Garden Grove Council certifies SEIR and reapproves PUD for Nickelodeon resort despite significant GHG findings

Garden Grove — The City Council voted unanimously June 9 to certify a supplemental environmental impact report for the proposed Nickelodeon-branded resort on the city’s B2 site and to reapprove the related plan unit development, concluding a multi-hour hearing that drew dozens of speakers for and against the project. The council also adopted a supplemental mitigation-monitoring and reporting program and findings of fact, including a statement of overriding considerations noting significant and unavoidable greenhouse-gas impacts.

Rachel Stullia of Dudek, the city’s environmental consultant, told the council the supplemental EIR analyzed greenhouse-gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled to comply with a court-ordered writ of mandate. She reported that combined amortized construction and operational emissions total 8,124 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year — well above the South Coast Air Quality Management District threshold of 1,400 metric tons — and that the document therefore identifies 15 required mitigation measures and 10 project design features to reduce impacts where feasible. “When there is a significant and unavoidable impact the city must adopt a statement of overriding considerations in order to approve the project,” Stullia said.

On transportation, Dudek found project-generated VMT for guests and employees to be less than significant, but employee-only VMT was significant; two mitigation measures (commute-reduction programs and end-of-trip bicycle facilities) were applied to bring employee VMT below the significance threshold.

The public hearing drew strong, organized positions on both sides. Labor and construction-trade representatives urged approval, stressing local apprenticeship, prevailing wages and long-term jobs. “This project will provide local jobs, prevailing wages and apprenticeship opportunities,” Andrew Gonzalez of the Los Angeles and Orange County Building and Construction Trades Council told the council. Supporters also emphasized projected tax revenue and the regional tourism context.

Opposition was led by Unite Here Local 11 and counsel from Channel Law Group, which filed written objections and urged the council to deny approval and require a revised SEIR. Jamie Hall, an attorney with Channel Law Group, told the council the document is “fundamentally inadequate,” arguing the project description omits outdoor water-park elements that generate emissions, that some project design features are vague or unenforceable, and that the mitigation package does not require long-term monitoring for all measures. “The final SEIR before you is fundamentally inadequate and violates CEQA,” Hall said.

City staff and consultants said they prepared a comprehensive response to public comments, including a 53‑page response submitted ahead of the planning commission hearing, and emphasized the limited scope mandated by the writ. Assistant City Manager Ursula Lunar Reinosa reviewed the site’s history and the city’s previous efforts to preserve nearby affordable housing at Tamarlane (now Orchard Grove), noting the B2 parcel is not identified as a housing opportunity in the city’s housing element. She described policy trade-offs, including the city’s interest in transient occupancy tax revenue to fund public services and the DDA provision requiring a project labor agreement as a condition of the development agreement.

Councilmembers pressed for binding commitments to local hiring and union labor in the Development Disposition Agreement and sought clarity about the court process. The city’s counsel and outside litigation counsel said that after final council action the city will file a return to the writ with the superior court and present the administrative record; a judge will determine whether the obligations of the writ were satisfied.

After deliberation the council moved to certify the SEIR, adopt the supplemental MMRP and findings (including the statement of overriding considerations), and reapprove PUD‑141‑01A with modifications limited to PUD provisions and performance standards to incorporate mitigation and project design features. The motion passed 7–0.

What happens next: Council direction and the record prepared by staff and Dudek will be presented to the court for judicial review under the stipulated writ of mandate. The court’s ultimate determination could affirm the city’s action or require further environmental review; staff noted that the time for court resolution can vary.

Votes at a glance: The council certified the SEIR, adopted the MMRP and findings (including a statement of overriding considerations), and reapproved the PUD by a 7–0 vote.

Why it matters: The decision allows the project entitlements to move forward locally without changes to the approved building footprint, height, layout or parking, while requiring mitigation measures and codified conditions meant to address GHG and transportation impacts. Opponents say the environmental review remains legally vulnerable and have signaled plans to continue litigation; supporters say the project will create jobs and revenue and has built-in labor provisions.

Speakers quoted in this report appear in the public record of the June 9, 2026 meeting and include Dudek consultant Rachel Stullia, Channel Law Group attorney Jamie Hall, and representatives of labor organizations who addressed the council during the public hearing. The council’s action is subject to judicial review under the previously issued writ of mandate.