PC 052610 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Pearce noted that there are experts present and asked for their opinion. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS RE-OPENED. Geoff Smick, senior biologist at WRA, stated that he has been working on the Staples Ranch project since 2006 and has documented the common spike weed in the area. He indicated that the spike weed is almost indistinguishable from the Congdon tarplant and that the two species are differentiated by the hairs inside the flower. He explained that one has to examine the flower very closely, and he always carries a hand lens in the field so he can see it magnified 20-fold. He stated that after it was reported that the Congdon tarplant was present on site, he went to that area where the first biologist thought he saw the plant, and he took samples of a number of plants from the area, every one of which was common spike weed. He added that he then went to other areas of the property and found quite a multitude of individual spike weeds. He noted that every sample he looked at was common spike weed and did not have the attributes of the Congdon tarplant. He added that he had specimens of both plants in his office, and he brought back some of those samples from the project site, looked at them with other senior biologist in his firm, and they all concluded that the samples were common spike weeds. Mr. Smick stated that the San Joaquin spearscale is a California Native Plant Society (CNPS) plant and is not State- or Federally-listed. He noted that the mitigation ratios for State- and Federally-listed species are typically much higher. He added that there is no one entity that necessarily sets mitigation ratios and that different documents can set ratios for specific plants. He indicated that the plant is a relatively common rare plant. He stated that he recommended a 1:1 ratio because this is a common species and the previous mitigation already has occurred and was clearly successful along the Arroyo Mocho. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. With respect to the recommendation to construct additional soundwalls, Commissioner Pearce noted that there is not enough information at this time about what it looks like, whether it is feasible, what the cost would be, and if the neighbors want it. She inquired if, should the Commission decide to go in that direction but without sufficient information, the Commission should recommend “consider the construction.” Mr. Dolan said yes. Commissioner Blank commented that, in effect, the Commission would be recommending the Council consider the feasibility of the construction. Mr. Dolan stated that he thinks if the Council received a positive recommendation from the Commission, the Council would direct staff to explore that. He added that he did not know what the timing for such a soundwall would be. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 26, 2010 Page 20 of 27