Garden Grove City Council
August 23, 2022

6-59
cont'd
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel or Nickelodeon Resort Hotel Project July 6, 2022

with thresholds should not foreclose the study of the Project's impacts since it is not conclusive proof that the Project may not have impacts.

Also, the MND erroneously assumes that unless the Project doubles the amount of traffic, it will not cause more than 3dBA noise increase:

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.
(MND, p. 71, emph. added.)
The MND provides no legal or acceptable authority for its assumptions quoted above.

Lastly, the MND erroneously includes future conditions as part of the MND's baseline and noise analysis, stating:

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.
(MND, p. 71, emph. added.)
Yet, the fact the MND's above-noted statement admits the Project's impacts may far exceed the 55 dBA thresholds and the MND appears to rely on future conditions to understate the Project's impacts based on its compatibility under the Noise Element 1704485.1 Page 65

6-61
cont'd
16-621
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel or Nickelodeon Resort Hotel Project July 6, 2022

underscores the MND's erroneous legal assumptions. CEQA is clear that the the Project's baseline is the existing conditions and the compatibility or conformance with the General Plan is not part of the baseline analysis for purposes of impacts and does not foreclose CEQA's impacts analysis. (Oro Fino Gold Mining Coip. v. County of El Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 881-882 ["Initially, we note that conformity with a general plan does not insulate a project from EIR review where it can be fairly argued that the project will generate significant environmental effects. ( City of Antioch v. City Council, supra, 187 Cal.App.3d at p. 1332, 232 Cal.Rptr. 507.)"]) In sum, the MND performs a curtailed analysis of the Project's construction and operational impacts, relies on unsupported and flawed assumptions and erroneous baseline to measure the acceptable limits, and proposes inefficient mitigation measures, including barriers, to reduce the noise limits without any specific performance standards to ensure such noise reductions. As such, there is a fair argument that the Project may have significance noise impacts, requiring an EIR to study, disclose and mitigate those.

I. Transportation Impacts.

The MND's transportation analysis is critically flawed and its conclusion of no impacts is unsupported. First, the MND omits the elephant in the room: vacating of a public street and alley. As such, its analysis of whether the Project will "[c]onflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities" and its ultimate conclusion of "no impacts" (MND, p. 81) is clearly erroneous and unsupported.

Second, the MND's analysis of vehicle-miles-traveled is erroneous. It fails to acknowledge the dramatic increase of circulation in the Project site, the fact that vacation of the street and alley under the Project may create spill-over traffic and cause various travelers to change their travel patterns, as well as the fact that it is reasonably foreseeable that hotel guests will use Lyft, Uber or other transportation means thereby doubling the amount of trips to/ from the Project site as compared with traveling to the Project site in one's own car. Further, the Project's proximity to transit, on which the MND relies, appears to be irrelevant in view of the fact that the Project - a high­ rise hotel - may operate during night hours and perhaps more intensely during those night hours and yet there is typically no public transit available at night. 1704485.1 Page 66

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

Third, and similarly, the MND's analysis of whether the Project will "d) Result in inadequate emergency access" and its ultimate conclusion ofless than significant impact is unsupported. The MND admits that the Project will be "sharing" the road access with another hotel, which will also provide guest and employee access for buses and shuttles. It admits that the second access to the Project will be via an "unsignahzed" driveway on Twintree Avenue and only for emergency vehicles, maintenance, and trash/ delivery trucks only. And yet, it concludes that there will be less than significant impacts on emergency access, including on Harbor Boulevard because 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." (MND, p. 84.) Here again, the MND fails to note that not only will the Project dramatically increase the circulation in the area and will add to the Sheraton Hotel's circulation amounts and intensity, but it will also vacate a public street and an alley, thereby increasing the potential of traffic congestion and delays, in case of an emergency, and reducing or impeding the emergency access.

J. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

For all reasons mentioned above, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program may not be approved since it provides unenforceable, illusory, and improperly deferred mitigation measures.

K. The MND May Not Be Approved Since There Has Been No
Consultation with the School District.

The MND admits that the Project is within 0.25 miles of three schools.

The MND also fails to do an adequate study or even a Phase I ESA (supra), to confirm if the Project site contains any hazardous materials or contaminated soils that will be hauled away and transported potentially next to schools. The MND fails to include a haul route analysis or even disclose the amount of excavation at the Project site. At the same time, the MND admits that the Project site previously included residential and commercial uses, which were demolished. As such, those buildings could have contained asbestos, lead, or used various other chemicals, such as lead, or paint, that is harmful. In sum, there is no substantial evidence the Project site contains no 1704485.1 Page 67

6-68
cont'd
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel or Nickelodeon Resort Hotel Project July 6, 2022

recognized environmental conditions ("REC") (including but not limited to release or leak of hazardous materials, spills, oil, or vapor intrusion). 7 Yet, such manifest absence of study of the site's hazardous conditions should not excuse the City's or MND's failure to comply with CEQA's school consultation requirement, in view of the potential of RECs on the Project site, the Project's significant traffic increase within close proximity to those schools, as well as the existence of three schools within 0.25 miles of the Project site, of which two are elementary schools.

Under CEQA Guidelines § 15186, a special consultation with the school district needs to occur 30 days before the approval of a negative declaration, as here:
15186. SCHOOL FACILITIES
(a) CEQA establishes a special requirement for certain school projects, as well as certain projects near schools, to ensure that potential health impacts resulting from exposure to hazardous materials, wastes, and substances will be carefully examined and disclosed in a negative declaration or EIR, and that the lead agency will consult with other agencies in this regard.
(b) Before certifying an EIR or adopting a negative declaration for a project loc ated within one fourth mile of a school that involves the construction or alteration of a facility that might reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous air emissions, or that would handle an extremely hazardous substance or a mixture containing extremely hazardous substances in a quantity equal to or greater than the state threshold quantity specified in subdivision (j) of Section 25532 of the Health and Safety code, that may impose a health or safety hazard to perso ns who would attend or would be employ ed at the school, the lead agency must do both of the following:
(1) Consult with the affected school district or districts regarding the potential impact of the project on the school; and
7 See, http s: / /www. geoforward.com/ reco gnized-env ironm ental -co ndi tion-rec / 1704485.1 Page 68

6-70
cont'd
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel or Nickelodeon Resort Hotel Project July 6, 2022

(2) Notify the affected school district or districts of the project, in writing, not less than 30 days prior to approval or certification of the negative declaration or EIR. ...
(d) When the lead agency has carried out the consultation required by paragraph (2) of subdivision (6), the negative declaration or EIR shall be conclusively presumed to comply with this section, notwithstanding any failure of the consultation to identify an existing facility. (Emph. added.)
I
The MND does not adequately disclose or address the health risks of the Project and its hazards on children of the nearby three schools.

The above-noted issues about the potential of hazards on the Project site, the haul route of the Project and its proximity to the three schools need to be disclosed to the school district and the Project's impacts on schools must be respectively addressed.

L. The MND May Not Be Approved and is Flawed for Lack of Consideration of the Haul Route which is Improperly Piecemealed.

CEQA requires to consider all phases of the Project, including the planning, I 6_73 1 implementation and operation, both during the initial study and even before. CEQA Guidelines § 15063(a)(l) provides: "(1) All phases of project planning, implementation, and operation must be considered in the initial study of the project." (Emph. added.) (See also, CEQA Guidelines § 15126 ["All phases of a project must be considered when evaluating its impact on the environment: planning, acquisition, development, and operation." (Emph. added)])
Here, the MND does not analyze the haul route. It is critically silent on the amount of the export/import or fill that would need to be transported to or from the Project site, I 6-74 I the number of trucks that will be involved, how far they will be driving, how many times each day for round trips, how close those will be to the children in nearby schools, and thereby leaves the public in the dark about the related impacts. Yet, CEQA places the duty to thoroughly investigate upon the lead agency, not the public.

Because of this piecemealing of the haul route and failure to adequately disclose, study, I 5-75 I or mitigate its impacts and because of the mass and scale of the 6-feet excavation of the Project's 3. 72 feet site and the site's liquefaction potential, suggesting the need for 1704485.1 Page 69

6-75
cont'd
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel or Nickelodeon Resort Hotel Project July 6, 2022

more reinforcement to accommodate the 350 feet high development thereon, there is a fair argument that the Project may have significant impacts associated with the haul route, including but not limited to air quality, GHG, hazards, and noise. The lack of study of this issue in the MND enlarges the scope of the fair argument as to the named impacts. Such lack of study also violates CEQA's piecemealing requirement.

M. There is a Fair Argument that the Project May Have Significant Impacts due to Cumulative Impacts and Direct or Indirect Impacts on Human Beings and Long-Term Impacts on the Environment Requiring Mandatocy: Findings of Significance and an EIR.

For all reasons above - including but not limited to the MND's understated analysis of various impacts and the Project's potentially significant impacts on human beings in 16-761 light of air quality, GHG emissions, noise, geology, hazards, as well as the fact that the Project is within 0.25 miles of schools with particularly vulnerable children and youth - the Project will have impacts requiring mandatory findings of significance and an EIR under Guidelines § 15065.

N. The MND Must Be Recirculated.

The MND here must be recirculated to include the omitted analysis which implicates I 6_77 1 more significant impacts than disclosed or studied in the MND. (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15073.5 [MND recirculation]; 15088.5 [EIR recirculation]; see also, We Advocate Through Environmental Review v. County of Siskiyou (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 683, 695-696. [need to recirculate if more severe impacts].)
II. THE PROJECT'S APPROVAL VIOLATES THE HIGHWAY AND

STREET CODE'S PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE
REQUIREMENTS.

The Project involves vacating of a public street and alley; as such, it is subject to the Highway and Street Code ("H&S") procedural and substantive requirements. There is 16-781 no information that such requirements have been met here. The MND provides: "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 City's attempt to approve vacating of two streets all in one action/hearing of approving the Project and without the specific findings disclosed in the MND violates the procedures of Streets and Highways ("S&H") Code sections 8300, et. seq .. 1704485.1 Page 70

6-78
cont'd
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel or Nickelodeon Resort Hotel Project July 6, 2022

S&H Code Sec. 8313 requires the agency to consider the General Plan and obviously consistency therewith when planning to vacate the street. As mentioned above, the City inconspicuously and illegally plans to amend the General Plan to effectuate the vacating of the street and alley, since the General Plan amendment is not included among the discretionary actions, listed in the MND:

3.4 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS AND APPROVALS
The following discretionary actions and other non-discretionary approvals are required to implement the proposed project.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Approval of the MND Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program
Approval of Zone Change to subzone Planned Unit
Development No. PUD-141-0l(A)
Approval of Site Plan No. SP-107-2022
Approval of a Street Vacation
Approval of a Tentative Tract Map
Approval of a Development Agreement
Approval of Grading
Approval of Building and Occupancy Permits
Approval of a Conditional Use Permit 8
8 Separately, nowhere does the MND explain what the "Conditional Use Permit" is for.

Actually, the MND references "Conditional Use Permit" only once - at p. 14, in the above­ quoted list of discretionary actions.

Similarly, nowhere does the MND mention that the Project proposes on- and off-site alcohol sale and use; nowhere does the MND even use the word "alcohol," but only generally refers to beverages. Yet, the 7/7/2022 PC Staff Report, and its fmdings,forthe first time, notes conditional use permits for alcohol sale and use amongfuture entitlements that will be sought by the Project (e.g., Conditions 33 and 73). Also, the Permitted Uses for the Project, listed in the Staff Report, include on- and off-site alcohol sales. As such, the MND violates CEQA in that it failed to adequately disclose the "whole of an action" and the MND's omission of this critical aspect of the Project failed CEQA's mandate of good faith disclosure.

Further, this piecemealed future approval of a conditional use permit (or, permits) for alcohol use and sale also violates CEQA's piecemealing prohibition. 1704485.1 Page 71

6-78
cont'd
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel or Nickelodeon Resort Hotel Project July 6, 2022

•
(MND, p. 14.)
Approval of Final Water Quality Management Plan and
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
The S&H Code defines "vacation" as "the complete or partial abandonment or termination of the public right to use a street, highway, or public service easement." (S&H Code § 8309.) The code defines a "street" and ''highway" as "all or part of, or any right in, a state highway or other public highway, road, street, avenue, alley, lane, driveway, place, court, trail, or other public right-of-way or easement, or purported public street or highway, and rights connected therewith, including, but not limited to, restrictions of access or abutters' rights, sloping easements, or other incidents to a street or highway." (S&H Code § 8308, emph. added.)
The Code also provides that "[t]his part shall be liberally construed in order to effectuate its purposes." (Id. § 8310.) Thus, both the street and alley vacation in this case are subject to the H&S Code requirements.
"The authority to vacate a street rests with the city legislative body and may occur only after a hearing is held and evidence presented to the city council and a resolution of vacation adopted. (S&H §§ 8312, 8320-8325; City ofLJJs Angeles v. Fiske (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 167, 172 ["The act of vacating can be done only upon a finding that the property in question is unnecessary for present or future uses as a street"].)" (County of Amadorv. City of Pfymouth (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1089, 1106-1107.) Before the City vacates a street, it must engage in prescribed procedures, such as noticing and holding an evidentiary hearing after which the legislative body may find "from all the evidence submitted, that the street, highway, or public service easement described in the notice of hearing or petition is unnecessary for present or prospective public use," and thereafter vacate the street. (S&H Code §§ 8320, 8324.) Lastly, the MND's failure to adequately disclose the whole of the Project and its alcohol use and sale both on- and off-site resulted in inadequate CEQA review of the Project's impacts in that the MND is silent on impacts of alcohol sale and use, including but not limited to increased potential for crime, drunk driving, and the associated increased use for public services, including police, firefighters, emergency vehicles.

In addition, because of this piecemealed approval, the MND fails to inform about the impacts of the Project's alcohol use on the surrounding single family residential structures, as well as on the three schools located within 0.25 miles of the Project site. 1704485.1 Page 72

6-78
cont'd
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel or Nickelodeon Resort Hotel Project July 6, 2022

The City failed the S&H Code's procedural requirements and the City's inclusion of the street vacation as a separate Item Din the Planning Commission's Agenda, posted only on July 1, 2022, for the hearing to occur on July 7, 2022, is procedurally improper.

Also, in view of all the General Plan inconsistencies noted above and not disclosed or analyzed in the MND, the Planning Commission has no substantial evidence to recommend that the City Council find the street and alley vacation to be conforming and consistent with the General Plan. Neither does the City's Staff Report and information at the end of same (7/7/2022 PC Staff Report, pdf pp. 289-299) cure the public notice requirement under the S&H code.

Further, it is well-settled that a street may not be vacated for exclusive private use. (Citizens Against Gated Enclaves v. Whitley Heights Civic Assn., supra, 23 Cal.App.4th 812, 820, citing Constantine v. Ci-ty of Sunnyvale (1949) 91 Cal.App.2d 278, 282.) In this case, the MND openly and improperly claims that the street and alley are ''located entirely within the site." (MND, p. 9.) The statement is legally erroneous.

Just because the Project extends several blocks, it does not mean that the streets therein automatically become the property of the private Applicant and can be terminated for their private use.

Here, the public street and alley will become essentially a private development. The Real Party apparently needs the space in question to make the project more inviting to the public or to increase its buildable area and thereby maximize its profits. As part of maintaining the Project site, the owner will deploy cleaning crews, private security, and other services. Even if the Project site will be open to the general public, the public will be deprived of the street and alley use, since it will tum into a completely private use.

Apart from the public-private issue, the vacation procedure requires findings that a street "is no longer needed for vehicular traffic." (Zack's, Inc. v. Ci-ty of Sausalito (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1163, 1188 (Zack's).) In Zack's, a city leased portions of a public street to a private company to use for boat storage. When the city argued that certain statutes relating to reclaimed tidelands allowed the city to lease the land, the Court of Appeal held that "[i]t cannot reasonably be supposed that the Legislature intended that governments holding these streets can summarily close them to vehicular traffic, even if they are heavily trafficked major thoroughfares, but can close nearby nontideland streets, even those of marginal use, only on the basis of a resolution or ordinance made 1704485.1 Page 73

6-78
cont'd
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel or Nickelodeon Resort Hotel Project July 6, 2022

upon a formal finding that the street is no longer needed for vehicular traffic after a noticed hearing on the issue." [Citation.] (Id. at p. 1188.) In addition, the Streets and Highways Code includes specific provisions for the conversion of a street from vehicular use to a pedestrian mall. (See S&H Code § 11200.) A "pedestrian mall" is defined as "one or more 'city streets,' or portions thereof, on which vehicular traffic is or is to be restricted in whole or in part and which is or is to be used exclusively or primarily for pedestrian travel." (Id. § 11006.) While City in this case did not make such S&H Code findings, did not check the consistency of the General Plan with the proposed street and alley vacation, and did not provide the specific separate public notice as required under S&H Code, there is no substantial evidence that the City can find that the public street and alley are no longer necessary for vehicular traffic, especially now when the 3.72-acre Project site will be put to a more high intensity use, as compared to the baseline conditions of a vacant land.

In sum, the City violated S&H Code's substantive and procedural requirements and made no specific findings; further no such findings can be reasonably made or supported, in view of the mass, scale, and intensity of the Project.

III. THE PC AGENDA VIOLATES THE BROWN ACT.

As yet another violation of the law, the City's 7/7/2022 Planning Commission Agenda and Staff Report related to the Project at issue here violate the Brown Act. First, the Agenda itself mentions a separate Item D on the vacation of the street and alley (for purposes of the Project) and its conformity with the General Plan as merely a "Consideration" item; it does not mention about any approval or resolution to be taken by the Planning Commission.

I 5-79 I Yet, the Staff Report (at pdf p. 210) mentions a concummt action and finding on Agenda Item D (vacating of the street and alley), as follows:

Concurrently with the adoption of this Resolution, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 6045-2022 approving Site Plan No.

SP-107-2022 for the construction of the proposed hotel resort, and Resolution No. 6046-22 finding and reporting to City Council that Street Vacation No. SV-002-2022 for the vacation of Thackery Drive and a public alley is consistent with the City's General Plan. The facts and 1704485.1 Page 74

6-79
cont'd
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel or Nickelodeon Resort Hotel Project July 6, 2022

findings set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 6045-22 and 6046-22 are hereby incorporated into this Resolution by reference. (7/7/2022 PC Agenda and Staff Report, pdf p. 210, emph. added.) Brown Act provides that meeting agendas must contain a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting. (Govt. Code § 54954.2(a)). The Agenda's defined scope of "consideration" ofltem Dis not consistent with the "resolution" and findings that the Planning Commission should make, as noted in the Staff Report. In other words, the Agenda's description of the Item Dis misleading and, as such, amounts to no fair notice required by law. (San Diegans far Open Gov't v. City of Oceanside (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 637, 643. ["agenda drafters must give the public a fair chance to participate in matters of particular or general concern by providing the public with more than mere clues from which they must then guess or surmise the essential nature of the business to be considered by a local agency."])
Second, the Agenda's description of Item C.2 was also misleading and amounts to no notice. The Project at issue here was consistently described as "Site B-2" Project, including in the Notice oflntent to Adopt the MND, as well as in the MND itself.

Nowhere did the City reference the Project by the name of "Nickelodeon Resort Hotel." The City's 7/7/2022 PC Agenda Item C.2, however, does not reference "Site B-2 Hotel Project" at all and instead introduces a new name for the Project:
"Nickelodeon Hotel Resort" Project. The Agenda's changing of the Project's name by which it was initially introduced to the public in less than a month (MND and NOI circulated on June 9, 2022) and introducing a new name for the Project in the PC Agenda for the hearing where the MND and the Project will be approved fails to provide public with the fair notice as required by the Brown Act, to apprise them of the Project and allow them to participate in the discussion of it.

As such, the City violated the Brown Act and cannot take action unless it re-notices Items D and C.2, especially in view of their correlation and concurrent actions.

IV. THE PROJECT'S APPROVAL VIOLATES THE GENERAL PLAN

CONSISTENCY REQUIREMENT UNDER THE STATE
PLANNING AND ZONING LAWS AND DERIVATIVELY CEQA.

In view of the proposed vacation of street and alley and undisclosed inconsistencies of the Project proposed on single-family residential zoning, the Project is not consistent 1704485.1 Page 75

6-80
cont'd
I 6-81 I
City of Garden Grove - Site B-2 Hotel or Nickelodeon Resort Hotel Project July 6, 2022

with the goals and policies of the General Plan, violating the state planning and zoning law. In addition, in view of the MND's failure to disclose future alcohol sale and use at the Project site, its MND's discussion of the General Plan consistency and conformity is inadequate, especially since the Project is proposed on lots zoned for single family residential and is also adjacent to residential developments.

Derivatively, the MND's failure to disclose such GP inconsistency also violates CEQA.

V. CONCLUSION.

In view of the aforem entioned, we respectfully requ est you to deny the Project and its MND and to require full and adequate complianc e \vith all applicabl e laws, as detailed above.

If the City has any questions or concerns , pleas e feel fre e to contact my Office.

Sincerely,
Nairn Soghba tyan
Attorneys for Southwest Regional
Council of Carpenters
Attached:

Trial Court Ruling in Aids Healthcare Foundation v. Ciry ofus Angeles, Case N umber:
19STCP05445, April 5, 2021 (Exhibit A)
1704485.1 Page 76
Comment Letter 6: Mitchell M. Tsai Attorney for the SWRCC

Response to Comment 6-1
Comment acknowledged.

Response to Comment 6-2
Comment acknowledged.

Response to Comment 6-3
Comment acknowledged.

Response to Comment 6-4
Comment acknowledged.

Response to Comment 6-5
Comment acknowledged.

Response to Comment 6-6
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, will be forwarded to the decisionmakers, and no further response to this comment is required.

Response to Comment 6-7
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

1704485.1 Page 77
significance and 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 to 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 6-8
The comment cites and characterizes various provisions of state law which speak for themselves.

Response to Comment 6-9
The project site is located in a highl
y urbanized area with commercial uses along Harbor Boulevard and residential uses along Twintree Avenue, with little to no biological resources of value. In addition, the project site had been fully developed in the past with residential and commercial uses which were demolished between 2004 and 2013. Since then, the project site continued to be disturbed over time. The north/northeastern parcels of the project site are paved and are used for parking by the adjacent Sheraton Hotel, and the remaining parcels are comprised of dirt pads with limited vegetation (i.e., non-native grass and two ornamental trees on Twintree Avenue along the sidewalk near Harbor Boulevard) that are mostly vacant except for the southeastern parcels that are used for temporary construction storage. A records search was conducted of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) for sensitive plant, natural community, and wildlife species occurrence data. As stated in the Draft IS/MND, the California black rail is the only sensitive species (State Threatened) that came up through the records search that had the potential to be found on the project site. However, the project site does not provide suitable habitat for the California black rail which is a wetlands habitat. Additionally, the California black rail was last sighted in December 1986 in the City of Orange. On this basis, it is not reasonably foreseeable that there would be an occurrence of this species at the project site. Therefore, it was concluded that no sensitive plants or wildlife exist on the project site. This conclusion is also supported by the Garden Grove General Plan 2030 Conservation Element (p. 10-3) which states, biological resources in Garden Grove are almost non-existent due to the urban nature of the City and surrounding areas. A similar statement regarding biological resources is also stated in the General Plan Draft EIR (p. 4.2-1). Links to these referenced documents have been added to the Final IS/MND (refer to Section 3, Errata).

As stated in the Draft IS/MND, there is a potential for impacts to occur to raptors and other nesting birds prote
cted under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) that could nest within the two trees that will be removed. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 was included to protect biological resources and further confirms that the proposed project will have to comply with laws and regulations to protect biological resources.

The language in Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been acceptable to regulatory agencies and has been implemented by many lead agencies to protect raptors and other nesting birds. Pre-construction nesting bird surveys are standard practice. All mitigation measures in the Draft IS/MND will be part of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program which will be enforced by the City. It will be the City’s responsibility to monitor and verify that all mitigation measures are implemented properly and will be documented in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

Addi
tionally, city staff is familiar with the project site and its condition. City staff has not concluded that it is reasonably foreseeable that the project site has any biological resources other than those described above.

Based on the discussion above, the Draft IS/MND provides evidence that the project site does not have sensitive plant, natural community, and wildlife species and will not impact biological resources directly or through habitat modifications.

1704485.1 Page 78
Response to Comment 6-10
Comment acknowledged. Refer to response to comment 6-9.

Response to Comment 6-11
Comment acknowledged. Refer to response to comment 6-9.

Response to Comment 6-12
Comment acknowledged. Refer to response to comment 6-9.

Response to Comment 6-13
Refer to response to comment 6-9. Even though the California black rail is the only sensitive species (State Threatened) that came up through the records search (not a survey by CDFW) that had the potential to be found on the project site, it does not mean that it will be present at the project site. This records search is based on historical data and it covers a very large area (Anaheim topographic quadrangle map). The project site is located within the Anaheim topographic quadrangle map (approximately 90 square miles) but is not in close proximity to the sighting from December 1986. According the CNDDB, the exact location of the sighting is unknown but the California black rail possibly occupied the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek within the City of Orange. The reason for this is that the California black rail is known to occupy riparian/wetland habitats which the project site lacks. In addition, the CNDDB states that this sighting is likely not a representative of a breeding population but a migrating individual. Based on the discussion above and the fact that the project site does not have suitable habitat for the California black rail, the project site will not be the home to various special status species including the California black rail.

Response to Comment 6-14
Refer to response to comment 6-9 and 6-13
. The records search of the CNDDB did not identify any bats within the Anaheim topographic quadrangle map. There are a few scattered ornamental trees in the project vicinity but these tree canopies are relatively small and do not provide sufficient roosting habitat for bats. The closet record for bats (western mastiff bat) is in the Orange topographic quadrangle map which is several miles from the project site. This species occurs in many open, semi-arid to arid habitats, including conifer and deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub, annual and perennial grasslands, palm oases, chaparral, and desert scrub. These bats typical forage at great heights, approximately 195 feet above ground. They need this height to drop off to take flight. Therefore, due to the lack of sufficient roosting habitat, it is very unlikely that bats are present at the project site.

Resp
onse to Comment 6-15
Refer to response to comment 6-9, 6-13, 6-14, 6-15, and 6-16. The commenter is incorrect in stating that the Draft IS/MND provides ineffective, unenforceable, and illusory mitigation measures for the potential impacts on migratory fish. There are no impacts to migratory fish that would require mitigation measures. As stated in the Draft IS/MND, there are no rivers, creeks, or open drainages near the project site or vicinity. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with resident or migratory fish. The Draft IS/MND identified Mitigation Measure BIO-1 which minimizes potential impacts to raptors and other nesting birds protected under the MBTA. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires that a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within three days prior to the start of construction activities to determine whether active nests are present within or directly adjacent to the construction zone. Three days prior to construction is common practice and is acceptable by regulatory agencies to identify active nests and protecting nesting birds. It should be noted that birds typically take longer than three days to establish their nests so by conducting pre-construction surveys three days prior to construction, we would be able to detect active nests if they are present. In addition, by waiting no more than three days after a survey before the onset of construction, birds do not have enough time to establish a nest before the disturbance. All mitigation measures including BIO-1 in the Draft IS/MND will be part of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program which will be

1704485.1 Page 79
enforced by the City. It will be the City’s responsibility to monitor and verify that all mitigation measures are implemented properly and will be documented in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

Response to Comment 6-16
Refer to response to comment 6-9. The mitigation measure does not result in prohibited deferral. The City has committed to the mitigation. Nothing further is required. All mitigation measures including BIO-1 in the Draft IS/MND will be part of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program which will be enforced by the City. It will be the City’s responsibility to monitor and verify that all mitigation measures are implemented properly and will be documented in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

Response to Comment 6-17
Comment acknowledged. Refer to response to comment 6-9.

Response to Comment 6-18
The commenter inaccurately alleges that the analysis of energy impacts is flawed because the Draft IS/MND utilizes goals out of the City’s General Plan Conservation Element for measuring energy impacts and suggests that no substantial evidence has been provided to show how meeting these goals would reduce the proposed project’s energy impact.

First, it is important to note that neither the City of Garden Grove, the County of Orange, nor the State of California have formally established quantifiable thresholds of significance for measuring energy impacts. The CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F: Energy Conservation, recommends measuring impacts based on whether the project would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation or conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

It is appropriate to use the City’s General Plan Conservation Element as a metric to evaluate the proposed project’s energy impact, as it highlights energy conservation goals within the City—however, this is not the only metric used to evaluate project impacts. The Draft IS/MND also takes into consideration consistency with the State’s broader energy reduction goals, and the application of the proposed project’s energy reduction measures.

The Conservation Element goals require the reduction of non-renewable energy through energy efficiency and conservation measures and through the use of alternative energy sources. These goals directly align with CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F: Energy Conservation goals, which identify decreasing overall per capita energy consumption, decreasing reliance on fossil fuels, and increasing reliance on renewable energy as key metrics for measuring energy impacts.

The proposed project meets both the City’s and CEQA goals by providing numerous project design features (PDFs) and mitigation measures aimed at reducing energy usage and promoting alternative energy sources.

Examples of these PDFs and mitigation measures include:

Project Design Features
• Utilizing construction best practices, such as using the latest clean diesel engines (PDF-3) • Maintaining equipment in proper tune (PDF-4)
• Limiting excessive idling (PDF-5)
• Establishing electricity power supply to the site (PDF-8)

1704485.1 Page 80
• Complying with the latest California Title 24 Energy Efficiency Code, which would result in about 30 percent less energy usage 3, and compliance with C ALGreen, which requires on-site electric vehicle charging stations (PDF-11)
• Limiting idling time at loading docks (PDF-12 & 21)

Mitigation Measures
• Limiting the number of heavy-duty trucks visiting the site (GHG-1) • Providing on-site renewable energy sources, such as solar panels (GHG-2) • Implementing water conservation strategies (GHG-3)
• Implementing recycling and composting programs (GHG-4) • Utilizing electric landscaping equipment (GHG-5)
• Prohibiting natural gas fireplaces (GHG-6)
• Providing vehicle trip reduction measures to promote walking, bicycling and public transit (GHG-7)

Response to Comment 6-19
Refer to response to comment 6-18. The commenter wrongfully claims that the Draft IS/MND’s analysis of construction energy impacts is unsupported and is based on an unquantified, incoherent, and illogical conclusion. The Draft IS/MND identifies multiple PDFs that are known to reduce energy usage and promote alternative energy sources. Implementation of these measures will ensure the proposed project aligns with the City’s Conservation Element and CEQA guidelines for measuring energy impacts. As highlighted in response to comment 6-18 above, PDF-3, PDF-4, PDF5, and PDF-8 all contribute to reduce energy usage during construction.

Additionally, the Draft IS/MND notes that construction-related energy consumption would be minimal in comparison to the operational consumption once the hotel is occupied. Hence, through the implementation of these measures, it is concluded that the proposed project’s construction impact would be less than significant.

Furthermore, all PDFs will be conditions of approval of the proposed project and will be enforced by the City. In addition, all mitigation measures will be enforceable and will be part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The proposed project will provide electricity to the project site during construction, which will reduce reliance on non-renewable energy sources; however, the proposed project will still require the use of many different types of off-road construction equipment (i.e., tractors, excavators, cranes, etc.) that are not yet available with electric powertrain.

Response to Comment 6-20
Refer to response to comment 6-18 for discussion regarding the use of the City’s General Plan Conservation Element as a metric for assessing energy impacts. The commenter is incorrect in stating that the “reduction of GHG impacts is not the same as reduction of energy impacts”. In fact, reduction in GHG emissions is a direct result of reductions in energy usage, and these reductions have been quantified and reported in the proposed project’s Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Study
4 (refer to Appendix B of the Draft IS/MND). Among
other energy reduction measures, the proposed project is being required to install solar panels which will increase usage of renewable energy. Electricity not supplied by onsite solar will be supplied by Southern California Edison, which per the requirements of Senate Bill (SB) 100, has a 2045 goal of powering all retail

3 The California Energy Commission. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, Frequently Asked Questions. “How much energy with the 2019 standards save?” March 2018. Website: https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 03/Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ_ada.pdf
4 RK Engineering Group, Inc. Garden Grove Hotel Site B-2, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Study, City of Garden Grove. April 26, 2022. Appendix C & D.

1704485.1 Page 81
electricity sold in California with renewable and zero-carbon resources5, thus meeting the CEQA requirements for increased reliance on renewable energy sources.

Response to Comment 6-21
Comment acknowledged. The Draft IS/MND utilizes the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) to quantify, report and evaluate energy usage. In addition to building code compliance, the Draft IS/MND considers the project’s size, location, equipment usage, and renewable energy features in the assessment of energy impacts. Each of these factors are key input parameters within the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Study modeling analysis provided in Appendix B of the Draft IS/MND.

Response to Comment 6-22
Refer to response to comment 6-18. The Draft IS/MND follows the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F: Energy Conservation requirements for the evaluation of energy impacts. The Draft IS/MND discloses and quantifies the proposed project’s energy usage and supports the conclusions with facts that show the proposed project will reduce energy consumption, and promote renewable energy usage. Therefore, an EIR is not required. There is no evidence supporting a fair argument.

Response to Comment 6-23
The Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared in 2018 (Appendix E of the Draft IS/MND) was for a larger 9.55- acre site (including the 3.72-acre project site), a portion of which was inaccessible for geotechnical exploration which was the basis for indicating that additional site exploration would be required. However, the project site consists solely of vacant land which has been explored by eight (8) geotechnical borings: three (3) borings performed by Geocon West, Inc. and five (5) borings performed by Cal Land Engineering, Inc. It is the opinion of the signing engineer that the geotechnical site exploration performed for the project site was sufficient to support the findings of the Draft IS/MND that the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to geology and soils.

As such, the conclusion in the Draft IS/MND related to geology and soils are supported by the Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix E of the Draft IS/MND). The Geotechnical Investigation has identified site conditions that would need to be addressed through proper design. For example, the alluvial soils below the historic high groundwater level at the project site could be susceptible to settlement (ranging from 0.3 inches to 2.6 inches) and would be required to be addressed through implementation of the Geotechnical Investigation’s design recommendations provided in Section 8. Some of these design recommendations are related to the following:

• Soil and Excavation Characteristics
• Minimum Resistivity, pHm, Water-Soluble Sulfate
• Grading
• Foundation Design
• Conventional Foundation Design
• Mat Foundation Design-Tower Care
• Foundation Settlement
• Concrete Slabs-on-Grade
• Preliminary Pavement Recommendations
• Retaining Wall Design
• Dynamic (Seismic) Lateral Forces
• Elevator Pit Design

5 California Energy Commission. SB 100 Joint Agency Report. Website:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sb100#:~:text=Senate%20Bill%20100&text=Sets%20a%202045%20goal%20of,emit%20climate %2Daltering%20greenhouse%20gases. (Accessed July 2022).

1704485.1 Page 82
• Temporary Excavation
• Shoring – Soldier Pile Design and Installation
• Temporary Tie-Back Anchors
• Anchor Installation
• Anchor Testing
• Surface Drainage

With implementation of the design recommendations and compliance with the California Building Code seismic requirements, impacts related to geology and soils would be considered less than significant. It should be noted that prior to issuance of building permits, an updated geotechnical report with final design recommendations (based on the final project design) will be submitted to the City for review and approval. As standard practice, this updated geotechnical report will be a condition of approval and the final design recommendations will be enforceable. Based on the discussion above, the Draft IS/MND provides substantial evidence that the proposed project will not result in significant impacts related to geology and soils.

Response to Comment 6-24
Comment acknowledged. Refer to response to comment 6-23.

Response to Comment 6-25
The recommendation from the Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix E of the Draft IS/MND) regarding the upper 6 feet of existing soils to be excavated is associated with proper foundation and slab support. It is not related to expansive soils. The discussion that follows under item d) states that the upper 5 feet of existing soils encountered at the project site are considered to have a “very low” expansive potential and are classified as “non-expansive” per the California Building Code (Geocon, 2018). Therefore, it was concluded that the proposed project would not be located on expansive soil (No Impact).

Response to Comment 6-26
Comment acknowledged. Refer to response to comment 6-25.

Response to Comment 6-27
The project site has been evaluated based on a total of eight (8) borings: three (3) borings performed by Geocon West, Inc. and five (5) borings performed by Cal Land Engineering, Inc. (Appendix E of the Draft IS/MND). The depth of the borings ranged from 21 ½ to 75 ½ feet in depth. The licensed engineer and geologist responsible for preparation of the project geotechnical report have determined, based on their professional experience and judgement, that the number of borings and depths are sufficient to characterize the site for the proposed project. Therefore, the results of the borings support the findings of the Draft IS/MND that the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to geology and soils.

Response to Comment 6-28
The near-surface conditions in the eight (8) borings performed within the project site indicate predominately granular materials, typically described as silty sand. The recommendation is to excavate, stockpile, and reuse the upper 6 feet of existing non-expansive site soils for support of the on-grade components of the proposed structures. Finished grade testing can be performed following the completion of the site grading to confirm that the near-surface conditions remain non-expansive. Where subterranean, due to the depth of embedment, foundations would not be susceptible to the effects of expansive soils, if any.

Response to Comment 6-29
Comment acknowledged. For this reason, it is why an updated geotechnical report with final design recommendations (based on the final project design) will be submitted to the City for review and approval. It will need to be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits. As standard practice,

1704485.1 Page 83
this updated geotechnical report will be a condition of approval and the final design recommendations will be enforced to ensure site conditions are addressed and are consistent with applicable or appropriate standards.

Response to Comment 6-30
Comment acknowledged. For this reason, it is why an updated geotechnical report with final design recommendations (based on the final project design) will be submitted to the City for review and approval. It will need to be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits. As standard practice, this updated geotechnical report will be a condition of approval and the final design recommendations will be enforced to ensure site conditions are addressed and are consistent with applicable or appropriate standards.

Response to Comment 6-31
Comment acknowledged. Refer to response to comment 6-23 through 6-30.

Response to Comment 6-32
The Draft IS/MND provides an in-depth GHG technical analysis 6 that analyzes and discloses the proposed
project’s impact to GHG emissions. The Draft IS/MND does not underestimate emissions by assuming project design features (PDFs) will be incorporated into the proposed project. All PDFs are part of the proposed project’s conditions of approval and therefore, must be implemented. Thus, it is appropriate to include them as part of the proposed project. Furthermore, by mandating PDFs be implemented as part of the conditions of approval, the City will be able to enforce them through plan check and inspections. Lastly, since PDFs are part of the proposed project, and are not considered mitigation, it would not be appropriate to analyze the proposed project without the PDFs.

Response to Comment 6-33
As previously stated in response to comment 6-32, an in-depth analysis was performed that quantifies and discloses the GHG emissions and reductions achieved by the required mitigation measures. The GHG analysis utilizes the CalEEMod software and methodologies consistent with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) for quantifying GHG reduction measures.

Additionally, the comment stating that the Draft IS/MND does not provide a clear significance threshold is also not accurate. The GHG analysis utilizes the recommended thresholds of significance from the SCAQMD Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Thresholds, 2008. This is described on pages 5-2, 5-3 and Table 19 of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Study (refer to Appendix B of the Draft IS/MND). The SCAQMD significance thresholds have been established for purposes of CEQA compliance and to ensure project impacts to GHG are less than significant.

Response to Comment 6-34
The project site is 3.72 acres. The GHG analysis is based on the emissions from a 3.72-acre site. The Draft IS/MND adequately addresses activities associated with the hauling of export/fill. The analysis in the Draft IS/MND does take into account activities associated with all phases of the proposed project, construction (site preparation, hauling, export, etc.) and operations. These activities were included in the air quality/GHG emissions and traffic modeling (refer to Appendices B and I of the Draft IS/MND). Furthermore, the cumulative GHG impact of the proposed project is analyzed and disclosed as part of the proposed project’s overall GHG impact. CEQA Guidelines generally address GHG emissions as a cumulative impact due to the global nature of climate change (Public Resources Code, § 21083, subd. (b)(2)). As the California Supreme Court explained, “because of the global scale of climate change, any one project’s contribution is unlikely to be significant by itself.” (Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments [2017] 3 Cal.5th 497, 512.)

6 RK Engineering Group, Inc. Garden Grove Hotel Site B-2, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Study, City of Garden Grove. April 26, 2022.

1704485.1 Page 84
Also, refer to response to comment 6-68 for additional hauling discussion.

Response to Comment 6-35
The alleged comment that the Draft IS/MND understates project GHG impacts ignores the analysis in the Draft IS/MND and is not based on facts. The Draft IS/MND includes a comprehensive GHG technical study and utilizes statewide emissions modeling standards and methodology for the quantification and reporting of emissions. All PDFs will be enforced through the proposed project’s conditions of approval and all mitigation measures will be enforced through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The GHG reduction achieved through the required mitigation is substantial and is consistent with the significance thresholds established by SCAQMD.

Therefore, the conclusions related to GHG in the Draft IS/MND are supported by substantial evidence.

Response to Comment 6-36
In Section 4.3 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials) of the Draft IS/MND, although the first two questions were addressed together, the discussion fully addresses both questions and does not solely focus on the construction materials to be stored on site. For example, the type and quantity of hazardous materials anticipated to be transported, used, and disposed of during construction and operation are discussed in this section (e.g., limited quantities of non-acutely hazardous materials such as paints, solvents, cleaning agents, oils, grease, and fuel for construction equipment, and limited quantities of non-acutely hazardous materials such as paints, cleaning agents, and batteries, as well as small quantities of common household hazardous wastes during operation and maintenance activities). It is also noted that the proposed project would be required to comply with all federal, state, and local requirements related to the transport, storage, use, and disposal of such materials and thus would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of such materials. Furthermore, as discussed in this section, it is noted that 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.

In addition, based on a review of the prior uses at the project site, a comprehensive search of the project site and vicinity for underground storage tanks, leaks, or hazardous spills (discussed in greater detail in response to comment 6-37, below), and review of prior demolition activities’ compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1403 and California Health & Safety Code requirements (also discussed in greater detail in response to comment 6-37, below), the project site is not listed on a hazardous site and no hazardous materials or contaminants are expected to occur on the project site. However, per Condition of Approval No. 10 for the proposed project, a geotechnical study is required, which shall analyze sub-surface issues related to the past uses of the site; any soil or groundwater contamination discovered shall be remediated prior to the issuance of a building permit per the requirements of the Orange County Health Department and the mitigation requirements of governing regulatory requirements. Accordingly, construction and operation activities will not present a hazardous material risk.

Response to Comment 6-37
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

1704485.1 Page 85
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. In response to footnote 6 on page 15 of the comment letter, it should be noted that the active hazardous site at 13020 Chapman Avenue in Garden Grove noted by the commenter is more than a block away from the project site (it is over half a mile to the northwest of the project site) and would not present a hazardous condition to the project site nor would the proposed activities impact this hazardous site.

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)

Regarding the demolition of the buildings on project site that occurred between 2004 and 2013, the demolition activities were subject to the SCAQMD’s Rule 1403, which establishes survey requirements, notification, and work practice requirements to prevent asbestos emissions from emanating during building renovation and demolition activities. Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1403 for these demolition activities are documented on the building permits issued by the City, which are on file with the City’s Building Services Division. The demolition activities were also subject to the California Health & Safety Codes 6717 to 6717 for lead-related activities in construction work. As such, that the City is not required to assume that any asbestos and lead that were removed from the demolished buildings are still present in the soil on the project site. However, per Condition of Approval No. 10 for the proposed project, a geotechnical study is required, which shall analyze sub- surface issues related to the past uses of the site; any soil or groundwater contamination discovered shall be remediated prior to the issuance of a building permit per the requirements of the Orange County Health Department and the mitigation requirements of governing regulatory requirements. Thus, per Condition of Approval No. 10, the soil and groundwater will be analyzed for potential contamination and, if confirmed, would

1704485.1 Page 86
be remediated accordingly prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed project, thus ensuring construction and operation activities will not present a hazardous material risk.

Response to Comment 6-38
Comment acknowledged. Refer to responses to comments 6-36 and 6-37.

Response to Comment 6-39
As discussed in Appendix E, Geotechnical Investigation, of the Draft IS/MND, the scope of Geocon’s 2018 report was solely “the geotechnical aspects of proposed design and construction.” Thus, the note that an evaluation of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon was simply to acknowledge it was not part of the scope of this specific investigation. However, as noted above in response to comment 6-36 and 6-37, a geotechnical study that will analyze sub-surface issues related to the past issues of the project site, which would include an evaluation for the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials in the soil and groundwater, will be required for the proposed project as a condition of approval prior to the issuance of building permits.

Response to Comment 6-40
Comment acknowledged. Refer to responses to comments 6-36, 6-37, and 6-39. The comment does not provide substantial evidence supporting a fair argument.

Response to Comment 6-41
The Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (pWQMP) complies with the requirements of the local National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Program and with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Final WQMP may differ from the pWQMP as a result of final design which has not yet occurred. For the proposed project, the Final WQMP would be amended as appropriate to reflect up-to-date conditions on the project site consistent with the current Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan and the non-point source NPDES Permit for Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana region as applicable at that time.

Response to Comment 6-42
The Draft IS/MND does not solely focus on adjacent buildings’ drainage flow in the analysis. Specifically, the analysis presented in Section 4.3, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft IS/MND, as well as the Preliminary Hydrology Report and pWQMP (refer to Appendices F1 and F2 of the Draft IS/MND), address the existing on- and off-site drainage patterns at the project site (pre- and post-development). For example, as discussed in Section 4.3 and Appendices F1 and F2 of the Draft IS/MND, it is noted that the project site consists of 28 percent of impervious area; it also noted that the project site 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. There are no streams or rivers on the project site. Also, as discussed in Section 4.3 and Appendices F1 and F2 of the Draft IS/MND, it is noted that off-site existing drainage from the Sheraton Hotel property just north of the project site currently surface flows through a culvert onto Thackery Drive and ultimately leaves the project site flowing west onto Twintree Avenue.

Furthermore, as determined in Section 4.3 and Appendices F1 and F2 of the Draft IS/MND, while impervious surfaces would be increased to 68 percent with implementation of the proposed project, no alteration of a course or stream would occur and the post development drainage would be similar to the pre-development drainage (thus, the proposed project would maintain a similar drainage pattern compared to existing conditions). 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

1704485.1 Page 87
drainage pattern to leave the project site. Specifically, the proposed project would implement the Best Management Practices (BMPs) prescribed in the pWQMP which would ensure no substantial alteration of the existing drainage pattern at the project site occurs. For example, per the pWQMP, 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. In particular, 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 on-site. Retained flows would be treated and metered prior to direction to off-site storm drains and the public storm drain system. In addition, as part of the proposed project, the off-site drainage from the adjacent Sheraton Hotel 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. As such, the proposed project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would impede or redirect flood flows. The proposed project would also not substantially increase the rate, amount, or depth of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite.

Response to Comment 6-43
As described in response to comment 6-42 above, Section 4.3 and Appendices F1 and F2 of the Draft IS/MND, it is noted that off-site existing drainage from the Sheraton Hotel property just north of the project site currently surface flows through a culvert onto Thackery Drive and ultimately leaves the project site flowing west onto Twintree Avenue. With the vacation of Thackery Drive under the proposed project, the off-site drainage from the adjacent Sheraton Hotel would be routed to the new drive aisle along the west property line; however, from the new drive aisle, it would continue to leave the site flowing west onto Twintree Avenue to match the existing condition. While the post development drainage pattern would not be the same as the existing drainage pattern, it would be similar and this would not be a substantial alteration. As determined in Section 4.3 of the Draft IS/MND, the proposed project would not result in a substantial alteration of 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: result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; substantially increase the rate, amount, or depth of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; 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; or, impede or redirect flood flows.

Response to Comment 6-44
Comment acknowledged. Refer to response to comment 6-42 and 6-43.

Response to Comment 6-45
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1)(A), the “the discussion of mitigation measures shall distinguish between the measures which are proposed by project proponents to be included in the project and other measures proposed by the lead, responsible or trustee agency or other persons which are not included but the lead agency determines could reasonably be expected to reduce adverse impacts if required as conditions of approving the project.” The proposed project is required to implement the measures of the WQMP (pWQMP and final WQMP) as well as the (SWPPP) per regulatory requirements and conditions of approval for the proposed project. Hence, the BMPs identified to be implemented are not deferred mitigation but rather are binding and enforceable requirements pursuant to regulatory requirements (e.g., requirements of NPDES Permit for Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and incorporated cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region; Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan [DAMP] requirements, City of Garden Grove Municipal Code Section 6.40.050, and project conditions of approval nos. 10 and 29, etc.). The WQMP is a binding document that is tied to the property; if there is a change in land ownership, the new owner will bear the responsibility to continue implementing the WQMP per City

1704485.1 Page 88
requirements, as discussed in the pWQMP in Appendix F2 of the Draft IS/MND. Also refer to response to comment 6-41.

Response to Comment 6-46
Comment acknowledged. Refer to response to comment 6-41 through 6-43, and 6-45.

Additionally, the purpose of the BMPs is to treat the increased runoff from the project site and to ensure that the post development flows exiting the project site do not exceed the pre-development flows exiting the project site. The final WQMP and drainage study will be reviewed and approved by the authority having jurisdiction during the design plan check process to ensure all of these requirements are equally met.

Response to Comment 6-47
Comment acknowledged. Refer to response to comment 6-42 and 6-43.

Response to Comment 6-48
The commenter states that the vacation of a street and alley that traverse the project site is inconsistent with the General Plan’s “transportation element”, will divide an established community, which currently uses the street and alley to be vacated, and will have a significant effect on traffic and circulation. There is no “transportation element” in the General Plan, and the street proposed to be vacated, Thackery Drive, is not mentioned in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Under the City’s Circulation Element, local residential streets such as Thackery Drive serve adjacent land uses only, allowing access to residential driveways and providing on-street parking for neighborhoods. 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 that encompasses the project site. Thackery Drive and the public alley are not needed to support the circulation needs of the abutting properties, and 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. As such, the vacation of Thackery Drive and the public alley would not divide the established community or impact existing traffic or circulation. The proposed project would have public street access from Harbor Boulevard and Twintree Avenue.

Response to Comment 6-49
Both pages 3 and 65 of the Draft IS/MND state that R-1-7 is Single-Family Residential Zone. The entire project site has a General Plan land use designation of International West Mixed Use (IW). 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. To facilitate the proposed hotel resort, the proposed project includes zone change of the project site from Planned Unit Development (PUD-141-01) and Single-Family Residential Zone (R-1-7) to a sub-area PUD, PUD-141-01(A).

Response to Comment 6-50
To facilitate the proposed hotel resort, the proposed project includes zone change of the project site from PUD- 141-01 and R-1-7 to a sub-area PUD, PUD-141-01(A). This proposed PUD amendment would place the entire project site parcels into a PUD sub-area with specific development standards established to facilitate the development of the proposed hotel resort that will regulate the number of hotel rooms, building height, building setbacks, landscaping, permitted uses, required parking, site circulation and access, signage, utilities, storage and refuse collection.

1704485.1 Page 89
Response to Comment 6-51
The proposed zone change from PUD-141-01 and R-1-7 to a sub-area PUD, PUD-141-01(A) are mentioned throughout the Draft IS/MND: Section 3.4, Discretionary Actions and Approvals (Draft IS/MND, p. 14); Section I.

Aesthetics c) (Draft IS/MND, p. 20); and Section XI. Land Use and Planning a) and b) (Draft IS/MND, pp. 62-63).

Response to Comment 6-52
The current zoning of the project site is outdated, is partially inconsistent with the General Plan, and would not accommodate the proposed project. The City has not adopted new generally applicable zoning and development standards to implement the IW designation, and the General Plan contemplates and provides for the establishment of such standards through the PUD process. To facilitate the development of the proposed project, and to continue to further the goals of the City’s General Plan to expand and enhance the City’s resort area, establishment of a sub-area PUD, PUD-141-01(A), on the project site is necessary. This PUD sub-area will establish specific development standards to the project site that will regulate the number of hotel rooms, building height, building setbacks, landscaping, permitted uses, required parking, site circulation and access, and signage.

The project site is located in the City’s Grove District Anaheim Resort, which is designated as a resort destination that encourages hotels, restaurants, and entertainment uses. The resort area is developed with existing hotels, restaurants, and retail uses. As such, the proposed project would be compatible with the existing hotel developments in the area, and would expand and enhance the hospitality services currently available in the resort district.

The project site directly abuts the Sheraton Hotel to the north, and residential uses to the northwest and west.

The proposed project would incorporate specific mitigation measures and PDFs to minimize impacts to the adjacent residential uses from noise generated from the hotel, including from the parking structure and the pool deck. Implementation of the mitigation measures and PDFs would ensure that the adjacent residential uses are adequately screened and buffered from the proposed hotel site.

The Draft IS/MND analyzes the potential impacts of the proposed project as a whole. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan Land Use Element, the Community Design Element, and the Economic Development Element, including:

• Policy LU-1.4 to encourage a wide variety of retail and commercial uses, such as restaurant and cultural arts/entertainment, in appropriate locations and Policy LU-6.2 to encourage a mix of retail and commercial services along major corridors and in centers to meet the community needs. • Policy LU-1.5 to encourage active and inviting pedestrian-friendly street environments that include a variety of uses within commercial and mixed-use areas.
• Goal LU-4 that seeks to develop uses that are compatible with one another and Policy LU 4.5 that requires that commercial developments adjoining residential uses be adequately screened and buffered from residential areas.
• Goal LU-9 Creation of tourism and entertainment-related destination area that will benefit all residents, businesses, and visitors and Policy LU-9.6 Locate tourist or entertainment related uses with adequate access to freeway or major arterials to encourage both local and regional patronage. • Policy CD-7.1 Encourage future development and redevelopment projects to reinforce district scale, identity, and urban form.
• Policy ED-1.1 Continue to encourage the development and expansion of hotel facilities in key corridors of the City (i.e., Harbor Boulevard).

1704485.1 Page 90
Response to Comment 6-53
Based on the response to comment 6-49 through 6-52, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to land use. The comment does not provide substantial evidence supporting a fair argument.

Response to Comment 6-54
The Draft IS/MND does not assume that simply because the proposed project will comply with the noise regulations that it is exempt from any additional construction restrictions. The Draft IS/MND includes an in- depth technical Noise Study7 that not only analyzes the proposed project’s compliance with the City of Garden Grove Municipal Code requirements, but also utilizes thresholds of significance established by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for assessing construction noise impacts 8 (refer to Appendix H of the Draft
IS/MND). The Noise Study includes detailed noise modeling, utilizing the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), to demonstrate noise level impacts during construction (see Appendix D of the Noise Study). The Draft IS/MND finds that a less than significant impact would occur with mitigation measures incorporated. The commenter has not provided any facts to dispute the findings of technical study.

Response to Comment 6-55
The Draft IS/MND shows that construction noise levels may exceed 80 dBA and would require mitigation (including masonry block walls and temporary construction noise barriers) to reduce impacts to a level of insignificance. However, the commenter is incorrect in stating that the Draft IS/MND does not identify the proximity to sensitive receptors. Section 4.3 (Air Quality) of the Draft IS/MND (pp. 28-30) and the Noise Study identifies the proximity of all surrounding sensitive receptors (pp. 1-1 and 1-2) (refer to Appendix H of the Draft IS/MND). Furthermore, the Noise Study analyzes noise impacts at the surrounding communities and discloses the results in Table 17 of the Noise Study (Appendix H of the Draft IS/MND). The commenter then suggests that moveable barriers would be more effective based on an obscure excerpt from an unrelated project. However, for the proposed project, the combination of the permanent block walls and the temporary noise barriers effectively enclose the project site from all surrounding noise sensitive receptors. The permanent block wall will shield sensitive receptors to the west of the project site, and the temporary barriers, which will be installed in fixed locations along the north, south and east property lines of the project site throughout the duration of construction, will shield sensitive receptors located to the north and south of the project site. Hence, additional moveable barriers would not be necessary, as all receptors will be shielded throughout the entirety of construction with the installation of the block walls and temporary noise barriers regardless of where onsite equipment and activity is located.

Response to Comment 6-56
The commenter suggests that the proposed noise barrier shielding would not be effective against construction activity occurring above ground level during the construction of the building. It is acknowledged that as the height of noise increases, the effectiveness of ground level noise barriers decreases. However, the noise impact analysis shows that the worst-case construction noise generating activities would occur at ground level. This would include the operation of heavy equipment such as graders, excavators, tractors, cranes, etc. It is from these noise sources that the noise impact has been identified, and which the barrier walls will mitigate.

Equipment that may operate above ground level, such as welders, are shown to be below the threshold of significance and would not need mitigation. As shown in Table 17 of the Noise Study, a welder would generate up to 64.0 dBA at 100 feet (unmitigated), which is significantly below the 80 dBA threshold of significance established by the FTA (Appendix H of the Draft IS/MND).

Response to Comment 6-57
The commenter is incorrect in stating that the Draft IS/MND does not show the amount of noise reduction achieved by the barrier shielding during construction. Section 4.3 (Noise) of the Draft IS/MND (p. 70) and Table

7 RK Engineering Group, Inc. Garden Grove Hotel Site B-2 Noise Impact Study. May 16, 2022. 8 Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September 2018.

1704485.1 Page 91
17 of Noise Study (Appendix H of the Draft IS/MND) show that the required noise barrier shielding will reduce worst case noise levels to 75.9 dBA, which is below the significance threshold. The FHWA noise barrier reduction calculations are shown in Appendix D of the Noise Study (Appendix H of the Draft IS/MND).

Response to Comment 6-58
The commenter arbitrarily states that the 80 dBA 8-hour threshold of significance is very high, and questions whether it is applicable on days when construction were to occur longer than 8-hours but does not provide facts to support these claims. The Draft IS/MND utilizes significance thresholds established by the FTA, which recommends a criterion for noise assessment to help prevent adverse community reaction. 9 The FTA threshold is widely cited as an industry standard and commonly used for CEQA analysis purposes. The 80 dB/8-hour threshold is a time-weighted average of the worst-case 8 hours of construction noise per day. Construction may occur longer than 8 hours a day, but it is limited to an 80 dBA equivalent noise level for 8 consecutive hours.

Hence, the community would be protected against noise impacts throughout the entirety of the day while construction activities would occur.

Response to Comment 6-59
The commenter suggests that the City of Garden Grove has set high thresholds for operational noise impacts but does not provide any support to this claim. The noise limits set in the City’s Municipal Code have been established to protect public health and prohibit nuisances from any loud, unnecessary, or unusual noise that disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood, or that causes discomfort or annoyance to any person of normal sensitiveness. The City’s Municipal Code noise standards are based on well-established thresholds from the County of Orange Noise Control Ordinance and have been widely adopted by other local agencies in the area. Additionally, the 3 dBA change threshold is also a widely cited threshold of significance under CEQA and is considered an industry standard. It is based on the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance which found that a change in noise level of 3 dBA is considered barely perceptible.

Response to Comment 6-60
The commenter is incorrect in stating that the Draft IS/MND erroneously assumes that unless the project doubles the amount of traffic it will not cause more than a 3 dBA noise increase. The scientific explanation for this phenomenon is described in Sections 2.4 and 2.5 of the Noise Study (Appendix H of the Draft IS/MND) and referenced from the Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013. Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, and it takes a doubling of sound energy to produce a 3 dB increase. Hence, doubling of traffic volume along a roadway segment would equate to a doubling of sound energy and result in an approximate 3 dBA change in noise.

Response to Comment 6-61
The commenter appears to be confusing two separate issues here. The Draft IS/MND and Noise Study discuss both the proposed project’s impact to the surrounding community and impacts from the built environment to the proposed project. The City’s noise/land use compatibility guidelines and the future baseline noise environment are discussed within the context of evaluating whether the proposed project’s building structure will meet the required interior noise standards. To the extent the latter analysis involves the environment’s impact on the proposed project, which is not a CEQA issue, the analysis is provided for informational purposes.

Response to Comment 6-62
Please refer to response to comment 6-54 through 6-61 for detailed explanations.

9 Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September 2018. Page 179, “Assess Construction Noise Impact”.

1704485.1 Page 92
Response to Comment 6-63
The commenter inaccurately alleges that the analysis of transportation impacts is flawed because it does not address the issue of vacating a public street and alley. The analysis of transportation impacts has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the City of Garden Grove Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment, May 2020 (Guidelines)

10. The Guidelines do not require the analysis of
public right of way vacation as part of the determination of transportation impacts under CEQA. However, for informational purposes, Thackery Drive was a local road, not listed on the City’s Master Plan of Streets and Highways. In the baseline condition, it is fenced off and not open to the public. Hence, its vacation would not impact the City’s broader street network or circulation policy.

Response to Comment 6-64
The Draft IS/MND follows the City’s Guidelines8 for the evaluation of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The proposed project is shown to result in a less than significant impact to VMT due to its location along a high-quality transit corridor. A ‘high-quality transit corridor’ means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1) state that projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Harbor Boulevard qualifies as a high-quality transit corridor and the proposed project is located within ½ mile of a bus stop with 15-minute headways or less. Hence, the finding of a less than significant impact has been based on substantial evidence.

Furthermore, the commenter provides no evidence to show how the use of Uber, Lyft and other means of transportation would double the number of trips to/from the project site. The Traffic Impact Study (Appendix I of the Draft IS/MND) estimated trip generation for the proposed project by utilizing the latest edition of the industry-wide standard Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. Trip generation rates from ITE are established based on nationwide surveys and empirical data of vehicle trips generated by various land uses, including Hotels. The ITE trip generation rates include trips from Uber, Lyft and other ride sharing services as part of the rate. Hence, the use of these services is accounted for in the Draft IS/MND and the commenter is incorrect to suggest that they would double the number of traffic traveling to/from the project site.

Response to Comment 6-65
The commenter inaccurately claims that the proposed project will result in impacts related to increased traffic congestion and reduced emergency access. An in-depth Traffic Impact Study 11 was prepared that analyzed
project access, circulation and area-wide traffic congestion (refer to Appendix I of the Draft IS/MND). The findings of the analysis show that all project related traffic congestion will be addressed through various intersection improvements, including the installation of a new traffic signal at the main project access on Harbor Boulevard (shared access with Sheraton Hotel). The Traffic Study shows that this intersection will operate at an acceptable level of service with the new signal and provide adequate access for both the proposed project and the existing Sheraton Hotel. As stated previously, congestion is no longer a CEQA issue.

Additionally, as part of the conditions of approval of the proposed project, the site plan will be reviewed and approved by the Garden Grove Fire Department to ensure adequate emergency access is provided and all drive aisle and driveway standards are met, prior to obtaining building permits.

Response to Comment 6-66
All mitigation measures in the Draft IS/MND will be part of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program which will be enforced by the City. It will be the City’s responsibility to monitor and verify that all mitigation measures

10 City of Garden Grove. City of Garden Grove Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment, May 2020 (Guidelines).
11 RK Engineering Group, Inc. Site “B-2” Hotel Traffic Impact Study, City of Garden Grove, CA. July 1, 2022.

1704485.1 Page 93
are implemented properly and will be documented in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Please see prior responses regarding sufficiency of the project’s mitigation measures.

Response to Comment 6-67
The Notice of Intent (NOI) for th e Draft IS/MND review period was sent to the Superintendent of the Garden Grove Unified School District. Along with the NOI, the Superintendent also received a USB containing the Draft IS/MND. It should be noted that the three schools identified within the 0.25 miles of the project site are part of the Garden Grove Unified School District. The City has not received any comments or concerns regarding the proposed project from the Garden Grove Unified School District.

Resp
onse to Comment 6-68
Refer to response to comment 6-37.

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.

Though congestion is no longer a CEQA issue, as concluded in the Traffic Impact Study, the proposed project’s short-term construction traffic is forecast to not adversely affect the level of service of the study intersections (20 intersections).

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/GHG emissions and traffic modeling, refer to Appendices B and I of the Draft IS/MND.

Response to Comment 6-69
Refer to response to comment 6-67.

Response to Comment 6-70
Comment acknowledged. 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.

Also, refer to response to comment 6-67.

Response to Comment 6-71
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).

1704485.1 Page 94

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 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 handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of a school.

Response to Comment 6-72
Comment acknowledged. Refer to response to comment 6-68 through 6-71.

Response to Comment 6-73
Comment acknowledged. Refer to response to comment 6-74 and 6-75.

Response to Comment 6-74
The commenter is incorrect in stating that the Draft IS/MND is silent regarding the amount of export/import fill and number of trucks associated with this activity. 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). 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 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 is forecast to 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.

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 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).

Response to Comment 6-75
Refer to response to comment 6-74. The Draft IS/MND analyzed activities associated with the hauling of export/fill. The analysis in the Draft IS/MND takes into account activities associated with all phases of the proposed project, construction (site preparation, hauling, export, etc.) and operations. These activities were included in the air quality/GHG emissions and traffic modeling, refer to Appendices B and I of the Draft IS/MND.

Therefore, the commenter is incorrect and the Draft IS/MND does not violate CEQA’s piecemealing requirement.

The comment does not provide substantial evidence supporting a fair argument.

1704485.1 Page 95
Response to Comment 6-76
Comment acknowledged. Refer to response to comment 6-67 and 6-75.

Response to Comment 6-77
The Draft IS/MND appropriately addresses the environmental parameters under CEQA and the analysis concludes that all potential impacts would be considered less than significant. Significant impacts that were identified have been reduced to a less than significant level with the incorporation of mitigation measures.

There is no omitted analysis that would trigger the need for recirculation of the Draft IS/MND or the need to prepare an EIR as the commenter suggests. It should be noted that an Errata to the Draft IS/MND will be prepared to clarify some of the Draft IS/MND content but none of the revisions would trigger recirculation.

Therefore, the analysis and conclusions in the Draft IS/MND are adequate and would not require the recirculation.

Response to Comment 6-78
Comment acknowledged. The commenter states that the City is attempting to vacate two streets all in one action/hearing of approving the proposed project and without following the procedures of the Streets and Highways Code. The commenter is mistaken. The City intends to follow all legal and procedural requirements for the proposed street vacation, and the land use approvals for the proposed project are proposed to be contingent upon approval of said street vacation. A General Plan amendment is not needed or proposed. The Planning Commission’s action of July 7, 2022, regarding the street vacation was to report to the City Council on conformance of the proposed vacation with the General Plan pursuant to Government Code Section 65402, not to consider or act on the street vacation itself. The City Council will separately consider and act on the street vacation proposal in accordance with applicable state law. The remainder of the 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 6-79
Comment acknowledged. The commenter alleges that the agenda descriptions for the July 7, 2022 Planning Commission meeting did not satisfy the Brown Act. The City disagrees. Regardless, 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 6-80
Comment acknowledged. Refer to response to comment 6-48 for street vacancy discussion and response to comment 6-52 for GP consistency discussion. The sale of alcohol is not inconsistent with the General Plan and is not a topic under CEQA that would need to be addressed in the Draft IS/MND.

Response to Comment 6-81
Comment acknowledged. Refer to response to comment 6-1 through 6-80.

Exhibit A
The commenter includes a Trial Court Ruling in Aids Healthcare Foundation v. City of Los Angeles, Case Number 19STCP05445, April 5, 2021, as an attachment to their comment letter. This comment is noted for the record and no further response to this comment is required. Exhibit A is included as Attachment B of this Final IS/MND.

1704485.1 Page 96
Page intentionally left blank

1704485.1 Page 97

GKLAW
LAND USE, ENv1RONMENTAL & MUNICIPAL LA WYERS
July 7, 2022
VIA EMAIL:

Planning Commission ([email protected])
Maria Parra, Senior Planner ([email protected] )
City of Garden Grove
Comment Letter 7
Jordan R. Sisson
801 South Graud A venue, 11th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017
Direct: (95 1) 542-2735
Fax: (213) 623-7755
E-mail : jordan @gideonlaw.net
www. gideonlaw.n et
RE: Item C.2, Planning Commission Hearing Scheduled July 7, 2022; Nickelodeon Hotel Project (12241 Harbor Blvd., Garden Grove, CA 92840); Project Approvals PUD-141-01, SP-107-2022 & IS/MND (SCH No. 2022060174) Dear Planning Commission and Ms. Parra:

On behalf ofUNITE HERE Local 11 ("Local 11"), this office respectfull y provides the following comments 1 to the City of Garden Grove ("City") with regard to the above-referenced item2 involving the 500-ro om, 23-story hotel with 600-seat Nick Studio theater ("Project ") on a 3.72-acre site locat ed at the northw est corner of Harbor Boulevard and Twintre e Avenue ("Site") proposed by Kam Sang Company ("Applicant"). Pursuant to the Gardena Municipal Code ("GMC" or "Code"), Applicant seeks a variety of land use approvals (e.g., Zone Change to Planned Unit Development No.

PUD-141-0l(A) , Site Plan No. SP-107-2022, alcohol Conditional Use Permit , Development Agreement, etc.) ( collectively "Entitlements"). Additionally, for the purpose of review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA''),3 the City is considering the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated approvals ("MND").4, 5 The MND fails to adequately analyze the Project's impa ct on greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions and vehicle miles traveled ("VMT") and, thus, fails to incorporat e sufficient mitigation.

Failure to do so infects not only the City's CEQA findings but also the Code-requir ed findings necessary to grant the Entitlements. There is a fair argument of CEQA impacts. This Project is expected to gene rate over 3 million annual VMTs, which is far too big for a MND. An Enviro nmental Impact Report (''EIR") should be prepared . Until the issues discussed herein are resolved, Local 11 respectfully urg es the City to stay action on the Entitlements and MND ( collectively "Project Approvals").

I I I
1 Herein, page citations are either the stated pagination (i.e., "p. #") or PDF-page location (i.e., "PDF p. # "). 2 City (7 /7 /22) Plannin g Commis sion Staff Report ("Staff Report") , PDF p. 72 (start of Item C.2), http s://ggcity.org/s ites/de fault/fil es/co mmi ssions /plannin g-commiss ion/ a07072022 .PDF. 3 Includin g "CEQA Guidelines" codified at 14 Cal. Code. Regs. § 15000 et seq . 4 City Qun. 2 02 2) Draft Initial Study /MND Site B-2, https: / /ggc ity.or g/si tes/ default/files/ 2 022-06/Slte % 20B2%20 Hotel %2 0Project %20Draft%20 lnitial %2 0Stud y_Mitigated%20 Negative%20Declara tion. pdf. 5 Inclusive of all appendi ces ( collective ly "APP" or individually "APP-##") complied in the 1,364 -page documen t available online. (See City Oun. 2022 ] Technical Append ices [APP-A throu gh APP-)], http s:/ / ggcity .org/ sites/ default/files/2 0 2 2-06/Site%2 OB 2 %20 Hate!% 2 0Project % 2 0Technical % 2 0Studi es.p df. 1704485.1 Page 98

Item C.2 RE: Nickelodeon Hotel Project
July 7, 2022

[BJ
[BJ
I. STANDING
Local 11 represents more than 25,000 workers employed in hotels, restaurants, airports, sports arenas, and convention centers throughout Southern California and Phoenix-including roughly 400 members who live and/or work in the City. The union has a First Amendment light to petition public officials in connection with matters of public concern, including compliance with applicable zoning rules and CEQA, just as developers, other community organizations, and individual residents do. Protecting its members' interest in the environment, including advocating for the environmental sustainability of development projects and ensuring the availability of housing and hotels (in compliance with state and local rules), is part of Local ll's core function.

Recognizing unions' interest and union members' interest in these issues, California courts have consistently upheld unions' standing to litigate land use and environmental claims. (See Bakersfield Citizens v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1198.) Furthermore, Local 11 has public interest standing to challenge the Project Approvals given the City's public duty to comply with applicable zoning and CEQA laws, which Local 11 seeks to enforce. (See e.g., Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 899, 914-916, n6; la Mirada Avenue Neighborhood Assn. of Hollywood v. City of Los Angeles (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1149, 1158-1159; Weiss v. City of Los Angeles (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 194, 205-206; Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach (2011) 52 Cal.4th 155,166, 169-170.) II. SPECIFIC DEFICIENCIES WITH CEQA AND MANDATORY PROJECT FINDINGS For background, CEQA has two primary purposes; to inform decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project and reduce environmental damage by requirtng implementation of environmentally superior alternatives and all feasible mitigation measures. (See CEQA Guidelines§ 15002(a).) Because a more comprehensive EIR was not prepared, the Project is subject to the less deferential 'fair argument' standard, which requires a lead agency to prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. (See e.g., Pub. Res. Code §§ 21100, 21151; laurel Heights ImprovementAss'n v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75.) A project "may" have a significant effect on the environment if there is a "reasonable probability" that it will result in a significant impact. (No Oil, Inc., supra, 13 Cal.3d at 83 n. 16.) This is a '1ow threshold" requiring the preparation of an EIR and preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review, even if the overall effect of the project is beneficial. (Meiia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322,332; see also CEQA Guidelines§ 15063(b)(l).) "[T]he existence of contrary evidence does not excuse a lead agency from its duty to prepare an EIR." (Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 931; see also Friends of"B" Streetv. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1002; Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1318 ["decision not to require an EIR can be upheld only when there is no credible evidence to the contrary."].) Hence, an MND may be used only where there is "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 impact on the environment." (Pub. Res. Code§ 21064.5 ( emphasis added); see also CEQA Guidelines§§ 15070(b), 15369.5.) Substantial evidence includes facts, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact; not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, clearly inaccurate or erroneous evidence, or evidence of social or economic impacts that do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment. (See e.g., Pub. Res. Code§§ 21080( e ), 1704485.1 Page 99

Item C.2 RE: Nickelodeon Hotel Project
July 7, 2022
Page3of11
~
21082.2 ( c); CEQA Guidelines§§ 1506 4(f)(S), 15384.) Courts will not blindly trust bare conclusions, bald assertions, and conclusory comments without the "disclosure of the 'analytic route the ... agency traveled from evidence to action."' (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376,404 405 [quoting Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515].) Here, as discuss ed below, ther e is substantial evidence of a fair argum ent that the Project's GHG and VMT impacts are signficant-thus requiring the City to prepar e an EIR.

A. MND's GH G ANALYSIS Is FUNDAMENTALLY FLA WED AND THERE Is AF AIR ARGUMENT OF

SIGNIFICANT GHG IMPACTS
The California Supreme Court demands a robust GHG analysis to assess a project's impact on climate change. Lead agencies must provide "the contours of their logical argument," leaving no "analytical gaps" in their analysis, and supporting determinations "through substantial evidence and reason ed explanation." (Center for Biological Diversity v. Cal. Dept. of Fish and Wildlif e ("Newhall Ranch') (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 227; see also Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments ("Cleveland JI') (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497, 504, 519 [analysis must be "based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data ... stay[ing] in step with evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes." (Quoting CEQA Guidelines§ 15064(b)] .) Here, the MND claims the Project has no GHG impact s because it would comply with the multi-tiered GHG threshold proposed by South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD'} In short, while acknowledging the Project 's mitigated GHG impact is 3,316 MTCO2e/yr ( exceeding SCAQMD's Tier 3 threshold of3,000 MTCO2e/yr), the MND claims it is 42 percent less than the Project's unmitigated GHG impact of 5,756 MTC02e/yr (purport ed below SCAQMD's Tier 4 threshold of 30 percent below busin ess as usual ["BAU'1 comparison). (MND, p. 49; APP, PDF p. 75 [APP-B, pp. 7-2 - 7-3].) However, this BAU compar ison is fatally flawed and improp er. There is a fair argum ent of significant GHG impacts.
1, MND Applies Incorrect Tier-3 Threshold
Here, MND applies SCAQMD's Tier-3 threshold for mixed-use projects (i.e., 3,000 MTCO2e/yr). (MND, p. 49; APP, PDF p. 63.) However, the Project contains zero housing and proposes only commercial uses. Consistent with SCAQMD's multi-tier recommendations, 6 the MND should have used the 1,400 MTCO2e/yr for commercial projects, just like the City has done for similar hotel projects.7
I I I
6 See SCAQMD (Oct. 2008) Draft Guidance Documen t - Inter im CEQA GHG Significance Threshold, pp. 3-10 - 3-16, http ://www .aqmd.gov/ docs/ default-sourc e/ce qa/handbook / greenhou se-gases-(ghg)-ceqa­ significance-thresholds/ghgattac hmente.pdf; see also SCAQMD (12/5/ 08) Board Letter, p. 5, http://www. aqmd. gov / docs/ default-source / ceqa/handboo k/ gree nhous e-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds / ghgboardsynopsis .pdf?sfvrsn= 2; SCAQMD (9/28/ 10) Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Thresho ld Stakeholder Working Group # 1 5, http://www .aqmd.gov/ docs/ default-sourc e/ ceqa/handbook / greenhous e­ gases-( ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds /yea r-2008- 2 009 / ghg-meeting-15 / ghg-meeting-15-minut es.pelf. 7 See e.g., City (10/24/18 ) Hilton Hote l Project MND, p. 42, lmps: //ggcity.or g/s ites/ default/ files/2 018 - 12/BNGrouplnitialStudy_0.pdf.
1704485.1 Page 100

Item C.2 RE: Nickelodeon Hotel Project
July 7, 2022
Page4of11
CIT]

2. MND Relies on Outdated Tier-4 BAU Methodology
Here, as previously mentioned, the MND applies the 30 percent reduction below BAU comparison for SCAQMD's Tier-4 (i.e., Option 1). In 2008, the BAU methodology was one of the three options proposed by SCAQMD for Tier-4 compliance, based on the then-prevailing wisdom of applying the statewide GHG emission reduction percentage (i.e., 30 percent) as a proiect-level threshold. 8 However, this perfunctory application of the statewide reduction goal as a project-level threshold has been rejected by the California Supreme Court. (See Newhall Ranch, supra at 225.) Like the Newall Ranch EIR, the MND here assumes that the level of effort required at the state­ level-30 percent reduction under AB 32 (i.e., 1990 emission levels by 2020) and 40 percent redu ction under SB 32 (i.e., 40 percent below 1990 emission levels by 2030)-correlates to the level of effort required for this specific Project at this specific Site. (MND, pp. 51; APP, PDF p. 75.) Critically missing from the MND is any reasoned explanation justifying any "quantitati ve equivalence" between the statewide context and the Project-level context. [Newhall Ranch, supra at p. 227.) This reasoning violates Newhall Ranch and CEQA.

3. Project Exceeds SCAQMD Tier-4 Performance Standards
Inst ead of the perfunctory BAU methodology, the appropriat e performance standard under SCAQMD's Tier-4 analysis is the per capita efficiency standard of 4.8 and 3.0 MTCO2e/yr per service population (''MTC02e /yr/ sp'J for years 2 02 0 and 2 035 (respectively),9 which the City has acknowledged in recent CEQA reviews. 10 Service population ("sp') is defined as only the resident s and employees served by a project. 11 Here, the Project includes zero housing (i.e., 0 residents), but the MND does not specify the anticipated employees generated by the Project beyond the referen ce to the demand for 98 employee parking space s. (APP, PDF p. 1350 [APP-J, Tb!. 3].) Based on variou s data sources, the City of Los Angeles, for example, has used a job generation ratio of0 .50 jobs per hotel room for purposes ofVMT modeling,12 or in some cases 0.20 jobs per hotel room ratio. 13 Hence, 100-250 employees generated by this 500-room Project is a reasonable estimate. When dividing 3,316 MTC02e/yr by a service population of 100 to 250, the Project would achieve an efficiency level of 33.16 to 13.2 MTC02e/yr /sp-which exceeds both the 4.8 and 3.0 MTCO?fis/yr/sp performan ce standards.

Despit e being propo sed prior to the State's adoption of mor e aggressive GHG reduction goals of 40 percent 1990 levels by 2030 (i.e., SB 32 and Executive Order B-30-15), SCAQMD's screening/ efficiency thresholds are akin to and most consistent with bright-line/ efficiency thresholds adopted by numerous other air district s in recent years, including Sacramento 8 SCAQMD Draft Guidance Document, supra fn. 6, p. 3-15. 9 SCAQMD Minutes, supra fn. 6, pp.1-2.
10 City (8/18/2 1) Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR, p. 4.6-2 3, https://ggcity .org/sites/default/files/ 2021-08/FGPUZA%20DEIR.pclf.
11 CAPCOA Gan. 2000) CEQA & Climate Change, pp. 62-64, 71- 72 (service population is defined as "the sum of the numb er of residents and the numb er of jobs supported by the project."), http:/ /www.capcoa.org/wp­ content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA-White-Paper.pdf; SCAQMD, PDF p. 6 ("sp (service popul ation)= population+ employment popula tion").
12 City ofLos Angeles (May 2020) VMT Calculator Documentation, p. 11, https://ladot.lacity.or g/ sites/ default/files/ documents/vmt_calculator _documentation- 2020.05.18. pdf. 13 City Hilton Hotel Project MND, supra fn. 7, pp. 4, 07 (25 full/ part-time worker for 1 24-ro oru hotel). 1704485.1 Page 101

Item C.2 RE: Nickelodeon Hotel Project
July 7, 2022

Metropolitan AQMD,14 Bay Area AQMD,15 Placer County APCD,16 and San Luis Obispo County APCD.17, 18 Similarly, the Association ofEnvironmental Professionals ("AEP') has proposed a 2020 and 2030 land-use efficiency threshold of 4.7 and 2.6 MTC02e/yr/sp (respectively, which can also be interpolated during interim years), and based on SB 32 mid-term GHG reduction goals for 2030.19 By relying solely on the BAU methodology and failing to apply an appropriate performance standards ( e.g., SCAQMD's Tier-4 efficiency standard), the MND fails to stay in step with evolving scientific knowledge and regulatory schemes governing GHG, as required under Cleveland II. The bottom line is that this a very large Project and there is a fair argument of significant GHG impacts.

4. MND's Perfunctory Analysis of CARB's 2017 Scoping Plan Here, the MND improperly relies on its perfunctory BAU analysis to claim consistency with the California Air Resources Board ("CARB') 2017 Scoping Plan. The MND fails to recognize the Scoping Plan's explicit reliance on local land-use decisions and GHG reduction at the project-level:
"Implementation of this change will rely, in part, on local land use decisions to reduce GHG emissions associated with the transportation sector, both at the proiectlevel, and in long-term plans (including general plans, climate action plans, specific plans, and transportation plans) and supporting sustainable community strategies developed 14 SMAQMD (May 2018) Guide to Air Quality Assessment in Sacramento County, pp. 6:1-3, 6:10-12 ("(GHG) emissions adversely affect the environment through contributing, on a cumulativ e basis, to global climate change ... the District recommends that lead agencies address the impacts of climate chaooe on a proposed proiect and its ability to adapt to these changes in CEOA documents ... [thus urging] evaluating whether the GHG emissions associated with a proposed project will be responsible for making a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change ."[emphasis original]), http://www.a irquality.org/ LandUseTrans portation / Documents / Ch6GHGFinal5- 2018.pd f; see also SMAQMD Thresholds of Significance Table, http: //www.airquality.org/LandU seTransportation/Docum ents/ CH2ThresholdsT able5- 2015 .pdf. 15 DAAQMD (May 2017) CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, p. 2:1-4 ("No single project could generate enough GHG emissions to noticeably change the global average temperature [but rather] [t]he combination ofGHG emissions from past, pres ent, and future projects contribute substantially to the phenomenon of global climate change and its associated environmental impacts."), http ://www .baaqmd.gov/-/media/files/ plannin g-and-r esearch/ ceqa/ ceqa_guidelines_may2017 -pdf.pdf?la=en. 16 PCAPCD (Oct. 2016) CEQA thresholds of Significance Justification Report, pp. E-2, 2, 17-22 ("CEQA requires that the lead agency review not only a project's direct effects on the environm ent, but also the cumulative impacts of a project and other projects causing related impacts. When the incremental effect of a project is cumulati vely consid erable, the lead agency must discuss the cumulative impacts in an EIR. [citing CEQA Guidelines§ 15064]"), https://www .placer.ca.gov/ DocumentCenter /View /2061/ Threshold-Justification­ Report-PDF; see also PCAPCD (11/21/17) CEQA Threshold s And Review Principles, http ://www .placera ir. org/ landuseandceqa/ceqathresholdsandreviewp rinciples. 17 SLOAPCD (Mar. 20, 2012) GIIG Threshold and Supporting Evidence, p. 5, 25-30, 42 ("No single land use proj ect could generat e enough GHG emissions to noticeably change the global average temp erature.

Cumulative GHG emissions, however, contribute to global climate change and its significant adverse environmental impacts. Thus, the prim acy goal in adopting GHG significance thresholds, analytical methodologi es, and mitigation measur es is to ensure new land use development provides its fair share of the GHG reductions needed to address cumulative environment al impacts from thos e emissions.), https:/ / storage .googleapis.com/ slocleanair-org/images/c ms/upload/files/Gree nhou se%2 0Gas%20 Thresholds%20and%2 0Supporting%2 0Evidence%2 04-2-2012.pdf. 18 See also AEP (Oct. 2016) Beyond Newhall and 2020, pp. 25 (Tb!. 2 identifying other air districts that have adopt/proposed similar screening/efficiency thresholds), https: / / califaep.org/ docs/ AEP- 2016_Final_ White_Paper.pdf .
19 Ibid., pp. 34, 40 40.
1704485.1 Page 102

Item C.2 RE: Nickelodeon Hotel Project
July 7, 2022

under SB 375 ... local land use decisions play a particularly critical role in reducing GHG emissions associated with the transportation sector, both at the proiect level, and in long-term plans, including general plans, local and regional climate action plans, specific plans, transportation plans, and supporting sustainable community strategies developed under SB 375. While the State can do more to accelerate and incentivize these local decisions, local actions that reduce VMT are also necessary to meet transportation sector-specific goals and achieve the 2030 target under SB 32."w (Emphasis added.)
To this end, CARE provides various GHG mitigation measures that could be considered by the City-but the MND fails to consider incorporating many of them here ( see below list) .21 B. Examples of potentially feasible mitiga.Uon measures that could be considered for individual projects under CEQA when the local jurisdiction is the lead agency.

Constructi on
- Enforce idling time rest ct ons for construction vehicles - Require construction vehicles to operate with the highest tier engines commercially available
- Divert and recycle construction and demol1t1on waste and use locally-sourced building materials with a high recycled materia l content to the greatest extent feasible
- Mm1m1ze tree removal and mitigate indirect GHG emissions increases that occur due to vegetation removal loss of sequestration and soil disturbance - Utilize ex1stIng grid power for electric energy rather than operating temporary gasohne/d1esel powered generators
Increase use of electric a d renewable fuel powered construction equipment and require renewable d1ese fuel where commerc1a ly ava1 able - Require diesel equipment fieets to be lower emitting than any current emIss1on standard
Operation
- Comply with lead agency"s standards for mIt1gat ng transportation impacts under SB 743
- Require on-site EV charging capab11it1es for parking spaces serving the proiect to meet 1unsd1ct1on-w1de EV proliferation goals
I I I
20 2017 Scoping Plan, pgs. 76, 100-101, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov /sites/default/files/classic//cc/ scopingplan/ scoping_plan_2 017 .pdf.
21 2017 Scoping Plan, Appendix B-Local Action, p. 7 -9, https://www.arb.ca.gov/ cc/ scopingplan/ a pp_ b Joe al_action_final. pdf
1704485.1 Page 103

Item C.2 RE: Nickelodeon Hotel Project
July 7, 2022

7-11
cont'd
Operation (continued)
- Allow for new construction to install fewer on-site parking spaces than required by local municipal building code, if appropriate 1
- Dedicate on-site parking for shared vehicles
- Pro-..•ide adequate. safe. convenient. and secure on-site bicycle parking and storage in multi-family residential projects and in non-residential projects . Provide on- and off-site safety improvements for bike, pedestrian , and transit connections , and.i'or implement relevant improvements identified in an appt'cable bicycle andior pedestrian master plan
- Require on-site renewable energy generation
• Prohibit wood-burning fireplaces in new development, and require replacement of wood-burning fireplaces for renovations over a certain size developments . Require cool roofs and '·cool palidng ' that promotes cool surface treatn ent for new parking facilities as well as existing surface lots undergoing resurfacing - Require solar-ready roofs
. Require organic collection in new developments
• Require low-water landscaping in ne , developrnents Require water efficient landscape maintenance to consen e water and reduce landscape waste. - Achieve Zero Net Energy performance targets prior to dates required by CALGreen
- Require new construction. including municipal building construction to achieve third-party green building certifications , such as the GreenPoint Rat-ed program or the LEED ra ·ng system
- Require the design of bike lanes to connect to the regional bicycle rnetwork . Expand urban forestry and green infrastructure in new land devel.opment - Require preferential parking spaces for park and ride to incentivize carpooling. vanpooling , commuter bus, electric vehicles, and rail service use - Require a transportation management plan for specific plans which establishes a numeric target for non-SOV travel and overall VMT
• Develop a rideshare program targeting commuters to major employment centers - Require the design of bus stops/shelters /express lanes in new developments to promote the usage of mass-transit
• Req ire gas outlets in residential backyards for use with outdoor cooking applianc-es such as gas barbeques if natural gas service is a a ilable - Require the installa ·on of electrical outlets on the exterior walls of both the front and back of residences to promote the use of electric landscape maintenance equipment
. Require the design of the electric boxes in new residential unit garc1,ge.s to promote electric vehicle usage
- Require electric vehide charging station Conductive/inductive) and signage for non-residentia l developments
- Provide el:ectric outlets lo promote the use of electric landscape maintenance equipment to the extent feasible on parks and public/quasi-public lands This is nol to be confused with the Arnericans with D1sabilrties Acl ADA1 requiremer,ls or other minimum park-ng requirements for dedicafng space to clean air vehicles and/or EV charging infrastructure I I I
1704485.1 Page 104

Item C.2 RE: Nickelodeon Hotel Project
July 7, 2022

Operation {continued)
- Require each residential unit to be ··solar ready." including installing the appropriate hardware and proper structural e11gineerin9 - Require the installation of energy conserving appliances such as on-demand tank-less water heaters and whole-house fans
- Require each residential and commercial building equip buildings v,1th energy efficient AC units and heating systems with programmable thermostats/timers - Require large-sca!e residential developments and commercial buildings to report energy use. and se•t speci1ik targets for per-capita energy use - Require each residential and commercial building to utilize low flow water fixtures such as Im,,, flow toilets and faucets
- Require the use of energy-efficient lighting for all street. parking. and area lighting
- Require the landscaping design for parking lots to utilize tree cover - Incorporate water retention in the de.sign of parkingi lots and landscaping - Require the development project to propose an off-site mirtigation project which should generate carbon Cfedits equiva,ent to the anticipat,ed GIHG emission reductions. This woulld lbe imp emented via an approve·d protocol for carbon credits from California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). the California .Air Resources Board. or other similar entities determined acceptable by the local air district
- Require the project to purchase carbon credits from the CAPCOA GHG Reduction Exchange P
1 rogram , American Carbon Registry (ACR). Climate Action Reserve (CAR) or o,ther similar carbon credit registry determined to be acceptable by the local air district
- Encourage the applicant to consider generating or purchasing local and California-only carbon credits as the preferred mechanism to implement its off­ site mitigatio11 measure for GHG emissions and that , .. fll facilitate the State's efforts in achieving 1the GHG emission reduction goal
C. Additional References
California Air Pollufon Control Officers Association , "Mode l Ponc·es for Greenhouse Gases in General Plans: A Resource for Local Government to Incorporate Genera Plan Policies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions-, June 2009 - accessible here: h p:/lwww_capcoa_org/wp-
conten uploads/20 12/03/CAPCOA- ode1Policies-6-1.2-09-915am_p-df California Air Pollufon Control Officers Association , «Quan ifying, Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures," August 2010 - accessible here: http://www .capcoa.org/wp-con en uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA- uan iftcation-Report-9 -1 -Finat pdf
Governor's Office of Planning and Researdh, ·General Plan Guidelines· - accessible here: h ps://www.opr.ca.gov/s generalplanguidelines.php B. MND's TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Is FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED
CEQA requires analysis of VMT traffic impacts related to a project. (See Kings County Farm Bureau v. Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 727.) In particular, CEQA requires analysis of project-related traffic impacts in a manner that does not minimize cumulative impacts. (See e.g., Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments ("Cleveland llf'J (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 413, 444-445 ( on remand, traffic analysis based on methodology with known data gaps that underestimated traffic impacts necessarily prejudiced informed public participation and decisionmaking]; Kings County Farm Bureau, supra at 718, 727 [rejecting determination that less 1704485.1 Page 105

Item C.2 RE: Nickelodeon Hotel Project
July 7, 2022
Page9of11
7-12
cont'd
than one percent to area emissions was less than significant because analysis improperly focused on the project-specific impacts and did not properly consider the collective effect of the relevant projects on air quality]; Save Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1072 [upheld the use of same thresholds for immediate and cumulative impacts when its application was "undoubtedly more stringent cumulative-impact threshold"]; Al Larson Boat Shop, Inc. v. Board of Harbor Comm'rs, (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 729, 7 49 [upheld wher e cumulativ e impacts were not minimized or ignored].) The relevant inquiry is not only the relative amount of increased traffic that the Project will cause, but wheth er any additional amount of Project traffic should be considered significant in light of the already serious problem. (See Los Angeles Unified School District v. City of Los Angeles (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1019, 1025.) Here, the MND claims the Project has no VMT impacts because it is screened out based on the City's Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines ("TIA Guide lines').22 (MND, pp. 81-82; APP, PDF pp. 897 [APP-I, pp. 17, 9-1 - 9-5].) In short, the MND claims that the Project is located in a Transit Priority Area ("TPA") and meets four conditions ( e.g., FAR greater than 0.75, not overparked, consistent with sustainable community strategy, does not replace affordable residential units). (Id.) However, this Project should not be screened out for several reasons discussed below.

1. Fails to show consistency with SCAG RTP /SCS
Here, the MND claims without any discussion that "the proposed project is consistent with the applicable [Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG') 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy ("RTP /SCS')], as determined by the City[.]" (MND, p. 82; APP, PDF p. 966 [APP-I, p. 9-4].) Such conclusory statements are not substantial evidence under CEQA. (See CEQA Guidelines§ 15384.) There is no attempt to show consistency with any specific, binding requirements for local land-use projects identified in SCAG' s RTP /SCS.

For example, there is no attempt to show the Project is consistent with any of the project-lev el mitigation measures identified in the RTP /SCS Program Environmental Impact Report.23 Nor is there any attempt to show the Project would achieve any of the benchmarks presumed in the RTP /SCS, such as daily VMT per capita reductions from 24.1 (in 2016) to 22.3 (by 2045) for the County of Orange.24 Here. the MN D's air qualilJt/GHG modeling estimates the Project would generate

3.594.058 annual VMTs. (See APP, PDF p. 300.) The MND also assumes that light/medium-duty trucks and automobiles ("LDA(s)') are roughly 91 percent of the Project's vehicle mix. (Id.). Thus, the Project's LDAs would generate roughly 8,960 VMTs per day or 35.8 VMTs per service population of 25025-which exceeds the Orange County benchmark discussed above. This Project is far too big for a MND-an EIR should be prepared.

I I I
22 City (May 2020) TIA Guidelines,
https: / / gardengrove.novusageuda .com/ AgendaPublic / Attachm entViewer.ashx?Attachment!D =437 7 &Item ID =3092 .
23 SCAG (Dec. 2019) Final Progra m EIR, pp. 2.0-18- 2.0-71 (see "project-level mitigatio n measures" for air quality, GHG, and transport ation impacts), https:/ / scag.ca.gov / sites/main/files/file­ attachments/fpeir_connectsocal _complete .pdl?1607981618 . 24 SCAG (9 /3/20) 2020 RTP /SCS, p. 122, https://scag.ca .gov /sites/main/files/file­ atta chments / 0903fconnectsocal -plan_ O.pdl?l 60600117 6. 25 Calculated : ([(3594050 annual VMTS) (91%)] / [365]) / (250 employees). 1704485.1 Page 106

Item C.2 RE: Nickelodeon Hotel Project
July 7, 2022
PagelOofll

2. There ls a Fair Argument That Project VMTs are Significant Under the City's TIA Guidelines, the TPA screening is appropriate only when there is "absent substantial evidence to the contrary." 26 Here, there is a variety ofindicia showing the Project's VMTs are significant, such as:
• The Project would generate 5,122 average daily trips ("ADT(s)') compared to the Site's zero ADTs (MND, p. 71), which exceeds the City's 110 ADT screening threshold for small project's that is based on the VMT guidance provided by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research ("OPR');27
• The Project is not a local-serving hotel or located in a low VMT area screening area (APP, PDF pp. 964-966);
• The MND's GHG Study shows the Project would generate 3,594,058 annual VMTs (i.e., 9,846 daily VMTs) as compared to zero VMTs generated by the vacant site (APP, PDF p. 300), which exceeds OPR's no net increase threshold for redevelopment projects; 28 and • As discussed above, the Project would achieve 35.8 daily VMTs/sp, which exceeds SCAG's 2020 RTP /SCS assumption of 22.3 daily VMTs per capita.

In sum, substantial evidence demonstrates that this destination hotel Project will generate significant VMTs that warrant a full VMT analysis and mitigation, such as those recommended by CARB, SCAG, CAPCOA, and the City.29 An EIR should be prepared.

C. CEQA ISSUES RUN COUNTER TO CODE-REQUIRED FINDINGS
The above-mentioned CEQA issues run contrary to various goals and policies under the City's Genera l Plan (e.g., policies LU-1.5, LU-IMP-lC, LU-2.1, etc.)30 as well as Code-required findings necessary to grant the entitlements ( e.g., GGMC §§ 9.32.030-D.3.b [site plan review findings];

9.12.030.02-F [planned unit development findings].) Findings need to be supported by substantial evidence that bridge the analytical gap between the raw evidence and City's decisions. (See e.g., Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (197 4) 11 Cal. 3d 506, 514-515; Sta/man v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 9(197 4) 11 Cal.3d 506, 16, 923 .) Until the CEQA issues discus sed herein are corrected via a CEQA-compliant EIR, the City lacks substantial evidence to grant the Project Approvals .

I I I
26 City TIA Guidelines, supra fn. 22, p. 16.
27 See City TIA Guidelines, supra fn. 22, p. 18; see also OPR (Dec. 2018) Technical Advisory: On Evaluating Transportation Impacts In CEQA, pp. 12, http s:/ /opr.ca. gov /docs/20190122-7 43_ Technical_Advisory.pdf . 28 OPR Technical Advisory, supra fn. 28, p. 17.
29 2017 Scoping Plan: AppendixB -LocalAction, supra fn. 21; SCAG Final Program EIR, suprafn. 24; City TIA Guidelines, Attachment B-TDM Strategies, http s:/ /gardengrove.novusage nda.com/ AgendaPublic / AttachmentViewer.ashx? AttachmentlD=4348&ltemlD=3092; CAPCOA (Dec. 202 1) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities , and Advancing Health and Equity, https:/ /www .airqu ality.org/ClimateChange/Doc uments/Final%2 0Handb ook_AB434.pdf. 3° City's Land Use Elemen t, http s://gg city.org/internet/ pdf/planning/chapter0 2_landusee lement.pdf . 1704485.1 Page 107

Item C.2 RE: Nickelodeon Hotel Project
July 7, 2022

III. CONCLUSION
Local 11 appr eciates the opportunity to provide these comments. We respectfully request the City reject the Project Approvals until the issues discuss ed herein are resolved in a CEQA­ compliant review that adequately analyzes and mitigates the Project's GHG and VMT impacts. There is a fair argument of C EQA impacts. This Project is expected to generate over 3 million annual VMTs, which is far too big for a MND. An EIR should be prepared. Lastly, this office requests all notices concerning any CEQAl/and use actions involving the Project and Project Approvals, as required under applicable law. (See Pub. Res. Code§§ 21092.2, 21167(f) and Gov. Code§ 65092.) Please send all notices by electronic and regular mail.

Thank you for consideration of these comments. We ask that this letter be placed in the Project's administrative record.

Sincerely,
_J -J~ ,L ~~
Jo~dJ n R. Sisson;Esq.,
At~ ney for UNITE 1ERE Local 11
1704485.1 Page 108
Comment Letter 7: GK Law for the UNITE HERE Local 11

Response to Comment 7-1
Comment acknowledged.

Response to Comment 7-2
This comment summarizes the balance of the comments of the letter. Please see the following responses to comment.

Response to Comment 7-3
The comment cites California case law that speaks for itself.

Response to Comment 7-4
The comment cites various positions of California law, regulations, and cases that speak for themselves.

Response to Comment 7-5
The comment cites California case law that speaks for itself. The Draft IS/MND along with the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Study (refer to Appendix B of the Draft IS/MND) provides an in-depth GHG technical analysis
12 that analyzes and discloses the proposed project’s impacts related to GHG emissions.

Response to Comment 7-6
The GHG analysis utilizes the recommended thresholds of significance from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Thresholds, 2008. This is described on pages 5-2, 5-3 and Table 19 of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Study. The SCAQMD significance thresholds have been established for purposes of CEQA compliance. SCAQMD is charged with regulating air quality within the South Coast Air Basin including all of Orange County and the non-desert regions of Los Angeles County, San Bernardino County, and Riverside County. SCAQMD has provided guidance on determining significance for GHG emissions in CEQA documents. The Draft IS/MND adheres to SCAQMD’s expert GHG guidance.

Response to Comment 7-7
The commenter is incorrect in stating that the Draft IS/MND incorrectly applies the SCAQMD Tier-3 Threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr. First, SCAQMD recommends that both residential and commercial projects may be analyzed using the 3,000 MTCO2e/yr13. Secondly, since the proposed project was shown to exceed the SCAQMD’s Tier 3 threshold, the proposed project was thus analyzed under SCAQMD’s Tier 4 threshold, not Tier 3. Therefore, the Tier 3 threshold is not applicable.

Response to Comment 7-8
It is important to note that neither the CEQA statute nor the CEQA Guidelines prescribe thresholds of significance or particular methodologies for performing an impact analysis. This is left to lead agency judgment and discretion, based upon factual data and guidance from regulatory agencies and other sources where available and applicable. The Tier 4 BAU threshold is consistent with SCAQMD GHG Guidelines

16. As described
in the Office of Planning Research Discussion Draft CEQA and Climate Change Advisory, December 2018, in the absence of clearly defined thresholds for GHG emissions, such emissions must be disclosed and mitigated to the extent feasible whenever the lead agency determines that the project contributes to a significant, cumulative climate change impact. The determination has been made that the proposed project has the potential to

12 RK Engineering Group, Inc. Garden Grove Hotel Site B-2, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Study, City of Garden Grove. April 26, 2022.
13 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. October 2008. Page 3-13 to 3-15.

1704485.1 Page 109
contribute to a significant, cumulative climate change impact, and thus is required to provide substantial mitigation to reduce GHG emissions. The Court’s ruling in the Newhall case is acknowledged, however, it was determined that the BAU reduction threshold is still the most appropriate measure for assessing impacts for the proposed project based on the following reasons: 1) the size and nature of the proposed project (i.e., being a hotel/customer based land use) do not lend themselves to using a screening level threshold or service population efficiency threshold (more discussion regarding the use of an efficiency threshold is provided in Response to Comment 7-9); 2) the BAU reduction threshold requires that substantial GHG reductions are required and enforced as mitigation; and 3) it promotes the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan, including promote water conservation in new development (Policy CON-1.3), reduce total waste diverted to treatment or disposal at the waste source and through re-use and recycling (Goal CON-3), reduce dependency on non-renewable energy resources through the use of local and imported alternative energy sources (Goal CON-5), Green Building programs achieve water and energy efficiency, minimize raw resource consumption, and reduce the amount of waste placed in landfills while improving human health and quality of life in the City (Goal CON-6), provide efficient development that promotes alternative modes of transportation, while ensuring that economic development goals are not sacrificed (GP Goal AQ-4), and increased energy efficiency and conservation (GP Goal AQ-6).

The proposed project will achieve more than a 40 percent reduction in GHG emissions with the recommended mitigation measures and will promote the use of renewable energy sources and alternative modes of travel, including locating in close proximity to transit. Each of these features is aligned with the City’s goals and broader regional and statewide climate change goals.

Response to Comment 7-9
The use of an efficiency threshold based solely on residents and employees is not appropriate for a hotel use because it does not take into account the effect hotel guests have on GHG contribution. Hotel guest are the main contributor of operational emissions from the proposed project, and the GHG Study accounts for these emissions as part of the analysis. However, the efficiency threshold only relates emissions to residents and/or employees of a site. So, for a hotel use, whose primary users are guests, the service population would be artificially low if only employees are counted. Thus, the use of the Tier 4 efficiency threshold is not appropriate in this case because it was not intended for customer based land use.

Response to Comment 7-10
The commenter is incorrect in stating that the proposed project fails to recognize the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan reliance on local land-use decisions and GHG reduction at the project level. The proposed project has demonstrated substantial reduction in GHG emissions which is consistent with the local land use thresholds for measuring significant GHG impacts (refer to Section 7.0 of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Study, Appendix B of the Draft IS/MND).

Response to Comment 7-11
The commenter lists several non-project specific mitigation measures referenced from CARB to reduce GHG, and inaccurately claims that the Draft IS/MND has failed to incorporate many of them. This statement is not accurate. Most of these mitigation measures will be included through construction design features (such as idling restrictions, higher tiered engines, waste recycling, and establishing electrical supplies) and building code requirements (such as EV & bicycle parking, compliance with CALGreen, cool roofs, low flow fixtures, drought tolerant landscaping, and energy star appliances). Additionally, many other mitigation measures and project design features are being included in the proposed project that are consistent with this list, such as meeting SB 743 requirements for vehicles miles traveled (VMT) reduction, implementing a vehicle trip reduction plan, installing rooftop solar, and prohibiting wood and natural gas burning fireplaces. Based on all of these facts, the Draft IS/MND concluded that GHG impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures.

1704485.1 Page 110
Response to Comment 7-12
The analysis of transportation impacts has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the City of Garden Grove Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment, May 2020 (Guidelines)14. The proposed project is shown to result in a less than significant impact to VMT due to its location along a high-quality transit corridor. A ‘high-quality transit corridor’ means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1) state that projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Harbor Boulevard qualifies as a high-quality transit corridor and the proposed project is located within ½ mile of a bus stop with 15-minute headways or less. Hence, the Draft IS/MND’s finding of a less than significant impact is consistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3(b)(1) and is based on substantial evidence.

Response to Comment 7-13
The commenter inaccurately states that the proposed project is not consistent with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and provides unrelated VMT data out of the RTP/SCS that does not have bearing on the proposed project. For instance, one of the main goals of the RTP/SCS is to focus growth near high-quality transit areas and reduce GHG emissions. The proposed project meets these goals by locating along a high-quality transit corridor and implementing substantial GHG reduction measures, including the use of renewable energy sources. The proposed project also helps contribute to the Harbor Boulevard tourist job center and provides neighborhood scale mobility that encourage “walkability,” active transportation and short, shared vehicular trips on a through increased density, mixed land uses, neighborhood design, enhanced destination accessibility and reduced distance to transit. These features are key goals of the RTP/SCS15 and demonstrate the proposed project’s consistency with SCAG’s plan. Furthermore, the City of Garden Grove recognizes the Orange County Transportation Model (OCTAM) as the most appropriate and accurate model for measuring VMT within the City.

The VMT data provided by the commenter is not based on the OCTAM model and does not provide an accurate estimate of VMT within the City.

Response to Comment 7-14
The commenter is mistaken in stating that there is a fair argument that proposed project VMTs are significant.

As previously stated in response to comment 7-12, the Draft IS/MND assesses VMT impacts pursuant to the City of Garden Grove Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment, May 2020 (Guidelines), and the proposed project is shown to result in a less than significant impact to VMT due to its location along a high-quality transit corridor. The City’s guidelines and CEQA Guidelines are very clear in stating that if a project is located along a high-quality transit corridor, then it may be presumed to result in a less than significant impact to VMT. The bullet point items mentioned by the commenter do not impact whether the project meets the transit screening requirements.

Response to Comment 7-15
Comment acknowledged. Refer to responses to comments 7-5 through 7-14.

Response to Comment 7-16
Comment acknowledged. Contrary to the comment, CEQA contains no limitation on the size of projects that may be analyzed in a negative declaration. The commenter will be placed on requested public mailing/notification lists related to the proposed project.

14 City of Garden Grove. City of Garden Grove Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment, May 2020 (Guidelines).
15 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Connect So Cal. The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategies of the Southern California Association of Governments. September 3, 2020. Page 48-52, “Sustainable Communities Strategy”.

1704485.1 Page 111

[IT]
GK LAW
Comment Letter 8
Jordan R. Sisson
801 South Grand A venue, 11th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017
Direct: (951) 542-2735
LAND USE, ENv1RONMENTAL & MUNICIPAL LA WYERS Fax: (2 13) 623-7755 E-mail : jordan @gideonlaw.net
www. gideonlaw.n et
July 27, 2022
VIA EMAIL & HAND DELIVERY:

City Clerk's Office, City of Garden Grove
c/o Andrea Vital, City Clerk's Office
c/o Maria Parra, Senior Planner
11222 Acacia Parkway
Garden Grove, California 92840
andreav@ggcity .org
[email protected]
Judy Moore, Plannin g Commissi on Secretar y
Community and Economic Developme nt Departm ent
City of Garden Grove
11222 Acacia Parkway
Garden Grove, CA 92840
[email protected] g
RE: APPEAL OF NICKELODEON HOTEL PROJECT (12241 HARBOR BLVD., GARDEN GROVE, CA 92840); PROJECT APPROVALS PUD-141-01, SP-107-2022, & IS/ MND (SCH No. 2022060174); ACTION ON ITEM C.2 & D.1 OF THE JULY 7, 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING Dear City of Garden Grove ("City") Clerk and Judy Moore:

In accordance with the appeal procedures authorized by the Garden Grove Municipal Code ("GGMC" or "Code"), UNITE HERE Local 11 ("Local 11") and City-resident Marlene Per ez (collectively "Appellants"), hereby appeal ("Appeal") the City Planning Commission's ("Commission") approval of a 500-room , 23-story hotel with the 600-seat Nick Studio theater ("Project'') at the 3.72-acr e location referenced above ("Site") proposed by Kam Sang Compan y ("Applicant").1 Specifically, at its July 7, 2022 hearing (i.e., Items 2c and D.1),2 the Commissi on took the following actions in furtherance of the Project :

1. Adopted Resolution No. 6044-22 that ( a) recommend5 City Council adopt the Project's Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated findings/determination ("MND"),3 and (b) recommends City Council approve an ordinan ce creating Planned Unit Development No.

PUD-141-0l(A) ("PUD");

2. Adopted Resolution No. 6045-22 conditionally approving Site Plan No. SP-107-2022 ("Site Plan"), subject to the City's Council approval of the PUD and the vacation / disposition of Thackery Drive and a public alley within the Project Site (i.e., Street Vacation No. SV-002- 2022 ("Street Vacation"); and

3. Adopted Resolution No. 6046-22 finding and reporti ng to the City Council that the proposed Stre et Vacation is consistent with the City's General Plan.

I I I
1 Herein, page citations are either the stated pagination (i.e., "p. #") or PDF-page location (i.e., "PDF p. #'1, 2 See City (7 /7 /22) Planning Commission Staff Report ("Staff Report"), PDF pp. 3-4, 72, 84, 289 -299, https:// ggcity.org/ sites/default/ files/ commi ssions / plannin g-commis sion/a07072022.PDF. 3 https ://ggcity.or g/sit es/ default / files/2022 -06/Slte%2 0B2%2 0Hot el%2 0Proj ect%2 0Draft %20lniti alo/o 2 0S tudy _Mitigated% 2 ON egativeo/o 2 0D eclaration .pdf. 1704485.1 Page 112

Appeal justification RE: Nickelodeon Hotel Project
July27,2022
Page2of3
CID
[BJ
This Appeal challenges all ripe project approvals, including but not limited to the aforementioned resolutions, MND, PUD, Site Plan, Street Vacation, and other local land use approvals in furtherance of the Project ( e.g., alcohol Conditional Use Permit, Development Agreement, Tentative Tract Maps, etc.) (collectively "Project Approvals"). (See MND, p. 14.) In light of discussions with the City Clerk's Office, it appears at a minimum that Resolution No. 6045-22 and 6046-22 are ripe for this Appeal. This Appeal is timely filed within the 21-day deadline. (See GGMC § 9.32.120.) This Appeal alleges that conditionally approving the Site Plan, Street Vacation findings, and other actions taken on the other Project Approvals violate the Code and the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").4 Appellants respectfully request the City grant this Appeal and deny the Project Approvals-particularly Resolution No. 6045-22 and 6046-22-until the issues raised herein, and elsewhere in the Project's administrative record, are adequately addressed. If the City has questions or concerns about appealability or ripeness of any of the Project Approvals, please contact the undersigned.

APPELIANTS' STANDING: Local 1l's members live and/or work in the vicinity of the Project Site, breathe the air, suffer traffic congestion, and suffer other environmental impacts of the Project.

Local 11 has approximately 400 members who live and/or work in the City. Therefore, Local 11 is committed to ensuring responsible development in the City, that local land-use rules/regulations are followed, and informed decision-making by public officials regarding projects that may significantly impact the environment in the City. Appellant Marlene Perez lives in the City within one-quarter mile of the Project Site and is regularly in the vicinity of the Project Site. Granting this Appeal will confer a substantial benefit to Local 11, Ms. Perez, and the public, including citizens, residents, businesses , and taxpayers affected by the Project, and will result in the enforcement of important public rights. In sum, Appellants are interested parties to this land use action Appeal with public interest standing to raise and litigate the land use and environmental claims at issues here . (See GGMC § 9.32.110; see e.g., Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 899, 914-916, n6.)
SPECIFIC POINTS AT ISSUE IN APPEAL: As specifically raised in Local 1l's comment letter dated July 7, 2022 (attached here to as ExhibitA and incorporated in its entirety by this reference), the MND fails to adequately analyze the Project's impact on greenhouse gas (" GHG") emissions and vehicle miles traveled ("VMT"). For example, the Project will generate over 3 million annual VMTs and generate GHG emissions that exceed relevant thresholds of the regional air district, which warrants greater mitigation measures-particularly those that promote carpooling, public transit, and other strategies that reduce and/or offset mobile emissions. This is substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project will have significant VMT and GHG impacts, particularly to residential communities near and/or adjacent to the Project Site. (See MND, Fig. 3.) These impacts require further analysis, mitigation, and consideration of project alternatives in a CE QA-compliant Environmental Impact Report ("EIR")-instead of the MND. Additionally, the unmitigated CEQA impacts are inconsistent with policies and goals under the City's General Plan,5 and invalidate the findings required under state and local law when granting the Project Approvals.6 4 Pub. Res. Code§ 21000 et seq. and 14 Cal. Code Regs. ("CEQA Guidelines")§ 15000 et seq. 5 See e.g., Land Use Element (Policies LU-2.1, LU-2.4, LU-9.5), https://ggc ity.org/intem et/p df/ plannin g/ chapt er02Jandus eelement.pdf and Air Quality Element (Policies, AQ-1.2, AQ-IMP-lIJ, AQ-2.2, AQ-3.1, AQ-4.1, AQ-5.3, AQ-IMP-SA, Goals AQ-3, AQ-4), http s://ggcity.org/ interne t/ pdf/ planning / chapter08_airqualityelement.pdf.
6 See e.g., GGMC §§ 9.32.030-D.3.b (Site Plan findings], 9.12.030.02-F (PUD findings), and Gov. Code§ 65402 (Street Vacation finding).
1704485.1 Page 113

Appeal justification RE: Nickelodeon Hotel Project
July 27, 2022
Page3 of3
In accordance with GGMC § 9.32.130, this Appeal incorporates in its entirety all submitted comments by Local 11 and other commenters, including but not limited to Local 11's previously submitted written comment (attached hereto as Exhibit A) and verbal comments made by other commenters.7 Appellants reserve the right to supplement these comments and specific appeal points in the future. (See Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1120 [CEQA litigation not limited only to claims made during the EIR comment period].)
Lastly, this office requests all notices concerning this A1212eal hearings and any CEOA/land use actions involving the Project and Project Approvals, as required under applicable law. (See Pub. Res.

Code§§ 21092.2, 21167(f) and Gov. Code§ 65092 and GGMC § 9.32.100.G.) Please send all notices by electronic and regular mail.

Sincerely,
~~,t. (~
Jard . Sisson /
Atta for Ap
~ I Exhibit A: Local 11 Comment Letter (7 /7 /22)
7 https:/ /ggcity.org/ commissions /planning -commission# . 1704485.1 Page 114
Comment Letter 8: GK Law for the UNITE HERE Local 11

Response to Comment 8-1
Comment acknowledged.

Response to Comment 8-2
Comment acknowledged.

Response to Comment 8-3
Comment acknowledged.

Response to Comment 8-4
Comment acknowledged. Refer to response to comment 7-1 through 7-16 (Comment Letter 7).

Response to Comment 8-5
Comment acknowledged.

Response to Comment 8-6
Comment acknowledged. The commenter will be placed on requested public mailing/notification lists related to the proposed project.

Response to Comment 8-7
Refer to Comment Letter 7.

1704485.1 Page 115
3 ERRATA
This section identifies revisions to the Site B-2 Hotel Draft IS/MND to incorporate clarifications, corrections, or additions prepared in response to comments on the Draft IS/MND. These changes include minor errors or editorial correction identified through subsequent review. Additions are shown in underline. Deletions are shown in strikethrough. Commentary Notes are shown in italics type where needed.

None of the revisions below represents a substantial increase in the severity of an identified significant impact or the identification of a new significant impact or mitigation considerably different from those already considered in the Draft IS/MND.

Draft IS/MND Section IV. Biological Resources
(Page 32, Discussion a), 1
st paragraph, 1st sentence)
Due to the built-ou t nature of the City and surrounding area, biological resources in the City are almost non- existent (City of Garden Grove, 2021a, 2021b, & 2008).
(Page 34, Discussion c), 1st paragraph, 1st sentence)
As discussed above, due to the built-out nature of the City and surrounding area, biological resources in the City are alm
ost non-existent (City of Garden Grove, 2021a, 2021b, & 2008). (Page 36, Sources)
City of Garden Grove. 2021a. Focu sed General Plan Update and Zoning Amendments Draft Environmental Impact Report. Page 4.2-1. August 18, 2021. Adopted November 9, 2021. Available at:
https://ggcity.org/sites/default/files/2021-08/FGPUZA%20DEIR.pdf (accessed March 2022). ----. 2021b. Garden Grove General Plan, Chapter 2 Land Use Element, Public Review Draft – October 2021. Page 2-2. Adopted November 9, 2021. Available at: Housing Element Update | City of G arden Grove (ggcity.org) (accessed March 2022).
----. 2020. Garden Grove Municipal Code. Available at: http://qcode.us/codes/gardengrove/ (acce ssed June 2021).
----. 2008. Garden Grove General Plan, Chapter 10, Conservation Element, Public Review Draft – May 2008. Page 10-3. Available at: https://ggcity.org/internet/pdf/planning/chapter10_conservation.pdf (accessed March 2022).

Draft IS/MND Section V. Cultural Resources
(Page 37, Discussion a), 4th sentence)
13Thirteen proper ties within 0.25 miles of the project site are listed on California’s State Built Environment Resources Directory, however, none of these are located on the project site.

1704485.1 Page 116
Draft IS/MND Section VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
(Page 49, 3rd paragraph, 5th sentence)
With implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1 thr ough GHG-7 shown below, the total estimated GHG emissions generated by the proposed project would be 3,583.533,316.08 MTCO2e/year, reflecting a 5142 percent reduction.
(Page 50, GHG Mitigation Measure GHG-7, L ist Number 5)

5. Hotel management/concierge should provide information that promotes walking, bicycling and public tra
nsit options to nearby attractions. This should include information on local bus routes and schedules , regional transportation options, such as the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) and Orange Metrolink Station, and wayfinding to the existing transit stops along Harbor Boulevard.

Draft IS/MND Section XI. Land Use and Planning
(Page 64, 1st sentence)
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 mitigationg an environmental effect.

Draft IS/MND Section XIII. Noise
(Page 70, Construction Noise Reduction Mitigation Measure, N-1, 1st bullet) • All construction equipment shall be equipped with mufflers and other suitable noise attenuation devices (e.g., engine shields).

Draft IS/MND Appendix I Traffic Impact Study
As resp
onse to comment 4-3, 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. The updated Traffic Impact Study is included as Attachment C of this Final IS/MND.

1704485.1 Page 117
4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) identifies Mitigation Measures required to be implemented for the proposed project. These Mitigation Measures were identified in the Site B-2 Hotel Final IS/MND. For each Mitigation Measure, the MMRP identifies the potentially significant impact per environmental category, the related mitigation measure, the implementation entity, the monitoring and verification entity, and timing requirements.

1704485.1 Page 118
Page intentionally left blank

1704485.1 Page 119

IDENTIFIED
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES/PDFs

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date
AESTHETICS blank blank blank blank blank blank
Light and Glare blank blank blank blank blank blank
Introduce new
source of substantial
light or glare
AES-1 Prior to final site plan approval, a site
specific light and glare study shall be
prepared and approved by the
Community and Economic
Development Director, or his or her
designee, to ensure that the proposed
project will be in compliance with the
City’s Zoning Code related to lighting
designs. The light and glare study shall
include technologically advanced
hotel/resort lighting measures in its
detailed design plans. These measures
may include, without limitation,
installation of exterior screening such
as shielding attached to the luminaire,
building, or site structures; using anti-
reflective glass or glass treated with an
anti-reflective coating; and shielding
lights with visors to reduce light
trespass, glare impact and visual
distraction. Additionally, the light and
glare study shall incorporate measures
necessary for the proposed project’s
compatibility with the goals and
policies (i.e., Policy SAF-2.1 and SAF-
IMP-2A) in the General Plan for
providing adequate lighting to maintain
a safe public environment. These
measures may include, without
Project Applicant Community and
Economic
Development
Department/
Public Works
Department
Prior to final site
plan approval

1704485.1 Page 120

IDENTIFIED
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES/PDFs

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date
limitation, placement of pedestrian-
level lighting throughout the project
site; and provision of signage and
markings within the project site for
pedestrian safety.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES blank blank blank blank blank blank MBTA Nesting Birds blank blank blank blank blank blank
Raptors and other
nesting birds
protected under the
federal Migratory
Bird Treaty Act
encountered during
tree removal activity
BIO-1 With the potential for nesting birds
protected under the Migratory Bird
Act Treaty (MBTA) and California Fish
and Game Code (CFGC) to occur in
ornamental trees within the project
site and surrounding area, tree
removal during construction shall
occur outside of the nesting bird
season (generally, February 15
through September 1). If avoiding the
nesting season is not practicable, the
following additional measures shall be
employed:
a. A pre-construction nesting bird
survey shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist within 3 days
prior to the start of construction
activities to determine whether
active nests are present within or
directly adjacent to the
construction zone. All active nests
found shall be recorded.

Project Applicant Community and
Economic
Development
Department
/Public Works
Department
Prior to grading
and building
construction

1704485.1 Page 121

IDENTIFIED
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES/PDFs

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date
b. If active nests are detected during
the survey, 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
disturbance. These measures shall
be determined 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 between
the nest and construction activity.

CULTURAL RESOURCES blank blank blank blank blank blank
Archaeological Resources blank blank blank blank blank blank Archaeological
resources
encountered during
ground-disturbing
activities
CR-1 In the event archeological resources
are found during construction, all
attempts will be made to preserve in
place or leave resources in an
undisturbed state in compliance with
all applicable laws. In the event that
Project Applicant Community and
Economic
Development
Department
/Public Works
Department
During grading
and building
construction

1704485.1 Page 122

IDENTIFIED
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES/PDFs

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date
archeological resources are identified
and cannot be preserved in place, a
qualified archaeologist will be
contacted to evaluate and determine
appropriate treatment for the
resource in accordance with Public
Resources Code (PRC) Section
21083.2(i). 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 archaeologist (work
can continue elsewhere on the project
site).

Human Remains Discovery blank blank blank blank blank blank Unknown and
unanticipated human
remains encountered
during ground-
disturbing activities
CR-2 If human remains are discovered, work
in the immediate vicinity of the
discovery shall be suspended and the
Orange County Coroner shall be
contacted. If the remains are deemed
Native American in origin, the Coroner
will contact the NAHC and identify a
Most Likely Descendant pursuant to
PRC Section 5097.98 and California
Code of Regulations Section 15064.5.

Work will only commence after
consultation and treatment have been
concluded. Work may continue on
other parts of the project site while
Project Applicant Community and
Economic
Development
Department
/Public Works
Department
During grading
and building
construction

1704485.1 Page 123

IDENTIFIED
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES/PDFs

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date
consultation and treatment are
conducted.

ENERGY blank blank blank blank blank blank
Inefficient or
wasteful energy
consumption or
conflict with the
City’s energy goals

Refer to Mitigation Measures GHG-2 through
GHG-6

GEOLOGY AND SOILS blank blank blank blank blank blank
Paleontological Resources blank blank blank blank blank blank Directly or indirectly
destroy a unique
paleontological
resource or site or
unique geologic
feature
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
Project Applicant Community and
Economic
Development
Department
/Public Works
Department
During grading
and building
construction

1704485.1 Page 124

IDENTIFIED
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES/PDFs

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date
may be implemented, collection of
specimens or appropriate sediment
samples may be conducted, and
remains may be curated at a
repository, in accordance with Society
of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS blank blank blank blank blank blank Generate
greenhouse gas
emission, either
directly or indirectly,
that may have a
significant impact on
the environment or
conflict with
Assembly Bill 32 or
California Air
Resources Board’s
2017 Scoping Plan
Update
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.

Project Applicant Community and
Economic
Development
Department
/Public Works
Department
During grading
and building
construction /
On going

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.

Project Applicant Community and
Economic
Development
Department
/Public Works
Department
During grading
and building
construction /
On going

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,
Project Applicant Community and
Economic
Development
Department
/Public Works
Department
Prior to
receiving a
Certificate of
Occupancy

1704485.1 Page 125

IDENTIFIED
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES/PDFs

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date
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.

Project Applicant Community and
Economic
Development
Department
/Public Works
Department
During grading
and building
construction /
On going

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

Project Applicant Community and
Economic
Development
Department
/Public Works
Department
During grading
and building
construction /
On going

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

Project Applicant Community and
Economic
Development
Department
/Public Works
Department
During grading
and building
construction /
On going

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.

Project Applicant Community and
Economic
Development
Department
/Public Works
Department
During grading
and building
construction /
On going

1704485.1 Page 126

IDENTIFIED
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES/PDFs

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date

1. Improve 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

1704485.1 Page 127

IDENTIFIED
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES/PDFs

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date
attractions. This should include
information on local bus routes and
schedules, regional transportation
options, such as the Anaheim
Regional Transportation Intermodal
Center (ARTIC) and Orange
Metrolink Station, and wayfinding
to the existing transit stops along
Harbor Boulevard.

NOISE blank blank blank blank blank blank
Construction Noise Reduction blank blank blank blank blank blank Generate temporary
noise levels in
exceedance of
ambient conditions
at the residential
uses surrounding the
project site
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
construction noise levels. Best
management practices shall include,
but not be limited to, the following:
• All construction equipment shall be
equipped with mufflers 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
Project Applicant Community and
Economic
Development
Department /
Public Works
Department
Prior to grading
and building
construction

1704485.1 Page 128

IDENTIFIED
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES/PDFs

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date
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.

1704485.1 Page 129

IDENTIFIED
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES/PDFs

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date
• 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.

Project Applicant Community and
Economic
Development
Department /
Public Works
Department
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
grading activities 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
Project Applicant Community and
Economic
Development
Department /
Public Works
Department
During the first
phase of
construction,
prior to
performing any
excavation or
grading
activities

1704485.1 Page 130

IDENTIFIED
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES/PDFs

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date
installing sound absorptive material or
blankets which can be installed in
multiple layers for improved noise
insulation.

TRANSPORTATION blank blank blank blank blank blank
Left-Turn Queue blank blank blank blank blank blank
Substantially increase
hazards due to a
geometric design or
incompatible uses
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.

Project Applicant Public Works
Department
Prior to final
building permits

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

Project Applicant Public Works
Department
Prior to final
building permits

TR-3 Pay full cost to extend the left-turn
capacity up to 105 feet at the
intersection of Harbor Boulevard and
Lampson Avenue.

Project Applicant Public Works
Department
Prior to final
building permits

TR-4 Pay full cost to extend the left-turn
capacity up to 133 feet at the
intersection of Haster Street and
Lampson Avenue.

Project Applicant Public Works
Department
Prior to final
building permits

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

Project Applicant Public Works
Department
Prior to final
building permits

1704485.1 Page 131

IDENTIFIED
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES/PDFs

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES blank blank blank blank blank blank Substantial adverse
change in the
significance of a
tribal cultural
resource pursuant to
Public Resources
Code § 21074
TCR-1 If 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
American 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).

Project Applicant Community and
Economic
Development
Department /
Public Works
Department
During grading
and building
construction

1704485.1 Page 132
Page intentionally left blank

GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA

NICKELODEON RESORT HOTEL
CITY of GARDEN GROVE

SHEET TITLE
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE PRELIMINARY
KAM SANG COMPANY
411 EAST HUNTINGTON DRIVE, ARCADIA, CA

-
I
I ..

I
I
I I I
Ii I
- ■
- I
-
I
•
•
• • •
I
i
I
•
I
•
•
•
•
• ..
..
' IY z
0 " 0
LL " 0
<
0 u
w w > ,,. D
<( " u
n_ z w
w D
IY " < o_ D
Date
2/25/2021
Scale
20'-o"
Sheet No.
1 OF 20
File No.
,
m
z a
~
5 w
"
w r
' 0
0 z

GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA

NICKELODEON RESORT HOTEL
CITY of GARDEN GROVE

SHEET TITLE
104
6 1
4 114
- 52,206 S.F.
- 40,656 S.F.
74 3
1 4
84 - 52,206 S.F.
- 52,206 S.F.
- 52,206 S.F.
110
110
110
6 1
4 100
6 1
4 100
6 1
4 100
528
20 28
40,656 / 250 = 163 OCC LOAD
8,600 / 300 = 29 OCC LOAD
289,891 / 200 = 1149 OCC LOAD
5,480 / 30 = 183 OCC LOAD
16,492 / 100 = 165 OCC LOAD
11,329 / 100 = 113 OCC LOAD
3,173 / 100 = 32 OCC LOAD
8,532 / 50 = 171 OCC LOAD
7,000 / 15 = 467 OCC LOAD
13,238 / 15 = 883 OCC LOAD
8,225 / 15 = 549 OCC LOAD
7,039 / 15 = 469 OCC LOAD
22,296 / 15 = 1,486 OCC LOAD
4,031 / 7 = 577 OCC LOAD
4,194 / 7 = 599 OCC LOAD
9,490 / 7 = 1,355 OCC LOAD
( B )
( A )

BUILDING CLASSIFICATIONS

LOT INFORMATION
LOT SIZE: GROSS 3.72 ACRES (APPROX 161,933 SQUARE FEET)

1.AND~E : GROSS APPROX 26,~24 SQ.VAR~ FEET ( AT STREET LEVl;q GROSS APPROX 29,359 SQUARE FEET (AT PODIUM LEVEL)
GROSS APPROX 55,583 SQUARE FEET (34 % COVERAGE)
CIRCULATION:

GROSS APPROX 101.900 SQUARE FEET
OCCUPA.NT LOADS
-2.l 8AUROOM

BALLROOM

MEETING ROOM

MEETING ROOM
A-3 RESTAURANT, MEETING ROOMS LOBBY
FOOD and BEVERAGE

HOTEL MEETING ROOMS

HOTEL THEMED AMENITIES
NICK STUDIO (TliEATRE)

NICK ARCADE

SPA/ FITNESS
6 OFFICE, BACK OF HOUSE, OTHERS

HOTEL OFFICE (PRODUCTION)
HOTEL SUPPORT (SUPPORT OFFIC£S)
BACK Of HOUSE !SUPPORT)

M RETAIL
HOTEl RElAll
R-1 HOTEL

HOTEL ROOMS
S-2 STORAGE, LOADING
HOTEL SUPPORT !STORAGE)
S-3 BELOW GRADE PARKING
·ALLL OCCUPANT LOAD CALULATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE FOR CONCEPTUAL

DESIGN PURPOSES
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION:

TYPE 1 FIRE RESISTIVE: SPRINKLER SYSTEM

BUILDING INFORMATION
AOOAf-SS:

KAA80R SOUU.VAROAHOT'M.NTRU LANEGAAOfN GRCM.,.CA 92MO
OORR£HT ZONING:

C-3, C0."1MUt0Al
IIIJIW. Gli£ffl!OOM uY CQ!/fil
wnw. H()Tfl TOWt R COHSJ.Sl Of .SOOK£YS (660 MOOUlES 6) 439 S.f. •/ •

PARKING COUNTS
ALL EHTCRTAIN:MEHT, REST AUAANTS. SPA, ffifrfES.$, fflOC STUDM>, NKX MU:ft!TIES. f!CTAlL. ~MEETI HG WAa Mt. lHfEHOEO FOilOCCUPIEOGUBTOf lHE HOTtL

STURCTURED PARKING UNDER MAIN HOTEL TOWER
PARl(JNG LEVEL 4

PROVIDED- )
STANDARD SPACES:

EV SPACES:

EV ADA SPACES:

ADA SPACES:

PARKING LEVEL 3
PROVIDED• )
STANDARD SPACES:

EV SPACES:

EV ADA SPACES:

AOASPACES:

PARl(JNG LEVEL 2
PROVIDED· )
STANDARD SPACES:

EV SPACES: •
EV ADA SPACES:

ADA SPACES:

PARKfNG LEVEL 1
PROVIDED· )
STANDARD SPACES:

EV SPACES:

EV ADA SPACES:

ADA SPACES: •
( TOTAL SPACES
( TOTAL SPACES
( TOTAL SPACES

I TOTAL SPACES
PARl(ING LEVEL 81 I TOTAL SPACES
PROVIDED· )
STANDARD SPACES ·

EV SPACES

EV ADA SPACES

ADA SPACES
TOTAL PARKING SPACES PROVIDED:

TOTAL EV PARKING SPACES PROVIDED:

TOTAL ADA SPACES PROVIDED:
'
KAM SANG c.o :M:PANY
,411 E HUNTINGTON DR #305, ARCADIA, CA 91006

BUILDING CODE SUMMARY
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE MUNICIPAL CODE (1962 CODE l·l .Ol) (UPDATED SY ORDINANCE 13-0·2650 ON NOVEMBER 19,2016

BUILDING
C.8.C. 2016, EXClUOING All APPENDICES EXCEPT G, I, ANO l INCLUDING AMENDMENTS FROM G.G.M.C. SECTION 9· 1·202

ELECTRICAL
C.E.C. 2016, INCLUDING ANNEXES EXCEEPT ANNEX H

MECHANICAL
C.E.C. 2016, INClUDING All OF THE APPENDICES EXCEPT A ANO E

PLUMBING
C.P.C. 2016, INClUOING ALL OF THE APPENDICES EXCEPT C,F, AND L INCLUDING ALL AMENDMENTS FROM G.G.M.C. SECTION 9•l •S02

POOL AND SPA
•uNIFORM SWIMMING POOL, SPA ANO HOT TUB CODE 2012" EXCEPT PART l ; IAP.M.0
INCLUDING AMENDMENTS FROM G.G.M.C SECTION 9·1·902

HOUSING
•1NIFORM HOUSING CODE 1997• 1.C.8.0 . EXCEPT CHAPTER 16 AMO CHAPTERS F

THE STATE HOUSING LAW UNDER WHICH LOCAL AGENOES ACT AS THE ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY; INCLUDING AMENlS ·8'

DIVERSION
'CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT' (A8939) AS REQUIREMENTS THAT WILL BE ESTABLISHED BY THE OlY
FIRE
C.F.C. 2016, INCLUDING APENDICES 8, 88, C. CC, D, F, AND H INCLUDING AMENDMENTS FROM G.M .C. SECTION 9·2·2

BUILDING HEIGHT SUMMARY
PROJECT 0'-0' 8ASEO ON RELATIVE ELEVATION O'·O' AT SOUTHEAST PROPERTY

CORNER AND MEASURED TO HIGHEST PROJECTING SURFACE
HOTEL TOWER MAXIMUM HEIGHT +347'•7•
HOTEL PROGRAM ENTERTAINMENT/ POOL DECK +60'=r

PROJECT DOES NOT ANTICIPATE AN IMPACT ON OUR NEIGHBORING

SHERATON HOTEL OTHER THEN REQUESTING A SHARED ACCESS

AGREEMENT
T
w
I
N
T
R
E
E
A
V
E

SITE MAP
jOOSTl.ll.lG
SJil.ERAT-OJtl
N TEL
" 0
C
0 w
" <
" w
" "
Date
2/25/2021
Scale
1'' = 20'-o"
Sheet No.
2 OF 20
File No.
z
0 ' 5
' '
0 z
ELEV. No. 2 ELEV. No. 2

FRONTFRONT
Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdf
Missing or invalid reference
Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference ELECT. ELECT. ELECT. ELECT. ELECT. ELECT. ELECT.
003004005 001002006007008009010011014015016017018019020021022023024025026027028029030031032033034035036037038039040042043 013 012 081080079078077076075074073070069068067066065064063062061060059058057056055054053052051050049048047046045044 071 072 082083084085086087088089090091092093094095096097098099100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114 ELEV.

VEST.
480'-4"
18'-6" 12'-0" 422'-0" 27'-10"
350'-0"
10'-7" 126'-0" 25'-0" 31'-4"
480'-4"
11'-1"
27'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0"
TYP.
26'-0"
25'-0"
2'-0"
6'-0"17'-0"
2'-0"
26'-0"20'-0" 21'-0"
28'-0"
26'-0"26'-0"
25'-0"
9'-6" 9'-0"
TYP.
9'-6"
24'x24" CONC.

COL. TYP.
+ 42" CONC.

WALL
4'-0"
27'-0"
4'-0"
27'-0"
12'-11"
12'-11"
R50'-8"
R223'-0"
19'-0"
9'-0"
10'-0"
6'-0"
10'-0"
PL PL
PL PL
PL PL
Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference PL PL
10'-0"
6'-0"
10'-0"
4'-0"

EV CHARGING
STATION TYP.

GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA

NICKELODEON RESORT HOTEL
CITY of GARDEN GROVE

SHEET TITLE
NLEVEL B1- BASEMENT LEVEL GARAGE FLOOR PLAN

. ' . •
.
~
~
r
~~ " . L L ~
. '
"
I, ,. ,. ¢:,
• ,
¢
.
' ..
\,.
{> iJ ' ' ' •
,.
~
" '
¢:, 7
,.
, .
7 ,
'.!,. ¢
• L. 'l
'
{> iJ
\,.
' '
' -,...,
"
¢:,
.
~
¢
. •
'
.

I, 1.
. ;
,.
w
~
r/
- L 151
~
, I<"" L
r/
¢:, V, , . • • '/
¢
~ . w
7 ~
Y/ ,, 151 Y/
¢:, 1/ ,
I/ .I
¢ V,
,,
-
151L
, .
•
;
'I
[I]
151
I l~
/
D
¢:,
¢
,
.
. •
,
1i
ll'. <
" 0
~
0 LL ~ <
0 u
w !i ll'. 0
<(
~
0 n. z
w w
ll'.
0 ~
<
n. 0
Date
2/25/2021
Scale
1 " = 20' o"
Sheet No.
3 OF20
File No.
)­
m
z
0 • 5 w
f
w c <
0 0
z
Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference Sheet: 1File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference

GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA

NICKELODEON RESORT HOTEL
CITY of GARDEN GROVE

SHEET TITLE
NLEVEL 1 - GRADE LEVEL FLOOR PLAN

HARBOR BLVD

TWIN TREE AVENUE
N00°39'55"E
TELE
12"W
3"GAS
10"SEWER
6"W

ELEC/CATV

ADMINISTRATION 'A'

THEATRE

SUPPORT

STUDIO NICK

SHIPPING /

RECEIVING
TRASH

COMPACTOR

RECIEVING TRASH

COMPACTOR
BELL /
VALET

NICK CENTRAL
ELEV.

LOBBY
ELEV.

VEST.

ELEV.

VEST.

DROP-OFF

DRIVE WAY
EMER
GEN
CY
EXIT
ONLY

GARAGE VEHICLE

ACCESS RAMP
BAR

CONCIERGE

INTERACTIVE

KIDS LOUNGE

PLAYFUL

ELEMENT
'A'

WAITING
LOUNGE
ELECT. ELECT. ELECT. ELECT.ELECT.
117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145116115 172 171 170 169 168 167 166 165 164 163 162 161 160 159 158 157 156 155 154 153 152 151 150 149 148 147 146173174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 LEFT
TURN
ONLY
480'-4"
18'-6"12'-0"422'-0"27'-10"
13'-1"14'-9" 85'-0" 25'-0"
25'-0"
350'-0"9'-11"
33'-3" 31'-6" 23'-7" 34'-1" 35'-5" 126'-0" 25'-0" 31'-4" 480'-4"
15'-2"115'-3"45'-8"88'-8"115'-5"32'-8"
12'-0" 12'-0"12'-0"12'-0"12'-0"12'-0"
R18'-0"
15'-0"
15'-0"
15'-0"7'-0"
12'-0"
12'-11"12'-0"16'-0"
1'-0"
15'-0"
15'-0"
15'
-0"
19'-6"
43'-4"24'-2"
15'-0"
8'' WALL - 8'-0'' HIGHT 8'' WALL - 8'-0'' HIGHT
9'-0"9'-0"
TYP.
26'-0"
25'-0"
2'-0"
6'-0"17'-0"
2'-0"
26'-0"20'-0" 21'-0"
25'-0"
26'-0"26'-0"
8'-4"
24'x24" CONC.

COL. TYP.

MAIN ELEC

SERVICE
RIGHT
TURN
ONLY
RAMP
UP
RAMP
UP
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115

GARAGE VEHICLE

ACCESS RAMP

LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE

LANDSCAPE

LANDSCAPE

.
•
-~--~-----------------··-----------------------------------~--- • • • ..

A.••• • .. • ·•
. .
• • •
• • • •
• • • •
c>
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
•
•
• • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 i}
·.·.·.·.·.·.·.-w'------, • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • . . • • • • • • •
• • •
• • • • • • • •
• • • • • • ta • • • •
• • • • • •
• • • • • •
• • • •
• • •
• •
•
•
• • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• •••• • • • ...... . ~ . • • • • • • • • • • •
• •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• •
0 i}
I
I
c>
¢:,
c>
¢:,
c>
•
. .
c>
•
¢:,
c>
c>
0 i}
• • • • • •• • •
·.·.·.·.·.·.:~ O"" • • • . ... .
• •
• • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Ill - - - - - - -• • • • •
• •
•
•
• •
•
•
• •
•
•
•
• • • •
• •
•
• •
••• • • • • • • • .. • • • •••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••••••••• ·•
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .... •
• • •
• •
• • • • •••• • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • . .... •• <I •
• • • • • • • • ii' • • • • • • • •
• •
)
• • • •
j
-•
• ·' . . ..
'•1t- • • • • • • • • • • • l ,~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - ······J
,I .......
••
ii' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .....
••••••••••••••••• .......,J ♦♦--- •:

J •. 11-.• :.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.· •• ••••••••••••••• •••• -·z··· ,i,-------i'-+-+- '----1--1---f:::--F•-.-:•c+.::, ~_,•:,e':i,,•:.,,•:.,,.:•,.:•,.a•:,-.--,.--.-:•,.:•,.a•:,~•:,"•:,,•:.,,.:•,.:•,.a•,.a•:,,:c-r"II,·• • '" • • • . • / I • ... ·~•.1•.... .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. • • • • • . ..... ./ . "'.· •. 'J\·•······································· •.• .. ".· _ .. • ,/ .. . . - . .. . .. ·• • • -•••
-
-......

I
.....,
.................
• •
: . . .
, .
••
• • • • • • • •••• • • • • • • •••••
( ;:-:-: • • • • •
. . ·•
• • • I
c>
II •
Q
. . . .
•
¢:,
c>
.... •.
.. • . .
•
• •
.. . .

D
Q
A! ..
- I
0 I
I
-
I
I
I
-I
I
~: .--..
•
•
••••
... :
• • •
.....

Q
. ..
• • •
• • • • •
. ..
-
I
li ■:

I :i;.;;;;;;;:,= •1 • • •,:•. .IIIIIIIIL..- . . . . . . . . . . . .. . , \· ... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . • • • • •
• • • • 4 •
.. ..... ·. ••. • . ,.I• . • ·, .• •
• • • ~·~:;.:..:·~•~,_·a·-_.~·:..,·-•·--'--· ... ·., .... •
..
• ..
\ ,
••
. ........ ..
·.•
~
. . -..
• • • • • • • •
• •
c>
• • • • • r.
. . . ...
. . .... .
• • •
••
..• .. ~ .. _.
. . . . . ...
• • • ..
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • •
• • • • • •
•
• • •
. ,
... • '
, ..
. . ..................... .,
• • ••••••••••••••••••• 1 •
. ...... • .. - .. ·~-.=.~:·~·.·.·,,,": ,:•
•
0 •
0 0
•
• ~ .>
~ ?
: 1---1---1---1---1---1---1---1---l:::::l~:::j::::;l~:::j::::;l~:::j::::;l~:::j::::;l~:::j::::;l~:::j::::;l~:::j:::::~:::t--l--t--l---t~t--~,-----'---------------------------------------------------------------j 0 • • • • • • •
•
•
• • • • • • • • • • • . ... • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
n
~--
i} i}
' '
POOL
' I

C C C C
.... "
C C C
I
I
C
I
•
C •
C
C C

I I I I
C
C
t--+-+-+-+-+-+--t)\ "' u
0 A
II
'
HOTEL
7 STORY
288 ROOMS
288 X 80% = 230 CARS
_..--:::::
7 n
-
II -
•
--
'-' z
~
.J
--
1111-1111-
r
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
..
"
"
"
I
I II
-
II
------+-------1---------------+----+-------------------t-+-+-+-+-+-+--+---------------+-------------------TELE---------+----------------------------------- -------t--------t-----------------+-----,1-----------------------+--,1---+---+---t--t---+--t------------l2'\.I'---~ -------11----------t--------------------1------+--------------------------11--11---+--+--1---t---+--+------------------------------------------------3 ... :,~---------------------------------------------------------- -
-
-
-
-
-
ll'.
0 LL
0 w
ll'.
<(
n. w
ll'.
n.

Date
2/25/2021
Scale
1 "
Sheet No.
30' -0"
4 0F20
File No.
)­
m
z
0 • 5 w
f
w
f­
<
0 0
z
ELEV. No. 2 ELEV. No. 2

FRONTFRONT
ELEV. No. 5 ELEV. No. 6

FRONTFRONT
ELEV. No. 7
FRONT
ELEV. No. 5
ELEV. No. 6
NICK

CENTRAL SIPS BITS AND BYTES

PLAYFUL

ELEMENT
'B'

OPEN TO
BELOW
kNICK kNACKS
ELEV.

LOBBY

PLAYFUL

ELEMENT
'C'

STUDIO NICK
BELOW
ELECT. ELECT. ELECT. ELECT. ELECT. ELECT. ELECT.
201202203 199200204205206207208209212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240 211 210 278277276275274273272271270267266265264263262261260259258257256255254253252251250249248247246245244243242241 268 269 279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308 HARBOR BLVD N00°39'55"E
12"W
TELE
12"W
3"GAS
10"SEWER
6"W

ELEC/CATV
HARBOR BLVD N00°39'55"E CL
48'-0" 51'-8" 8'-4"
t:
il : .\ fr - - il - r i . f
i i r i li r f r
t:
il : .\ fr - - il - r i . f
i i r i li r f r
480'-4"
18'-6" 12'-0" 422'-0" 27'-10"
350'-0"
126'-0" 25'-0" 31'-4"
480'-4"
PL PL
PL PL
PL PL
Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference PL PL
35'-5"34'-1"23'-7"31'-6"33'-3"9'-11"
16'-11"
8'-2"15'-2"
113'-6"
31'-4"123'-0"
5'-9"
66'-4"51'-5"19'-6"
350'-0"
45'-7" 28'-10"
18'-2"34'-5"
2'-2"
27'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0"
TYP.
26'-0"
25'-0"
2'-0"
6'-0"17'-0"
2'-0"
26'-0"20'-0" 21'-0"
28'-0"
26'-0"26'-0"
25'-0"
9'-6" 9'-0"
TYP.
9'-6"
24'x24" CONC.

COL. TYP.
+ 42" CONC.

WALL
4'-0"
27'-0"
4'-0"
27'-0"
19'-0"
9'-0"
10'-0"
6'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0"
6'-0"
10'-0"
4'-0"

EV CHARGING
STATION TYP.
14'-4"
+ 42" CONC.

WALL

BUILDING
ABOVE

L LCL CL

GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA

NICKELODEON RESORT HOTEL
CITY of GARDEN GROVE

SHEET TITLE
NLEVEL 2 - FLOOR PLAN

. ' . •
.
~
~
.
7' ~~
L .
r
~
"
I, ,. ,.
• ,
.
' ..
\,.
' ,. J1 I).
' V u
,.
~
" '
¢:, ,. , -,
,. ,. ,.
• , -, -,
'.!,. ¢
• L. 'l ~
...J ,,
'
I/ I\,.
{} tr
\,.
' '
V ' I/ {} tr " ' I/ I\,.
¢:,
• . ~ '-
• • • ¢
. •
'
-
u
\j
J
\
.
,. '.
(
\.
w
- L
~
, I<"" L
¢:,
¢
.
--..i ~
;
~ •
J ~
-
\
'.
,
\ -
\
•
7 \
151
, .
•
~
r/ 151L r/ V, , .
'/ •
~ w
•
'
,,
I,-
, J1 I\
V u , ,

1., •
¢:,
¢
:'\ 11/ " :\ - '/ I
:'\E '/
I II II ~Ill
~ u~ \,.
/
.
. •
.
'
.
'
.
. ~
.
'
(
ll'. <
" 0
~
0 LL ~ <
0 u
w !i ll'. 0
<(
~
0 n. z
w w
ll'.
0 ~
<
n. 0
Date
2/25/2021
Scale
1" 20' o"
Sheet No.
5 OF20
File No.
)-
m
z
0 • 5 w
f
w
f­
<
0 0
z
ELEV. No. 2 ELEV. No. 2

FRONTFRONT
ELEV. No. 5 ELEV. No. 6

FRONTFRONT
ELEV. No. 7
FRONT
ELEV. No. 5
ELEV. No. 6
FRONT
FRONT
ELEV. No. 5
ELEV. No. 6
NOSH
RETAIL

OPEN TO
BELOW
MENS

RESTROOM WOMENS

RESTROOM

BALLROOM

MEETING ROOM
B

MEETING ROOM
A
ELEV.

LOBBY
ELECT. ELECT. ELECT. ELECT. ELECT. ELECT. ELECT.
311312313 309310314315316317318319322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350 321 320 388387386385384383382381380377376375374373372371370369368367366365364363362361360359358357356355354353352351 378 379 389390391392393394395396397398399400401402403404405406407408409410411412413414415416417418 BOH
Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference 480'-4"
18'-6" 12'-0" 422'-0" 27'-10"
350'-0"
126'-0" 25'-0" 31'-4"
480'-4"
PL PL
PL PL
PL PL
Sheet: 1File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference PL PL
35'-5"34'-1"23'-7"31'-6"33'-3"9'-11"
8'-2"15'-2"
16'-11" 113'-6" 45'-7" 25'-5" 124'-8"
69'-10"
42'-7" 27'-4"
16'-6"
3'-0"
31'-4"123'-0"51'-5"19'-6"
350'-0"
18'-3" 9'-5" 44'-2" 52'-11"
2'-4"
27'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0"
TYP.
26'-0"
25'-0"
2'-0"
6'-0"17'-0"
2'-0"
26'-0"20'-0" 21'-0"
28'-0"
26'-0"26'-0"
25'-0"
9'-6" 9'-0"
TYP.
9'-6"
24'x24" CONC.

COL. TYP.
+ 42" CONC.

WALL
4'-0"
27'-0"
4'-0"
27'-0"
19'-0"
9'-0"
10'-0"
6'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0"
6'-0"
10'-0"
4'-0"

EV CHARGING
STATION TYP.

GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA

NICKELODEON RESORT HOTEL
CITY of GARDEN GROVE

SHEET TITLE
NLEVEL 3 - MEETING LEVEL FLOOR PLAN

= [II]~
ll'. <
" 0
~
0 LL ~ <
0 u
w !i ll'. 0
<(
~
0 n. z
w w
ll'.
0 ~
<
n. 0
Date
2 25 2021
Scale
1 " = 20'-o"
Sheet No.
6 OF20
File No.
)­
m
z
0 • 5 w
f
w
f­
<
0 0
z
ELEV. No. 2 ELEV. No. 2

FRONTFRONT
ELEV. No. 5 ELEV. No. 6

FRONTFRONT
ELEV. No. 7
FRONT
ELEV. No. 5
ELEV. No. 6
FRONT
FRONT
ELEV. No. 5
ELEV. No. 6

STUDIO HALL

OPEN TO
BELOW

OPEN TO
BELOW

OPEN TO
BELOW
MENS

RESTROOM WOMENS

RESTROOM

BUSINESS

MEETING
BELOW

MEETING
BELOW

BALLROOM
BELOW
ELEV.

LOBBY
ELECT. ELECT. ELECT. ELECT. ELECT. ELECT. ELECT.
421422423 419420424425426427428429432433434435436437438439440441442443444445446447448449450451452453454455456457458459460 431 430 498497496495494493492491490487486485484483482481480479478477476475474473472471470469468467466465464463462461 488 489 499500501502503504505506507508509510511512513514515516517518519520521522523524525526527528 BOH
Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference 480'-4"
18'-6" 12'-0" 422'-0" 27'-10"
350'-0"
126'-0" 25'-0" 31'-4"
480'-4"
PL PL
PL PL
PL PL
Sheet: 1File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference PL PL
35'-5"34'-1"23'-7"31'-6"33'-3"9'-11"
16'-11" 113'-6" 45'-7" 28'-10"
31'-4"123'-0"51'-5"19'-6"
350'-0"
18'-3" 9'-5" 44'-2" 52'-11"
27'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0"
TYP.
26'-0"
25'-0"
2'-0"
6'-0"17'-0"
2'-0"
26'-0"20'-0" 21'-0"
28'-0"
26'-0"26'-0"
25'-0"
9'-6" 9'-0"
TYP.
9'-6"
24'x24" CONC.

COL. TYP.
+ 42" CONC.

WALL
4'-0"
27'-0"
4'-0"27'-0"
19'-0"
9'-0"
10'-0"
6'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0"
6'-0"
10'-0"
4'-0"

EV CHARGING
STATION TYP.

PL
16'-6"
3'-0"
2'-4"

GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA

NICKELODEON RESORT HOTEL
CITY of GARDEN GROVE

SHEET TITLE
NLEVEL 4 - FLOOR PLAN

ll'. <
" 0
~
0 LL ~ <
0 u
w !i ll'. 0
<(
~
0 n. z
w w
ll'.
0 ~
<
n. 0
Date
2 25 2021
Scale
1 " = 20'-o"
Sheet No.
7 OF20
File No.
)­
m
z
0 • 5 w
f
w
f­
<
0 0
z
ELEV. No. 2 ELEV. No. 2

FRONTFRONT
ELEV. No. 5 ELEV. No. 6

FRONTFRONT
ELEV. No. 5
ELEV. No. 6
ELEV. No. 5
ELEV. No. 6
FRONT
FRONT

HUMAN RESOURCE

SECURITY

ENGINEERING/

BUILDING CONTROL
CENTER

CHILLER
PLANT

POOL & WATER

FEATURE EQUIPMENT

CENTRAL PLANT

POOL & WATER

FEATURE

CONTROL
CENTER

KITCHEN

LAUNDRY

ACCOUNTING
ELEV. No. 5
ELEV. No. 6
FRONT
FRONT

BANQUET

KITCHENDISH

WASHING
ROOM

SERVICE

HOUSEKEEPING 'A'
DIRTY

LAUNDRY

HOUSEKEEPING 'B'

VISITORS
LOUNGE

WOMENS LOCKERMENS LOCKERADMINISTRATION
SALES
SECURE

STORAGE

SERVICE

CORE 'A'

SERVICE

CORE 'B'

SERVICE

CORE 'C'

OPEN TO
BELOW

OPEN TO
BELOW

MAIN ELECTRICAL
ROOM "B"

EMERGENCY

GENERATOR EMPLOYEE LOUNGE EMPLOYEE

LOUNGE KITCHEN

CORRIDOR

CORRIDOR

CORRIDOR

EGRESS CORRIDOR 'B'

EGRESS CORRIDOR 'C'

EGRESS CORRIDOR 'A'
Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference 480'-4"
18'-6" 12'-0" 422'-0" 27'-10"
350'-0"
98'-0" 25'-0" 31'-4"
480'-4"
PL PL
PL PL
PL PL
Sheet: 1File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference PL PL
31'-4"123'-0"
2'-4"
19'-6"
350'-0"
82'-4" 38'-11"
6'-3"
58'-10"
34'-1"23'-7"31'-6"33'-3"9'-11" 33'-0"30'-5"
16'-11" 113'-4" 45'-9" 150'-1" 50'-4" 69'-9" 27'-10"
16'-6"
3'-0"
2'-4"
6'-4"

BUILDING
BELOW

BUILDING
BELOW

GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA

NICKELODEON RESORT HOTEL
CITY of GARDEN GROVE

SHEET TITLE
NLEVEL 5 - SERVICE LEVEL FLOOR PLAN

l
eee
111111
□ e e e
l
OD OD

DIDDIII
l

DIIIUIIJ
OD OD
eee
0 1 I I I I I
□
l
eee
l
eee
DI 11111 □ □
l
eee
OD OD
D Ill D Ill
□ □ □
□ □
re,o re,o
DiQ DiQ
□
\
□ □
□ □ □
0 □
□ □
□
~ (/) ~ (/) 0 PREPARED FOR:

CT n 0 m m ' 0 ~
m m N m z ~
0 II ~ ' ()) z
?
0 N (Jl
0 ~

GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA
'1 .

N I 0 0 0 N .
~
No. DATE REVISION BY
ELEV. No. 5 ELEV. No. 6

FRONTFRONT
ELEV. No. 5
ELEV. No. 6FRONT
FRONT
ELEV. No. 5
ELEV. No. 6
FRONT
FRONT
ELEV. No. 5
ELEV. No. 6
FRONT
FRONT
FRESCO

NEW YORK
PIZZA
ELEV.

LOBBY
WOMENS

RESTROOM
MENS

RESTROOM
SERV.

VEST.

BITS &
BYTES
AQUA
BITE
Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference PL PL
PL PL
PL PL
Sheet: 1File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference PL PL
480'-4"
18'-6" 12'-0" 422'-0" 27'-10"
350'-0"
98'-0" 25'-0" 31'-4"
480'-4"
31'-4"101'-0"
2'-4"
19'-6"
350'-0"
82'-4"
34'-1"23'-7"31'-6"33'-3"9'-11" 33'-0"30'-5"
16'-11" 113'-4" 45'-9" 150'-1" 50'-4" 69'-9" 27'-10"
91'-6" 22'-0"
16'-6"
3'-0"
2'-4"
6'-4"

BUILDING
BELOW

BUILDING
BELOW

GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA

NICKELODEON RESORT HOTEL
CITY of GARDEN GROVE

SHEET TITLE
NLEVEL 6 - POOL & DINING LEVEL FLOOR PLAN

(j
0 ·o
.o·.
0 0
0 0
. ,Q.
0 • .....---....... \ -
/ -
I i --------
( ) ----.,,...------·- -----------------"·---.___ \ / /,,,..,,...-- --- --- ''----- '--, ____ / /
~----- --------

0. Q· \\
p ..
~
CD
ll'.
0 LL
0 w
ll'.
<(

11. w
ll'.

11. Date
2 25 2021
Scale ,,
1" = 20·-o
Sheet No.
g OF 20
File No.

NIC:K-1 -I 1
m
z
0 • 5 w
~
w
f­
< 0
0 z
ELEV. No. 5 ELEV. No. 6

FRONTFRONT
ELEV. No. 5
ELEV. No. 6FRONT
FRONT
ELEV. No. 5
ELEV. No. 6
FRONT
FRONT
ELEV. No. 5
ELEV. No. 6
FRONT
FRONT
ELEV. No. 5
ELEV. No. 6FRONT
FRONT
ELEV. No. 5
ELEV. No. 6
FRONT
FRONT

PAD - K
A

PAD - QQ
A
ADA

PAD - K

APAD - K
A

PAD - QQ
A

PAD - K
A

PAD - K
A

PAD - K

A PAD - QQ
A

PAD - QQ

APAD - K
A

PAD - K
A

PAD - K
A

PAD - QQ
A

PAD - K
A
ADA

PAD - K
A
ELEV.

VEST.

FLAT - K
A

FLAT - K
A

SERVICE

STORAGE

PAD - K
A

PAD - QQ
A
Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference PL PL
PL PL
PL PL
Sheet: 1File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference PL PL
480'-4"
64'-8" 19'-6" 262'-0" 121'-7"
350'-0"
93'-9" 25'-0" 31'-4"
480'-4"
31'-4"95'-6"
350'-0"
184'-0"
25'-3"13'-5"131'-4" 21'-10"
8'-1"
375'-2" 77'-4" 27'-10"
23'-9" 15'-5"
5'-10"6'-9"

GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA

NICKELODEON RESORT HOTEL
CITY of GARDEN GROVE

SHEET TITLE
NLEVEL 7 to 22 - GUEST ROOM LEVEL FLOOR PLAN

CJ
---------------------- __ ---- ~..... _ __.,..
- - ------~ ......
'--.__..___ //
~----- --------
------- -......
"'-._
-~- ~ -...__
"\ \
\ \
) )
I I
/ I
/ I
/
< ..
~ ll'.
0 0
~
LL ~
< u 0
<,I w
0 ll'. ~
<( ~

11. ~
0 w
~
ll'. <

11. ~
Date
2 25 2021
Scale ,,
1 .. = 20·-o
Sheet No.
1 o OF 20
File No.

NIC:K-I -I 1
' m
z
0 • 5 w
~
w
f­
< 0
0 z
ELEV. No. 5 ELEV. No. 6

FRONTFRONT
ELEV. No. 5
ELEV. No. 6FRONT
FRONT
ELEV. No. 5
ELEV. No. 6
FRONT
FRONT
ELEV. No. 5
ELEV. No. 6
FRONT
FRONT
kids SPA

SPA LOBBY
SPA-AHH!

THE ODEON
RELIEF
WINE

SHOW CASE
WOMENS

RESTROOMMENS
RESTROOM ELEV.

VEST.

SERVICE /

STORAGE
Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdf
Missing or invalid reference
Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdf
Missing or invalid reference
PL PL
PL PL
PL PL
Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdf
Missing or invalid reference
Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdf
Missing or invalid reference
PL PL
480'-4"
64'-8" 19'-6" 262'-0" 121'-7"
350'-0"
93'-9" 25'-0" 31'-4"
480'-4"
31'-4"95'-6"
350'-0"
184'-0"
25'-3"13'-5"131'-4" 21'-10"
8'-1"
375'-2" 77'-4" 27'-10"
23'-9" 15'-5"
5'-10"6'-9"
PL PL

GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA

NICKELODEON RESORT HOTEL
CITY of GARDEN GROVE

SHEET TITLE
NLEVEL 23 - SPA & FINE DINING LEVEL FLOOR PLAN

I I
~
-
I
I I I
I I I ! ,
I , I
I
I
I I I
I
I
I
I I

I I I I I I I
CJ
\
\ \
--------~ -- ------ ---- ---✓----- ~----- --
' --- ----/ ~ / / / ...__...___~ --------
-------- ......
"'-._
-~- ~ '-..__
"\ \
\ \
) \ i
I I
/ I
/ I
/
ll'. < z
~
0 0
~
LL ~
< u 0
<,I w
ll'. 0
~
<( ~

11. ~ w 0
~
ll'. <

11. ~
Date
2_1_ 2s L2021
Scale
1"=20-, o"
Sheet No.
11 OF 20
File No.

NIC:K-I -I 1
' m
z
0 • 5 w
~
w
f­
< 0
0 z

GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA

NICKELODEON RESORT HOTEL
CITY of GARDEN GROVE

SHEET TITLE
+0"
+15'‐4"
+27'‐8"
+40'‐1"
+50'‐6"
+60'‐7"
+72'‐7"
+84'‐7"
+96'‐7"
+108'‐7"
+120'‐7"
+132'‐7"
+144'‐7"
+156'‐7"
+168'‐7"
+180'‐7"
+192'‐7"
+204'‐7"
+216'‐7"
+228'‐7"
+240'‐7"
+252'‐7"
+264'‐7"
+276'‐7"
+288'‐7"
+300'‐7"
+312'‐7"
+330'‐0"
+335'‐8"
‐ 11'‐0"

EXTERIOR ELEVATION - EAST
14

'
'
fil---'-----------f-L_____Jl_____\l, 11-•----'~----'--r--1---- rrJ:):[JJ:rJjrr=Trr===r=Hr==,r=h====r==r=r====r=fi===,=~=,c=~=r=#~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ::::r::::J. _ .. l!-...JL_--'-___JII---.L_-L----1,------L-_L__JJ II rr'--.JL.._-41-...JL------1.------1.jl ..
.
... ----
I I - .. - -
I ~
-'
. - . . '
' .,
' [
.. . - • '
~
,...

I .. . '
~
----
'
I T
-- . - •
I -
I I . .. . - .
..

I
' .. • - .
i
- ....
..
...,__JL_.......,,.___JL_ .L!;I-JL._.l_-1; - I-'----'---'-~ .T1==n=====r=t===r==r==t=r===r=t==r=r==r=r=TI1 ~==#=r=ff'F7r+=r==~~ ~--~ -~'ji'===j==i ~ ~i~- l=r=1rr=r====r=t===r==r===t=r===r=t1M=t===r===r=t6r==r=t=Fff-=i=r=r=r=- ~ --· =4=1-~- ~~~~~~,-- ,...__,__.JL..._
..
•
' ' -
II,
---- ~ ~
- ----I
I - . -
~
✓
- - ' ,-
- -
~ - .. ,...

I ~ I I
·- - -- - -- -
~ .. --
I -• - -- -
-
~ - i.. '
J===F=r=t==r· ===r=1-~=r==+"- "F"""i"~7===i~~r""""r""~~~ ~~~- L-....J-. ~ - J I
-I
\ ~~-- ~ ,==1r=t=t=1=· =HF=1=¥~~=r=i' ~~~~~~~~ J-il"'--------, ------1.,--1d.l_ -
I
fl
.
.
-
-
-
-
, ,.
, TT
I..: -
~ ' '
II,
-
. ,
- -
. '
•
- ' -
- . -
- -
-+ -+
-+
-+ -+ -+
-+
-+
-+
-+
-+ -+ -+ -+ -+ -+
-+ -+ -+
-+ -+
+ + +
+
____,_ ______ --======~;;pc: =_ ==-~=-=-=-~ --~
l l
., <
~ z
0 ~
~ ~
~
<
0 0
w w
~
~ 0
~
~
0 a ~ w □
~
~
a ;j
' m
z
a
i
> w
r
w f
' 0
0 z
.Da ~e
2/25/ 2 021
~cal,e
1 " - 20 '-o "
Sheet No.

OF.20
Fiie No.

NI C:k -1 - I 1

GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA

NICKELODEON RESORT HOTEL
CITY of GARDEN GROVE

SHEET TITLE
+0"
+15'‐4"
+27'‐8"
+40'‐1"
+50'‐6"
+60'‐7"
+72'‐7"
+84'‐7"
+96'‐7"
+108'‐7"
+120'‐7"
+132'‐7"
+144'‐7"
+156'‐7"
+168'‐7"
+180'‐7"
+192'‐7"
+204'‐7"
+216'‐7"
+228'‐7"
+240'‐7"
+252'‐7"
+264'‐7"
+276'‐7"
+288'‐7"
+300'‐7"
+312'‐7"
+330'‐0"
+335'‐8"
‐ 11'‐0"

EXTERIOR ELEVATION - SOUTH
15

•
-+
•
-+
-+
-+
-+
-+
• •
-+
•
-+
-+
•
-+
•
-+
•
-+
-+
•
-+ -+ -+
-+ -+ -+
-+
-+
+ + +
+
+
-+ --+
.. <
~ z
0 rr
~ ~ ~
<
0 u
w w >
~ 0
~
rr u
0 z
w w
□
~
~
<
~ u
.Da te
2/25/2021
Scal,e
1" - 20' -o "
Sheet No.
'Fiie No.
' m
z a
' > w
r
w f
' 0
0 z

GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA

NICKELODEON RESORT HOTEL
CITY of GARDEN GROVE

SHEET TITLE
+0"
+15'‐4"
+27'‐8"
+40'‐1"
+50'‐6"
+60'‐7"
+72'‐7"
+84'‐7"
+96'‐7"
+108'‐7"
+120'‐7"
+132'‐7"
+144'‐7"
+156'‐7"
+168'‐7"
+180'‐7"
+192'‐7"
+204'‐7"
+216'‐7"
+228'‐7"
+240'‐7"
+252'‐7"
+264'‐7"
+276'‐7"
+288'‐7"
+300'‐7"
+312'‐7"
+330'‐0"
+335'‐8"
‐ 11'‐0"

EXTERIOR ELEVATION - WEST
16

• •
,. "" " . -
'
... .
•
•
•
l I
-+
-+
-+
-+
-+
-+
-+
-+
-+
-+
-+
-+
-+
-+
-+ -+ -+ -+
-+
-+
-+ + + +
+
+
.. <
~ z
0 rr
~ ~
~
<
0 u
w w >
~ 0
( rr
0 0 z
w w
□
~
~
<
0 0
.Da te
2/25/ 2·021
Scal-e
1'' - 20 '- o"
Sheet No.

OF20
Fiie No.
' m
z a
' > w
'
w f
' 0
0 z

GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA

NICKELODEON RESORT HOTEL
CITY of GARDEN GROVE

SHEET TITLE
+0"
+15'‐4"
+27'‐8"
+40'‐1"
+50'‐6"
+60'‐7"
+72'‐7"
+84'‐7"
+96'‐7"
+108'‐7"
+120'‐7"
+132'‐7"
+144'‐7"
+156'‐7"
+168'‐7"
+180'‐7"
+192'‐7"
+204'‐7"
+216'‐7"
+228'‐7"
+240'‐7"
+252'‐7"
+264'‐7"
+276'‐7"
+288'‐7"
+300'‐7"
+312'‐7"
+330'‐0"
+335'‐8"
‐ 11'‐0"

EXTERIOR ELEVATION - NORTH
17

- I
°"E-~---------:;~----::;;,"1
• •
• •
•
• •
• •
•
l I
" ,.
" ,.
-+
-+
-+
-+
-+ . -+
-+
-+
-+
-+
-+
-+
-+
-+
-+
-+
-+
-+
-+
-+
-+
+ + +
+
+
.. <
~ z
0 ~
0 ~
~
~
<
0 0
w w
~
~ 0
~
~ u
0 ~ w □
~.
~
0 ;j
' m
z a
' > w
r
w f
' 0
0 z
.Dat e
2 /25/ 202 1
~icale
1 " - 20 '-o "
Sheet No.

OF 20
File No.

NI C:K-1 - I 1 -

GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA

NICKELODEON RESORT HOTEL
CITY of GARDEN GROVE

SHEET TITLE
PARKING LEVEL G2
PARKING LEVEL G1
PARKING LEVEL G3
PARKING LEVEL G4
PARKING LEVEL B1
DRIVE RAMP
DRIVE RAMP
DRIVE RAMP
B O HMEETINGBALLROOM
F.O.

H.

NI
CK STUDI
O

PROGRAM

ENTERTAINMENT
SPA and FITNESS
33 GUEST MODULES
EACH LEVEL TYPICAL

PROPERTY
LINE
31'-4"182'-7"56'-10"80'-0"

PROPERTY
LINE
47'-7"
398'-3"
+0"
+15'‐4"
+27'‐8"
+40'‐1"
+50'‐6"
+60'‐7"
+72'‐7"
+84'‐7"
+96'‐7"
+108'‐7"
+120'‐7"
+132'‐7"
+144'‐7"
+156'‐7"
+168'‐7"
+180'‐7"
+192'‐7"
+204'‐7"
+216'‐7"
+228'‐7"
+240'‐7"
+252'‐7"
+264'‐7"
+276'‐7"
+288'‐7"
+300'‐7"
+312'‐7"
+330'‐0"
+335'‐8"
‐ 11'‐0"

PROGRAM

ENTERTAINMENT

CIRCULATION

PROGRAM

ENTERTAINMENT

BUILDING SECTION
18

=
\
•
• •
I +
• •
• •
I I
• •
• •
I -----•
• •
I I
l I
-+ -+ -+ -+ -+
-+
-+
-+
-+ -+ -+ -+
-+
-+
-+
-+
-+
-+
-+
-+
Date
2/25/2021
Scale
1" = 20'-o"
Sheet No.

OF 20
File No.
' m
z a
' > w
'
0 z
NI C:K~I ~ I 1 _

TWIN TREE AVENUE
8'' WALL - 6'-0'' HIGHT
ELEV. No. 2 ELEV. No. 2

FRONTFRONT
ELEV. No. 5 ELEV. No. 6

FRONTFRONT
ELEV. No. 5
ELEV. No. 6

ADMINISTRATION 'A'

THEATRE

SUPPORT

SHIPPING /

RECEIVING
TRASH

COMPACTOR

RECIEVING TRASH

COMPACTOR
ELEV.

LOBBY
ELEV.

VEST.

ELEV.

VEST.

CONCIERGE

INTERACTIVE

KIDS LOUNGE

PLAYFUL

ELEMENT
'A'
ELECT.ELECT. ELECT. ELECT. ELECT.
117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145 116 115 172171170169168167166165164163162161160159158157156155154153152151150149148147146 173 174 175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198 LEFT
TURN
ONLY
25'-0"
8'' WALL - 8'-0'' HIGHT
8'' WALL - 8'-0'' HIGHT
8'' WALL - 8'-0'' HIGHT
24'x24" CONC.

COL. TYP.

MAIN ELEC

SERVICE
RIGHT
TURN
ONLY
RAMP
UP
RAMP
UP
PL PL
PL
PL PL
PL
0 deg0 degWB-40
(C) 2019 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.

AASHTO 2004 (US)
40 deg
9 deg
5 deg
10 deg
WB-40(C) 2019 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.AASHTO 2004 (US) 0 deg
MH
(C) 2019 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.

AASHTO 2018 (US)
3 degMH
(C) 2019 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.

AASHTO 2018 (US)
Lock to Lock Time
Width
Track
:
:
:

Feet
MH

6.0 s

8.01 8.01

20.014.00

29.99 Steering Angle 33.8 deg :

Steering Angle
Lock to Lock Time
Articulating Angle
WB-40
Trailer Track
Tractor Track
Trailer Width
Tractor Width

12.502.99
Feet

8.01 8.01 :

8.01 8.01
:
:
:

0.00 2.99 25.49

7.51 33.00
:
:
: 6.0 s

20.3 deg

70.0 deg
0 deg0 degWB-40
(C) 2019 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.

AASHTO 2004 (US)
40 deg
9 deg
5 deg
10 deg
WB-40(C) 2019 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.AASHTO 2004 (US) MH
(C) 2019 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.

AASHTO 2011 (US) 0 deg
MH
(C) 2019 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.

AASHTO 2011 (US)
34 deg
ELEV. No. 2 ELEV. No. 2

FRONTFRONT
Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdf
Missing or invalid reference
Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference ELECT. ELECT. ELECT. ELECT. ELECT. ELECT. ELECT.
003004005 001002006007008009010011014015016017018019020021022023024025026027028029030031032033034035036037038039040042043 013 012 081080079078077076075074073070069068067066065064063062061060059058057056055054053052051050049048047046045044 071 072 082083084085086087088089090091092093094095096097098099100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114 ELEV.

VEST.
24'x24" CONC.

COL. TYP.
+ 42" CONC.

WALL
PL PL
PL
Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference

PL EV CHARGING
STATION TYP.
0 deg
MH
(C) 2019 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.

AASHTO 2018 (US)
3 degMH
(C) 2019 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.

AASHTO 2018 (US)
Lock to Lock Time
Width
Track
:
:
:

Feet
MH

6.0 s

8.01 8.01

20.014.00

29.99 Steering Angle 33.8 deg :

Steering Angle
Lock to Lock Time
Articulating Angle
WB-40
Trailer Track
Tractor Track
Trailer Width
Tractor Width

12.502.99
Feet

8.01 8.01 :

8.01 8.01
:
:
:

0.00 2.99 25.49

7.51 33.00
:
:
: 6.0 s

20.3 deg

70.0 deg
MH
(C) 2019 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.

AASHTO 2011 (US) 0 deg
MH
(C) 2019 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.

AASHTO 2011 (US)
34 deg

GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA

NICKELODEON RESORT HOTEL
CITY of GARDEN GROVE

SHEET TITLE
NVEHICLE TURN RADIUS LEVEL 1
VEHICLE TURN RADIUS @ TYPICAL GARAGE PLATE
19

I
11 c:>
I .

I, ,
[I] D [I]
□□
~ . .
(j' ¢, ¢,
/L-- ~--------------------00--------------------------------------.. ¢ ~ 1== c:: _.,,.
. . J<
/
M~
~
{} (r' I / I/
5;1~ / [::: 5;I '/ f--' . \ \ ',\
I
~
/
j ¢, ,_
~
/
I/
¢ ¢ ¢
'/
"' \~ \~
~ .
/,
=o =
[ - - - - - - -
rn □ □ □
' V
~
A, ' ~ V
j ' ~
V
' 5;I 5;1~ 11i1 I ~
[
¢, ¢,
~ I
/ ¢ I
I
I<
[1/, - ~
' ~
.~
{} 'U'
E
I%
E
' ~
I
~
~
\ ¢, ¢, l
u\
I ¢ I
"
r:11"-, ,:;:,
I~
-, -------------
.. J
• .. ------ ,:;:,
c;J .. -·· A
•. --• ----_.,/
=====, ~---· ---" ,....., -·
ITJ D rn
I I
/
)
-
I
I
/
{} I 'U'
I
I
I
I
-1; ,
.. .
\:J
{}
0 0
0 0
< ll'. z
0 ~
LL e
0 <
0 u
w !i ll'. 0
< ~
n. z w w 0
ll'.
~
<
n. 0
Date
2 25 2021
Scale
1" = 30' -0"
Sheet No.
0F20
File No.

NICK-L-L1
,
m
z
0 00
5 w
[
w r
(
0 □
z
Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdf
Missing or invalid reference
Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference Sheet: 1
File: .\Pages from 2015-06-09 Compiled - Version 5.pdfMissing or invalid reference

GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA

NICKELODEON RESORT HOTEL
CITY of GARDEN GROVE

SHEET TITLE
N

PROJECT RENDERINGS

APPEAL
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL OR PLANNING COMMISSION PUB~fl~NG TO: City Clerk's Office, City of Garden Grove
11222 Acacia Parkway, Garden Grove, CA 92840
(714) 741~5040
~ ,,
BY.rkLL1 J~
Pursuant to Section 9.32.110 of the Municipal Code, I hereby appeal the decision of the Planning Commission / Zoning Administrator in Case No. SP~101-2022, PUD-141-0l{Al, sv-002-2022 and petition the City Council / Planning Commission for a Public Hearing to consider approving /denying/ modifying the subject application for the following reasons:

SEE ATTACHED LETTER, INCLUSIVE OF EXHIBITS
Date: 7121 /22 Appeal Fee (see reverse): _S_3_50 ___ _
Appellant: _u_N_IT_E_H_ER_E_LO_CA_L_1_1_&_M_A_RL_E_NE_P_E_RE_z _____ _ Address:
464 5. LUCAS AVE.

City & ZIP: LOS ANGELES, 90017 Ph N 818-534-7999 one o.: _____ _ RECEI\TED
Rev. 06/27/2011
JUL 2 7 2022
BY: C[\ I. 'v\_,~"-"-
l\ n '"'-

TITLE 9 APPEALS
SECTION 9.32.110 PURPOSE
The purpose of an appeal of a Hearing Body decision is to allow an applicant or an interested party of a land use action who feels aggrieved by the decision to seek review of the case by another Imported hearing body.

SECTION 9.32.120 TIME FOR APPEAL
A decision of a Hearing Body on a land use action may be appealed by the applicant or an indlvldual within twenty-one (21) days of the date on which the decision was rendered.

SECTION 9,32.130 FILING OF AN APPEAL
All appeals shall be submitted to the City Clerk on a City application form along with all applicable fees and shall specifically state the basis for the appeal.

SECTION 9.32.140 NOTICE OF AN APPEAL
Notice of an appeal hearing shall conform to the manner In which the original notice was given, as described In Section 9.32.040-100 of this Chapter.

SECTION 9.32.150 APPEAL HEARING/DECISION
A. The hearing and decision procedures of an appeal shall be in accordance with

9.32.040-100 of this Chapter.

B. Any modification of a land use action that was appealed by City Council shall be returned to the City Council for review.

Appeal Fee*
General Plan Amendment $350
Amendment $350
Site Plan Amendment $350
Site Plan $350
Variance $350
Conditional Use Permit $480
Unclassified Use Permit $350
Planned Unit Development $350
*Tenants/Owners/Residents within legal notification area (300 feet) the appeal fee is $100.00.

Rev.06/27/2011

c/o Maria Parra, Senior Planner
11222 Acacia Parkway
Garden Grove, California 92840
and rea v@ggci ty .o rg
maria p@ggci ty.o rg
~IJJ.J.L.LL_.L-11.L.LLI..J ~J.L ...... "-''-"Vt1V+&4.J.~ _.._.._. ._.. .. ...,t-'l& • .._..1,1.i.. -"-.t"'""'J ._JIJ.1~6J'- City of Garden Grove
11222 Acacia Parkway
Garden Grove, CA 92840
RE: APPEAL OF NICKELODEON HOTEL PROJECT (12241 HARBOR BLVD,, GARDEN GROVE, CA 92840); PROJECT APPROVALS PUD-141-01, SP-107-2022, &IS/MND (SCH No. 2022060174); ACTION ON ITEM C.2 & D .1 OF THE JULY 7, 2 0 2 2 Pl.ANN ING COMMISSION HEARING Dear City of Garden Grove ("City") Clerk and Judy Moore:

In accordance with the appeal procedures authorized by the Garden Grove Municipal Code ("GGMC" or "Code"), UNITE HERE Local 11 ("Local 11") and City-resident Marlene Perez (collectively "Appellants"), hereby appeal ("Appeal") the City Planning Commission's ("Commission") approval of a 500-room, 23-story hotel with the 600-seat Nick Studio theater ("Project") at the 3.72-acre location referenced above ("Site") proposed by Kam Sang Company ("Applicant'').1 Specifically, at its July 7, 2022 hearing (i.e., Items 2c and D.1),2 the Commission took the following actions in furtherance of the Project:

1. Adopted Resolution No. 6044-22 that (a) recommends City Council adopt the Project's Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated findings/determination ("MND").3 and (b) recommends City Council approve an ordinance creating Planned Unit Development No.

PUD-141-0l(A) ("PUD");

2. Adopted Resolution No. 6045-22 conditionaflv anprovinq Site Plan No. SP-107-2022 ("Site Plan"), subject to the City's Council approval of the PUD and the vacation/disposition of Thackery Drive and a public alley within the Project Site (i.e., Street Vacation No. SV-002- 2022 ("Street Vacation"); and

3. Adopted Resolution No. 6046-22 finding and reporting to the City Council that the proposed Street Vacation is consistent with the City's General Plan.

I I I
1 Herein, page citations are either the stated pagination (i.e., "p. #") or PDF-page location {i.e., HPDF p. #"). 2 See City (7 /7 /22) Planning Commission Staff Report ("Staff Report''), PDF pp. 3-4, 72, 84, 289-299, h ttps: / / ggcity.o rg/si tes/de fa u It/ t'i I es/ comm iss i ans/planning• commission f'aO 70 7 2 0 2 2. PDF. 3 h ttps :/ /ggci ty .o rg/ sites/de fa u ! t/t1 Jes /20 2 2-0 6 / S ! tc % 2 0 B2 %2 0 Hotel% 2 O Project% 2 0 Draft% 2 0 l ni ti a I% 20Study_Mitigated%20Negative%20Declaration ,puf.

Appeal Justification RE: Nickelodeon Hotel Project
July 27, 2022
Pagel o/3
This Appeal challenges all ripe project approvals, including but not limited to the aforementioned resolutions, M ND, PUD, Site Plan, Street Vacation, and other local land use approvals in furtherance of the Project (e.g., alcohol Conditional Use Permit, Development Agreement, Tentative Tract Maps, etc.) (collectively "Project Approvals"). (See MND, p. 14.) In light of discussions with the City Clerk's Office, it appears at a minimum that Resolution No, 6045-22 and 6046-22 are ripe for this Appeal. This Appeal is timely filed within the 21-day deadline. (See GGMC § 9.32.120.) This Appeal alleges that conditionally approving the Site Plan, Street Vacation findings, and other actions taken on the other Project Approvals violate the Code and the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").4 Appellants respectfully request the City grant this Appeal and deny the Project Approvals-particularly Resolution No. 6045-22 and 6046-22-until the issues raised herein, and elsewhere in the Project's administrative record, are adequately addressed. If the City has questions or concerns about appealability or ripeness of any of the Project Approvals, please contact the undersigned.

APPELLANTS' STANDING: Local 11's members live and/or work in the vicinity of the Project Site, breathe the air, suffer traffic congestion, and suffer other environmental impacts of the Project.

Local 11 has approximately 400 members who live and/or work in the City. Therefore, Local 11 is committed to ensuring responsible development in the City, that local land-use rules/regulations are followed, and informed decision-making by public officials regarding projects that may significantly impact the environment in the City. Appellant Marlene Perez lives in the City within one-quarter mite of the Project Site and is regularly in the vicinity of the Project Site. Granting this Appeal will confer a substantial benefit to Local 11, Ms. Perez, and the public, including citizens, residents, businesses, and taxpayers affected by the Project, and will result in the enforcement of important public rights. In sum, Appellants are interested parties to this land use action Appeal with public interest standing to raise and litigate the land use and environmental claims at issues here. (See GGMC § 9.32.110; see e.g., Rialto Citizens/or Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 899, 914-916, n6.)
SPECIFIC POINTS AT ISSUE IN APPEAL: As specifically raised in Local 11 's comment I etter dated July 7, 2022 (attached hereto as ExhjbjtA and incorporated in its entirety by this reference), the MND fails to adequately analyze the Project's impact on greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions and vehicle miles traveled ("VMT"). For example, the Project will generate over 3 million annual VMTs and generate G HG emissions that exceed relevant thresholds of the regional air district, which warrants greater mitigation measures-particularly those that promote carpooling, public transit, and other strategies that reduce and/or offset mobile emissions. This is substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project will have significant VMT and GHG impacts, particularly to residential communities near and/or adjacent to the Project Site. (See MND, rig. 3.) These impacts require further analysis, mitigation, and consideration of project alternatives in a CEQA-compliant Environmental Impact Report ("EIR")-instead of the MND. Additionally, the unmitigated CEQA impacts are inconsistent with policies and goals under the City's General Plan,5 and invalidate the findings required under state and local law when granting the Project Approvals.6 4 Pub. Res. Code§ 21000 et seq. and 14 Cal. Code Regs. ("CEQA Guidelines") § 15000 et seq. 5 See e.g., Land Use Element (Policies LU-2.1, LU-2.4, LU-9.5), hltps://ggcity.Mg/intcrnet/pcH/planning/ chap terO 2_1a nd usee lem en t.pd f and Air Qua Ii ty Element (Policies, AQ-1.2, AQ-IM P· 1B, AQ-2. 2, AQ-3.1, AQ-4.1, AQ-5,3, AQ-IMP-SA, Goals AQ-3, AQ-4), https://ggcity.org/internet/pdf/planning/ cha pterO B_a i rq ual i tye lement.p cl f.
6 See e.g., GGMC §§ 9.32.030-D.3.b {Site Plan findings], 9.12.030.02-F {PUD findings), and Gov. Code§ 65402 (Street Vacation finding),

Appeal Justification RE: Nickelodeon Hotel Project
July 27, 2022
Page3of3
In accordance with GGMC § 9.32.130, this Appeal incorporates in its entirety all submitted comments by Local 11 and other comm enters, including but not limited to Local 11's previously submitted written comment (attached hereto as Exhibit A) and verbal comments made by other commenters.7 Appellants reserve the right to supplement these comments and specific appeal points in the future. (See Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1120 [CEQA litigation not limited only to claims made during the EIR comment period}.)
Lastly, this office requests all notices concerning this Ap,p,eal. hearings and any CEOA/land use actions involving the Project and Project Approvals, as required under applicable law. (See Pub. Res.

Code§§ 21092.2, 21167(f) and Gov. Code§ 65092 and GGMC § 9.32.100.G.) Please send all notices by electronic and regular mail.

Exhibit A:

Sincerely,
Jordan R. Sisson
Attorney for Appellant
Local 11 Comment Letter (7 /7 /22)
7 h ttps: / /ggci ty.o rg/ commissions /p la nni ng-co mm issi on#.

EXHIBIT A

GKLAW
LAND USE, ENvlRONMEITTAL & MUNICIPAL LA WYERS
July 7, 2022
VIA EMAIL:

Planning Commission (public-co mme 11 [email protected])
Maria Parra, Senior Planner ([email protected])
City of Garden Grove
Jordan R. Si1111011
801 South Grand Avenue, I Ith Floor
Los Angeles, Califonua 90017
Dirt'ct: (951) 542-1735
Fax: (213) 6:!3-775~
E-mail: [email protected]
ww.,,; .g.idt'onlnw.uet
RE: Jte m C.2, Planning Commission Hearing Scheduled July 7, 2 02 2; Nickelodeon Hate] Project (12241 Harbor Blvd., Garden Grove, CA 92840); Project Approvals PUD-141-01, SP-107-2022 & IS/MND (SCH No. 2022060174} Dear Planning Commission and Ms. Parra:

On behalf of UNITE HERE Local 11 ("Local 11"}, this office respectfully provides the following comments1 to the City of Garden Grove ("City") with regard to the above-referenced item2 involving the 500-room, 23-story hotel with 600-seat Nick Studio theater ("Project") on a 3. 72-acre site located at the northwest corner of Harbor Boulevard and Twintree Avenue ("Site") proposed by Kam Sang Company ("Applicant"). Pursuant to the Gardena Municipal Code ("GMC" or "Code"), Applicant seeks a variety of land use approvals (e.g., Zone Change to Planned Unit Development No.

PUD-141-0l(A), Site Plan No. SP-107-2022, alcohol Conditional Use Permit, Development Agreement, etc.) (collectively "Entitlements"}. Additionally, for the purpose of review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").3 the City is considering the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated approvals ("MND").4-5 The MND fails to adequately analyze the Project's impact on greenhouse gas {"GHG") emissions and vehicle miles traveled ("VMT") and, thus, fails to incorporate sufficient mitigation.

Failure to do so infects not only the City's CEQA findings but also the Code-required findings necessary to grant the Entitlements. There is a fair argument of CEQA impacts. This Project is expected to generate over 3 million annual VMTs, which is far too big for a MND. An Environmental Impact Report {"EIR") should be prepared. Until the issues discussed herein are resolved, Local 11 respectfully urges the City to stay action on the Entitlements and MND (collectively "Project Approvals").

I I I
1 Herein, page citations are either the stated pagination (i.e., "p. #") or PDF•page location {i.e., "PDF p. #"). 2 City (7 /7 /22) Planning Commission Staff Report ("Staff Report"), PDF p. 72 (start of Item C.2), h ttps: / /ggci ty.o r·g/ sites/ de fa u It/files/ cum m issi n ns/ planning-commission/ a D 707 2 0 2 2. PDF. 3 Including "CEQA Guidelines" codified at 14 Cal. Code. Regs.§ 15000 et seq. 4 City (Jun. 2022) Draft Initial Study/MND Site B-2, https.//ggcity.org/sites/default/liles/2022-06/Sltc% 20B2%20Hotel%20Prnjcct% 20Draft%20lnitil11% 20Stucly _Mi tigilted%20Ncgati.,,e%20Declaration.ridf. 5 Inclusive of all appendices: (collectively "APP" or individually "APP-##") complied in the 1,364-page document available online. (See City Uun. 2022] Technical Appendices [APP-A through APP-)], https:// ggci ty .org/ sites/ d efa u It/file s/20 2 2 -06 /Si tc% 20B 2 % 2 0 Hotel% 2 0 Project% 2 0Tcch ni ca I% 2 0 Stud i cs. pd f.

Item C.2 RE: Nickelodeon Hotel Project
July 7,2022
Poge2of11
I. STANDING
Local 11 represents more than 25,000 workers employed in hotels, restaurants, airports, sports arenas, and convention centers throughout Southern California and Phoenix-including roughly 400 members who live and/or work in the City. The union has a First Amendment right to petition public officials in connection with matters of public concern, including compliance with applicable zoning rules and CEQA, just as developers, other community organizations, and individual residents do. Protecting its members' interest in the environment, including advocating for the environmental sustainability of development projects and ensuring the availability of housing and hotels (in compliance with state and local rules), is part of Local ll's core function.

Recogni1.ing unions' interest and union members' interest in these issues, California courts have consistently upheld unions' standing to litigate land use and environmental claims. (See Bakersfield Citizens v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1198.) Furthermore, Local 11 has public interest standing to challenge the Project Approvals given the City's public duty to comply with applicable zoning and CEQA laws, which Local 11 seeks to enforce. (See e.g., RiDlto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 899, 914-916, n6; La Mirada Avenue Neighborhood Assn. of Hollywood v. City of Los Angeles (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1149, 1158-1159; Weiss v. City of Los Angeles (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 194, 205-206; Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach (2011) 52 Cal.4th 155, 166, 169-170,) II. SPECIFIC DEFICIENCIES WITH CEQA AND MANDATORY PROJECT FINDINGS For background, CEQA has two primary purposes; to inform decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project and reduce environmental damage by requiring implementation of environmentally superior alternatives and all feasible mitigation measures. (See CEQA Guidelines§ 15002(a).) Because a more comprehensive EIR was not prepared, the Project is subject to the less deferential 'fair argument' standard, which requires a lead agency to prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. (See e.g., Pub. Res. Code §§ 21100, 21151; laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of the Univ. af Cal. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123; No Oil, Inc. v. City of los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75.) A project "may" have a significant effect on the environment if there is a "reasonable probability" that it will result in a significant impact. (No Oil, Inc., supra, 13 Cal.3d at 83 n. 16.) This is a "low threshold" requiring the preparation of an EIR and preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review, even if the overall effect of the project is beneficial. (Meiia v. City of los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322,332; see also CEQA Guidelines§ 15063(b)(l).) "[T]he existence of contrary evidence does not excuse a lead agency from its duty to prepare an EIR." (Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903,931; see also Friends of "8" Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1002; Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1318 ["decision not to require an EIR can be upheld only when there is no credible evidence to the contrary."].) Hence, an MND may be used only where there is "dearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and [] there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the pub lie agency that the project, as revised, mqy have a si.gn ;Jican t impact on the environment." (Pub. Res. Code§ 21064.5 (emphasis added); see also CEQA Guidelines§§ 15070(b), 15369.5.) Substantial evidence includes facts, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact; not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, clearly inaccurate or erroneous evidence, or evidence of social or economic impacts that do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment. (See e.g., Pub. Res, Code§§ 21080(e),

Item C.2 RE: Nickelodeon Hate{ Project
July 7, 2022
Page3of11
21082.2(c); CEQA Guidelines§§ 15064(f)(5), 15384.) Courts will not blindly trust bare conclusions, bald assertions, and conclusory comments without the "disclosure of the 'analytic route the ... agency traveled from evidence to action."' (laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376,404 405 [quoting Topanga Assn.for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515].) Here, as discussed below, there is substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project's GHG and VMT impacts are signficant-thus requiring the City to prepare an EIR.

A. MND'S GHG ANALYSIS IS FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED AND THERE IS A FAIR ARGUMENT OF SIGNlFICANT GHG IMPACTS
The California Supreme Court demands a robust GHG analysis to assess a project's impact on climate change. Lead agencies must provide "the contours of their logical argument," leaving no "analytical gaps" in their analysis, and supporting determinations "through substantial evidence and reasoned explanation." (Center for Biological Diversity v. Cal. Dept of Fish and Wildlife ("Newhall Ranch") (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204,227; see also Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments ("Cleveland JI") (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497,504, 519 [analysis must be "based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data ... stay[ing] in step with evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes." (Quoting CEQA Guidelines§ 15064(b)],) Here, the MND claims the Project has no GHG impacts because it would comply with the multi•tiered GHG threshold proposed by South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD").

In short, while acknowledging the Project's mitigated GHG impact is 3,316 MTC02e/yr (exceeding SCAQMD's Tier 3 threshold of 3,000 MTC02e/yr), the MND claims it is 42 percent Jess than the Project's unmitigated G HG imp act of 5,756 M TCO 2e /yr (purported below SCAQ M D's Ti er 4 threshold of30 percent below business as usual ["BAU"] comparison). (MND, p. 49; APP, PDF p. 75 [APP·B, pp. 7-2 -7-3].) However, this BAU comparison is fatally flawed and improper. There is a fair argument of significant GHG impacts.

1. MND Applies Incorrect Tier-3 Threshold
Here, MND applies SCAQMD's Tier-3 threshold for mixed·use projects (i.e., 3,000 MTC02e/yr). (MND, p. 49; APP, PDF p. 63.) However, the Project contains zero housing and proposes only commercial uses. Consistent with SCAQMD's multi-tier recommendations,6 the MND should have used the 1,400 MTC02e/yr for commercial projects, just like the City has done for similar hotel projects.7
I I I
6 See SCAQMD (Oct 2008) Draft Guidance Document -Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold, pp. 3-10 - 3· 16, http.//www.aqmct.gov/ docs/default-source/ ceqa/ handbook/ gree nho use-gases-(ghg)-ceqa- sign ifi ca nce-tlm:?sho Ids/ ghga tta ch me 11 te. pd f; see also SCAQM D {12/5/08) Board Letter, p. 5, http://www. aq md. gov/docs/ clc fo u It-source/ ccqil / ha nci book/green ho use-gc1ses-(ghg)-cec1 a-sign i fica nee-th I cs hold~/ ghgboa1·dsynopsis.pdf?sfvrsn=2; SCAQMD (9/28/10) Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group# 15, http://www.aqmd.gov/~ocs/clefault-source/ccqa/h<1ndbook/greenhouse­ gases-(ghgJ-crqa-s ign i fie a nce·th resll o 1 ds/ year-2 008-2 009 /ghg-mceti ng-15 / ghg-me e ti 11 g-15-m in u tes.pd t:
7 See e.g., City (10/24/18) Hilton Hotel Project MND, p. 42, htlps://ggcity.org/sites/defoult/files/201B- 12/BNGrol1p!niti.llStudy_0.pdf.

Item C.2 RE: Nickelodeon Hotel Project
July 7, 2022
Page4ofll

2. MND Relies on Outdated Tier-4 BAU Methodology
Here, as previously mentioned, the MND applies the 30 percent reduction below BAU comparison for SCA QM D's Tier-4 (i.e., Option 1). In 2008, the BAU methodology was one of the three options proposed by SCAQMD for Tier-4 compliance, based on the then-prevailing wisdom of applying the statewide GHG emission reduction percentage (i.e., 30 percent) as a prQ,iect-level threshold.8 However, this perfunctory application of the statewide reduction goal as a project-level threshold has been rejected by the California Supreme Court. (See Newhall Ranch, supra at 225.) Like the Newall Ranch El R, the MN D here assumes that the level of effort required at the state­ level-3 0 percent reduction under AB 32 (i.e., 1990 emission levels by 2020) and 40 percent reduction under SB 32 (i.e., 40 percent below 1990 emission levels by 2030)-correlates to the level of effort required for this specific Project at this specific Site. (MN D, pp. 51; APP, PDF p. 75.) Critically missing from the MND is any reasoned explanation justifying any "quantitative equivalence" betv,,,een the statewide context and the Project-level context. (Newhall Ranch, supra at p. 227.) This reasoning violates Newhall Ranch and CEQA.

3. Project Exceeds Sf.AQMD Tier-4 Performance Standards Instead of the perfunctory BAU methodology, the appropriate performance standard under SCAQMD's Tier-4 analysis is the per capita efficiency standard of 4.8 and 3.0 MTCO2e/yr per service population ("MTC02e/yr/sp") for years 2020 and 2035 (respectively),9 which the City has acknowledged in recent CEQA reviews.10 Service population ("sp") is defined as only the residents and employees served by a project.11 Here, the Project includes zero housing (i.e., 0 residents), but the MN D do es not specify the anticipated employees generated by the Project beyond the reference to the demand for 98 employee parking spaces. (APP, PDF p. 1350 (APP-J, Tbl. 3].) Based on various data sources, the City of Los Angeles, for example, has used a job generation ratio of 0.50 jobs per hotel room for purposes of VMT modeling,12 or in some cases 0.20 jobs per hotel room ratio.13 Hence, 100-250 employees generated by this SO0-room Project is a reasonable estimate. When dividing 3,316 MTCO2e/yr by a service population ofl0O to 250, the Project would achieve an efficiency level of 33.16 to 13.2 MTCO2e/yr/sp-which exceeds both the 4.8 and3.0 MTC01etyr/sp performance standards.

Despite being proposed prior to the State's adoption of more aggressive GHG reduction goals of 40 percent 1990 levels by 2030 (i.e., SB 32 and Executive Order 8-30-15), SCAQMD's screening/efficiency thresholds are akin to and most consistent with bright-line/efficiency thresholds adopted by numerous other air districts in recent years, including Sacramento 0 SCA QM D Draft Guidance Document, supra fn. 6, p, 3-15. 9 SCAQMD Minutes, supra fn. 6, pp. 1-2.
1° City (8/18/21) Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR, p. 4.6-23, https://ggci ty.urg/sites/default/file:;/ 2021-08/FGPUZA.%200 El Rpclt.
11 CAPCOA (Jan. 2008) CEQA & Climate Change, pp. 62-64, 71-72 (service population is defined as "the sum of the number of residents and the number of jobs supported by the project."), http://www.capcua.org/wp­ content/upluads/2012/03/CAPCOA-\>Vhite-Paper.pdf; SCAQMD, PDF p. 6 Csp (service population).:::
population+-employment population").
12 City of Los Angeles (May 2020) VMT Calculator Documentation, p. 11, https://ladut.lacity.org/sites/ defo ult/files/documents/vmt_c..1lculator_documenta tion-2020.05.18.pdf. 13 City Hilton Hotel Project MND, supra fn. 7, pp. 4, 87 (25 full/part-time worker for 124-room hotel).

Item C.2 RE: Nickelodeon Hotel Project
July 7,2022

Metropolitan AQMD,14 Bay Area AQMD,15 Placer County APCD,16 and San Luis Obispo County APCD,17, 18 Similarly, the Association of Environmental Professionals ("AEP") has proposed a 2020 and 2030 land-use efficiency threshold of 4. 7 and 2.6 MTC02e/yr /sp (respectively, which can also be interpolated during interim years), and based on SB 32 mid-term GHG reduction goals for 2030.19 By relying solely on the BAU methodology and failing to apply an appropriate performance standards ( e.g., SCAQ MD' s Ti er-4 efficiency standard), the MN D fails to stay in step with evolving scientific knowledge and regulatory schemes governing GHG, as required under Cleveland II. The bottom line is that this a very large Project and there is a fair argument of significant GHG impacts.

4. MND's Perfunctory Analysis of CARB's 1017 Scoping Plan Here, the MND improperly relies on its perfunctory BAU analysis to claim consistency with the California Air Resources Board ("CARB") 2017 Scoping Plan. The MND fails to recognize the Scoping Plan's explicit reliance on local land-use decisions and GHG reduction at the project~level:
"Implementation of this change will rely, in part, on local land use decisions to reduce GHG emissions associated with the transportation sector, both at the proiect level. and in long-term plans (including general plans, climate action plans, specific plans, and transportation plans) and supporting sustainable community strategies developed 14 SMAQMD (May 2018) Guide to Air Quality Assessment in Sacramento County, pp. 6:1-3, 6:10-11 nGHG) emissions adversely affect the environment through contributing, on a cumulative basis, to global climate change ... the District recommends that lead agencies address the impacts ofdimate change on a provosed I} rq;ect and its ability to adqpt to these changes in CEQA documents ... [thus urging] evaluatl ng whether the GHG emissions associated with a proposed project will be responsible for making a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change."[emphasis original]), http://www.<'lirquality.org/L.,ndUseTral\s portatiun/Docu 111ents/Ch6G HGFinal5-20J 8.µd t; see also SMAQM D Thresholds of Significance Table, httµ: / / www.airquality.org/ Land UseTransportati on/ Documents/CH 2Thresho Id sT,i b lc5-2015. pd f. 15 BAAQMD (May 2017) CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, p. 2:1-4 ("No single project could generate enough GHG emissions to noticeably change the global average temperature [but rather] [t}he combination of GHG emissions from past, present, and future projects con tribute substantially to the phenomenon of global di mate change and its associated environmental impacts."), http://www.baaqmd.gov/ ~/media/files/ plan n i ng-n nd-resea rch/ ccqa/ cc q.i_gu id el i nes_m.iy2 O 1 7 -pd f pd f? la= en. 16 PCAPCD (Oct. 2016) CEQA thresholds of Significance Justification Report. pp. E-2, 2, 17-22 ("CEQA requires that the lead agency review not only a project's direct effects on the environment, but also the cumulative impacts ofa project and other projects causing related impacts. When the incremental effect of a project is cumulatively considerable, the lead agency must discuss the cumulative impacts in an EIR. [citing CEQA Guidelines § 15064]"), httµs://www.pl.icer.c.i.gov/DocumentCenter/View /2061/Thrcshold-Justification­ Rcport-PDF; see also PCAPCD (11/21/17) CEQA Thresholds And Review Principles, http://www.placcrai r. o rg/ I and usean dceq a/ ccq a th resho Id Sd n d re 111 ew p ri nc i plcs. 17 SLOAPCD {Mar. 28, 2012) GHG Threshold and Supporting Evidence, p. 5, 25-30, 42 ("No single land use project could generate enough GHG emissions to noticeably change the global average temperature.

Cumulative GHG emissions, however, contribute to global climate change and its significant adverse environmental impacts, Thus, the primary goal in adopting GHG significance thresholds, analytical methodologies, and mitigation measures is to ensure new land use development provides its fair share of the GHG reductions needed to address cumulative environmental impacts from those emissions.), https:/ / storage.gougleaµis.com/slocleanair-org/images/cms/uplo.id/files/Greenhuusc%2 0Gas%20 Thrcsholds%20and%20Supporting%20 Evidence%204-2-2012.pdf. 16 See also AEP (Oct. 2016) Beyond Newhall and 2020, pp. 25 (Thi. 2 identifying other air districts that have adopt/proposed similar screening/efficiency thresholds). https://califaep.org/docs/ AEP- 20 l 6_final_ White_Pap~r.µdf.
19 Ibid., pp. 34, 40 40.

Item C.2 Re: Nickelodeon Hotel Project
July 7, 2022
Po9e 6 a/11
under SB 375 ... local land use decisions play a particularly critical rote in reducing GHG emissions associated with the transportation sector, both atthe proiectlevel. and in long-term plans, including general plans, local and regional climate action plans, specific plans, transportation plans, and supporting sustainable community strategies developed under SB 375. While the State can do more to accelerate and incentivize these local decisions, local actions that reduce VMT are also necessary to meet transportation sector-specific gaols and achieve the 2030 target under SB 32."20 (Emphasis added.)
To this end, CARB provides various GHG mitigation measures that could be considered by the City-but the MND fails to consider incorporating many of them here (see below \ist).21 B. Examples of potentially feasible mltlgatlon measures that could be considered for individual projects under CEQA when the locel jurisdiction Is the lead agency,
Construction
Enforce idling time restnctlons for constructron vehicles Require construction vehicles to operate wrth the highest tier engines commerc1a!ly available
Divert and recycle construction and demolrtIon waste and use locally-sourced building materials wrth a high recycled matenal content to the greatest extent feasible
Mm1m1z.e tree removal and m1t1gate md1rect GHG emissions increases that occur due to vegetation removal loss or sequestration and soil disturbance Ut1hze exIstIng gnd power for electric energy ralher than operating temporary gasolme/d1eset powered generators
Increase use of electnc and renewable fuel powered construction equIpmen1 and require renewable diesel fuel where commercially available Require diesel equipment neets to be lower emitting than any current emIss1on standard
Operation
• Comply with lead agency's standards for mitigating transportation impacts under SB 743
Require on-site EV charging capab11ll1es for par1<ing spaces serving the pro1ect to meet 1unsdIcl!on-w1de EV prol1fere1t1on goals
I I I
20 2017 Scoping Plan, pgs. 76, 100-101, https://\vw2.arb.ca.gov /sitcs/dcfciult/filcs/classic/ /cc/ scopingpl,rn/scoping_p!an_2017.pd f.
21 2017 Scoping Plan, Appendix 8-Local Action, p. 7-9,https://www.arb.t:a.gov/cc/scoping plan/ app_b_lo ca l_acti on_fi nal.pd f

Item C.2 RE: Nickelodeon Hotel Project
July 7, 2022

Operation (continued)
-Allow for new construction to Install fewer on-site parking spaces than required by local municipal building code, if appropriate 1
-Oedicale on-site parking for shared vehicles
-Pro\ide adequate. safe, convenient, and secure on-site bicycle parking and storage in multi-family residentlal projects and in non-residential projects Provide on-and off-site safety improvemenls for bike, pedestrian, and transit connections. and/or implement relevant improvements identified In an applicable bicycle and/or pedestrian master plan
-Require on-site renewable energy generation
-Prohibit wood-burning fireplaces in new development. and require replacement of wood-burning fireplaces for renovalions over a certain size developments -Require cool roofs and "cool p.irk!ng• that promotes cool surface treatment for new perking facilities as well as existing surface lots undergoing resurfacing -Require solar-ready roofs
-Require organic collection In new developmenls
-Require low-waler landscaping In new developments. Require waler efficient landscape maintenance to conserve water and reduce landscape waste. -Achieve Zero Net Energy performance targets prior to dates required by CALGreen
Require new construction, including municipal building construction, lo achieve third-party green building certifications, such as the GreenPoint Rated program or the LEED rating system
-Require the design of bike lanes to connect to the regional bicycle network -Expand urban forestry and green infrastructure in new land development -Require preferenlial parking spaces for park and ride to incenlivize carpooling vanpooling. commuter bus. electric vehicles, and rail service use -Require a transportation management plan for specific plans which establishes a numeric larget for non-SOV travel and overall VMT
Develop a rldeshare program targeting commuters to major employment centers -Require the design of bus stops/shelters/express lanes in new developments to promote the usage of mass-transit
-Require gas outlets in residential backyards for use with outdoor cooking appliances such as gas barbeques if nalural gas service is available -Require the installation of electrical oullets on the exterior wal!s of both the front and back of residences to promote the use of electric landscape maintenance equipment
Require the design of the electric boxes in new residential unit garages to promote electric vehicle usage
• Require electric vehide charging station (Conductive/inductive) and signage for non-resid entia I developments
-Provide electric outlets to promote the use of electric landscape maintenance equipment to the extent feasible on parks and public/quasi-public lands 'This IS net to be conrused with the Americans v.;\h □1sa~frt1es Act (ADA) requirements OJ other minimum parking requiremenis for dedicaling space lo clean air vehtcles and/or EV thargin!J infrastruclur~ I I I

Item C.2 RE: Nickelodeon Hotel Project
July 7, 2022

Operation (continued)
-Require each resident.ial unit to be "solar ready," induding installing the appropriate hardware and proper structural engineering
-Require the installation of energy conserving appliances such as on-demand tank-less waler healers and whole-house fans
Requlre each residential and commercial building equip buildings with energy efficient AC units and heating systems with programmable thennoslalsllimers -Require large-scale residential developments and commercial buildings to report energy use, and set specific targets for per-capita energy use Require each residential and commercial building to utilize low flow water fixtures such as low flow toilets and faucets
-Require the use of energy-efficient lighting for all street, parking, and area lighting
-Require the landscaping design for parking lofs to utilize tree cover -Incorporate water retention in the design of parking lots and landscaping Require the development project to propose an off-site mitigation project which should generale carbon credits equivalent to the anticipated GHG emission reductions This would be implemented via an approved protocol for carbon credits from Caltfornia Air Pollut.ion Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), the California Air Resources Board, or other similar entities determined acceptable by the local air district
-Require the project to purchase carbon credi1s from the CAPCOA GHG Reduction Exchange Program, American Carbon Registry (ACR), Climate Action Reserve (CAR) or other similar carbon credit registry determined to be acceptable by the local air district
-Encourage the applicant to consider genera~ng or purchasing local and California-only carbon credits as the preferred mechanism to implement ils off­ site mitigation measure for GHG emissions and lhat will facilitate the Slate's efforts in achieving the GHG emission reduction goal
C. Additional References
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, ·Model Policies for Greenhouse Gases in General Plans: A Resource for Local Government to Incorporate General Plan Policies lo Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions", June 2009 -accessible here: htlp://Mvw.capcoa.oro/wp­
conlent/uploads/2012i03ICAPCOA-ModeIPolicies-6-12·09-915am.odf California /1.ir Pollution Control Officers Association, Ouanlifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures." August 2010 - accessible here: http:/iwww. cap coa .orglwp-conten l/uptoads/2010 /11/CAP COA­ Ouantification-Report-9-14-Fin al. pdf
Governor's Office of Planning and Research, "General Plan Guidelines? - accessible here: hnps:ltw.vw.opr.ca.gov/s generalplanguidelines.php B. MN D's TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Is FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED
CEQA requires analysis of VMT traffic impacts related to a project (See Kings County Farm Bureau v. Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 727 .) In particular, CEQA requires analysis of project-related traffic impacts in a manner that does not minimize cumulative impacts. (See e.g., Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments ("Cleveland lll'J (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 413, 444-445 (on remand, traffic analysis based on methodology with known data gaps that underestimated traffic impacts necessarily prejudiced informed public participation and decisionmaking]; Kings Coun/;y Farm Bureau, supra at 718, 727 [rejecting determination that less

Item C.2 RE: Nickelodeon Hotel Project
July 7, 2022

than one percent to area emissions was less than significant because analysis improperly focused on the project-specific impacts and did not properly consider the collective effect of the relevant projects on air quality]; Saye Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1072 [upheld the use of same thresholds for Immediate and cumulative impacts when its application was "undoubtedly more stringent cumulative-impact threshold"]; Al Larson Boat Shop, Inc. y, Board of Harbor Comm'rs, (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 729, 749 [upheld where cumulative impacts were not minimized or ignored].) The relevant inquiry is not only the relative amount of increased traffic that the Project will cause, but whether any additional amount of Project traffic should be considered significant in light of the already serious problem. (See Los Angeles Unified School District v. City of Los Angeles (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1019, 1025.) Here, the MND claims the Project has no VMT impacts because it is screened out based on the City's Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines ("TIA Guidelines").22 (MND, pp. 81-82; APP, PDF pp. 897 [APP-I, pp. 17, 9-1 -9·5].) In short, the MND claims that the Project is located in a Transit Priority Area ("TPA") and meets four conditions {e.g., FAR greater than 0.75, not overparked, consistent with sustainable community strategy, does not replace affordable residential units). (Id.) However, this Project should not be screened out for several reasons discussed below.

1. Fails to show consistency with SCAG RTP/SCS
Here, the MN D claims without any discussion that "the proposed project is consistent with the applicable [Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG") 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy ("RTP /SCS"J], as determined by the City[.]" (MND, p. 82; APP, PDP p. 966 [APP-I, p. 9-4],) Such conclusory statements are not substantial evidence under CEQA. (See CEQA Guidelines§ 15384.) There is no attempt to show consistency with any specific, binding requirements for local land-use projects identified in SCA G's RTP /SCS.

For example, there is no attempt to show the Project is consistent with any of the project-level mitigation measures identified in the RTP /SCS Program Environmental Impact Report23 Nor is there any attempt to show the Project would achieve any of the benchmarks presumed in the RTP /SCS, such as daily VMT per capita reductions from 24.1 (in 2016) to 22.3 (by 2045) for the County of Orange.24 Here, the MND's air quarity/GHG modeling estimates the Proiect would generate 3,594,058 annual VMTs. (See APP, PDP p, 300,) The MND also assumes that light/medium-duty trucks and automobiles ("LDA(s)") are roughly 91 percent of the Project's vehicle mix. (Id.). Thus, the Project's L.DAs would generate roughly 8,960 VMTs per day or 35.8 VMTs per service population of 25025-which exceeds the Orange County benchmark discussed above. This Project is far too big for a MND-an EIR should be prepared.

I I I
n City (May 2020) TIA Guidelines,
https://gardengrove.11ovus.igc11dc1.com/ AgendaPublic/ AttachmentV1ewcr.ashx? Attachment! D=11377&ltem t D =3092.
23 SCAG (Dec. 2019) Final Program EIR, pp. 2.0-18 -2.0· 71 (see "project-level mitigation measures" for air quality, GHG, and transportation impacts), https://scag.ca.gov /sitcs/main/files/f1 lt:- l1 tt;ich men ts/fpe i r_con nectsocal_co 111 p le te. pd f? 160 7981618. 24 SCAG (9 /3 /20) 202 a RTP /SCS, p. 122, h ttps: / / scag.ca.gov /sites/ ma in/ fil e.s/ file­ attach men ts/0903 fco n nectsocal-pla n_O. pcl t'I 16060011 76. 25 Calculated: ([(3594058 annual VMTS) (91 %)] / [365J} / (250 employees).

Item C.Z RE: Nickelodeon Hotel Project
July 7, ZOZZ
Paye 10 o/11

2. There Is a Fair Argument That Project VMTs are Significant Under the City's TIA Guidelines, the TPA screening is appropriate only when there is "absent substantial evidence to the contrary,"26 Here, there is a variety of in dicia showing the Project's VMTs are significant, such as:
• The Project would generate 5,122 average daily trips ("ADT{s)") compared to the Site's zero ADTs (MND, p. 71), which exceeds the City's 110 ADT screening threshold for small project's that is based on the VMT guidance provided by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research ("OPR");Z7
• The Project is not a local-serving hotel or located in a low VMT area screening area (APP, PDF pp. 964-966);
• The MN D's GHG Study shows the Project would generate 3,594,058 annual VMTs {i.e., 9,846 daily VMTs) as compared to zero VMTs generated by the vacant site (APP, PDF p, 300), which exceeds OPR's no net increase threshold for redevelopment projects;28 and • As discussed above, the Project would achieve 35.8 daily VMTs/sp, which exceeds SCAG's 2020 RTP /SCS assumption of 2 2.3 daily VMTs per capita.

In sum, substantial evidence demonstrates that this destination hotel Project will generate significant VMTs that warrant a full VMT analysis and mitigation, such as those recommended by CARS, SCAG, CAPCOA, and the City.29 An EIR should be prepared.

C. CEQA ISSUES RUN COUNTER TO CODE-REQUIRED FINDINGS
The above-mentioned CEQA issues run contrary to various goals and policies under the City's General Plan (e.g., policies LU-1.5, LU-IMP-lC, LU-2.1, etc.)30 as well as Code-required findings necessary to grant the entitlements (e.g., GGMC §§ 9.32.030-D.3.b [site plan review findings];

9.12.030.02-F [planned unit development findings].) Findings need to be supported by substantial evidence that bridge the analytical gap between the raw evidence and City's decisions. (See e.g., Topanga Assn.for o Scenic Community v. County of las Angeles (1974) 11 Cal. 3d S06, 514-515; Stoimon v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 9(1974) 11 Cal.3d S06, 16, 923.) Until the CEQA issues discussed herein are corrected via a CEQA-compllant EIR, the City lacks substantial evidence to grant the Project Approvals.

I I I
i6 City TIA Guidelines, supra fn. 22, p. Hi.
27 See City TIA Guidelines, supra fn. 22, p. 18; see also OPR (Dec. 2018) Technical Advisory: Dn Evaluating Transportation Impacts In CEQA, pp. 12, https://opr.ca.gov /doLs/20190122-743_ Tei:hnical_Advisory.pdt. 28 OPR Technical Advisory, supra fn. 28, p. 17.
29 2017 Scoping Plan: Appendix 8-Local Action, supra fn. 21; SCAG Final Program EJR, supra fn. 24; City TIA Guide] Ines, Attachment B· TDM Strategies, h ttps: //garde ngro ve. n ovu s.i ge nd a.com/ Agenda Pub Ii c/ A ttachm e 11 tViewer.ashx? Atta chm en ti D ==43 48& I te 111 l 0= 3092; CAPCOA (Dec. 2 O 21) Handbook for Analy1.lng Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabllities, and Advancing Health and Equity, https: / /www.ai rq ua ! i ty .org/ Cl i nw teCh ange / Do cu 111 e 11 cs/Final% 2 0 Hand boo k_A B ,~3 4. pd f. 3° City's Land Use Element, https://ggcity.org/i nternet/pdf/p!anning/chapter02Janc!usee!cment.pdf.