Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommunication 5/C 08/03/2015 (2)Item 5.0 Document Received After Agenda Distribution Cooper, Claire 'rom: David Keller <dkellerl @sonic.net> Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 12:49 AM To: Dave Glass; - City Clerk Cc: Danly, Eric Subject: Rainier Crosstown Connector - comments on FEIR for 8/3/15 Hearing Attachments: Rainier- USFWS- Petaluma_09149309092014102212.pdf; PFOV- Corona - USFWS- USACE_ 08259309092014102533.pdf; Rai nierSpursLand Boo m- Argus05319409092014102719,pdf David Keller Petaluma River Council 1327 I St. Petaluma, CA 94952 (707) 763 -9336 August 3, 2015 To: Mayor David Glass Members, Petaluma City Council RE: Comments on Rainier Crosstown Connector Project Final EIR f, Dear Mayor Glass and Members of Petaluma City Council: These comments are submitted on behalf of the Petaluma River Council ( "PRC "), an unincorporated community association, who's members since 1991 have advocated for the environmental health, restoration and public enjoyment of the Petaluma River, Petaluma Marsh and their tributaries. The Petaluma River and Marsh is an important arm of, and tributary to the San Pablo Bay/ San Francisco Bay, and includes over 6000 acres (of an original 10,000 acres) of what is still the largest, most biologically intact, high - elevation (salicornia) salt marsh on the West Coast of the lower United States. Since the 1970s, much work has been done around San Francisco and San Pablo Bays to restore wetlands, restore and strengthen freshwater and brackish tributaries, streams and rivers, to reduce and reverse the severe damages and losses to the Bay Areas since the era of the Gold Rush. The Petaluma River's Corona Reach, the location of the proposed Rainier Crosstown Connector ( "Project "), has been studied and reported on in detail during the past 20 years, including specific surveys and detailed comments and recommendations by US Fish and Wildlife Service. The Corona Reach has been acknowledged by USFWS as the best remaining riparian habitat and oak forest reach left remaining on the entire Petaluma River. This is a valuable open space area that should remain in open space - and was even named for purchasing assistance in the original SCAPOSD tax measure in 1998 to take it out of development potential. The Corona Reach includes large acreage of high hazard flood plain and flood way; it has very high environmental value; it is not an area that should ever be built (and farmers /ranchers knew that, and never built any buildings in the area due to flooding). However, in the Project FEIR it is not treated with the respect, Scientific integrity and proper CEQA analysis and review that it deserves. The construction of the Project would produce significant damages to this reach and the biological health, functions, integrity and sustainability of this important reach. These impacts are noted in detail in the attached letters: - USFWS Letter to the City of Petaluma, 9/14/93, Comments on the DEIR for the Rainier Ave. Extension and reeway Interchange - USFWS Letter to USACE, 8/25/93, Comments on Petaluma Factory Outlet Village Project, Corps of Engineers Permit application. PRC submitted these letters as material information as attachments to its letter comments on the DEIR, dated September 8, 2014. For unknown reason, staff and consultants omitted these documents, along with a 3rd attached document ( "Rainier Spurs Land Boom; Developers buy up acreage around crosstown connector" Argus Courier, 5/31/94), from the PRC comment letter for the legal record, as published and distributed in the FEIR. There were no responses to the specific contents of the USFWS letters, which are still applicable to the on- the - ground conditions of the Corona Reach today. Omission of these documents from the legal public record deprives the public, the Planning Commission and the City Council of the opportunity to learn of the biological habitat and conditions as part of the mandated public review of the FEIR, its assumptions, analyses, and conclusions about impacts, impact avoidance, and mitigations. As a result, you have are not being provided the opportunity for the informed decision making that CEQA requires. I made note to the Planning Commission, staff and the City Attorney of this omission from the public record in my oral testimony to the Planning Commission on the FEIR. I asked for correction of that omission, and distribution of these important documents to the public and to the City Council. This has not been done. I am deeply disappointed and frustrated that staff has now improperly refused to provide you with these - iocuments in their staff report to the City Council for Aug. 3, 2015. While staff acknowledges that the attached otters were omitted from PRC's comment letter on the DEIR as published for the public in the FEIR, staff refers to these documents as merely "reference documents" and still refuses to supply them to you. Thus, I am attaching them to this email for your better understanding of the importance of the Petaluma River, and particularly the Corona Reach. The staffs claims of FEIR responses (noted at pages 2 -69 through 2 -76) are entirely inadequate, dismissive and ignoring of the detailed data and impacts noted in the USFWS letters. The conditions of the Corona Reach in 1993 were not significantly different than they are in 2015, despite claims to the contrary in the FEIR, which substantially minimize the importance, richness, viability and adverse impacts that the Project would have, without any evidence to substantiate the dismissal of the USFWS documentation. Responses particularly to the information, impacts and recommended mitigations or avoidances of the USFWS letter of 9/4/93 are significantly omitted, absent or improperly truncated in the FEIR. In addition, the DEIR and staff have still not provided the public and decision makers with a map showing any additional lands to be used for project construction access and construction staging, as requested in PRC's letter of 9/8/14, and reiterated in my testimony to the Planning Commision on June 23, 2015. The response to this question remains omitted in the text - and figures - of the FEIR. Without a clear delineation of the extent of such areal impacts, the description of environmental impacts of the Project remains incomplete and potentially significantly inaccurate. The FEIR provides only generic information about tree and shrub removal in the Project area, improperly leaving actual delineations and identifications and marking to a time after the FEIR process is closed to public view and comment. There has not been any flagging of the Project area on site, easily accomplished, yet which would have provided biological fact - checking for the conclusions asserted in the FEIR. Not only are the public and decision makers deprived of relevant information critical to the evaluation of the environmental impacts of the Project, but the FEIR remains a defective public document. Ae Rainier Crosstown Connector makes it highly likely that the area will be intensely developed, since the development fees are the only potential sources of funding for the project. Yet the FEIR refuses to address induced development and their impacts. For these and other stated reasons, the Project FEIR should be not be certified as meeting the requirements of CEQA, and should be returned for revisions and renewed public and agency review. Please ensure that these comments and the attached letters from USFWS and the article from the Argus Courier are included in the FEIR record. Sincerely, David Keller Director, Petaluma River Council United States Department of the Interior In Reply Refer to PPN 1350 FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services Sacramento Field Office 2800 Cottage Way, Room E -1803 Sacramento, California 9582S Ms. Pamela Tuft Planning Director City of Petaluma Planning Department 11 English Street Petaluma, California 94952 -2610 ■ TAKE� PRIDE IN AMERICA September 14, 1993 Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report on Ranier Avenue Extension and Freeway Interchange, Petaluma River, Petaluma, Sonoma County, California Dear Ms. Tuft: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on the Ranier Avenue Extension and Freeway Interchange, dated July 1993. These comments are not intended to take the place of any formal comments that may be required at a later date pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act or the Endangered Species Act. The proposed project area is located within the Corona Reach of the Petaluma River (River), which extends from Corona Road to the north to Lynch Creek to the south, as depicted in the February 1992 Existing Conditions Report for the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan. The proposed project (Ranier alternative) would extend from the existing terminus of Ranier Avenue at McDowell Boulevard, cross over Highway 101, the Petaluma River, and the Northwestern Pacific Railroad (NWPRR) tracks, and connect with Petaluma Boulevard North. The preferred proposed project includes a four -lane freeway with 6 -foot wide bike lanes on each side and a 5 -foot wide sidewalk along one side. In accordance with requirements by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the proposed freeway interchange would provide both northbound and southbound access to and from Highway 107, to provide for merging traffic. The DEIR states that a commuter park-and-ride lot is designated in the City of Petaluma's General Plan (General Plan) in the vicinity of the proposed overcrossing and is considered an optional component of the proposed project. The DEIR also describes an alternative interchange project which would widen the existing two -lane Corona Road to four lanes between McDowell and Petaluma Boulevard North, construct a freeway interchange where Corona Road currently crosses Highway 101, and add median and bike lanes and auxiliary freeway merge lanes from Corona Road to Old Redwood Highway to the north (Corona alternative). However, the DEIR states that this alternative would also require construction of the Ranier Avenue Cross -Town Connector, which would extend from the terminus of Ranier Avenue at McDowell Boulevard to Petaluma Boulevard North (with overcrossing of Highway 101, the River and NWPRR tracks), but would not include the proposed interchange east of Highway 101 which would occur with the proposed Ranier alternative. The DEIR indicates that construction of the proposed preferred Ranier alternative would result in the loss of approximately 1.02 acres of seasonal wetlands and vernal pools, the loss or damage to approximately 14 mature valley oak trees, disturbance to additional riparian corridor habitat and the loss of an undisclosed amount of grassland /ruderal habitat. The DEIR states that construction of the alternative Corona Road alternative would result in the loss of approximately 1.35 acres of wetlands; there is no discussion of impacts to other vegetative resources. GENERAL COMMENTS The DEIR contains insufficient information on the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to wetlands and riparian habitats and associated fish and wildlife resources resulting from construction of the proposed project alternatives. Construction of the proposed Ranier extension will result in the direct loss of, and major human intrusion and intensive development within, an existing riparian /wetland /grassland ecosystem and cause the significant loss of wildlife habitat within the Corona Reach of the Petaluma River. The construction of this alternative will result in fragmentation of the existing riparian habitat along the River; and will reduce or eliminate use of the area as a migratory corridor for many wildlife species. !` To assure no net loss of wetland functions and values, the proposed 5:1 replacement ratio for wetlands recommended by the Service at the June 1993 field meeting represents our estimate of the acreage of wetlands which must be replaced for any unavoidable impacts to wetlands resulting from the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts resulting from construction of the proposed Ranier extension and interchange. Additional compensatory mitigation would be required for cumulative impacts associated with the intensive development facilitated by the construction of this roadway, and should be identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). Many of the oak trees which would be removed with construction of the proposed Ranier extension are mature valley oak trees, some of which approach several hundred years old. Loss of the valley oak specimens, such as the one located east of Highway 101 near the proposed Ranier interchange, would be a significant unmitigated impact. Therefore, we recommend that you avoid the loss of this and other mature valley oaks to the greatest extent possible. Unlike many other areas in California, the California Native Plant Society (CLAPS) advises that the valley oaks within the Corona Reach are successfully reproducing. We recommend that the City work with the Service to assure protection of existing valley oaks and to assist in the development of a mitigation plan for this species. As we have previously discussed with the City, the FEIR must specify the proposed mitigation site, preferably within the ecologically- significant Corona Reach, The FEIR should map and discuss the features of the proposed 2 mitigation site, including acreage of compensatory wetlands, placement and distribution of oak trees and other vegetation. Without this information, the singular proposal of a 5:1 replacement ratio of oak trees referenced in the DEIR is inadequate to offset the significant negative impacts to native oak woodland habitat. The proposed mitigation site must contain a sufficient acreage of upland to assure adequate re- establishment of oak trees and adequate watershed area to support the created wetlands. The FEIR should also specify how the proposed public or riverfront park, planned to be located south of the intersection of the NWPRR tracks and River, and 200 -foot buffer along this area will interface with any proposed mitigation sites. Page 3.1.2 -7 of the DEIR states that the proposed project would not affect plans for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) proposed flood control improvements in the Payran reach of the Petaluma River, nor any plans to mitigate for this flood control project. Since plans for the flood control project are not yet finalized, it is premature to make this statement in the DEIR. Some mitigation actions, including the planting of riparian species, may still take place along the banks of the River just upstream of the Lynch Creek confluence, Thus the final plans for both the proposed Ranier Extension and the Corps' flood control project should each specify separate mitigation areas, to avoid overlapping mitigation efforts. In addition, the potential mitigation area for the Corps' project should be considered when planning the proposed park within the residential and floodway areas south of the proposed Ranier extension. The Service questions the need to include the proposed Ranier Avenue Cross - Town Connector in addition to construction of the proposed Corona Road alternative, especially since the Washington Street interchange is less than one mile south of the proposed Ranier Avenue extension and functions as an existing east -west connector. We recommend that the FEIR assess an alternative which includes construction of the Corona Road interchange without the.proposed extension of Ranier Avenue. This alternative would result in the loss of 0.73 acres of wetlands rather than 1.02 acres of wetlands as proposed for the Ranier Avenue alternative, and would not facilitate development of wetlands and riparian areas within the Corona Reach. The FEIR should describe the acreage of wetlands which would be lost if the proposed park- and -ride lot becomes a component of the proposed Ranier alternative, and assess adverse impacts to the River and /or tributary stream vegetation and biota from proposed shading of the water column. SPECIFIC COMMENTS Sensitive Species Appendix A to the DEIR, Plant and Animal Species Detected within the Ranier Avenue Extension Project Area, includes the western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata). Service staff have observed this species in the Petaluma River within the Denman Reach, which is just upstream of the Corona Reach. This species requires upland areas for breeding and will travel long distances (up to 400 meters) to find suitable breeding habitat. We recommend that the FEIR include a mitigation plan for this species. 3 There is no discussion of the proposed project's impacts on several other candidate species which potentially occur in the project area, including the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), California red - legged frog (Rana aurora draytonil), foothill yellow - legged frog (Rana boylii), and the proposed endangered California linderiella (Linderiella occidentalis). Specific surveys for these species need to be conducted and any impacts must be addressed. We recommend that the FEIR include a commitment to have a qualified herpetologist survey the proposed area to determine their presence and if this project may adversely impact these species. The Service has been petitioned to list the red - legged frog as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We proposed a 12 -month finding which states that listing is warranted and expect that the proposed rule will be published promptly. The Service has also been petitioned to list the California tiger salamander as an endangered species under the Act. Mitigation for this species must take into account the different biological and ecological requirements of the early life stages and the largely terrestrial adults, Failure to adequately consider all life history requirements may lead to elimination or reduction of these animals. Appendix A should identify that the Sacramento splittail (Pogonichthys macrolepidotus) occurs within the project area. The FEIR should also include a water quality mitigation plan for this species. Wetlands and Other Resource Issues Page 3.2.3 -18 of the DEIR states that the wetlands west of Highway 101 are below the headwaters of the Petaluma River and adjacent to waters of the United States, and filling them will require an individual permit from the Corps. It goes on to state that if these adjacent wetlands could be avoided, filling of isolated wetlands east of Highway 101 may be eligible for a nationwide permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Service views that the individual and cumulative impacts associated with construction of the proposed Ranier extension are more than minimal and do not qualify for a nationwide permit. Under provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Service advises the Corps on projects involving dredging and fill activities in "waters of the United States" and special aquatic sites, which include wetlands and some riparian areas. Implementation of this project may require a Corps permit, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and the Service would subsequently be notified. When reviewing Corps public notices, the Service may recommend support of projects when the following criteria are met; 1. They are ecologically sound; 2. The least environmentally damaging reasonable alternative is selected; 4 3. Every reasonable effort is made to avoid or minimize damage or loss of fish and wildlife resources and uses; 4. All important recommended means and measures have been adopted, with guaranteed implementation to satisfactorily compensate for unavoidable damage or loss consistent with the appropriate mitigation goal; and 5. For wetlands and shallow water habitats, the proposed activity is clearly water dependent and there is a demonstrated public need. Total wetland and riparian habitat losses in California are estimated to be 91 and 98 percent, respectively. Populations of native oak trees are also in significant decline. The Service may recommend the "no project" alternative for those projects which do not meet all of the above criteria, and where there is likely to be a significant fish and wildlife resource loss. The proposed road alternatives are not considered to be water dependent; the other criteria have also not been met. The DEIR discloses that "development allowed in the General Plan is predicated on the construction of the proposed project" (DEIR, page 1 -23) and that the project is designed to allow secondary access roads to the north and south of the proposed Ranier extension. The FEIR should disclose the specific projects planned or proposed for development within the Corona Reach, including the River Oaks /Petaluma Factory Outlet Village Projects, commuter park -and -ride lot, and other "high density and intensive commercial development;" the area of wetlands, riparian and upland habitats which would be affected by these projects; and associated impacts to fish and wildlife resources. It should also disclose any impacts resulting from construction of future access roads. Page 1 -22 of the DEIR states that construction of the proposed Ranier alternative is environmentally superior because it would be "growth - accommodating" rather than "growth - inducing" since the General Plan has designated areas within the Corona Reach for urban use. The DEIR states that construction of the Corona alternative would be growth - inducing because it may increase development pressure to extend urban services beyond the urban boundary, thereby adversely affecting existing rural areas. The-DEIR does not provide adequate rationale to support its conclusion that the proposed Ranier alternative is environmentally superior to the Corona alternative. The City's Existing Conditions Report, Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan, characterizes the Corona Reach as containing the best representation of the oak- dominated savanna and woodland, with extensive grassland on adjacent floodplain and terraces, and states that the riparian habitat of the Petaluma River, Capri Creek, and Lynch Creek are of high value for wildlife. The FEIR should identify whether there are areas outside of the existing urban use line which have less significant fish and wildlife habitat values and would therefore be more appropriate for development, Page 1 -21 of the DEIR acknowledges that the proposed Ranier alternative would be growth inducing since it would extend a major roadway into an area which is planned and proposed for development. The FEIR should clearly and 5 consistently specify that the proposed project is, in fact, growth - inducing and would cause direct and cumulative adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources because existing habitats would be lost or degraded. Page 2 -19 of the DEIR states that the proposed Ranier alternative would clear span the Petaluma River and require placement of culverts and fill within tributary drainages. Areas of impacts to the Deer Creek drainage are mapped on Figure 3.2.3 -1. However, there is no comparable mapping of impacts to wetlands which would occur with construction of the Corona alternative. The FEIR should map all wetlands which would be affected with construction of the Corona alternative. It should also more clearly describe impacts to Lynch Creek and the wetlanda within the area proposed for the park- and -ride lot which would occur with construction of the Ranier alternative. The FEIR should also map and specify the proposed measures and best management practices which will be included to assure compliance with water quality standards and protection of beneficial uses. The FEIR should correct the information contained on page 3.1.2 -13 of the DEIR to acknowledge that construction of the proposed Ranier extension will result in the loss (not "potential" loss) of wildlife habitat in the project area, both directly and cumulatively. Similarly, the information contained on page 3.2.3 -12 of the DEIR should be revised in the FEIR to state that the proposed project "would," instead of "could" result in direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to biological resources. The FEIR should clarify the information on page 3.1.2 -16 of the DEIR to (` explain that the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan proposes buffers much narrower than 200 feet for the Corona Reach area north of the proposed Ranier extension. The Service recommends a minimum 200 -foot buffer on the east side of the river throughout the Corona Reach and preservation of wetlands and floodplains within this reach. Page 3.2.2 -7 of the DEIR discusses the City's "zero net fill policy." Since the proposed Ranier project and cumulative projects would result in fill within the 100 -year floodplain and possibly the floodway, the FEIR should disclose the areas where "a like amount of material" would be removed from the Ranier and proposed /planned project sites. Page 3.2.2 -20 of the DEIR addresses the estimated area of impervious surface which would result with construction of the proposed Ranier project. The FEIR should discuss the projected cumulative impervious surface area which would occur with construction of planned /proposed projects within the Corona Reach, and what effects this would have on flooding and water quality conditions within the Petaluma River, Page 3.2.3 -6 of the DEIR states that no "red- tailed" hawk nest was found in the riparian vegetation near the intersection of the Petaluma River and the proposed Ranier extension. During a previous field investigation of the project area, Service and California Department of Fish and Came staff observed a pair of "red - shouldered" hawks within the Corona Reach, near the railroad crossing. These raptors were displaying territorial behavior, which E. indicates that they probably use this area on a regular basis and possibly nest there. We recall that this information was relayed to City staff during our June 1993 field survey. The FEIR should identify impacted trees which potentially support raptor nests and describe when nest surveys were conducted. Appropriately- timed raptor nest surveys should cover the period from April to mid- August; therefore, additional surveys may be required. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (as amended) makes it unlawful, unless otherwise permitted, "to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill—any migratory bird, any part, nest, or eggs of any such bird, or any product..." (16 U.S.C. 703). Page 7 -3 states that the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan (Plan) will establish policies and mechanisms for long -term protection and enhancement of the various habitats found in the project area in the vicinity of the River and that this planning effort will address cumulative impacts of further urban development in the project area, To date, this Plan has not addressed the cumulative effects of the proposed and planned developments identified in the General Plan, nor recommended mitigation for these impacts. We recommend that this should be done now, before considering proposed individual projects such as the Ranier alternative and the Petaluma Factory Outlet Village project, which would result in the piecemeal losses of valuable wetlands and fish and wildlife habitats, We also continue to recommend that the Plan be modified to include alternatives which address protection and preservation of the riverine ecosystem, including restoration of the natural and beneficial functions and values of adjacent wetlands, uplands and the 100 - year floodplain. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Ruth Pratt regarding wetlands (916) 978 -5408 No. 1 and general wildlife resource issues or Peter Cross regarding endangered species at (916) 978 -4866, Sincerely, Zva L ..imc�iauss LL Richard L. Jachowski Acting Field Supervisor cc: Reg, Dir,, (ARD -ES), FWS, Portland, OR FWS, SFO, Sacramento (C. Levy) FWS, SFO, Sacramento (P, Cross) COE, Regulatory Branch, San Francisco (S. Moreland, /E. Behn) EPA, San Francisco (M. Monroe) Office of Cong. Woolsey, San Rafael (G, Davis) CDFG, Reg. III, Yountville (C. Wilcox /A. Buckman /B. Cox) SLC, Sacramento (B. Stevenson) SWRCB, Sacramento (0. Balaguer) RWQCB, Oakland (B. Hurley) Caltrans, Oakland (K. Baird) CA Coastal Conservancy, Oakland (M. Denninger) Petaluma River Council, Petaluma (D. Keller) 7 CLAPS, Santa Rosa (E. Fritsch) SCLDF, San Francisco (L. Silver) ■ TAKE�� pRID�E INS United States Department of the Interior ANlER�A FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE p Ecological Service ■ Sacramento Field Office 2800 Cottage Way, Room E -1803 Sacramento, California 95825 -184b In Reply Refer To PPN 650 August 25, 1993 Colonel Leonard E. Cardoza, District Engineer Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District ATTN: Regulatory Functions Branch (S. More land/E. Behn) 211 Main Street San Francisco, California 94105 -1905 Subject: COE File No, 18234N96, Petaluma Factory Outlet Village Project, Petaluma River, Petaluma, Sonoma County, California Dear Colonel Cardoza: This is in reference to the Corps' June 29, 1993, letter to Mr. Greg Waddell, Waddell Planning Services, Seattle, Washington, regarding jurisdictional and permit issues concerning the proposed Petaluma Factory Outlet Village project. The Service shares your concerns regarding the use of Nationwide Permit No. 26 for development of a segment of the proposed River Oaks /Petaluma Outlet Village project. We also believe that the individual and cumulative impacts to wetlands which would occur with construction of the proposed project are. more than minimal and do not qualify for a nationwide permit. Therefore, we recommend that you require an individual permit for this proposal. By letter dated February 18, 1993 to the City of Petaluma (copy enclosed), we expressed our concerns about the cumulative adverse impacts to wetlands and the 100 -year floodplain associated with the extensive development proposed for the ecologically significant section of the Petaluma River between Corona Road and Lynch Creek (Corona Reach), including the parcel proposed for the Petaluma Village Factory Outlet project. The March 1990 Draft Environmental Impact Report for the River Oaks /Petaluma Outlet Village Master Plan disclosed that a total of approximately 2 acres of seasonal wetlands, 2.74 acres of riparian habitat, and 0.14 acres of freshwater marsh could be filled within three parcels (identified as Parcels C, A and B) as part of this Master Plan. These wetlands extend from approximately Corona Creek to the Northwest Pacific Railroad crossing of the Petaluma River, That DEIR states that development of Parcel A would result in the loss of about 1 acre of seasonal wetlands, 0.7 acres of riparian shrub, and 0.04 acres of freshwater marsh; development of Parcels B and C could result in the loss of about 0,9 acres of seasonal wetlands, 2 acres of riparian habitat and 0,1 acres of freshwater marsh. Page 6 of that DEIR states that the "first development stage" of this Master Plan is the Petaluma Outlet Factory Village (Parcel A) on approximately 25 acres of the total proposed 65 -acre commercial development site. It also states that Leonard Jay Enterprises and Petaluma Village Associates filed an application to the City of Petaluma for approval of this Master Plan. Copies of Figures II -2, II -5 and IV -C -1 of that DEIR, entitled Environmental Features, Land Use and Circulation Plan, and Vegetative Cover Types and Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. (Preliminary), respectively, are enclosed. The wetlands on these parcels provide important feeding and resting habitat for migratory waterfowl and shorebirds of the Pacific Flyway; they also support small and large mammals, raptors, passerine birds, upland game birds, reptiles and amphibians. Service staff has observed migratory waterfowl and shorebirds feeding within the wetlands on the approximately 25 -acre Petaluma Factory Outlet Village site; species include mallard ducks, greater yellowlegs, and common snipe. The wetlands on this site also support breeding amphibians, and provide suitable nesting habitat for waterfowl. We have been advised by local residents that egrets and great blue herons have been seen at these wetlands, and that gray fox breed on the proposed project site. Wetland vegetation found at this site includes native vernal pool plants, such as maroon -spot downingia ( Downingia concolor) and smooth goldfields (Lasthenia glaberrima), valley oak (Quercus lobate), California rose (Rosa Californica), salt bush (Atriplex patula), curly dock (Rumex crispus) and cocklebur (Xanthium sp.). The Service believes that an individual permit for the Petaluma Factory Outlet Village project (Parcel A) is warranted because impacts resulting from this project are more than minimal, especially when combined with the development of Parcels B and C and other extensive development proposed and planned for the remaining Corona Reach of the Petaluma River. Wetland impacts resulting from construction of all of these projects need to be assessed together in order to adequately determine cumulative impacts. Commercial development of Parcels C, A and B, as described in the River Oaks /Petaluma Outlet Village Master Plan, would result in the loss of about 5 acres of wetland and riparian habitats. Other projects include the proposed Ranier Avenue Cross Town Connector and U.S. 101 Interchange Project (Ranier), which would cross the Petaluma River and result in the loss of about 1.02 acres of wetlands, and planned development of a transit terminal, residences and other commercial facilities, which would result in the loss of additional wetlands. Possible fill of wetlands (e.g., placement of riprap) could also occur with implementation of the proposed Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan. We estimate that a total loss of over 10 acres of wetlands and riparian areas as well as 100 acres of land within the 100 -year floodplain could occur within the Corona Reach of the Petaluma River if the developments identified in the City's General Plan are completed, The Council on Environ- mental Quality's Regulations for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR Parts 1500 -1508) require that proposals or parts of proposals which are related to each other closely enough to be, in effect, a single course of action shall be evaluated in a single Environmental Impact Statement. Such proposals may be evaluated geographically, including actions occurring in the same general location. As you know, NEPA regulations also require that cumulative impacts of the proposed project must be addressed, In assessing cumulative impacts, NEPA requires analysis of the incremental impacts of the proposed action when added 14 to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions; cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Ranier project, which is currently undergoing public review, states that this project would serve to improve access to the undeveloped lands between the Petaluma River and the freeway, which are designated in the City of Petaluma's General Plan for high density commercial and residential development. We maintain that the proposed Ranier project is directly related to the proposed Petaluma Factory Outlet Village project because it would provide a primary access route to that property. The Ranier DEIR confirms this link with statements that the proposed Ranier project would be designed "to allow future construction of access to adjacent properties between Highway 101 and the Petaluma River" (page 1 -9 of DEIR); that "as new developments in the area were proposed, impact fees were assessed to contribute towards the future Ranier Avenue extension and interchange;" that "other recently approved developments, including the Factory Outlet Mall, are expected to draw regional traffic using the proposed new interchange" (page 1- 7); the "General Plan envisions construction of a secondary access road from Ranier Avenue to Corona Road parallel with the freeway to serve the future development of the lands between the freeway and the River" (page 3.1.2 -9); and "Extending an arterial roadway into a previously inaccessible area represents a commitment to future urbanization in the area consistent with the General Plan" (page 8 -1, Irreversible Environmental Changes that Would Occur from Implementation of the Proposed Project). Similarly, the Environmental Protection Agency's Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material (40 CFR 23.0.11(g)(1) and (2)) directs that the permitting authority shall collect information regarding cumulative effects to an aquatic ecosystem attributable to the collective effect of a number of individual discharges of dredged or fill material, and that this information -shall be considered during the decision- making process concerning the evaluation of permit applications. These guidelines further state that "Although the impact of a particular discharge may constitute a minor change in itself, the cumulative effect of numerous such piecemeal changes can result in a major impairment of the water resources and interfere with the productivity and water quality of existing aquatic ecosystems." We also request that the Corps consider whether the wetlands on Parcel A should be deemed as adjacent wetlands below the headwaters of tributary waterbodies to the Petaluma River and, as such, would require an individual permit for any proposed fill of those wetlands. Page 3.2.3 -18 of the Ranier DEIR states that the wetlands west of Highway 101 which would be filled for construction of the proposed Ranier interchange are below the headwaters of the Petaluma River and adjacent to waters of the U.S., and filling them will require an individual permit from the COE." The wetlands which would be impacted by construction of the Ranier project are similar in vegetative character to those within Parcels A, B and C, and are similarly located adjacent to the Petaluma River, The Service is also concerned about the significant loss of floodplain values which would occur within the Corona Reach with proposed /planned developments. As you know, the City of Petaluma has experienced serious flooding in the 3 past, The Corps' Petaluma River flood control project for the Payran Reach would be constructed just downstream of the Corona Reach, Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) directs Federal agencies to avoid adverse impacts associated with occupancy and modification of floodplains, to avoid direct or indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. Implementation of the proposed and planned developments envisioned in the City of Petaluma's General Plan will result in the loss of a large area within the 100 -year floodplain, In assessing whether an individual permit is required, the Corps may also consider impacts of the proposed discharge on water quality, The Service is concerned about the adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources resulting from the degraded water quality conditions of the Petaluma River. During our fisheries inventories of the Petaluma River as part of preparation of our Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report for the Corps' Petaluma River flood control project, we observed lesions on Sacramento splittail, a Federal candidate species, and believe these aberrations may be linked to contaminants in the Petaluma River. Water quality in the Petaluma River is a major problem, as evidenced by recurring problems of low levels of dissolved oxygen and high levels of sediment, coliform, and ammonia. The DEIR on the River Oaks /Petaluma Factory Outlet Village Master Plan states that cur and conditions are caused by high nutrient loads from fertilizers, pesticides animal wastes from rural and agricultural areas and contaminants in stormwater runoff from industrial and residential /commercial areas. The Petaluma River has been designated a Water Quality Limited Segment (WQLS) in the San Francisco Basin Plan. WQLS waters are those for which effluent limitations are not stringent enough to assure implementation of water quality standards. Wetlands such as those occurring on Parcel A provide important water quality protection functions through removal of sediment and chemical pollutants; thereby serving as a control of nonpoint sources of water pollutants within the watershed. Fill of wetlands tributary to the Petaluma River will only serve to exacerbate the existing degraded water quality conditions of the River. Because of the adverse impacts to water quality and wetlands which would occur with fill of wetlands on Parcel A, we also believe that the Regional Water Quality Control Board should withhold water quality certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. We have also reviewed the "Site Specific Vernal Pool Mitigation Plan for the Petaluma Factory Outlet Village (Biological Mitigation Plan Phase 2)" (Mitigation Plan) dated June 2, 1993, which was recently determined "satisfactory" by the California Department of Fish and Game. The Service finds this Mitigation Plan inadequate in the following respects: 1. The sampling of on -site vegetation was insufficient to document vernal pool plant species. The Mitigation Plan states that rare plant surveys were conducted throughout the growing season during 1989, 1990 and 1993. However, Appendix A -1, Plant Species Identified in Existing Seasonal Wetlands on the Petaluma Factory Outlet Village Site, does not include the following native vernal pool plants found in late April -early May 1993 and confirmed by Walter Knight, California Native Plant Society: maroon -spot 4 downingia ( Downingia concolor) and smooth goldfields (Lasthenia glaberrima). Therefore, we question whether adequate surveys were conducted for sensitive plant and animal species within the project area. The 1989 and 1990 surveys were conducted in April and June, during drought years, and these plant species may have been dormant during this time. Additional surveys of sensitive plant and animal species are required. Also, the Mitigation Plan should identify sensitive species which use the Petaluma River adjacent to the proposed project area and could be impacted by construction of the proposed project. 2. The list of animal species contained in Appendix B, Wildlife Species of the River Oaks Parcel, is incomplete, it should include mallard and common snipe, which were observed by Service staff. 3. The Mitigation Plan proposes to mitigate lost vernal pool acreage at a slightly greater than 1:1 ratio (create 1 :08 acres of vernal pools and fill 0.8 acres). Mitigation at this proposed ratio does not fully consider the experimental nature of re- creating vernal pool habitat or the lag time necessary to re- create this habitat type and assure satisfaction of success criteria. We recommend that a greater mitigation ratio is required to replace these habitat values over time. 4. The Mitigation Plan does not sufficiently describe the proposed mitigation site's ownership status, availability, easements, buffers, and water availability /flow, and the specific proposed uses of adjacent parcels. 5. Based on the extensive development planned for the Corona Reach, we disagree with the statement on page 9 of the Mitigation Plan that wildlife values in the mitigation area are expected to be moderately high, as compared with low values in the existing seasonal wetlands, which occur within a large area of open space. The Existing Conditions Report, Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan, characterizes the Corona Reach as containing the best representation of the oak- dominated savanna and woodland, with extensive grassland on adjacent floodplain and terraces, and states that the riparian habitat of the Petaluma River, Capri Creek, and Lynch Creek are of high value for wildlife. The wetlands and grasslands within the Corona Reach currently provide a migratory corridor for diverse wildlife species. The mitigation site would not replace the functions and valves of the existing wetlands nor provide habitat for many wildlife species, such as gray fox and red - shouldered hawk, which use existing wetlands and grasslands. 6. The proposed buffer between the edge of the Petaluma Factory Outlet Village parking lot to the center of the river channel is 105 feet. This buffer is inadequate to protect wildlife use of the River from human intrusion. The Service recommends a 200 -foot wide buffer from the top of the River bank to any developed areas located on the east side throughout the Corona Reach. The Service believes that a 200- 5 foot setback would provide an adequate buffer to protect the species which use the River's channel as well as support some of the existing populations of other wildlife which currently inhabit adjacent wetlands and upland transitional habitat, such as small mammals, reptiles and amphibians. 7. The final vegetative success criteria is inadequate for all years; and should reach 80% cover by wetland plant species by Year 5. Species composition must also be identified. 8. The Mitigation Plan does not satisfy the requirements of the San Francisco District, Corps of Engineers, Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Proposal Guidelines," effective 10/91, including identification of target functions and values, target hydrological regime, target jurisdictional acreage to be created, and wildlife monitoring. 9. There is no reference site and contingency plan identified. 10. We disagree with the statement on page 13 which indicates that the proposed creation of vernal pools is easy to accomplish by simply creating depressional topography which allows pools to fill from direct rainfall. This approach has led to a number of failed wetlands mitigation projects within the Santa Rosa Plain. Also, construction of berms around vernal pools makes no attempt to account for the potential contribution which the surrounding watershed makes to the hydrology of the on -,site wetlands. 11. We question the efficacy of the proposed mitigation design which includes an upland island within one of the three pools. The mitigation plan should describe projected water levels, by month, within each pool. 12. Periodic maintenance of the buffer areas through mowing minimizes its value for wildlife. Weeding of non - native species should be done manually. For the reasons explained above, we urge the Corps to require an individual permit for fill of wetlands on Parcel A. However, if the Corps does not elect to exercise its discretionary authority to require an individual permit, we recommend that at the minimum the Corps should require a Predischarge Notification under Nationwide Permit No. 26 because the proposed project is described in the DEIR as part of the larger commercial development proposed for the three parcels included within the Master Plan for the River Oaks /Petaluma Outlet Village. Also, the mitigation plan is inadequate and the Service believes that there are more than 0.8 acres of wetlands on the proposed Petaluma Factory Outlet Village site. During March 1993, the linear swale, which extends from Capri Creek through Parcel A and onto Parcel C, was continuous and completely filled with water. We believe that the total loss of wetlands associated with this proposed fill is greater than 1 acre. Further, fill of the wetlands on the Petaluma Factory Outlet Village site would directly affect the wetlands on Parcel C by reducing their functions and G a. values. We also believe that the single and complete project, as defined by the Corps Nationwide Permit Program Regulations (33 GFR Part 330) should include Parcels C, A and B (which has been jointly proposed by several developers) as well as the proposed Ranier interchange, on which all three parcels are dependent to provide a primary access route. Please advise me of your decision on this permit. We also recommend that you notify the permittee of your decision. If you have any questions concerning these comments, please contact Ruth Pratt at (916) 978 -5408, No. 1. Sincerely, AV Wayne S. White Field Supervisor Enclosures cc: (Without enclosures) Reg. Dir., (ARD -ES), FWS, Portland, OR FWS, SFO, Sacramento (C. Levy) COE, Regulatory Branch, San Francisco (S. Moreland /E. Behn) EPA, San Francisco (M. Monroe) Office of Cong. Woolsey, San Rafael (G. Davis) NMFS, Santa Rosa (M. Thabault) CDFG, Reg, III, Yountville (C. Wilcox /A. Buckman /B. Cox) SLC, Sacramento (B. Stevenson) SWRCB, Sacramento (0. Balaguer) RWQCB, Oakland (B. Hurley) CA Coastal Conservancy, Oakland (M. Denni.nger) Petaluma River Council, Petaluma (D. Keller) City of Petaluma, Petaluma (W. Salmons) Waddell Planning Services, Seattle, WA (G. Waddell) Ellman, Burke, Hoffman and Johnson, San Francisco (J. Johnson) SCLDF, San Francisco (L. Silver /B. Curtis) 7 v .Rainier Spurs land Boom Developers buy up acreage around crosstown connector By )ay Garml Argun- Courier Std A freeway interchange and connecting link between Rainier Avenue and, Petaluma Boulevard North will do more than provide a second major cross -town connec- tor. It will open up hundreAs of scres of now - vaunt property to development -- commercial and residential. Property on both sides of the Petaluma River has been targeted by the Petaluma General Plan for development since 1965 and since the 1987 General Plan update se- lected Rainier Avenue as the pre- *erred site for a new cross -town bridge. Most of the vacant 200 acres have been bought by real estate invesm eru firms and developers in a dizzying series of transactions involving corporanons and numer- ous limited partnerships of inves- tors and developers who are local and from other states It's no surprise that these people are looking forward to having the Rainier Avenue inter- change built. -There s a tremendous need for that link,' said Gan- Johnson of J. Cyril Johruon Investment Corp. "If you were to take a sur- vey of the city, there would be a large, quiet majority in favor of it," Johnson, a Petaluma resident, is the son of the company's name- sake, Johnson's company owned 77 acres for about 10 years (lots 10, 11 and 15 of map, page 8A) and will likely use most of it for new homes and apartments because the area is zoned for residential devel- opment. Some of the property will be taken to build the overpass/in- terchange and new road and some may be used for public access to the river. Some Rainier- related develop- ment is already talang place. The factory outlet, now under con- struction, is beingbuilt on 25 acres (lots 6 and 7, see map). It was purchased from Petaluma Boule- vard Redevelopment Panners, a limited partnership headed by me ff" Old Itts i. Manuel Brazil 2, kthon r Brazil 3. Prim lrly *re ts, he. 4. Prim Investments, k, 5. Pdalun Boulevard lnvestrrtent PaMtrs 6. Petaluma Village Associates (Chctsea) 7 Petalurre Village Associates (Chelsea) 8 Sonoma County Water Agerxy 9 Petalurna Boulevard Intstrywt Partners 10 J. Cyril Jotutson Irmsintent Corp i i J Cyril Johnson hestrno Corp. 12 Rocheleau Sarto r4 Henry Noyes 13 Francis aril James Arndt w 14 Francis r4 James AnxSerson 15 J Cyril Johnson haestrnent Corp 16 Richard Gray and Thorns Williarru 1 T Benny Friedman (Edda's not do ria Nay onll rot ac ualfy cross om lots 13 iM 14, as Strewn on ft MV) wtw./u ><" I s 16 17 A- 1 2 3 4/ 5 i 6 7 6~ 9 �10 L I \ T4ve+, kM roe + / 13 14 15 �y 1 I I Petaluma developer Leonard Jay The outlet mall property, be- tween North Petaluma Boulevard and Highway 101 and south of -)rona Road, is owned by ..aaluma Village Associates, doing business as the Chelsea Group, based in New Jersey. Jay and his partners own A4 acres —known as River Oaks-- either side of Chelsea's parcel Ootss 5 and 9, see map). Petaluma Boulevard Redevel- opment Partners went into Chap- ter 11 reorganization in 1992 to avoid foreclosure of a $5.3 millim loan on the riverfront property. 'We had to stop paying the bank $50,000 a, month interest ' Jay explained. The two properties are now on the market for $21 million. County records reflect that the 65 acres (comprising lots 5, 6, 7 and 9, see map) were bought by Petaluma Boulevard Redevelop- ment Partners for about $1.20 a square foot, or S3.4 million. The anners had to pay a premium of 30 cents per square foot to pay off the factory outlet property early, adding another $330,000 to the price. A 1989 appraisal of the entut 65 acres by A. Clive King Assort• ates of Sausalito, paid for by Leonard Jay Enterprises, Inc. esu- mated the value of the property at $15 million in an undeveloped state With Chelsea's plans ap- proved and the development com- pany fully committed to building the outlet center, the property's worth was estimated at S27.5 mil- lion. The property's value was ex- pected to war to $35 million when the outlet center was operating and the Rainier interchange/extension was "guaranteed," according to the appraisal. Jays partnership also bought the old Petaluma and Santa Rosa railroad right -of -way, which wiU be used as an access road for the prop- erties and eventually link up with the new interchange. The two parcels just north of River Oaks am owned by Prim In- vestments, Inc. of Stateline, Nev. Lying just outside the city limits, both are zoned for light industry in office development. Prim is a real estate investment and devel- opment company. Neither Wayne Prim, Jr., vice president, nor Peter Knapp, executive vice president, were available for comments. The castside portion of the freeway interchange will be built on pan of a 30 -plus acre lot on the southeast comer of Rainier Avenue and North McDowell Boulevard owned by long -time Petaluma resi- dents Dick Gray and Benny Friedman. Gray owns Grayview Dairy and Friedman is part owner of Friedman Brothers. Lucy Webb, a real estate agent for the Gray/Friedman propery. says negotiations are underway to sell the property for development Out would include an offict,park and possibly a medical complex. City planning maps show the Gray/Friedman property zoned a 'study" area, meaning they haven't decided what to do with it. City planner Jennifer Barrett said a fi- nal decision on the propeny will await a specific study of the areal, `We have high hopes of seU- ing the property,' Wkbb said. A connector at Rainier Avenue would head west From Rainier and North McDowell, cross Highway 101 and run through land owned by J. Cyril Johnson Investment Corp. It would connect to Petaluma Boulevard North over a strip of land owned by Rocheleau Sarto and Henry Noyes, bought a few years ago from Francis and James Anderson. Earlier plans showed the Rairuer extension crossing lands of Francis and James Anderson, but the latest plan avoids the progeny. The Anderson property, lots 13 and 14 on the map, is zoned for light commercial development, but the owners have no plans to do an }thing with it at this time. 'Our family has owned this property for over 100 years and I land of like it the way it is, "James Anderson said. 'Of course, it de- pends on what kind of money is offered 'h'e're not getting any younger" X t~ t