Page 8 - northlake_appeal_20180423

Jodie Sackett, County of Los Angeles
June 16, 2017
Page 6

round-leaved filaree, you explicitly state that mitigation would be sufficient on a 1: 1 basis. 2
There is no substantial evidence in support of your conclusion that impacts will be mitigated to a
less-than-significant level given the expert opinion of the California Native Plant Society that
"Alternatives such as site restoration and off-site introduction are generally unproven, and
usually unsuccessful." See Attachment A at 2. See also id. at 2 (Society does not endorse
"alteration of naturally occurring plant communities through transplantation because the
methodology for most rare plants is untested and therefore unreliable and because most past
attempts have ultimately failed"), 3 ("In most instances off-site compensation does not fully
reduce impacts to an insignificant level because a net loss of individuals or habitat that supports a
natural self-sustaining rare plant population results.") Additionally, the Native Plant Society
makes clear that mitigation must exceed 1:1 in most cases. Id. at 4. Finally, "[i]ftransfer of the
threatened population is being attempted, an ecological study of the site, including an inventory
of rare species, is needed to identify the feasibility of introduction." Id. Obviously, you have not
done this as you haven't even identified a new site or sites. Therefore, you do not have
substantial evidence in support of your conclusion that impacts to these plants will be less than
significant.

With respect to the round-leaved filaree in particular, you state in MM 5.2-5 that "Due to the fact
that the round-leaved filaree has not been detected since 2001 ... the occurrence location will be
checked prior to construction during the appropriate blooming period to determine if this species
still occurs on the site. If it is not found, the population will be assumed extirpated." First of all,
earlier in the DEIR at 5.2-21 you state it was found in 2003. And the Biological Technical
Report does not detail anything about the filaree's findings other than to identify the location
where the 49 individuals were found. You could have, but apparently did not, search the
location in April of this year. And it would be a significant impact if you indeed failed to
mitigate because you presumed the species extirpated.

Our comments regarding 1: 1 mitigation, identifying a site in advance, and offsite mitigation not
generally being adequate to reduce impacts to less than significant are equally applicable to the
southwestern spiny rush and the paniculate tarplant.

With respect to wildlife species, you assert that through MM 5.2-9 you will reduce impacts to the
western spadefoot to less than significant. But you haven't identified a relocation site, and you
assert with no basis or substantiation that you will "create" such habitat if you cannot find it.
Thus, your conclusion of no significant impact is not based on substantial evidence.

With respect to special status reptiles such as the silvery legless lizard, coastal western whiptail,
rosy boa, San Bernardino ring-necked snake, Blainville's horned lizard, and coast patch-nosed
snake, MM 5.2-10 says you will translocate them "if feasible" to "adjacent areas." There is no
guarantee here, and the "adjacent areas" may not be sufficient in quantity or quality to

2
With respect to the slender mariposa lily, you do not even specify a mitigation ratio,
though the potential loss of this rare species onsite could number in the thousands of individuals.