Page | 1
Evaluation of Appeal Comments
Appeal to City Council of the Planning Commission’s February 6, 2025, approval of the 880 Doolittle Drive Industrial Project (PLN22-0039)
Comment
Location Comment Topic Response
Letter 1: Advocates for the Environment Appeal Justification Letter, February 14, 2025
fourth
paragraph
The commenter asserts that Final EIR
Mitigation Measure GHG-1 is
“unenforceable, and improperly
deferred” because it does not
precisely define what would
constitute a circumstance where
natural gas would be allowable as a
critical component to an industrial or
manufacturing process.
Mitigation Measure GHG-1 prohibits
natural gas use for appliances but allows
its use when required as a critical
component for an industrial or
manufacturing process. Although the City
would use its discretion in determining
what would qualify for such use, a
decision would be based on facts and
evidence, and this does not render the
measure unenforceable or improperly
deferred. In addition, as discussed in the
Final EIR in Section 3, Comments and
Responses, Response 4.6, the measure
would potentially only reduce rather than
eliminate natural gas use, and the impact
would remain significant and unavoidable.
fifth
paragraph
The commenter suggests that the EIR
should have proposed mitigation
measures to be applied to the
maximum-feasible extent in order to
justify the conclusion that the
Project's greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions impact would be
unavoidable due to lack of feasibility
of mitigation.
This comment is addressed in the
responses to Letter 4 in Section 3,
Comments and Responses, of the Final
EIR.
Page | 2
Comment
Location Comment Topic Response
two
paragraphs
The commenter claims that the EIR
did not provide substantial evidence
to support the conclusion that the
project's GHG impact would be
significant and unavoidable and
suggests additional mitigation
measures.
This comment is addressed in responses
4.7 through 4.9 in Section 3, Comments
and Responses, of the Final EIR.
third and
fourth
paragraphs
The commenter asserts that CEQA
requires the project to include fairshare mitigation for significant cumulative impacts and that the
amount of GHG emissions that
comprises the project’s fair share is
unclear.
This comment is addressed in responses
4.10 and 4.11 in Section 3, Comments and
Responses, of the Final EIR.
fourth
paragraph,
and page 4,
first and
second
paragraphs
The commenter suggests that the
project’s GHG impact could be
further mitigated by additional
measures that reduce overall GHG
emissions.
This comment is addressed in the
responses to Letter 4, particularly in
responses 4.4 through 4.6 in Section 3,
Comments and Responses, of the Final
EIR.
paragraph,
and Page 5,
first
through
fourth
paragraphs
The commenter states an opinion
that the City could prohibit natural
gas infrastructure in the project as a
mitigation measure.
This comment is addressed in responses
4.5 and 4.6 in Section 3, Comments and
Responses, of the Final EIR.
fifth and
sixth
paragraphs
The commenter suggests that the
project’s GHG impact could be
further mitigated by additional
measures that reduce overall GHG
emissions.
This comment is addressed in the
responses to Letter 4, particularly in
responses 4.4 through 4.6 in Section 3,
Comments and Responses, of the Final
EIR.
Page | 3
Comment
Location Comment Topic Response
paragraph,
and page 6,
first and
second
paragraphs
The commenter suggests that
mitigation measures to reduce
operational GHG emissions are
feasible and should be applied to the
project.
This comment is addressed in Response
4.12 in Section 3, Comments and
Responses, of the Final EIR.
third
paragraph
The commenter suggests that the
City could require the purchase
offsets to reduce the project’s GHG
emissions.
This comment is addressed in Response
4.13 in Section 3, Comments and
Responses, of the Final EIR. The
commenter does not provide analysis or
information not provided in their
comment letter on the Draft EIR for this
topic as responded to in the Final EIR.
Letter 2: Jeremy Herwitt, Mitchell M. Tsai Law Firm Appeal Justification Letter, February 20, 2025
• Comments specifically pertinent to the analysis and conclusions of the Final EIR begin on Page 11 of the appellant’s February 6, 2025 letter to the Planning Commission, which is an attachment to their February 20, 2025 Appeal Justification Letter
• Comments in the second attachment to the appellant’s February 20, 2025 Appeal Justification Letter are not responded to here as they date from 2021, before publication of the Final EIR
third
paragraph,
and page 2,
first and
second
paragraphs
The commenter provide the project
description that appears in the
Notice of Availability prepared for
the Draft EIR.
This comment is addressed in Response
6.1 in Section 3, Comments and
Responses, of the Final EIR. The
commenter does not provide analysis or
information not provided in their
comment letter on the Draft EIR for this
topic as responded to in the Final EIR.
Page | 4
Comment
Location Comment Topic Response
third
through
sixth
paragraphs
The commenter states they
represent union carpenters in the
project area who may be affected by
the environmental impacts of the
project. The commenter asserts the
right to supplement their comment
letter in the future, such as prior to
and during hearings on the project.
The commenter also indicates they
incorporate by reference all
comments related to the project or
its CEQA review.
This comment is addressed in Response
6.2 in Section 3, Comments and
Responses, of the Final EIR. The
commenter does not provide analysis or
information not provided in their
comment letter on the Draft EIR for this
topic as responded to in the Final EIR.
third
through
fifth
paragraphs,
and page 4,
except last
paragraph
The commenter suggests that the
City require that the construction
workforce consist of local hires. The
comment suggests that a localworkforce requirement would reduce environmental impacts,
including the GHG emissions of the
project.
This comment is addressed in Response
6.4 in Section 3, Comments and
Responses, of the Final EIR. The
commenter does not provide analysis or
information not provided in their
comment letter on the Draft EIR for this
topic as responded to in the Final EIR.
paragraph,
through
first two
paragraphs
on page 5
The commenter suggests that the
City require that the project
workforce consist of local hires in
order to reduce the transportation
impacts of the project.
This comment is addressed in Response
5.32 and Response 6.5 in Section 3,
Comments and Responses, of the Final
EIR. The commenter does not provide
analysis or information not provided in
their comment letter on the Draft EIR for
this topic as responded to in the Final EIR.
paragraph
The commenter suggests that the
City should utilize local workforce
policies and requirements to
mitigate GHG impacts, improve air
quality, and reduce transportation
impacts.
This comment is addressed in Response
6.4, Response 6.5, and Response 6.7 in
Section 3, Comments and Responses, of
the Final EIR. The commenter does not
provide analysis or information not
provided in their comment letter on the
Draft EIR for this topic as responded to in
the Final EIR.
Page | 5
Comment
Location Comment Topic Response
through
page 8,
second
paragraph
The commenter provides an
overview of CEQA regulations and
cites various case law which have set
precedent on how some aspects of
CEQA are interpreted. The
commenter explains purposes of an
EIR, when a lead agency should
prepare an EIR, how significant
impacts are defined, and
requirements for conducting studies
to support an EIR. The commenter
provides a summary or overview of
their understanding of how impact
significance determinations in an EIR
must be supported by substantial
evidence.
This comment is addressed in Response
6.8 and Response 6.9 in Section 3,
Comments and Responses, of the Final
EIR. The commenter does not provide
analysis or information not provided in
their comment letter on the Draft EIR for
this topic as responded to in the Final EIR.
third
paragraph
through
page 9, first
paragraph
The commenter suggests that the
Final EIR did not adequately address
their comments on the Draft EIR
pertaining to mitigating the
significant and unavoidable GHG
impacts of the project. The
commenter reiterates their opinion
that there is feasible mitigation to
reduce the GHG emissions of the
project, such as purchasing carbon
credits.
This comment is addressed in Response
4.2 through Response 4.9 in Section 3,
Comments and Responses, of the Final
EIR. This comment is also addressed in
Response 6.17, Response 6.19, and
Response 6.23, in Section 3, Comments
and Responses, of the Final EIR. The
commenter does not provide analysis or
information not provided in their
comment letter on the Draft EIR for this
topic as responded to in the Final EIR.
Page | 6
Comment
Location Comment Topic Response
second
paragraph
The commenter asserts that the Final
EIR insufficiently concludes that the
energy impacts of the project would
be less than significant solely
because of compliance with
regulatory requirements pertaining
to energy. The commenter suggests
that a project-specific energy
analysis is required for CEQA
compliance.
This comment is addressed in Response
6.10, in Section 3, Comments and
Responses, of the Final EIR. Response 6.10
does provide a project-specific analysis of
energy impacts in that it explains the
energy efficiencies that project must
achieve to be consistent with regulatory
requirements. The commenter does not
provide new or additional information on
why compliance with regulatory
requirements is insufficient for impact
analysis. Therefore, the commenter does
not provide analysis or information not
provided in their comment letter on the
Draft EIR for this topic as responded to in
the Final EIR.
third
paragraph
The commenter suggests that
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 in the
Draft EIR is insufficient to reduce
significant impacts to raptors
because it does not cover the
potential nesting season of raptor
species.
This comment is addressed in Response
6.24 in Section 3, Comments and
Responses, of the Final EIR. The
commenter does not provide analysis or
information not provided in their
comment letter on the Draft EIR for this
topic as responded to in the Final EIR.
first
paragraph
The commenter asserts that the
Draft EIR must evaluate groundborne
vibration levels at 15 feet or greater
from the project site to determine if
Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would be
sufficient to reduce impacts.
This comment is addressed in Response
6.25 in Section 3, Comments and
Responses, of the Final EIR. The
commenter does not provide analysis or
information not provided in their
comment letter on the Draft EIR for this
topic as responded to in the Final EIR.
Exhibit A
(all pages
after page
10)
The commenter provides their
original letter on the Draft EIR.
The commenter’s original letter is
addressed in the Final EIR.