Page 7 - northlake_appeal_20180423

Jodie Sackett, County of Los Angeles
June 16, 2017
Page 5

routes into the NorthLake Project area. What is the funding for this? How long will it last?
Why is this substantial evidence in support of a conclusion that air quality impacts will be
reduced for the significant impacts as to VOCs, NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.s?

We also do not believe you have properly correlated significant emissions to anticipable health
impacts under Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App.
4th 1184.

At 5.1-35 your provision in MM 5.1-10 for changing/shower facilities in commercial or
industrial buildings with more than ten tenant occupants is unlikely to come to pass, as this is an
inordinately high number of tenant occupants.

Biological Resources

At 5.2-4 under "Wildlife Surveys" you write that dry season surveys "are currently underway
and results will be available in mid-summer 2015," and they will be included in the Biological
Technical Report. The DSEIR was not released until mid-2017 and the results of the surveys
should have been included in it, not merely the Biological Technical Report, as the Supreme
Court has made clear. Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho
Cordova (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 412, 442.

Like Dr. Smallwood, we do not believe there is substantial evidence for your assertion that "the
Project site itself does not represent an important component of regional movement of the area."
(page 5.2-15).

Given your acknowledgement at 5.2-16 that sage scrub has declined 70-90% and native
grasslands have declined by 99%, you should have recognized that there would be significant
impacts to these special status vegetation types.

At 5.2-19 your Table 5.2-3 of Special Status Plant Species you contend that the round-leaved
filaree was "not observed during 2014 surveys," but in the text you acknowledge that 39
individuals were observed in 2003. Of course, 2014 was in the height of a drought, and you did
not survey in 2017 after the rains and before the issuance of the DSEIR, though you could have.
This is inadequate disclosure under CEQA.

As to Table 5.2-4, Special Status Wildlife Species, it appears that you did not survey for the
California red-legged frog in 2014.

Threshold 5.2-1: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any special status species? You acknowledge having found 8 special
status plants on the project site including the round-leaved filaree and the slender mariposa lily.
With respect to both, you rely upon transplantation plans to as-yet unidentified sites, and for the