4312 RIALTO STREET l SAN DIEGO, CA 92107
619.701.6798 l WWW.ROCKSBIO.COM
October 6, 2025
Ms. Jessie Fan, ENV SP
Kimley-Horn
660 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2050
Los Angeles, California 90017
Subject: Additional Response to Comments for the Rubio Village Mixed-Use Project IS/MND 201-205 South San Gabriel Boulevard, San Gabriel, Los Angeles County, California
Ms. Fan:
Rocks Biological Consulting (RBC) is providing a response to supplemental comments received on October 1, 2025, for the 2.9-acre mixed-use residential and commercial Rubio Village Project (project) in City of San Gabriel (City), Los Angeles County, California.
Initial CEQA Comment Letters
An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was previously prepared for the project in August 2023. In their September 2023 comment letter on the City’s 2023 Draft IS/MND for the project and additional December 2023 response, Supporter’s Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) indicated that a project site visit was conducted by an independent biological expert and concerns were raised regarding project impacts to special-status species.
SAFER’s biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood identified common, native avian species utilizing the proposed project site including the following: black phoebe, Anna’s hummingbird, house finch, northern mockingbird, mourning dove, band-tailed pigeon, American crow, common raven, California towhee, American kestrel, and red-winged blackbird. Two species that are on the USFWS BCC list, Allen’s hummingbird and western gull, were also identified by Dr. Smallwood on the project site. Introduced species that are not native to California, red-crowned parrot, rock pigeon, European starling, and Eurasian collared dove, were also observed by Dr. Smallwood. It was subsequently determined that a Biological Resources Report prepared by qualified biologists was warranted for the city to further evaluate the project impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Subsequent Biological Studies
RBC qualified biologists conducted a field survey of the project site on June 5, 2025, and prepared a Biological Resources Assessment Report (Biological Report) dated August 27, 2025, in support of the City’s additional CEQA documentation. Several of the same avian species as documented by Dr. Smallwood were also documented during RBC’s June 2025 site visit as reported in the August 2025 Biological Report. However, based on the field reconnaissance survey, database and literature searches, and overall assessment, it was concluded that the proposed project area development is not likely to significantly impact sensitive biological resources if the mitigation measure recommended to avoid impacts to nesting birds is incorporated. No sensitive wildlife or 1 Rubio Village Project
October 6, 2025
plant species were found during the site survey with the exception of a non-listed nesting raptor located approximately 430 feet from the site (outside of the Survey Area).
The site was found to contain potentially suitable habitat for common nesting passerines and landbirds. These species could occasionally occur onsite and on adjacent properties. RBC recommended implementing mitigation measure BIO-1 for compliance with MBTA and CFGC requirements, which would detect and provide protection for nesting bird species should they become established onsite or adjacent. Due to the surrounding high density urban setting, historical developed use of the site, and resulting disturbed land cover, it was concluded that the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on sensitive natural communities or wildlife movement in the area.
Additional Comment Letters and Response
Primary points raised in the additional comment letter provided by SAFER on October 1, 2025, are similar to those previously provided. Additionally, Dr. Smallwood reported results of subsequent site surveys that he conducted in April 2025. The October 2025 comment letter asserts that the Project may have ‘Significant Unmitigated Impacts on Biological Resources’ and that preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is warranted. A breakdown of the key points of the comment letter and associated responses are as follows:
A. Comment: Project Site provides habitat for special-status species. Dr. Smallwood and Noriko Smallwood observed BCC birds (Allen’s hummingbird, western gull), nonlisted raptor species (American kestrel, red-shouldered hawk, and turkey vulture), and silver-haired bat (IUCN-LC) on site or flying over the site and thus concludes the site provides foraging habitat for these species and nesting habitat for Allen’s hummingbirds. Comment claims the Biological Report does not adequately identify the potential for these species to utilize the site.
Response: The Biological Report acknowledges the potential presence of these avian species on site which do occur in urbanized and residential settings. An evaluation of the potential for special-status bats is provided in Appendix A and on pages 9-10.
Occurrences of special-status bats in the region, i.e. those that are considered state Species of Concern, are more than 100 years old and assumed to be prior to surrounding urbanization. Trees on site are not suitable for bat roosting which does not seem to be refuted by Dr. Smallwood. Rubio Wash is identified as potential foraging habitat for common bats. Silver-haired bat as identified by Dr. Smallwood on site is not considered a state Species of Concern and falls into the category of ‘Least Concern’ from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). It may forage in Rubio Wash along with other common bat species as was stated in the Biological Report and analyzed accordingly.
B. Comment: Substantial evidence the Project may result in significant impacts on special-status species. Due to:
2 Rubio Village Project
October 6, 2025
1. Habitat Loss - Comment: Area around the site has experienced severe habitat fragmentation and this is one of the last patches of naturally-covered open space in the region. Rubio Wash attracts wildlife including silver-haired bats and the BCC and raptor species observed would lose foraging habitat with project construction. Allen’s hummingbird (BCC) may lose nesting habitat.
Response: The site is not considered ‘naturally-covered’ from a habitat or vegetation community standpoint. It was previously developed with demolition of buildings and associated infrastructure occurring in the last 10 years.
Recruitment of vegetation did occur as the site was left undeveloped in intervening years. Land cover of the site is currently categorized as disturbed with a prevalence of non-native vegetation as is common in disturbed settings.
This is reflected by results of the biological survey as reported in Appendix C of the biological report which includes an inventory of plant species documented on site. Native soils are absent as reflected by the site soils maps (Figure 3 of the biological report) having been previously removed and replaced with imported fill. No natural, native vegetation communities are present as a result.
Rubio Wash would not be altered from its current state.
Significance criteria defined by CEQA guidelines and sensitivity under CEQA is more inclusive than federal and State laws regulating biological resources.
Resources without a formal, statute binding protection status do receive consideration under CEQA. ‘Watchlist’ species, ‘species of concern’, ‘species of conservation concern’, and other species tracked at population levels, identified by State, regional, and local agencies, as well as conservation organizations, receive consideration in the CEQA review process.
BCC such as western gull and Allen’s hummingbird have some level of sensitivity, and their populations are being tracked by the USFWS. As discussed in Section 4.3 of the Biological Report, BCC individuals Allen’s hummingbird and western gull as observed by SAFER’s biologist, may use the site. Birds of prey, such as the American kestrels, may forage but are not expected to nest on the project site due to a lack of suitable nest habitat. With implementation of MM-BIO-1, there would be no direct loss of individual BCC or raptors as required by the MBTA and CFGC. The IS/MND analysis and MMBIO-1 satisfies the mitigation standard for BCC and birds of prey under CEQA as these species are afforded no formal protection other than the MBTA and CFGC. Additionally, BCC do not meet the definition of “rare” under CEQA as clarified in Nassiri v. City of Lafayette. In a recent California First District Court of Appeal (Nassiri v. City of Lafayette, et al. (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 910), the court clarified the definition of “rare” species as applied under CEQA and specifically to BCC. The court stated that a federal or State agency’s mere designation of a species as a “species of conservation concern” is not equivalent to being 3 Rubio Village Project
October 6, 2025
deemed “rare”. So long as a lead agency has evidence that a species is not listed under the CESA or ESA, is not rare or unique in the area, or imminently at risk of endangerment, it is not considered “rare” under the CEQA Guidelines.
As the Lead Agency under CEQA, the city, with input from technical specialists and responsible agencies, may determine the significance of potential impacts to special-status species that are not formally listed, proposed for listing, or defined as “rare”. CDFW, USFWS, and other State agencies responsible for regulating biological resources have not raised concerns regarding the biological impacts associated with this project. Accordingly, the site’s value to common wildlife species, non-listed raptors, and the observation of two BCC birds, does not reach a level of significance as defined under CEQA that warrants the more detailed environmental analysis provided by an EIR as is called for by SAFER in their comment letters. The city has completed an adequate biological analysis and prescribed mitigation for sensitive resources on site that is within industry standards and in line with CEQA precedent for infill projects in urbanized settings. The IS/MND prepared for the project appropriately identifies these potential impacts to biological resources and prescribes mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level via avian pre-construction surveys (BIO-1). This is a precedented industry standard and typical mitigation measure for infill sites such as this project.
Therefore, the methodologies and analysis described in the IS/MND, as well as the supplemental information from the biological report, substantiate that the project, with implementation of MM-BIO-1, would have a less than significant impact on special-status species, and additional CEQA analysis is not warranted.
2. Interference with Wildlife Movement – Comment: Site is critically important to wildlife movement and project may interfere substantially with wildlife movement. Rubio Wash is a feature likely to be followed by wildlife moving through the region.
Response: Rubio Wash will remain in its current state with construction of the project, continuing to provide local wildlife movement opportunities. As described in the Biological Report, the project is located in an highly urbanized area of Los Angeles County. The site is not within any mapped or known California Essential Habitat Connectivity area. It is surrounded by high density residential and commercial development. The site is also bounded by roadways including the highly trafficked San Gabriel Boulevard to the east. The project site is isolated from open spaces and natural habitats by the surrounding urban development. The closest ‘green spaces’ consist of actively managed golf courses to the north and southwest. No other parks or recreational open 4 Rubio Village Project
October 6, 2025
spaces lie in the vicinity. Common avian species do utilize the vegetation in the area. However, given the disturbed setting, limited quality of wildlife habitat on site, and barriers to dispersal in the form of roads and buildings surrounding the site, it provides very limited opportunities for wildlife movement and there is no connectivity to more natural habitats in the region. Whittier Narrows Recreation Area, approximately five miles away, is the closest natural habitat. Wildlife movement through the site would be characterized as local, by urban adapted species use and not associated with an important regional movement corridor for sensitive or rare species occurring in natural or native habitat types.
Local wildlife movements by common urban adapted species such as coyotes and raccoons may occur through the site and along Rubio Wash which provides some connectivity offsite, although no vegetation or cover is present as the channel is entirely concrete lined. Rubio Wash turns into an underground pipeline as it leaves the site to the north. Thus, connectivity to other daylighted portions of the channel would be limited to areas south of the site. The constructed project will maintain Rubio Wash in its current state with exception of free spanning pedestrian bridges. Disturbance during construction of the project may temporarily affect localized wildlife movement along the channel.
However, once construction is complete, opportunities for wildlife movement would resume and potentially be enhanced through creation of landscaped open spaces next to Rubio Wash. For these reasons which were described in the IS/MND and Biological Report, the project would have a less than significant impact on local wildlife movement corridors and no impact on regional wildlife movement.
3. Bird-Window Collisions – Comment: Construction of 70 foot tall buildings may result in significant bird-window strikes and projects up to 475 annual bird deaths per year.
Response: The studies that were considered in the comment that led to the commenter’s predictions are based on multiple sources across the United States, the majority of which are in environments and settings that are not representative of an urban environment like the project site, where there is less likelihood for special-status avian species to be present. Summarizing data from multiple articles without taking into account the actual level of avian observations, and the preexisting urbanized landscape does not conclusively yield an accurate average collision rate. Therefore, the estimation of 475 annual bird deaths per year would not be accurate for this project site.
Conclusion
As concluded in the Biological Report prepared by RBC dated August 27, 2025, while several of the same avian species as documented by SAFER were also documented by RBC, development 5 Rubio Village Project
October 6, 2025
of the project would not result in significant impacts to sensitive biological resources with incorporation of mitigation measure BIO-1. SAFER’s observations do not equate to the Project Site supporting significantly important habitat for rare species under CEQA. Therefore, SAFER has not presented substantial evidence that the Project would result in significant impacts on special-status species such that an EIR would be required.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to respond to these comments. Please don’t hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns at (858) 243-1505.
Sincerely,
Angie Harbin
Principal Biologist
6