Garden Grove City Council
June 9, 2026

MEMORANDUM
To: Priit Kaskla, AICP Senior Planner
From: Elena Nuno, Sabita Tewani, and Jennifer Reed (Dudek) Subject: Site B-2 Hotel Project: Response to Letter Submitted by UNITE HERE Local 11 Dated May 7, 2026
Date: June 8, 2026
cc: Monica Covarrubias, Senior Project Manager; Ursula Luna -Reynosa, Assistant City Manager/ Economic Development and Housing Director; and Niki Wetzel, Community Development Director (City of Garden Grove)
Attachment: A – UNITE HERE Local 11 Letter Dated May 7, 2026 I. Introduction
This memorandum provides the City of Garden Grove’s formal written responses to the supplemental comment letter submitted on May 7, 2026, by Channel Law Group LLP on behalf of UNITE HERE Local 11 (Commenter), regarding the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Final SEIR) for the Site B-2 Hotel Project (Project).

The letter is provided as Attachment A to this memorandum.

The Final SEIR has been prepared in a manner consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR Section 15000 et seq.), and the February 13, 2024, Stipulated Writ of Mandate (Writ) entered in Perez et al. v. City of Garden Grove et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30 -2022-01281816-CU-WM-CXC (see Attachment A, Enclosure 2). The Final SEIR includes revisions to the Draft SEIR, responses to all timely public comments, and the Supplemental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Supplemental MMRP), as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15132.

The Commenter’s supplemental letter was received on May 7, 2026, the day of the Planning Commission hearing, approximately 3.5 hours before the hearing commenced. The public comment period on the Draft SEIR closed on November 6, 2025. Although not required by CEQA, Dudek, the City’s consultant on the SEIR, provides the following responses for the City Council’s consideration along with the remainder of the Project record of proceedings.

This memorandum demonstrates the following:
 The Final SEIR satisfies all applicable CEQA requirements.  The Project’s environmental impacts have been adequately analyzed and disclosed.  The City has fully complied with the requirements of the Writ.  No recirculation or further revision to the Final SEIR is required prior to certification.

IN CONNECTION WITH ITEM 21

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SITE B-2 HOTEL PROJECT: RESPONSE TO LETTER SUBMITTED BY UNITE HERE LOCAL 11 DATED MAY 7, 2026

16294 2
JUNE 2026
II. Responses to Comments
A. Project Design Feature PDF-28 (Guest-Only Access and Day Pass Restriction)
Summary of Comments
The Commenter asserts that PDF- 28’s restriction of amenities to registered hotel guests would not be effective, citing concerns about its timing, its consistency with Planned Unit Development (PUD) 141-01(A), its enforceability, its scope, and its incorporation into the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA).

Responses to Comments
The Commenter’s arguments mischaracterize the nature, legal status, and origin of PDF-28 and are not supported by the record.

As a threshold matter, PDF- 28 is a project design feature (PDF), which means it is a characteristic of the Project itself that defines how it will operate. It is part of the project description that was expressly stated in the Draft SEIR.

The fact that Project amenities will be available only to hotel guests is not a mitigation measure imposed to reduce a significant environmental impact. This distinction is legally significant. CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 governs recirculation triggered by significant new information, including new mitigation measures considerably different from those previously analyzed and not imposed by the lead agency. PDFs are not mitigation measures. PDF- 28 therefore does not trigger the recirculation standards applicable to new mitigation measures.

It should be noted that PDF -28 was added in direct response to the Commenter’s own recommendations. The Commenter’s prior counsel, Jordan R. Sisson, raised in the November 6, 2025, comment letter (see Attachment A, Enclosure 1) the concern that persons other than hotel guests and employees might access the Project’s amenities even though the Draft SEIR explicitly stated that only hotel guests are permitted to use Project amenities. The Draft SEIR also disclosed that the MMRP and/or final Project conditions of approval would address the issue. As indicated in the Final SEIR, PDF -28’s specific prohibition of day passes was crafted to implement the PDF identified in the Draft SEIR and it directly responds to the Commenter’s own concern about non-overnight guest access. Moreover, PDF-28 appears in the Supplemental MMRP.

The Draft SEIR’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analyses were already premised on the operations limiting access to Project amenities to hotel guests. The Draft SEIR explicitly stated: “All hotel amenities would be for the hotel guests use only” (Draft SEIR, p. 3-4). This feature of the Project was embedded in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) inputs and the VMT model from the outset. As the Draft SEIR contemplated, PDF-28 makes that operational element of the Project an enforceable performance standard in the PUD and, because it was incorporated into the Supplemental MMRP at the Commenter’s request, it is also an enforceable piece of the Supplemental MMRP and a condition of approval. It does not change the analysis. The public had the full opportunity to comment on this Project feature during the public comment period, and the Commenter did so extensively in their November 6, 2025, letter.

The Commenter argues that PDF-28 does not cover banquets, weddings, and theater audiences because it prohibits only “day passes” rather than all forms of non -overnight guest access. This argument mischaracterizes the PDF.

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SITE B-2 HOTEL PROJECT: RESPONSE TO LETTER SUBMITTED BY UNITE HERE LOCAL 11 DATED MAY 7, 2026

16294 3
JUNE 2026
“Project amenities” means all Project amenities— not some but not others, all. A banquet or theater event at this hotel is an amenity of the hotel available to registered guests. It is not a public ticketed attraction open to the general public on a walk -in basis. This Project is a hotel resort, not a theme park. No definition of “day pass” is needed, because PDF- 28 prohibits all access by non -registered guests to Project amenities regardless of the mechanism by which that access might otherwise occur.

The Commenter argues that PDF-28 is internally inconsistent with the PUD because the PUD authorizes ballroom, theater, restaurant, and retail uses. This argument misreads the relationship between these documents. The PUD authorizes these uses. PDF -28, which is expressly incorporated into the PUD’s modified Performance Standards, governs how those uses operate. The existence of authorized uses does not contradict PDF -28; rather, it defines the context in which PDF-28 applies. The PUD and PDF-28 are consistent and mutually reinforcing. The modification of the PUD Performance Standards to incorporate PDF -28 is precisely the kind of modification to the Approvals contemplated by Paragraph 1(b) of the Writ and the Draft SEIR.

The Commenter argues that PDF -28 must be embedded in the DDA to bind future operators. This argument fails for several reasons. First, the DDA will automatically require all future owners to comply with PDF -28 without the need to amend the DDA. The DDA requires that all uses on the Project site conform to all applicable “Governmental Requirements,” which are defined in the DDA to include, without limitation, “the City zoning and development standards.” PUD-141-01 and its associated PUD Performance Standards (including PDF-28) are City zoning and development standards, and are thus Governmental Requirements with which the DDA requires the Developer and its successors and assigns to comply.

Second, PDF-28 is enforceable through three independent mechanisms: (1) the PUD Performance Standards, which are expressly incorporated into PUD -141-01(A) and are zoning and development standards that apply to and are enforceable against all future owners and operators as a matter of land use law regardless of who owns or operates the Project; (2) the conditions of approval for Site Plan No. SP -107-2022 (Rev. 2026), which incorporate the PDFs from the Final SEIR by reference; and (3) the Supplemental MMRP, which includes PDF-28 at the Commenter’s own request.

Conclusion
PDF-28 is a project design feature (PDF) that makes enforceable an analytical project feature assumption already embedded in the Draft SEIR. It was contemplated by the Draft SEIR, was added in direct response to the Commenter’s own requests, covers all Pro ject amenities without exception, is consistent with the modified PUD, and is enforceable through three independent approval documents. The Commenter’s arguments are not supported by the record and do not identify any deficiency in the Final SEIR.

B. Recirculation Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5
Summary of Comments
The Commenter asserts that the Final SEIR includes significant new information that warrants recirculation, and identifies several PDFs, mitigation measures, and supporting analyses as the alleged basis for this contention.

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SITE B-2 HOTEL PROJECT: RESPONSE TO LETTER SUBMITTED BY UNITE HERE LOCAL 11 DATED MAY 7, 2026

16294 4
JUNE 2026
Responses to Comments
Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, recirculation is required only when the lead agency adds significant new information to an EIR after public review. Significant new information includes: (1) a new significant environmental impact not identified in the Draft EIR; (2) a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact; (3) a feasible mitigation measure or project alternative considerably different from those previously analyzed that the lead agency declines to adopt; or (4) a finding that the Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate that meaningful public review was precluded.

Recirculation is not required merely because new information has been added to a Final EIR. The new information must be significant in the sense that it deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental effect or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect. Information that merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the existing analysis does not require recirculation. The addition of mitigation measures that further reduce impacts does not trigger recirculation.

Specific to this Final SEIR, PDF-28 and PDF-29 are project design features (PDFs), not mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 applies to new mitigation measures considerably different from those previously analyzed, not new PDFs like PDF -28 that reinforce what the Draft SEIR already disclosed. PDF -28 makes enforceable an element of Project operations explicitly disclosed and analyzed in the Draft SEIR. It does not introduce a new significant impact or reveal that previously identified impacts would be substantially more severe.

PDF-29, similarly, is a supporting operational characteristic of the Project, not a new mitigation measure.

The revision to Mitigation Measure (MM) GHG -1 clarifies and amplifies the elements of an existing mitigation measure requiring use of electric construction equipment. It does not introduce a new significant impact or reveal that previously identified impac ts are substantially more severe. CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b) expressly provides that recirculation is not required where new information clarifies or amplifies an adequate EIR.

Strengthening an existing mitigation measure falls squarely within that standard. This revision responds directly to public comments requesting clarification about the types of electric construction equipment the Project must utilize under MM-GHG-1, including comments from the Commenter.

The addition of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold or Platinum certification requirements and battery energy storage to MM-GHG-7 responds directly to the request from the Commenter’s prior counsel for clarification about the energy e fficiency mitigation measures identified in the Draft SEIR. These additions do not alter the essence of the mitigation measure proposed for acceptance by the City Council. Substantial evidence does not support the assertion that clarifying that the Project will utilize a well-accepted program like LEED certification or a common feature like battery storage for just the Project -generated renewable energy, something installed in many homes and businesses, would result in new significant impacts. The Commenter ’s assertion that fire safety and life- cycle GHG emissions implications of battery storage requires additional analysis is not supported. Fire safety and building code compliance for battery storage systems are regulated through compliance with already established laws like the California building and electric code. Further, life- cycle GHG emissions implications of battery storage are speculative and not supported by substantial evidence.

As to MM- GHG-5, the additional language amplifies what that mitigation measure and other Project elements already regulated as it relates to guest vehicle trip reduction measures. The additions make clarifications that were added in direct response to comm ents from the Commenter’s prior counsel regarding shuttle service, real -time transit information, and on-site transit pass availability. They do not introduce new significant impacts or reveal that

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SITE B-2 HOTEL PROJECT: RESPONSE TO LETTER SUBMITTED BY UNITE HERE LOCAL 11 DATED MAY 7, 2026

16294 5
JUNE 2026
previously identified impacts are substantially more severe. Recirculation is not required when mitigation measures are modified in the manner that occurred here in response to public comments.

The waste reduction program modifications in MM -GHG-11 were added in direct response to Commenter’s November 6, 2025, letter. These additions provide further support for the determination regarding the Project’s GHG emissions mitigation reducing waste-related GHG emissions and do not introduce new significant impacts.

The Employee VMT Estimation Memorandum is a technical appendix that clarifies and supports the VMT analysis already contained in the Draft SEIR. It does not introduce new significant impacts or reveal that previously identified impacts are substantially mo re severe. Supplemental technical documentation supporting existing analysis does not trigger recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b).

The Updated Economic Report prepared by Tierra West Advisors is a fiscal analysis supporting the Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC). It is not environmental analysis. CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 governs recirculation of environmental informat ion, not economic projections. The SOC is a discretionary balancing determination by the City Council, not an environmental document subject to public comment requirements under CEQA. No CEQA authority requires circulation of economic reports supporting an SOC.

Conclusion
None of the items identified by the Commenter constitute significant new information within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Each either clarifies or amplifies existing analysis and many of the additions were made in direct response to recommendations from the Commenter’s prior counsel, or they provide updated economic data for the SOC. The City’s determination not to recirculate is supported by substantial evidence in the record. No recirculation is required.

C. Compliance with the Stipulated Writ of Mandate
Summary of Comments
The Commenter argues that the City did not comply with Paragraph 1(b) of the Writ by failing to disclose whether it assessed the need for modifications to the Approvals and contends that modifications are needed.

Responses to Comments
The Commenter’s argument is not supported by the Writ’s text, CEQA requirements, or the administrative record.

Paragraph 1(b) of the Writ requires the City to assess whether modifications are needed. It does not require a separate written report, a separately agendized action, or a specific format for the assessment. The City’s Paragraph 1(b) assessment was performed and its result is reflected in the Draft and Final SEIRs (SEIR), the Supplemental MMRP, the Findings of Fact, the modified conditions of approval for Site Plan No. SP -107-2022 (Rev. 2026), the relevant Staff Reports, and the modified PUD Performance Standards.

The Commenter ’s argument that the City should have assessed whether modifications to building height, 528 parking spaces, PUD authorized square footages, or the DDA are needed seems to be based on a misreading of Paragraph 1(b). The Writ required the City to assess modifications “in light of that focused CEQA analysis,” meaning

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SITE B-2 HOTEL PROJECT: RESPONSE TO LETTER SUBMITTED BY UNITE HERE LOCAL 11 DATED MAY 7, 2026

16294 6
JUNE 2026
in light of the VMT and GHG emissions analysis provided in the SEIR. The City’s VMT and GHG emissions analyses did not reveal that building height, parking supply, or square footage are causes of significant GHG emissions or VMT environmental impacts requiring modification. Rather, the significant and unavoidable GHG emissions impact flows from operational emissions and uncertainty regarding carbon offset availability.

With respect to the Commenter’ s argument that the City should have required a DDA amendment binding future operators to PDF- 28, this argument is addressed and rejected in Section II(A) of this memorandum . PDF-28 is enforceable through the PUD Performance Standards, the conditions of approval, and the Supplemental MMRP.

Conclusion
The City has fully complied with all three prongs of Paragraph 1 of the Writ: (a) the City prepared a focused CEQA review of VMT and GHG impacts as set forth in the SEIR; (b) the City assessed whether modifications were needed to the Approvals and determined that the modifications reflected in the revised conditions of approval, the revised MMRP, and the modified PUD Performance Standards constitute the necessary modifications; and (c) the City Council will consider whether to reapprove the PUD at a publicl y agendized meeting. The Commenter’s Paragraph 1(b) arguments are not supported by the record.

D. Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
Summary of Comments
The Commenter makes various assertions regarding the methodology used to evaluate VMT related to building square footage, employee counts, and the reductions in VMT achieved through mitigation.

Responses to Comments
These arguments were raised in the Commenter’s timely November 6, 2025 , comment letter and were fully addressed in the Final SEIR, including in the responses to comments. See, for example, Responses to Comments O2-7 and O2-22 in the Final SEIR.

The substantial evidence standard governs the City’s choice of methodology, and courts defer to an agency’s factual determinations supported by expert analysis. As the Responses to Comments chapter of the Final SEIR addresses, the City’s use of conservative assumptions to evaluate the Project are not methodological errors. The Commenter’s arguments do not identify a CEQA violation and are not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Conclusion
The VMT analysis is methodologically sound, consistent with the City’s adopted VMT Guidelines (City of Garden Grove 2020), and supported by substantial evidence. No revision to the VMT analysis is required.

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SITE B-2 HOTEL PROJECT: RESPONSE TO LETTER SUBMITTED BY UNITE HERE LOCAL 11 DATED MAY 7, 2026

16294 7
JUNE 2026
E. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation
Summary of Comments
The Commenter argues that the City ’s finding of a significant and unavoidable GHG emissions impact triggers an obligation to identify and impose additional GHG emissions mitigation before relying on carbon offsets. The Commenter specifically references California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (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), and T-44 (shuttle) (CAPCOA 2024).

Responses to Comments
The Commenter offers no support for the argument that CEQA obligates the City to impose additional “on-site” GHG emissions mitigation. The SEIR imposes 14 mitigation measures (MM-GHG-1 through MM-GHG-14) before requiring carbon offsets under MM -GHG-15. These measures address electric construction equipment, energy efficiency, electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure, guest vehicle trip reduction, heavy diesel truck limits, building energy efficiency, cool roofs, renewable energy, water conservation, waste reduction, zero-emission landscape equipment, prohibition on combustion features, and refrigerant management. This is a robust mitigation program that demonstrates how Project-generated GHG emissions could be reduced to less than significant.

As to MM- GHG-15, consistent with CEQA and applicable case law including the Golden Door Properties, LLC v.

County of San Diego decision (Golden Door) referenced in the comment, the Final SEIR and the record discloses that uncertainty exists as to whether a sufficient supply of qualifying carbon offset credits will exist for the 30 -year life of the Project that would result in actual, quantifiable, and e nforceable reductions of the Project- generated operational and construction GHG emissions below the 1,400 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent ( MT CO2e) significance threshold. That uncertainty exists for all carbon offset credit programs, not just the program identified in the SEIR. Notwithstanding that the Project is obligated to purchase the carbon offsets pursuant to the MMRP, the SEIR discloses that Project GHG impacts will be treated as significant and unavoidable impacts, triggering the requirement that the City adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations if the City Council decides to approve the Project. Such an approach to the analysis and disclosure of potential impacts fully complies with CEQA.

The Commenter’s arguments regarding the specific CAPCOA measures repeat arguments made in the November 6, 2025, letter. See Responses to Comments O2-44, O2-49, O2-50, and O2-51 in the Final SEIR, addressing each of the specifically referenced CAPCOA measures, as well as Responses to Comments O2-18, O2-53, and others for a discussion of the rationale for use of carbon offsets for this Project. As explained in those responses, the Supplemental MMRP provides feasible mitigation, including, without limitation, MM-TRA-1 and MM-GHG-5. Those measures and other factors described in the Final SEIR provide the requisite analysis and disclosure regarding the relevant components of CAPCOA measures that address topics such as trip reductions, shuttles, ridesharing , and alternative transportation.

Conclusion
For the reasons already described in the SEIR, CEQA does not require the inclusion of any particular CAPCOA measure, let alone the measures identified in the comment letter. The City has broad discretion to determine which measures are feasible, effective, and appropriate for a specific project. Substantial evidence supports the SEIR’s disclosures, analysis, and determinations regarding Project GHG emissions and the identified CAPCOA measures.

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SITE B-2 HOTEL PROJECT: RESPONSE TO LETTER SUBMITTED BY UNITE HERE LOCAL 11 DATED MAY 7, 2026

16294 8
JUNE 2026
F. Carbon Offsets (MM-GHG-15)
Summary of Comments
The Commenter argues that MM -GHG-15 is inadequate, citing price floors, additionality safeguards, and contingency provisions for registry delisting.

Responses to Comments
The Commenter ’s argument mischaracterizes both CEQA’ s requirements and the content of MM- GHG-15. The comment also repeats arguments made in the November 6 , 2025, letter. By way of example, see Responses to Comments O2-18 and O2-53 in the Final SEIR.

CEQA does not require a price floor or contingency provisions for hypothetical future market conditions. CEQA requires that mitigation measures be enforceable, supported by substantial evidence, and capable of reducing impacts, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4. The adequacy of a mitigation measure is not evaluated based on whether it addresses all conceivable future market scenarios.

MM-GHG-15 fully satisfies the requirements of relevant CEQA regulations and case law, including, without limitation, Golden Door. Specifically, MM-GHG-15:
 Requires offsets from California Air Resources Board ( CARB) accredited registries, including the Climate Action Reserve, the American Carbon Registry, Verra (formerly the Verified Carbon Standard), and the California Carbon Sequestration and Climate Resiliency Project Registry, thus ensuring adherence to established, rigorous verification protocols.
 Requires that offsets meet the standards of additional, real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, and enforceable reductions, with each term explicitly defined in the measure consistent with the California Code of Regulations, Title 17.
 Requires adherence to recognized GHG accounting principles set forth in International Organization for Standardization standard ISO 14064, Part 2 (ISO 2019), or the World Resources Institute/World Business Council for Sustainable Development Greenhouse Gas Protocol for Project Accounting (WRI/WBCSD 2005).  Requires independent third-party expert review of all offset submissions and City approval of all proposed offsets before they may be credited.
 Requires submission of documentation , including protocol descriptions, verification reports, and unique registry serial numbers for each offset credit, ensuring transparency, traceability, and prevention of double-counting.
 Provides the City with full enforcement authority, including the right to reject noncompliant offsets and require replacement offsets meeting the measure’s standards.  Includes geographic prioritization criteria requiring offsets to be sourced first within the City, then the County, then the state, then the United States, thereby exceeding the requirements of Golden Door.  Includes detailed timing requirements tied to P roject milestones for both construction and operational offsets, ensuring contemporaneous mitigation.

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SITE B-2 HOTEL PROJECT: RESPONSE TO LETTER SUBMITTED BY UNITE HERE LOCAL 11 DATED MAY 7, 2026

16294 9
JUNE 2026
With respect to the Commenter’s registry delisting comment, MM-GHG-15’s requirement that offsets be purchased from CARB accredited registries that maintain ongoing oversight of listed projects provides a reasonable, evidence- based safeguard. CEQA requires a reasonable mitigation framework at the time of project approval, not speculation about all possible future market scenarios. The City acknowledges, and the SEIR discloses that, despite the imposition of MM- GHG-15, uncertainty exists regarding all carbon offset credit programs. Imposing the detailed carbon offset acquisition obligation that can reduce Project GHG emissions below the threshold of significance but also conservatively treating the Project GHG impacts as significant and unavoidable is consistent with CEQA’s requirements. In fact, this disclosure of uncertainty is precisely what CEQA requires.

Conclusion
MM-GHG-15 fully complies with CEQA , including case law such as Golden Door . The measure establishes clear, enforceable performance standards; requires offsets to meet rigorous criteria for additionality, permanence, and verification; incorporates robust monitoring, reporting, and enforcement mechanisms; and provides the City with the authority and tools to ensure real and permanent GHG emissions reductions. No revision is required.

G. Alternatives Analysis
Summary of Comments
The Commenter challenges the alternatives analysis, citing the franchise partnership objective and contending that a mixed-use alternative incorporating affordable housing should have been analyzed.

Responses to Comments
The alternatives analysis satisfies the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 and is supported by substantial evidence. CEQA requires a reasonable range of alternatives. A lead agency is not required to evaluate every conceivable variation of the project or every possible land use combination. For example, the SEIR considered and rejected a mixed-use alternative because it would fail to meet most of the Project’s basic objectives. The SEIR discloses that a smaller hotel combined with affordable housing would not attract a national theme park franchise, would not result in a destination resort, would not generate material transient occupancy tax and property tax revenue for the City, and would not provide the enhanced overnight guest experience with themed amenities that constitutes the Project’s fundamental purpose.

The Commenter’s argument that the franchise partnership objective defines away every alternative is not supported. The franchise partnership objective is one of 10 P roject objectives. No one objective independently eliminated any of the alternatives. The SEIR analyzed a No Project Alternative and a Reduced Project Alternative.

The Reduced Project Alternative, a 75-room limited-service hotel with an 85% reduction in building square footage, was analyzed precisely because it would avoid the P roject’s significant and unavoidable GHG emissions impact even though it fails a number of P roject objectives, including the franchise partnership objective. The alternatives analysis therefore cannot be said to have been structured to eliminate all meaningful consideration of alternatives.

The Commenter’s argument that the Regional Housing Needs Assessment ( RHNA) data showing the City has met only 1.15% of its affordable housing allocation requires consideration of a housing alternative is not supported by CEQA. The source of the 1.15% data is unknown and unsubstantiated. Further, CEQA’s alternatives analysis is governed by whether alternatives can attai n most of a p roject’s basic objectives while reducing or avoiding

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SITE B-2 HOTEL PROJECT: RESPONSE TO LETTER SUBMITTED BY UNITE HERE LOCAL 11 DATED MAY 7, 2026

16294 10
JUNE 2026
significant environmental impacts, not by regional housing statistics. The City’s RHNA compliance is addressed through its Housing Element, which identifies more than 2,400 sites elsewhere in the City to satisfy the state RHNA obligations. The Project site is not in the Housing Element Sites Inventory.

Conclusion
The alternatives analysis evaluates a reasonable range of alternatives, identifies the environmentally superior alternatives, and supports each rejected alternative with specific, evidence -based findings. The analysis satisfies CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6.

H. Statement of Overriding Considerations
Summary of Comments
The Commenter challenges the adequacy of the SOC, citing its reliance on the April 2026 Updated Economic Report, VMT reduction benefits, and housing preservation.

Responses to Comments
The benefits identified in the SOC are individually and collectively sufficient to support the SOC. Thus, the Commenter’s arguments about some of the identified benefits are not sufficient to support the assertion that the SOC is inadequate. In fact, substantial evidence supports the analysis and determinations included in the SOC.

With respect to the specific topics mentioned by the Commenter, as discussed above, the Updated Economic Report is composed of fiscal data, not environmental analysis. CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 governs recirculation of significant new environmental information. It does not apply to economic projections supporting an SOC. The SOC is a discretionary balancing determination by the City Council, not an environmental document subject to public comment requirements. No CEQA authority requires circulation of economic reports supporting an SOC.

The VMT reduction benefit identified in the SOC refers to the Project site’s location near transit and major visitor attractions, which supports the use of transit, walking, and bicycling instead of complete reliance on every guest being transported by an individual car. Thus, the Project’s location and intensity of development i s consistent with state and regional VMT reduction goals. Further, through the measures imposed under MM-TRA-1, MM-TRA-2, and MM-GHG-5, the Project’s VMT would be reduced to below the applicable threshold of significance. The Commenter’s argument misstates what the SOC states with respect to VMT.

The SOC ’s statements regarding the preservation of housing are clear. The Project does not utilize a property identified in the s tate-approved Housing Element Sites Inventory as required for the City to meet its RHNA obligations. Therefore, the Project does not eliminate a site the Housing Element identifies as necessary for the City to meet its housing needs. The City’s overall RHNA progress is a separate policy question that does not bear on the legal sufficiency of this SOC finding.

Conclusion
The SOC is legally sufficient, grounded in the administrative record, and supported by substantial evidence. Each of the eight benefits identified in the SOC independently constitutes an overriding consideration sufficient to justify

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SITE B-2 HOTEL PROJECT: RESPONSE TO LETTER SUBMITTED BY UNITE HERE LOCAL 11 DATED MAY 7, 2026

16294 11
JUNE 2026
approval of the Project individually and collectively. The Commenter’s arguments do not identify any legal deficiency in the SOC.

III. Conclusion
No recirculation or revision is required in response to the May 7, 2026, letter. The Final SEIR is appropriate for consideration by the City Council.1
References
CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association). 2024. Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity.

ISO (International Organization for Standards). 2019. ISO 14064-2:2019. Greenhouse gases – Part 2:

Specification with Guidance at the Project Level for Quantification, Monitoring and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions or Removal Enhancements.

WRI/WBCSD (World Resources Institute/World Business Council for Sustainable Development). 2005. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: The GHG Protocol for Project Accounting. Accessed June 1, 2026. https://ghgprotocol.org/project-protocol.

City of Garden Grove. 2020. Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment. Adopted June 2020.

1 This memorandum constitutes the City of Garden Grove’s formal written response to the supplemental comment letter submitted by Channel Law Group LLP on behalf of UNITE HERE Local 11 on May 7, 2026, and is intended to be included in the administrative record for the Site B-2 Hotel Project. The City also notes that UNITE HERE Local 11 submitted a litigation hold letter on April 22, 2026, and that the May 7, 2026, letter expressly states that it is intended to provide pre-suit notification under California Public Resources Code Section 21177 and reserves all rights to challenge the City ’s actions. The City responds to these comments in good faith and without waiving any procedural or substantive defense.

Attachment A
UNITE HERE Local 11 Letter Dated May 7, 2026
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. McLURKIN
GREGORY T. WITTMANN

*ALSO Admitted in Texas
Writer’s Direct Line: (424) 284-9669
[email protected]

May 7, 2026

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

AND ELECTRONIC UPLOAD

Garden Grove Planning Commission
c/o Community Development Department
Planning Services Division
11222 Acacia Parkway
Garden Grove, California 92840
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Re: 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”).
1 These supplemental comments are submitted in advance of the May 7, 2026 Planning

1 This 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 Commission
May 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.
2 For 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 fi rst 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 Re port 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 i s 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.
2 For 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 Commission
May 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 “fundamentall y 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 elec tric-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 7,520 MT CO₂e/year (more than double the 3,316 MT CO₂e/year disclosed in the 2022 MND).

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 Commission
May 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 lower 691,693 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 gar age 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-point margin (4.88% − 4.25%); if the true unmitigated VMT -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 obliga tion 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 N ovember 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 Commission
May 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 si te 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 smaller hotel 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. L ocal 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 3 This 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 Commission
May 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. Hall

Cc: 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, 2026

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)

(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:

On behalf of UNITE HERE Local 11 (“Local 11”), this office respectfully provides the following comments1 to the City of Garden Grove (“City”) regarding the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”) for the proposed 500-room hotel development (“Project”) on an approximately 3.72-acre property located at the northwest corner of Harbor Boulevard and Twintree Avenue (“Site”). 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 (“MMRP”) is an improvement over the prior mitigated negative declaration (“MND”). However, the SEIR should be revised to address the following areas of concern: disclosure of project components, possibly imprecise assumptions about hotel guests (infra section A), greenhouse gas (“GHG”) and vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) impacts may have been underestimated (infra section B and C, respectively), the alternative analysis should have included a housing alternative (infra section D), the need for additional/modified MMRP, including additional traffic demand management (“TDM”) strategies among other recommendations (infra section E).

The recommendations included herein would address potential inconsistencies with relevant goals and objectives identified in the City’s General Plan, mitigation strategies recommended by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (“CAPCOA”), and various policies and recommendations contained in the Southern California Association of Governments (“SCAG”) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (“RTP/SCS”) (also known as Connect SoCal) and the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) Scoping Plans.

Therefore, the recommendations are relevant to the potential overriding considerations that the City may adopt in its evaluation of the Project’s discretionary approval process.

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 Herein, page citations are either the stated pagination (i.e., “p. #”) or PDF -page location (i.e., “PDF p. #”) SEIR Comments RE: B-2 Hotel Project
November 6, 2025

A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

An “‘accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR.’” (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].) As one court explained, “only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision-makers balance the proposal’s benefit against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal (i.e., the ‘no project’ alternative), and weigh other alternatives in the balance.” (Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1052.) Hence, an accurate project description is an “indispensable component of a valid EIR.” (Western Placer Citizens for an Agr. and Rural Env’t v. Cnty. of Placer (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 infects the SEIR’s 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, the SEIR states that the total building size is 718,919 square feet (“sf”), 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.) Moreover, the SEIR relies on a key assumption that all “hotel amenities” would be available to “only” hotel guests.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., SEIR, PDF p. 52 (“All hotel amenities would be for the hotel guests use only.” Emphasis added), PDF p. 95 (“Ancillary uses associated with the hotel such as restaurant, meeting rooms, entertainment spaces and health and fitness are included within the hotel building square footage as those uses will only be available to guests of the hotel.” Emphasis added); SEIR GHG Study, PDF p. 50 (same), PDF pp. 135-136, 208-209 (CalEEMod Worksheet sections 1.2)

SEIR Comments RE: B-2 Hotel Project
November 6, 2025

FIGURE 1: CONTINUED

FIGURE 2: MND EXCERPT (MND, PDF P. 16; SEE ALSO MND Appendices, PDF PP. 8)

SEIR Comments RE: B-2 Hotel Project
November 6, 2025

2. GHG EMISSION ANALYSIS SEEMS TO HAVE ANALYZED A GENERIC HOTEL WITH A MAXIMUM OF 1,000 OVERNIGHT GUESTS

The SEIR’s GHG Study relies on emissions modeling under CalEEMod, which includes worksheets to show inputs and output results. (SEIR GHG Study, PDF p. 50.) Accordingly, the land use development assumption is that “only” hotel guests 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 “user defined” recreational uses to account for that development’s unique theme/amusement park uses5 (which is not a CalEEMod default land use).6 By not disaggregating the various uses, the SEIR’s GHG modeling may have underestimated the 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 CalEEMod User Guide, pp. 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29 (regarding “user defined” land use subtypes, such as the 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.

SEIR Comments RE: B-2 Hotel Project
November 6, 2025

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 emissions, the GHG Study relied on the Project’s VMT assessment (Fig. 7 below), which the CalEEMod worksheets show a maximum of 21,914 VMTs per day was assumed (Fig. 8 below), which corresponds to the SEIR’s VMT Study (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.

SEIR Comments RE: B-2 Hotel Project
November 6, 2025

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)

⩩⩩⩩

SEIR Comments RE: B-2 Hotel Project
November 6, 2025

3. VMT ANALYSIS SEEMS TO HAVE ANALYZED A GENERIC HOTEL WITH A MAXIMUM OF 1,000 OVERNIGHT GUESTS.

The SEIR’s GHG Study relies on VMT modeling under the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (“OCTAM”). The SEIR’s VMT analysis demonstrates a limited amount of VMTs 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 expressed as a unique “theme park rates” 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.

SEIR Comments RE: B-2 Hotel Project
November 6, 2025

PDF p. 4.) The Great Wolf Lodge is not limited to just overnight hotel guests, and “day pass admission” is offered.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 critical of the previous MND’s GHG analysis. The updated SEIR GHG Study estimates the Project will generate 7520.09 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year (“MTCO2e/yr”). (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 uses would be accessible to “only” hotel guests,15 which is reflected in the GHG study’s land use assumptions. (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 See Great Wolf Lodge, Day Pass (“Splash into a day of fun with day pass admission to Great Wolf Lodge’s indoor water park”), 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., SEIR, PDF p. 52,95 (“Ancillary uses associated with the hotel such as restaurant, meeting rooms, entertainment spaces and health and fitness are included within the hotel building square footage as those uses will only be available to guests of the hotel.” Emphasis added).

SEIR Comments RE: B-2 Hotel Project
November 6, 2025

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 whether the SEIR’s project design features and mitigation measures are consistent with the 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, following implementation of “all feasible construction and operational (onsite)” mitigation 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 table, which should be incorporated prior to resorting to offsets. Over 95 percent of the Project’s 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 information relevant to both the Project’s GHG/VMT impacts and operational assumptions (e.g., 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 .

SEIR Comments RE: B-2 Hotel Project
November 6, 2025

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 was “undoubtedly more stringent cumulative-impact threshold”]; Al Larson Boat Shop, Inc. v. 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 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 within a transportation priority area (“TPA”). (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, 179-180.) This is an improvement to the MND’s prior traffic analysis. 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 uses would be accessible to “only” hotel guests,17 which is reflected in the SEIR’s VMT Study (i.e., 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., SEIR, PDF p. 52,95 (“Ancillary uses associated with the hotel such as restaurant, meeting rooms, entertainment spaces and health and fitness are included within the hotel building square footage as those uses will only be available to guests of the hotel.” Emphasis added);

SEIR Comments RE: B-2 Hotel Project
November 6, 2025

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 Project’s 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 MND’s “total building area,” which includes over 300,000 sf of parking, and where the “resort hotel” was estimated at 289,891 - 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 718,919 sf with “hotel and amenities” amounting to 417,233 sf. (See 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 “industry source” from a “city-of-hotel.com” website that referenced the “World Tourist Organization” (“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.

SEIR Comments RE: B-2 Hotel Project
November 6, 2025

When corrected for the aforementioned issues, it appears that the Project’s employee service 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 Project’s VMT/employee impacts (15.3 VMT/employee, 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 CITY’S 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 hotels, the SEIR states that the Project is “not” a 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 Project’s 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 more appropriate than a larger boundary to prevent an “artificially truncated” VMT 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 assess the Project’s impact on “change travel behavior in the region.”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 “inappropriately skew the conclusions.” However, the City’s VMT Guidelines appear to limit service population to population (i.e., residents) plus employment (i.e., workers) and do not include hotel guests.22 While the City’s VMT guidelines mention circumstances where “a separate TAZ would be created to contain the project land uses[,]”23 it does not state that

19 SEIR, PDF p. 174; City VMT Guidelines, PDF p. 18 (“local serving hotels (e.g., non-destination hotels)”, 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.

SEIR Comments RE: B-2 Hotel Project
November 6, 2025

the inclusion of hotel guests is permissible. Hence, the SEIR may not be comparing apples to apples when it presents the Project’s 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].) − The City’s VMT Guidelines state that model outputs must include reasonableness checks of production and attractions to ensure the proposed development’s effect is accurately captured.24 This may include estimates matching “traditional model process” or custom processes for “special generator trips (airport, seaport, stadium, etc.).”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 here to provide a check. This would serve to verify whether the VMT’s 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 analysis, the SEIR’s VMT analysis referenced 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 relevant to the Project’s qualitative consistency with numerous traffic related General Plan provisions, including but not limited to those listed in the City’s 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).) It is the lead agency’s affirmative duty to approve a project only after “meaningful consideration of alternatives and mitigation measures.” (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 134.) This duty cannot be defeated by defining objectives too narrowly or too broadly or artificially limiting the agencies’ ability to implement reasonable alternatives by 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 “reasonable range of alternatives” should be: (i) “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner” (Pub. Res. Code § 21061.1); (ii) “attain most of the basic objectives of the project” (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.

SEIR Comments RE: B-2 Hotel Project
November 6, 2025

Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1509 [citing CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a) and (f)]); and (iii) achieve the project’s “underlying fundamental purpose” (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.

The SEIR’s alternative analysis considered only a no-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 designated International West Mixed Use (“IW”) and zoned PUD or single-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 “residential alternative is anticipated to result in fewer environmental impacts than the proposed 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 VMT would also lead to a decrease in GHG emissions.” (Id., at PDF p. 198.) While an “exclusively residential alternative” would not likely serve the majority of project objectives (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’s underlying fundamental purpose. It is recommended that the SEIR consider such an alternative.

2. AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE POLICIES.

The SEIR’s 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:

a. CAPCOA Measures

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 .

SEIR Comments RE: B-2 Hotel Project
November 6, 2025

b. SCAG RTP/SCS Policies

SCAG’s 2024 RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal)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.

SEIR Comments RE: B-2 Hotel Project
November 6, 2025

c. General Plan Provisions

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 LU—1, 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

d. Local Action Under CARB Scoping Plan

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 the Project’s consistency with the abovementioned measures.

3. SEIR LACKS A JOB-HOUSING BALANCE ANALYSIS.

SCAG’s RTP/SCS and SB-743 focus on improving jobs-housing balance, which is relevant to both the SEIR’s GHG and VMT analysis. (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 community’s jobs-to-housing balance. Similarly, the quality of jobs can also impact the jobs-housing fit (“JHFit”), where an imbalance may exist between a city’s total number of low-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 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (“RHNA”) allocation.

It is recommended that the SEIR consider the Project’s impact on induced housing demand and its effect on the City’s jobs-to-housing balance and JHFit. This is reflected throughout a variety of qualitative policies applicable to the project’s GHG and traffic (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 .

SEIR Comments RE: B-2 Hotel Project
November 6, 2025

4. HCD DATA SHOWS COMPELLING NEED FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS IN THE CITY.

The SEIR does not address the City’s current demand for affordable housing under its RHNA allocation. Currently, the City’s RHNA allocation under the 6th 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 Based on the California Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) 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. It is recommended that the SEIR consider the Project’s impact on affordable housing and its consistency with various housing policies (e.g., those mentioned above) as well as the Project’s 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 not fully mitigated, a lead agency must adopt a “statement of overriding considerations,” finding that the Project’s benefits outweigh its environmental harm. (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 it has imposed all feasible mitigation measures to reduce a project’s 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.

SEIR Comments RE: B-2 Hotel Project
November 6, 2025

E. ADDITIONAL MEANINGFUL MITIGATION MEASURES ARE AVAILABLE

Under CEQA, the discussion of mitigation is a “core” part of a CEQA analysis. (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 relevant to lessen the Project’s emission and VMT impacts (i.e., PDF-1 through PDF-12, PDF-21). (Id.) For example, the SEIR states that these project design features are qualitative/supporting measures and not used for “quantifying” GHG emissions. (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 as part of the SEIR’s emissions modeling under CalEEMod to lessen the Project’s GHG emissions (i.e., measures C-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 standards “ensure the integrity of the process of decision making by precluding stubborn problems or serious criticism from being swept under the rug.”); Lincoln Place Tenants Ass’n v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1491, 1508 (“Mitigating conditions are not mere expressions of hope.”); Federation of Hillside & Canyon Ass’ns v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1261 (“feasible mitigation measures will actually be implemented as a condition of development.”); Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. County of El Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 884 (“There cannot be meaningful scrutiny (of an environmental review document) when the mitigation measures are not set forth at the time of project approval.”). 39 See Lotus v. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645, 656 [“ ‘avoidance, minimization and/or mitigation measures,’ … are not ‘part of the project.’ … By compressing the analysis of impacts and mitigation measures into a single issue, the EIR disregards the requirements of CEQA.”] .) 40 See e.g., SEIR, PDF pp. 102 (“As noted in Section 4.1.5, the Project includes PDFs for construction that would potentially reduce GHG emissions. The Project’s PDFs include many of the best management practices for reducing 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 in the Project’s GHG emissions that may be attributable to those PDFs.” Emphasis added.) 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 .

SEIR Comments RE: B-2 Hotel Project
November 6, 2025

plans in the SEIR’s qualitative analysis.42 Furthermore, as discussed above (supra section A), the SEIR’s analysis is based on a fundamental assumption that a 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 basis of the SEIR’s impact analysis. 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 added to the SEIR’s MMRP. (SEIR, PDF pp. 15-37.) This also should include fundamental assumptions as enforceable project design features (i.e., the SEIR’s assumption that 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.

a. Construction-Related 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 similar to CAPCOA measures assumed in the SEIR’s GHG study CalEEMod worksheets, 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 use of “Tier 4 final” 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 “PDFs” to find consistency and/or no conflict with SCAG’s RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal), Garden Grove General 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).

SEIR Comments RE: B-2 Hotel Project
November 6, 2025

− 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- powered “construction equipment over conventional diesel-fueled counterparts,” 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 use of “cleaner- fueled construction equipment over conventional diesel- or gasoline-fueled counterparts.” It is recommended that this be incorporated into this measure. 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 limited effectiveness at reducing the Project’s overall impact (relative to other measures/sources). This can be improved by also focusing on the construction materials.
− Construction and Demolition (“C&D”) Debris Recycling can be difficult to enforce.

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 specifically identifies “wood-based” material, which 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.

SEIR Comments RE: B-2 Hotel Project
November 6, 2025

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 b. Waste-Related Measures

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 currently states the program “may” include various program elements (i.e., recycling program, organics, etc.) It is recommended that it says “shall include” to ensure 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 program that addresses “food waste (both edible and non-edible)” and may include coordination with onsite/offsite composting facilities and food banks. It is recommended that MM-GHG-11 include additional program components, such as coordinating with “food banks” 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).

SEIR Comments RE: B-2 Hotel Project
November 6, 2025

− 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).

c. Transportation-Related Measures

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 CalGreen “Tier 2 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://freako nomics.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.

SEIR Comments RE: B-2 Hotel Project
November 6, 2025

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 states that a “minimum” of 38 bike parking spaces will be provided, and provides 32 “secure” bike parking spaces. (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 this Project’s 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).

/ / /
SEIR Comments RE: B-2 Hotel Project
November 6, 2025

− Pedestrian: MM-GHG-5 also cites “pedestrian” infrastructure (e.g., sidewalks, 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 (“TNC”) (e.g., 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 assessment” with “annual” reporting. This is 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.

SEIR Comments RE: B-2 Hotel Project
November 6, 2025

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 the SEIR’s VMT analysis. (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 PDF p. 15.) Hence, independent of the Project’s VMT impact analysis, the Project is required to meaningfully mitigate the Project’s GHG impacts (i.e., 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). / / /
SEIR Comments RE: B-2 Hotel Project
November 6, 2025

d. Energy-Related Measures

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-10 states the project “may” implement a combination of water conservation 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 most relevant to “residential developments.” Hence, this measure is not likely to be meaningful for this non-residential project.

e. Carbon Offsets Measure

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, “this measure should only be pursued when all possible onsite measures have been implemented or deemed infeasible,” as noted 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 feasible over the course of the Project’s 30-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 the “lump sum” or “annual basis” scenario for purchasing offsets. (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).

SEIR Comments RE: B-2 Hotel Project
November 6, 2025

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 Project’s administrative record.

Sincerely,

__________________________________________________
Jordan R. Sisson
Attorney for Local 11

Channel Law Group, LLP

May 7, 2026

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)

(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
& SMART

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

COSTA 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
& SMART

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

COSTA 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,

RESPONDENTS CITY OF GARDEN GROVE et al. (“City” or “Respondents”)), NEWAGE GARDEN GROVE II, LLC AND KAM SANG COMPANY (collectively, “RPI”) and PETITIONERS M ARLENE PEREZ; VIETRISE, MARIA GUADALUPE ORTIZ; UNITE HERE LOCAL 11 (collectively, “Petitioners”), by and through their respective attorneys, hereby agree and 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 and Declaratory Relief (the “Petition”).

2. The Petition challenges on various grounds, including, without limitation, California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and City codes and plans, Respondents approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and various other actions taken by the City Council with respect to the sale of the property and development of the project described in the Petition (the “Project”). The Project includes rezoning through land use entitlements including a Planned Unit Development amendment (PUD-141-01(A)) (“PUD”), Site Plan review (SP-107-2022) (“SP”), Street Vacation of a street and public alley (SV-002-2002) (“SV”) (collectively “Entitlements”), as well as a Disposition and Development Agreement for sale of City-owned land (“DDA”) (collectively “Approvals”).

3. On November 23, 2023, the Court issued an Order establishing the briefing schedule and hearing date for this case in response to the parties’ joint stipulation. Under that Order, the writ 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
& SMART

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

COSTA 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 the Project’s Vehicle Miles Travelled (“VMT”) and Greenhouse Gas (“GHG”) impacts under 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 compromise and that no party’s actions under or pursuant to this Stipulation or 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 signed, including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees, arising out of or related to the Project or the Petition (collectively, “Costs”) and that no party will seek to recover from the 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
& SMART

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

COSTA 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
& SMART

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

COSTA 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 CEQA of the Project’s or modified Project’s 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 Respondents pursuant to Paragraph 1 of this Writ or (ii) to Respondents’ failure 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 arguments in the Petition’s First Cause of Action other than VMT and GHG and all claims and arguments in the Petition’s Second and Third Causes of Action, 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
& SMART

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

COSTA 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. Except as provided for in the parties’ Stipulation above, each party shall bear its own costs, fees and expenses of all kinds incurred up to the date this Writ is signed, including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees, arising out of or related to the Project or the Petition (collectively, “Costs”) and no party shall seek to recover 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