environmental impact triggers preparation of an EIR regardless of whether the record contains contrary evidence. (League far Protection of Oakland's Architectural and Historical Resoun:es v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904-905.) ''Where the question is the sufficiency of the evidence to support a fair argument, 'deference to the agency's determination is not 1704485.1 Page 20

City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel Project
June 28, 2022

appropriate .... "' (County Sanitation, 127 Cal.App.4th at 1579, (emphasis added), quoting Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1317-1318.) Further, it is the duty of the lead agency, not the public, to conduct the proper environmental studies. "The agency should not be allowed to hide behind its own failure to gather relevant data." (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311.) "Deficiencies in the record may actually enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences." (Id.) The ''lack of study ... 'enlarge[s] the scope' of the fair argument which may be made 'based on the limited facts in the record' [Cit. omit.]" ( Gentry v. City of Munieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1382.)
Thus, refusal to complete recommended studies lowers the already low threshold to establish a fair argument. The "court may not exercise its independent judgment on the omitted material by determining whether the ultimate decision of the lead agency would have been affected had the law been followed. . . . The remedy for this deficiency was for the trial court to have issued a writ of mandate .... " (Environmental Protection Infannation Center v. California Dept. of Forestry (2008) 44 Cal.4th 459, 486.) Both the review for failure to follow CEQA's procedures and the fair argument test are questions oflaw, i.e., de novo standard of review applies. (Vineyard Area Citizens far Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 435.) ''Whether the agency's record contains substantial evidence that would support a fair argument that the project may have a significant effect on the environment is treated as a "luestion of law. (See, e.g., Consolidated Irrig. Dist. v. City of Selma (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 187, 207." (Kostka and Zischke, Practice Under the Environmental Qualicy: Act, (2017, 2d ed.), at § 6.76 (emphasis added).) The Court gives no deference to the agency in the MND context.

In an MND context, the agency or the court should not weigh expert testimony or decide on the credibility of evidence; such weighing is for an EIR. As stated in Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 935:

Unlike the situation where an EIR has been prepared, neither the lead agency nor a court may "weigh" conflicting substantial evidence to determine whether an EIR must be prepared in the first instance.

Guidelines section 15064, subdivision (t)(l) provides in pertinent part: "if a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a 1704485.1 Page 21

City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel Project
June 28, 2022

significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect. (No Oil[, supra,] 13 Cal.3d 68 [118 Cal.Rptr. 34, 529 P.2d 66])." Thus, as Claremont itself recognized, "Consideration is not to be given contrary evidence supporting the preparation of a negative declaration. ( City of Carmel-by-the Sea v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 229, 244--245 [227 Cal.Rptr. 899]; Friends of "B" Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988 [165 Cal.Rptr. 514]." (Claremont, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at p. 1168, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 288. (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 935.)
In cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts, CEQA requires erring on the side of a "preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review." (Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 332.) "The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language." (Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 259.) • CEQA Exemptions and Exceptions Thereto.

Fourth, where the Lead Agency chooses to dispose of CEQA by asserting a CEQA exemption, it has a duty to support its CEQA exemption findings by substantial evidence, including evidence that there are no applicable exceptions to exemptions.

This duty is imposed by CEQA and related case law. (Guidelines § 15020 ["The Lead Agency shall not knowingly release a deficient document hoping that public comments will correct defects in the document."]; see also, Citizens far Environmental Responsibility v.

State ex reL 14th Dist. Ag. Assn. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 555, 568 ["The lead agency has the burden to demonstrate that a project falls within a categorical exemption and the agency's determination must be supported by substantial evidence"]; Association far Protection etc. Vabtes v. City of Ukiah (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 720, 732 [agency is required to consider exemption exceptions "where there is some information or evidence in the record that the project might have a significant impact."] The duty to support CEQA (and/ or exemption) findings with substantial evidence is also required by the Code of Civil Procedure and case law on administrative or traditional writs. Under Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP") § 1094.5(b), an abuse of 1704485.1 Page 22

City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel Project
June 28, 2022

discretion is established if the decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence. CCP § 1094.S(b). In TopangaAssn.fora Scenic Community v. County ofLJJs Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515 ("Topanga'), our Supreme Court held that "implicit in [Code of Civil Procedure] section 1094.5 is a requirement that the agency which renders the challenged decision must set forth findings to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision or order." The agency's findings may "be determined to be sufficient if a court 'has no trouble under the circumstances discerning the analytic route the administrative agency traveled from evidence to action."' West Chandler Blvd. NeighborhoodAss'n vs. City ofLJJs Angeles (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1506, 1521- 1522. However, "mere conclusory findings without reference to the record are inadequate." Id. at 1521 (finding city council findings conclusory, violating Topanga).

Further, CEQA exemptions must be narrowly construed to accomplish CEQA's environmental objectives. California Farm Bureau Federation v. California Wildlife Conservation Bd. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 173, 187 ("California Farm"); Save Our Carmel River v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 677, 697 ("These rules ensure that in all but the clearest cases of categorical exemptions, a project will be subject to some level of environmental review.") Finally, CEQA procedures reflect a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review. (See, Pub. Res. Code § 21080(c) [dispose of EIR only if "there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment" or "revisions in the project .... Would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearfy no significant effect on the environment would occur, and .... " Emph. added.]; Guidelines §§ 15061(b)(3) [common sense exemption only "where it can be seen with certainty .... "]; 15063 (b) (1) [prepare an EIR "if he agency determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project, either individualfy or cumulativefy, may cause a significant effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial"]; 15064(h) [need to consider cumulative impacts of past, other current and "probable future" projects]; 15070 [prepare a negative declaration only if "no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment," or project "revisions would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole 1704485.1 Page 23

[BJ
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel Project
June 28, 2022

record before the project, that the project as revised mqy have a significant effect on the environment" emph. added]; No Oil, Inc. v. Ciry efLos Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 83-84 [interpret "significant impacts" so as "to afford the fullest possible protection"].) B. Due to the COVID-19 Crisis the Lead Agency Must Adopt a Mandatory Finding of Significance that the Project May Cause a Substantial Adverse Effect on Human Beings and Mitigate COVID-19 Impacts.

CEQA requires that an agency make a finding of significance when a Project may cause a significant adverse effect on human beings. (Pub. Res. Code§ 21083(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines § 15065(a)(4).)
Pubhc health risks related to construction work require a mandatory finding of significance under CEQA. Construction work has been defined as a Lower to High­ risk activity for COVID-19 spread by the Occupations Safety and Health Administration. Recently, several construction sites have been identified as sources of community spread ofCOVID-19. 8
Southwest Carpenters recommend that the Lead Agency adopt additional CEQA mitigation measures to mitigate pubhc health risks from the Project's construction activities. Southwest Carpenters request that the Lead Agency require safe on-site construction work practices as well as training and certification for any construction workers on the Project Site.

In particular, based upon Southwest Carpenters' experience with safe construction site work practices, Southwest Carpenters recommend that the Lead Agency require that while construction activities are being conducted at the Project Site:

Construction Site Design:
•
•
The Project Site will be limited to two controlled entry points .

Entry points will have temperature screening technicians taking temperature readings when the entry point is open. 8 Santa Clara County Public Health Qune 12, 2020) COV ID-19 CASES AT

CON STRUCTION SITES HIGHLI GHT NEED FO R CONTINU E D VIGILANCE IN SECT ORS THAT HAVE REOPENED, availableat https :l!www .sccgov .org/s ites/ covid 19 / Pages /press -release-06-12-2020-cases-at-construction -sites.aspx. 1704485.1 Page 24

City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel Project
June 28, 2022

~
~
•
•
•
•
•
The Temperature Screening Site Plan shows details
regarding access to the Project Site and Project Site logistics for conducting temperature screening.

A 48-hour advance notice will be provided to all trades prior to the first day of temperature screening.

The perimeter fence directly adjacent to the entry points will be clearly marked indicating the appropriate 6-foot social distancing position for when you approach the screening area. Please reference the Apex temperature screening site map for additional details.

There will be clear signage posted at the project site directing you through temperature screening.

Provide hand washing stations throughout the construction site.

Testing Procedures:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The temperature screemng being used are non-contact
devices.

Temperature readings will not be recorded .

Personnel will be screened upon entering the testing center and should only take 1-2 seconds per individual.

Hard hats, head coverings, sweat, dirt, sunscreen or any other cosmetics must be removed on the forehead before
temperature screening.

Anyone who refuses to submit to a temperature screening or does not answer the health screening questions will be
refused access to the Project Site.

Screening will be performed at both entrances from 5 :30 am to 7:30 am.; main gate [ZONE 1] and personnel gate
[ZONE 2]
After 7:30 am only the main gate entrance [ZONE 1] will continue to be used for temperature testing for anybody 1704485.1 Page 25

City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel Project
June 28, 2022

gaining entry to the project site such as returning personnel, deliveries, and visitors.
• If the digital thermometer displays a temperature reading above 100.0 degrees Fahrenheit, a second reading will be taken to verify an accurate reading.
• If the second reading confirms an elevated temperature, DHS \vill instruct the individual that he/ she \vill not be allowed to enter the Project Site . DHS will also instruct the individual to promptly notify his/h er supervisor and his/h er human resources (HR) representative and provide them with a copy of Annex A.

Planning
• Require the development of an Infectious Disease
Preparedness and Response Plan that will include basic
infection prevention measures (requiring the use of personal protection equipment), policies and procedures for prompt identificati on and isol ation of sick individuals, social distancing (prohibiting gatherings of no more than 10
people including all-hands meetings and all-hands lunches) communication and training and workplace controls that
meet standards that may be promulgated by the Center for Disease Control, Occupational Safety and H ealth
Administration, Cal/OSHA, California D epartm ent of
Public Health or applicable local public health agencies. 9 The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Carpenters International Training Fund has developed COVID-19 Training and Certification to ensure that Carpenter union members and apprentices conduct safe work practices. The Lead Agency should 9 See also, The Center for Construct ion Research and Train ing, North America 's Building Trad es Unions (April 27 2020) NABTU and CPWR COV IC-19 Standard s for U.S Co nstructions Sites, available at https://www .cpwr.com/sites I defau lt/files /NAB TU CPWR Standards COV ID -19.pd f; Los Angeles County D epartment of Public Works (2020) Gui<leline~ for Conslruclion Sile~ During COVID-19 Pan<lemic, available at htt_ps: / /dpw .lacount:y.gov /bui lding-and -safety/ docs / pw guidelines-construct ion-sites.pdf. 1704485.1 Page 26

City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel Project
June 28, 2022

require that all construction workers undergo COVID-19 Training and Certification before being allowed to conduct construction activities at the Project Site.

Southwest Carpenters has also developed a rigorous Infection Control Risk Assessment ("ICRA") training program to ensure it delivers a workforce that understands how to identify and control infection risks by impl ementing protocols to protect themselves and all others during renovation and construction projects in healthcare environments_ 10
ICRA protocols are intended to contain pathogens, control airflow, and protect patients during the construction, maintenance and renovation of healthcare facilities.

ICRA protocols prevent cross contamination, minimizing the risk of secondary infections in patients at hospital facilities.

The City should require the Project to be built using a workforce trained in ICRA protocols.

II. THE PROJECT VIOLATES CEQA SINCE THERE IS

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A FAIR ARGUMENT

THAT THE PROJECT MAY HA VE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS,
REQUIRING AN EIRAS A MATTER OF LAW.

CEQA allows the lead agency to dispose of an EIR in very limited cases: (1) if there is an applicable CEQA exemption ; or (2) if the Project, with certain modifications, will clearly have no significant impacts.

Thus, under CEQA:

Pub. Res. Code § 21064.5. Mitigated negative declaration "Mitigated negati ve declaration" means a negati ve declaration prepared for a project when the initial study has identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in hght of 1° For details conc erning Southwest Carpenters's ICRA training program, see htt;ps: / /icrahealthca re.com / .
1704485.1 Page 27

~
~
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel Project
June 28, 2022

the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.
(Pub. Res. Code § 21064.5, emph. added; see also, Pub. Res. Code § 21080(c)&(e).) Similarly, under CEQA Guidelines § 15064(t):
"(t) The decision as to whether a project may have one or more significant effects shall be based on substantial evidence in the record of the lead agency.
(1) If the lead agency determines there is substantial evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR
(Friends ofB Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal. App. 3d 988). Said another way, if a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant
effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other
substantial evidence that the project will not have a
significant effect (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal. 3d 68).
(2) If the lead agency determines there is substantial evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment but the lead agency determines that
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant would avoid the effects or
mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur and there is no
substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a
significant effect on the environment then a mitigated
negative declaration shall be prepared.
(3) If the lead agency determines there 1s no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare a negative
1704485.1 Page 28

5-6
cont'd
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel Project
June 28, 2022

(4)
declaration (Friends of B Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal. App. 3d 988).

The existence of public controversy over the environment effects of a project will not require preparation of an EIR if there is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project may have a sigoificant effect on the environment." (Guidelines § 15064(f), emph. added.)
Thus, under both CEQA and Guidelines, the agency shall prepare an EIR unless it is ckarthat the Project will not have any sigoificant impacts. Such is not the case here, since the Project may have sigoificant impacts, including on: air quality, greenhouse gas emissions ("GHG"), land use, transportation, public services, geology, noise, hazards, as well as long-term impacts, cumulative impacts, and adverse impacts on human life.

Briefly, the MND's determination of "no impacts" is based on understated and flawed impacts analysis (e.g., hydrology/water, utilities, air quality, transportation, public [}I] services, mandatory findings of sigoificance); its determination of "less than sigoificant impacts" is based on the understated and flawed impacts analysis, as well as illusory, unenforceable, or improperly deferred mitigation measures (e.g., GHG emissions, noise, cultural resources, energy). (MND, p. 15.)
The Project is proposed within 25 meters of residential structures (i.e., 82 feet). (MND, p. 28.) The project site consists of a previously disturbed site that was occupied by former residential and commercial uses, which were demolished between 2004 and 2013. (MND, p. 20.) It is proposed on lots, some of which are zoned single Jamify residential; and it seeks zone change, new zoning desigoation, and a general plan amendment to accommodate the Project's proposed non-residential uses. (Ibid.) I
Moreover, the Project proposes high intensity non-residential uses, which, among ! S-10 ! other things, may occur for 24 hours long, while the MND is silent on that issue. ls-111
As described by the MND itself:

The proposed project involves construction of a full-service high-rise (maximum height of 350 feet) resort hotel with hotel program entertainment/pool deck (height of approximately 61 feet) on a 3.72- acre site. The proposed hotel would include 500 guest suites with balconies; themed pool experience with lazy river; storage and 1704485.1 Page 29

5-11
cont'd
I 5-12 I
15-nl
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel Project
June 28, 2022

loading area at 8,600 square feet maximum; event space with a 600- person maximum occupancy theater; a grand ballroom at 9,490 square feet; two (2) meeting rooms at 4,194 square feet and 4,031 square feet, respectively; a variety of food and beverage opportunities to be placed throughout the hotel totaling a maximum area of 22,296 square feet; themed amenities totaling 13,238 square feet; a 7,000-square foot arcade; and a spa and fitness center at 8,532 square feet (see Table 1).

All hotel amenities, except for the ballroom, meeting rooms, and 11,148 square feet of restaurant, would be for the hotel guests use only.

The proposed project would also include a five-level (approximately 61 feet) parking garage (four levels above grade and one level below grade) with a grand total of 528 spaces to serve the 500 guest suites, event space, commercial and retail uses, food and beverage needs, as well as other amenities such as spa and fitness center (see Table 2).

To accommodate the proposed development, the proposed project also includes vacation of a public street (Thackery Drive) and public alley located entirely within the site.
(MND, p. 9, emph. added.)
The mass and scale and the intensity of the Project speaks for itself and, along with the City's omissions in good faith disclosures, refutes the City's findings that the Project may not have any construction or operational impacts or that those impacts would be clearly reduced to the level insigoificance, as required for an MND.

Tellingly, the MND provides:

3.2 CONSTRUCTION The proposed project construction would take approximately 30 months in a single phase. The construction and grading activities hours would comply with the noise limitation provisions set forth in the City of Garden Grove's Noise Ordinance, Garden Grove Municipal Code Sections 8.47.040 to 8.47.060, except that permitted hours and days of construction and grading will be as follows: Monday through Saturday - not before 7:00 a.m. and not after 8:00 p.m. (of the same day); and Sunday and Federal Holidays - may work the same hours, but be subject to the restrictions as stipulated in Sections

8.47.040 to 8.47.060 of the Municipal Code. Compliance with the 1704485.1 Page 30

5-13
cont'd
! 5-14 !
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel Project
June 28, 2022

permitted hours and days of construction and grading would be imposed as conditions of approval for the proposed project. The maximum number of employees during construction would be 210 toward the last six-month period of construction.
(MND, p. 11, emph. added.)
The MND is generally silent on the amount of hauling, export, import and fill amounts, despite the fact that the preliminary geological report prepared for the Project in 2018 by GEOCON found that the Project is in liquefaction zone and specifically called for an additional investigation of the Project site to ascertain the stability of the site to withstand the Project's mass and scale. (MND, pp. 45-46.) Instead, the MND engages in pure speculation: "Past building and demolition activities within the project site likely removed some overlying soil, and artificial or disturbed fill may be present in the upper levels." (MND, p. 46.) Apart from adding the above-described major construction activity and high-intensity uses to what is now a vacant 3. 72-acre site (baseline), with its associated traffic circulation impacts, the Project also seeks to vacate public street and public alley, ! 5-15 ! claiming it is completely within the Project site. The MND's understatement of this issue is manifest. The vacation of the street and alley by themselves will add to the Project's own induced traffic and circulation that will occur on the site, disproving the I 5-16 I
MND's "no" transportation impacts findings.

The MND's Water Supply Assessment (''WSA") appears to rely solely on the fact that the Project's significant use was already counted in the City's Urban Water Management Plan and projections through Fiscal Year 2045. The MND states:

The proposed project's water demand was included in the projections utilized in the City's 2020 UWMP (as it included future planned development of hotels within the International West Resort Area along Harbor Boulevard [Focus Area A] consistent with the City's 2030 General Plan, which the project site is located within). Given this, as stated above, the City would meet water demand through FY 2045, including the water demand generated by the proposed project.
(MND, p. 89, emph. added.)
Yet, the MND and the WSA it relies upon are clearly erroneous, as they do not consider the intensity of the Project's water uses, including its pool and river features, 1704485.1 Page 31

5-16
cont'd
ls-171
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel Project
June 28, 2022

and they rely on water demands estimates, if at all, until 2030 or 2045, i.e., for about the first 20 years of operation, while the Project will reasonably continue longer.

Similarly, for wastewater, the MND provides:

The proposed project would generate approximately 1.4 tons of waste per day (RK, 2022). Republic Services would provide solid waste collection and disposal services to the proposed project, which would include participation in the City's recycling program. The solid waste generated by the proposed project could be accommodated by the CVT Regional Material Facility and Transfer Station as well as any of these three Orange County Landfills. Furthermore, the proposed project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local management and reduction statues and regulations related to solid waste, including the CALGreen waste diversion requirements (International Code Council, 2019) and mandatory recycling requirements per the GGSD Code of Regulations (GGSD, 2010). Given this, the proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity oflocal infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
(MND, p. 90, emph. added.)
The reasons for the MND's findings ofless than significant wastewater and utility impacts are unsupported and unrelated to the Project's impacts, but focusing on other issues, such as who will dispose of the waste, how it will be done. The MND's reasons for finding no impacts are also misplaced in an MND context where, unlike an EIR, the City must show that clearly no impacts would occur. It is well-established that compliance with plans or regulations is not a guarantee of no significant impacts in an MND context. Thus, the MND's reasoning here is also legally erroneous.

Lastly, the MND proceeds without a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and does not disclose if there are any hazards or potential soil contamination on the site, ! S-18 ! including from the prior residential or commercial uses. The MND only states that the site is not listed on Cortese list. But the hazards analysis under CEQA's Appendix G is not only limited to disclosing the Project's listing on Cortese list, as also evidenced by the MND's respective section and checklist. (MND, p. 52.) Further, CEQA's 1704485.1 Page 32

5-18
cont'd
15-19 I
I 5-20 I
I 5-211
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel Project
June 28, 2022

hazards analysis is not only limited to the Project's hazardous emissions as the MND suggests (ibid.); instead, CEQA's checklist for hazards looks generally if there are any hazards - from both construction or operation - that the Project may expose human beings to hazards or hazardous materials, which includes but is not limited to hazards of disturbing contaminated soils, hazards from hauling or transport of contaminated soil or hazardous materials, hazards of fires, including by the removal of vegetation.

Tellingly, the MND is silent on the amount of transport or hauling from the Project's site in this section. Neither does the MND or the Project approval include or disclose the haul route, to verify if the Project will indeed be safe for its planned 30 months of construction in a single phase.

At the same time, the MND admits that there are three schools within 0.25 miles from the Project site, without listing the significance of such statement and CEQA's specific requirements related to schools. (MND, p. 53.) The MND simply disregards the impact of the Project on school children, including but not limited to construction hazards, as well as hazards of increased intensity on the site, alcohol uses on the site, with reasonably foreseeable increase in the use of public services, including firefighters, police, and generally increase of traffic and potentially drunk driving.

In sum, the MND grossly understates the Project's impacts; its analysis and studies contain critical omissions and thereby does not pass CEQA's good faith disclosure requirement or the requirement to support findings with substantial evidence. (CEQA Guidelines § 15384 [Substantial evidence is not argument or speculation, but a fact or a reasonable inference based on facts].) Neither does the MND meet CEQA's requirement that impacts be clearly reduced to the level of insignificance, given its illusory, unenforceable, legally erroneous, and/ or deferred mitigation measures. 11 III. CONCLUSION.

I 5-22 I In view of the aforementioned, there is a fair argument that the Project may have multiple significant impacts, requiring an adequate environmental impact report, to 11 This comment and the above-noted issues do not exhaust all flaws in the MND; they are for illustration only. We reserve the right to supplement this comment further before the Project approval.
1704485.1 Page 33

5-22
cont'd
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel Project
] Wle 28, 2022

identify the impacts, devise and apply enforceable mitigation measures, and to consider alternatives as well as alternative sites in order to mitigate the Project's impacts. 12 If the City has any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact my Office.

Sincerely,
N,irnSo fj&
Attorneys for Southwest Regional
Council of Carpenters
Attached:

March 8, 2021 SW APE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A); Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B); and Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C). 12 The Project by itself also v iolates numerous other state laws, which are not detailed here and are not provided to the City at this time, in view of the nature of the instant comment being limited to comm ents on the Proj ect's MND.
1704485.1 Page 34
Comment Letter 5: Mitchell M. Tsai Attorney for the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (SWRCC)

Response to Comment 5-1
Comment acknowledged. The commenter will be placed on requested public mailing/notification lists related to the proposed project.

Response to Comment 5-2
The comment regarding community benefits such as local hire does not raise a specific concern or issue regarding the adequacy of the environmental analysis contained in the Draft IS/MND. Also, the project impacts related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, air quality, and transportation have been identified and mitigated to a less than significant impact level as set forth in the Draft IS/MND. No additional mitigation is required. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers with all other comments. No further response to this comment is required.

Response to Comment 5-3
The proposed project would exceed the current 2019 Green Building Code Standards in several ways, including:

• Providing on-site renewable energy production through the use of solar panels (GHG-2). The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards requires that Hotels provide dedicated rooftop solar zones (Section 110.10), but do not require on-site renewable energy production. Hence, by providing on-site renewables, the proposed project will significantly reduce energy usage compared to what is required in the Building Code.
• Restricting the use of wood burning and natural gas fireplaces and firepits (SCAQMD Rule 445 and GHG- 6). Section 5.503 of CALGreen allows the installation of both wood burning and natural gas fireplaces. By restricting the use of fireplaces and fire pits, the proposed project will significantly reduce natural gas and energy usage beyond the requirements of the CA Building Standards. • Implementing a trip reduction program that encourages multi-modal and active transportation (GHG-7).

Sections 5.106.4 and 5.106.5.3 of CALGreen require on-site bicycle parking and EV charging, however, the proposed project will go beyond these requirements to reduce fossil fuel usage by implementing a full trip reduction program. The program will improve the walkability and design of the proposed project, install traffic calming measures, locate near a high-quality transit stop and transit corridor and provide transit/shuttle services to guests. These measures will result in the proposed project exceeding the fossil fuel and VMT reduction requirements in CALGreen.

The 2020 County of Los Angeles Green Building Standards Code would not be applicable to the proposed project as the project site is located in County of Orange.

In addition, as determined in Section 4.3 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions) of the Draft IS/MND, the proposed project would comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)’s five-tiered GHG thresholds of significance and will be in compliance with Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32). In addition, the proposed project would demonstrate it can achieve a 42 percent reduction in long-term operational GHG emissions compared to business as usual (BAU) conditions with Mitigation Measures GHG-1 through GHG-7. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would be in compliance with AB 32 and California Air Resources Board (CARB)’s 2017 Scoping Plan Update. (Draft IS/MND, pp. 48-51).

Response to Comment 5-4
Comment acknowledged. The comment cites various provisions of state law, regulations and cases which speak for themselves. Since this comment does not raise a specific concern or issue regarding the adequacy of the environmental analysis contained in the Draft IS/MND, no further response to this comment is required.

1704485.1 Page 35
Response to Comment 5-5
Comment acknowledged. The Draft IS/MND provides impact analysis as well as feasible mitigation measures for all required CEQA impact areas. As for the risks associated with construction activities and COVID-19, implementation of the proposed project will comply with all state and local construction guidelines and policies, such as Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements, and contractor policies, to maintain a healthy workplace environment for construction workers at the job site.

Response to Comment 5-6
Comment acknowledged. The comment cites various provisions of state law, regulations and cases which speak for themselves. Since this comment does not raise a specific concern or issue regarding the adequacy of the environmental analysis contained in the Draft IS/MND, no further response to this comment is required.

Response to Comment 5-7
As determined in Section 4.3 (Air Quality) of the Draft IS/MND, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact as the daily construction and operational emissions would be below the applicable SCAQMD’s air quality regional thresholds of significance and Localized Thresholds of Significance (LST). In addition, the proposed project would be in compliance with applicable rules and regulations such as SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. (Draft IS/MND, pp. 28-31).

As determined in Section 4.3 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions) of the Draft IS/MND, with Mitigation Measures GHG-1 through GHG-7, implementation of the proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. The proposed project would comply with the SCAQMD’s five-tiered GHG thresholds of significance and be in compliance with AB 32. In addition, the proposed project would achieve a 42 percent reduction in long-term operational GHG emissions compared to BAU conditions with Mitigation Measures GHG-1 through GHG-7. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would to be in compliance with AB 32 and CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan Update. Therefore, impacts related to GHG would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft IS/MND, pp. 48-51).

As determined in Section 4.3 (Land Use and Planning) of the Draft IS/MND, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to physical division of an established community and it would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. (Draft IS/MND, pp. 62-64).

As determined in Section 4.3 (Transportation) of the Draft IS/MND, the proposed project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; would satisfy the Transit Priority Area screening criteria and therefore would have a less than significant vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impact; and would not result in inadequate emergency access. In addition, to ensure that the proposed project has a less than significant impact on potential safety and hazard issues, the proposed project would follow the standard site plan review requirements and implement Mitigation Measures TR-1 through TR-5. (Draft IS/MND, pp. 83-84)

As determined in Section 4.3 (Public Services) of the Draft IS/MND, the proposed project is a transient use that would not directly introduce new residents that could impact public services. In addition, the proposed project would be in compliance with all standard conditions with regard to development such as water supply, applicable local fire codes, ordinances, California Fire Code regulations, and California Building Code requirements. (Draft IS/MND, pp. 77-79)

As determined in Section 4.3 (Geology and Soils) of the Draft IS/MND, the proposed project would comply with the California Building Code, SCAQMD Rule 403, standard best management practices (BMPs), as well as with

1704485.1 Page 36
the geotechnical investigation recommendations as a condition of approval. In addition, Mitigation Measure G-1 would apply in the event the fossil specimens are encountered at the project site. Therefore, the impacts related to geology and soils would be less than significant. (Draft IS/MND, pp. 43-47)

As determined in Section 4.3 (Noise) of the Draft IS/MND, the proposed project would comply with the applicable noise standards and thresholds established in the City of Garden Grove’s General Plan (Noise Element) and Municipal Code. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-3, in conjunction with Project Design Features (PDF)-13 through PDF-26, would reduce construction noise to below the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) construction noise criteria. The operation of the proposed project would not generate a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site in excess of standards established in the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code. Project construction related vibration levels would be under the vibration structural damage and vibration human annoyance thresholds; and the project operation would not generate vibration impacts. As such, the impacts related to noise would be less than significant. (Draft IS/MND, pp. 67-75)

As determined in Section 4.3 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials) of the Draft IS/MND, the proposed project would comply with all federal, state and local requirements related to the transport, storage, use, and disposal of limited quantities of hazardous materials such as paints, solvents, cleaning agents, oils, grease, fuel for construction equipment, and common household hazardous wastes. The proposed project is not located on a site that has been included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and thus would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. In addition, the proposed project would be designed to ensure adequate emergency access is provided. Therefore, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant. (Draft IS/MND, pp. 52-55)

The Draft IS/MND is therefore supported by substantial evidence. Further, as explained throughout the responses to comments, there is no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument.

Response to Comment 5-8
Please note that the excerpt of the Draft IS/MND (page 15) referenced in this comment is an introductory (Sections 4.0 and 4.1). There is no impact analysis is these two sections. Please refer to Section 4.3 where the “no impacts” and the “less than significant impacts” are discussed. As determined in Section 4.3 (Hydrology/Water, Utilities, Air Quality, Transportation, Public Services, GHG, Noise, Cultural Resources, Energy, Mandatory Findings of Significance) of the Draft IS/MND, the analysis resulted in the determination of no impacts, less than significant, and less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The Draft IS/MND provides substantial evidence that the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts. It should be noted that the identified PDFs will be conditions of approval and will be enforceable along with mitigation measures which will be part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

Response to Comment 5-9
This comment quotes the Draft IS/MND. No further response is warranted.

Response to Comment 5-10
The Draft IS/MND does not indicate that the proposed project would include uses that would be 24-hour long.

Neither is the Draft IS/MND silent on this issue. As stated on page 13 of the Draft IS/MND, the proposed project includes PDF-15, which limits the hotel themed pool attraction and outdoor pool deck operation to be open only during the daytime hours (7 a.m. – 10 p.m.); and PDF-20, which limits the delivery, loading/unloading activity, and trash pick-up hours to daytime hours (7 a.m. – 10 p.m.).

Response to Comment 5-11
The comment quotes the Draft IS/MND. No further response is warranted.

1704485.1 Page 37

Response to Comment 5-12
The comment does not identify any specific issue or concern regarding the Draft IS/MND. No further response is warranted.

Response to Comment 5-13
This comment quotes the Draft IS/MND. No further response is warranted.

Response to Comment 5-14
The proposed project anticipates requiring a total export of approximately 60,720 cubic yards of earthwork material for grading purposes (refer to Appendix B of the Draft IS/MND). The analysis in the Draft IS/MND does take into account activities associated with site preparation (hauling, export, etc.) identified in the geotechnical investigation. These activities were included in the air quality/greenhouse gas emissions and traffic modeling, refer to Appendices B and I of the Draft IS/MND. The referenced sentence in this comment (page 46 of the Draft IS/MND, “Past building and demolition activities within the project site likely removed some overlying soil, and artificial or disturbed fill may be present in the upper levels” is related to the potential to encounter fossil specimens within the project site during ground-disturbing activities. It has nothing to do with stability of the site (Draft IS/MND, pp. 46-47).

Response to Comment 5-15
The purpose of the proposed vacation of Thackery Drive and the public alley is to facilitate the development of the proposed project. Once vacated, Thackery Drive and the public alley will be incorporated into the proposed project’s developable land area and will only serve the properties on the project site and thus are not needed to support the circulation needs of the abutting properties. As such, the vacation would not have a detrimental impact on the circulation system. Thackery Drive and the public alley, along with the rest of the project site, are currently secured with a perimeter fence and have no public access. The proposed project would have public street access from Harbor Boulevard and Twintree Avenue. To the extent this comment alleges Level of Service (LOS) impacts, congestion is no longer relevant for CEQA purposes.

Response to Comment 5-16
The proposed project’s water demand estimate (including the proposed pool and lazy river) is detailed in Table

3.1 of the Site B-2 Hotel Water Supply Assessment (WSA). Based on Table 3.1, the proposed project would generate a unit demand of 167 gallons per day (gpd) per room. To test this demand estimate, water use data was gathered from three hotels in Anaheim from meter reads that were averaged over a five-year period totaling 2,350 rooms. These hotels averaged 167 gpd per room with one hotel having a significant amount of conference room and banquet space. This particular hotel had an 11 percent higher demand per room than the next largest hotel with more nominal ancillary uses so it is logical to assume the more typical hotels would average about 10 percent less or 150 gpd. Due to the potential additional demand from the entertainment venues of the proposed project, this demand estimate is supported by substantial evidence. (WSA, pp. 3-1 and 3-4) CEQA does not require perfection. (CEQA Guidelines § 15003(i))

Senate Bill (SB) 610 requires the preparation of a WSA for a proposed hotel with more than 500 rooms. Because of the size of the proposed project, SB 610 requires that a WSA be completed to evaluate the potential effects of the proposed development on current and future water supplies. It mandates that a city or county approving certain projects subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (i) identify any public water system that may supply water for the project, and (ii) request the public water system to prepare a specified water supply assessment. As part of the assessment, the following discussion is required: 1. A discussion of whether the public water system’s total projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project,

1704485.1 Page 38
in addition to the public water system’s existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing. (WSA, p. 2-1)

Response to Comment 5-17
Please note that the excerpt of the Draft IS/MND referenced in this comment is about solid waste, not wastewater.

As determined in Section 4.3 (Utilities and Service Systems) of the Draft IS/MND, the project site is located in a highly urbanized area and the proposed project would be served by the existing water, wastewater treatment, storm drainage, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities. The WSA prepared for the proposed project concluded that there would be a sufficient water supply for the proposed project and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) confirmed that there is adequate wastewater treatment capacity to serve the proposed project’s projected demand in addition to OCSD’s existing commitments. The proposed project’s projected waste generation of approximately 1.4 tons per day (tpd) would be accommodated by the CVT Regional Material Facility and Transfer Station (permitted 6,000 tpd) as well as any of the three Orange County Landfills: Frank R. Bowerman Landfill (permitted 11,500 tpd); Olinda Alpha Landfill (permitted 8,000 tpd); and Prima Deshecha Landfill (permitted 4,000 tpd). (Draft IS/MND, pp. 87-90)

Based on the discussion/summary above, the Draft IS/MND provides substantial evidence that the proposed project will not result in any potentially significant impacts.

Response to Comment 5-18
The preparation of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) is not required by CEQA. A Phase I ESA is a real estate document. However, a comprehensive search of the project site and vicinity for underground storage tanks, leaks, or hazardous spills was conducted for the project site, as explained in Section 4.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft IS/MND. Specifically, the search included review of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)’s EnviroStor database, which includes the following hazardous waste facilities and cleanup sites: Permitted Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs); Federal Superfund sites (National Priorities List [NPL]); State Response sites, including military facilities and State Superfund sites; Voluntary Cleanup sites; school sites; and Corrective Action sites. This search also included review of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)’s GeoTracker database, which provides access to statewide environmental data and tracks regulatory data for the following types of sites: (1) Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) cleanup sites; (2) Cleanup Program Sites (CPS, also known as Site Cleanups [SC] and formerly known as Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanups [SLIC] sites); (3) military sites (including military UST sites, military privatized sites, and military cleanup sites [formerly known as Department of Defense (DOD) non-UST]); (4) Land Disposal sites (Landfills, Surface Impoundments, Waste Piles, Land Treatment Units, Mining Units); (5) Permitted Underground Storage Tank (UST) facilities; (6) Composting Operations; (7) Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) sites; (8) Confined Animal / Concentrated Animal Feed Lots facilities; (9) Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP) sites; and (10) Oil and Gas Monitoring sites (Aquifer Exemption, Produced Water Ponds, Underground Injection Control, Well Stimulation Projects). In addition, this search included a review of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA)’s Cortese List Data Resources, which include the following: a list of solid waste disposal sites identified by SWRCB with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels outside the waste management unit; list of active Cease and Desist Orders and Cleanup and Abatement Orders from the SWRCB; list of hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code identified by DTSC; list of hazardous waste and substances sites from DTSC; and list of LUST sites from SWRCB. No records were found identifying historic or current underground storage tanks, leaks, or hazardous spills on the project site. The nearest LUST site per the search results was located approximately 916 feet south of the project site, which given the distance and current activities (i.e., groundwater well monitoring activities), would not present a hazardous condition to the project site nor would the proposed activities impact this LUST site.

1704485.1 Page 39

The prior uses at the project site over the years was discussed in Cultural Resources Section of the Draft IS/MND, which helped inform the hazards and hazardous materials background research efforts. Specifically, the prior uses were discussed as follows: “The project site is located within a heavily disturbed urban area. Prior to World War II, the project site was utilized for agricultural purposes, with a grove of trees present on most of the property and one building that was present in the southeast corner for a short period of time. During the housing boom of the 1950s, the project site was developed with a residential tract and commercial buildings which were established by 1963. A review of construction manuals from the period suggests that it is adequate to assume that up to five feet of the soil was disturbed by construction, grading, and the placement of utilities for a 1960s-era tract development. All buildings in the project site were removed between 2004 and 2013, leaving only the cul-de-sac and alley between the dirt lots. The process appears to have consisted of removing building foundations and prior utilities and grading the surface.” (Draft IS/MND, p. 38)

As determined in Section 4.3 (Air Quality) of the Draft IS/MND, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact related to exposure of sensitive receptors (including children, the elderly, the acutely and chronically ill, and those with cardio-respiratory diseases). Sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations during construction or operation of the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project would be in compliance with applicable rules and regulations such as SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. (Draft IS/MND, pp. 28-31).

Construction of the proposed project would involve transport, use, and disposal of limited quantities of hazardous materials such as paints, solvents, cleaning agents, oils, grease, and fuel for construction equipment.

However, the proposed project would have to comply with all federal, state, and local requirements related to the transport, storage, use, and disposal of such materials. Operation and maintenance activities of the hotel and restaurant uses would also use limited quantities of non-acutely hazardous materials, such as paints, cleaning agents, and batteries, as well as generate small quantities of common household hazardous wastes (HHW); however, the use, storage, and disposal of such hazardous materials and HHW would be conducted in compliance with all applicable hazardous materials and waste federal, state, and local requirements. Thus, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Additionally, the proposed project would not require the use or storage of significant quantities of hazardous materials that could become a significant hazard to the public or the environment through an accidental release or upset condition. Though it is not reasonably foreseeable that significant quantities of hazardous materials would be used or stored on site, to the extent any such use or storage would occur, such use and storage would be conducted in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft IS/MND, p. 53).

The project site is located in urbanized area of the City and is not located adjacent to any wildlands or an area where residences are intermixed with wildlands. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE)’s Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) Viewer Map, the project site is also not within or near a state responsibility area or a very high fire severity zone (CAL FIRE, 2021). Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No impact would occur. (Draft IS/MND, pp. 54-55).

The following conditions of approval will be required prior to the issuance of building permits. These conditions of approval will address soil contamination concerns.

• A geotechnical study prepared by a registered geotechnical engineer is required. The report shall analyze the liquefaction potential of the site and make recommendations. The report shall analyze sub- surface issues related to the past uses of the site, including sub-surface tanks and basement and septic facilities. Any soil or groundwater contamination shall be remediated prior to the issuance of a building

1704485.1 Page 40
permit per the requirements of the Orange County Health Department1,2 and the mitigation requirements of governing regulatory requirements. The report shall make recommendations for foundations and pavement structural section design of interior streets and parking spaces. The report shall also test and analyze soil conditions for LID (Low Impact Development) principles and the implementation of water quality for stormwater run-off, including potential infiltration alternatives, soil compaction, saturation, permeability and groundwater levels.

• A soil report complying with CBC Chapter 18 shall be required and shall be submitted for review at time of building permit application.

• A Geo-technical peer review of the soil report shall be required, and shall be completed prior to building permit application.

Based on the discussion/summary above, the Draft IS/MND provides substantial evidence that the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts during construction or operation. In addition, as part of standard practice (conditions of approval) soil contamination would be remediated if necessary. Pursuant to all applicable laws and regulations, the comment does not provide substantial evidence supporting a fair argument.

Response to Comment 5-19
Hauling trips associated with construction of the proposed project were analyzed as part of the Traffic Impact Study (refer to Appendix I of the Draft IS/MND). Table 10-1 of the Traffic Impact Study shows the daily construction trip generation for each of the construction phases. The total daily trips for each construction phase consist of worker trips, vendor trips and hauling trips (whichever apply), with the appropriate passenger car equivalent (PCE) factors applied. Table 10-2 shows the peak hour construction trip generation for each of the construction phases. The maximum construction trip generation occurs during the grading phase, when the proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 813 PCE-adjusted daily construction trips which include approximately 203 PCE-adjusted AM peak hour construction trips and approximately 203 PCE-adjusted PM peak hour construction trips.

As concluded in the Traffic Impact Study, the proposed project’s short-term construction traffic would not adversely affect the level of service of the study intersections (20 intersections). It is anticipated the haul route would consist of several of these intersections, especially Harbor Boulevard. Therefore, the haul route will be safe during the construction phase of the proposed project. To the extent this comment alleges LOS impacts, congestion is no longer relevant.

Response to Comment 5-20
The Draft IS/MND accounts for the three schools within 0.25 miles from the project site. The Walton Intermediate School is located approximately 0.2 mile northwest of the project site; Warren Elementary School is located approximately 0.25 mile northeast of the project site; and Violette Elementary School is located approximately 0.25 mile southwest of the project site (Google Earth Pro, 2022). While the proposed project would use, store, and dispose limited quantities of hazardous materials during construction and operation, such as paints, solvents, cleaning agents, etc., such materials would be used, stored, and disposed in compliance with all federal, state, and local requirements. Therefore, hazardous material impact would be less than significant. (Draft IS/MND, p. 53).

1 Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) Local Oversight Program. https://www.ochealthinfo.com/about-hca/pub lic-health- services/environmental-health-services/more/site-mitigation/local-oversight 2 OCHCA Industrial Cleanup Program: https://www.ochealthinfo.com/about-hca/pu blic-health-services/environmental-health- services/more/site-mitigation/industrial

1704485.1 Page 41
Also, as determined in Section 4.3 (Air Quality) of the Draft IS/MND, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact related to air pollution exposure of sensitive receptors (including children, the elderly, the acutely and chronically ill, and those with cardio-respiratory diseases). Sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations during construction or operation of the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project would be in compliance with applicable rules and regulations such as SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. (Draft IS/MND, pp. 28-31).

The Draft IS/MND provides substantial evidence that the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts related to emitting hazardous emissions or handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of a school. The use of alcohol is not an environmental impact, nor is the city required to assume violation of applicable drunk-driving laws. The comment does not provide substantial evidence supporting a fair argument.

Response to Comment 5-21
The Draft IS/MND provides substantial evidence that the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts (Draft IS/MND, Section 4.3). In addition, the identified conditions of approval will be enforceable and mitigation measures will be implemented through Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

Response to Comment 5-22
Based on the responses to comments above, the Draft IS/MND provides substantial evidence that the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts. Potentially significant impacts that were identified have been reduced to a less than significant level with the incorporation of mitigation measures. Therefore, an EIR is not required. There is no evidence supporting a fair argument.

Exhibit A
The commenter includes a local hire requirements and considerations for greenhouse gas modeling report as an attachment to this comment letter. This comment is noted for the record and no further response to this comment is warranted. Exhibit A is included as Attachment A of this Final IS/MND.

Exhibit B
The comment includes an air quality and GHG expert Paul Rosenfeld CV as an attachment to this comment letter. No further response to this comment is warranted. Exhibit B is included as Attachment A of this Final IS/MND.

Exhibit C
The comment includes an air quality and GHG expert Matt Hagemann CV as an attachment to this comment letter. No further response to this comment is warranted. Exhibit C is included as Attachment A of this Final IS/MND.

1704485.1 Page 42
Page intentionally left blank

1704485.1 Page 43

[BJ
Comment Letter 6
P: (626) 381-9248
F: (626) 389-5414
E: [email protected] • Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorney At Law
139 South Hudson Avenue
Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101

VIA E-MAIL
July 6, 2022
Honorable Chairman John Ramirez and
Planning Commissioners
c/ o Judy Moore, Planning Commission
Secretary
Community and Economic Development
Department
11222 Acacia Parkway
Garden Grove, CA 92840
Em: judym@ggcit_y.org
Maria Parra, Senior Planner
Planning Services Division
City of Garden Grove
11222 Acacia Parkway
Garden Grove, CA 92840
Em: mariap@ggcit_y.org
Teresa Pomeroy, City Clerk
City of Garden Grove
11222 Acacia Parkway
Garden Grove, CA 92840
Em: cit_yclerk@ggcit_y.org
RE: Objections to Approval of Site B-2 Hotel or Nickelodeon Resort Hotel Project and Its Mitigated Negative Declaration, Garden Grove City Planning Commission Hearing.July 7, 2022, Agenda Items C.2 and D Honorable Chairman Ramirez and Planning Commissioners:

On behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters ("SWRCC" or "Southwest Carpenters"), my Office is submitting these comments on the Site B-2 or Nickelodeon 1 Resort Hotel project proposed at northwest corner of Harbor Boulevard and Twintree Avenue, along the west and east sides of Thackery Drive, east of Tamerlane Drive in the City of Garden Grove ("Project"). The project site is located 1 For the first time in the 7/7/2022 Staff Report, the Project uses a different name and changing from Site B-2 Hotel project into a Nickelodeon Resort Hotel Project. This name change, even if inadvertent, may be prejudicial as it may not associate with the MND or the Project discussed in the MND, which was also circulated only for 20 days, with the hearing set just after the July 4, 2022 holiday weekend.
1704485.1 Page 44

[BJ
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel or Nickelodeon Resort Hotel Project July 6, 2022

at 12241, 11261,12271, 12291, 12311 and 12323 Harbor Boulevard; and 12246, 12252, 12262, 12282, 12292, 12312, 12322, 12251, 12261, 12281, 12291, 12311, and 12321 Thackery Drive in the City of Garden Grove, County of Orange. The Project approval includes various approvals and actions from the City of Garden Grove ("City" or "Lead Agency"). The Project will be coming before the City's Planning Commission on July 7, 2022, at 7:00 pm, seeking various approvals, including the approval of a mitigated negative declaration ("MND") (Item C2) and a consideration of the street and alley vacation and general plan conformance for same (Item D).

This comment supplements our prior comment submitted on June 28, 2022 ("Objection to MND"), which we fully incorporate by reference herein.

As previously noted, the Southwest Carpenters is a labor union representing more than 50,000 union carpenters in six states, including California, and has a strong interest in well-ordered land use planning, addressing the environmental impacts of development projects and equitable economic development.

Individual members of the Southwest Carpenters live, work and recreate in the area and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project's environmental impacts.

SWRCC expressly reserve the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearings and proceedings related to this ~ Project. (Cal. Gov't Code§ 65009(b); Cal. Pub. Res. Code§ 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1121.) SWRCC incorporate by reference all comments raising issues regarding the Project and its CEQA compliance, submitted prior to the Project approvals. (Citizens for Clean [}}] Enew v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 191 [finding that any party who has objected to the Project's environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties].)
SWRCC renews its request that the City should consider utilizing skilled and trained ~ workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and mitigate greenhouse gas, air quality and transportation impacts.

Also, the City should require the Project to be built to standards exceeding the current 2019 California Green Building Code and 2020 County of Los Angeles Green Building 1704485.1 Page 45

l6T7
~
[}TI
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel or Nickelodeon Resort Hotel Project July 6, 2022

Standards Code to mitigate the Project's environmental impacts and to advance progress towards the State of California's environmental goals.

I. THE PROJECT VIOLATES CEQA SINCE THERE IS

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A FAIR ARGUMENT

THAT THE PROJECT MAY HA VE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS,

REQUIRING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AS A
MATTER OF LAW.

As previously noted, CEQA allows the lead agency to dispos e of an EIR in very limited cases: (1) if there is an applicable CEQA exemption; or (2) if the Project, with certain modifications, will clearly have no significant impacts. (Pub. Res. Code § 21064.5, emph. added; see also, Pub. Res. Code§ 21080(c)&(e); CEQA Guidelines§ 15064(f).)
Thus, under both CEQA and Guid elines, the agency shall prepare an EIR unless it is ckarthat the Proj ect will not have any significant impacts. Such is not the case here, as detailed further below.

A. Biological Resources Impacts.

The MND concludes that there will be no biological impacts, without conducting a single Project-site study and solely based on speculation. First, the MND states : "Due to the built-out nature of the City and surrounding area, biological resources in the City are almost non-existent (City of Garden Grove, 2021). " (MND, p. 32.) City does not provide any page number for the referenced document, neither does it explain what that reference means. Instead, at the end of the Biological Resources section, it provides a descripti on of the General Plan Update, Land Use E lement, Chapter 2 and a hnk to the City's website which contains numerous other links to other documents.

Howe ver, none of the "Land Use Element" links referenced in the M N D contains any reference to ''bio logic al resourc es" at issue here. 2 O n the o ther h and, in the Section of"Pubhc Services" (MND, p. 79), the MND provides a link to a simil arly referenced "City of Garden Grove, 2021" document, this time describing it as the Draft EIR for the Focused Genera l Plan Update in the City ("GP DEIR").
2 See, e.g., https: //ggr::ity.org/s ites / default / files /202 1-10 /LandUseElement Redline 10- 2021 0.pdf
1704485.1 Page 46

16-111
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel or Nickelodeon Resort Hotel Project July 6, 2022

Upon further search in the GP DEIR through the link provided (GP DEIR, p. 79), it becomes clear that the biological resources were among those studied for potential significant impacts, and the GP DEIR discarded the issue by relying on similar speculations and references to other documents:

Due to the densely developed urban setting of Garden Grove, primarily consisting of no natural biological communities, sensitive species would have little to no potential to occur within the Planning Area. The existing 2008 General Plan and the proposed 2021 General Plan Update do not contain goals or policies concerning biological resources that would negatively impact special-status species. Therefore, it is not expected that any new impacts would occur to special-status species as part of implementation of this FGPUZA. It should also be noted that future development would have to comply with established laws and regulations regarding the protection of biological resources when proposed (e.g., migratory bird treaty act).
(GP DEIR, p. 4.2-9, emph. added.)
The above-quoted passage shows that the GP DEIR's focus was new impacts due to the new goals or policies concerning biological resources and further confirms that the "future development," as here, will have to comply with all laws and regulations to protect biological resources. CEQA specifically protects such biological resources, including natural unique resources. "Special emphasis should be placed on environmental resources that are rare or unique to that region and would be affected by the project. The EIR must ... permit the significant effects of the project to be considered in the full environmental context." (Guidelines§ 15125(c), italics added.)
1704485.1 Page 47

16-12 I
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel or Nickelodeon Resort Hotel Project July 6, 2022

At the same time, the GP DEIR lists various special status plants and species that have potentia!3 to appear in the GP planning area (DEIR, p. 4.2-2) and provides:

Wildlife and Sensitive Species
Wildlife known to occur within the Planning Area consists of avian, reptile, and mammal species that occupy urban areas. The "sensitive" or "special" label denotes a species as a State or Federally listed threatened or endangered species and/ or a potential candidate for threatened or endangered listing. Table 4.2-1 (Federally- and State-Listed Species and other Special Status Species) lists Federally- and State-listed species known to occur in the Planning Area, as identified by the CNDDB (CNDDB, 2020). The Planning Area is located on the Anaheim 7.5-minute series United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle map.

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), California Native Plant Society (CNPS), California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) recorded the following species in Table 4.2-1 as historically occurring within 1-mile of the Planning Area (but not within the Planning Area). These species have low potential to occur or are not expected to occur within the Planning Area due to the marginal suitable habitat available or lack of habitat. (GP DEIR, p. 4.2-1, emph. added.)
Thus, GP DEIR - on which the MND here relies - does not specifically study the Project's site or the biological impacts of this Project; to the opposite, it suggests that future development itself will have to comply with all applicable laws to protect biological resources, and yet concludes that there is low potential for special plants or animals to occur only due to marginal suitable habitat available in general in the City. 3 Figure 2.1 (DEIR, p. 4.2-2) claims that such potential is "low" and in the asterisk provides an explanation for such qualification: "*Due to the densely developed urban setting of Garden Grove, primarily consisting of no natural biological communities, this species would have low potential to occur." In other words, the GP DEIR solely relies on the generally densely developed urban setting of Garden Grove, which speculation is inapplicable to this 3.72-acre vacant land of the Project site.
1704485.1 Page 48

I 6-14 I
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel or Nickelodeon Resort Hotel Project July 6, 2022

The MND here admits that the Project site has been vacant, at least in part, since 2004 and contains some vegetation and ornamental trees. (MND, p. 33.)4 It also admits that based on a survey by CDFW in February of 2022, "the California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus) is the only sensitive species (State Threatened) with the potential to be found on the project site (CDFW, 2022)." (MND, p. 33.) Thus, there is potential that the Project site may be home to various special status species and there is no specific study in the MND to conclusively and clearjy negate such potential.

Further, because the place has been vacant for about 20 years, it is possible that it may be roosting bats in the vacant areas or in the trees, whereas bats are on decline in California and U.S. and require special protection. 5
Lastly, the MND provides ineffective, unenforceable, and illusory mitigation measures for the potential impacts on migratory fish. It provides BI0-1 (p. 33-34), which only requires that 3 days prior to the construction, a qualified biologist survey the area to ascertain if there are active nests and, if so:
[T]the qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer and monitor the active nests within the buffers at a minimum of once per week to determine whether the birds are being disturbed. If signs of disturbance or stress are observed, the qualified biologist shall immediately implement adaptive measures to reduce disturb ance. These measures shall be determin ed by the qualified biologist and could include, without limitation, increasing buffer distance, temporarily halting construction activities until fledging is confirmed, or placing visual screens or sound dampening structures betwe en the nest and construction activity. (MND, pp. 33-34, emph. added.)
As such, City or the MND does not even require the qualified biologist to n:port back to the City about findings, does not impose the minimum distance for buffers, but leaves all those choices and conclusions to the discretion of a qualified biologist retained by the Applicant itself without any account ability or oversight. This is far worse than the practice of requiring an Applic ant to retain a qualified biologi st and provide a post- 4 The MND makes no reference of any specific Project study for this conclus ion and therefo re the MND 's stateme nt is o nly an assertion, without any factua l suppo rt that can be verified. It does not pass muster as substantial evidence under CEQA. 5 See, htt;ps: //wildlife.ca.gov/Co nservation/Mamma ls /Bats /Report -Colony 1704485.1 Page 49

6-16
cont'd
16-171
I 6-18 I
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel or Nickelodeon Resort Hotel Project July 6, 2022

approval study, which was ruled to be improper mitigation in an MND context. (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307 [a post-approval study found to be improperly deferred mitigation and a post hoc rationalization].) As the Court noted in Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 93
We find this proposal is no different than the deferred mitigation rejected by the appellate court in San Joaquin &ptor, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 663. There, the EIR required "a management plan" to be prepared ''by a qualified biologist to 'maintain the integrity and mosaic of the vernal pool habitat.' " (Id. at p. 669, 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 663.) The court held that this measure was deficient because it merely included a "generalized goal of maintaining the integrity of the vernal pool habitats," placing the onus of mitigation to the future plan and leaving the public "in the dark about what land management steps will be taken, or what specific criteria or performance standard will be met .... " (Id. at p. 670, 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 663.)
In sum, the MND contains no substantial evidence that the 3.72-acre vacant site contains or breeds no protected or rare species and will not have any impact on biological resources; further, its offered mitigation measures are illusory and unenforceable. For all the reasons mentioned above, there is potential that the Project may impact biological resources, which requires and EIR and disqualifies an MND.

B. Energy Impacts.

The MND's energy impacts analysis is fatally flawed. It concludes that the Project will have less than significant impact, based on generalized goals or aspirations in the Municipal Code and CON-4 and CON-5 goals in the General Plan, which provide:
•
•
Goal CON-4: Reduce per-capita non-renewable energy waste and city-wide peak electricity demand through energy efficiency and conservation.

Goal CON-5: Reduce dependency on non-renewable energy
resources through the use oflocal and imported alternative energy sources.
(MND, p. 40.)
1704485.1 Page 50

6-18
cont'd
6-19
6-20
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel or Nickelodeon Resort Hotel Project July 6, 2022

There is no substantial evidence as to how these generalized goals would reduce the Project's energy impacts.

Further, the MND's analysis construction energy impacts is unsupported and is based on an unquantified, incoherent, and illogical conclusion:

Construction and operation of the proposed project would result in the consumption of energy resources. Energy consumption during construction would consist of electricity providing temporary power to lighting and equipment as well as fuel for construction vehicles. Per PDF- 8, construction-related activities would minimize the use of non­ renewable diesel by minimizing the use of diesel-powered equipment or generators, where feasible. Construction-related energy consumption would be minimal in comparison to the operational consumption once the proposed hotel is occupied.
(MND, p. 40, emph. added.)
As such, the MND only provides for minimization of use of diesel-powered equipment or generators "where feasible," making this minimization essentially unenforceable. It also appears to conclude the construction energy impacts will be less than significant just because those will be less than the operational energy impacts.

The conclusion lacks any logical link.

Lastly, for operational energy impacts, the MND provides the significant amount of energy usage of the Project and yet relies on the same generalized goals adopted by the City, as well as the greenhouse gas ("GH G")) mitigation measures to enei;gy impacts. But reduction of GHG impacts is not the same as reduction of energy impacts and the City's conclusion that implementation of GHG mitigation measures will necessarily result in less than significant energy impacts is therefore unsupported. The MND provides:

Energy usage for operation of the proposed project would include both electricity and natural gas, where total electricity usage would be approximately 4,956,901 kilowatt hours per year, and total natural gas usage would be approximately 15,780,088 thousand British thermal units per year (RK, 2022a). Per PDF-11, the proposed project would be designed in compliance with the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and Garden Grove Municipal Code Section 18.04.0101, 1704485.1 Page 51

6-20
cont'd
6-21
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel or Nickelodeon Resort Hotel Project July 6, 2022

including the provisions for bicycle parking, electric vehicle charging stations, energy efficiency, material conservation, and water/waste reduction. To further ensure the operation of the proposed project would not result in inefficient or wasteful energy consumption or conflict with the City's energy goals CON-4 and CON-5, Mitigation Measures GHG-2 through GHG-6 (provided below in Section VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this IS/MND), which would require the use of renewable energy sources and increase energy efficiency, such as installing onsite renewable energy sources capable of generating up to 25 percent of the proposed project's total electricity demand, implementing water conservation strategies, and implementing waste management, recycling, and composting programs to divert 50 percent of waste away from a landfill. Thus, with Mitigation Measures GHG-2 through GHG-6, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation, nor would it conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (MND, p. 41, emph. added.)
Yet, GHG-2 through GHG-6 (MND, pp. 49-50) only require that "up to" 25% of the Project's energy use be supported by solar and only 50% of waste be diverted. In view of the Project's mass, scale and intensity, there is no substantial evidence or expert opinion that the Project's remaining energy use and waste will be non-significant and will have no significant impacts.

Further, even in an EIR context, CEQA Guidelines require a project-specific energy consumption analysis and far more than reliance on energy guidelines, as here:
(b)' Energy Impacts. If analysis of the project's energy use reveals that the project may result in significant environmental effects due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption use of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources, the EIR shall mitigate that energy use. This analysis should include the project's energy use for all project phases and components, including transportation-related energy, during construction and
1704485.1 Page 52

6-21
cont'd
I 6-22 I
I 6-23 I
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel or Nickelodeon Resort Hotel Project July 6, 2022

operation. In addition to building code compliance, other relevant considerations may include, among others, the project's size, location, orientation, equipment use and any renewable energy features that could be incorporated into the project. (Guidance on information that may be included in such an analysis is presented in Appendix F.) This analysis is subject to the rule of reason and shall focus on energy use that is caused by the project.

This analysis may be included in related analyses of air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, transportation or utilities in the discretion of the lead agency.
(CEQA Guidelines§ 15126.2(b), emph. added)
The MND fails to adequately disclose the Project's energy impacts and makes an unsupported conclusion that those impacts will necessarily be reduced to the level of insigoificance through generalized goals or GHG mitigation measures. As such, there is a fair argument that the Project may have energy impacts, requiring an EIR.

C. Geology/Soils Impacts.

As also noted in our prior Comment letter, the MND's geology impacts assessment of no impacts is unsupported.

First, the MND admits that the Project site is located in the liquefaction area and contains unstable soils. (MND, pp. 44-45.) Yet, it concludes:

Furthermore, as a condition of approval, per Section 8.1.2 of the geotechnical investigation, prior to obtaining building permits from the City, additional site exploration and laboratory testing will be required to confirm the existing conditions throughout the project site and provide final desigo recommendations, which would be incorporated into an updated geotechnical investigation and implemented as a condition of approval (Geocon, 2018). Given this, implementation of the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
(MND, p. 44, emph. added.)
1704485.1 Page 53

6-23
cont'd
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel or Nickelodeon Resort Hotel Project July 6, 2022

The MND's conclusion is unsupported and rehes solely on unenforceable and also improperly deferred "additional site exploration and laboratory testing .... to confirm the existing conditions." There is no reason why the 2022 MND failed to include such site exploration, which appeared to have been required or necessary at least since 2018, per the 2018 Geocon's report. CEQA forbids deferred mitigation, absent some practical or legal hardship to conduct testing or devise mitigation measures. Per the MND, the Project site has been vacant for years and there is no information that the Applicant was not permitted access on the Project site in any way.

Further, the MND is chronologically incorrect. It claims that as a condition of approval now, some yet-to-be developed final recommendations would be implemented and would thereby necessarily reduce any impacts to the level of insignificance. And yet, just because an additional site exploration and laboratory testing will occur and final design recommendations, if at all, would be incorporated into the Project, the MND cannot make the absolute claim that those final design recommendations will indeed clearly reduce any geology impacts to the level of insignificance, as required by CEQA.

Lastly, the MND references 2018 Geocon's report and concludes that the Project site has no expansive soils and thereby no associated impacts. Yet, it admits that Geocon recommended that the upper 6 feet of existing site soils be excavated and properly compacted. The MND provides:

No Impact. Based on the geotechnical investigation performed for the proposed project, it is recommended, at a minimum, that the upper 6 feet of existing site soils within the proposed on-grade building footprint areas be excavated and properly compacted for foundation and slab support. The upper 5 feet of existing soils encountered at the project site during this investigation are considered to have a "very low" expansive potential and are classified as "non-expansive" per the Cahfomia Building Code (Geocon, 2018). Given this, the proposed project would not be located on expansive soil. No impact would occur. (MND, p. 46, emph. added.)
As for the referenced 2018 Geocon report, it references the word "expansive" only 16_26 1 twice, at p. 15 and p. 28, and provides:

8.2.4 The upper 5 feet of existing site soils encountered during this investigation are considered to have a "very low'' expansive potential (EI 1704485.1 Page 54

6-26
cont'd
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel or Nickelodeon Resort Hotel Project July 6, 2022

= 0); and are classified as "non-expansive" based on the 2016 California Building Code (CBC) Section 1803.5.3. Recommendations presented herein assume that the building foundations and slabs will derive support in these materials.
(2018 Geocon, p. 15, emph. added.)

8.16.2 Swimming pool foundations and walls may be designed in accordance with the foundation design recommendations below and Retaining Wall Design section of this report (see Section 8.13). The proposed pools should be constructed utilizing an expansive soils design, and a hydrostatic relief valve should be considered as part of the swimming pool design unless a gravity drain system can be placed beneath the pool shell.
(2018 Geocon, p. 28.)
Further, Geocon provides only one sample "Bl @ 0-5"' which appears to have been tested for expansiveness; yet, it discloses that it took three samples from three different sites "excavating three 8-inch diameter borings to depths of approximately 40½ and 75½ feet below." (2018 Geocon, p. 1, emph. added.) The Project site is 3.72 acres and should have required more testing to make a supported conclusion as to the entire site's condition. In addition, the fact that the upper 5 feet of soil sample showed no expansive soils, even if true as to the entire site, is irrelevant where the recommendation is to excavate the upper 6 feet of soil and in view of the fact that the Project will have to accommodate up to 350-feet high constructions and include an underground parking (MND, p. 9.) A deeper and broader site investigation should have been conducted and its results should have been included in this 2022 MND.

They were not, without any justification.

As such, because there is no evidence that the entire 3. 72-acre site was tested for expansive soils, because the Project involves numerous structures as tall as 350 feet, and because Geocon's recommendations assume that the soils are not expansive and will provide support for the Project's development and yet propose to excavate 6 feet of the upper layer of soil, there is no support for the MND's conclusion that the entire Project site contains no expansive soils and will have no associated impacts.

Lastly, among its limitations, Geocon itself provides that its 2018 Report cannot be relied upon in 2022:
1704485.1 Page 55

6-29
cont'd
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel or Nickelodeon Resort Hotel Project July 6, 2022

The findings of this report are valid as of the date of this report.

However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control.

Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period ofthree years.
(August 15, 2018, Geocon Report, p. 41, emph. added.)
Similarly, Geocon's report may not be trusted for geology impacts since it contains several discrepancies. First, it claims the Project site is 9.55 acres, whereas it is only

3.72 acres, per the MND. (2018 Geocon, p. 1.) Further, the 2018 Geocon report was based on significantly understated Project mass and scale and without final design plans:

Based on the information provided by the Client, It is our understanding that the proposed project consists of an 18-story hotel tower with a roof deck; a 16-story hotel tower; an 8-story timeshare tower; and parking structures. The proposed hotel complex will include on-grade structures and also two levels of subterranean space extending to depths of up to 25 feet below the ground surface. The proposed development is depicted on the Site Plan (see Figure 2A). (2018 Geocon, p. 2, emph. added.) This description is at odds with the MND's project description: "The proposed project involves construction of a full-service high-rise (maximum height of 350 feet) resort hotel with hotel program entertainment/pool deck (height of approximately 61 feet) on a 3.72-acre site." (MND, p. 9, emph. added.)
As such, the 2018 Geocon's report has not studied the stability of soil on the site to support a 350-feet hotel structures and numerous other tall buildings.

To the extent the MND relies on the 2018 Geocon's outdated report with flawed assumptions , such reliance is misplaced, and there is a fair argument the Project - with its unstudied mass and scale and undisputed liquefaction potential - may have significant geology impacts.
1704485.1 Page 56

City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel or Nickelodeon Resort Hotel Project July 6, 2022

D. GHG Impacts.

The Project may have significant GHG impacts and the MND's conclusion to the contrary is unsupported. (MND, pp. 48-50.) First, the MND understates the Project's impacts overall, since its estimated Project's GHG impacts already assume certain project design features (PDFs) were incorporated: "The total estimated GHG emissions of the proposed project were 5,756.97 MTC02e per year (which assumed incorporation of PDF-1 through PDF-12, provided previously in Section 3.3 of this IS/MND)." (MND, p. 49, emph. added.) Also, PDF-1 through PDF-12 (MND, pp. 11-12) are non-enforceable measures and non-binding (e.g., PDF-6, 8, and 9 provide for specific measures, "if" or "as" or "where" feasible). Further, the MND provides no estimate without the PDFs, which is an error. As such, the MND fails to disclose the Project's GHG impacts without the application of mitigation measures, as required by CEQA.

Second, the MND relies on GHG mitigation measures and concludes that those further reduce the 5,756.97 MTCO2e by 51%: "[T]he total estimated GHG emissions generated by the proposed project would be 3,583.53 MTC02e/year, reflecting a 51 percent reduction." (MND, p. 49.) Yet, there is no evidence or discussion as to how or whether the GHG measures that the MND relies upon will indeed reach the 51 percent reduction, particularly where GHG measures include compliance with certain codes, generation of renewable energy for up to 25% energy demand, and diversion of only 51 percent of waste. Lastly, the MND provides no clear significance threshold for GHG emissions and only concludes that the 51 % reduction of GHG impacts to 3,583.53 MTCO2e/year will amount to non-significant impacts. Yet, even if the MND follows some unspecified threshold, it is well-settled that a Project's compliance with a significance threshold does not mean the Project will have no impacts:
(2) Thresholds of significance, as defined in Section 15064.7(a), may assist lead agencies in determining whether a project may cause a significant impact. When using a threshold, the lead agency should briefly explain how compliance with the threshold means that the project's impacts are less than significant. Compliance with the threshold does not relieve a lead agency of the obligation to consider substantial evidence indicating that the project's environmental effects may still be significant.
(CEQA Guidelines§ 15064(b)(2), emph. added.)
1704485.1 Page 57

16-351
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel or Nickelodeon Resort Hotel Project July 6, 2022

Lastly, to the extent the Project may be larger than the 3.72 acres (per Geocon's investi gated 9.55-acre site area [2018 Geocon, p. 11) and its haul route is not calculated in the MND's GHG analysis (see, infra), and also to the extent the Project may have cumulative GHG impacts, those are not studied or disclosed in the MND.

In sum, the MND understates the Project's GHG impacts overall and through the use of unenforceable and non-binding PDFs and ineffecti ve and illusory mitigation m easures, and the MND erron eously assumes , without support, that a claim ed 51% reduction, even if practicable, will indeed clearjy result in less than significant impacts to warrant an MND. As such, the Project may have significant GHG impacts, requiring an EIR to adequately study and mitigate those.

E. Hazards Impacts.

The MND's discussion of hazards (MND, p. 52-53) is manifestly flawed. First, it combined two very important questions about routine transport of hazardous materials or their release into the air, which can have impact on peopl e and limits such discussion to only construction materials to be stored on the site, and provides a cursory and limited analysis for those. For example, nowhere does the MND discl ose if the soil that will be excavated (e.g., 6 feet on the 3.72-acre site, as recommended by 2018 Geocon's report) contains contamination or if the buildings that existed on the Project's site and were demolish ed starting in 2004 did not leave any contamination or hazardous materials on the site.

Moreover, in an unpr ecedented manner, the Project provid es no Phase I Environmental Site Assessment ("ESA") that could have performed a search of the site for underground storage tanks, leaks, or hazardous spills. Phase I ESA would have also listed all prior uses at the Project site over the years and the potential that those uses handles hazardous materials (e.g., dry-cleaning,6 car repair shops). Further, the Project site has been subject to significant demolition, which could have included various hazardo us materials, including asbestos and lead that can be still present on the Project site. Yet, the MND appears to rely on just DTSC general records and EPA online records (MND, p. 55) and provides just general links to the searches conducted; there is no indication that a more thorough inquiries were made to DTSC or EPA 6 See, e.g., active hazardous site at 13020 Chapman Ave ., Garden Grove, which is a block away from the Project and which used t o be a dry cleaners place from 1966 to 2006. https: / /www. envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public /profi le report?g loba l id= 60002907 1704485.1 Page 58

6-37
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel or Nickelodeon Resort Hotel Project July 6, 2022

l
about all 3.72 acres of the Project site or if the entire 3.72 acres were ever considered cont'd h T d b ~--~ in searc ing D SC or EPA ata ases.

The MND only claims that the site is not listed on a hazardous site. (MND, p. 53.) However, whether the site is or is not listed in a database is not conclusive proof that the site contains no hazardous materials or contamination that could harm human beings during excavation or their routing transportation.

Further, Geocon's 2018 report provides, among limitations: "The evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon West, Inc." (2018 Geocon, p. 41.) It begs the question: Why?
In sum, the MND's manifest lack of study of these hazardous conditions on the Project's site which was previously occupied by residential and commercial uses, as I 6-40 I well as its cursory and limited analysis focusing on solely constmction phase (construction materials) and completely ignoring the transport of hazardous materials, including soil and debris duringpre-constmction phase (e.g., grading and excavation) supports a fair argument that the Project may have significant impacts.

F. Hydrology/Water Qualicy:- no impact
In addition to the flaws pointed out in our prior Comment and related to the Project's impacts on water supply and waste impacts, the MND also understates the Project's I 6-41 I hydrology and water quality impacts. First, the MND relies on preliminary reports; there is no explanation why the MND could not provide a final storm water and drainage management report, which, per the MND, will be provided only after the Project approval and before the permits are issued.

Second, the MND admits that the Project will be adding new impervious suifaces increasing them from 28% to 68% after the Project is built. This means that the Project will directly or indirectly impede the natural drainage patterns that exist on the 1 6-42 1 site since it was gradually vacated starting in 2004. The MND's focus on only adjacent buildings' drainage flows in this analysis and ignoring the drainage patterns that exist on the 3.72 acre site now (covered with dirt and vegetation) is erroneously limited.

There is a fair argument that the Project will impede and redirect the existing drainage flows on the vacant land at least because it will add 40% more impervious surfaces. 1704485.1 Page 59

City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel or Nickelodeon Resort Hotel Project July 6, 2022

Third, the MND admits that it would be redirecting the drainage from the adjacent Sheraton hotel and reroute it. (MND, p. 5 7.) It further states that the drainage on the site will be "similar" to pre-development, i.e., admittedly not the "same":

As mentioned above, the project site currently consists of 28 percent of impervious area; and with the construction of the proposed project, the impervious area would increase to 68 percent. However, the post development drainage would be similar to the pre-development drainage.

With the proposed project, the offsite drainage would be routed to the new drive aisle along the west property line and continue to flow west onto Twintree Avenue to match the existing condition.
(MND, p. 59, emph. added.)
In view of the above-noted admissions that the Project will increase impervious areas and redirect the existing flows, there is a fair argument that the Project may also I 6-44 I increase the rate, amount, and depth of the existing drainage flows, due to redirection of existing flows on the vacant land, as well as by creating more impervious areas, altering the current natural flood patterns, and most importantly significantly adding to the drainage flows due to the significant mass and scale of the Project.

Lastly, the MND improperly relies on deferred mitigation and creation of post­ approval plans to mitigate impacts and yet concludes that the Project will have ''less than significant impacts." This conclusion is unsupported, since it provides no binding or enforceable mitigation measures to support it. The MND states:

The incorporation of BMPs [best management practices] prescribed in the WQMP would minimize impervious areas in addition to reducing potential pollutants that enter the surface flows as a result of project implementation, to the maximum extent practicable, as required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Prior to the commencement of grading and construction activities, a final WQ MP would be prepared.

With implementation of the SWPPP, WQMP, and BMPs, the
construction and operation of the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff or otherwise substantially degrade water quality, nor would it substantially alter the existing drainage 1704485.1 Page 60

6-45
cont'd
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel or Nickelodeon Resort Hotel Project July 6, 2022

pattern of the project site or area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
(MND, p. 58, emph. added.)
The MND's above-quoted analysis is illusory, conclusory, and unsupported. First, it is unclear how a new BMP can "minimize" the amount of impervious surfaces in the Project after it gets entitled and approved. Second, it is unclear how a BMP that will only minimize the amount of impervious surfaces "to the maximum extent practicable" will indeed amount to less than s~nzficantimpacts. Third, it is unclear why a final WQMP (water quality management program) should be prepared and timed only after Project approval and only before the commencement of construction activities.

In sum, the MND's conclusion that the Project will have no hydrology or water quality impacts is unsupported and also contains non-binding and improperly deferred I 6-47 I mitigation measures. Its findings ofless than significant impact before mitigation is also unsupported because the MND clearly relies on post-approval studies and water quality management programs to mitigate water impacts.

G. Land Use Impacts
The MND understates the Project's land use impacts. First, its 2-page land use impact analysis (MND, pp. 62-63) fails to note the Project's inconsistencies with the General Plan and zoning. For example, the analysis fails to note that, under the current General Plan, there is a street and an alley which traverse the Project's site and which the Project proposes to vacate. This, by itself, is an inconsistency with the General Plan's transportation element. Moreover, this will divide the established community, which currently uses the street and alley to be vacated. In addition, such vacation of the street and alley will have significant impacts on traffic and circulation.

Second, while the MND's analysis mentions the residential zoning on the Project's site in the beginning, it fails to note that the residential zoning R-1- 7 is for singlefamily 16-491 development. (See, MND, pp. 3 & 65.) Instead, the MND's land use impact analysis focuses on "[t]he IW designation [that] allows a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of up to 5.0 for hotel resorts" (MND, p. 63), which it later admits to apply to only PUD commercial- and not R-1- 7 residential zoning - and yet presents that because the Project will have 4.27 FAR, it necessarily conforms to the General Plan as to land use designation:
1704485.1 Page 61

6-49
cont'd
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel or Nickelodeon Resort Hotel Project July 6, 2022

The IW designation allows a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of up to 5.0 for hotel resorts and entertainment venues. FAR results from dividing the total gross floor area of all buildings on a lot by the total area of that lot. The proposed project would develop approximately 691,693 square feet of hotel uses on the 3.72-acre (162,043.20 square feet) site, which would result in a FAR of 4.27, and be within the allowable FAR.

Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with the IW designation.

The IW designation of the proposed project is implemented by the PUD zoning. Section 9.18.160.010 (Planned Unit Developments) of the Garden Grove Municipal Code states that planned unit developments may be permitted in any Mixed Use zone subject to the provisions of Section

9.16.030.020 (Planned Unit Development) of the Garden Grove Municipal Code.
(MND, p. 63, emph. added.)
In other words, the Project transfers the 5.0 FAR of the PUD mixed-use zoned lots to the R-1-7 single-family residential zoned lots and the MND fails to note either about 16-50 I such FAR transfer or about the inconsistency of both building a hotel on the single­ family residential lots, the applicable FAR on the residential R-1- 7 lots, and the inconsistency of such 5.0 FAR on the residential R-1- 7 zoned lots.

I 6-51 I
Lastly, the MND inconspicuously admits that it seeks to change the zoning for the entire site and thereby make the Project conform to the General Plan's IW designation:

As previously mentioned, the project site is currently zoned PUD-141-01 and R-1- 7. As part of the proposed project, the entire project site would be rezoned to create a subzone, PUD-141-0l(A), which would be consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation of IW and would facilitate the development of the proposed project. With this modification, no conflict with the property's zoning would occur.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
(MND, p. 63.)
16_52 I The above-noted zoning amendment to ensure the Project's conformance with the General Plan underscores the existing conflict of the Project with the applicable land use 1704485.1 Page 62

6-52
cont'd
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel or Nickelodeon Resort Hotel Project July 6, 2022

plans and the Project site's density and intensity designations and refutes the MND's finding that the Project is consistent with land use plans and will have no land use impacts.

In sum, the MND's analysis ofland use impacts critically omits inconsistencies and understates the Project's scope or associated land use impacts. In view of the above­ noted changes proposed by the Project, there is a fair argument that the Project, with its mass, scale and proposed solely commercial uses, is inconsistent with the applicable land use plans and may have significant impacts, requiring an EIR.

H. Noise Impacts.

The MND's noise impact analysis is flawed. (MND, pp. 67- 71.) First, the MND erroneously assumes that since the Project will comply with the noise regulations, it is necessarily "exempt" from any additional construction restrictions, such as hours, days, and times of construction starting at 7am and extending to 8pm (i.e., 13 hours/day) from Monday through Friday, and even on holidays and Sundays. In an MND context, the City's conclusion of no construction impacts here is unsupported, especially where the MND admits that construction noise may reach 80 dBA for an 8- hour limit, whereas the hours of construction noise far exceed 8. (MND, p. 69.) Second, the MND admits that the construction noise will exceed the 80 dBA, and yet claims that the implementation of mitigation measures will reduce those impacts to the level of insignificance. Among those mitigation measures, the MND requires to build a masonry wall barrier on the western and eastern borders of the Project, as well as place a temporary barrier on the northern and southern borders. Yet, the MND does not state the proximity of sensitive uses to the Project site. It was also found that noise barriers are most efficient if they are moveable and placed next to the noise area. (Exhibit A, pp. 19-20 [Aids Healthcare Foundation v. City ofLJJs Angeles, Case Number:
19STCP05445, April 5, 2021]) As stated in Aids Healthcare Foundation:

Effective mitigation to sensitive receptors requires the noise barrier systems to be moved. The City argues MM 1-2 is effective because "the noise barriers are moveable, meaning that they move in concert with any piece of construction equipment to ensure the equipment does not operate with an unobstructed line of sight to a receptor." [citation omitted] The City recognizes the barriers must be moveable "to shield construction activities, no matter where they occur onsite." [citation omitted] 1704485.1 Page 63

6-55
cont'd
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel or Nickelodeon Resort Hotel Project July 6, 2022

(Exhibit A, p. 20.)
As such, the barriers proposed by the Project and the MND do not meet that description, to ensure efficacy of noise reduction and lack substantial evidence that such noise reduction will indeed occur.

In addition, as described in an analogous lower court case, the noise analysis here does not consider the fact that the Project will be built at 350 feet height; so its noise insulation barriers extending to a maximum of 8 feet are further non efficient as a mitigation measure:

To the extent sound attenuation is to be measured at the sensitive receptor, it may allow measurement from street level ignoring impacts at higher floors. Higher floor sound attenuation is important as the efficacy of sound barriers to shield higher floors in a building is questionable.

Fn. 22 Sound is most audible when it travels by direct line of sight. Sound barriers are largely ineffective if they do not break the line of sight between the source and receiver ....

Fn. 23 [S]ound barriers are most effective when they are very close to either the source or the receiver and become less effective with greater distance from the noise producing equipment.
(Exhibit A, p. 19, and fns. 22-23.)
In addition, unlike in the EIR case cited above, the MND here does not provide how much sound reduction will those barriers provide. Yet, it concludes that the impacts will be reduced to the level of insignificance.

Further, the MND sets very high thresholds of significance for construction noise (80 dBA per 8 hours) and ignores the fact that the Project's construction noise will exceed the 8-hour mark (will be almost 13 hours, from 7am to 8pm).

Lastly, similar to the construction noise impacts, the MND and the City set high thresholds for operational noise impacts and fail to note that the Project site is now completely vacant and part of it is zoned residential. The MND also appears to conclude that just because noise increases will not exceed 3 dBA (a conclusion not supported by any evidence), then the Project will have no operational noise impacts. (MND, p. 71.) And yet, particularly in an MND context, it is settled that compliance 1704485.1 Page 64