Riverside City Council
July 14, 2026

PR-2023-001469 General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Rezone, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map 38624,
Certificate of Appropriateness
Iron Lofts
A
ppendix B
W
estern Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis, Iron Lofts Project
NOREAS, Inc
December 2024
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
i Last Revised: December 2024

Western Riverside County
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
Consistency Analysis

IRON LOFTS PROJECT
Prepared for:

Darrin Olson
Iron Lofts LLC
1201 Dove Street, Suite 520
Newport Beach, CA 92660

Prepared by:

NOREAS Inc.

Lenny Malo, MS
Biological & Natural Resources Services
16361 Scientific Way
Irvine, CA 92618-4356
[email protected] | 714.458.5695

December 2024

Assessor's Parcel Numbers
211071005, 211071023, 211072004, 211072020, 211071001, 211071002, 211071024, 211072001, 211072002, 211072021, 211072022 and 211071004

MSHCP Consistency Analysis
ii Last Revised: December 2024

Contents
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 1 2 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Project Area ...................................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Project Description ........................................................................................................... 3

2.3 Covered Roads .................................................................................................................. 3

2.4 Covered Public Access Activities ...................................................................................... 3

2.5 General Setting ................................................................................................................. 3 3 RESERVE ASSEMBLY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 4

3.1 Public Quasi-Public Lands ................................................................................................. 5

3.1.1 Public Quasi-Public Lands in Reserve Assembly Analysis ......................................... 5

3.1.2 Project Impacts to Public Quasi-Public Lands ........................................................... 5 4 VEGETATION MAPPING ......................................................................................................... 5 5 PROTECTION OF SPECIES ASSOCIATED WITH RIPARIAN/RIVERINE AREAS AND VERNAL POOLS (SECTION 6.1.2) .......................................................................................................... 6

5.1 Riparian/Riverine .............................................................................................................. 7

5.1.1 Methods .................................................................................................................... 7

5.1.2 Existing Conditions and Results ................................................................................ 8

5.1.3 Impacts ...................................................................................................................... 9

5.1.4 Mitigation .................................................................................................................. 9

5.2 Vernal Pools ...................................................................................................................... 9

5.2.1 Methods .................................................................................................................... 9

5.2.2 Existing Conditions and Results .............................................................................. 10

5.2.3 Impacts .................................................................................................................... 11

5.2.4 Mitigation ................................................................................................................ 11

5.3 Fairy Shrimp.................................................................................................................... 11

5.3.1 Methods .................................................................................................................. 11

5.3.2 Existing Conditions and Results .............................................................................. 11

5.4 Riparian Birds ................................................................................................................. 12 6 PROTECTION OF NARROW ENDEMIC PLANT SPECIES (SECTION 6.1.3) ............................... 12 7 ADDITIONAL SURVEY NEEDS AND PROCEDURES (SECTION 6.3.2) ...................................... 13

7.1 MSHCP Criteria Area Sensitive Plant Species ................................................................. 13

7.2 Burrowing Owl ................................................................................................................ 13

7.3 Mammals ........................................................................................................................ 13

7.4 Amphibians ..................................................................................................................... 13 8 INFORMATION ON OTHER SPECIES ..................................................................................... 13

8.1 Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly ........................................................................................ 13

8.2 Species Not Adequately Conserved ............................................................................... 13

8.3 Crotch’s Bumblebee ....................................................................................................... 13 MSHCP Consistency Analysis
iii Last Revised: December 2024
9 GUIDELINES PERTAINING TO THE URBAN/WILDLANDS INTERFACE (SECTION 6.1.4) ......... 15 10 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (VOLUME I, APPENDIX C) ................................................ 15 11 CERTIFICATION ..................................................................................................................... 18 12 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 19

List of Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location Map
Figure 2 Site Vicinity Map
Figure 3 MSHCP Criteria Cells
Figure 4 MSHCP Cores, Linkages and Conserved Lands
Figure 5 MSHCP Species Survey Areas
Figure 6 RCA MSHCP Vegetation 2012
Figure 7 Vegetation Community/Land Cover Types
Figure 8 Soils Map
Figure 9 Literature Review
Figure 10 Critical Habitat
Figure 11 National Wetland Inventory
List of Tables
Table 1. Vegetation Community/Land Cover Types ....................................................................... 6 Table 2. MSHCP Best Management Practices Applicability (Volume 1, Appendix C) ................... 15

Appendices
Appendix A Site Plan
Appendix B Plant Species Observed Within the Study Area Appendix C Wildlife Species Observed Within the Study Area Appendix D Special-Status Species and Their Potential to Occur Within the Project Site Appendix E Photographic Log
Appendix F Project GIS Files (provided separately)

MSHCP Consistency Analysis
1 Last Revised: December 2024
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed Iron Lofts Project is generally located northeast of Mission Inn Avenue and southeast of Commerce Street, in the City of Riverside, California, (Assessor’s Parcel Number s 211071005, 211071023, 211072004, 211072020, 211071001, 211071002, 211071024, 211072001, 211072002, 211072021, 211072022 and 211071004. For the purposes of this document, the “study area” includes the Project ’s proposed ground disturbance footprint (Project Site) and a buffer (Figures 1 and 2). The Project is situated within the Cities of Riverside and Norco Area Plan, but lies outside any designated Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ( MSHCP) Subunit, Cell Group, Criteria Cell, Public/Quasi -Public Land, Linkages/Cores, Conserved Lands, or Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) Easements. Conservation efforts within the Area Plan focus on Proposed Constrained Linkage 7 and Proposed Core 3. Notably, the Project’s 7.03-acre permanent disturbance footprint does not intersect - or adjoin these proposed linkages, cores, or any other MSHCP -designated conservation areas (Figures 3 and 4). It is also important to note that in 2012, the MSHCP mapped the vegetation within the Project Site as Urban (GISD 2024, Figure 6).

Given the Project Site’s location outside the specified MSHCP conservation areas and Criteria Cells, the Project does not impact the MSHCP R eserve Assembly process. It does not encroach upon any of the Area Plan’s two Subunits, nor does it affect MSHCP Planning Species, Biological Issues, or Considerations pertinent to these Subunits. Additionally, the Project is neither connected to - nor adjacent to, any Cell Groups, Criteria Cells, habitats proposed for conservation, locales designated for additional reserve assembly, cores, or linkages within the MSHCP.

According to the RCA MSHCP Information Map, the Project S ite is not located within predetermined survey areas for species such as the Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia), narrow endemic and criteria area sensitive plant species, amphibians, mammals, or the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) either. Field surveys conducted in 2023 and 2024 did not observe any special status species, nesting birds, remnant raptor nests, riverine resources, or bat guano within the Project Site. Furthermore, the Project does not overlap with any U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated critical habitat (Figure 10).

The Project’s developed and anthropogenically disturbed land cover types (Figure 7), physical location, and baseline biological characteristics ensure that it does not interfere with the MSHCP’s reserve assembly goals, or defined conservation objectives. The Project Site’s position outside designated conservation areas and survey zones, coupled with the absence of special status species and sensitive resources within its disturbance footprint, substantiate that the Project is consistent with MSHCP guidelines as described herein, and is unlikely to adversely affect protected biological resources.

The Project Site encompasses 7.03 acres of developed and anthropogenically disturbed land, with an additional study area extending over approximately 51.3 9-acres. The entire study area is characterized by a single soil type (Figure 8): Arlington fine sandy loam, deep, with 2 to 8 percent slopes. According to the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Arlington fine sandy loam is not classified as a hydric soil. This des ignation indicates that the soil does not MSHCP Consistency Analysis
2 Last Revised: December 2024
typically experience prolonged saturation necessary to support hydrophytic (water- loving) vegetation. Given that Arlington fine sandy loam is not hydric, it is generally unsuitable for supporting wetland- dependent species, and ecosystems such as vernal pools, wetlands, or riparian riverine habitats. As those systems (i.e., vernal pools, wetlands, riparian and riverine resources) require specific hydrological conditions, including persistent soil saturation, which Arlington fine sandy loam does not provide. The Project Site’s limited value as breeding, nesting, or foraging habitat for native species is further diminished by its isolation due to surrounding residential, industrial, and commercial developments, as well as public infrastructure.

2 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Consistency Analysis Report (Analysis) is to summarize the biological data for the proposed Iron Lofts Project (hereinafter referred to as the “Project”) and to document its consistency with the goals and objectives of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). In a general sense, the Project consists of the construction of residential apartments in the City of Riverside, Riverside County, California.

2.1 Project Area
The Project’s study area is defined as its proposed physical ground disturbance footprint (Project Site), plus a buffer (Figures 1 and 2). The Project Site includes the following Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) : 211071005, 211071023, 211072004, 211072020, 211071001, 211071002, 211071024, 211072001, 211072002, 211072021, 211072022 and 211071004.

The Project’s “study area” includes all lands to be affected directly and/or indirectly by the Project, and are not merely the immediate lands involved in the action itself. Therefore, the following APNs are associated with the Project’s “study area” : 211022015, 211022016, 211022018, 211022019, 211022031, 211021016, 211022003, 211022006, 211022007, 211022010, 211022011, 211022012, 211022023, 211022027, 211021017, 211021023, 211022002, 211022005, 211022008, 211022013, 211022022, 211022026, 211071010, 211071014, 211071016, 211071021, 211072006, 211072012, 211072016, 211081016, 211021001, 211021015, 211021018, 211021019, 211021024, 211021028, 211022001, 211071009, 211071011, 211071013, 211071018, 211071020, 211072008, 211072015, 211072017, 211081017, 211081020, 211071006, 211071007, 211071008, 211022009, 211022014, 211022017, 211022020, 211022021, 211023010, 211071012, 211071015, 211071017, 211072005, 211072007, 211072011, 211072014, 211081001, 211081002, 211082001, 211082002, 211121004, 211121022, 211121034, 211121037, 211071019, 211071022, 211072009, 211072010, 211121036, 211072013, 211072018, 211072019, 211121005, 211082024, 211121003, 211121006, 211121007, 211131001, 213212004, 213252012, 213252015, 213292005, 213142011, 213142023, 213142028, 213142030, 213212005, 213212018, 213252006, 213252016, 213292003, 213292004, 213142010, 213252007, 213252017, 213293001, 213212015 and 213292007.

The Project can be found on the Riverside East United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 - Minute Topographic Quadrangle Map (USGS 198 4) – Sections 23 and 24, of Township 2 South MSHCP Consistency Analysis
3 Last Revised: December 2024
and Range 5 West. The Project occurs at an approximate elevation between 800 and 900 ft. above mean sea level (MSL). Land use in the surrounding vicinity includes commercial, residential, public infrastructure and industrial endeavors. The lands to be impacted by the Project include no MSHCP established Subunits, Cell Groups, Criteria Cells, Public/Quasi- Public Lands, Linkages/Cores, Conserved Lands, or RCA Easements (Figures 3 and 4). The Project’s construction limit is 7.03-acres (Figure 2). The Project Site 51.39-acre study area consists entirely of developed and disturbed land cover. Representative photos of the Project Site are provided in Appendix G.

Additionally, the Project includes no fuel modification or weed abatement zones. Furthermore, the Project includes no off -site improvements or external staging areas. All staging areas to be used during construction will be contained within the Project’s 7 .03-acre disturbance footprint.

The Project does not include any proposed temporary impacts.

2.2 Project Description
The Project consists of the construction of residential apartment s. The Project’s construction limit is 7.03-acres. The study area surrounding the Project Site consists entirely of developed and disturbed land cover. Additionally, the Project includes no fuel modification or weed abatement zones. Furthermore, the Project includes no off-site improvements or external staging areas. All staging areas to be used during construction will be contained within the Project’s 7 .03-acre disturbance footprint. The Project does not include any proposed temporary impacts. A construction Site Plan is included within Appendix A.

2.3 Covered Roads
Commerce Street is a Covered Road – as identified by the RCA. Therefore, MSHCP Covered Operations and Maintenance Activities – may be applicable to Commerce Street (Figures 1 and 2). With that said, the Project doesn’t propose improvements to Commerce Street , or any MSHCP Cover Road with a Criteria Area.

2.4 Covered Public Access Activities
The Project involves no construction or improvements to trails or other public access facility, referenced within MSHCP Section 7.4.2. Therefore, this MSHCP Section is not applicable.

2.5 General Setting
The Project Site encompasses 7.03 acres of developed and anthropogenically disturbed land, with an additional study area extending over approximately 51.3 9-acres. The entire area is characterized by a single soil type (Figure 8): Arlington fine sandy loam, deep, with 2 to 8 percent slopes. This soil is typically found on alluvial fans and terraces in western Riverside County.

According to the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Arlington fine sandy loam is not classified as a hydric soil. This designation indicates that the soil does not typically experience prolonged saturation necessary to support hydrophytic (water -loving) vegetation.

Given that Arlington fine sandy loam is not hydric, it is generally unsuitable for supporting wetland-dependent ecosystems such as vernal pools, wetlands, or sensitive riparian riverine habitats. As t hose ecosystems (i.e., vernal pools, wetlands, riparian and riverine resources ) require specific hydrological conditions, including persistent soil saturation, which Arlington fine sandy loam does not provide.

MSHCP Consistency Analysis
4 Last Revised: December 2024

Field surveys conducted in 2023 and 2024 revealed that the Project Site is predominantly developed or disturbed, with vegetation primarily consisting of non-native species resulting from human activities (Figure 5). No special status species, nesting birds, remnant raptor nests, or bat guano were observed. The Project S ite’s limited value as breeding, nesting, or foraging habitat for native species is further diminished by its isolation due to surrounding residential, industrial, and commercial developments, as well as public infrastructure.

The Project Site is not located within any designated MSHCP Cell Groups, Criteria Cells, Public/Quasi-Public Lands, Linkages/Cores, Conserved Lands, or Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) Easements. Additionally, it does not fall within predetermined survey areas for species like the burrowing owl, narrow endemic and criteria area sensitive plant species, amphibians, mammals, or the Delhi Sands flower- loving fly. Consequently, the project is not anticipated to impact any MSHCP Planning Species or associated biological considerations.

Considering the non- hydric nature of Arlington fine sandy loam and the extensively disturbed conditions of the Project Site, it is unlikely that the area supports vernal pools, wetlands, riparian riverine habitats, or other sensitive vegetation communities. The site’s limited ecological value and lack of proximity to MSHCP -designated areas further suggest minimal impact on protected resources. Therefore, the Project is not expected to adversely affect the functions and values associated with MSHCP resources or reserve assembly.

As the Project Site is not collocated with any USFWS designated critical habitat (Figure 10), nor were any special status species detected during field surveys. Nonetheless, special-status species known to occur within several miles of the Project Site, and their potential for occurrence within it, are detailed within Appendix D and Figure 9. Wildlife species observed within the study area consisted of commonly -occurring species - including, but not limited to, rock pigeon ( Columba livia), Red -tailed hawk ( Buteo jamaicensis ) common raven ( Corvus corax ), and Side -blotched Lizard (Uta stansburiana). A complete list of wildlife species detected within and adjacent to the Project Site during the 2023 and 2024 field surveys are provided in Appendix C.

3 RESERVE ASSEMBLY ANALYSIS

The Project is situated within the Cities of Riverside and Norco Area Plan but lies outside any designated MSHCP Subunit, Cell Group, Criteria Cell, Public/Quasi- Public Land, Linkages/Cores, Conserved Lands, or RCA Easements. The Area Plan aims to conserve between 3,465 and 3,615 acres, comprising approximately 3,375 acres of existing Public/Quasi- Public Lands and an additional 90 to 240 acres of reserve lands. Specifically, the conservation targets are 60 to 140 acres for the City of Norco and 55 to 125 acres for the City of Riverside, both included within the overall target for Additional Reserve Lands. Conservation efforts focus on Proposed Constrained Linkage 7 and Proposed Core 3. Notably, the Project’s 7.03-acre permanent disturbance footprint does not intersect or adjoin these proposed linkages, cores, or any other MSHCP -designated conservation areas (Figures 3 and 4).

MSHCP Consistency Analysis
5 Last Revised: December 2024
Given the Project Site’s location outside the specified MSHCP conservation areas, the Project does not impact the MSHCP reserve assembly process. It does not encroach upon any of the Area Plan’s two Subunits, nor does it affect Planning Species, Biological Issues, or Considerations pertinent to these Subunits. Additionally, the Project is neither connected to nor adjacent to any Cell Groups, Criteria Cells, habitats proposed for conservation, locales designated for additional reserve assembly, cores, or linkages within the MSHCP.

According to the RCA MSHCP Information Map, the Project site is not located within predetermined survey areas for species such as the Burrowing Owl, narrow endemic and criteria area sensitive plant species, amphibians, mammals, or the Delhi Sands flower -loving fly (Figures 3 and 4). Field surveys conducted in 2023 and 2024 did not observe any special status species within the Project Site. Furthermore, the Project does not overlap with any U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated critical habitat (Figure 10).

The Project’s location and characteristics ensure that it does not interfere with the MSHCP’s reserve assembly goals or conservation objectives. Its position outside designated conservation areas and survey zones, coupled with the absence of special status species within its disturbance footprint, substantiate that the Project is consistent with MSHCP guidelines and is unlikely to adversely affect sensitive resources.

3.1 Public Quasi-Public Lands
The majority of the cities in western Riverside County, have contributed open space/land to help establish the MSHCP Conservation Area. These lands are described in the MSHCP as Public/Quasi-Public (PQP) Lands.

3.1.1 Public Quasi-Public Lands in Reserve Assembly Analysis P/QP Lands are a subset of MSHCP Conservation Area lands that are known to be in public/private ownership and expected to be managed for open space value and/or in a manner that contributes to the Conservation of Covered Species (including lands contained in existing reserves). The Project’s 7.03- acre permanent disturbance footprint is not within, nor is it immediately adjacent to - PQP lands (Figure 4).

3.1.2 Project Impacts to Public Quasi-Public Lands
The Project will not directly impact any PQP lands because its disturbance footprint is not located within or adjacent to PQP Lands.

4 VEGETATION MAPPING

In May 2023 and November 2024, p edestrian-based field survey s were performed by NOREAS Inc. (NOREAS) to define general and dominant land cover types, vegetation types, plant community sizes, habitat types, and species present within communities. Type descriptions were based on observed dominant cover and vegetation composition; and were derived from the criteria and definitions of widely accepted land classification systems (Holland 1986; and Sawyer et al. 2009). Plants were identified in the field to the lowest taxonomic level sufficient to MSHCP Consistency Analysis
6 Last Revised: December 2024
determine whether the species detected were non -native, native, or special- status. Plants of uncertain identity were subsequently identified from taxonomic keys (Baldwin et al. 2012).

Scientific and common species names were recorded according to The Jepson Manual (Baldwin et al. 2012) and those detailed in Sections 2.1.3 and 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. This method of floristic survey was conducted to safeguard that special -status plant species were not inadvertently overlooked, simply because they were not targeted during surveys.

One vegetation community or land cover type was detected within the study area:

Developed/Disturbed (Table 1, and Figure 7). This cover type is described in detail below.

Disturbed and developed lands within the study area include locales that have been developed, paved, cleared, graded, or otherwise altered by anthropogenic activities (i.e., trash piles, industrial warehouses, train tracks, access roads, concrete pads, non-native vegetation, ornamental landscaping, industrial facilities, storage yards, commercial enterprises, etc.).

Common non -native plants species detected within this type included Maltese star -thistle (Centaurea melitensis ), stinknet ( Oncosiphon piluliferum ), and cheeseweed ( Malva neglecta), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), Sahara mustard (Brassica Tournefortii) and Schismus (Schismus barbatus).

Table 1. Vegetation Community/Land Cover Types
Vegetation
Community/Land Cover
Type
Study
Area
Acres
Project
Site
Acres
Permanent
Impact
Acres
Permanent Impact
Acres Inside a
Subunit, Cell
Group, Criteria
Cell, PQP Lands,
Linkages/Cores,
Conserved Lands,
or RCA
Conservation
Easements
Permanent Impact
Acres Outside a
Subunit, Cell Group,
Criteria Cell, PQP
Lands,
Linkages/Cores,
Conserved Lands, or
RCA Conservation
Easements.

Developed/ Disturbed 51.39 7.03 7.03 0 7.03
Total 51.39 7.03 7.03 0 7.03

In general terms, the plants observed in the study area included a range of native and non-native species common to disturbed habitats, etc. Commonly-occurring species included: ripgut brome, Sahara mustard, and Schismus, among others. Please note that in 2012, the MSHCP mapped the vegetation within the Project Site as Urban Lands (GISD 2021; Figure 7). A comprehensive list of plant species observed during the 2023 and 2024 surveys is presented in Appendix B.

5 PROTECTION OF SPECIES ASSOCIATED WITH RIPARIAN/RIVERINE AREAS AND VERNAL POOLS (SECTION 6.1.2)
Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP establishes procedures through which the protection of Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools occurs. The purpose of these procedures is to ensure MSHCP Consistency Analysis
7 Last Revised: December 2024
that the biological functions and values of the riparian/riverine and vernal pool habitat areas throughout the MSHCP Plan Area are maintained such that habitat values for species inside the MSHCP Conservation Area are maintained.

5.1 Riparian/Riverine

5.1.1 Methods

The MSHCP defines Riparian/Riverine Areas as lands which contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source, or areas with freshwater flow during all or a portion of the year. Regarding artificially created features, the MSHCP states “with the exception of wetlands created for the purpose of providing wetlands Habitat or resulting from human actions to create open waters or from the
alteration of natural stream courses, areas
demonstrating characteristics as described above which are artificially created are not included in these definitions.”

Per the RCA’s Consistency Analysis template, riverine features include any feature that is natural in origin as well as past natural features that have been heavily modified and/or redirected and can include features indirectly created through human manipulation of the landscape, including channelization of a historic riverine feature. If these features co nnect to nearby downstream resources that are either existing or described conservation lands, they would be considered riverine.

Subject matter experts assessed the Project Site and it localized watershed for the presence of hydrophytes, distinct soils, riparian and riverine resources, lakes, rivers, streambeds, surface waters and wetlands in May 2023 and again in November 2024. This evaluation was completed using data acquired from current and historic imagery, hydrologic and soils databases, analytic tools, physical on the ground analyses and measurements. Historic and current aerial photography of the Project were reviewed, prior to and during the field assessments. Aerial photography was informative with deference to the state and function of land resources in both the present, and historic context. As, inundation and vegetative signatures on aerial images can imply the presence - or absence, of waters, or a stream system within a discrete location.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) WATERS GeoViewer tool also provided access to spatial data sets - such as interactive Upstream/Downstream search capabilities, and interactive Watershed Delineation, to assist in determining the status of potential riparian / riverine resources within the region (epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer). Additionally, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood zone was reviewed, in addition to the National Wetland Inventory (Figure 11) – which is maintained by the USFWS.

The assessment process incorporated multiple tools and data sources to ensure a thorough evaluation:

MSHCP Consistency Analysis
8 Last Revised: December 2024

1. In-field Observations: Subject matter experts systematically evaluated the Project Site and watershed, looking for indicators like hydrophytic vegetation, distinct soil types, and physical signs of riparian or riverine features. These observations directly informed our conclusions about the presence or absence of riparian/riverine resources.

2. Remote Data Analysis: We used current and historic aerial imagery to analyze potential inundation patterns and vegetative signatures, which provided insights into both present and past conditions of the land. This was complemented by EPA’s WATERS GeoViewer for watershed data, FEMA flood zone data, and the USFWS National Wetland Inventory, which offered valuable spatial context on hydrologic connectivity, watershed information, and flood risks.

3. Supplemental Data Sources: Analytic tools such as hydrologic and soil databases were consulted to understand the Project site’s capacity for supporting riparian/riverine resources. By combining these remote and in- field methods, we ensured our approach was holistic and aligned with MSHCP standards.

5.1.2 Existing Conditions and Results
Comprehensive evaluations of the Project Site have been conducted to assess the presence of riparian and riverine resources and their implications pursuant to the MSHCP.

Absence of Riparian and Riverine Resources:
• Analyses from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory indicate no current or historical drainages on - or adjacent to , the Project Site. This is corroborated by the National Hydrography Dataset, which does not identify any water drainage networks within the Project Site.

Field Evaluations (2023 and 2024):
• Project Site assessments conducted during 2023 and 2024 revealed no evidence of existing or historical drainage signatures or water conveyance features within the Project Site. As there were no signs of hydric vegetation, surface water flow, or wetland hydrology in or near the Project Site.

Soil Characteristics:
• The soils within the Project Site are classified as well -drained, with no hydric soil ratings.

This suggests that the Project Site lacks the saturated conditions necessary to support wetland, riparian or riverine resources.

Connectivity to other Waters:
• The Project Site lacks any features or signatures with a surface connection to traditional navigable waterway or relatively permanent surface water connections to significant water bodies in the region. This is further supported by the absence of stream channels , MSHCP Consistency Analysis
9 Last Revised: December 2024
beds, or banks within the Project S ite, as evidenced by the EPA WATERS GeoViewer results, National Wetland Inventory, and USGS 7.5 Quadrangle Map.

According to Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, riparian and riverine areas are defined by the presence of certain hydrological, riverine, soil and vegetative characteristics. Given the lack of such features and resources within the Project Site, it is determined that no riparian or riverine resources exist within the Project Site. Therefore, based on the absence of riparian and riverine features, presence of well -drained soil conditions, and lack of connectivity to water bodies outside of the Project , it is defin itive that the Project Site does not encompass any riparian or riverine resources as defined by the MSHCP. Consequently, the Project is not anticipated to impact such resources, safeguarding compliance with MSHCP guidelines

5.1.3 Impacts
There is no impact to riparian /riverine resources, because no evidence of any soils, plants or other features that meet the definition of 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, were visible within the Project Site.

5.1.4 Mitigation
There is no mitigation for riparian/riverine resources offered, because there is no impact to riparian/riverine resources associated with development of the Project Site.

5.2 Vernal Pools

5.2.1 Methods

Vernal pools are seasonally inundated, ponded areas that only form in regions where specialized soil and climatic conditions exist. During fall and winter rains typical of Mediterranean climates, water collects in shallow depressions where downward percolation of water is prevented by the presence of a hard pan or clay pan layer (duripan) below the soil surface. Later in the spring when rains decrease and the weather warms, the water evaporates, and the pools generally disappear by May. The shallow depressions remain relatively dry until late fall and early winter with the advent of greater precipitation and cooler temperatures.

Vernal pools provide unusual "flood and drought" habitat conditions to which certain plant and wildlife species have specifically adapted - as well as invertebrate species such as fairy shrimp.

One of the factors for determining the suitability of the habitat for fairy shrimp would be demonstrable evidence of seasonal ponding in an area of topographic depression that is not subject to flowing waters. These astatic pools are typically characterized as vernal pools. More specifically, vernal pools are seasonal wetlands that occur in depression, areas without a continual source of water. They have wetland indicators of all 3 parameters (soils, vegetation, and hydrology) during the wetter portion of the growing season but normally lack wetland indicators of hy drology and/or vegetation during the drier portion of the growing season.

Obligate hydrophytes and facultative wetlands plant species are normally dominant during the wetter portion of the growing season.

MSHCP Consistency Analysis
10 Last Revised: December 2024

The determination that an area exhibits vernal pool characteristics and the definition of the watershed supporting vernal pool hydrology is made on a case- by-case basis. Such determinations consider the length of time the area exhibits upland and wetland characteristics, and the way the area fits into the overall ecological system as a wetland. The seasonal hydrology of vernal pools provides for a unique environment, which supports plants and invertebrates specifically adapted to a regime of winter inundation, followed by an extended period when the pool soils are dry. The MSHCP lists two general classes of soils known to be associated with special-status plant species; clay soils and Traver -Domino Willow association soils. Without the appropriate soils to create the impermeable restrictive layer, none of the special- status species associated with vernal pools can occur. Methods included a review of recent and historic aerial photographs the Project Site and its immediate vicinity, a review of soils data, and 100% visual coverage pedestrian evaluation. The team also looked for signs of clayey soils, ponding, cracking, mottling, etc.

To clarify the criteria used to determine vernal pool presence or absence, as well as to detail Project Site conditions supporting this determination. The following overview of our methods, and field assessment timing, are provided. Subject matter experts conducted evaluations in May 2023 and again in November 2024. This period captures seasonal conditions when vernal pool hydrology is most detectable, ensuring any ponding would have been observed if present. The assessment relied on established criteria for vernal pool habitat, including hydrology, vegetation, soil characteristics, and topography. Our analysis also included reviews of aerial imagery and drainage characteristics.

5.2.2 Existing Conditions and Results
The Project Site, situated in western Riverside County, is characterized exclusively by Arlington fine sandy loam, deep, with 2 to 8 percent slopes. This soil type is classified as well -drained and is not listed as hydric by the NRCS. Hydric soils are defined by their saturation, flooding, or ponding during the growing season, leading to anaerobic conditions that support vernal pools.

The absence of such conditions in Arlington fine sandy loam indicates it does not meet the criteria for hydric soils. Vernal pools are seasonal wetlands that require specific hydrological and soil conditions, including the presence of hydric soils that can retain water during wet seasons. Given that Arlington fine sandy loam is well-drained and lacks hydric properties, it is unlikely to support the ponding necessary for vernal pool formation.

Surveys conducted in 2023 and 2024 revealed no topographic depressions or low -lying areas capable of holding water within the Project Site either , further diminishing the potential for vernal pool development. Also, there were no signs of hydric vegetation, surface water flow, or wetland hydrology observed on or near the Project Site, supporting the conclusion that conditions are unsuitable for vernal pools as well. Additionally, the Project Site lacks features with surface connections to other waterways or permanent water bodies. The absence of stream channels, beds, or banks within the Project S ite aligns with the well-drained nature of Arlington fine sandy loam, which does not facilitate the hydrological conditions necessary for vernal pools.

Based on soil characteristics, field evaluations, and hydrological assessments, Arlington fine MSHCP Consistency Analysis
11 Last Revised: December 2024
sandy loam is not conducive to the formation or support of vernal pools within the Project Site.

The well -drained, non- hydric nature of this soil type, combined with the lack of topographic depressions and hydric vegetation, indicates that vernal pool ecos ystems are not present or sustainable within the Project Site.

5.2.3 Impacts
There are no impacts to vernal pools , because none occur within the Project Site , and the soil type within the it does not support the potential for vernal pools.

5.2.4 Mitigation
No mitigation is required, because no vernal pools exist within the Project Site.

5.3 Fairy Shrimp

Pursuant to MSHCP Section 6.1.2, all projects should be assessed for the potential to support one of three species of fairy shrimp, including the Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottonii), vernal pool fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta lynchi ), and Santa Rosa fairy shrimp ( Linderiella santarosae). Additionally, assessments for these fairy shrimp would also – by default, address the San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis), which is not a MSHCP Covered Species, but has a limited potential to occur in Western Riverside County. Assessments for fairy shrimp begin with the evaluation of vernal pools, stock ponds, ephemeral pools and other features with a potential to inundate seasonally and support the above -referenced species within the Project Site.

5.3.1 Methods
Subject matter experts assessed the Project Site in May 2023 and again in November 2024, corresponding with spring and fall. This period captures the seasonal conditions where habitats with the potential to support fairy shrimp are typically most detectable: The Project Site evaluations were conducted out of an abundance of caution to ensure that no potential habitat for fairy shrimp, such as ponded water within topographic depressions, existed on the Project Site.

Fairy shrimp habitat can include vernal pools and other natural, non-vernal pool seasonal ponds, as well as artificially created features such as stock ponds, and disturbed features such as tire ruts and other disturbance-related depressions. During our field evaluation, the Project Site was also inspected for any ponding or evidence of ponding (e.g., cracked soils, hydrophytic vegetation) or depression features that could become inundated, including natural depressions and artificial depressions such as tire ruts. As fairy shrimp can be found in non -vernal pool features such as stock ponds, ephemeral pools, road ruts, human- made depressions, or other depressions that may pond water.

5.3.2 Existing Conditions and Results

MSHCP Consistency Analysis
12 Last Revised: December 2024
The Project Site, located in western Riverside County, is characterized by well -drained soils, anthropogenically disturbed land cover, and an absence of hydrological or topographical features necessary to support fairy shrimp. Fairy shrimp require specific environmental conditions, including the presence of vernal pools or other seasonal wetlands, which are not present within the Project Site. The Project Site is composed entirely of Arlington fine sandy loam, deep, with 2 to 8 percent slopes. This soil type is classified as well-drained and is not considered hydric. Hydric soils, which are essential for the formation of vernal pools and other ephemeral aquatic habitats, exhibit saturation and anaerobic conditions during the growing season. The absence of these hydrological properties in Arlington fine sandy loam precludes the presence of the ponded water necessary to sustain fairy shrimp. Field evaluations conducted in 2023 and 2024 confirmed that the Project Site lacks topographic depressions or low-lying areas capable of retaining water. Fairy shrimp rely on shallow, temporary pools for their life cycle, and the absence of such features within the Project Site eliminates the potential for their occurrence. The Project Site’s vegetation is primarily non -native and disturbed as well, with no hydrophytic plants observed. The lack of hydric vegetation further indicates the absence of wetland or seasonal aquatic environments. No signs of surface water flow, ponding, or wetland hydrology were noted during field surveys, reinforcing the conclusion that the site does not support conditions favorable for fairy shrimp.

Additionally, the Project Site is isolated from traditional navigable waterways or permanent surface water connections to significant water bodies in the region. Based on soil characteristics, topography, vegetation, and hydrological evaluations, the Project Site does not provide the necessary conditions to support fairy shrimp. The well -drained, non- hydric soils, absence of topographic depressions, and l ack of hydric vegetation or wetland hydrology confirm that the Project Site is unsuitable for the establishment or persistence of fairy shrimp populations.

5.4 Riparian Birds
Riparian Birds covered under the MSHCP such as the Least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) [LBVI], Southwestern willow flycatcher ( Empidonax trallii extimus ) [SWWF] and Yellow -billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus ) [YBCU] are found only in well -developed riparian habitat. No habitat features suitable for any riparian birds exist within the Project Site. Therefore, evaluations for the presence of riparian birds were not warranted - or required. No further discussion on riparian birds is made in this report.

6 PROTECTION OF NARROW ENDEMIC PLANT SPECIES (SECTION 6.1.3)

The Project is not within a predetermined survey area for Narrow Endemic Plant Species and there is no suitable habitat for Narrow Endemic Plant Species within the Project Site. Therefore, no further discussion is made in this document with deference to Narrow Endemic Plant Species.

MSHCP Consistency Analysis
13 Last Revised: December 2024

7 ADDITIONAL SURVEY NEEDS AND PROCEDURES (SECTION 6.3.2)

The Project Site is not mapped in a criteria survey area for plants, burrowing owls, mammals, or amphibians. When a project is located within an MSHCP mapped survey area, surveys must be conducted within suitable habitat for species, according to accepted protocols.

7.1 MSHCP Criteria Area Sensitive Plant Species
The Project is not within a predetermined survey area for MSHCP Criteria Area Sensitive Plant Species, and there is no suitable habitat for Criteria Area Sensitive Plant Species within the Project Site. Therefore, no further discussion is made in this document with deference to MSHCP Criteria Area Plant Species.

7.2 Burrowing Owl
The Project is not within a predetermined survey area for Burrowing Owl, and there is no suitable habitat for Burrowing Owls within the Project Site. Therefore, no further discussion is made in this document with deference to Burrowing Owls.

7.3 Mammals
The Project is not within a predetermined survey area for m ammals, and there is no suitable habitat for m ammals within the Project Site. Therefore, no further discussion is made in this document with deference to Mammals.

7.4 Amphibians
The Project is not within a predetermined survey area for a mphibians, and there is no suitable habitat for a mphibians within the Project Site. Therefore, no further discussion is made in this document with deference to Amphibians

8 INFORMATION ON OTHER SPECIES

8.1 Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly
The Project Site does not fall within the Delhi soils mapped within the MSHCP ( Figure 8).

Therefore, no further discussion is made in this document with deference to the Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly.

8.2 Species Not Adequately Conserved
MSHCP Table 9 -3 identifies 28 species where requirements must be met for those to be considered adequately conserved. None of the species listed in the MSHCP Table 9-3 occur on - or near, the Project Site. Therefore, there is no further action required.

8.3 Crotch’s Bumblebee

8.3.1 Method

MSHCP Consistency Analysis
14 Last Revised: December 2024
Survey methods for Crotch’s bumble bee ( Bombus crotchii – CBB) habitat assessments were derived from generally accepted professional standards. Evaluation methods for assessing the suitability of the Project Site for CBB involved two thorough site visits to determine the presence of essential habitat elements. This approach included examining whether the Project Site has suitable nesting conditions, such as small mammal burrows, and assessing the availability of diverse nectar and pollen resources critica l for CBB colony development. Additionally, the assessment considered the Project’s isolation from natural habitats that could support CBB and evaluated the surrounding landscape’s composition and proximity to determine the likelihood of CBB occurrence.

8.3.2 Crotch’s Bumblebee Impact Avoidance

The comprehensive assessment concluded that the Project Site lacks the essential habitat elements required for the survival and reproduction of CBB. The findings indicate that it is not reasonable to expect this Project Site to support a CBB population, and as such, focused surveys for CBB are not warranted based on the following key findings:

Vegetation and Forage Resources
• The vegetation within the Project Site is dominated by developed and disturbed conditions with negligible amounts of native plant species. • Potential CBB nectar sources are insufficient within the Project Site to support a viable CBB population.

Nesting Conditions
• Frequent anthropogenic disturbances within the Project Site have eliminated suitable nesting substrates such as abandoned rodent burrows typically used by CBB.

Landscape Context and Isolation
• The Project Site is highly disturbed and surrounded by urban development, isolating it from contiguous native habitats and wildlands that could support CBB populations. • The nearest historic CBB observation is over a mile away from the Project Site, further supporting the low likelihood of CBB presence.

Biodiversity and Habitat Suitability
• The Project Site has low biodiversity and lacks a reliable continuum of nectar sources required to sustain CBB colonies.
• No bumble bees ( Bombus spp.) were observed during any fieldwork conducted in 2023 and 2024, further confirming the absence of suitable habitat.

Conclusion
The findings presented herein conclusively demonstrate that the Project Site lacks the physical and biological features necessary to support CBB.

MSHCP Consistency Analysis
15 Last Revised: December 2024
9 GUIDELINES PERTAINING TO THE URBAN/WILDLANDS INTERFACE (SECTION 6.1.4) The MSHCP Section 6.1.4 Guidelines are intended to address indirect effects associated with locating development in proximity to MSHCP Conservation Areas, where applicable. The Project’s permanent impact area is not in proximity to an established Cell Group, Criteria Cell, PQP Land, Linkage / Core, Conserved Land, or RCA Conservation Easement; therefore, the MSHCP guidelines pertaining to Urban/Wildlands Interface for the management of edge factors such as lighting, urban runoff, toxics, and domestic predators do not apply.

10 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (VOLUME I, APPENDIX C)

This section of the report is designed to describe and comment as to the necessity of implementation of the BMPs identified in Volume 1, Appendix C. The BMPs and their applicability to the Project is identified in Table 2.

Table 2. MSHCP Best Management Practices Applicability (Volume 1, Appendix C) BMP Applicable
Yes or No
Comment
No. 1 – A condition shall be placed on grading
permits requiring a qualified biologist to conduct
a training session for Project personnel prior to
grading. The training shall include a description
of the species of concern and its habitats, the
general provisions of the Endangered Species
Act (Act) and the MSHCP, the need to adhere to
the provisions of the Act and the MSHCP, the
penalties associated with violating the
provisions of the Act, the general measures that
are being implemented to conserve the sp ecies
of concern as they relate to the Project, and the
access routes to and Project boundaries within
which the Project activities must be
accomplished.

Not Applicable There are no special
status species within, or
near the Project Site
No. 2 – Water pollution and erosion control
plans shall be developed and implemented in
accordance with RWQCB requirements.

Yes The Project will include
grading and paving.

No. 3 – The footprint of disturbance shall be
minimized to the maximum extent feasible.

Access to sites shall be via preexisting access
routes to the greatest extent possible.

Yes The Project Site is < 7.03-
acres, and is accessible
from Commerce Street.

No. 4 – The upstream and downstream limits of
Projects disturbance plus lateral limits of
disturbance on either side of the stream shall be
clearly defined and marked in the field and
Not Applicable There are no streambed
resources on, or near the
Project Site
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
16 Last Revised: December 2024
BMP Applicable
Yes or No
Comment
reviewed by the biologist prior to initiation of
work.

No. 5 – Project should be designed to avoid the
placement of equipment and personnel within
the stream channel or on sand and gravel bars,
banks, and adjacent upland habitats used by
target species of concern.

Not Applicable There are no streambed
Resources, on or near
the
Project Site
No. 6 – Projects that cannot be conducted
without placing equipment or personnel in
sensitive habitats should be timed to avoid the
breeding season of riparian identified in MSHCP
Global Species Objective No. 7.

Not Applicable There are no sensitive
habitat, riparian or
streambed resources on,
or near the Project Site
No. 7 – When stream flows must be diverted, the
diversions shall be conducted using sandbags or
other methods requiring minimal instream
impacts. Silt fencing of other sediment trapping
materials shall be installed at the downstream
end of construction activity to minimize the
transport of sediments offsite. Settling ponds
where sediment is collected shall be cleaned out
in a manner that prevents the sed iment from
reentering the stream. Care shall be exercised
when removing silt fences, as feasible, to
prevent debris or sediment from returning to
the stream.

Not Applicable There are no streambed
resources on, or near the
Project Site
No. 8 – Equipment storage, fueling, and staging
areas shall be located on upland sites with
minimal risks of direct drainage into riparian
areas or other sensitive habitats. These
designated areas shall be in such a manner as to
prevent any runoff from entering sensitive
habitat. Necessary precautions shall be taken to
prevent the release of cement or other toxic
substances into surface waters. Project related
spills of hazardous materials shall be reported to
appropriate entities including but not limited to
applicable jurisdictional city, FWS, and CDFG,
RWQCB and shall be cleaned up immediately
and contaminated soils removed to approved
disposal areas.

Not Applicable There are no sensitive
habitat, riparian or
streambed resources on,
or near the Project Site
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
17 Last Revised: December 2024
BMP Applicable
Yes or No
Comment
No. 9 – Erodible fill material shall not be
deposited into water courses. Brush, loose soils,
or other similar debris material shall not be
stockpiled within the stream channel or on its
banks.

Not Applicable There are no water
courses, streambed
resources on, or near the
Project Site
No. 10 – The qualified project biologist shall
monitor construction activities for the duration
of the project to ensure that practicable
measures are being employed to avoid
incidental disturbance of habitat and species of
concern outside the Project Site
No
(But available
as needed)
The Project Site consists
of Developed/Disturbed
land cover.

No. 11 – The removal of native vegetation shall
be avoided and minimized to the maximum
extent practicable. Temporary impacts shall be
returned to pre- existing contours and
revegetated with appropriate native species.

No Project includes no
temporary impacts, and
the Project Site consists
of Developed/Disturbed
land cover.

No. 12 – Exotic species that prey upon or
displace target species of concern should be
permanently removed from the site to the
extent feasible.

Yes The Project Site will
remove
Developed/Disturbed
cover from Riverside
County.

No. 13 – To avoid attracting predators of the
species of concern, the Project Site shall be kept
as clean of debris as possible. All food related
trash items shall be enclosed in sealed
containers and regularly removed from the
site(s).

Yes Standard Measure
No. 14 – Construction employees shall strictly
limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and
construction materials to the proposed Project
Site and designated staging areas and routes of
travel. The construction area(s) shall be the
minimal area necessary to complete the project
and shall be specified in the construction plans.

Construction limits will be fenced with orange
snow screen. Exclusion fencing should be
maintained until the completion of all
construction activities. Employees shall be
instructed that their activities are restricted to
the construction areas.

Yes Standard Measure
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
18 Last Revised: December 2024
BMP Applicable
Yes or No
Comment
No. 15 – The Permittee shall have the right to
access and inspect any sites of approved projects
including any restoration/ enhancement area
for compliance with project approval conditions
including these BMPs.

Yes Standard Measure

11 CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this biological evaluation, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DATE: December 31, 2024

SIGNED:

MSHCP Consistency Analysis
19 Last Revised: December 2024
12 REFERENCES
Baldwin, J., D. Goldman, D. Keil, R. Patterson, and T. Rosatti. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Burt, W. H. and R. P. Grossenheider. 1980. A Field Guide to Mammals: North America; North of Mexico. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2024. RareFind. California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game, Biogeographic Data Branch.

CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2024. CNPS Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants: CNPS.

Dudek. 2003. Final Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Riverside, CA: County of Riverside.

Geographic Information Services Database (GISD). 2024. Transportation and Land Management Agency Geographic Information Services Database.

Elbroch, M. 2003. Mammal Tracks & Sign, A Guide to North American Species. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books.

Halfpenny, J.C. 2000. Scats and Tracks of the Desert Southwest, A Field Guide to the Signs of 70 Wildlife Species. Helena, MT: Falcon Publishing, Inc.

Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (California Department of Fish and Game, The Resources Agency, ed), p. 156. Sacramento, CA.

Microsoft Corporation. 2023. Bing Maps Aerial Imagery. Redmond, WA RCA. 2023. Regional Conservation Authority GIS Data Mapping Tool (RCA 2024, https://www.wrc-rca.org/rcamaps/).

Sawyer, J., T. Keeler -Wolf, and J. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation. Sacramento, CA: California Native Plant Society.

Sibley, D.A. 2000. National Audubon Society. The Sibley Guide to Birds. New York, NY: Alfred A.

Knopf, Inc.

Stebbins, R.C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.

USGS (United States Geological Service). 1984 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Riverside East, California.

USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2024a. Critical Habitat Portal. USFWS

USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2024 b. Los Angeles County Fish and Wildlife Office.

Endangered and Threatened Species List. In: U.S. Department of the Interior, editor. San Bernardino, CA: USFWS.

FIGURES
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
Riverside County
San Bernardino County
¨§¦10Los
Angeles
¨§¦15
¨§¦5
¨§¦215Long
Beach
San Diego County
Orange
County
Los
Angeles
County
Figure 1. Regional Location
Data Sources:
- California Public Land Survey System 2020
- USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle map
- ESRI US T
opo Maps accessed Dec 2024
Study Area
Map Prepared: 12-26-24
°
10 Miles°
Prepared by:

Statewide Location Countywide Location
1 inch = 2,000 feet
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
The Study Area is located in Riverside County
on the Riverside East USGS 7.5-minute
quadrangle map; San Bernardino Meridian,
Township 2S, Range 5W
, in Sections 23, 24;
Center coordinates (WGS 1984): 117.205°W 33.776°N
Interstate or State Highway (inset)
Urban Area (inset)
County Boundary (inset)
Water Body (inset)
Park or National Forest (inset)
Project Site
Study Area
91 Miss
ion I
nn Ave
Vine St
Lime
St
4th St
Mulbe
rry St
Lime
St
63 Fire Station # 1
Universalist
Unitarian
Church
Ticor Building
Plymouth
Towers
BNSF
BNSF
91 Vine
St
Commerce S
t
10t
h St
10th St
9th
St
Howa
rd Ave
11th St
12th St
Mulberry Yard
Riverside-Downtown
Station
North Park
Citrus Towers
BN
SF
BNSF
4th St
Vin
e St
1st S
t
2nd St
Eucal
yptu
s Ave
Park Ave
Comm
erce St
6th St
5th St
3rd S
t
64 Sedgwick Ave
Park Ave
Eucal
yptu
s Ave
Comer Ave
Commerce St
Miss
ion Inn Ave
10th St
10th St
6th St
9th St
University Av
e
Victoria Ave
Figure 2. Site Vicinity
Map Prepared: 12-30-24
Prepared by:

Data Sources:
- ESRI World Imagery accessed Dec 2024
°
0 250 500
Feet
1 inch = 500 feet
Study Area (51.39 ac)
Project Site (7.03 ac)
Figure 3. MSHCP Criteria Cells
Map Prepared: 12-27-24
Prepared by:

Data Sources:
- Bing Maps Hybrid accessed Dec 2024
- Western Riverside MSHCP
accessed Dec 2024, data date: 2020
0 621
534
443
196
721
635
545
187 197
719
147
634
146
97 282
637
148
547
10180
^ Project Site
°
°
Project Site
MSHCP Criteria Cells
MSHCP Plan Area
Study Area
0 0.5 1
Miles
0 5 10
Miles
1 inch = 1 mile
1 inch = 13 miles
Figure 4. Cores, Linkages, and Conserved Lands
Map Prepared: 12-27-24
Prepared by:

Data Sources:
- Bing Maps Hybrid accessed Dec 2024
- Western Riverside MSHCP
accessed Dec 2024, data date: 2002, 2018
^
°
°
0 0.5 1
Miles
Not to Scale
MSHCP Cores and Linkages
MSHCP Conserved Lands
Proposed Cores & Habitat Blocks
Core
Proposed Extension of
Existing Cores
Noncontiguous Habitat Block
Proposed Linkages
Constrained Linkage
Linkage
Existing Cores & Linkages
Constrained Linkage
Core
Linkage
Noncontiguous Habitat
Block
Existing Channel
Project Site
1 inch = 1 mile
Project Site
Study Area
Public/Quasi-Public Conserved Lands
Multiple Species Habitat Conserved Lands
MSHCP Conserved Lands
RCA MOU Lands
© 2024 Microsoft Corporation © 2024 Maxar ©CNES (2024) Distribution Airbus DS © 2024 TomT
om
Figure 5. MSHCP Species Survey Areas
Map Prepared: 12-27-24
Prepared by:

Data Sources:
- Bing Maps Hybrid accessed Dec 2024
- Western Riverside Co Regional
Conservation
Authority accessed Dec 2024
°
0 1,000 2,000
FeetSpecies Survey Areas
Burrowing Owl
Narrow Endemic Plants
7 - San Diego ambrosia, Brand's
phacelia, San Miguel savory
Project Site
Study Area 1 inch = 2,000 feet
© 2024 Microsoft Corporation © 2024 Maxar ©CNES (2024) Distribution Airbus DS © 2024 TomT
om
Figure 6. RCA MSHCP Vegetation 2012
Map Prepared: 12-27-24
Prepared by:

Data Sources:
- Bing Maps Hybrid accessed Dec 2024
- Western Riverside Co Regional
Conservation
Authority accessed Dec 2024
°
0 1,000 2,000
FeetRCA MSHCP Vegetation 2012
Annual Grassland
Coastal Scrub
Cropland, Orchard -
Vineyard
Eucalyptus
Fresh Emergent
Wetland
Lacustrine
Urban
Valley Foothill Riparian
Project Site
Study Area 1 inch = 2,000 feet
91 Mis
sion I
nn
Ave
Vine St
4th St
5th St
Mulbe
rry St
Lime
St
63 Plymouth
Towers
BNSF
Vine
St
Commerce St10th
St
10th St
9th St
Mulberry Yard
Riverside-Downtown
Station
North Park
BNS
F
4th St
Vi
ne St
Park Ave
Comm
erce St
6th St
5th St
3rd St
64 Park Ave
Comer Ave
Commerce St
Mis
sion Inn Ave
6th St
University Ave
Figure 7. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Map Prepared: 12-30-24
Prepared by:

Data Sources:
- ESRI World Imagery accessed Dec 2024
°
0 200 400
FeetProject Site (7.03 ac)
Study Area (51.39 ac)
Vegetation Communities
Developed/Disturbed (51.39 ac)
1 inch = 400 feet

91 Mis
sion I
nn
Ave
Vine St
4th St
5th St
Mulbe
rry St
Lime
St
Plymouth
Towers
BNSF
Commerce St10th
St
10th St
9th St
11th St
Mulberry Yard
Riverside-Downtown
Station
North Park
BN
SF
BNS
F
4th St
Vi
ne St
Park Ave
Comm
erce St
6th St
5th St
3rd St
64 Park Ave
Comer Ave
Commerce St
Mis
sion Inn Ave
6th St
9th St
University Ave
AoC
Figure 8. Soils Map
Map Prepared: 12-27-24
Prepared by:

Data Sources:
- ESRI World Imagery accessed Dec 2024
- NRCS W
eb Soil Survey accessed Dec 2024
°
0 200 400
FeetProject Site
Study Area
Soil Types
AoC- Arlington fine sandy loam,
deep, 2 to 8 percent slopes
1 inch = 400 feet
60 10
Valley Blvd
Sierra Ave
Merrill Ave
Wh itt ram Ave
Jurupa St
Baseline Rd
6th St
Baseline AveEast Ave
Foothill Blvd
Ontario
International
Airport
Rancho
Cucamonga Fontana
Lake
Mathews
91 60
Mag
nolia Ave
Bellegrave Ave
Hamner Ave
Mission Blvd
Ca jalco Rd
Arlington Ave
E O
ntario A
ve
Norco
Home Gardens
El Sobrante
Jurupa ValleyEastvale
Corona
210
10 Locust Ave
Pacific St
Green spot Rd
Alabama St
San Bernardino
International
Airport
Grand Terrace
Loma Linda
Bloomington
Redlands
Highland
Rialto
Colton
San
Bernardino
60 215
Va n Buren Blvd
Sa
n Timoteo
Canyon Rd
Cajalco Rd
Iowa Ave
Ironwood Ave
Alessandro Blvd
Arlington Ave
Moreno Valley Fwy
Lake Perris
State
Recreation Area
Woodcrest
Mead Valley
Moreno Valley
Riverside
R8
R8
R2
R8
R3
R2
R4
R3
R5
R5
R4
R8
R8
R4
R4
R8
R5
R4
R2
R5
R8
R4
R8
R1
R2
R2
R1
R5
R4
R1
R5
R3
R5
R4
R7
R5
R3
R4
R1
R4
R2
R8
R1
R4
R4
R8
R4
R8
R8
R4
R2 R9
R9
R2
R4
R8
R1
R6
R4
R5
R4
R8
R3
R2
P12
P27
P16
P29
P7
P4
P31
P27
P13
P14
P22
P31P25
P31
P13
P2
P22
P18
P12
P3
P32
P13
P9
P19
P29
P27
P15
P27
P22
P30
P29
P4 P27
P33
P24
P11
P22
P31
P18
P27
P20
P5
P27
P6
P28
P34
P20
P22
P12
P27
P22
P29
P16
P25
P16
P33
P16
P26
P16
P33
P27
P33
P8
P18
P21
P17
P10
P29
P29
P16
P33
P16
P22
P21
P4
P23
P1
P12
P16
P8
P33
P33
P31
P29
P19
M9
M5 M11
M9
M6
M10
M2
M3
M9
M2
M11
M9
M9
M9
M9
M3
M9
M3
M1
M4
M3
M6
M11
M4
M6
M9
M9
M2
M11
M11
M5
M5
M9
M3
M3
M6
M9
M5
M3
M9
M9
M7
M5
M1
M6
M9
M5
M9
M9
M5
M9
M8
M5
M4
M3
M9
M5
M9
M9
M9
M9
M9
M3
M10
M2
M2
M10
M11
M2
M8
M6
I4
I8
I3
I1
I3
I4
I3
I7
I7
I3
I5
I6
I4
I2
I2
I4
I3
I9
I2
I9
I3
I2
I1
F1
F4
F2
F1
F1
F3
F3
F1
F3
F3
F3 F1
F3
B9
B15
B6
B9
B12
B9
B9
B2
B3
B9
B14
B3
B9
B16
B4
B6
B5
B8
B9
B6
B17
B9
B3
B3
B4
B9
B8B9
B9B6
B3
B9
B3
B6B16
B2
B12
B6
B6
B3
B12
B6
B3
B11
B12
B12
B6
B9
B9
B7
B5
B6
B18
B9
B9
B1
B6
B3
B14
B15
B3
B6
B9
B14
B9
B7
B3
B9
B9
B2
B13
B9
B5
B3
B9
B9
B10
B12
B6
B3
B2
B6
B12
B6
B6
B6
B13
B15
B3
B12
B6
B1
B15 A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
Figure 9. Literature Review
Data Sources:
- ESRI World Street Map accessed Dec 2024, CNDDB 9/2/2023 Note: Resource specialists were consulted and readily available commercial
data from resource management plans and other relevant documents were reviewed to determine the locations and types of resources that have the potential to exist in the region.

Prepared by:
0 1 2
miles
°1 inch = 2 miles
Study Area
Plants
Mammals
Invertebrates
Birds
Fish
Amphibians
Reptiles
Map
Code
Special-Status Species Occurrences
Common Name (Scientific Name)

MAPCDID CNAME SNAME
F1 arroyo chub Gila orcuttii
F2 Santa Ana speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 8
F3 Santa
Ana sucker Catostomus santaanae
F4 steelhead - southern California DPS Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 10

MAPCDID CNAME SNAME
A1 western spadefoot Spea hammondii

MAPCDID CNAME SNAME
R1 California glossy snake Arizona elegans occidentalis R2 coast horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii
R3 coastal whiptail Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri
R4 orange-throated whiptail Aspidoscelis hyperythra
R5 red-diamond rattlesnake Crotalus ruber
R6 San Bernardino ringneck snake Diadophis punctatus modestus R7 San Diego banded gecko Coleonyx variegatus abbotti
R8 Southern California legless lizard Anniella stebbinsi R9 southern rubber boa Charina umbratica

MAPCDID CNAME SNAME
B1 bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
B2 Bell's sparrow Artemisiospiza belli belli
B3 burrowing owl Athene cunicularia
B4 California black rail Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus B5 California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia
B6 coastal California gnatcatcher Polioptila californica californica B7 Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperii
B8 Lawrence's goldfinch Spinus lawrencei
B9 least Bell's vireo Vireo bellii pusillus
B10 loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus
B1
1 merlin Falco columbarius
B12 southern California rufous-crowned sparrow Aimophila ruficeps canescens B13 Swainson's hawk Buteo swainsoni
B14 tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor
B15 western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis B16 yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens
B17 yellow rail Coturnicops noveboracensis
B18 yellow warbler Setophaga petechia

MAPCDID CNAME SNAME
M1 American badger Taxidea taxus
M2 Los
Angeles pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris brevinasus M3 northwestern San Diego pocket mouse Chaetodipus fallax fallax M4 pocketed free-tailed bat Nyctinomops femorosaccus
M5 San Bernardino kangaroo rat Dipodomys merriami parvus M6 San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus bennettii M7 San Diego desert woodrat Neotoma lepida intermedia
M8 southern grasshopper mouse Onychomys torridus ramona M9 Stephens' kangaroo rat Dipodomys stephensi
M10 western mastiff bat Eumops perotis californicus
M11 western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus

MAPCDID CNAME SNAME
I1 American bumble bee Bombus pensylvanicus
I2 Busck's gallmoth Eugnosta busckana
I3 Crotch bumble bee Bombus crotchii
I4 Delhi Sands flower-loving fly Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis I5 Desert cuckoo wasp Ceratochrysis longimala
I6 greenest tiger beetle Cicindela tranquebarica viridissima I7 quino checkerspot butterfly Euphydryas editha quino
I8 Riverside fairy shrimp Streptocephalus woottoni
I9 white cuckoo bee Neolarra alba

MAPCDID CNAME SNAME
P1 Alvin Meadow bedstraw Galium californicum ssp. primum P2 Brand's star phacelia Phacelia stellaris
P3 bristly sedge Carex comosa
P4 chaparral ragwort Senecio aphanactis
P5 Coulter's goldfields Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri P6 Gambel's water cress Nasturtium gambelii
P7 Horn's milk-vetch Astragalus hornii var. hornii
P8 long-spined spineflower Chorizanthe polygonoides var . longispina
P9 Los Angeles sunflower Helianthus nuttallii ssp. parishii P10 many-stemmed dudleya Dudleya multicaulis
P11 marsh sandwort Arenaria paludicola
P12 mesa horkelia Horkelia cuneata var. puberula
P13 Nevin's barberry Berberis nevinii
P14 Parish's bush-mallow Malacothamnus parishii
P15 Parish's desert-thorn Lycium parishii
P16 Parry's spineflower Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi
P17 Peruvian dodder Cuscuta obtusiflora var. glandulosa P18 Plummer's mariposa-lily Calochortus plummerae
P19 prairie wedge grass Sphenopholis obtusata
P20 Pringle's monardella Monardella pringlei
P21 Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub P22 Robinson's pepper-grass Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii P23 salt marsh bird's-beak Chloropyron maritimum ssp. maritimum P24 salt spring checkerbloom Sidalcea neomexicana
P25 San Bernardino aster Symphyotrichum defoliatum
P26 San Diego ambrosia Ambrosia pumila
P27 Santa Ana River woollystar Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum P28 slender-horned spineflower Dodecahema leptoceras
P29 smooth tarplant Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis
P30 Southern California Arroyo Chub/Santa Ana Sucker Stream Southern California Arroyo Chub/Santa Ana Sucker Stream P31 Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest P32 Southern Riparian Scrub Southern Riparian Scrub
P33 Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland P34 Southern Willow Scrub Southern Willow Scrub
10-Mile Radius
Around the Study Area
Study Area
Freeway
Major Road
Park or Recreation Area
Water
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA, City of Riverside, County of Riverside, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EP

A, NPS, USDA
Figure 10. Critical Habitat
Map Prepared: 9-11-23
0 1.5 3
Miles
°
Data Sources:
- ESRI World T
opographic Map
accessed Sep 2023
- US Fish and Wildlife Service Critical Habitat
accessed Sep 2023
Prepared by:
1 inch = 3 miles
Study Area
Study Area
10-Mile Radius Around
the Study Area
Critical Habitat
Coastal California gnatcatcher
Least Bell's vireo
San Bernardino Merriam's kangaroo rat
Santa Ana sucker
Southwestern willow flycatcher
91 Miss
ion I
nn Ave
Vine St
Lime
St
4th St
Mulbe
rry St
Lime
St
63 Fire Station # 1
Universalist
Unitarian
Church
Ticor Building
Plymouth
Towers
BNSF
BNSF
91 Vine
St
Commerce S
t
10th
St
10th St
9th
St
Howa
rd Ave
11th St
12th St
Mulberry Yard
Riverside-Downtown
Station
North Park
Citrus Towers
BN
SF
BNSF
4th St
Vin
e St
1st S
t
2nd St
Eucal
yptu
s Ave
Park Ave
Comm
erce St
6th St
5th St
3rd S
t
3rd St
64 Sedgwick Ave
Park Ave
Eucal
yptu
s Ave
Comer Ave
Commerce St
Miss
ion Inn Ave
10th St
10th St
6th St
9th St
University Av
e
Victoria Ave
Figure 11. National Wetland Inventory
Map Prepared: 12-26-24
Prepared by:

Data Sources:
- ESRI World Imagery accessed Dec 2024
- US Fish and Wildlife Service National
Wetland Inventory accessed Dec 2024
°
0 250 500
Feet
Study Area
Project Site USA Wetlands
River 1 inch = 500 feet

APPENDICES

Appendix A Site Plan
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV

CAPABLE

LOADING
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
AA
11'-2"10'-0"5'-0"
3'-6"
5'-0"
1'-6"
5'-4 3/8"
5'-0"
5'-0"
6'-0"
3'-8"
USPS

COMMERCIAL

COMMERCIAL
EV

CAPABLE
EV

CAPABLE
EV

CAPABLE
EV

CAPABLE
EV

CAPABLE
EV

CAPABLE
EV

CAPABLE
EV

CAPABLE
EV

CAPABLE
EV

CAPABLE
EV

CAPABLE
EV

CAPABLE
EV

CAPABLE
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV

CAPABLE
EV

CAPABLE
EV

CAPABLE
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV

CAPABLE
EV

CAPABLE
EV

CAPABLE
EV

CAPABLE
EV

CAPABLE
EV

CAPABLE
EV

CAPABLE
EV

CAPABLE
EV

CAPABLE
EV

CAPABLE
EV

CAPABLE
EV

CAPABLE
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV

CAPABLE
EV

CAPABLE
EV

CAPABLE
EV

CAPABLE
EV

CHARGER
EV

CHARGER
EV

CHARGER
EV

CHARGER
EV

CHARGER
EV

CHARGER
EV

CHARGER
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV

CHARGER
EV

CHARGER
EV

CHARGER
EV

CHARGER
EV

CHARGER
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV

CAPABLE
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV
READY
EV

CHARGER
EV

CAPABLE
EV
READY
EV

CHARGER
EV

CHARGER
EV

CAPABLE

COMMERCIAL

COMMERCIAL

COMMERCIAL
EV
READY
EV

CHARGER
EV

CHARGER
EV

CHARGER
EV

CAPABLE
VAN

COMMERCIAL
EV

CHARGEREV

CAPABLE
EV

CHARGER
EV

CHARGER

COMMERCIAL

COMMERCE STREET
5TH STREET
6TH STREET

PARK AVENUE
ELEC. ROOM
TRASH
TERM
LOBBY
TRASH
TERM
LOBBY
ENTRY
LOBBY

MAIL ROOM

LEASING
FLOOR
REMOTE
METER
ROOM /

STORAGE

MAINTENANCE
ROOM

COURTYARD
ACCESS
ELEC.

ROOM
TRASH
TERM

STORAGE
ROOM
ELEC.

ROOM

MISSION INN AVENUE

PROJECT SUMMARY

COMMERCE ST AND MISSION INN AVE

RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
ZONING
CURRENT: BMP (BUSINESS MANUFACTURING

AND PARK ZONE)
PROPOSED: MU-U (MIXED-USE URBAN)
AREA

6.97 AC (303,554 SF)
TOTAL DWELLING UNITS: 301 DU
DENSITY: 43.2 DU/AC
FAR: 0.96:1 (292,250 SF)

UNIT MIX
STUDIO: 50 UNITS (17%)
1-BED: 152 UNITS (50%)
2-BED: 99 UNITS (33%)
TOTAL 301 UNITS
AVG. UNIT SIZE: 714 SF

VEHICLE PARKING
RESIDENTIAL REQUIRED: 477 SPACES
(1 SP/STUDIO + 1.5 SP/1-BED + 2 SP/2-BED)
RESIDENTIAL PROVIDED: 388 SPACES
(1.29 SP/DU)
378 SURFACE SPACES
10 GARAGE SPACES (2 SP/TH)
*COVERED: 303 SPACES (1 SP/DU)
Architecture + Planning
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Iron Lofts, LLC
1201 Dove Street, Suite 520
Newport Beach, CA 92660

IRON LOFTS
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA # 2020-0844

SCHEMATIC DESIGN
JUNE 17, 2024A1-0 SITE PLAN
PROJECT SUMMARY 04080 20

CALLOUT LEGEND
01 BUILDING A (4-STORY ON GRADE)
02 NOT USED
03 BUILDING C (2-STORY TOWNHOMES)
04 BUILDING D (HISTORIC)
05 LIVE-WORK UNITS
06 COURTYARD A (ACTIVE - POOL)
07 COURTYARD B (PASSIVE)
08 COURTYARD C (SEMI-ACTIVE - SPA)
09 LOBBY
10 LEASING
11 AMENITIES
12 DOG PARK
13 EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
14 NEW PROPERTY LINE
15 PROPOSED SETBACK
16 6TH STREET HAMMERHEAD
17 TRASH ROOM
18 STORMWATER TREATMENT TANK &

AQUA-SWIRL

COMMERCIAL FRONTAGE

MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL FRONTAGE COMPLIANCE
(PER SECTION 19.120.050)

LOCATIONFRONTAGE
LENGTH*
80% LINEAL GROUND

FLOOR FRONTAGE

REQUIRED

COMMERCIAL

FRONTAGE

PROPOSED
MISSION INN AVENUE254.67 FT203.73 FT206.58 FT (81.1%)
* EXCLUDING NON-BUILDING SITE AREA (DRIVEWAYS OR PEDESTRIAN

ENTRANCES)

Appendix B Plant Species Observed Within the Study Area

Scientific Name Common Name
Asteraceae
Ambrosia artemisiifolia Ragweed
Centaurea melitensis* Maltese star-thistle
Gnaphalium spp.* Cudweed
Hypochaeris glabra* Smooth cat's ear
Lactuca serriola * Prickly lettuce
Lasthenia gracilis* Needle goldfields
Oncosiphon piluliferum* Stinknet
Heterotheca grandiflora Telegraph weed
Helianthus annuus Sunflower
Sonchus oleraceus* Common sowthistle
Schismus barbatus* Schismu
Taraxacum officinale* Common dandelion
Apocynaceae
Nerium sp.* Olenander
Anacardiaceae
Schinus molle* Peruvian pepper
Arecaceae
Syagrus romanzoffiana Queen palm
Washingtonia Robusta* Mexican fan palm
Brassicaceae
Brassica nigra* Black mustard
Brassica Tournefortii* Sahara mustard
Sisymbrium irio * London rocket
Chenopodiaceae
Chenopodium album Lamb’s quarters
Euphorbiaceae
Croton setigerus* Dove weed
Geraniaceae
Erodium cicutarium* Redstem stork's bill
Malvaceae
Alcea rosea* Holyhock
Malva parviflora* Cheeseweed
Moraceae
Broussonetia papyrifera* Paper mulberry
Nyctaginaceae

Scientific Name Common Name
Bougainvillea sp.* Bougainvillea
Pinaceae
Pinus sp.* Pine
Poaceae
Avena fatua * Wild oat
Bromus diandrus * Ripgut brome
Bromus madritensis subsp. Rubens * Red brome
Festuca arundinacea * Tall fescue
Festuca myuros * Annual fescue
Festuca perennis* Perennial ryegrass
Hordeum murinum * Wall barley
Polypogon monspeliensis* Annual rabbitsfoot grass
Polygonaceae
Polygonum aviculare* Prostrate knotweed
Simaroubaceae
Ailanthus altissima* Tree of heaven
Solanaceae
Datura wrightii Sacred thorn-apple
Nicotiana glauca* Tree tobacco

Nomenclature follows the Jepson Manual, Second Edition (Baldwin et al 2011). * = naturalized, non- native plant species.

Appendix C Wildlife Species Observed Within the Study Area

Scientific name Common name
Birds
Buteo jamaicensis Red-Tailed hawk
Cathartes aura Turkey vulture
Corvus corax Common Raven
Sturnus vulgaris European Starling
Carpodacus mexicanus House Finch
Columba livia Rock Pigeon
Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer's Blackbird
Mimus polyglottos Northern mockingbird
Passer domesticus House Sparrow
Sayornis nigricans Black phoebe
Setophaga coronata Yellow-rumped warbler
Zonotrichia leucophrys White-crowned sparrow
Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove
Mammals
Otospermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel
Sylvilagus audubonii Cottontail

Appendix D Special-Status Species and Their Potential to Occur Within the Project Site Potential for
occurrence Common name (Scientific name) Federal listing status
State listing
status
CNPS
list
Number of
records within
10 miles
Year(s)
sighted
A Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) None Candidate
Endangered - 8 1933-2020
A Desert cuckoo wasp (Ceratochrysis longimala) None None - 1 1915-1915 A California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis) None None - 7 1935-2002 A Orange-throated whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra) None None - 21 1951-XXXX A Red-diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber) None None - 11 1931-2015 A Southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi) None None - 26 1897-XXXX A California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis
coturniculus) None Threatened - 2 1892-1919
A Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis) Threatened Endangered - 4 1894-2011
A Robinson's pepper-grass (Lepidium virginicum var.
robinsonii) None None 4.3 8 1889-2004
A Marsh sandwort (Arenaria paludicola) Endangered Endangered 1B.1 1 1899 A Salt marsh bird's-beak (Chloropyron maritimum ssp.
maritimum) Endangered Endangered 1B.2 1 1888
A Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) None Threatened - 3 1950-2015 A Parry's spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi) None None 1B.1 8 1882-2010 A Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae) Threatened None - 7 2002-2011 A Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) Endangered None - 36 198X-2013
A Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest None None - 6 1980-1985 A Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) Endangered Endangered - 35 1917-2015 A Nevin's barberry (Berberis nevinii) Endangered Endangered 1B.1 4 1999-2009 A Western spadefoot (Spea hammondii) None None - 15 1978-2023 A Prairie wedge grass (Sphenopholis obtusata) None None 2B.2 2 1907-1917 A Arroyo chub (Gila orcuttii) None None - 5 1995-2001
A Santa Ana River woollystar (Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum) Endangered Endangered 1B.1 16 1910-2021
A Greenest tiger beetle (Cicindela tranquebarica
viridissima) None None - 1 1987-1987
A Busck's gallmoth (Eugnosta busckana) None None - 4 1906-2023 A Coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii) None None - 11 1926-2008

Potential for
occurrence Common name (Scientific name) Federal listing status
State listing
status
CNPS
list
Number of
records within
10 miles
Year(s)
sighted
A Steelhead - southern California DPS (Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus) Endangered
Candidate
Endangered - 1 2013
A Brand's star phacelia (Phacelia stellaris) None None 1B.1 1 2000 A Stephens' kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi) Threatened Threatened - 46 1988-2013 A Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus
fallax fallax) None None - 11 1992-2016
A American bumble bee (Bombus pensylvanicus) None None - 2 1994-2019 A White cuckoo bee (Neolarra alba) None None - 2 1928-1937 A Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni) None Threatened - 2 1889 A Pocketed free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops femorosaccus) None None - 3 1985-1988 A Western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus) None None - 6 1981-1996 A San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami
parvus) Endangered Candidate
Endangered - 10 1908-2017
A Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland None None - 10 1980-1985 A Plummer's mariposa-lily (Calochortus plummerae) None None 4.2 4 1998-2003 A Southern California Arroyo Chub/Santa Ana Sucker
Stream None None - 1 1991
HP Chaparral ragwort (Senecio aphanactis) None None 2B.2 3 1909-2004 A San Diego banded gecko (Coleonyx variegatus abbotti) None None - 1 2015 A Bell's sparrow (Artemisiospiza belli belli) None None - 4 1999-2015 A San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii) None None - 8 1995-2007
A Yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens) None None - 2 2001-2015 A Yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia) None None - 1 2015 A Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) None None - 18 1989-2010 A Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Threatened None - 32 1924-2008
A Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris
brevinasus) None None - 10 1912-2017
A Smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis) None None 1B.1 9 1948 A Alvin Meadow bedstraw (Galium californicum ssp.
primum) None None 1B.2 1 1967
A Southern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys torridus
ramona) None None - 2 1908-1923

Potential for
occurrence Common name (Scientific name) Federal listing status
State listing
status
CNPS
list
Number of
records within
10 miles
Year(s)
sighted
A Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii) None None - 2 2001-2016 A San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila) Endangered None 1B.1 1 2006 A Lawrence's goldfinch (Spinus lawrencei) None None - 2 2001-2015 A Parish's bush-mallow (Malacothamnus parishii) None None 1A 1 1895 A Mesa horkelia (Horkelia cuneata var. puberula) None None 1B.1 4 1885-1908 A Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus) None None - 3 1933-1990 A American badger (Taxidea taxus) None None - 2 1908
A Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) None None - 1 1994 A Pringle's monardella (Monardella pringlei) None None 1A 2 1979 A Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow
(Aimophila ruficeps canescens) None None - 12 1997-2016 A Coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri) None None - 5 1993-2016 A Santa Ana speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 8) None None - 1 1996 A Bristly sedge (Carex comosa) None None 2B.1 1 1884
A Los Angeles sunflower (Helianthus nuttallii ssp. parishii) None None 1A 1 1937 A Slender-horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras) Endangered Endangered 1B.1 1 1884 A Southern Riparian Scrub None None - 1 1985
A Peruvian dodder (Cuscuta obtusiflora var. glandulosa) None None 2B.2 1 1890 A Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) Endangered None - 2 1914-1945 A Coulter's goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri) None None 1B.1 1 1989 A Merlin (Falco columbarius) None None - 1 2014
A California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia) None None - 3 1992-2001 A Gambel's water cress (Nasturtium gambelii) Endangered Threatened 1B.1 1 1935 A San Bernardino aster (Symphyotrichum defoliatum) None None 1B.2 2 1917-1995 A Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni) Endangered None - 2 2009 A Southern Willow Scrub None None - 1 1980
A San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia) None None - 1 1999 A Horn's milk-vetch (Astragalus hornii var. hornii) None None 1B.1 1 1900 A Salt spring checkerbloom (Sidalcea neomexicana) None None 2B.2 1 1906 A Parish's desert-thorn (Lycium parishii) None None 2B.3 1 1885 A Many-stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis) None None 1B.2 1 2017 A Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Delisted Endangered - 5 1975-1981 A Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub None None - 2 1985

Potential for
occurrence Common name (Scientific name) Federal listing status
State listing
status
CNPS
list
Number of
records within
10 miles
Year(s)
sighted
A Yellow rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis) None None - 1 1914 A Long-spined spineflower (Chorizanthe polygonoides
var. longispina) None None 1B.2 5 1992-2010
A San Bernardino ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus
modestus) None None - 1 2000
A Southern rubber boa (Charina umbratica) None Threatened - 2 1981-1990

CNPS List Definitions
List 1A: Plants presumed extinct in California
List 1B.1: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; seriously threatened in California List 1B.2: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere, fairly threatened in California List 1B.3: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere, not very threatened in California List 2.1: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere; seriously threatened in California List 2.2: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere; fairly threatened in California

Potential for Occurrence Definitions
Absent [A] – Species distribution is restricted by substantive habitat requirements, which do not occur – or are negligible within the Project Site, and no further survey or study is obligatory to determine likely presence or absence of this species.

Habitat Present [HP] – Species distribution is restricted by substantive habitat requirements, which occur within the Project Site, and further survey or study may be necessary to determine likely presence or absence of species.

Present [P] – Species or species sign were observed within the Project’s permanent disturbance footprint, or historically has been documented within the Project Site Critical Habitat [CH] – The Project Site is located within a USFWS-designated critical habitat unit .

Appendix E Photographic Log

Photograph 1. Facing West.

Photograph 2. Facing
Southwest.

Photograph 3. Facing North.

Photograph 4. Facing West.

Appendix F Project GIS Files (provided separately)