Garden Grove council denies appeal, upholds approval for 50,300 sq. ft. industrial building at 7441 Lincoln Avenue

The Garden Grove City Council on Tuesday denied an appeal by the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) and upheld the Planning Commission's June approval of Site Plan SP‑158‑2025, a proposal to replace an existing 44,000‑square‑foot industrial/office building with a new 50,300‑square‑foot industrial shell building at 7441 Lincoln Avenue.

SAFER sought an environmental review, saying construction emissions of diesel particulate matter could pose a cancer risk to nearby homes and thus trigger the “unusual circumstances” exception to the Class 32 (infill) exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The council voted 7–0 to deny the appeal and adopt the Planning Commission’s exemption determination.

City staff and the project proponents told the council the site already houses industrial uses, is under five acres, and is served by existing utilities and public services. Planning staff recommended denying the appeal after reviewing SAFER’s technical comments and the applicant’s responses.

At the public hearing, SAFER’s attorney Hailey Uno said the project’s construction equipment DPM emissions “would expose nearby sensitive receptors to a cancer risk of 48.2 per million, far exceeding the air district’s significance threshold of 10 per million.” The applicant’s representatives countered that the city’s review and the health‑risk assessment prepared for the city showed impacts below the South Coast Air Quality Management District thresholds and that SAFER’s submission overestimated emissions.

The applicant explained the existing building dates from the 1980s and is unlikely to meet modern industrial tenant demand. Henry Hong, representing the applicant, said the replacement would provide a modern, Class A industrial building that supports local jobs and economic activity. The project includes 52 parking spaces and a mezzanine level for additional office space, and the site plan complies with zoning setbacks, parking and landscaping requirements.

Planning staff noted the Planning Commission considered the matter at a noticed hearing on June 5. The commission voted to approve the project and apply the Class 32 exemption; SAFER appealed that determination to the council. Staff also noted a municipal‑code standing issue: SAFER is a nonprofit and did not claim individual standing under a local code provision, although CEQA itself allows any person to challenge a non‑elected body’s CEQA determination by appeal to the elected body.

After questions from council members about construction‑period mitigation, staff and applicants said construction activities are subject to existing regulatory controls (SCAQMD rules, municipal code construction noise and dust requirements, water‑truck dust suppression, and regional water board regulations). Council members who asked about timeline were told plan check and construction would likely take place over roughly two years, depending on permitting and market conditions.

The council moved to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision; the motion carried 7–0.

The developer, project staff and SAFER members were present for the hearing. The City Clerk recorded the council’s 7‑yes vote to deny the appeal.

The council’s decision leaves in place the Planning Commission approvals; any further environmental or entitlement requirements (building permits, plan check conditions, and construction mitigation) will be handled in subsequent permit reviews.