Channel Law Group, LLP 8383 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 750 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 347-0050 Fax: (323) 723-3960 www.channellawgroup.com JULIAN K. QUATTLEBAUM, III JAMIE T. HALL * CHARLES J. McLURKINGREGORY T. WITTMANN*ALSO Admitted in TexasWriter’s Direct Line: (424) [email protected] May 7, 2026VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND ELECTRONIC UPLOAD Garden Grove Planning Commissionc/o Community Development DepartmentPlanning Services Division 11222 Acacia ParkwayGarden Grove, California 92840 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]: Item C.1, May 7, 2026 Planning Commission Public Hearing — Site B-2 Hotel Project (Nickelodeon Hotel Resort) — Supplemental Comments and Objections to Final SEIR (SCH No. 2022060174); Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations; PUD-141-01(A); Site Plan No. SP-107-2022 (Rev. 2026) Dear Chair Ashland and Members of the Planning Commission: This Firm represents UNITE HERE Local 11 (“Local 11”), the lead petitioner in Marlene Perez, et al. v. City of Garden Grove, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2022-01281816-CU-WM-CXC, the litigation that produced the February 13, 2024 Stipulated Writ of Mandate (the “Writ”) the City now purports to satisfy through certification of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (the “Final SEIR”) for the Site B-2 Hotel Project (the “Project”).1These supplemental comments are submitted in advance of the May 7, 2026 Planning 1This letter is intended to provide a precise explanation of the City’s failure to proceed in the manner required by CEQA and to provide pre-suit notification, including notice under Public Resources Code § 21177 and notice for purposes of any further return on the Writ. The City may remedy these errors by directing staff to recirculate and reconsider the Project after full CEQA compliance is achieved. Local 11 will provide the City with a reasonable opportunity to correct these errors by not commencing further litigation for at least 14 days after the City’s final Garden Grove Planning CommissionMay 7, 2026
2 Commission hearing on Item C.1 and supplement the 27-page comment letter submitted by prior counsel Jordan R. Sisson on November 6, 2025 (the “November 6 Letter”), which Local 11 hereby incorporates by reference.2For the reasons summarized below, Local 11 respectfully requests that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council (1)not certify the Final SEIR; (2)direct staff to recirculate a revised Draft SEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5; and (3)deny the proposed reapproval of PUD-141-01(A) and the amendments to the conditions of approval for SP-107-2022 (Rev. 2026). I. PDF-28 Is Illusory Mitigation and Cannot Support the Final SEIR’s VMT and GHG Findings.The Final SEIR’s defense to nearly every substantive comment in the November 6 Letter rests on a brand-new project design feature, PDF-28, which states: “The Project amenities shall be available to registered hotel guests only. There will be no day passes allowed.” The City invokes PDF-28 by name in at least eleven separate responses (O2-2, O2-6 through O2-12, O2-14, O2-20, O2-23) at Final SEIR pp. 2-39 to 2-52, asserting it is “not merely an analytical assumption.” It cannot bear that weight. PDF-28 was first introduced after the close of public review (Final SEIR Ch. 3 at p. 3-2; Findings p. 5), denying the public any opportunity to test it. Save Our Peninsula Comm. v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 130-131. It is internally inconsistent with the very PUD the Commission is asked to recommend, which authorizes 17,715 sf of ballroom and meeting rooms, 22,296 sf of restaurants (600 seats), a 6,448 sf “Nick Studio” theater, a 5,480 sf “Studio Hall,” and 8,532 sf of retail (Staff Report p. 4) — all paradigmatic destination uses for which the Staff Report admits the City intends to seek future “alcoholic beverage” CUPs (Staff Report p. 6). The Final SEIR itself describes PDFs as “qualitative/supporting measures … no GHG reductions were taken from implementation of these measures” (Final SEIR Ch. 3 at p. 3-2; Findings p. 6) — making it impossible for PDF-28 to simultaneously be the quantitative basis for excluding day-visitor VMT and emissions. Lotus v. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645, 656. Even assuming PDF-28 is incorporated into the MMRP and the conditions of approval (Final SEIR § 3.2.3), that does not make it enforceable mitigation under CEQA. The MMRP entry contains no definition of “day pass,” no performance standard, no monitoring methodology, and no sanction for non-compliance. More fundamentally, the term “day pass” does not capture the mechanisms by which non-overnight visitors will actually access the Project — ticketed theater performances, contracted weddings and banquets, ABC-licensed events, restaurant patrons, and retail customers — all of which the PUD expressly authorizes by design. Because PDF-28 polices a category that is undefined and does not encompass the conduct that will in fact occur, it is precisely the kind of approval of the Project, without prejudice to the timeline for filing objections to a return on the Writ under Paragraph 4 thereof.2For purposes of Public Resources Code § 21167.6(e)(7), see Consolidated Irrigation District v. Superior Court(2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 697, 723. We expect all URL citations and all documents referenced in the November 6 Letter and herein to be included in the administrative record.
Garden Grove Planning CommissionMay 7, 2026
3 “mere expression of hope” CEQA condemns. Nor is PDF-28 embedded in the DDA, so future operators over the Project’s 30-year life will not be contractually bound by it absent a recorded covenant or DDA amendment the City has not required. Lincoln Place Tenants Ass’n v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1491, 1508; Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 92. Finally, even if enforceable, PDF-28 caps only day visitors who are not registered hotel guests; it does not preclude the wedding, banquet, and theater audiences the PUD permits and that will routinely fill 17,715 sf ballrooms and 600-seat theaters with people other than the assumed 1,000 overnight guests. II. The Final SEIR Adds Significant New Information Triggering Mandatory Recirculation.Under CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5(a), recirculation is required when the lead agency adds, after public review, “a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed” or makes the Draft EIR “fundamentally and basically inadequate.” The Final SEIR introduces, among other things: (i) PDF-28 and PDF-29 — both new project design features; (ii) a substantially rewritten MM-GHG-1 imposing a new “Equipment Emissions Minimization Plan” framework and expanded electric-equipment list; (iii) a new performance standard in MM-GHG-7 requiring LEED Gold or Platinum, plus a new on-site lithium-ion battery energy storage system (500-1,000 sf) — never analyzed in the Draft SEIR for fire-safety, land-use, or life-cycle GHG implications; (iv) new MM-GHG-5 commitments to a dedicated electric shuttle, real-time transit information, and on-site transit pass purchase; (v) expanded MM-GHG-11 hotel-specific waste-reduction obligations covering some 15+ new operational requirements; (vi) a new Appendix A “Employee VMT Estimation Memorandum”; and (vii) a new April 2026 Updated Economic Development Report & Analysis (Staff Report Attachment 9) on which the proposed Statement of Overriding Considerations expressly relies (Findings pp. 41-42), but that was never circulated for public review. The Findings’ conclusory assertion that none of this is “significant new information” (Findings p. 5) is unsupported by substantial evidence and inconsistent with the changes themselves. Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1131. III. The Final SEIR Does Not Satisfy the Stipulated Writ. Paragraph 1 of the Writ requires the City to (a) prepare a focused review of VMT and GHG impacts, (b) assess whether modifications are needed to the Approvals, and (c) approve, approve with modifications, or deny the PUD in open session at City Council. Paragraph 1(b) is independent of (a) and demands a substantive assessment of the Approvals (including the DDA, PUD building height, allowed square footages, and the 528 parking spaces) in light of the focused CEQA findings — including the newly disclosed significant and unavoidable GHG impact of The Final SEIR and Findings nowhere disclose whether the City actually performed that assessment. To the extent the City contends it did, it has not adequately explained its reasoning or conclusions: there is no discussion of whether the building height, the 528 parking spaces, the PUD-authorized maximum square footages of the public-facing commercial uses, the absence of Garden Grove Planning CommissionMay 7, 2026
4 any affordable-housing component in the DDA, or any other element of the Approvals warrants modification in light of the focused CEQA findings. The Staff Report’s bare statement that “[t]he approved project design is not changing” (Staff Report p. 6) is the conclusion of an undisclosed analysis, not the substantial-evidence-supported product of a Paragraph 1(b) assessment. Had the City performed a proper assessment, it would have concluded that modifications to the Approvals are needed — including, at a minimum, a recorded covenant or DDA amendment binding future operators to PDF-28’s no-day-pass restriction, a corresponding reduction or restructuring of the PUD-permitted square footages of public-facing commercial uses to align with that restriction, and reduction or unbundling of the 528 parking spaces consistent with the City’s own VMT Guidelines. The Court has retained jurisdiction under Public Resources Code § 21168.9(b), and Local 11 will object to any return on the Writ that fails to demonstrate Paragraph 1(b) compliance. IV. The VMT Analysis Rests on Inconsistent Inputs and Lacks Substantial Evidence.The City admits that it used a lower691,693 sf building area for the VMT analysis than the corrected 718,919 sf used for GHG analysis (Final SEIR Responses to Comments O2-7, O2-22 at pp. 2-40, 2-49) and characterizes the discrepancy as “conservative.” It is not. Applied consistently to the correct 718,919 sf, the SANDAG ratio yields 464 employees, not 446. The City’s response also fails meaningfully to address the November 6 Letter’s point that the SANDAG ratio cannot be applied to a 301,686 sf parking garage as if it employed 1 person per 1,550 sf. These errors are not academic, even where the City has already concluded that VMT exceeds the threshold. The magnitude of the unmitigated impact determines the magnitude of mitigation required, and the same inputs flow through CalEEMod into the GHG analysis and the carbon-offset calculation under MM-GHG-15 (see Final SEIR Resp. to Cmt. O2-9 at p. 2-42), so the errors infect both analyses. The unmitigated VMT-per-employee of 15.3 against a 14.6 threshold, and the claimed “4.88% reduction” against a “4.25% required reduction” (Findings p. 11), is well within the noise of these methodological errors. The claimed compliance has only a 0.63-percentage--per-employee is higher than 15.3 — because the actual employee count is lower, or because the building-square-footage and parking-garage inputs above are corrected — the required reduction is higher than 4.25% and MM-TRA-1 and MM-TRA-2 may not bring the impact below significance. Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 442 [substantial-evidence requirement]. V. Carbon Offsets (MM-GHG-15) Do Not Reduce GHG Impacts Below Significance.The Findings concede that even with MM-GHG-15, GHG impacts remain “significant and unavoidable” because of “uncertainty regarding the future availability of carbon offset credits” (Final SEIR p. 2-60; Findings pp. 22-31). That concession triggers an obligation to identify additional, feasible, on-site mitigation measures — including the additional CAPCOA measures (T-5/T-6 mandatory CTR, T-9 100% transit subsidy, T-11 vanpool, T-13 parking cash-out, T-38 first/last mile TNC, T-44 shuttle) identified in the November 6 Letter — that the City did not impose. MM-GHG-15 itself lacks a price floor, additionality safeguard, or contingency for registry Garden Grove Planning CommissionMay 7, 2026
5 de-listing, in tension with Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 467. VI. The Alternatives Analysis Is Legally Deficient. The Findings adopt as a Project objective “[d]evelop a facility of sufficient size and with sufficient amenities to attract a partnership with a national or international theme park franchise” (Findings p. 8) — an objective so narrow it defines away every alternative. In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1166; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565-566. The Final SEIR rejects the November 6 Letter’s mixed-use alternative on the ground that the site would be “entirely consumed” by the proposed 500-room hotel (Final SEIR p. 2-54) — answering only whether the same hotel can coexist with housing, not whether a smallerhotel combined with affordable housing on a portion of the site would attain most of the Project’s objectives. The City itself acknowledges that residential uses on this site would have lower GHG and VMT impacts (Findings p. 32) and that the City has met only 1.15% of its sixth-cycle affordable housing allocation (Nov. 6 Letter at p. 17), making the “preserves housing elsewhere” rationale illusory. VII. The Statement of Overriding Considerations Is Unsupported. The proposed SOC (Findings pp. 40-42) relies on the never-circulated April 2026 Updated Economic Report — itself a recirculation trigger; on a paradoxical claim that a project generating 21,914 VMT/day “Reduce[s] Vehicle Miles Traveled”; and on an incoherent “preserves housing” theory that depends on actual development of housing the City has demonstrably failed to produce. CEQA Guidelines § 15093(a) permits the City to balance benefits against unavoidable risks only after applying all feasible mitigation — a precondition not satisfied here. Sierra Club v. Contra Costa County (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1212, 1222-1223; Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497, 519. VIII. Conclusion and Reservation of Rights. Local 11 respectfully requests that the Commission recommend that the Council not certify the Final SEIR, recirculate a revised Draft SEIR, and deny the proposed PUD reapproval and conditions-of-approval amendments until full CEQA compliance is achieved. Local 11 reaffirms and incorporates by reference all arguments raised in the November 6 Letter and expressly preserves all objections under Public Resources Code § 21177(b) and Paragraph 4 of the Writ.3 3This letter does not waive any objection or argument Local 11 may have regarding the Project, the Final SEIR, the Findings, the SOC, the proposed reapproval of PUD-141-01(A), the amendments to the conditions of approval for SP-107-2022 (Rev. 2026), the DDA, or any future entitlement related to the Project.
Garden Grove Planning CommissionMay 7, 2026
6 Thank you for your consideration. I may be reached at [email protected] or (424) 284-9669 with any questions.Sincerely,Jamie T. HallCc:Monica Covarrubias, Senior Project Manager ([email protected])Maria Parra, Planning Services Manager ([email protected])Priit Kaskla, AICP, Senior Planner ([email protected])Encls.:(1) Comment Letter on Draft SEIR (November 6, 2025)(2) Stipulated Writ of Mandate (February 13, 2024)
Channel Law Group, LLP May 7, 2026Item C.1, May 7, 2026 Planning Commission Public Hearing — Site B-2 Hotel Project (Nickelodeon Hotel Resort) — Supplemental Comments and Objections to Final SEIR (SCH No. 2022060174); Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations; PUD-141-01(A); Site Plan No. SP-107-2022 (Rev. 2026)(1) Comment Letter on Draft SEIR (November 6, 2025)
November 6, 2025 VIA EMAIL: Monica Covarrubias, Senior Project Manager City of Garden Grove, Economic Development and Housing Department 11222 Acacia Parkway Garden Grove, California 92507 [email protected] RE: SEIR COMMENTS (SCH NO. 2022060174); SITE B-2 HOTEL PROJECT Dear Ms. Covarrubias: , this office respectfully provides the following comments1 to the City of Garden Grove City regarding the Supplemental Environmental Impact -on an approximately 3.72-acre property located at the northwest corner of Harbor Boulevard and Local 11 was a petitioner in the referenced litigation (i.e., Perez et al. v. City of Garden Grove et al.) (See SEIR Appendix B.) As explained in the sections below, the SEIR and mitigation monitoring reporting program SEIR should be revised to address the following areas of concern: disclosure of project components, possibly imprecise assumptions about hotel respectively), the alternative analysis should have included a housing alternative (infra section D), the need for additional/modified MMRP, including additional strategies among other recommendations (infra section E). The recommendations included herein would address potential inconsistencies with relevant goals and objectives identified mitigation strategies recommended by the and various policies and recommendations contained in the Southern California Association of Governments (also known as Connect SoCal) and the . Therefore, the recommendations are relevant to the potential overriding considerations that the City may adopt in its evalu Local 11 thanks the City for the opportunity to provide the following comments and respectfully requests that the SEIR and MMRP be revised to address the points raised below. / / / 1 - SEIRComments RE: B-2 Hotel Project November 6, 2025 Page 2of 27
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION sine qua non of an informative and San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Ctr. v. Cnty. of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 654-655 [quoting Cnty. of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 199] [emphasis in original].) of the project may affected outsiders and public decision- (Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1052.) Hence, an accurate project (Western Placer Citizens for an Agr. and (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 890, 898.) Here, as discussed below, the SEIR does not disaggregate the individual project components or make enforceable key assumptions that only 1,000 overnight guests will be traveling to and from the Site to access onsite amenities (beyond employees). As discussed below, this GHG/VMT analysis and seems to be a departure from the prior MND and not consistent with experience at other nearby examples cited in the SEIR (i.e., Great Wolf Lodge and Disneyland Forward). (SEIR, PDF p. 165, 176, 196; SEIR VMT Study, PDF pp. 4, 5.) 1. PROJECT COMPONENTS AND SIZES ARE NOT DISCLOSED. The Project includes various destination/tourist theme park amenities (e.g., a themed pool experience with a lazy river, a 600-person theater, a grand ballroom, themed amenities, and an arcade). (SEIR, PDF pp. 11, 52; MND, PDF pp. 5, 16.) However, the SEIR does not adequately clarify these project components or identify changes made to the Project between the MND and SEIR. As shown in the figures below, compared to 691,693 sf as stated in the prior MND. (Compare Fig. 1 with Fig. 2.) Additionally, the SEIR does not disclose the square footage associated with the hotel amenities, which the prior MND disaggregated. (Id.) 2 (Fig. 1 below [highlighted section].) It is recommended that this be clarified. FIGURE 1: SEIR EXCERPT (SEIR, PDF P. 52) 2 See e.g., SEIRonlyhealth and fitness are included within the hotel building square footage as those uses will only be available to SEIR GHG Study, PDF p. 50 (same), PDF pp. 135-136, 208-209 (CalEEMod Worksheet sections 1.2)
SEIRComments RE: B-2 Hotel Project November 6, 2025 Page 3of 27
FIGURE 1: CONTINUED FIGURE 2: MND EXCERPT (MND, PDF P. 16; SEE ALSO MND Appendices, PDF PP. 8)
SEIRComments RE: B-2 Hotel Project November 6, 2025 Page 4of 27
2. GHG EMISSION ANALYSIS SEEMS TO HAVE ANALYZED A GENERIC HOTEL WITH A MAXIMUM OF 1,000 OVERNIGHT GUESTS worksheets to show inputs and output results. (SEIR GHG Study, PDF p. 50.) Accordingly, the land use development assumption is that s will have access to ancillary amenities. (See Fig. 3 below.) This is expressed in the CalEEMod worksheets that analyzed a limited number of uses (i.e., hotel use). (See Fig. 4 below.3) This is a departure from the prior MND, which included various land uses (i.e., resort hotel, parking structure, hotel theme pool, theater, etc.) that generated respective emissions. (See Fig. 5 & 6 below.4) The GHG analysis in the SEIR should separately account for those ancillary uses. Another example is the Disneyland Forward project, which was a nearby development cited in the SEIR that also included themed-park amenities, which considered separate land uses that included a hotel use and 5 (which is not a CalEEMod default land use).6 emissions of the Project for the respective emission sectors (i.e., mobile, area, energy, water, waste, etc.). For example, the current CalEEMod modeling does not seem to account for the emissions associated with the themed-pool or 500-seat theater or arcade, which are likely to have emissions that are not captured by a generic hotel land use type.7 FIGURE 3: SEIR EXCERPT (SEIR GHG Study, PDF pp. 50) 3 See also SEIR GHG Study, PDF pp. 135-136, 208-209, 135-136, 208-209, 136-137, 209-210 (CalEEMod Worksheet sections 1.2). 4 See also MND Appendices, PDF pp. 34 (tbl. 1 Table 1 Land Use Summary), 58 (tbl. 11 Electricity and Natural Gas Usage), 60 (Tbl. 12), 84, 119, 155, 190, 226, 271 (CalEEMod tbl. 1.1). 5 Disneyland Forward, GHG Section, PDF pp. 32-33 (referencing air quality section for CalEEMod inputs for operational GHG emissions), https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/51191/0507_Greenhouse_Gas_Emissions; id., Air Quality Section, PDF p. 29 (discussing operational inputs relevant to both air quality and GHG analysis), https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/51186/0502_Air_Quality; id., Appendix C-2 CalEEMod Calculations, PDF pp. 5, 36 (500 room hotel use), PDF pp. 79, 124 (5-acre theme Park with user defined recreational use), PDF pp. 195, 230 (5000 stall parking structure with enclosed parking use), PDF pp. 274, 319 (2045 Operations with user defined recreational use), https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/51225/Appendix-C-2-CalEEMod-Calculations. 6 ability to input a user defined commercial, parking, recreational and retail land use subtype), https://www.caleemod.com/documents/user-guide/01_User%20Guide.pdf. 7 Ibid., at p. 26.
SEIRComments RE: B-2 Hotel Project November 6, 2025 Page 5of 27
FIGURE 4: SEIR EXCERPT (SEIR GHG Study, PDF pp. 209) FIGURE 5: MND EXCERPT (MND Appendices, PDF p. 34) FIGURE 6: MND EXCERPT (MND Appendices, PDF P. 271) Furthermore, for mobile source emissionsassessment (Fig. 7 below), which the CalEEMod worksheets show a maximum of 21,914 VMTs per day was assumed (Fig. 8 below), which (Fig. 9 below). However, this assumes that only 1,000 hotel guests (i.e., two overnight guests per hotel room) and 446 employees will be accessing the Hotel Site. (Id., at PDF pp. 5, 11.) The VMT analysis is discussed further below; however, the concern here is that the CalEEMod GHG modeling assumes a maximum of only 1,000 guests in mobile emissions.
SEIRComments RE: B-2 Hotel Project November 6, 2025 Page 6of 27
FIGURE 7: SEIR EXCERPT (SEIR GHG Study, PDF PP. 52-53) FIGURE 8: SEIR EXCERPT (SEIR GHG Study, PDF PP. 188, 261) FIGURE 9: SEIR EXCERPT (SEIR VMT Study, PDF pp. 6, 11)
SEIRComments RE: B-2 Hotel Project November 6, 2025 Page 7of 27
3. VMT ANALYSIS SEEMS TO HAVE ANALYZED A GENERIC HOTEL WITH A MAXIMUM OF 1,000 OVERNIGHT GUESTS. associated only with the hotel use. For example, the SEIR traffic study claims the Project would generate 3,995 daily trips compared to the prior MND finding of 4,318 daily trips. (Compare SEIR, PDF p. 174 with MND Appendices, PDF pp. 882.) This may be because the prior MND included consideration of a 600-seat hotel theater, which generated additional daily trips (suggesting VMTs independent of hotel use). (See MND Appendices, PDF pp. 881-82, 901-02, 919-20.) Additionally, as mentioned above, the VMT Study assumes a service population limited to 446 employees and 1,000 guests (a total of 1,446), with the latter based on the assumption that there would be two guests for each of the 500 hotel rooms. (See Fig. 9 above; see also SEIR VMT Study, PDF pp. 5-6, 11.) Hence, the current VMT Study assumes no other vehicle trips or people accessing the Project Site besides the 446 workers and 1,000 overnight guests. The above approach seems to be a departure from the Disneyland Forward project, which the SEIR cites as another resort/hotel that used OCTAM modeling for its VMT analysis. (SEIR VMT Study, PDF p. 4.) The Disneyland Forward VMT analysis considered trips from day guests not staying overnight at onsite hotels,8 which were independent of hotel trip rates,9 and accounted for in the VMT analysis.10 These additional theme park VMTs were considered in the Disneyland Forward GHG, VMT, and mitigation analysis.11 4. DAY ACCESS BEYOND JUST 1,000 HOTEL GUESTS SEEMS LIKELY. Access from non-overnight hotel guests (and thus greater impacts) is likely. Unlike other Nickelodeon hotel/resorts located in remote international destinations,12 the Project is proposed in an urban area with relatively easy daily access by personal vehicles (e.g., inducing regional travel). It seems likely that this Project would offer access to non-overnight hotel guests, since nearby theme parks appear to do so (e.g., Disneyland, Knotts Berry Farm, Legoland, etc.). For example, the SEIR cites both the Great Wolf Lodge and Disneyland Forward. (SEIR, PDF p. 175; SEIR VMT Study, 8 Disneyland, Admission Tickets (offering single day passes), https://disneyland.disney.go.com/en-ca/admission/tickets/. 9 See gen., City of Anaheim, Environmental Documents (providing CEQA documents for DEV2021-00069 Disneyland Forward), https://www.anaheim.net/876/Environmental-Documents; Operational Traffic Analysis (Aug. 2023), PDF p. 93, 115, 1603 (1.578 daily trips per parking space including guests and cast members as well as trip rates for other retail / entertainment), https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/51211/Appendix-J-2-Operational-Traffic-Analysis. 10 See e.g., Disneyland Forward Draft SEIR, VMT Section, PDF pp. 37-38, 47-59 (tbls. 5.14-1 & 5.14-2), https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/51198/0514_Transportation. 11 See e.g., Disneyland Forward Draft SEIR, GHG Section, PDF p. 36-39, 44-55 (tbl. 5.7-4), https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/51191/0507_Greenhouse_Gas_Emissions; id., VMT Section, PDF pp. 37-38, 47-59 (tbls. 5.14-1 & 5.14-2), https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/51198/0514_Transportation. 12 See Nickelodeon Hotels & Resorts, Destinations (listing three open locations in Dominican Republic, Mexico, Turkey and one location opening 2026 in Orlando, Florida), https://www.nickresorts.com/destinations; see also Karisma Hotels, Nickelodeon Hotels & Resorts by Karisma (listing Dominican Republic and Mexico locations), https://www.karismahotels.com/nickelodeon-hotels-resorts; https://www.nickresorts.com/destinations.
SEIRComments RE: B-2 Hotel Project November 6, 2025 Page 8of 27
PDF p. 4.) The Great Wolf Lodge is not limited to just overnight hotel guests, and 13 Similarly, Disneyland also provides day access to guests who are not staying overnight at onsite hotels.14 5. RECOMMENDATION Although smaller than Disneyland, the Nickelodeon-themed attractions at the Project Site offer a unique amusement experience that goes beyond a typical resort hotel. Currently, the SEIR makes a fundamental assumption that onsite amenities are not accessible to non-overnight hotel guests (i.e., no mobile emissions or vehicle trips independent of hotel use). Both the GHG and VMT study assumes a maximum of 1,000 hotel guests, but that assumption is not an enforceable condition of approval. To the extent that the VMT analysis does not adequately account for VMTs generated by non-overnight guests, the concern is that the Project may generate even more GHG emissions and VMTs than analyzed, which may not have been adequately assessed or mitigated. It is recommended that the SEIR either reassess the Project for these independent uses (i.e., as a worst-case scenario with additional mitigation) or make this assumption enforceable via a condition of approval and a project design feature that is explicitly included in the MMRP (discussed infra section E). B. GHG IMPACTS Local 11 was estimates the Project will generate 7520.09 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year (SEIR, PDF p. 150 [tbl. 4.1-10].) This is significantly greater than the prior estimate of 3,316 MTCO2e/yr. (MND Appendices, PDF p. 76 [tbl. 19].) The current GHG study is an improvement; however, there are a few live issues of concern. 1. LAND USE COMPONENTS NEED TO BE CLARIFIED. As fully explained above (supra section A), the SEIR makes a key assumption that all onsite ,15 which is reflected in the GHG studyassumptions. (SEIR GHG Study, PDF p. 50 [tbl. 2-2], PDF pp. 135-136, 208-209 (CalEEMod Worksheet sections 1.2). It is unclear if these land use assumptions accurately capture the full scope of emissions from all other uses. It is recommended that either the SEIR make this fundamental assumption enforceable as an explicit project design feature incorporated into the MMRP, or the SEIR analysis should be revised to account for the likelihood of day access from non-overnight hotel guests. / / / 13 https://www.greatwolf.com/southern-california/daypass; Id., Water Park Day Passes (offering full and half day passes), https://www.greatwolf.com/southern-california/daypass/booking. 14 Disneyland, Admission Tickets (offering single day passes), https://disneyland.disney.go.com/en-ca/admission/tickets/. 15 See e.g., SEIRentertainment spaces and health and fitness are included within the hotel building square footage as those uses will only .
SEIRComments RE: B-2 Hotel Project November 6, 2025 Page 9of 27
2. ASSUMED CALEEMOD MITIGATION MEASURES NEED TO BE ENFORCEABLE. The CalEEMod worksheets identify over 20 emission reduction measures. (SEIR GHG Study, PDF pp. 136-137, 209-210 [C-1-A through LL-1].) These measures correlate to CAPCOA mitigation strategies.16 However, it is unclear to what extent these measures relate to the project design features and mitigation measures listed in the SEIR. (SEIR, PDF pp. 11-37.) It is also unclear CAPCOA measures referenced, and why other CAPCOA measures were considered for incorporation, which is explained further below (infra section E). 3. ONSITE MITIGATION MEASURES RELATED TO MOBILE AND ENERGY EMISSIONS NEED TO BE PRIORITIZED. The SEIR estimates that the unmitigated Project will generate 8,124 MTCO2e/yr, which will be reduced through mitigation (pre-carbon offsets) by roughly 7.4 percent (i.e., 7520 MTCO2e/yr). (Compare SEIR, PDF p. 103 [tbl. 4.1-5] with PDF p. 150 [tbl. 4.1-10].) The SEIR also states that, measures, the applicant will purchase and retire carbon offsets. (Id., at PDF p. 151.) This is commendable and represents a notable improvement over the prior MND suite of mitigation measures. However, there is a concern that feasible onsite mitigation measures are being left off the emissions are from mobile sources (32.9%) and energy (i.e., 62.8%, respectively). (Id., at PDF p. 150 [tbl. 4.1-10].) Thus, feasible mitigation measures targeting these sources should be prioritized before utilizing carbon offsets, which is explained further below (infra section E). 4. CARBON OFFSETTING IS COMMENDABLE, BUT SHOULD BE UTILIZED ONLY AFTER ONSITE MEASURES HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED. As currently proposed, carbon offsets for operations can be purchased either in lump or on an annual basis (i.e., MM-GHG-15). (SEIR, PDF pp. 152-153.) The number of offsets is based on the GHG estimates, which may be underestimated due to the (likely incorrect) assumption that non-overnight guests will not visit the Site (discussed above). To the extent traffic generation may have been underestimated, additional data will become available once the Project begins operations (e.g., traffic counts, admission records, other site-specific data regarding overnight versus non-overnight guests, updated traffic modeling, etc.). Additionally, over a 30-year Project life, further onsite mitigation measures may become feasible, reducing the need for offsets and minimizing impacts. Notwithstanding good-faith efforts, there is the potential for impacts that can be meaningfully mitigated. To the extent the level of impact may be speculative at this time, this can be mitigated via an annual reporting requirement whereby the applicant can provide the City with updated daily traffic trips, admissions from overnight versus non-overnight guests, VMT travel profile, effectiveness of TDM and mitigation measures, etc.) This would ensure not only compliance with MM-GHG-15, but also other project design features and mitigation measures that should be considered in the MMRP (infra section E), and provide an opportunity to assess the effectiveness of current measures and/or the need to supplement them with alternative feasible measures. 16 See CalEEMod User Guide, PDF p. 16, 55, https://www.caleemod.com/documents/user-guide/01_User Guide.pdf; see also CAPCOA 2021 Handbook, Appendix E Measure Index, https://www.caleemod.com/documents/handbook/appendices/appendix_e.pdf.
SEIRComments RE: B-2 Hotel Project November 6, 2025 Page 10of 27
5. RECOMMENDATION In summary, it is recommended that the issues mentioned above be addressed in a revised SEIR, which should include consideration of additional mitigation measures (discussed further below in section E). C. VMT IMPACTS 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 III, 17 Cal.App.5th at 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 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 -impact , (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 existing traffic conditions. (See Los Angeles Unified School District v. City of Los Angeles (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1019, 1025.) Previously, Local 11 was critical of the prior MND, which failed to provide a VMT analysis based on the presumption that VMT impacts would be less than significant because the Project Site is . (MND Appendices, PDF p. 897, 964, 967, 990.) Here, the SEIR provided a VMT Study, which found impacts warranting mitigation. (SEIR, PDF pp. 173-174, 177, 179-. However, there are a few live issues of concern. 1. OTHER LAND USES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. As fully explained above (supra section A), the SEIR makes a key assumption that all onsite 17 only 3,995 daily trips, 21,914 VMTs, service population limited to 446 employees and 1,000 guests). (See Fig. 9 above.) It is recommended that the SEIR make this fundamental assumption enforceable as an explicit project design feature incorporated into the MMRP or that the SEIR analysis be revised to account for the likelihood of day access from non-overnight hotel guests. / / / 17 See e.g., SEIRentertainment spaces and health and fitness are included within the hotel building square footage as those uses will only SEIRComments RE: B-2 Hotel Project November 6, 2025 Page 11of 27
2. ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING GUEST SERVICE POPULATION MAY NOT BE ACCURATE. As mentioned above, the VMT Study estimates that the guest service population would be limited to 1,000 guests. (SEIR VMT Study, PDF pp. 5, 11.) The VMT study used the Great Wolf Lodge as a comparison, but it does not provide the underlying data to independently verify its occupancy levels. Nor does it explain why other data was not provided, such as data relevant to the potential use by non-overnight guests. It is recommended that the SEIR clarify whether the 1,000-guest service population is consistent with the Great Wolf Lodge and other comparable projects. 3. ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING EMPLOYEE SERVICE POPULATION MAY NOT BE ACCURATE. The VMT Study estimates that the employee service population would be 446 employees, which seems inflated, and in turn may make the Projects VMTs appear to require less mitigation. Below are several issues with the VMT service population used in the SEIR: The estimate is based on a ratio (i.e., 1,550 sf per employee) applied against a purported 691,693 sf of commercial area. (SEIR, PDF p. 176; SEIR VMT Study, PDF p. 4, 10.) This is based on a ratio from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Activity Based Model (ABM 2+) (id., at PDF p. 10), for which the SEIR does not provide a hyperlink or other means for the SEIR reader to verify the rate. 691,693 sf seems to be a reference to the prior , and where the - 379,366 sf (depending on inclusion of ballrooms, meeting spaces, arcade, back of house, and other amenities). (See Figs 2 & 5 above; see also MND Appendices, PDF pp. 8, 34, 774.) The current SEIR seems to suggest that the total building area includes Fig. 1 above; see also SEIR, PDF pp. 52, 176.) Thus, the employee service population estimate might not be accurate. This underscores the need to provide precise project components and square footage (discussed supra section A). Also, it is unreasonable to assume parking areas (301,686 sf) would generate one employee per 1,550 square feet (i.e., approximately 194 employees). The VMT study cites a 0.8 to 1.2 employees per hotel room rate, purportedly based on an -of-WTO) without providing any documentation or material explaining how this recommendation was established. The WTO seems to now be called the UN Tourism, which does not readily provide documentation or resources on the topic (based on a search). Additionally, no facts are provided to confirm the purpose and basis of this 0.8-1.2 recommendation, nor is it demonstrated that it is relevant to the current Project, the Southern California region, or has any relevance to a VMT/traffic analysis. There is a lack of substantial evidence to support this WTO rate. In contrast, the City of Los Angeles VMT calculator employs an employee generation rate of one employee per two rooms (i.e., 0.5 employees per room), based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) land use code 310 and SANDAG data, for the purpose of assessing VMT/traffic impacts.18 18 LADOT (May 2020) City of Los Angeles VMT Calculator Documentation, pp. 11, 15, https://ladot.lacity.gov/sites/default/files/documents/vmt_calculator_documentation-2020.05.18.pdf.
SEIRComments RE: B-2 Hotel Project November 6, 2025 Page 12of 27
When corrected for the aservice population is significantly lower. Based on square footage referenced in the MND and SEIR, the hotel resort (including the various amenities) would be approximately 289,891 - 417,233 sf with an estimated employee service population of 187 270 (based on purported SANDAG rate of 1,550 sf per employee). This estimate aligns with the City of Los Angeles estimate of 0.5 employees per room, or 250 employees for the proposed 500-room Project. In sum, the use of 466 employees may understate the level of VMT impact as it relates to the , compared to the 14.6 threshold). (SEIR VMT Study, PDF p. 4, 10). This may, in turn, understate the level of mitigation required from mitigation measures TRA-1 and TRA-2. (SEIR, PDF pp. 177-178), which may warrant further mitigation. It is recommended that the SEIR clarify the above issues and address them with additional mitigation (discussed infra section E). 4. VMT ANALYSIS MAY NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH CITYS VMT GUIDELINES. The SEIR VMT study utilizes the OCTAM model. (SEIR VMT Study, PDF p. 3.) There are several assumptions that require clarification. The VMT study claims the hotel is similar to retail because some hotel guests may stay at other hotels. (Id., at PDF p. 4.) However, while this may be true for business and/or local--serving use.19 The themed amenities make the Project distinctly unique from a standard hotel. The VMT study seemingly concedes that the Project is expected to generate occupancy above the average for a business or tourist hotel in the City. (Id.) The VMT study claims that the City boundary is appropriate, despite being near the City border, due to various factors, including that guests are anticipated to visit the Site with the specific intent to enjoy the Projects amenities, and that the Project is unlike a traditional business hotel. (Id., at PDF p. 4.) This explanation does not address why the City boundary is review.20 The Project includes a significant new regional destination that is likely to attract patrons and VMTs well beyond the City and, thus, should be considered in the analysis to 21 Due to the uniqueness of the operations, the VMT study created a new TAZ (i.e., TAZ 386), which included 1,000 guests and 446 employees. (Id., at PDF p. 5.) The VMT study includes an OD VMT analysis that consists of both hotel guests and employees in the service population. (Id., at PDF p. 6.) It states that excluding one of the contributors would appear to limit service population to population (i.e., residents) plus employment (i.e., workers) and do not include hotel guests.22 a 23 it does not state that 19 SEIR, PDF p. 174; City VMT Guidelines- 20 City VMT Guidelines, PDF p. 20 (fn. 5). 21 Ibid., at PDF p. 19. 22 Ibid., at PDF pp. 16, 17, 20. 23 Ibid., at PDF p. 19.
SEIRComments RE: B-2 Hotel Project November 6, 2025 Page 13of 27
the inclusion of hotel guests is permissible. Hence, the SEIR may not be comparing apples to apples when it presents the Projects OD VMT per service population (15.2 and 13.6) to the Orange County threshold (21.6). (SEIR, PDF p. 177 [tbl. 4.2-1].) captured.24 25 Here, the VMT study cites Disneyland Forward as a comparable resort/hotel use in the County, which included custom rates based on the theme-park-related uses. It would seem prudent to take a similar approach modeling is accurate, and also serve as an objective performance metric to implement MM-GHG-5 (Guest Vehicle Trip Reductions) (discussed infra section E). 5. QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS WITH GENERAL PLAN PROVISIONS IS CURSORY. Like GHG qualitative analysisreferenced various transportation policies and strategies related to TDM and VMTs. (SEIR, PDF pp. 170-172.) However, there are numerous TDM measures that are not incorporated, whether to minimize VMT impacts or GHG emissions from mobile sources. This seems to leave off the table mitigation measures that would be qualitative consistency with numerous traffic related General Plan provisions, including but not limited to those listed in the Air Quality Element (e.g., AQ-IMP-1B, AQ-IMP-1C, Policy AQ-2.2, AQ-IMP-2A, Goal AQ-3, Policy AQ-3.1, Policy AQ-3.2, AQ-IMP-3C);26 and Circulation Element (Goal CIR-4, Policy CIR-4.2, CIR-IMP-4A, Goal CIR-5, Policy CIR-5.1, -5.5, CIR-IMP-5A, -5B, -5C).27 6. RECOMMENDATION In sum, it is recommended that the abovementioned issues be addressed in a revised SEIR, including consideration of additional mitigation (discussed further below infra section E). D. PROJECT WITH HOUSING ALTERNATIVE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED Under CEQA, the core of an EIR requires a lead agency to select a reasonable range of alternatives for evaluation guided by a clearly written statement of objectives. (See Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564-65; see also CEQA Guidelines § 15124(b).) Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 134.) This duty cannot be defeated by defining objectives too narrowly prior contractual commitments. (See e.g. City of Santee v. County of San Diego (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1438, 1447; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 736.) Instead, a (i) (ii) Sierra 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid., at PDF p. 31 26 City General Plan, Air Quality Element, pp. 8-2 8-6. 27 City General Plan, Circulation Element, pp. 5-34 5-35.
SEIRComments RE: B-2 Hotel Project November 6, 2025 Page 14of 27
Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1509 [citing CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a) and (f)]); and (iii) a (In re Bay-Delta (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1164-1165 [citing CEQA Guidelines § 15124(b)]). Here, the SEIR failed to consider the Project (i.e., resort/theme-park venue) with at least some levels of affordable housing on Site, which is recommended for the following reasons. 1. SEIR DOES NOT ADDRESS WHY A PROJECT WITH SOME HOUSING IS INFEASIBLE. -project alternative and a reduced project alternative. (SEIR, PDF pp. 38-39.) The SEIR rejected a mixed-use development alternative because the majority of the Site is zoned IW. (Id., at PDF p. 199-200.) However, the Site is -family residential (R-1-7). (Id., at PDF pp. 50, 59-61.) IW specifically allows and encourages a mix of uses, including residential (i.e., up to 60 dwelling units per acre) or greater.28 The SEIR acknowledges that a Project because the Project site is in proximity to transit and would likely screen out from a VMT analysis, and VMT impacts would be less than significant. The reduction in vehicle trips related to bjectives (id.), there is no discussion of a mixed-use alternative that incorporates at least some level of housing (particularly affordable housing) into the Project. Such an alternative would arguably minimize GHG/VMT impacts while also serving the Project underlying fundamental purpose. It is recommended that the SEIR consider such an alternative. 2. AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE POLICIES. The SEIRs GHG qualitative analysis references various policies and strategies related to encouraging mixed-use development and housing, which the SEIR claims are either inapplicable or have no conflict because the Project involves an infill Project Site consistent with the General Plan. (SEIR, PDF pp. 109-111 [Connect SoCal 2024 policies 32, 35-42], PDF pp. 122-123 [CARB 2022 Scoping Plan], PDF pp. 125-143 [General Plan Nos. SAF-10.10].) However, the Project is an entirely commercial development, and the SEIR fails to consider how failure to include affordable housing is inconsistent with applicable policies, such as the following: Adding affordable housing to the Project can minimize GHG emissions and VMTs. This is consistent with CAPCOA measures T-1 (increase residential density) and measure T-4 (Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing).29 / / / 28 SEIR, PDF pp. 50, 193; see also City General Plan, Housing Element, PDF pp. 49 (tbl. 12-17), 115 (Tbl. 12-43). 29 CAPCOA Handbook, pp. 31, 70, 95, https://www.caleemod.com/documents/handbook/full_handbook.pdf.
SEIRComments RE: B-2 Hotel Project November 6, 2025 Page 15of 27
30 has four primary goals (i.e., mobility, communities, environment, economy) (pp. 9-12), each with respective subgoals (p. 85) and categories of policies (RTP/SCS, pp. 88-112), which totals nearly 90 regional planning policies (pp. 114-121), and other implementation strategies where local governments play a partner/supporting role (pp. 124-135). Providing affordable and sustainable housing is a major cross-cutting theme in the 2024 RTP/SCS (pp. 8, 9, 10, 27, 28, 54, 56, 66, 100, 106, 112, 117, 135, 193, 197), including but not limited to the following goals and policies (emphasis added): Goal: Communities: Develop, connect and sustain communities that are livable and thriving Sub-goal: Create human-centered communities in urban, suburban and rural settings to increase mobility options and reduce travel distances Sub-goal: Produce and preserve diverse housing types in an effort to improve affordability, accessibility and opportunities for all households Category: Housing the Region: Providing sufficient housing opportunities throughout the region will require a range of strategies and methods to increase both the production of and access to a wide range of housing types. Regional Planning Policies: 32. Encourage housing development in areas with access to important resources and amenities (economic, educational, health, social and similar) to further fair housing access and equity across the region 33. Support local, regional, state and federal efforts to produce and preserve affordable housing while meeting additional housing needs across the region 34. Prioritize communities that are vulnerable to displacement pressures by supporting community stabilization and increasing access to housing that meets the needs of the region 35. Promote innovative strategies and partnerships to increase homeownership opportunities across the region with an emphasis on communities that have been historically impacted by redlining and other systemic barriers to homeownership for people of color and other marginalized groups 36. Advocate for and support programs that emphasize reducing housing cost burden (for renters and homeowners), with a focus on the communities with the greatest needs and vulnerabilities 37. Support efforts to increase housing and services for people experiencing homelessness across the region Communities Implementation Strategies: [a]. Support Provide technical assistance for jurisdictions to complete and implement their housing elements and support local governments and Tribal Entities to advance housing production [b]. Identify and pursue partnerships at the local, regional, state and federal levels to align utility, transit and infrastructure investments with housing development and equitable outcomes across the region [c]. Research community stabilization (anti-displacement) resources that can be utilized to address displacement pressures, such as preservation and tenant protections for communities across the region and Affirmatively Further Fair Housing 30 2024 RTP/SCS, https://scag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/23-2987-connect-socal-2024-final-complete-040424.pdf.
SEIRComments RE: B-2 Hotel Project November 6, 2025 Page 16of 27
Promoting mixed-use development is consistent with various General Plan provisions, such as those listed in the Safety Element (e.g., Policies SAF-10.10 and SAF-10.12); Land User Element (e.g., Goal LU1, Policies LU-1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.7, 1.8); Community Design Element (e.g., CD-IMP-1A); Circulation Element (e.g., Policy CIR-4.1, -4.2, -4.3, CIR-IMP-4A); Economic Development Element (e.g., Policy ED-3.7, ED-IMP-3C, ); Air Quality Element (e.g., AQ-5, Policy AQ-5.1, 5.3, 5.6, AQ-IMP-5A); and the Housing Element (e.g., Goal H-2, Policy H-2-.1, H-3.3, H-3.7).31 There are numerous measures that CARB urges for local action, which are included in the 2022 Scoping Plan Appendix D (i.e., Local Action), building upon the prior 2017 Scoping Plan Appendix B (i.e., Local Action). Among the strategies mentioned are mixed-use development and affordable housing. 32 It is recommended that the SEIR consider abovementioned measures. 3. SEIR LACKS A JOB-HOUSING BALANCE ANALYSIS. -743 focus on improving jobs-housing balance, which is relevant to SEIR, PDF pp. 168, 176.). However, the SEIR does not include a jobs-housing analysis, which is only tangentially discussed in the context of growth-inducing impacts. (Id., at PDF p. 193-195.) Generally, adding more jobs in a job-rich or, conversely, housing-poor area can have an adverse impact on a communit jobs-to-housing balance. Similarly, the quality of jobs can also impact the jobs--wage workers and the number of homes affordable to them. A development that increases the demand for affordable housing can exacerbate an existing housing impact, especially where a community may have a current unmet affordable housing need under its It is recommended that the SEIR and its effe-to-housing balance and JHFit. This is reflected throughout a variety (mentioned above). / / / 31 City General Plan, Safety Element, p. 11-20; id., Land Use Element, PDF pp. 2-36 2-44; Community Design Element, p. 3-19; id., Circulation Element, pp. 5-34; id., Economic Development Element, pp. 4-5; id., Air Quality Element, pp. 8-4 8-5; id., Housing Element, PDF pp. 12-153 12-154. 32 CARB 2022 Scoping Plan, Appendix D (Local Action), pp. 6, 7, 12 (fn. 26), 20, 23, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/2022-sp-appendix-d-local-actions.pdf; CARB 2017 Scoping Plan, Appendix B (Local Action), PDF pp. 6, https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_appb_localaction_final.pdf.
SEIRComments RE: B-2 Hotel Project November 6, 2025 Page 17of 27
4. HCD DATA SHOWS COMPELLING NEED FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS IN THE CITY. for affordable housing under its RHNA allocation. Cth Housing Element cycle is 19,168 units by 2029, with approximately 53% of these units being affordable (i.e., 10,178 units at moderate income levels or lower).33 Annual Progress Report portal, which includes City data submitted through 2024, Garden Grove is 37.5 % through its 6th Housing Cycle, but has attained only 1.15% of its affordable units (i.e., 118 of 10,178) as compared to achieving 14.8% of its above moderate income allocation.34 This suggests that the City is behind on its existing affordable housing allocation, which this Project may exacerbate. and its consistency with various housing policies (e.g., those mentioned above) as well as the consistency with SB 166 and Housing Element Program 8 (no net loss).35 5. LACK OF HOUSING IS RELEVANT TO OVERRIDING BENEFITS To the extent that the City may consider overriding benefits, it should have the ability to consider what mitigation/benefits are being left off the table, such as a Project alternative that includes some level of affordable housing. Under CEQA, when approving a project that will have significant environmental impacts (Pub. Res. Code § 21081(b); see also CEQA Guidelines § 15043.) An overriding statement expresses the larger, more general reasons for approving the Project, such as the need to create new jobs, provide housing, generate taxes, and the like.36 It must fully inform and disclose the specific benefits expected to outweigh environmental impacts, supported by substantial evidence. (See CEQA Guidelines §§ 15043(b) & 15093(b).37) However, an agency may adopt a statement of overriding considerations only after impact to less than significant levels. (See CEQA Guidelines §§ 15091 & 15126.4.) Hence, decisionmakers may not approve a project when feasible mitigation measures can substantially lessen or avoid such impacts. (See e.g., Pub. Res. Code § 21002; CEQA Guidelines § 15092(b)(2).) Similarly, additional overriding considerations may be necessary to adequately address those additional impacts that the SEIR underestimates. 6. RECOMMENDATION For the reasons discussed above, it is recommended that the SEIR analyze a Project alternative that includes some level of affordable housing onsite, whether as a form of mitigation or alternative. / / / 33 City General Plan, Housing Element, PDF p. 39 (tbl. 12-16). 34 HCD, Annual Progress Reports - Data Dashboard and Downloads (search Garden Grove, sheets 10, 12, 13 of 18), https://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing-open-data-tools/apr-dashboard. 35 City General Plan, Housing Element, PDF pp. 170, 178-180, 200. 36 See e.g., Concerned Citizens of S. Central LA v. Los Angeles Unif. Sch. Dist. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 826, 847. 37 See also Sierra Club v. Contra Costa County (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1212, 1222-1223.
SEIRComments RE: B-2 Hotel Project November 6, 2025 Page 18of 27
E. ADDITIONAL MEANINGFUL MITIGATION MEASURES ARE AVAILABLE Under CEQA, the discussion of mitigation is core (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564-65; see also CEQA Guidelines § 15124(b).) CEQA requires lead agencies to craft non-illusory mitigation measures that will be enforceable.38 Here, the SEIR acknowledges significant GHG impacts, which can be further mitigated through modifications to the current MMRP (as discussed below). 1. PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES SHOULD BE EXPLICITLY INCORPORATED INTO THE MMRP. CEQA defines mitigation measures broadly (e.g., avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing, eliminating, or compensating impacts). (CEQA Guidelines § 15370.) Incorporating mitigation measures into the description of the project, and then basing a conclusion of less-than-significant impacts in part on those measures, can run afoul of CEQA.39 Here, the SEIR identifies various project design features for construction and operations (i.e., PDFs 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 21, 27). (SEIR, PDF pp. 11-13, 53, 99-101.) These seem to be carried over from the prior MND. (MND, PDF pp. 17-20 [PDF-1 through PDF-26]; MND Appendices, PDF 38-39, 67-70 [DF-1 through DF-12].) A variety of these prior MND project design features remain -1 through PDF-12, PDF-21). (Id.) For example, the SEIR states that these project design features are qualitative/supporting SEIR, PDF pp. 11, 99.) Additionally, these project design features directly serve to minimize potential emissions and impacts even though the SEIR does not take credit for them.40 Also, many of these project design features are similar to CAPCOA measures included -1-A through LL-1). (SEIR GHG Study, PDF pp. 136-137, 209-210.41) Similarly, these project design features are cited to establish consistency with various 38 See e.g., City of Maywood v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 362, 407; Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 935 (enforceable performance (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th Federation of Hillside & Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. County of El Dorado 39 See Lotus v. Department of Transportation .) 40 potentially reduce GHG emissionsreducing GHG emissions from construction. Specifically, PDF-4, PDF-5, and PDF-10, would encourage more efficient fuel consumption and PDF-8 would establish electricity supply to the Project site for use of electric-powered equipment instead of diesel fueled equipment. Given the nature of those PDFs and to conservatively analyze the GHG emissions, the analysis does not take credit for any reductions 41 See CalEEMod User Guide, PDF p. 16, 55, https://www.caleemod.com/documents/user-guide/01_User Guide.pdf; see also CAPCOA 2021 Handbook, Appendix E Measure Index, https://www.caleemod.com/documents/handbook/appendices/appendix_e.pdf.
SEIRComments RE: B-2 Hotel Project November 6, 2025 Page 19of 27
42 Furthermore, as discussed above (supra section A), the maximum of 1,000 guests would access the Site. In sum, the failure to implement these project design features would likely lead to greater emissions and affect the Therefore, it is recommended that the SEIR clarify to what extent MND/SEIR project design features will be incorporated into the Project if approved. Additionally, all project design features should be included as an explicit condition of approval and SEIR, PDF pp. 15-37.) This also should include fundamental assumptions only overnight hotel guests will have access to the Project Site amenities). 2. ADDITIONAL MITIGATION IS AVAILABLE The Project includes various mitigation measures (i.e., MM-GHG-1 through TRA-2). (SEIR, PDF pp. 11-37.) These are similar but not entirely akin to various CAPCOA measures.43 While the current mitigation measures are commendable, additional modifications and enhancements seem warranted for the following reasons, grouped by categories of measures. Currently, SEIR includes several mitigation measures related to construction emissions (i.e., MM-GHG-1, MM-GHG-2, MM-GHG-3). (SEIR, PDF pp. 15, 143-144.) This may be inadequate for the following reasons: i. The SEIR and MND include various construction-related project design features. (SEIR, PDF pp. 11-13 [PDFs 4, 5, 8, 10]; MND, PDF pp. 17-20 [PDF-1 through PDF-10].) These are including CAPCOA measures C-2 (Limit Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Idling) and CAPCOA measures C-5 (Use Advanced Engine Tiers).44 (SEIR GHG Study, PDF pp. 136-137, 209-210.) Therefore, it is recommended that all project design features be explicitly included in the MMRP. It is also recommended that construction engines specify the engines (if not cleaner) to the fullest extent feasible.45 ii. Issues related to MM-GHG-1 (Electric Construction Equipment) & MM-GHG-2 (Construction Office Energy Efficiency): These measures appear to be limited to generators, cranes, air compressors, and temporary construction field offices. It is unclear why it is limited to just these construction components. 42 See e.g., SEIR, PDF pp. 103, 113, 114, 118, 121, 126, 131, 135, 136, 137 (GHG-2 impact analysis citing Plan .) 43 See CAPCOA Handbook, PDF pp. 46-47 (Fig. 3-1), 62-66 (Tbl. 3-1). 44 See CAPCOA User Guide, pp. 52. 45 Ibid., at p. 35 (regarding off-road equipment).
SEIRComments RE: B-2 Hotel Project November 6, 2025 Page 20of 27
This measure is similar to the CAPCOA measure C-1-A (Use Electric or Hybrid Powered Equipment) assumed in the CalEEMod worksheets. (SEIR GHG Study, PDF pp. 136-137, 209-210.) Measure C-1-A requires the use of electric- or hybrid--which is not limited to the abovementioned pieces of equipment and office. It is recommended that MM-GHG-1 be amended to require implementation to the fullest extent feasible, including but not limited to the construction equipment already included. CAPCOA measure C-1-B (Use Cleaner-Fuel Equipment) requires the -fueled construction equipment over conventional diesel- or gasoline-fueled iii. Issues related to MM-GHG-3 (Construction Debris Recycling): The Site is largely vacant, and the measure is geared towards debris, which will have measures/sources). This can be improved by also focusing on the construction materials. For example, post-construction documentation must be required to ensure recycling plans have been implemented. So too, there must be meaningful consequences in the event that documentation is missing or noncompliant. For example, if penalties are set too low, applicants may accept monetary penalties as a cost of doing business rather than the added expenses and effort required to enforce the mitigation. It is recommended that the measure be modified to require coordination between the applicant, city, and other relevant agencies (e.g., CalRecycle, local enforcement agency) to coordinate the C&D recycling program.46 This measure is similar to CAPCOA measure S-4 (Recycle Demolished Construction Material) assumed in the CalEEMod worksheets. (SEIR GHG Study, PDF pp. 136-137, 209-210.) CAPCOA measure S-4 -should be included in this measure. CAPCOA measure S-5 (Source Wood Materials from Urban Wood Reuse Program) involves using local and reused materials in new construction. This seems applicable to the project and should be included.47 / / / 46 CalRecycle, C&D Debris Recycling, https://calrecycle.ca.gov/condemo/. 47 See CAPCOA Handbook, PDF p. 72.
SEIRComments RE: B-2 Hotel Project November 6, 2025 Page 21of 27
iv. The Project does not seem to include feasible construction-related mitigation measures, such as the following, that are recommended to be incorporated into the MMRP: CAPCOA measure C-3 (Use Local Construction Contractors) requires the use of local construction contractors to reduce VMT associated with construction employee commute distances. This can be incorporated in a manner consistent with General Plan provisions, such as those listed in the Conservation Element (i.e., Goal CON-6, Policies CON-6.1, CON-6.2, CON-IMP-6A, and CON-IMP-6b).48 CAPCOA measure C-4 (Use Local and Sustainable Building Materials) requires using building materials that are locally sourced and processed, which minimizes VMTs and fuel consumption. This can be incorporated in a manner consistent with General Plan provisions, such as those listed in the Conservation Element (i.e., Goal CON-3, Policies CON-3.1, CON-3.3, CON-3.4, CON-IMP-3B, CON-IM-3C, and CON-IMP-3D).49 Currently, SEIR includes a mitigation measure MM-GHG-11 (Waste Reduction). (SEIR, PDF pp. 15-37, 147-148). This may be inadequate for the following reasons: i. MM-GHG-11 these feasible elements are incorporated. ii. This measure is similar to CAPCOA measure S-1/S-2 (Implement Waste Reduction Plan) assumed in the CalEEMod worksheets. (SEIR GHG Study, PDF pp. 136-137, 209-210.) Measure S-1 requires the institution or extension of recycling services to reduce the volume of landfilled waste. Measure S-2 involves the implementation of an organics diversion -coordination with onsite/offsite composting facilities and food banks. It is recommended that MM-GHG-11 include and composting facilities as part of its recycling program, consistent with CAPCOA measures (i.e., measures S-2, S-3).50 iii. The City should consider including additional hotel-specific recycling program elements, such as: Promote recycled paper and other products like soap; Bans on disposable (i.e., designed to be used once and discarded) foodware items and accessories; Allowing customers to bring their own reusable items (if permissible, this be waived to accommodate kosher or other religious standards); Requirements for hand soap in refillable containers; No promotional items made of plastic; No water in plastic bottles or disposable single-use cups; 48 See City General Plan, Conservation Element, pp. 10.4-10.10. 49 Ibid. 50 CAPCOA Handbook, PDF pp. 46-47 (Fig. 3-1), 62-65 (tbl. 3-1).
SEIRComments RE: B-2 Hotel Project November 6, 2025 Page 22of 27
No expanded polystyrene (i.e., Styrofoam); Require reusable napkins and tablecloths with recyclable disposable napkins only allowed for takeout; Hand dryers in areas accessible to customers; Requirement for reusable laundry bags; Reusable dishware for room service; Eliminate coffee pods/coffee machines that require pods; Offer toothpaste tablets in refillable packaging such as glass bottles or jars; Provide bamboo toothbrushes; Offer toiletries on request rather than automatically; Key cards made out of non-plastic materials, including traditional metal keys or wood, bamboo, and paper options for chip-based cards; Incentives for returning keys to discourage waste; Non-plastic shower caps, razors, shaving cream, slippers, eye masks, ear plugs; Remove minifridge items that use plastic; Eliminate the use of garbage bags if possible, or use based on compostable material; Choose home compostable gloves; Do not use plastic wrap; Serve employee meals with reusable dishware and cutlery, as well as provide reusable water bottles for all employees with accessible water bottle refill stations; Replace paper towels with reusable dish rags; and Source plastic-free sponges. 51 iv. MM-GHG-11 is cited as being consistent with the General Plan Conservation Element provisions (i.e., Nos. CON-3.1, CON-6, CON-6.2, SAF-10 ). (SEIR, PDF pp. 131, 134-136.) The abovementioned recommendations would align with applicable General Plan goals and policies, such as those listed in the Conservation Element (e.g., Goal CON-3, Policies CON-3.1, CON-3.2, CON-3.3, CON-3.4, Goal CON-6, and Policy CON-6.2). Currently, SEIR includes several mitigation measures related to transportation emissions (i.e., MM-GHG-4, MM-GHG-5, MM-GHG-6, MM-TRA-1, MM-TRA-2). (SEIR, PDF pp. 15-37, 143-156, 179-180.) This may be insufficient for various reasons. i. MM-GHG-4 (Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure): This measure is similar to CAPCOA measure T-14 (Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure) assumed in the CalEEMod worksheets. (SEIR GHG Study, PDF pp. 136-137, 209-210.) It is commendable to see the commitment to standards for EV equipment. (SEIR, PDF p. 16.) However, it is unclear why only the EV requirement is set at Tier 2 standards as compared to other components of the project (discussed further below under energy-related measures). 51 See e.g., https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/17/travel/clean-the-world-hotel-soap.html; https://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-economics-of-everyday-things-used-hotel-soaps/; https://cleantheworld.org/; https://bluestandard.com/guides/hotel-guide/; https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2021/21-0064_ord_187718_1-23-23.pdf.
SEIRComments RE: B-2 Hotel Project November 6, 2025 Page 23of 27
ii. MM-TRA-2 (Provide End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities): This measure is similar to CAPCOA measure T-34 (Use Electric or Hybrid Powered Equipment) assumed in the CalEEMod worksheets. (SEIR GHG Study, PDF pp. 136-137, 209-210.) It is also similar to CAPCOA measure T-10 (Provide End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities). However, MM-TRA-2 spaces will be provided, and provides SEIR, PDF pp. 16, 120.) This should be clarified to specify whether this meets the short-term and long-term bike parking under CalGreen Tier 2 status and is consistent with CAPCOA measure T-34. Also, it should be made clear that the secured parking available for employee bikes shall not be displaced by bike parking for guest rentals. It is also recommended that repair services be made available onsite to both guests and employees (consistent with CAPCOA T-10). It is also recommended that this be augmented to include electric bikeshare and/or scootershare program consistent with CAPCOA measures T-22-A through T-22-D. iii. MM-GHG-6 (Limit Large Diesel Trucks During Operation): The SEIR does not estimate the number of heavy-duty trucks that would be expected from the proposed operation, whether as a generic hotel or as proposed with a unique theme-attraction resort with water park and theater. Hence, it is unclear to what extent the limited 10 heavy-duty trucks are a mitigation rather than a project design feature. This should be clarified. Limiting the number of heavy-duty vehicles to 10 per day and requiring an annual update, while commendable, is unlikely to be a meaningful mitigation for this Project. Unlike a warehouse development, heavy-duty truck emissions are not the main contributor to GHG emissions (i.e., guest/employee mobile emissions, energy consumption). It is recommended that this be augmented to also include electrified loading docks consistent with CAPCOA measures T-53. iv. MM-GHG-5 (Guest Vehicle Trip Reductions): Biking: MM-GHG-5 cites bicycle parking and rentals, which are duplicative of TRA-2. Moreover, there is no explanation why other CAPCOA measures were not considered, such as measures related to bike infrastructure including CAPCOA measures T-19A and T-19B (Construct or Improve Bike Facility), measures T-32 (Orient Project Toward Transit, Bicycle, or Pedestrian Facility), measure T-33 (Locate Project near Bike Path/Bike Lane), measure T-37 (Dedicate Land for Bike Trails). Here, the Project is located along a Class II bike lane. (SEIR, PDF p. 187.) It is recommended that MM-GHG-5 measure be modified to include specific elements consistent with these CAPCOA measures (or explain why it is not feasible). / / / SEIRComments RE: B-2 Hotel Project November 6, 2025 Page 24of 27
Pedestrian: MM-GHG-5 also crosswalks, wayfinding signage), which are common basic infrastructure requirements for large urban developments located adjacent to city streets. This differs from CAPCOA measure T-17 (Improve Street Connectivity), which involves building a new street network in a subdivision or retrofitting an existing one to improve connectivity (e.g., converting cul-de-sacs or dead-end streets to grid streets). While this measure is similar to CAPCOA measure T-18 (Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement), it is most effective at the plan/community scale compared to a project/site context. Hence, it is unlikely this component of MM-GHG-5 will have meaningful reductions in impacts. Marketing: MM-GHG-5 includes providing information about transit options and nearby attractions. This is akin to CAPCOA measure T-7 (CTR marketing), which typically targets employees and is recommended to be complemented with other specific transit-related measures as part of a more robust CTR program (discussed further below). However, it is recommended that this measure be modified to include CAPCOA measure T-43 (Provide Real-Time Transit Information) to enhance its effectiveness. Last-Mile Trips: While MM-GHG-5 includes providing information about nearby attractions, it does not address hotel shuttles or other types of incentives for last-mile trips. CAPCOA measure T-38 (Provide First and Last Mile TNC Incentives) encourages a shift to transit mode by addressing first- and last-mile trips within a specific geographic area (e.g., from a local transit station to a destination). This can include subsidized trips utilizing transit agencies and transportation network companies Uber, Lyft, etc.) Similarly, CAPCOA measure T-44 (Provide Shuttles) encourages local shuttle service through coordination with local transit operators or private contractors. Hotels often include shuttle services (e.g., airports, local destinations, hotels, etc.). It is recommended that the MM-GHG-5 measure be modified to include specific requirements for implementing TNC incentive/shuttle (electric) services to nearby locations and transit facilities, which should be marketed to prospective guests (or explained why it is not feasible). Such service should also be made available to employees, which would further support mobile emissions/VMT reductions. Qualitative Assessment/Annual Reporting: MM-GHG-5 includes only a qualitative assessmentis akin to CAPCOA measures T-5 (voluntary CTR) and T-6 (mandatory CTR), which typically address employee trips and often require robust additional measures (CAPCOA measures T-7 through T-13). However, because mobile emissions (along with energy emissions) are the majority of GHG impacts, it is recommended that this measure be made mandatory and performance-based to the extent feasible. As part of the annual review process, the City should require the applicant to provide appropriate documentation relevant to guest VMTs (e.g., number of guests, estimated average daily trips, etc.) and other details about implementation of mitigation measures (e.g., use of shuttles, subsidized last-mile trips, etc.). This objective data can be provided as part of the annual review process and serve as a basis for future decisionmaking about the feasibility of mitigation measures.
SEIRComments RE: B-2 Hotel Project November 6, 2025 Page 25of 27
v. MM-TRA-1 (Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing): MM-TRA-1 includes an employee CTR program, which is similar to CAPCOA measures T-5 (voluntary CTR) and T-6 (mandatory CTR), typically requiring robust additional measures (CAPCOA measures T-7 through T-13). However, the 4% performance level is tied to SEIR, PDF p. 179-181.) As discussed above, there are live issues with the VMT analysis that may underestimate VMT impacts (thus warranting perhaps further mitigation). Moreover, the mobile emissions (along with energy emissions) are the majority of GHG impacts, which is admittedly significant. (Id., at mobile and energy impacts). Therefore, it is recommended that TRA-1 be modified to be a mandatory CTR program consistent with CAPCOA measure T-6 (Mandatory CTR program) to discourage single-occupancy vehicles, including the following: CAPCOA measures, as recommended above, are to be applied to both guest and employee CTR programs. CAPCOA measure T-9 (Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program) involves subsidized or discounted transit passes. Currently, the subsidy is estimated at 30% participation and is subsidized at 50%. (SEIR GHG Study, PDF p. 12.) It is recommended that this be increased to eligibility and the amount of subsidy to 100% (or explain why it is not feasible). CAPCOA measure T-11 (Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool) involves an employer-sponsored vanpool service. As mentioned above, hotels typically have shuttle service, and it seems feasible to include an employer-sponsored vanpool. It is recommended that the project incorporate vanpools for employees to the extent possible (or explain why it is not feasible). CAPCOA measure T-13 (Implement Employee Parking Cash-Out) involves the employer providing employees with a choice of forgoing free parking for a cash payment equivalent to or greater than the cost of the parking space. It is recommended that the project incorporate this option (or explain why it is not feasible). CAPCOA Transit Measures: The Project Site is conveniently located near multiple bus stops and routes. (SEIR, PDF pp. 164-166, 185.) This may provide an opportunity for the applicant to coordinate with local transit agencies to improve coverage, frequency, or other roadway treatments, consistent with CAPCOA measures T-25 (Extend Transit Network Coverage or Hours), T-26 (Increase Transit Service Frequency), and T-27 (Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway Treatments). Additionally, there may be an opportunity to provide a bus shelter or additional bike parking near existing transit, consistent with CAPCOA measure T-46 (Provide Transit Shelters) and measure T-47 (Provide Bike Parking Near Transit). / / / SEIRComments RE: B-2 Hotel Project November 6, 2025 Page 26of 27
Currently, SEIR includes several mitigation measures related to energy emissions (i.e., MM-GHG-7 through MM-GHG-12. (SEIR, PDF pp. 15-37, 143-156, 179-180.) i. MM-GHG-7 includes building efficiency and calls for LEED certification. (Id., at PDF pp. 18-19.) However, it does not specify what level. Similarly, it is unclear why measure MM-GHG-4 (EV charging) requires CalGreen Tier 2 standards but not in other areas. (SEIR, PDF p. 16.) It is recommended that the City consider requiring at least LEED Gold or Platinum status and meeting CalGreen Tier 2 standards to the fullest extent feasible (e.g., planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency, material recovery, environmental quality, whole-building life cycle assessment, Nonresidential Voluntary Measures, etc.).52 The recommendation should capture and/or include CAPCOA measures related to energy efficiency measures (e.g., E-1, E-2, E.3-A/B, E-5, E-21, E-12, E-16, E-24, E-22, E-25). ii. MM-GHG-strategies (e.g., low-flow fixtures, smart irrigation, greywater recycling). (SEIR, PDF p. 21.) It is also recommended that it be modified to include measures consistent with CAPCOA measures W-1 through W-7 (or explain why it is not feasible). iii. MM-GHG-13 (prohibit wood burning devices) is akin to CAPCOA measure E-14, which is meaningful for this non-residential project. Currently, SEIR includes a mitigation measure related to carbon offsets (i.e., MM-GHG-15). (SEIR, PDF pp. 15-37, 143-156, 179-180.) While commendable, pursued when all possible onsite measures have been implemented or deemed infeasible,in CAPCOA measure M-2.53 Hence, it is recommended that the above mitigation measures be utilized first (or explain why they are infeasible). Additionally, as discussed above (supra section B.4), current GHG/VMT estimates may prove inaccurate, and new onsite mitigation measures may prove -year lifespan (notwithstanding good-faith efforts). This can be mitigated by requiring an annual review of this measure. Therefore, it is recommended that these measures be modified to require annual reporting regardless of whether the applicant utilizes Id., at PDF p. 28.) This can be coordinated with existing annual reporting requirements and provide the city with the opportunity to consider additional feasible mitigation measures. / / / 52 https://www.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/calgreen; https://www.dgs.ca.gov/-/media/Divisions/BSC/05-Resources/CALGreen/2022-CALGreen-Supplement-Guide-07-01-24---Final.pdf. 53 CAPCOA Handbook, PDF p. 460; see also 2022 Scoping Plan, Appendix D, PDF p. 29 (State recommends and prioritize on-site design measures).
SEIRComments RE: B-2 Hotel Project November 6, 2025 Page 27of 27
F. CONCLUSION In conclusion, Local 11 would like to thank the City for the opportunity to provide these comments. In short, it hopes to see revisions to the SEIR and MMRP to address the comments herein. We request that this letter be included in the P Sincerely, __________________________________________________ Jordan R. Sisson Attorney for Local 11 Channel Law Group, LLP May 7, 2026Item C.1, May 7, 2026 Planning Commission Public Hearing — Site B-2 Hotel Project (Nickelodeon Hotel Resort) — Supplemental Comments and Objections to Final SEIR (SCH No. 2022060174); Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations; PUD-141-01(A); Site Plan No. SP-107-2022 (Rev. 2026)(2) Stipulated Writ of Mandate (February 13, 2024)
1 STIPULATION AND WRIT OF MANDATE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN& SMARTATTORNEYS AT LAWCOSTA MESA Fee Exempt Per Gov. Code § 6103 STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH A Limited Liability Partnership ALLISON E. BURNS (SBN: 198231) GREGORY MAESTRI (SBN: 307332) 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1600 Newport Beach, CA 92660-6422 Telephone: (949) 725-4000 Fax: (949) 725-4100 [email protected] [email protected] WOODRUFF & SMART A Professional Corporation RICIA R. HAGER (SBN: 234052) OMAR SANDOVAL (SBN: 175050) 555 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7670 Telephone: (714) 558-7000 Fax: (714) 835-7787 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys For Respondents, CITY OF GARDEN GROVE; CITY OF GARDEN GROVE AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE AGENCY FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT; and GARDEN GROVE HOUSING AUTHORITY SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER MARLENE PEREZ; VIETRISE; MARIA GUADALUPE ORTIZ; UNITE HERE LOCAL 11, Petitioners, v. CITY OF GARDEN GROVE; CITY OF GARDEN GROVE AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE AGENCY FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT; GARDEN GROVE HOUSING AUTHORITY; ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE MATTER OF THE SEPTEMBER 13, 2022 APPROVALS OF DISPOSITION OR SALE OF 12291 AND 12311 THACKERY DRIVE AND THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SALE OR DEVELOPMENT OF 3.72 ACRES AND ALL CASE NO.: 30-2022-01281816-CU-WM-CXC ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO THE HONORABLE MELISSA R. MCCORMICK DEPARTMENT: CX104 STIPULATION AND WRIT OF MANDATE DATE ACTION FILED: September 22, 2022 Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 02/13/2024 08:00:00 AM.30-2022-01281816-CU-WM-CXC - ROA # 123 - DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By O. Lopez, Deputy Clerk.
2 STIPULATION AND WRIT OF MANDATE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN& SMARTATTORNEYS AT LAWCOSTA MESA RELATED APPROVALS FOR THE SITE B2 PROJECT; DOES 1 through 4, Respondents. NEWAGE GARDEN GROVE II, LLC; KAM SANG COMPANY; DOES 5 through 10, Real Parties in Interest, ), NEWAGE PETITIONERS MARLENE PEREZ; VIETRISE, MARIA GUADALUPE ORTIZ; UNITE HERE stipulate as follows: 1. On September 22, 2022, Petitioners filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate, Complaint for Invalidation, Injunctive and Declaratory Relief. On November 15, 2022, Petitioners filed a Verified First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate, Complaint for Invalidation, Injunctive 2. The Petition challenges on various grounds, including, without limitation, California Mitigated Negative Declaration and various other actions taken by the City Council with respect to The Project includes rezoning through land use entitlements including a Planned Unit Development amendment (PUD-141- (SP-107-a street and public alley (SV-002-Disposition and Development Agreement for sale of City- 3. On November 23, 2023, the Court issued an Order establishing the briefing schedule it hearing is scheduled for March 25, 2024.
3 STIPULATION AND WRIT OF MANDATE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN& SMARTATTORNEYS AT LAWCOSTA MESA
4. Prior to and since issuance of that Order, the parties have been engaged in settlement discussions. 5. The parties are entering into this Stipulation and [Proposed] Writ to reflect the settlement reached by the parties with respect to the resolution of this case in a manner whereby the Court retains jurisdiction with respect to subsequent actions on the Approvals including analysis of der CEQA, as set forth in Proposed Writ paragraph 2 below. All other claims and arguments regarding the Project, compliance with CEQA with respect to the Project, or the Approvals, that were raised in the Petition or that could have been raised, are waived, released and dismissed with prejudice. 6. Specifically, the parties stipulate and agree to the terms set forth in the [Proposed] Writ below. 7. The parties understand and stipulate that the settlement reflected in this Stipulation and [Proposed] Writ is a coor otherwise shall be construed as an admission of liability with respect to the Petition. 8. Except as agreed to by the parties outside the confines of this Stipulation, the parties stipulate and agree that each party shall bear its own costs, fees and expenses of all kinds incurred up to the date the Writ is signedto the Project or the Petition (collectively, other party to the Petition any Costs. 9. This Stipulation may be signed in counterparts and signatures delivered electronically shall be treated as originals. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
4 STIPULATION AND WRIT OF MANDATE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN& SMARTATTORNEYS AT LAWCOSTA MESA DATED: February 12 , 2024 By: /s/ Ricia R. Hager Ricia R. Hager WOODRUFF & SMART, APC Allison E. Burns Gregory Maestri STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH LLP Attorneys for Defendants, CITY OF GARDEN GROVE; CITY OF GARDEN GROVE AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE AGENCY FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT and GARDEN GROVE HOUSING AUTHORITY DATED: February 12, 2024 BUCHALTER, A Professional Corporation By: /s/ Brian Fish Brian Fish Chandra A. Roam Attorneys for Real Parties-in-Interest, NEWAGE GARDEN GROVE II, LLC; and KAM SANG COMPANY, INC. DATED: February 9, 2024 LAW OFFICE OF GIDEON KRACOV By /s/ Gideon Kracov Gideon Kracov Jordan R. Sisson Attorneys for Petitioners, MARLENE PEREZ, VIETRISE, MARIA GUADALUPE ORTIZ, and UNITE HERE LOCAL 11
5 STIPULATION AND WRIT OF MANDATE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN& SMARTATTORNEYS AT LAWCOSTA MESA WRIT The parties having entered into the above written stipulation and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. If Respondents and Real Party in Interest decide to proceed with the Project, including any modified version of the Project, Respondents shall (a) prepare a focused review under potentially significant Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) impacts; (b) assess whether modifications are needed to the Approvals, including any mitigation measures and conditions of approval, in light of that focused CEQA analysis; and (c) approve, approve with modifications, or deny the PUD in open session during a publicly agendized meeting of the City Council pursuant to Municipal Code section 9.32.030. 2. Unless the parties subsequently agree to a dismissal of the Writ proceedings with prejudice and the Court enters that dismissal, the Court retains jurisdiction consistent with Public Resources Code section 21168.9(b) with respect to any challenge (i) to the actions taken by ure to comply with Paragraph 1. All other claims and arguments relating to the Project, compliance with CEQA with respect to the Project, or the Approvals, that were or could have been raised in the Petition, including without limitation any claims or arguthan VMT and GHG and all claims and argumentAction, are hereby waived, released and dismissed with prejudice. 3. To the extent that Respondents take further action to proceed with the Project or a modified version of the Project, Respondents are directed to make and file a return to this Writ summarizing any actions taken by Respondents to comply with Paragraph 1 of this Writ no later than the date that is ninety (90) days after taking those actions. 4. Objections, if any, to the return to the Writ shall be filed with the Court and served on Respondents and Real Parties in Interest no later than thirty (30) days after service of the
6 STIPULATION AND WRIT OF MANDATE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN& SMARTATTORNEYS AT LAWCOSTA MESA applicable return to the Writ. Any reply to those objections shall be filed with the Court and served on the objecting party no later than thirty (30) days after service of the objections. 5. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21168.9(c), the Court does not direct Respondents to exercise their lawful discretion in any particular way. 6. Respondents and Real Parties in Interest may not make any physical changes to the environment as it relates to the property proposed for development under the Project pending discharge of this Writ in accordance with the terms of this Writ or, alternatively, the parties subsequently agreeing to dismissal of these proceedings with prejudice and the Court entering that dismissal. 7. ear its own costs, fees and expenses of all kinds incurred up to the date this Writ is signed, including, without er from the other parties to the Petition any Costs. Let the foregoing peremptory writ of administrative mandate issue. DATED: February 13, 2024 _________________________________ MELISSA R. MCCORMICK JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT