Garden Grove council upholds approval of 98‑unit Garden Grove Boulevard apartment, denies environmental appeal

Garden Grove, Calif. — The Garden Grove City Council voted Jan. 13 to deny an appeal of a Planning Commission decision and to uphold approval of a proposed 98‑unit apartment complex on Garden Grove Boulevard.

The council voted 6 yes, 0 no, 1 abstention to deny the appeal filed by the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) and to leave intact site plan SP‑145‑2024 and lot line adjustment LLA‑033‑2024 for the project at 9891, 9897 and 9901 Garden Grove Boulevard. Mayor Pro Tem Joe Dovin abstained; council members Breidingham, Nguyen, Tran, Munoz Ton, Aristegui and Mayor Klompenstein voted yes.

City staff said the project qualifies for the State CEQA Guidelines' Class 32 infill exemption and recommended the council deny the appeal. The project application would consolidate two parcels on a 1.35‑acre site and build a seven‑story building (two at‑grade garage levels and five stories of residential units). The developer proposes 98 dwelling units, including 10 units reserved for very low income households.

SAFER contested the infill exemption, saying technical analyses show significant air quality and noise impacts that require a fuller CEQA review. "SAFER respectfully request[s] that its appeal be granted and that the city council not approve the project because it does not qualify for the class 32 infill exemption," appellant attorney Victoria Yundt told the council, citing diesel particulate matter, indoor formaldehyde risks and construction noise calculations.

Counsel for the applicant and the project's technical team disputed those claims and submitted additional analyses in response. "This is a 98 dwelling unit project. It also has 15% very low income," attorney Ryan Lederman said, emphasizing the project's affordable units and local ownership. York Engineering's Tin Chung, the project's environmental analyst, told the council the firm revised modeling to follow South Coast Air Quality Management District methods and that corrected calculations place emissions and construction noise below applicable significance thresholds. "When construction noise levels are assessed at the center of the project site ... they fall below the noise thresholds," Chung said.

City staff told the council that, under the municipal code and CEQA, any person may appeal a non‑elected body's CEQA determination to the council; staff reviewed SAFER's materials and the applicant's responses and concluded the Class 32 exemption was properly applied. The Planning Commission had previously voted to approve the project and to find it categorically exempt under Class 32 at its Oct. 3, 2024 hearing.

The council's action allows the applicant to proceed with next steps of the development process, including plan checks and building permit submittals. When asked by a council member about timing, applicant representatives said plan review and contractor selection would follow and estimated construction could begin in about a year, depending on final permitting and contracting.

The project record and council deliberations focused on whether the infill exemption was appropriate given SAFER's technical claims; the council majority accepted the city's and the applicant's analyses and denied the appeal, allowing the Planning Commission's approvals to stand.